Firedog Lake Salon
By Barry Ritholtz - June 16th, 2009, 4:00PM
Its funny how people on both the left and the right are honing in different parts of Bailout Nation. Given my Libertarian leanings, I guess that should not be surprising.
For example, National Review pulled a quote from our comments last week at on the TARP repayment. That was an excerpt from the book.
The next day, the book got a very nice review from Firedog Lake. I did a book salon over the weekend there, with lots of good questions and back and forth.
You can see the full Q&A here:
FDL Book Salon Welcomes Barry Ritholtz – Bailout Nation: How Greed and Easy Money Corrupted Wall Street and Shook the World Economy
By: Ian Welsh Saturday June 13, 2009 2:00 pmhttp://tinyurl.com/FDLbailoutnation
>
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
June 16th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
i was reading about Stuart Levey and was wondering if maybe some on (O maybe) shouldn’t reassign him from North Korea hunting to maybe hunting the culprits of the financial meltdown. He sounds like is just like Pecaro(SP?) from the 30s hearings
June 16th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Pecora. Classic example of an established monied aristocrat underestimating a hungry, immigrant outsider.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Libertarians are really Republicans- or so says CNBC Sucks- from a post a day or two ago- care to comment?
June 16th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
i found this and its pretty interesting
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc070312.htm
and its not new it about 2 years old.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Barry, I disagree that you have Libertarian leanings.
Most of the Libertarian Party ideal is that no activity that does not specifically violate the constitutional rights of another shall be outlawed or regulated.
e.g. If you are following the ideal, you are against ANY government regulation of derivatives, etc. , much less MORE regulation of them. Derivatives have not violated any right granted by the Constitution, which would not necessitate any laws regulating them.
A Libertarian would say that the government should have stayed out of this from start to finish, no regulation, no bailout, no oversight, etc. Basically no interference whatsoever, for better or for worse.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“Libertarians are really Republicans . . .”
I’ve always heard that a libertarian is a Republican who doesn’t want to give up sex, drugs, and rock and roll.
I notice that Firedoglake actually put some real time and thought into their review. NRO just used it as nothing more than an occasion for a cheap shot at Barney Frank. NRO completely skipped over all the boring parts in Bailout Nation about charges of greed and corruption in the private sector.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
BR,
Jonathan makes a sound point. IOW, don’t confuse ‘open-midedness’ with ‘libertarianism’.
also, as a refresher — http://www.lp.org/blogs/austin-petersen/republican-senators-neuter-federal-reserve-transparency-bill
June 16th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Nemo are you sure that republicans are Libertarians that gave up sex? maybe they just gave up admitting that sex happens or that they participate in it as the certainly do get caught in sec scandals a lot.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/ensign.affair/index.html
June 16th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
There is such a thing as a “Ron Paul” libertarian now, which I consider myself. The basis is that the government has power vested to them by the Constitution and the states have powers as well. Certain issues should be state issues. The federal’s committment to the people should be in protecting the citizens from a defense point of view and ensuring that their rights as granted are in order.
Smaller government, no deficits, less taxes, and personal liberties are the tenets.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Sex scandals and SEC scandals! Except the SEC looks the other way most of the time.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Libertarian is not the far right, and not that far from liberal socially. Fiscal libertarians are pretty much just people who don’t give a shit about other people, though.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
donna Says-
“Fiscal libertarians are pretty much just people who don’t give a shit about other people, though.”
think small- libertarians think the federal government should be small- nothing wrong with helping people- but isn’t that the purview of the community, local or state government?- the federal government by taking on so many responsibilities ends up becoming too powerful- the States are ultimately responsible for the people in their States- not the federal government.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:29 am
The constitution says that it is the federal government’s purview to regulate “interstate commerce.” With the fungibility of money (and constant wire transfers over interstate telephone lines), that pretty much means every financial transaction anymore — at least as it pertains to financial markets.
The existence of federal regulatory agencies are merely extensions of the “police powers” inherent in the power of government. Libertarians can decry the growth of government all they want, but you cannot allow fraud and destructive and abusive actions to run rampant. Almost all of the laws that are on the books (and the regulatory agencies along with them) came about as a result to someone being defrauded or abused by some other party.
So, for the self-described Libertarians on here: how would you remedy the wronged parties without government intervention? Should those parties who have been wronged who cannot afford long, drawn out litigation (assuming there is a legal remedy and, further, the ability to collect upon judgment) just have to swallow their losses (and, consequently, the wrongdoer get to keep the ill-gotten gains)?
June 17th, 2009 at 1:17 am
If you want to be a Libertarian, then buy yourself an island, and be the only occupant.
Okie lawyer got it right: “Almost all of the laws that are on the books (and the regulatory agencies along with them) came about as a result to someone being defrauded or abused by some other party.”
And this ain’t the only time that sentiment was raised. The people who wrote the Constitution had also experienced the very same sentiments. We really do not need to reinvent the wheel every time someone wonders what would happen if we made something round!
June 17th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Nobody is a libertarian when its *their* house on fire. There has to be a balance somewhere.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:16 am
I think the key word Barry said was “Leanings” you are even getting some press on Freedoms Phoenix Barry and on occasion Free Republic though most think you a Liberal!
June 17th, 2009 at 7:38 am
…even Al Gore once called himself a ‘libertarian’, during a presidential campaign speech in Detroit.
A few years back it was considered hip & trendy for big-government types to temper their public political/economic persona with claims to some libertarian outlook.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:52 am
okielawyer Says-
“Libertarians can decry the growth of government all they want, but you cannot allow fraud and destructive and abusive actions to run rampant. . . So, for the self-described Libertarians on here: how would you remedy the wronged parties without government intervention?”
I don’t think anyone has a problem with laws- Libertarian or not- that help all States to conduct commerce across all the States that are part of the United States.
CTB Says-
“Nobody is a libertarian when its *their* house on fire. ”
well- hopefully that would be remedied by the LOCAL fire dept- nice to have community looking out for you- hopefully you wouldn’t expect a squadron of aircraft full of forest service “smoke jumpers” to come to the rescue- would you?
June 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
ahab,
it’s good of you to try to set those two straight, but, it’s a waste of Time. One can tell, from the nature of their Comments, they have no interest in understanding anything other that what they misunderstand..
CTB, for ex., should punch keywords: Ben Franklin, Philadelphia, Union Fire Company into his fave web searcher to see how off-plumb his crack is..