ace--the case for aig being "too big to fail" came in part from the fact that its activities were intertwined with investements held by european and asian governments---this point was made from the outset---typically, when people not blinded by conservative economic mythologies rehearse the sequence of steps of the devolution of the neoliberal order, they point to aig as the point at which it became clear, even to the blind, that this was a crisis of the global financial system and not of the american financial system--which you might have been able to pretend was the case through the bear-stearns and lehmann phase of things. and in fact, your brilliant idea about letting firms fail was tried out on those first two, remember? what it produced was an acceleration into a more generalized crisis. so it wasn't a functional idea.
the problem here really, ace, is that you're not looking into anything. you do no research, you bring no data to speak of--what you're interested in doing is maintaining a sense of coherence for your own economic a priori at the expense of data about the world---when you're challenged on it, you compound the disengenousness of the way you handle information with disengenuousness about what you're doing and why.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|