September 19, 2008
The Refugee's Allies
Blog brother br is way too classy to hide behind the WSJ Editorial board, so I will make his "I Told You So!" post on his behalf.
The refugee and I had a small difference of opinion yesterday on Senator McCain's bruising criticism of SEC Chairman Chris Cox. BR was disturbed that it was scapegoating in lieu of a serious understanding. I agreed on the lack of understanding but suggested that I would not defend Cox, and that it might be smart politics to take a few whacks at a Bush Administration official.
My freedom mentors and intellectual betters at the WSJ Ed Page come down squarely in br's camp today:
To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, we'll quote at length: "Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground.
[...]
Wow. "Betrayed the public's trust." Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.
Gigot & Co. even defend the decision to not reinstate the uptick rule. This is something that Larry Kudlow has been calling for. Unlike the DH (against it!), I don't have strong opinions on the uptick rule. Put me down for laissez faire, but if the uptick rule (more like infield fly than DH) could keep the US and UK from banning all short selling, I'd give it a listen. Larry suggests "why don't we just ban all selling -- that would protect prices."
Reasonable blog brothers can disagree. I'm not convinced it was bad, but I would love to hear Senator Mac say something useful or true about the ECWTASTGD.
Far from being that classy, The Refugee referenced that piece in his reply to jk this morning! The Journal is far more erudite than this pathetic Refugee.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 19, 2008 12:08 PMWell, it was classy to leave it in a comment and not throw it in my face...
I agree on not supporting the narrative of a failed Bush Administration. On the same token, I don't think all of his appointments have been stellar. You and I will rush to circle the wagons when Administration officials are attacked, but we're in an electoral minority. Better to defend the Administration's successes, good policy, and good appointments.
Oh my NED! Am I really in the O'Reilly camp on this? While you get the WSJ Ed Page? I must be wrong, but I just can't see it.
Posted by: jk at September 19, 2008 12:35 PM | What do you think? [2]