tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post7199705472791002852..comments2023-09-29T06:57:06.991-07:00Comments on Anglachel's Journal: Krugman on Brown and PaulsonAnglachelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01110546252851760414noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-8585125930602784892008-10-13T12:37:00.000-07:002008-10-13T12:37:00.000-07:00Way to go, Krugman! They couldn't have picked a b...Way to go, Krugman! They couldn't have picked a better nominee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-9119051321752536592008-10-13T05:23:00.000-07:002008-10-13T05:23:00.000-07:00Apropos of this, Paul Krugman has been awarded thi...Apropos of this, Paul Krugman has been awarded this year's Nobel Prize in Economics.LinGinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05161369969301421756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-47135889657459347512008-10-12T21:36:00.000-07:002008-10-12T21:36:00.000-07:00I tend to agree with lakelobos. If they are incomp...I tend to agree with lakelobos. If they are incompetent, they are incompetent. By the same token, Iraq is not some brilliant move to stick a Democratic administration with a failed policy. It's simply a policy they massively botched due to blind adherence to a failed ideology. <BR/><BR/>The same goes for their economic policy. I don't think Paulson represents femification of Treasury. After all, Paulson actually was good at whatever it was he was doing at Goldman Sachs. The same could not be said for "heckuva job Brownie". Paulson's problem is just that he has a very blinkered worldview and does not recognize policy alternatives that clash with that worldview. <BR/><BR/>Of course, the end result is the same: the next administration will start broke and with its hands tied.Mike J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04909010285141564251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-26337796207571511442008-10-12T21:15:00.000-07:002008-10-12T21:15:00.000-07:00We are trying to guess what Paulson's motives are....We are trying to guess what Paulson's motives are. Experience tells us that simple explanations are the best.<BR/><BR/>Paulson started with a bail out plan that was delivered with warning: it has to be agreed to promptly, the plan cannot be amended, only Paulson will decide on the allocation of the money and any change to this plan will doom everything. In retrospect the that initial plan looks beyond ridiculous now.<BR/><BR/>Paulson clearly intented to to spread the money among his Wall Street friends. I believe we give Paulson credit he doesn't deserve. Success and intelligences are orthogonal.<BR/><BR/>Without going on with the argument, I want to say that Paulson just doesn't know better. His Republican/Bush ideology keeps him away from taking over banks or portions of them. His limited analysis and narrow creativity got him stuck in place. Even after getting the bail out money, he still isn't doing anything the last two week under the guise of building a WPA like for the rich and that of course must take several months.<BR/><BR/>So what was the rush to start with?<BR/><BR/>I do believe that Paulson simply doesn't have a clue and resists buying one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com