WORSTALL: If you’re going to comment on the Spanish economy might help if you knew something about it.
The big three banks, the equivalent of the Wall Street ones? They’re just fine.
Know which part of he banking system screwed up? The Main Street one. The one that was run not for profit (the cajas were not for profits, usually owned by a charitable foundation). Run by the local politicians in fact. The community organisers you might say.
That’s the part of the Spanish banking system that is hopelessly bust. Not a single piece of deregulation in sight. No CDOs, no CDS, no nothing except too many loans out to people who cannot repay.
This may be many things but a rerun of Wall Street in the 90s and 00s it ain’t.
ME: Hmm, Tim. Did you say in your comment that the percentage of the Spanish economy that is spent on government has even the slightest thing at all to do with the economic situation in Spain? Was that in code language somewhere in what you said? If so, I didn’t pick it up.
And, if there was no a single piece of deregulation in sight—No CDOs, no CDS, no nothing except too many loans out to people who cannot repay—then maybe it’s that there wasn’t enough regulation of the banking system, to begin with? And I’m sorta wondering what the difference in outcome was between a bank controlled by pols who screwed up (in Spain) and pols controlled by a banking system (here)? And, y’know, what all it has to do with the percentage of the economy that is spent on government—which is what Romney claims.
Conflation and non sequiturs, thy name is Mitt Romney. Remove the incessant conflations and non sequiturs, and what do you have, Tim? Do tell.