Evidently I’m not the only one who thinks that it was ‘silly’.
Just because there isn’t any evidence proving that jihadi terrorists, Chinese Communists, Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, separately or acting together, masterminded Wall Street’s great financial crash of 2008 doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened! That, in a nutshell, is the absurd, disturbing message at the heart of Kevin D. Freeman’s Pentagon-funded study, “Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses.” Since so much of what happens on Wall Street is hidden from public view or regulatory oversight, we don’t know what really happened. Therefore, anything could have happened. And since there are bad guys who hate us—well, you connect the dots. ...
... Or, alternatively, the fact there is no actual evidence supporting the thesis and the analytic rigor demonstrated by Freeman isn’t what a serious person would find remotely convincing might be the real reasons for the mass shunning. Personally, I love nothing better than reaching back to ancient history to support a contemporary observation, but citing an article by an adjunct professor of rhetoric at St. Thomas University in Miami, Fla., titled “The Radical Muslim War Against the Western Tax Base,” which in turn cites Belgian historian Henri Pirenne’s thesis that Arab economic warfare brought about the fall of the Roman Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries A.D., as support for the proposition that al-Qaida was orchestrating the run-up in oil prices in 2007 and the “bear raids” on Wall Street investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, strikes me as just a bit of a stretch.
What we do know about how the collapse of the housing boom and the proliferation of dodgy mortgage-backed securities led to the credit crunch suggests that Wall Street’s traders needed no help from malevolent actors in collapsing their own house of cards. It’s not that complicated. They were greedy and stupid and government regulators were asleep at the wheel.


Boulder Time