Perhaps he's not responsible, but he sure could have been more attentive a few years ago when people noticed house prices going through the roof. Here's an example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102602255.html

In the above-linked Washington Post article, Bernanke is quoted as saying a 25% increase in house prices over two years wasn't a bubble, but rather was a sign of our strong economy. This was from Bernanke's testimony before congress.

Maybe he's not to blame, but I sure have doubts about his economic acumen.

Our president is a flaming asshole. The whole world must be laughing at us for this one.

"V-E-T-O"

Well sure, but that doesn't get Bush what he wants.

BTW, where were you in the thread that was discussing Bush's comments that he was envious of the troops on the front line because it was so romantic to be there?

Why shouldn't they? Bush has been doing a better job of wrecking the U.S. than al-Qaida ever could have, and McCain has pretty much promised to continue Bush's policies.

"Bush Will Capitulate And Then Write A Signing Statement Granting Telecoms Retroactive Immunity"

Let him. That trick may be useful for getting his own reports to defy the law, but it might not work very well in court. Some judges may have opinions that can influence their decisions in close-call situations, but far fewer are willing to openly ignore the law.

... in people posting here to complaint that this article isn't newsworthy?

Where are the people who claim that government intervention is A Bad Thing (tm), and that the market should be allowed to work out problems for itself? They are conspicuous by their silence.

JPMC is paying $2/share for Bear Stearns, but BS was trading at around $30/share when the market closed Friday afternoon. Why was the market price so far above what JPMC will be paying? Was BS misleading the market about their true situation?

"The rest of the salvage was used for constructing shantytowns around urban cores."

I don't think that would be a good idea. It might be better to have people living near places where food can be produced. Shipping food from farms thousands of miles away won't work very well when oil goes over $1000/barrel.

"I make a living as a professional economist and risk manager. "

So how did we get into this predicament? What could we have done to avoid it? If we somehow survive this disaster, what should we do to avoid another one like it?

... that Bush was fond of the Iraqi Minister of Information. Perhaps he has been working on mastery of that style.

Bush says "... that our financial institutions are strong and that our capital markets are functioning efficiently and effectively.".

They're both liars.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that bailing out Wall Street really is the best thing to do for all concerned parties.

The question then becomes "How do we prevent something like this from happening again?". I'd like to hear your suggestions for preventing a repeat performance.

I am not a banker, but what you said sounds reasonable to me. So now I'll ask why these things were not done?

I'm also curious as to what role the government should play other than bailing out the investors when they screw up. It seems that Joe and Jane Q Public are going to get stuck with the tab for cleaning up the mess in the form of higher taxes and/or higher cost of living as a result of liberal money printing. If we're going to pay to clean up the mess, don't we have an interest in preventing another one?

For starters, I think it is absurd that investors should pay less taxes than anyone else AND get huge handouts when they screw up. If they want government protection they should pay their fair share for it.

I also think Andrew's point about the failure of greed to self-regulate is spot-on. If the greedy clowns on Wall Street cannot regulate themselves and their failure to do so results in harm to the rest of us, then I think the government has an obligation to regulate them.

I think the problem may be that we let the banks get too big. Now they are so big and so few that the collapse of one of them is too painful to everyone else.

"Could this be the reason that Bill Gates is now only the third richest man in the world?"

Actually, I think so. Microsoft stock went down when the takeover attempt was announced, and much of Bill's net worth is Microsoft stock.

"The Chinese will regulate us to meet their ends."

Gee whiz. What happens to the neocons when the Chinese decide not to support the neocon agenda?

"...I don't see why Yahoo would expect to see the same type of massive devaluation as Bear did."

Yabut who wants to believe reassurances like that from someone whose own company just bit the dust?

"The now lower middle class, the suddenly ignorant and undereducated (ka-ching!) middle class, those who aspired to live in McMansions til they doubled in value several times (Free money! Instant equity!), then sell them and cop the ethereal "profits", defrauded themselves by wilfully believing it was possible."

In retrospect this behavior was obviously unwise, but how were the culprit/victims supposed to know this? The media are full of stories about people who saw opportunity, seized it, and profited immensely. Notably absent (until recently) were stories about people who saw opportunity, seized it, and got screwed for their stupidity.

The media have been pretty consistent in their glowing portrayal of opportunistic success, so why shouldn't Joe Sixpack decide to try it himself when an apparent opportunity came around?