Can someone analyze Paulson's statement putting us all on the hook for saving the rich from the consequences of their own greed?
The Official Style mucks up the issue of who did what. When writers do this accidentally, it's because they aren't thinking clearly or looking at what they've written from the reader's point of view. But when they do it intentionally, it's because they are trying to avoid having to flat-out admit who did what—what we refer to as agency. People faced with explaining mistakes frequently duck the question of agency, especially if they're the one at fault.
Watch Paulson "ducking the question of agency" here:
When the financial system works as it should, money and capital flow to and from households and businesses to pay for home loans, school loans and investments that create jobs. As illiquid mortgage assets block the system, the clogging of our financial markets has the potential to have significant effects on our financial system and our economy.
Well, how'd those "illiquid assets" come to be, Hank? Eh?
Why is this important? Because if you duck the question of agency, you can't even begin to talk about accountability. Why would that be, I wonder?
There are probably many other places in that statement where Paulson ducks the question of agency. It'll be like an Easter Egg hunt! (Although, I suppose, for duck eggs....) Readers, have at it! Or suggest your own approaches. Obviously, since statement puts us on the hook for another trillion or five, it's important.
NOTE Via BTD.