tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post604111229662384826..comments2008-10-22T11:54:10.428-04:00Robert Wenzelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12653378186315529211rw@economicpolicyjournal.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-11981344123961597522008-10-22T11:54:00.000-04:002008-10-22T11:54:00.000-04:00

Bob,<BR/><BR/>You are quite right when you say: <I><BR/>Even if the above were true, it would still spell doom for the 'we need more regulation!'crowd.</I><BR/><BR/>However, in my response to McCarthy and Peach, I wasn't cherry picking, after the fact. I responded to them in 2004 at the time they wrote their paper. Indeed, it was sufficiently before the Bubble burst that for, at least, six

Robert Wenzelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12653378186315529211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-7758607567785600872008-10-22T11:09:00.000-04:002008-10-22T11:09:00.000-04:00

In fairness, it is possible that there are so many Fed economists, that there is a wide spectrum of opinion on any topic, and then a cynic like you can cherry pick the bad forecasts after the fact?<BR/><BR/>Even if the above were true, it would still spell doom for the "we need more regulation!" crowd. But I'm wondering if there were "yes virginia there is a housing bubble" Fed papers in 2004,

Bob Murphyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.com