In response to this post, about the bailout of AIG possibly turning a profit for the US, three of my readers responded thusly:
But…but…the bailout was evil and supposed to destroy America and the 99%!
Ah, wait, but this is the “official story” from the evil New York Times and the Big Bad Government. MOTIVATED SKEPTICISM IS GO!
stop peddling the official wisdom prof, we’ve all heard it and dismissed it already
“appears” is the right word. For me, the NYT is not a reliable source on these matters. Nor is the government itself.
But here’s the thing: none of those are an answer to the question. Snark is fun. Conspiracy theories are a blast. Understanding and argument? That’s hard.
Don’t snark me a counter case. Make one. Then I’ll listen.
Sometimes it’s hard to believe the evidence against a theory we really like.
For example, today is the anniversary of the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973.
There’s a lot of belief that the US was directly involved in that. As much as we would love to believe it, the concrete evidence is quite sparse. And without evidence, we can’t go further.
It’s not to say that the US didn’t have its hands in all kinds of dirty pies, but that might not be one of them. It’s hard to say, and so I can’t draw conclusions on it without something more substantial.
As for this, I don’t know enough to have a more informed opinion. But I tend to see value in the financial system not being torn down, and this might be evidence that it’s not all propaganda.
- intheshadowofyggdrasil likes this
- mctumblovin likes this
- dodgingexplosions likes this
- dodgingexplosions said: I’ll admit that my comment was more of a sarcastic jab directed at the skepticism I’ve seen surrounding this story than an actual answer to your question.
- inquisitive2816 likes this
- blackstarrpromotions said: Please view my post for my 5 cents on the “Bailouts”
- whatgodzillasaidtogod likes this
- blackpolosandsweaters likes this
- markkalanphoto likes this
- pol102 said: The easy counter case was to point out that a private bank (AIG) paid back the government faster than a semi-public one (Fannie/Freddy). How’s that?
- hairy-assholes likes this
- vigneshram said: Isn’t the general view among liberals that not enough strings were attached to the bailout? The government appeared to act out of desperation, lowering its leverage against AIG.
- uncdan reblogged this from politicalprof and added:
- madamedevideoland reblogged this from politicalprof
- madamedevideoland likes this
- philosophy-n-stuff likes this
- stfuconservatives likes this
- stufftolivefor likes this
- uncdan likes this
- jackiefour likes this
- marysdottir likes this
- pedazitosfightsback likes this
- williamwozzeck likes this
- sevenpointeightthreehertz likes this
- politicalprof posted this