When Megan McArdle wanted to downplay the news of audio tapes that proved the banks were successfully avoiding regulators, she wrote a post saying bank regulators are naturally going to become corrupt and favor banks.
When McArdle wanted to downplay the legal consequences of Wall Street's crimes, she wrote a post saying that Wall Street really wasn't all that corrupt because regulators successfully controlled illegal behavior.
McArdle gets paid a lot of money to be dishonest. She parlayed her media appearances into a book contract and speaking gigs. She is a fellow here and an honored guest there. Propaganda pays well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Gosh, it apparently took her a whole week to do a 180 on her beliefs.
That's dedication.
To something or other.
Now:
"Big financial institutions regularly have representatives from various regulatory bodies camped in their offices for extended periods of time. Given that, it would be kind of surprising if they managed to break more rules than your typical small businessman in a cash business."
Then
"In the fantasy world of regulatory utopias, every single day, the regulators walk into an office, glare at the people they’re talking to and say, “Now why don’t you tell me the truth about these 1047-A-51Cs you just filled out, Mr. Jones?” In the real world, regulators are people, too, and people are social animals. "
That she could do this, in the same column inside of a week and play like it is just fine - is simply amazing. Eat your heart out, Tom Friedman!
It boggles my mind too.
Good catch. Basically, as always, she's doing damage control for conservatives and plutocrats. In the first instance, she can't use the same BS she uses in the second -- 'they weren't that corrupt' -- so she has to fall back on, 'sure, they're corrupt, but that's to be expected and not so bad.'
Post a Comment