Registered? Please log in below.
New? Please register.
Here are some reasons why.
Register
User login
Poll
Recent comments
- Anonymous (not verified)
- WResonance (not verified)
- Eddie (not verified)
- Anonymous (not verified)
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- Wry Mouth
- Khabalox
- RobbL
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
- We swear, we had NOTHING to do with this...
- Alexander Aan: 'God Does Not Exist'
- 'Should Californians be allowed to register and vote on election day?'
- 'Mad Men' and the infantilization of America
- D-Day
- Earl Scruggs Was The Coolest Man Ever
- Remember, Remember...
- Five Perfect Collections of Outtakes
- Jerry Brown for President
- Turns Out, Californians May Not Be the Craziest Voters in America
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 16 guests online.
Navigation
Credits, etc.
Monkey logos by Katherine Roe
(who had no part in the color design)
Hosting graciously provided by Oliver Fross.
Libertarians aren't in lock step against a government bailout
Thu, 09/25/2008 - 16:13 — AnonyMonkey
Matt Welch, noted libertarian and editor of Reason Magazine, doesn't think there should be a government intervention, but he doesn't simply discount the idea or underestimate the current situation. Citing the possiblilty that the money markets were going to go down as of last week, Hugh Hewitt asked Matt Welch in an on air interview Tuesday evening:
HH: Are you unsympathetic to the argument that economic collapse* is generally simply an emotional issue, and that we've just got to stop the bleeding at this point? Does that not impress you at all?
MW: No, uh, I mean I'm sympathetic to a lot of arguments, I mean, there are some actual, believe it or not, dyed in the wool libertarians who work for the SEC who, of my knowledge, and I've argued with them about, you know, long ago and far away - the bailout of Bear Stearns, just a couple months back, and their argument is that, hey look, there really is a level of too big to fail, and it's just going to -- when people don't know what paper the other investment bank is holding and all the banks refuse to lend to one another then it creates sort of a credit spiral and we'll all be involved and people who are innocent will be involved. I'm very sympathetic to the argument. It's a moving and persuasive argument, at some degree.
*as House Banking Committee member John Campbell (R-CA) reported yesterday on Hewitt's show, "The federal home loan bank notes went for sale yesterday, and did not sell. None of them sold for the first time since the Depression. I mean, that has never happened before. And that has the full faith and credit of the United Sates government! But there is such fear out there [among the institutions] that somehow they'll wiggle out of this and they won't pay me back, that there's irrational decision making going on..."
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Trackback URL for this post:
http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/5620
- AnonyMonkey's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Who's the sissy...
...who had to blog this as AnonyMonkey?
Wasn't me
I was running errands and now I'm polishing off a story.
Matt Welch isn't much of a libertarian, it seems to me. He always struck me as more of a lefty.
"Lefty" Welch
I pretty much agree with that. Lots of those "positive liberty" types over at Reason. I think that's one of the reasons the Paleos over at Mises look down their (our?) noses at them. Oh, look at that, a chance to reference my own post! How in the world did that happen?
Paving the way to a false dichotomy
Libertarians aren't in lockstep about anything. That's why they're libertarians. But the implication is, "if the libertarians are not united about how to respond to this crisis, then we should all support the plan that's on the table," and that is just SO far from being a good idea. There's a long road to haul between being "sympathetic" to the idea that "there really is a level of too big to fail" and being in favor of shoveling $700B of non-existent money down the same hole the government already dug, along with giving the Treasury Secretary almost dictatorial power over the economy.
Make a case. Respond to the case against. But don't trivialize the principled opposition to a MASSIVE executive-branch power grab and wildly irresponsible economic knee-jerkery.
perhaps I should put my money in whoever manufactures Midol
The "sissy" is me - Monkey Brad. I was posting on a seldom used computer which has apparently remained logged-on as AnonyMonkey for some time. I hadn't noticed until after the third comment to this post was noticed at the top of the comments scroll. I had no intention of "hiding" from its authorship.
----
I think you meant, "the inference is..." because I wasn't implying anything.
All I was doing was following your post on the Ron Paul take on the bailout with a noteworthy citation of actual libertarians, who are close to the details, who favor government action. My post was about the guys who work in the SEC, not about Welch's sympathy for their arguments (though it did frame them with some credibility). But his quotation was all I had at the time, so that's the source I used. Geez.
And don't get too high on the blessed libertarians not being in lockstep. Are we to infer that you're making the implication that other party members in fact are in lockstep? "That's what makes them libertarians"?
Umm, whatever.
You know why I chose those words for my post title? It was about three seconds' worth of pondering what search terms Google might be helpful to make a post stand out from the crowd. It wasn't uber-deep. Do you think that I consider ANY party to be in lock step? Come on. It was a quick adjective that I grabbed because the SEC-member libertarians were described as holding a position that goes against the dominant perception of their party's expected position. Nowhere did I even mention the details of the proposed, then unproposed, then pared down (the status when my post was written), then off-the-table 700B bill. Did I? No, I'm talking about whether or not there's a legitimate roll for the feds to do something here. And, no, I don't think that the options currently on the table are accurately described as "the same hole". I worry about a dictatorial TresSec, but believe that one needn't be empowered to make some helpful action.
Come to think of it... who's the one who jumped the chasm from arguing in favor of intervention straight to an inference that whover posted this must be supporting or impugning someone with supporting the one-man
legislation?
As far as making a case, I figured that I'd take the humility tack and stick to citing folks who know more about this than I do. That's why I inserted the Campbell quote. I didn't set out to write my whole position on the proper course of action. But I thought the shedding of some light on a fact or two that isn't getting much attention was warranted there.
I reserve the right to post as flippantly or as partialy as I am moved to at the moment. Even if it makes others get all pissy.
Indignant monkey is indignant
Are we to infer that you're making the implication that other party members in fact are in lockstep?
In the broad context in which I made the contrasting statement about libertarians? Of course I am. The major parties absolutely freak out when someone shakes up their neat little world. Hugh Hewitt not only wrote an entire book based on the premise that party victory is more important than principle, he wouldn't shut up about how to Republican tent wasn't big enough for McCAIN (who dared to oppose the "nuclear option" in the senate) - until McCain sewed up the nomination.
By way of contrast, the Libertarian party (to name the most obvious "party" populated primarily by "libertarians") has a reputation for exactly the opposite. You may remember that back in 2000 the Libertarians fielded Ernie Hancock for President, even though Harry Browne was the candidate on every other state ballot. Libertarians couldn't line dance if you offered to pay them all in gold coins and marijuana.
Now, in the context of the present financial crisis and the truly frightening proposal from the (finally) lame-duck administration, fortunately there appears to be no consensus from either party, at least in the Senate. But both parties seem broadly committed to a massive government bailout, for the most part they're just haggling about who gets to look best in front of their constituency when they sell us all down the river.
Etc. etc. etc.
Successful troll is successful.
I reserve the right to post as flippantly or as partialy as I am moved to at the moment.
And I reserve the right to push your buttons between bites of delicious pecan pie.
Stretching monkey is stretching
Of course I am.
In your convoluted cranky mind, maybe. Since we were talking about the idea of a bail out, I'll remind you of the Republicans' reactions to the idea, the plans, and whether or not anything should be done at all. Sorry to get all crazy on you, addressing the issue at hand.
Successful troll is successful.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
And I reserve the right to push your buttons between bites of delicious pecan pie.
Nice try. I did get pissed at your comment. But if you want to deny that before that you were crying out like your ox was being gored, well, you keep telling yourself that.
Peace
Hey, sorry I was pissy. I wasn't reacting to my ox being gored. I was irritated that rather than posting a comment with a response to the actual statements from the Paul/Mises camp, you posted an (inadvertently) anonymous new post citing a completely different group of "libertarians." In other words, I was annoyed at what I considered to be a huge red herring. But it was an inappropriate reaction, and I apologize.
Constituent Rebellion Now!
Millions wrote and called to say No! and still the Senate said Yes? It is time for a housecleaning! Time to show them that they work for Main Street, not Wall Street.
Based on quick analysis, it looks like there are 2-4 Senators who voted Yes who are in tight races, and 3 or 4 more who are vulnerable.
In the House, the analysis is similar, 7 or 8 vulnerable races where a little bit of influence might make all the difference.
Targeting these so-called representatives of the people, with print and radio ads highlighting their betrayal, could really make an impact on their chances for re-election -- and put the fear of constituency back into the Washington elite.
Are you interested in making it happen? There isn't much time before the election, so it will take funds and effort. Can you participate by offering time, skills or funds?
Let us know.
Contact the Constituent Response Team at constituentresponse@gmail.com.