|
that you wouldn't be concerned about endangering other national governments by allowing aig to fail because of their role in backing mortgage securities is a good bit of evidence for the proposition that it's a good thing you're far from power, ace.
you could say "well you governments went into that market at your peril, so fuck you" but the political consequences of that would have far outweighed any fleeting sense of vindication that you could have derived from the action.
i have a pretty good idea of how aig got into trouble, ace. the problem is that you have only the segment of the story repeated above that enables your interpretation to operate.
you leave out the parts that triggered the bush people to act.
since that's what is at play here, it hardly makes sense for you to claim some superior insight when you can't even keep your data organized so it speaks to the question you're responding to.
and it was the bush administration that acted.
remember?
your boys in the bush administration pulled the trigger.
========
edit:
you'd think that anti-trust would still matter, wouldn't you?
not in republican land, apparently.
concentration is proof of their social-darwinist ideological worldview.
until it screws up, in which case other criteria arbitrarily enter the evaluation process.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|