posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:45 AM
I'm not here to defend the bankers. Far, far from it. But let's break things down. There is no question that the banks and their connected
investment and insurance partners skirted, violated and played fast-and-loose with regulations to precipitate this crisis. They've admitted as
The majority of economists sincerely believe that the entire financial system was at-risk of collapse in the Fall of 2008. This sentment was not
partisan, was not only held by the Bush administration and was not exclusively held within government. So there was, most likely, a real risk of that
Many experts believe that Bernanke's actions averted that disaster. We can have a Google war here and post links to experts on both sides of that
equation. But in the end, it did not happen. There is little doubt that we came exceedingly close.
What would have happened had the financial system collapsed? Well, for one we would have had the opportunity to overhaul that clearly dysfunctional
system. But happens to everyone in the meantime? There would be little commerce. Food, energy, basics of life would dry-up in short order.
Virtually all businesses would be forced to close. We would decsend into cultural mayhem. Many, many familes would suffer at a level never seen in
So, I undestand Whalen's POV. I share much of it. But I also believe Bernanke did some very unpopular things at a time of crisis that very well
may have saved us. Also, keep in mind, Person of the Year does not necessarily mean a happy-shiny Person of the Year. Only that the individual had
Finally, I'd like to point out that Bernanke in no way 'made the bankers rich'. They were already far richer. He just prevented them from losing
everything, taking their ball and going home. Did the bankers make out considering the alternative? Sure did. But the alternative was beyond
consideration... in my view.