I saw an interesting article from the bastion of free enterprise publication, the WSJ, at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122852289752684407.html It has some interesting analysis....and it doesn't seem good. What I find interesting is that it seems to be a balanced analysis, not a polemic for letting the markets decide everything. My feeling is that everyone but those who believe than Atlas Shrugged is the greatest work of philosophy, literature, and economics ever, have been badly shaken by how the market failed. It's not that government was blameless, but they didn't force the 5 investment banking institutions and the biggest insurance company in the world to make the decisions they did. The implications of this article are quite sobering. I don't have time, alas, for an analysis for the list, based on what I read and discussed, but I'll mention one factor here. Fund managers who played things properly, who bet that real estate would not go up forever, quickly found themselves having to explain to their clients year after year after year why they didn't invest in AAA assets. It's like refusing a betting scheme based on there never ever being a straight flush in poker. It usually works, and the person who refuses to get in looks like their losing money....in this case it would be for decades. Thus, the funds managers who were prudent ether were converted or lost their jobs. I don't think Adam Smith envisioned the GDP of the world being issued as credit default swaps. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
