>Or as Mork (of Mork & Mindy) put it, "would you like a little wine? Whine, Whine..."
>
>The vast majority of economists agree on 3 conclusions regarding the government and the financial messes we have: 1) the government's lax oversight (going back to Clinton and continuing through Bush) allowed the financial mess to happen, as corporate greed overcame rational analysis (which was presented to these greedy corporations, and ignored);

Really? Somehow the governmental policies in regards to subsidized housing, lending and the implicit backing of GSEs has escaped your reading on the "vast majority of economists". "lax oversight"? How'd that happen? Maybe through campaign contributions and other interesting payments to key members of the right committees? How does one conclude that "greedy corporations" actions contributed to the meltdown without including the very powers who allowed it through said lack of oversight, or directly contributed to it through policy?

>2) the government's intervention saved the tax payers a lot of money, when all is considered

The jury is still out. Remember, those "too big to fail" are now bigger. No regulatory changes regarding regulation of CDSs nor reform of Fannie/Freddie is being considered. We cannot consider "all" because we are not out of the mess, we are still neck deep.

>; and 3) the healthcare bill will be revenue neutral at worst.

You're going to have to back that one up. I only saw one analysis which claimed revenue neutrality, which was the CBO prior to the vote and it has since been revised upwards.

>Now, anyone is free to disagree with their conclusions, but to do so honestly would require one to engage their data and their reasoning, not just assert the wrongness of their conclusions or the superiority of one's conclusions.

In my posts I try to provide a great deal of information through links and references regarding the genesis of my opinions. The current economic climate has historical precedence as do the "solutions" being proffered. Belief that the results will be different is insanity.

>Nobel winners, in particular, have earned that kind of respect, to be disagreed with based on their analyses, not on their conclusions. One can disagree with that also, but then one has passed beyond the pale, and genuine discussion on that topic is no longer possible with that person.

Am I reading that correctly? Those of us who question a Nobel winner's conclusion are beyond the pale? That very concept is so foreign to my intelligence that I struggle to believe anyone in a free society could hold that belief. The idea suggests there are elites amongst us who's judgments are sacrosanct and the rest of us should hush up and let the our betters decide what's best for us. Please tell me I've interpreted this wrong.

>Hank
>
>>Read/listening to people, not only here, who are having their constitutional rights ripped to shreds and whose children and grandchildren will be robbed blind by the byproducts of fiscally irresponsible actions of the federal government today, leaves me concerned for the future of our country, at least as much as those who, oblivious to the data, complain about how much corporations do to them, while ignoring the real problems.
>>
>>fyp ;)