And like clockwork...Hoystory comes out with an attack on Krugman. Especially insightful was this passage:
Seriously, according to Krugman, Sarbanes bill is perfect as it stands. Contains no flaws and should simply pass both houses of Congress by voice vote. Why don't we just elect Sarbanes, with Krugman's consent, emperor? Debate and compromise is part of how democratic institutions work.
I love that "emperor" thing; good thing that the Blogosphere provides such quality journalism; how else would we get to hear the adult equivalent of "if you like it so much, why don't you marry it? It's immaterial. When Graham says he wants to "kill the bill" it doesn't mean "change the bill", it doesn't mean "hold off on the bill", and it doesn't mean "I think that word over there should be put over here. It means "I want to kill this piece of legislation".
Other than that, it's mostly the same kind of market-fundamentalist hogwash that got us into this situation in the first place, mixed with a heaping helping of ad hominem attacks, fresh-smelling strawmen (he wasn't just talking about Enron, and in fact only said the word twice), and a ludicrous "bet" that implies that a company has to be in bankruptcy court to bilk investors and pervert the market. (I'd personally advise Paul to avoid it.)
Ok, this is starting to bug me. Is anybody out there in the blogosphere actually defending one of the country's better economic commentators, and I'm missing them? Or is thought here so rigidly controlled and homogenized by the Libs that all we get is the kind self-congratulatory pablum we all got sick of in Wired about how those fresh, funky bloggers are "taking down the big shots". (Krugman is apparently a big shot now). The right complains about being shut out of academe; the left is shut out of everything else!
Ah well. maybe Hoy's right. The Market Will Provide.