The ex-Bain guy on Up with Chris this morning

[Laurian]

seems to be trying to defend the banking industry to a great extent. They haven't gotten around to talking about Mitt and Bain, but based on his contributions so far, I'm not expecting any grand anti-Mitt revelations from him.

I expect to be disappointed.

[Ilsa]

1. I was about to post the same thing and add

that I wonder if Conard is there to promote his book.

He seems to take the approach that the investment bankers want to be there for the long haul. Maybe some do. But I think there is also motivation there to get rich and leave before getting caught.

I hope they hit the topic. Otherwise I'll feel like accusing Chris of a bait-and-switch.

[Jim__]

2. He seems to be an apologist for the financial system.

The description of his book at ( http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-Everything-Youve-Economy/dp/1591845505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342357256&sr=8-1&keywords=edward+conard ) Amazon] seems to be an apologia for the system:

But according to Unintended Consequences, the conventional wisdom masks the real causes of our economic disruption and puts us at risk of facing a slew of unintended—and potentially dangerous—consequences. This book addresses many essential but overlooked questions, such as:

• If the United States had become a nation of reckless consumers rather than investors, why did productivity soar in the years leading up to the meltdown?
  
• If predatory bankers took advantage of home owners, why did down payments decline, thereby shifting risk from home owners to lenders?
  
• If the risks were easy to spot, why did top politi­cal and financial advisers encourage lenders to make unsound investments?
  
• If new regulations encourage banks to hold enough capital to fund withdrawals and not just loan losses, how will the economy underwrite the risks necessary to reach full employment?
  

In an attempt to set the record straight and fill the void left by other analysts, Conard presents a fas­cinating and contrarian case for how the economy really works, what went wrong over the past decade, and what steps we can take to start growing again.

[KaryninMiami]

3. Watching as well. Interesting but I'm not buying it.

He just said something to the effect that the President is able now to outspend Romney using his "primary money" that Romney already spent- which is able to pound him with these ads currently running. Lost all credibility for me - cannot possibly believe Romney is not fighting back because he has less money.

Now he's defending outsourcing.