Friday, September 26, 2008

Getting off my ass

and on Megan's case. I'll put up a new poll soonish, just have to finish fixing the idea. For now, old fashioned catch-up shorters.

Dollar obsessions:

I really don't understand how the value of the dollar figures into economic matters.

In defense of borrowing short and lending long:

Fractional reserve banking puts that money to work. It gives us periodic crises. But by putting all that extra money to work in productive investments, it also gives us the wherewithal to pay for the periodic crises.
The people who know how to game the system will get rich, and those who don't will take the losses. What, exactly, is the problem here? People are getting rich, yay them!

The FBI investigating major financial houses:
For what, I have no idea.
Megan McArdle, paid journalist.

Reverse payday:
Here's a question: a lot of Democrats seem to want the Wall Street executives to disgorge things like their retirement packages and bonuses before cutting any deal. Can Congress do this, legally? I mean, yes, they make the law. But my understanding is that while you can grandfather in benefits, you can't retroactively punish people for behavior that was legal when committed. Can Congress reach in and retroactively void a private contract? I'm not asking for commentary on the wisdom or morality of such a move, just whether it would withstand a court challenge.
Megan McArdle, designated "expert".

What I think about the bailout plans:

Here's a lot of words to cover up the fact I plain don't know what I'm talking about, or what to do about it.

The pigs line up at the trough:
If the Big Three can't make autos people want to buy, then they should liquidate and open up the market to those who can.
If Megan can't help The Atlantic produce work people want to read, then she should be replaced with someone who can. You are part of a money-losing venture, Megan. You said so yourself.

Thought for the day:

Fuck you dirty hippie assholes for being right, again, where I was wrong, again. I'll ban you all, and therefore win.

Reverse auctions:

I don't understand the plan on offer, but that means there's a problem with the plan, not me as an economics blogger.

To help or punish?:

Nutella covered the most important part of this post, but there's a little extra left to mock. Megan crafted her incredibly ignorant and hateful argument as a way of arguing against punishing bankers. For real.
Should we punish stupid bankers by plunging the entire country into recession? Most of the stupidest ones have already been punished; as I understand it, Dick Fuld lost about $100 million in the Lehman collapse, while the head of Bear lost $1 billion. The mortgage bankers have already been fired. We're sending a message to a largely empty room.
That's because the horrible shit you were saying made everyone leave, Megan. You're a fucking idiot.

How do we know something bad is going to happen?:

Here we see Megan showing off her vast economic expertise to explain that she doesn't have a fucking clue about what to do.

How much is the bailout going to cost?:
In some sense, the reason to do the bailout is that we don't know. I don't want to give money to GM because I have a pretty good notion of the scale of a GM collapse. Some people will lose their jobs and get new ones, the steel industry will take a hit, and a lot of managers will be looking for another line of work than pushing ugly, underperforming cars. On the other hand, I have no idea how far a bank collapse might spread. And I'm really not eager to find out.
I can't really add to that, can I.

Now I get to look at what she's posted today. Yay me!

1 comment:

bulbul said...

Good luck. I just glanced over the last few posts and feel sick already. Is it just me (English is my second language after all) or does Megan really have a very unfirm grasp of the English language, especially idioms?