Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

A Krugman Ressurrection.



June 19, 2009 – Comments (17) | RELATED TICKERS: UNH , GS

I think Krugman's been misintrpreted again. The assertion that he welcomed a housing bubble is way off base. If you read Davids links you will learn that Krugman believed that a housing bubble was the only way to hide the failuire of Bush's tax cut policys.

Welcome back Dave. 

From your post.

"During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn't you lower interest rates?".. Krugman

Seems to me you have written a long post based upon the misleading proposal that using low interest rates to smooth a trough is the same as using low interest rates to build a bubble.

It is just as wrong as saying shooting in self defense is the same as sneaking up behind someone and shooting them to rob them.

too slow to cut interest rates in the face of a burst bubble...Krugman

Not “to slow to cut rates to build a bubble”.

May 2nd 2001

It's still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve -- let's have at least one more rate cut, please -- but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect... Krugman

On May 2nd 2001 the Federal funds rate was 4%. A ½ point cut would bring it down to 3.5%.

Aug 14th, 2001

and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1.... Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn't 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place...Krugman

So, Krugman at this point suggests waiting and letting the rates at the 3.75% level work. But that is not what happened. Rates were lowered even further.

And who (Greenspan) was the guy (Greenspan) that lowered interest rates below 3.5%? And promised the wonders of Mises free market economics, just as you do? Alan “free markets” Greenspan.

So what happened next?

May 2003

Sure enough, here we are, Fed funds at 1.25, with an economy still losing jobs. We hope that things will pick up, that a year from now this will all seem like a bad dream. But at the very least we're having a serious scare. And do I need to point out that the case for fiscal policy to create jobs rests mainly on the fact that the economy is near a liquidity trap? If the interest rate were currently 5 percent, we'd all say that the Fed needs to cut more, for the bubble while the Treasury and the Congress should focus on long-term fiscal responsibility. It's the Fed's possible ineffectuality that makes us reach for another tool... Krugman

So the guy the “small government” boys recommended and put in the Presidency and both houses of Congress went to work, with the wrong tools, of course. Because their goal was fleecing, not job creation.

In 2004 we get the American Dream Down Payment Act, handing out billions in down payment assistance to buy houses to people who cannot save for a rainy day. They really needed better paying jobs, which they had lost to tax cuts invested overseas, self destructive trade policies, and the death of collective bargaining power.

And we get Hank Paulson and the SEC allowing 100/1 leverage to the investment banks, effectively handing over monetary policy from the FED to a few individuals by giving them trillions to lend. Exactly what Mises would do, but without giving them trillions. 

And the housing bubble grew despite rising Fed funds rates from 2004-2006

And all along tax cuts that benefited first and mostly the richest Americans then down, nearing retirement age, who put their money safely and responsibly to work in pensions buying AAA rated securities and then lost an awful lot to Hank Paulson. 


All this neither proves nor disproves Krugman or Mises, because neither ones ideas were the real reasons for the bubble or followed as policy. Regardless of posters who would sell us otherwise.

The lesson here is if you let thieves run Government, they are going to take your money. And those 2004 thieves got elected selling “small government” and “tax cuts”, just like you and the Libertarians do.

Now you told me Qatar is a nice place to live, and I bet it is if you are not an indentured servant. To get that way Qatar nationalized Shell’s property and is using that money to build a nice place to live with a flood of oil money to make business easy. If you want that opportunity for America and Americans the best thing you can do is call your Representatives and Senators and the President, and tell them you want H.R.676, because the health insurance industry is nothing more than an investment firm, supposedly trying to invest your money in order to raise enough to pay for your healthcare. And they will lose the money while collecting huge salaries for themselves, then blame fatties and Doctors increasing costs. And they will not be in violation of any law because ratings agencies will approve their investments (why there is no penalty to ratings agencies). And then UNH will be too big to fail, but not too big to lose your equity investment (time frame, 7-12 years). The USA taxpayer will step in and guarantee all their healthcare policies. So you can pay the taxes now, or the debt and taxes later. And GS will have seen this coming and timed it right and made a huge fortune shorting UNH on the way down.

You only hope is to be louder than the lobbyists. Or don’t buy healthcare insurance. Of course, as long as the lobbyists have the loudest voice, you won’t get that choice either.

Call today. 202-224-3121

17 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 19, 2009 at 6:56 PM, FleaBagger (29.37) wrote:

From the Krugman quotes that David provides, it's clear that Krugman was prescribing, not just describing, the rate cuts that resulted in the housing bubble. In fact, he knew the housing bubble would result, but like all Keynesians, he was not concerned with the long term effects of the policies he advocated.

"And who (Greenspan) was the guy (Greenspan) that lowered interest rates below 3.5%? And promised the wonders of Mises free market economics, just as you do? Alan “free markets” Greenspan."

Wow. That's a stretch, even for someone as desperately partisan as you. It turns out that people in positions of great power do things differently from the way they say they will. In other words, Greenspan, who is often quoted as supporting Austrian-school free markets (in the 1960's), may well have performed differently from expectations once vested with unchecked power over the U.S. money supply, in a position that true Austrian-school free marketeers don't believe should even exist. In fact, he did: even assuming that he couldn't divest his position of the power to manipulate the currency, he would have at least had to refrain from cutting rates and reinflating bubbles to maintain the bare minimum of consistency with his free market rhetoric of previous decades.

Take heed of this lesson, because it turns out that Obama isn't nearly as populist as his rhetoric, and if he does for healthcare what he did for banking and mortgages, big pharma and big hospitals (and their employees and CEO's more than their shareholders) will benefit at the expense of customers and taxpayers. 

Report this comment
#2) On June 19, 2009 at 7:40 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

LOL!!! Nope. Still dead and buried.  Nice sideswipe at Qatar though. Glad to see misdirection is still in the Lefty's playbook.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On June 19, 2009 at 10:59 PM, devoish (99.07) wrote:

Sorry Dave. Not dead and buried. What you left off his quotes matters. PS you called Qatar "small government" not me. Qatar nationalized its oil industry.. like Venezuela. Go whereeveryouwant with that conflict.

Partisanship caused you to jump in head first in this post and you dove into the shallow end attacking Krugman. Take a deep breath and reread reply #36.


" desperately partisan"? sticks and stones and all that.

Yet you agree with me that Greenspan championed Mises, but as I said and you agreed with, Greenspan did not execute Mises principles. And he had his chance to step closer. He could have set rates at 3% and never moved them, proving that "free markets" would adjust. I believe Mises preaches "efficient market theory" and money will go where it is needed, in time for when it is needed? But his disciple betrayed him.

So I have Mises champion Greenspan, who did not believe it.

I have Mises champion whereaminow, who held up "nationalized the oil industry" Qatar as his example of "small, non-interventionist example of Mises in action government. After so many thousands of words I could not believe you held up as "small government" a Country that nationalized 55% of its economy, and stole it from Shell.

I hoped you could supply a model. I hoped I could believe in "small government, low taxes equals succesful". But the real world says no. Not me.

So I am left wondering what is in it for someone to champion the fall of the USA by selling a failed idea. Do you expect a big piece of a divided pie? Or just a weakened competitor?

I asked Dare, and Where and every single Mises supporter on this site to offer an example of a model "small government" in this post. Only Sargon, to his/her credit offered an example, Singapore (not analyzed)and Hong Kong (gateway to an economy 1000 times its size, English support for a century, tax haven supporting its spending with a percentage of foreign tax dollars). Unfortunately he could not demonstrate how what they did could be repeated here.

You fellows basically dug Mises grave yourselves, and now you are pulling the dirt in on top of yourselves.

Don't blame Krugman.

Report this comment
#4) On June 19, 2009 at 11:40 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

More misdirection. It's falling apart isn't it? Greenspan championed Mises, huh? When was that? When he was centrally planning interest rates?  And Mises championed Greenspan?  Yeah, cause Mises was so fond of attempting to "set interest rates."  Get back to me after you've actually read Mises.  Or can even accurately summarize a single thing that Mises ever wrote. 

I'll discuss Qatar with you when you figure out the difference between monarchy and socialism.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#5) On June 20, 2009 at 12:11 AM, ajm101 (32.27) wrote:

At the root of all this nonsense is the mistaken belief that low rates caused the current crisis.  It was the unregulated market in CDSs.

Who cares is Krugman wanted housing values to increase in 2001/2.  You people (Dave, FleaBagger) make it out like that is the cause of the current problems, when it's because

 1. broken MBS models created an artificially high demand for loan originations which led to

 2. a feedback cycle that made the already broken MBS models perform even worse than expected that cause


I hope that #3 clears things up.  This might not have been so bad if the AIGs of the world didn't shrug their shoulders, say 'hey, this tranche of RMBSs won't fail' or 'Lehman Bros won't go bankrupt' and then sell trillions of swaps on them, and then the Citigroups/Bank of Americas/Wachovias/etc of the world buy those swaps (and badly modelled ABSs) and make up values for them on their balance sheets.

@Fleabagger, I have read Krugman for years.  He's being misrepresented.  If you don't want to take the time to read the guy, then don't take a position on what he's said just because you think Keyensians are morons.

Report this comment
#6) On June 20, 2009 at 12:22 AM, ajm101 (32.27) wrote:

Oh, and Dave, I will just add that I have no idea why you hold up Qatar as a model economy.  If you had a centrally planned economy run by Santa Claus based on magic beans in a country with more than 100,000 barrels of oil/gas reserves per citizen, you could make it work.  And they have free nationalized healthcare for Qataris, don't they?  And more power to them, but what they do doesn't work outside of Norway, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar really.

Report this comment
#7) On June 20, 2009 at 12:35 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

It's very amusing to me that neither you nor devoish can actually defend Krugman. Rather you attempt to redirect the issue to CDS's, Qatar (see definition of monarchy before you embarrass yourself), Health Care, anything you can grasp on to. I've never held up Qatar as a model economy or government (read what I actually write before you get all emotional and spit venom all over the keyboard Lefty.)

And screaming about CDS's shows that you would rather analyze the situation with emotion rather than logic.

The Meaning of Competition in the Credit Default Swap Market

November 17, 2008 9:40 AM by D.W. MacKenzie

Numerous politicians have used the financial crisis as an excuse for increased regulation of financial markets. For example, House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman recently moved to regulate the credit default swap market.

Credit default swaps are a form of insurance against bond default, except that you can buy a CDS without actually owning the bonds in question. The problem with the idea that this market is in need of regulation is that it has not actually failed. For example, the CDS market weathered the 72 billion dollar Lehman storm well. The Credit Default Swap market did face a crisis when Lehman failed, but private investors in that market managed this crisis without any help from government regulators.

According to Eraj Shirvani at Credit Suisse "over the last 18 months, the CDS market, not the bond market, has been the only functioning market that has consistently allowed market participants to hedge or express a credit view". This is an interesting comment. In 1948 FA Hayek pointed out how competition "is a process of formation of opinion ... It creates views that people have about what is best and cheapest". Mr. Shirvani has pointed to the function of competition that Hayek detailed in his 1948 essay on The Meaning of Competition. Traders in financial markets, or any markets, form opinions based on their experience in these markets, based on their knowledge of the conditions that prevail in those markets. It is through unregulated competition that markets work efficiently to form prices that reflect the most astute interpretations of available data.

In contrast to the market process, the regulatory process works according to empty conjecture and perverse political incentives. Congressmen like Henry Waxman and Barney Frank are determined to enact more regulation, but who knows more about the markets in question, these Congressmen or the traders to buy and sell in these markets routinely? Mr. Frank and Mr. Waxman do understand a few points clearly: increased regulation increase their power as politicians. They surely also understand that increased power over markets translates into increased ability to raise campaign contributions.

Economist Fred McChesney has examined the phenomena of rent extraction in detail. Rent extraction is the practice of using regulatory powers to pressure private interests into donating money to politicians or political parties.

Some critics of credit default swaps claim that their unregulated nature is dangerous. One NPR story blames credit default swaps for the financial crisis. AIG bet on the wrong side of the housing market through credit default swaps, and lost. NPR business correspondent Adam Davidson claims that the size of the CDS market makes the failure of AIG a threat to the global economy. Mr. Davidson should take note of the relative stability of the CDS market during this crisis. Mr. Davidson also worries that 'nobody knows exactly who has them (CDS's) and where they got them from'. In reality the participants to CDS contracts each know exactly who they are and who they are trading with. There is no problem with identifying the participants to these contracts, at least as far as the market itself is concerned, and this market is functioning well.

AIG failed not because the CDS market failed, it failed because they made bad decisions in the CDS market. That is the way this market works, if you make the wrong bets, you lose.
The truth of the matter is that the credit default swap market does not need regulators or politicians; it is the other way around. Politicians and regulators see a need for regulation in the credit default swap market because it is in their political interests to extend regulation to as many markets as they can. The success of this market is also something of an embarrassment to them. Every time a market succeeds without regulation, it makes advocates of greater regulation appear foolish, and regulators themselves appear useless at best. This is not just a matter of concern to investors. Given the relative success of this relatively unregulated financial market, the usefulness of government regulators and activist politicians to the general public is questionable. It seems that we do not need to fear unregulated competition. The only thing we have to fear is the fear that demagogues like Henry Waxman want to instill in us. They want to scare us into accepting new regulations that serve their political interests at the expense of our economic interests.

The Meltdown that Wasn't, in The Wall Street Journal November 15th 2008
AIG and the trouble with Credit Default Swaps. NPR September 18th 2008
The Meaning of Competition, by FA Hayek in Individualism and Economic Order 1948
Money for Nothing: Politicians, Rent Extraction and Political Extortion by Fred McChesney 1997


David in Qatar

Report this comment
#8) On June 20, 2009 at 12:59 AM, ajm101 (32.27) wrote:

What are you talking about? 

1. I defended Krugman.  I said you misrepresented him. 

2. Spitting venom?  Who are you reading?  Don't be so hypersensitive.

3. Do you honestly think that Credit Default Swaps weren't the cause of the credit crisis?  I would be willing to concede that the low Fed rates led to the demand for yield that drove the the MBS market.... but honestly. 

Report this comment
#9) On June 20, 2009 at 1:32 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

If AIG had taken all of the money that it put into CDS's and instead placed them in risky, high beta stocks, leveraged ETF's, or options on margin, or any other highly leveraged financial instrument, which then lost significant value causing AIG to be insolvent, would you blame the stock market for AIG's downfall, or would you blame AIG's management for making poor decisions?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On June 20, 2009 at 2:42 AM, ajm101 (32.27) wrote:

That vastly understates the problem, Dave.

AIG wrote swaps (insurance) far exceeding its ability to pay out.  AIG makes money selling them, and then assigned them one value on their liabilities.  The bank/i-bank/hedge fund on the other end of the transaction assigned them another value as an asset.  Somehow AIG always thought their liabilities were smaller than the other side thought their assets were... and so were born imaginary assets that inflated the credit bubble that fueled the housing bubble, etc.

Report this comment
#11) On June 20, 2009 at 8:03 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For starters, you've identified the culprit, and then blamed the market for AIG's failure.  By bailing out AIG and regulating the market, our government has rewarded AIG for its risky behavior (they should be bankrupt and out of work - instead they're throwing parties) and sent a clear message to other large institutions deemed too big to fail that they may take any risky gamble they wish.  The government will be there to save them when their speculations blow up, and millions of Americans will clamor for more regulation.

Here's a prediction. in the next 5 years (and probably much sooner), a new market will arise offering greater leverage than CDS's, and another big business will make ridiculous investments that will destroy it (having seen first hand what the government's response will be.)  Once again, the market will be blamed rather than the actors.  That is moral hazard in action. It's very predictable.

If you think AIG was the first of its kind, please research Long Term Capital Management, which did the same thing in an even less risky environment, only to be bailed out by Greenspan in 1999.  I suspect that AIG's management and partners were familiar with how that played out as they sat down at the roulette table.

Stop bailing them out and they'll stop acting like children,

Finally, I believe I've offered enough direct statements from the horse's mouth (Krugman) to defend against anyone who thinks I'm misrepresenting him.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#12) On June 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM, devoish (99.07) wrote:

 Finally, I believe I've offered enough direct statements from the horse's mouth (Krugman) to defend against anyone who thinks I'm misrepresenting him. 

I Don't. I made it pretty clear, that I consider "inflating a bubble" different than preventing "weak growth".

It's very amusing to me that neither you nor devoish can actually defend Krugman.

Is it "misdirection" when you suggest Krugman needs to be defended, not your attack on him?

You could not defend your attack on Krugman. I pointed out he suggests, in the first quote of his that you supplied, lowering interest rates to fill troughs not to inflate bubbles as you incorrectly claimed and cannot defend. Krugman suggested Greenspan had to inflate a housing bubble to cover up Bush's, "small goov't and deregulation cure all" policy failures not that it was a good idea.

Rather you attempt to redirect the issue to CDS's, Qatar (see definition of monarchy before you embarrass yourself), Health Care, anything you can grasp on to. I've never held up Qatar as a model economy or government (read what I actually write before you get all emotional and spit venom all over the keyboard Lefty.)

Read what you actually wrote? How about I repost my question and your response from Dare's "Bet on Red" post

#5) On April 16, 2009 at 7:38 AM, devoish (99.69) wrote:

Ok , boys, I asked you once before and I will ask you again.

What country is your model for small Gov't? Somalia? Nigeria?


#15) On April 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, whereaminow (82.32) wrote:


I do have an example of limited government.  Qatar and the UAE, where individual income taxes are 0%. The corporate tax rate is 10-12%.  There is no police state.  There is no welfare state.  There is no religious persecution.  Women face no discrimination, only religious traditions of certain local sects enforce customs that we consider to be discrimination.  But it does not apply by law.  The standard of living is significantly higher than in the U.S.  The population is 75% non-Qatari/UAE.  The poorest worker here lives better than in 99% of the world.  

We have limited government, but not because our society is simple.  In fact, the market here is much more robust, diverse, and booming than in America.  There's no robber barons.  There's no fertile lands to homestead.  It's not because the countries are small and it's not solely because these countries have oil.  Oil wealth never accompanied a rise in the standard of living of the masses, unless accompanied by a policy of laissez-faire.  All other oil-rich countries have confiscated that wealth for the government and ruling families.  Their people are still destitute.

You're just flat wrong about everything you think you know.

David in Qatar     

As you know the proof that most of what you claimed about Qatar is demonstrated false is in the same blog. And I did not even hold up Norway as an example of a population that stood up for themselves and nationalized their oil industry to their great benefit using representative government modeled after the USA as the tool to do so.

It is also "misdirection" to use McKenzies post to suggest that the presence of a market for CDS means they are a good thing. Especially in November of 2008, 2 months after they were backed by the US Taxpayer through the AIG bailout? A market that completey collapsed in Sept making Mckenzies claim that the market was fine for 18 months pretty... questionable?

Report this comment
#13) On June 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:


Man it sucks to be you. You still haven't figured it out yet. How embarrasing is it going to be when you do? (If you ever do.)

Define monarchy. (When you're done get back to me.)

And when you can actually do that then maybe you'll realize what an idiot you look like.  Maybe.

As for Krugman, I didn't just post one quote. I posted about 10, including the ridiculous eigth grade level Broken Window Fallacy that he engaged in after the 9/11 attacks.  

And what Left Wing Blogger convinced you that Bush was the great deregulator? LMFAO!  Sarbannes-Oxley - the biggest financial regulation in American history took place under Bush. What evidence do you have that was the great deregulator?  I'd love to see it.

Finally, the CDS conversation, while fun, wasn't initiated by me, so get your facts straight (I know you that is a struggle for you.)  And McKenzie was quoting Credit Suisse, so you can argue with them if you'd like.  Besides, I remember laughing at the idea of an AIG bailout. What was your stance on the issue? To creae more moral hazard by rewarding them for their poor judgment? Did you support a bailout?  Were you scared they were too big to fail?  Well, there you go.  You get what you deserve.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#14) On June 20, 2009 at 12:30 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

Correction: After looking through your old posts, I'm glad to see you were against the bank bailouts. That's good.  How did it make you feel that Congress passed something so horrible (with Obama, McCain, and Bush smiling at the cameras) despite our vehement objections?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On June 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM, ajm101 (32.27) wrote:

@whereaminow - I get the Mises viewpoint.  I could just read Nietzche if I wanted to get honest nihilism.  You would never apply those viewpoints to other things (why bother having police or laws?  criminals will just find a way around them.  why make people drive on just one side of the street?  that won't prevent accidents, people will just get into different kinds of accidents... etc, etc).  I just don't think it's accurate, and I think success outside the theoretical realm bares this out.

And this talk of personal responsibility deflects talking about the actual problem, which is more akin to vaccination laws and fire ordinances, where a large number of people with a high degree of responsibility can be harmed as badly as the least responsible person that causes the problem.

Finally, I digress.  My original point was twofold. 

1 - you are wrong about Krugman encouraging a housing bubble.  He observed what Greenspan was trying to do, was analyzing outcome, talking about policy in the abstract, and the selectively quoted.  The Mises blog post was not an honest attack on his viewpoints, and creates a strawman.

2 - even if someone did support the low rates supporting a housing boom, it was not the cause of the credit crisis, but a manifestation of a deeper system problem caused by unregulated derivatives.  That is a misdirection to try to make a scapegoat.

@devoish - sorry to threadjack

Report this comment
#16) On June 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, wrparks (66.35) wrote:


Devoish have had this discussion before, but I don't remember where.  I disagree that any of this would have been possible without the low rates.  Who would get a mortgage with a teaser rate of 6%?  Nobody.  Consumers are stupid, but not that stupid, since they would have never been able to make the first 6 months payments. 

So, I think you have things mixed up.  You are blaming the intermediary step as if it were the whole cause, all while ignoring the first cause.  I think the analogy I used previously was that it was akin to blaming gunpowder for killing somebody, not the person who pulled the trigger.

This was all predicated by very low interest rates.  It required both teeth in the cog to get as bad as it did, but the low rates came first. 

Sure, the market for the CDS's got out of control and really high risk due to no oversight.  Not because there was no law regarding it btw, but because the rating agencies lied and failed at their duty.  They are the ones we should be blaming, and they should be going to prison.

Report this comment
#17) On June 23, 2009 at 12:54 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

"Greenspan championed Mises"
That's wrong. Greenspan never advocated Austrian economics (i.e., he's not that stupid). Austrian economics is nonsense (1, 2) since it rejects empiricism (it's a priori knowledge). If you want to understand Greenspan's worldview, you have to know that:
- he's a neolibertarian (3, 4)
- he's an objetivist (5)
- he had a big fondness for the political positions of F.A. Hayek and specially Milton Friedman.
- he's a neoclassical economist with high regard for monetarist orthodoxy.
Obviously, the events from the past year have shaken his beliefs to the core (6). His worldview has imploded in front of him. That's why free-market ideologues try to ostracize him. He has proven that free-market ideology (free markets are not the same thing) is hocus pocus, much like the effect of the implosion of the USSR in big chunks of Marxism-Leninism theory.

"Singapore (not analyzed)and Hong Kong (gateway to an economy 1000 times its size, English support for a century, tax haven supporting its spending with a percentage of foreign tax dollars)"
Singapore, Hong-Kong, Taiwan have high taxes on land (7, 8) These states are the darlings of free-market ideologues around the world. Unfortunately for them, the facts don't support their worldview.

"I asked Dare, and Where and every single Mises supporter on this site to offer an example of a model "small government" in this post."
You won't find examples of successful small governments because they don't exist (9, 10)

"Sarbannes-Oxley - the biggest financial regulation in American history took place under Bush. What evidence do you have that was the great deregulator?"
Straight BS from the Heritage Foundation (11) Deregulation of finance started in the Reagan administration (12). The following administrations continued deregulation, cut funds for regulatory agencies or not enforced the existing (weakened) regulations.

"a manifestation of a deeper system problem caused by unregulated derivatives"
Henry C.K. Liu's viewpoint (13)


Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners