In Defense of Helicopter Ben, Sort of…

“Helicopter Ben” Bernanke took such a drubbing in the Rick’s Picks forum yesterday that we thought we’d jump off the beaten path to offer a few uncharacteristic words in his defense.  As forum regular Gary Leibowitz noted, going after the guy is “a natural emotional response during times like this. The frustration level is at an extreme. Rationally, how can anyone blame Bernanke for doing his job? There will never ever be a single person in such an important role that would do otherwise,” wrote Leibowitz. “Not a one. Imagine if you were placed in his position and actually had total control in implementing any and everything you think up. What exactly would you do different? Allow all the banks and financial engines to fail? Yeah that might feel good for the moment but what would be the result?”

E'er was the appeal of free lunch

In our heart of hearts, we’d have to agree. Had we been chosen as “Easy Al” Greenspan’s ill-fated successor, we’d probably have made all of the same mistakes that Mr. Bernanke has made – even knowing full well that they were mistakes. We’d have bailed out the banks by taking all that bad mortgage paper off their hands. We’d have done whatever it bloody well took to keep the assembly lines rolling in Detroit and Dearborn. And we’d have doled out hundreds of billions of dollars for road projects, transit systems, lab equipment and teachers’ salaries. After all, what’s the alternative?

Only One Remedy

From a purely economic standpoint, there is and always has been just one remedy for the very dire straits we are in:  Let the economy crash, let the banks fail; and let every state, county and municipality fend for itself, even if they have to go bankrupt to jettison pension obligations that are guaranteed to crush as all someday.  But when was the last time anything in this country happened for purely economic reasons?  In fact, there is no such thing as “pure” economics – there is only economics polluted by politics to the point of breakdown.  Economist Adam Smith had all of the right ideas, and he laid them out for us in 1776 with timeless simplicity in The Wealth of Nations.  Unfortunately, the “invisible hand” the Scotsman said would bring about economically desirable results,  even when unintended or unplanned, has met its match in the most politically powerful idea of these, and most other, times – i.e., the concept of a free lunch.  As French economist Frederic Bastiat noted not long after Smith’s day, “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

Just so. Unfortunately, we happen to be living at a time when “the great fiction” may have reached its apotheosis.  Under the circumstances, it seems most unlikely that replacing every Democrat in Congress with a Republican is going to change things one iota. That is notwithstanding the fact that tens of millions of voters – perhaps a majority of them by now – understand that virtually everything the government does nowadays to “help” us only digs us deeper into debt. How might that realization translate into political action?  Answer: It cannot. A Republican majority is doomed to have no more success turning the economy around than the Democratic supermajority currently in power. And although the voters will surely be on the right path in November when they replace scores of career politicians with ordinary people who have worked at ordinary jobs, it will take a Congress filled with good people at least a generations to lay a solid foundation for the rebuilding of an economy that has been corrupted beyond easy or painless remedy.

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • ebear October 28, 2010, 9:46 am

    Under the heading: what would YOU do if you were Ben Bernanke?

    Bail them out, then break them up, the way Standard Oil was broken up in 1911. 50 little banks, one for each state. No residential mortgage lending across state lines, and all commercial loans of size would have to be syndicated by at least 5 banks so that no single bank failure could bring down the entire system.

    That’s where I’d start. The bad paper I’d turn over to a New RTC and unwind it over a decade or so, just like the last time.

    Bottom line, if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big to exist. Thus, you get broken up.

    Of course that’s never gonna happen…

    but we can dream, can’t we?

    ebear

  • Bill C October 28, 2010, 3:33 am

    “There will never ever be a single person in such an important role that would do otherwise,” wrote Leibowitz. “Not a one. ” There was a one, and that was Paul Volcker.

  • F. Beard October 28, 2010, 12:08 am

    How will your debt-free money redeem them? RA

    Directly, it wouldn’t. However, it would probably get US out of this Depression and allow a fresh, debt-free start for Americans. People would start spending again which would help tax revenues. With a 100% reserve lending, people could actually start saving again too with positive real interest rates. The boom-bust cycle would also be tamed or eliminated.

    However, we also need fundamental reform so we can start practicing genuine capitalism. That would include
    separate government and private money supplies, imo, to isolate the private sector from government incompetence and perhaps vice versa.

  • Rick October 27, 2010, 11:49 pm

    I can’t parse the logic of this plan. Perhaps if you would explain how it would pay for, say, the healthcare and pension benefits of a retiring NYC transit system worker, at around 60$k a year (multiplied, of course, by many thousands of employees); or 80,000 California teachers retiring at 90% of current pay? Or any of us who supposedly will be drawing on Social Security someday? These are enormous future liabilities that we can nowhere near afford. How will your debt-free money pay for them?

  • F. Beard October 27, 2010, 10:23 pm

    From a purely economic standpoint, there is and always has been just one remedy for the very dire straits we are in: Let the economy crash, let the banks fail; and let every state, county and municipality fend for itself, even if they have to go bankrupt to jettison pension obligations that are guaranteed to crush as all someday. RA

    No, not quite. The entire US population could be bailed out with new, debt and interest free legal tender fiat (United States Notes) combined with leverage restrictions on the banks to compensate for the new high powered money. Every bit of credit in the system could be replaced with real money, if we wished, leaving the population debt-free and the banks ready for 100% reserve, stable, honest banking.

    Debt forgiveness is Biblical (Deuteronomy 15) and we are unwise to ignore it. However, the savers have been cheated by the government backed counterfeiting (fractional reserve) cartel too so a general bailout of the population would fix them too.

  • Rick October 27, 2010, 9:40 pm

    Two minor notes: No one “owns” the Fed. That’s why it is so difficult to trace its criminal misdoings back to their source. And, “boobus Americanus” originated with H.L. Mencken.

  • cosmo October 27, 2010, 9:08 pm

    First, the Fed is privately owned by the Banks. So, in whose interest does BB work for? The Banks

    Why was he given the job? Because he would do what the Banks tell him.

    Where do the Treasury heads come from? Goldman Sachs, one of the owners of the Fed. Or, if your Geithner, from the NY Fed itself.

    Why BB did anything else but what he did should surprise no one, especially in this forum.

    Second, Mario, you are correct. The American populace is ‘bloody well’ ignorant to their future, as TPTB have planned and succeeded in stupefying the masses. Engaging the Iraq war, without repercussions(and even re-election!) should have told you that Americans are so far gone that it would take a nuclear bomb attack on American soil to wake them up(but then they would only be looking for revenge, a la 9/11)

    What will it take to get boobus americanus(thanks Doug Casey) to awake? I’ve stopped wasting my time on that one. My best hope is for the whole thing to crash and burn to the ground, start over, and let Phoenix rise again. Keep your Gold in hand.
    All the Best, y’all

  • GlennH October 27, 2010, 9:05 pm

    Hmmm ah No Gary sorry, the things that need to crash will crash and the things that add real value will carry on just fine. Ben is not doing anything you could not fix. They just go in to work drink a few lattes then back to their clubs and yuke it up. It not like this is random. You have bankers who get low cost money from the fed and then ‘invest’ 0.000000001 % of that money to control the political process, it is that simple.

    Why don’t candidates have all the same amount of money to campaign with? It is so simple. Issue are then discussed, ethics and practices are exposed and slime is quickly removed.

    The real question that needs to be answered today is, what are the Vikings going to do with Farr?

    • Larry October 27, 2010, 10:26 pm

      Favre.

      (hello from Vikingland)

  • Elva October 27, 2010, 9:02 pm

    I disagree that a Republican Congress would not change things. It was the Dems who squelched Audit the Fed
    HR1207 even though there were 320 total co-sponsors in the House. The heavy lobbying by Bernanke, Geithner and the WH produced a watered down one-time audit resulting in all the flip-flopping by the Dems.
    (the Republicans supported this bill overwhelmingly in the House although RINOS Judd Gregg and Scott Brown in the Senate were miserable wimps) . Even then such an audit was unthinkable several years ago.
    I defy anyone to continue looking the other way excusing the Fed for its fiat money printing after you watch the full 12 minutes of The Dylan Ratigan Show, Oct. 25, 2010, “Bank of America admits errors in documents,”
    http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/bank-of-america-admits
    Helicopter Ben enabled the fraud with its fiat money printing and coverup perpetuating a corrupt banking system. The significance of the numbers of existing liar loans (by 2006 there were 80 to 90 percent fraudulent loans when studied by independent sources, ie over a million fraudulent loans per year) is a severe indictment of the fraudulent coverup and failure to responsibly act by the banks, Geithner and the Federal Reserve. Working with the Chamber of Commerce and Congress, the Fed and Geithner and Sumners perverted the accounting rules thus sticking a billion and a half toxic dollars to the taxpayer. Enough is enough people. This corruption is unacceptable and changes are in order. Obama should fire Bernanke, Geithner and Holder, and hopefully a Republican Congress can re-institute an invigorated Audit the Fed bill to help hold the Fed accountable. The movement started by Congressman Ron Paul (author, End the Fed), once
    ridiculed by the established politicos, has now become a commonly heard and seen (Tea Party banners) mantra. Once the extent of the corrupt banking system sinks into the psyche of the American soul, some heads should roll.

  • warren October 27, 2010, 8:31 pm

    Bastiat should have used the word “reality” instead of “fiction”

    • Darren October 28, 2010, 4:23 pm

      Perhaps he meant that the state is a lie. It would be interesting to have a French speaker comment on the quote in the language it was originally written in.

  • fallingman October 27, 2010, 6:07 pm

    Yeow. Remind me never to get on the bad side of Walter Fields. My ears are still ringing from that verbal cuff to the cranium.

    If I may follow a poet with mere prose…

    Bernanke took the job and is therefore responsible…as in criminally responsible…as in when do the indictments come down and when does the trial start?

    Just because you have official cover to commit crimes doesn’t make you innocent.

    My contempt needs no watering. It’s very hardy.

  • mario cavolo October 27, 2010, 6:00 pm

    Rick,

    I can’t help but notice that things are so deeply and inconsolably screwed up that commenters, whom I am sure are intelligent, good and scared people can only resort to deep poetic philosophy to try to make sense of it all.

    You know, in a talk I give, I talk about how for 1000 years, Europe was in what is known as the Dark Ages. That’s a fact; from 400 to 1400, before the plague spawned people to question the current authority, which was the church, and then in fact in the coming couple of decades, the Renaissance period was born. That’s great history to recall isn’t it? But I don’t see any kind of great history soon to be happening here. I honestly don’t see how its going to play out. Man has gone so far intellectually since those times that he is not so incredibly deeply naive and ignorant, but on the other hand, it seems, for example, no matter how incredibly screwed up this situation is, the American populace really can’t and won’t do a damn thing about it. We are in historically pivotal times.

    Cheers all, Mario

  • walter fields October 27, 2010, 5:16 pm

    Rick – Liebowitz is just another pathological believer. He scores a trifecta with 3 fictions in 1 sentence, viz
    “Rationally, how can anyone blame Bernanke doing
    his job.” Let’s examine this sentence backwards.
    “…doing his job.” So many stellar examples of people
    doing there jobs – kapos, mercenaries, economic hit-
    men, mathematicians employed by BP, etc. etc.
    Perhaps the job is to advance a world slave state, or
    a criminal concentration of wealth, or a cure for cancer,
    or constructing a mountain of cocaine in Switzerland.
    Lying is sexy and believing a lie is sexy. Otherwise you
    might not end up in the sack. “Blame” is another fiction
    which may be attached to anything and magically releases
    us from action. Wasn’t it Paris Hilton who said if you
    take away the ‘b’ you end up with ‘lame’? Or was that
    Oswald Spengler ? Blame is the all purpose garment,
    the leisure-suit of justice. “Rationally” however takes
    first place. Reason cannot define reason, so we can
    throw anything into the mix and ‘explain’ to our hearts
    content, being the Aristotelians we are. So, Mr.
    Liebowitz, I rationally close with contempt which
    I will water, and trust it will flourish for a hundred
    years.
    Walter Fields

    • Rick October 27, 2010, 9:33 pm

      Glad no one seems to have taken my “defense” of Bernanke seriously. Meanwhile, where Easy Al is concerned, anyone who would even attempt to defend him is beyond the pale.

      Without trying to defend BB, it’s reasonable to say that the things he attempted tested the very limits of what was politically possible. It’s scary to think that it might take a Second Great Depression to engender true political reform and a return to ethical and moral ways of doing business.

  • Steve October 27, 2010, 4:51 pm

    There is always hope. Change will come, voluntary or involuntary the change will happen. Bernanke’s life is hoping his theory is correct and caring about nothing else, except his fellow intellects, the banks, and the credit binges that is his mental makeup in Ph.D. Another hope is that something honest will arise from the inevitable change. Some hope for peaceful return to morality. Some argue about what morality is. Some are just happy in anarchy. And some are realistic knowing that the level of damage done must be paid for with red. Is the hope in change driven by the shape of P.M. markets, or the stock market pattern of change? It would appear that the hope of change is a very long drawn out topping process much like action in the stock markets leading to waterfalls. The entire notion of greed in Bernanke and crew, as well as individual greed that places personal gain over stable money must be washed clean in this change. Right now it would appear Bernanke is a mere reflection of the social being of society as a whole. That social trend does affect congress. With a major gain in republicans in a week there will be great hope, and yet the realities written above are real as the hope could well turn to disappointment. The social mean will take another step down toward anger until at some point morality is forced upon the electorate. What do legislators fear? And what do the people fear? Understanding the fear generating this anger will allow one to be ahead of the curve. I believe Rick’s system works because it gauges the fear of society in a natural way based in humanity as one social being.

  • mario cavolo October 27, 2010, 3:55 pm

    Under the circumstances, it seems most unlikely that replacing every Democrat in Congress with a Republican is going to change things one iota.

    Ahh, reality.

    The sad part as mentioned in comments that they just made decisions/allocations to take care of themselves, not executing a caring, leadership driven, encompassing program to broadly get the heartbeat of America going, to address the broad scope of interests and needs. And for that shame. I mean geez, give hundreds of billions to big business but nothing for the common people….totally wrong wrong wrong and a disgrace. We’re way past being able to reverse the damage done.

  • John Wilson October 27, 2010, 3:04 pm

    Personally, I do not think there is a logical defense for Ben Bernanke and all the others that have participated in this charade that we call economics.
    It is all theory, and nothing proven with facts.
    The end, which will come as it always does, is a ruined country and corrupt leaders. That is fact based on history.
    To anyone who defends or justifies these inept actions by the powers that be, can also take a crack at justifying the Holocaust and other genocide actions of governments – it is the same inept practices of the powers that be.
    Lay the blame on one man’s shoulder, who does not have the guts to do the right thing – absolutely OK to do.
    Bernanke, then Geitner, Greenspan – line them up under a noose that hangs from a high limb on a tree and………
    Do it one at a time – blame them, and then with that noose thingy …………………….
    Pick those buggers out, one by one, put the blame on their shoulders, put the the noose around their neck……..
    Get the idea?
    Cheers

  • Darren October 27, 2010, 2:26 pm

    Ben could have tried shutting down the Fed. Then he’d be a hero. Instead he’s just another of our masters.

    I like your take on voting, though I’d take it a step further:
    Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State
    http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/09/principled-nonvoting-beginning-of.html

  • RGrowden October 27, 2010, 2:13 pm

    I disagree. There ARE some who would do exactly that – let the banks fail, the bondholders lose their money, the weak and corrupt parts of the system crash, and start out from a solid base. Ron Paul, Ross Perot, and others. I would. Many others who understand and write about this mess would. This financial and governmental house of cards and idiots WILL collapse, and MUST collapse.

  • laughnow October 27, 2010, 12:51 pm

    ‘There will never ever be a single person in such an important role that would do otherwise’

    I would have let them fail, gladly, regardless of the criticism or personal consequences. Accomplishing a great feat such as the reestablishment of real capitalism that would sustain the nation, requires a person of great courage. Yes the nation would suffer, but those that caused this would be in prison, with Bubba, with no teeth, until death they do part.

  • FranSix October 27, 2010, 12:11 pm

    The one thing I would have done differently is to allow money market rates to decline below zero.

    It might be to BB’s credit, though, that nobody sees the eventuality of negative rates coming, and that the plug will be pulled on the short term interest rate prop while the consensus is betting on hyperinflation and higher interest rates.

    That’s what makes Japan so interesting as a scenario that might be repeated elsewhere, that not allowing negative rates may prolong the deflation with no end in sight.

  • Steve October 27, 2010, 8:23 am

    On the serious side. The constitutional system under Article I, sec. 8, cls. 5, Article I, sec. 10, cls. 1, The Coinage Act of 1792, was defunded by the House after the Banking Act of 1913 though 1964-1971. In this case it was a reverse infringement wherein the House slowly choked out the use of specie Money by defunding the People’s “use” by having the banks only deal in fiat fraud, forcing retailers to accept federal reserve notes, and then banning quid pro quo. Consequently, retailers had to bank with the territorial powers of congress via the Banking Act of 1913. In 1985 the legislative Branch moved to reinstate Extinguishment via Article I, sec. 10, cls. 1, Reagan was shot, and the rest is history as the same banking cartel got the 1985 Act changed to the Gold Bullion Act of 1985. [let me assure you that the Eagles, and Dollars ‘current mint’ are Legal Tender, not bullion at 99.999 fine, in Deed Coined Precious Metals]. But, make no mistake that the Coin struck at the Mint under the 1985 Act is Legal Tender for all Debts. One can still contract in Gold, and/or silver Dollars, but; one is going to need to contend with the abuses of the I.R.S., and slave/corporate enfranchisee status, and contract law.

    A slow and easy infringement on the federal reserve banking system can begin by legislative act to overcome the abuses of Nash’s Non Co-operative game theory. Let the People have free choice to specie Coin, allowing the retailers to ‘bank’ honest money in Trade. The Nash blockade right now is that one cannot buy at retail, or bank with the specie Coin that is currently being Minted.

    There is a sphere of private democracy – let them engage in legalized fiat misrepresentation. Let those who would live with Liberty buy, trade, and bank in Specie. We got here by defunding legitimate money and banks. The house only needs to fund legitimate government and banks again. The bad boys just keep any one person from winning by not creating a positive environment for specie retailers, and specie banks.

    The People can vote this into reality. It can be honest and fair, and slowly replace the fiat bankers. The problem is that the current system of fiat is not going to like their Fee for “use” removed forcing them to find real jobs at labor. The fiat system is not followed because it is the best economic system, but; is the Hamiltonian theory of using debt to enslave that was confronted by Aaron Burr. All Bernanke needs to do is confront the abuses of Nash, and allow the natural course to punish those who have abused mankind since 1913. Bernanke, and the congress can – but; will they give up their slavery by Escheats, and contract fraud?

  • C.C. October 27, 2010, 8:11 am

    “Right! (right), yer bloody well right, ya gotta bloody right to say… Right, yer bloody well right, you know you gotta right to say…”

    Sorry –

    Every time I read ‘bloody well’ somewhere, it brings up fond memories of great music – Supertramp in this case.

    Carry on –

  • Steve October 27, 2010, 7:16 am

    Why not Edward, is he not the conductor of the band? Yet really, the People have the say, if only Joe could unleverage that sixpack.

  • Edward October 27, 2010, 5:43 am

    In fairness, not all of what I discussed can be laid at Ben Bernanke’s doorstep. Treasury, for example, has more than its fair share of perfidy to answer for.

  • Edward October 27, 2010, 5:37 am

    A worthwhile riposte, however,

    even if we choose to limit our view of Ben Bernanke’s actions to the confines of “what was best for The Fed” and no one else, Chairman Bernanke failed miserably since he accepted spectacularly tainted collateral that had (and has) considerable potential to sunder the entire Federal Reserve System itself.

    In the meantime, The Fed’s longstanding official mandate, which stipulates that they act in accordance with imperatives that include bolstering employment and achieving price stability, has been trampled on more thoroughly than grapes at an ancient wine harvest.

    But, perhaps the greatest lie still percolating through the now several year long Fed mismanaged fiasco-one repeated ad nauseum just about everywhere- is that the too big (to be allowed) to fail, criminal, parasitic banks, absolutely had to be funneled enormous sums of taxpayer funded boodle or else instant doom would have arrived at our nation’s collective economic doorstep.

    Unfortunately, that is rubbish, since the TBTF’s enormous subsidy has done nothing to assist small and medium sized business. Far from it. In fact, the TBTF’s have instead been induced into equity and bond market speculation, while the aforesaid small and medium sized businesses have been starved of capital which they desperately need to survive, let alone thrive.

    And so, here we are, many months after QE 1, TARP and TALF with a zombie economy and capital markets that are nothing more than the equivalent of a collection of buck naked emperors pretending to be fully adorned in royal attire. Fortunately, of late, a chorus of common onlookers have identified the royals as lacking so much as the most threadbare undergarments.

    • Benjamin October 27, 2010, 7:12 am

      Bravo, Edward! Perhaps you should become a professional resume’ writer for former central bankers? 🙂

      Anyway, I kind of forgot the main point of the article in my first post, which was whether or not anything different could’ve been done. And absolutely, they could have. To say there was no other choice is like saying cap and trade is the only solution to bad government management of the energy sector. They could have just given it up for the scam that it’s always been, and not waved the scarecrow of generations piling up in the dumps for the next ten infinities.

      But I still contend that, while he/they deserve a respect as far as their own policies are intelligent and honorable, it would be misplaced aggression to take it out on one bald man sporting a perfectly trimmed white beard that frames that mysterious, know-it-all smirk that makes me just wanna smack it right off his face (but that’s not because I blame it all on him. I’d want to do that anyway!).

  • JohnG October 27, 2010, 5:20 am

    I sincerely doubt that the welfare of homeowners and taxpayers has ever been a consideration in any of BB’s
    decisions. Accommodations of that sort might cut into the banks profits. Can’t bite the hand that feeds you.

  • roger erickson October 27, 2010, 5:18 am

    there’s something strange about current Central Bankers. Unlike Marriner Eccles, the current ones either outright lie, or say whatever someone pays them to say.

    I’ll tell you what the alternative was, and what I would have done! The alternative was to have the balls to let the big banks fail, let the FDIC take them over & sell them off, and put Main St. back to work instead of diverting all “allowable” currency supplies to banker bonuses instead of productive capacity. We did exactly that in 1933, but this time the entire body politic & electorate simply blinked and tried to pursue denial.

    example of Central Bank duplicity:
    BFG Says: [comment at Mosler’s blog]
    October 22nd, 2010 at 9:06 pm
    http://moslereconomics.com/2010/10/22/old-greenspan-quote/#comment-28959

    ‘I’m sure Greenspan gets it but probably not for public consumption.’

    Maintaining Financial Stability in a Global Economy
    Alan Greenspan – Federal Reserve Chairman
    September 1997
    http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3629

    “Let me begin with a nation’s sovereign credit rating. When there is confidence in the integrity of government, monetary authorities—the central bank and the finance ministry—can issue unlimited claims denominated in their own currencies and can guarantee or stand ready to guarantee the obligations of private issuers as they see fit. This power has profound implications for both good and ill for our economies.

    Central banks can issue currency, a noninterest-bearing claim on the government, effectively without limit. They can discount loans and other assets of banks or other private depository institutions, thereby converting potentially illiquid private assets into riskless claims on the government in the form of deposits at the central bank.

    That all of these claims on government are readily accepted reflects the fact that *** a government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.*** [my emphasis here; he refuted his own deficit bogeyman, then returned later to scare mongering!]
    A fiat money system, like the ones we have today, can produce such claims without limit. To be sure, if a central bank produces too many, inflation will inexorably rise as will interest rates, and economic activity will inevitably be constrained by the misallocation of resources induced by inflation. If it produces too few, the economy’s expansion also will presumably be constrained by a shortage of the necessary lubricant for transactions. Authorities must struggle continuously to find the proper balance.”

    [the rest of the time, Greenspan simply lied?]

  • Benjamin October 27, 2010, 5:07 am

    “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” — Frederic Bastiat

    I agree, except for exactly one word. What is that word?

    First, I’m in a horrendously great mood today. You could probably manufacture prozac with my spit, I’m in such a great mood. So forgive me if this post is just weird and seemingly pointless. Anyway, about that word, I’ve consulted with Jimi through my ouija board, and this is what he said…

    ‘Scuse me, could you zip your fly (zip your lips)?

    But like the system, the right time will come soon enough. And speaking of The System and it’s current engineer…

    Okay, maybe Bernanke is just a straw man. He’s just one of many throughout time, no better or worse than any before him.

    But I also think that the notion of “no end for at least several generations” is another variety of straw man called a scarecrow. Kind of missing his stuffing, though.

    There’s bugs in the system. Like a microchip, remove those bugs and bam… you got a fully functional peice of technology. That’s what we have today and have had for thousands of years. Bugs. Some people want the bugs and will fight to death to keep them there, but they’re just a relative handful of, ultimately, powerless fools.

    • mario cavolo October 27, 2010, 3:47 pm

      B, that prozac line is one of the finest modern day American humor soundbites I’ve read in ages…perfectly American dark yet poignant…kudos 🙂

  • Terry S October 27, 2010, 4:52 am

    BB could have negotiated at the table for a better deal for homeowners and taxpayers when he, Geithner, et al had big banks by the ‘cahones.’