My Photo
Note: Jeff does not accept guest blog posts on A Dash of Insight.

For inquiries regarding advertising and republication, contact main@newarc.com

Follow Jeff on Twitter!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Certifications

  • Seeking Alpha
    Seeking Alpha Certified
  • AllTopSites
    Alltop, all the top stories
  • iStockAnalyst
Talk Markets
Forexpros Contributor
Disclaimer
Copyright 2005-2014
All Rights Reserved

« A "Resolution Trust" for Credit Markets? Too late!! | Main | ETF Update: Playing Defense »

September 20, 2008

Comments

oldprof

Thanks Josh. It is always rewarding to know that some find the work helpful.

Jeff

Josh Neumann

I agree, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Thanks for the informative post, I learned a lot.

As someone who doesn't currently invest but is looking to start, this really shows the difference between how amateurs and pros think.

oldprof

RB - The cost of a program is always a valid consideration. The essence of good public policy analysis is a consideration of all impacts, and cost is often the most important. Many proposals are simply not justified on a cost basis.

As a regular reader, you know that I do more analysis of policies and proposals than advocacy. I see little need to repeat obvious points that you can read in the comment section of any news story. My own comments on the proposals have been that they are rushing and that hurried policies involve plenty of mistakes. I wrote a piece for realmoney on short sale rules and option market makers. The SEC fixed that problem within one day. (not because of my article, of course!)

Wouldn't we both prefer a decision where there was some analysis of whether this problem justified the cost? It is going so fast that they will not have time to consider arguments like those from the sources you cite.

...and thanks for the links!

Jeff

RB

Krugman and Calculated Risk offer several thoughtful critiques about lack of adequate tax protection.. In this article, Jeff, I can see that you are derisive against the unsophisticates on the other side of public policy who think taxpayers will lose money. I don't see you mentioning that there could be a valid point there.

The comments to this entry are closed.