To trash or pander to Bernanke and Paulson?

I'll do niether, I don't play that crap. John Forbes Nash pretty well sums up the reason why there is a need to bail out Bear Sterns. If anything I was amazed that in 200 pages that a broad proposal for new regulatory reform could be crafted.

If you were to attempt to document the influences and interaction of economics, you are attempting to put to words a human social activity of economics, and dealing with the redistribution of wealth.

The attempt to change is so well understood that Bacon identified it as one of man's greatest challenges.

Idols of the market - "...formed by the reciprocal intercourses and society of man with man....for men converse by means of language, but words are formed at will of the generality, and there arises from a bad and unapt formation of words a wonderful obstruction to the mind. Nor can definitions and explanations with which learned men are won't to guard and protect themselves in some instances afford a complete remedy - words manifestly force the understanding, throw everything into confusion, and lead mankind into vain and innumerable controversies and fallacies."

I'm impressed as things stand that deflation management has been handled as well as it has, and that the proposals made to date have forestalled systemic default. In that respect I feel we are well served in policy and a willingness of both sides of the political aisle to move forward with mechanism's to liquidate markets.

That said, the real challenge is communicating to people (call it counseling as a programme) that short of austerity that the one area that Americans can have an impact is by conservation of energy in their consumption habits that are voluntary.

I found it interesting that the IMF report of growth didn't include supplies of sweet crude and the growth of wind energy in it's findings for global growth. If suddenly Bernanke and Paulson were the recipient of a windfall in cheap energy this recession would be shorter.

But the response to the markets turmoil irrespective of moral hazard was the correct call. I would have hoped to see the CEO of failed financial companies face the questioning of moral hazard than those who have little to do with energy policy or regulation until after the fact.

Dee Illuminati tried in draft to write "global lite" or "global light" in 2003 and even in very rough format filled page after page with correlation data of the inverse of energy to growth. It is almost an effort like a Ted Kazinski manifesto, or codefying the human language and habits to just document anything but a small segment of economic activity.

To date the calls have been made well. Even though we are taught to speak of economics in a zero sum manner, and breaking that paradigmn politically difficult in a political jargon, nonetheless Nash is correct and what actions that have been taken are correct.