So if anyone is thinking of blaming "cheerleaders," then they should also look in the mirror and blame themselves for not being interested enough to heed the warnings.
_____
*Hardly anyone bumped the threads or commented.
Where have they been all those years prior to the imminent blow-up? Are they so dumb to not notice it? As far as I can remember, it was more keen on Community Revitalization Act than other structural problem. If only there are so diligent, there would have been smaller much manageable bubble. Little discussion on structural problems of financial market. All those debts and leverages were explained away as nothing serious. Torrents of such cheerleading article and opinion columns had been so huge that I stopped reading. Too bad, given the chance, I would rather go for WSJ than vile NYT.
The overriding theme was that market will correct it if left alone. Market did come back with a correction in a brutal way. That was inevitable because of all structural problems gotten much worse by Fed's loose credit intervention and (pretty much willful) neglect. So they finally woke up and let the correction commence, however brutal it was. No. They screamed bailout. I haven't seen WSJ vehemently opposing Paulson's rescue package.
I guess they would rather not have market doing its thing, if it turned on them brutally thanks to reckless practice and meddling. People who took a phenomenal risk can win huge if it pays off, and eager to call it a market in action. However, when market punished them for their lack of proper risk evaluation, they went outside the market and call for help, even if it is diametrically against market principle. WSJ did all these.