Brad DeLong posted his daily links, but, as of 4 p.m. today, that was about it.

Paul Krugman applied linear thinking and historical examples to rail against members of Congress who oppose cap-and-trade on the grounds that it would foster speculation and "offer too many opportunities to the ‘Wall street crowd.'" The professor points out that wherever there are markets, there is an opportunity for speculation. It doesn't really make sense to avoid something that's good for the whole planet just because it might also be good for financiers, says Krugman.

Barry Ritholtz celebrated his 10,000th post today (congrats!) and picked at the notion that federal bailouts and financial support will, ultimately, cost upward of $23 trillion. Yesterday, Ritholtz referred to this estimated figure, courtesy of TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky, as a "WTF number." And, as Ritholtz pointed out today, when Barofsky said that "federal government support" could cost $23 trillion, something may have been lost in translation. "The statement really turns on your definition of the word 'Support ' " said Ritholtz. "This is not the actual costs, but more of a measure of the total guarantees, loans, indemnifications and credit extended in all of the bailouts." Barry links to this story by Floyd Norris of the NYT, aptly titled "Big Estimate, Worth Little, on Bailout," to get his point across. It turns out, to reach the $23 trillion figure, we'd have to experience a cataclysmic banking disaster (yes, worse than the one we already had).

Felix Salmon's single post for the day ripostes physicist Scott Locklin's unflattering comparison of financial doomsayer Nassim Taleb to scientific naysayer Paul Feyeraband. Salmon defends the two rebels, arguing that "for those of us who want to take a step back and re-examine the foundations of science, or finance, then grappling with Feyerabend and Taleb is I think a useful and illuminating thing to do."