Quote:
|
If I was brought in to replace Nutt and I had one month to prepare for USC and got smoked 98-0, I am -definitely- accountable. I don't see why not.
|
I think the debate is whether anything tangible could have been done to repair efforts at the point where someone came into power.
The blunt equivalent of this would be - if you were the pilot on a plane where the controls had failed ... would it be your fault if the plane crashed?
IMHO someone can only be held responsible for something which is either the consequence of their actions or something which their actions could have directly affected.
Its also in my opinion impossible to judge the actions of the people in charge presently; history might find out more about their opinions and actions however at present a lot of what has been said by them is required posturing in an attempt to calm panic.
It is a well known problem that peoples opinions in economics can cause reality - that is if investors believe a company is going to tank then they will pull out from it, often causing it to lose stability and tank.
As such it would be considered irresponsible of people in power to potentially cause a crisis by shouting concern at the beginning of one, instead they're more likely to work quietly in the background trying to work out ramifacations and solutions - while publicly trying to slow things down by putting on a brave face.
(incidentally anyone else following the 'ratings' arguements going on at the moment - where downgrades on certain companies are causing problems and the companies involved are arguing that without the downgrades they'd be stable ... I actually think there is a LOT to answer for by the ratings companies, how they could downgrade anyone during this week with the volitile nature of the market and changing landscape of the financial scene seems incredible and somewhat irresponsible to me)