It's a great time to know nothing about economics. Everyone who knows something about economics seems to lose sleep, sell all their stocks, and write long, grouchy blog posts about who is to blame.
What puzzles me most, in the abyss of my ignorance, are the accusations that John McCain is anti-regulatory and therefore represents what caused the current catastrophe. Setting aside the facts of the case, I wish one of my more intelligent readers could tell me what the accusation means. As far I can tell, the central lack of regulation behind the crisis (leaving aside the Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac issues as well as American's general lack of self-regulation) was that rating agencies were allowed to sign off on junk. I recently read an article explaining how the rating agencies would actually take fees in return for tips on how to artificially inflate the rating of a bad investment! (But I can't find the link now.)
Outlawing that kind of thing is surely a kind of regulation we could all agree on, right? That lying is always bad, that is, and especially so in financial transactions?
My question: What kind of regulation is John McCain against that makes him so bad? Research into his voting record doesn't seem to turn up an answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What the accusation means? At this point in an election cycle, such criticism signifies almost nothing beyond the speaker's dislike of the candidate. McCain belongs to the wrong tribe, hence is responsible for bad things that happen.
If by any chance you haven't already, I highly recommend George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," a short essay you can easily find by searching the web.
I haven't, but I will. Thanks!
Post a Comment