Cash for Clunkers flunked

[jeff]

So, then, if I can think of examples which would "improve the quality of millions of Americans but which none of us would actually want---do I win?

( "The Stepford Wives" springs to mind. )

Indeed not, not with only 1 contestant! Let me try.

"Assimilation by the Borg". Well, the Borg would say it's an improvement.

After all, those two and health care are all one and the same, right?

My impromptu sentence might not be perfect; I hope the discussion (or whether we get assimilated) doesn't turn on that. Would "alleviate and prevent physical suffering, and extend lives, for millions of people" be a better formulation?

AND an AMA that's a monopoly, forget not!

Those wannabees. As if they have the power to shape public or private policy.

Hey - let's e-mail Dan Brown. He's already done Jesuit sects and Masons, he may be running out of organizations to recast as powerful, sinister World Powers.

Indeed, yes. Though not by our government, apparently, or it would have been done by now. ( More a matter of the spine to act than the capability, but our pols seem to lack the former, if not the latter. )

Yes, absolutely. If it were less politicized, and if there weren't already enough criticism about mythical things like death panels, there might be some possibility for that to happen. As it is, we'll have to wait until things reach crisis level before people pull their heads out of the sand. If even then...

Have you watched C-Span lately? "Rational" seems noticeably absent to me...

For sure. There, 2 agreements in the same post.

I'm not entirely sure.

In the same way that I defer to the judgements of our military leaders and analysts about the war in Afghanistan rather than substituting my much less expert and informed opinions ( or Pigeonmeister's ), so too Volcker is a much better and more informed economist than I will ever be and I am inclined to defer to his judgement...

OTOH, what you see as "increased regulation" may not really be exactly what he means...

Perhaps, but he is against current government plans that permit "too big to fail" banks to continue to exist: that sounds like antitrust regulation and even breaking existing institutions up (btw, while taking "as a given" that commercial banks get bailed out, he doesn't want to extend that to insurers like AIG or to investment banks). He has said he would like to see separation between banks that take deposits and investment banks: that sounds like reinstating Glass Steagal. He also favors creating a governmental office that monitors overall risk.

See for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/bu...21volcker.html

FWIW, I think he's quite right and I wish the administration would pay more attention to him. Anyhow, that sure sounds like regulation to me! Which regulations did you have in mind?