U. of C. faculty may have say on Friedman Institute plans

Oh really.....you think anything useful will come out of this meeting where these liberal bed-wetter professors will get thier forum to whine about thier usual agendas?

It'll be the typical ....they'll want free exchange of ideas if it is thier ideas......if it isn't thier views that there will need to be provisions made to include thier ideas.

At the end after much shouting...ah debate...nothing will be accomplished.

"Opponents fear that having a center named after the conservative, free-market economist will attract donors with a singular point of view, promote a one-sided agenda and reinforce a perception that the university lacks ideological diversity."

Probably because the opponents know they would be guilty of promoting a liberal ideology if they were building the Paul Krugmann Institute. What a bunch of whinners. Apparently they know nothing of Friedman's work, otherwise they would realize that he invited debate on the merits. Unlike the opponents who would likely debate on their feelings.

"Nobel Prize winners in economics"? Hmmmm. Am I to understand that they all are McCain voters? Given the questionable state of the Academia I suspect not.

When Sen. Obama in the debate Tuesday night minimized McNain's warnings about sub-prime lending asserting they came way late and said he had warned of the coming problems from sub-prime lending and Fannie Mae with a letter to the Secretary of Treasury of the problems associated with the sub-prime lending by Fannie I was surprised as I knew this not to be true. Obama's claimed and purported warning that his campaign supplied me after the debate can be found at: http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_ur... .(Sorry but you might have to cut and paste this into your web browser as it does not appear to work as a direct link)

"... How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability". I urge you to read the letter yourself and put this warning in context. Mr. Obama is trained as a lawyer at some schools in the Ivy League and is famous for his capacity to communicate.

This letter and also his present claim that this was his warning to the Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman together and separately demonstrate Sen. Obama's complete obliviousness to and obfuscation of the reality of what the sub-prime lending at Fannie Mar had wrought. It results from the fact that Senator Obama then and continuing through today is in denial about the foolishness of this bit of social re-engineering (free houses for those who could not afford them) and its consequences (the destruction of an entire financial system to achieve that end). Free houses for everyone by 2007 had already long ended badly, Senator.

In contrast, one might look to the record and see what the position of others has been about sub-prime lending, Fannie Mae and its possible consequences, the solutions offered as well as the dates of those positions. Also one need ask what was the fate of the proposed curative legislation. I will help a little upfront: The Democratic controlled majority at the behest of Senate Banking Chairman Barney Franks, Chuck Schumer and Vice-Chair Chris Dodd without comment from Sen. Obama in 2001 but with his support unanimously refused to enact legislation dealing with the failure of Fannie to cease its massive sub-prime lending orgy and voted down regulation of Fannie Mae. After the unanimous vote by the Democratic party the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the Republican minority.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...