3 ms·
Agreed strongly: One reason for this is that Paulson was able to recognize and act on the unimaginable—that the banks, which took on most of the subprime risk,
by JoelSutherland 18y ago
Agreed strongly:
One reason for this is that Paulson was able to recognize and act on the unimaginable—that the banks, which took on most of the subprime risk, had no clue what they were holding or how much it was worth.
More Paulsons and maybe the banks might have 'imagined' this possibility. How is it possible to be morally outraged with the irresponsible banks and Paulson.
- mynameishere 18y agoYou agree strongly that it's whiny then quote something not in the least whiny?
- JoelSutherland 18y agoYou're right -- the part quoted is not whiny in tone, but it is whiny when taken into the larger context of the article. I find the blame game that has come with the financial collapse to largely be "whiny". I hear the following complaints repeatedly: * The greedy banks were giving out loans to people they knew couldn't afford them. * The greedy people were taking loans on homes they couldn't afford. * (Now) Paulson was greedy to profit on the system collapsing. Of course everybody was acting greedy! That is the idea behind capitalism. Complaining about greed in a system based on greed is unproductive and whiny.