I agree with this and was shocked by who agreed.

jo6pac

Until they bloomed I never knew how deep purple a morning glory could be. Yes, I know what you're saying. I hope the good doctor found his simplicity. Thank you for that, and for the Grampa Ott's. Have a good night.

His description of Paulson's proposal: "All your decisions are belong to me." Never knew d00d was such an Intertubes pop culture aficionado.

The day is gone when a man was valued for his character and values.

Now the only thing people care about is how much money does he have in his wallet.

And nobody cares where it came from (whether from selling drugs, kiddie porn) as long as they have it.

Corporations long ago passed the point where the costs of goods was directly related to the costs of producing those goods ..... the mergers that created oligopolies while the impotent FTC stood by gave us the twin evils of market control and control of the politicians who are supposed to represent the people.

I am personally familiar with the pharmaceutical companies lying, theiving, corrupting ways.

Are you surprised that there are corrupt mortgage brokers everywhere, corrupt lawyers, corrupt bankers, corrupt "bundlers", corrupt congressmen, corrupt auto mechanics, etc. etc.?

So it is in a culture where materialism is king and mammon is god.

When this country collapses, it won't be because a bunch of snake oil salesmen dressed in $5000.00 suits ran off with the money, it will be because the american people have become so devoid of principles and values themselves, that they can no longer even muster outrage when corruption is paraded before their eyes each and every day.

It's interesting to note that there doesn't seem to any of the fire-breathing, rightwing idiocy tonight over this post like there was last week over the Sarah Palin post (‘What does Sarah Palin have to hide in her Yahoo e-mails?’). To me it seems largely the same issue at stake – rightwing hypocrisy.

I have to wonder if when Glenn titled this piece he wasn’t thinking how irony-challenged the rightwingers proved to be last week and decided to spare himself their clueless vitriol.

Personally, I like watching the rightwing froth at the mouth, completely unaware of their shocking stupidity. But, as when Homer Simpson lies on the floor chasing after himself, at first the family laughs -- only to become sad and uneasy when he continues.

Krugman on Countdown

His description of Paulson's proposal: "All your decisions are belong to me." Never knew d00d was such an Intertubes pop culture aficionado.-- hrh

I heard he switched from Economics 101 to Economics LOL.

Am I the only one who read this: "Absolutely massive moral scotoma."

As this:

"Absolutely massive moral scrota."?

"Scotoma" is one of my favourite words. Always good to see people using it ... and correctly. Plural is "scotomata" for those having difficulty seeing lots of things (see, e.g., "Republicans").

Cheers,

"I watched these two YouTube clips of R. Paul and they reminded me of all the other interviews and debates and clips I've watched and heard of him, that somehow, although on the surface of things he talks in a good populist voice, that somehow he's missing something, or he's just misunderstood how things work. The libertarian in him despises government of any kind for the most part and for any reason except defense. The current crisis is not about how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were funded. It's much bigger than that as every single private investment bank on Wall Street has now been reorganized or closed, and they weren't subsidized by the U.S. government, until now. He seems either to have not heard about or not understood the credit derivative swaps, that are the lions share of the bailout, all of which were totally unregulated by any government oversight, a situation I presume he favors. And then there's all that blather about the Federal Reserve Board, which isn't even a government entity. The FSB is made up of bankers from the 16 member banks, all of which are private, and a Chairman appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. The reason their deliberations are secret is because they're not a government agency. They don't answer to anyone in Congress or to anyone in The White House for their decisions, although the Chairman can be replaced by the President. It's part of the smoke and mirrors of how the economy is run and for whose benefit. Paul just seems not to know what he's talking about some time."

I think you're hindered by a couple things, first and foremost that Paul isn't a fantastic public speaker. Actually, he's a very good public speaker, but he follows a seldom-used oratory tradition in which speeches are not written beforehand, making for a few oral stumbles. It does make him more generally flexible but much less polished.

That's beside the point, though. When he was trying to fix Fannie and Freddie, his bill didn't cover derivative swaps, so of course he didn't mention them in that speech, and frankly the exact methods bankers use to scam people out of money are immaterial. Paul's actually anti-banking period, using the modern understanding of the term. There's just no way to have a "bank" that doesn't destroy currency. Credit is never easy, even when it's easy, according to his philosophy, just like crack cocaine isn't easy, even when you can get it for ten bucks a hit. A drug analogy is actually highly appropriate... Paulson's sounding more and more like an addict every day. "C'mon, give me the money. Give me the money, man. I need it! Just give me the money! GIVE ME THE MONEY BEFORE I GET THE SHAKES, OH NOOOOOOO!"

Everything Paul DID say about Frannie and Freddie were exactly, precisely right on the money. Everything he said about the housing bubble and subsequent crash were entirely, 100% correct. If he's never talked about derivatives it's because he's never been asked about them, but who asks about derivatives?

Paul's scarily accurate because he's speaking from a sound economic basis that just so happens to severely limit the power of the government to spend money, and governments tend to hate that. He's not, strictly speaking, anti-government per se... he's a congressman. He just believes in a government with very specific roles (and he's all for government within those roles), not a government that is all things to all people.

He's unpopular, he's derided, and he's usually right. He's a bit of an odd duck in all this, a prophet in the wilderness if you will, but he's become the mascot of all people with a shred of wisdom as they watch this cavalcade of folly drag the nation down. He's the underdog we can cheer for because even if he fails utterly, and by all appearances he will, he'll never actually be disgraced. He stands by actual principles that are excessively applicable to the way things are going.

Now, I'm sure someone's gonna trot out that racist screed that was pinned on him, and to be sure, he's not perfect. Either he was a racist once and possibly still is, or, as he said, his name was dragged through the mud by people he trusted, which still shows a weakness in where he puts his trust. But even in the worst case scenario, where he's actually a flaming bigot, it doesn't change the accuracy of his arguments one iota. Arguments must stand or fall on their own merits. And I really don't believe that he is such a bigot.

I think he's the rare bird that would rather be right than happy. And you gotta cheer for the Cassandra, even if it breaks your heart.