Shorter Robert J. Samuelson:
In regards to current economic turmoil, it seems that history is to blame.
There is nothing so complex that a WaPo columnist cannot fail to explain it with reference to a sonorous oversimplification. Also, Niall Ferguson is a prat.
.
GODDAM HISTORY!!! What can we do to punish it? There must be something. I know. Let's go spraypaint a graveyard. YEAH! In your FACE, History!
And today, there's funny, scary, weird news.
.
Posted by: cosanostradamus | July 06, 2009 at 09:12 AM
Well, now, I'm not so sure about Ferguson's pratitude. It's hard, tho, to judge from Samuelson's summary.
I've often wondered what would have happened if money had not been thought up.
People are inherently inventive with new technologies of any kind, particularly when one can objectively measure its value.
People as a whole tend to settle to the lowest possible level in terms of ethics. Printing money was, well, like printing money. It was bound to be abused.
Posted by: actor212 | July 06, 2009 at 09:43 AM
??? It's money's fault? What, we should maybe use bits of precious metal (which has real value, you see) perhaps marked with some indication of metal quality and amount, and guaranteed by The Powers That Be? That would simplify things...
It's not the money, per se, but the Con. That's all any bubble is, the intentional pumping up of [tulips/beavers/nasdaq/mortgage derivatives] by those who stand to make out by the deal. Just get the rubes (and rubes go pretty far up the ladder) worked up enough and their money is yours.
Posted by: minusp | July 06, 2009 at 10:18 AM
it seems that history is to blame
If by "history" you mean 30 years of Republican economic policies (I am including the Clinton Republican-lite administration in this), then that is a perfectly accurate statement.
Posted by: Dr Dick | July 06, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Oh, a few economists can legitimately claim some foresight. But they are a handful. Most were as surprised as the rest of us.
Seems like you could call up Nouriel Roubini and ask him how he was able to predict the crisis years in advance when so many other economists couldn't.
But that would be, like, work.
Posted by: SteveB | July 06, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Well, now, I'm not so sure about Ferguson's pratitude. It's hard, tho, to judge from Samuelson's summary.
I mean overall.
Posted by: Thers | July 06, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Oh.
Objection withdrawn!
Posted by: actor212 | July 06, 2009 at 02:53 PM
What SteveB said about Roubini. I don't know if Fergawank ignored him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. It might lead to conclusions he doesn't like.
Posted by: reverter | July 06, 2009 at 04:33 PM
Weird. Immediately before I read your post, I read this one. Samuelson on Greenspan:
“But the trouble is that he had been an Ayn Rander. You can take the boy out of the cult but you can’t take the cult out of the boy. “
Posted by: flory | July 06, 2009 at 06:47 PM
Weird. Immediately before I read your post, I read this one. Samuelson on Greenspan:
“But the trouble is that he had been an Ayn Rander. You can take the boy out of the cult but you can’t take the cult out of the boy. “
Posted by: flory | July 06, 2009 at 06:49 PM
It's for the obscure Joyce references that I keep coming back. Now if you can figure out a way to go with bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk then I'll be in hog heaven.
Posted by: The Critic | July 07, 2009 at 02:13 PM
Who does Samuelson think he is? The Bishop of Bath and Wells?
Posted by: Willbur | July 08, 2009 at 09:35 AM