More Experts

I'm sorry Arnold but you're still hysterical. Please read the open letter carefully. The second point contradicts the first one: you cannot say that the plan is a subsidy until you know its details. Also, the last paragraph ignores the long but inconclusive discussions about "the right course of action" that have followed the several crises of the past 27 years, and more importantly the terrible record of the US Congress to wisely determine the future of the financial system.

Maybe the signatories of the open letter should read the latest RR's post and the related comments:

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/09/some-bubble.html#comments

I notice that one of the two "dueling experts" -- the one on the side of the angels -- is from Duke University (my undergraduate alma mater) while the other is from North Carolina State.

At Duke, we always said that "If you can't go to a real college, go to State."

I don't know whether to feel angry at Professor Walden, or sorry for him. Maybe both. :-[

I hope this exposure gets Mike Munger a lot of protest votes in the election!

The government should act, if it does, in essentially the same way as Buffett just did regarding his investment in Goldman. The taxpayers should get no less. It's the right way forward if taxpayer money is used. The warrents are essential. A market price is critical.

The best solution, actually, is for all of us to believe that a bill will pass, but we continually reject the current version.

Each version we debate, two things happen, 1) we migrate toward equilibrium value of the toxic waste, and 2) all parties have a chance to adjust portfolios.

Eventually we will have to pass a bill, hopefully much smaller and with no new institutions.