Weisberg Redux
Commenter David Quinn had a few problems with my response to David Weisberg, and I thought I'd address his points in a separate post.
His first (and recurring) complaint was that the bloggers to whom I linked didn't offer much in the way of intelligent responses to Weisberg's piece, which suggests that Mr. Quinn either didn't read the linked pieces closely, or didn't read them at all. This issue is somewhat tangential to the political points Mr. Quinn brought up, but it's been a big problem since I started blogging at City Desk. As with the Brightwood Park post, the links are evidence for an argument, and it makes sense to read that evidence before responding to a post. That is, after all, what makes blogging so special: Linking to longer pieces allows us to say more with fewer words. In addition, when participating in a debate about politics, it generally makes sense to read the other side–if only to gather ammunition–and that's not something a blogger can do for his audience (trust that the links I provide are somewhat more substantial than what you'd find at Free Republic, for crissakes). On top of all that, skimming links would make the comment threads far more productive.
Now to the specifics:
Point is, you can say all these things are well-reasoned until your face is blue, but that doesn’t make it so. Nowhere in the article do you ever address the fact that libertarian economic policy (i.e., deregulation) is responsible for the current financial crisis....
Nowhere in your response, Mr. Quinn–nor anywhere in Mr. Wiesberg's piece–is there a shred of evidence that libertarianism contributed to the banking failure. In fact, I haven't read a single story that pointed to libertarianism as the culprit (besides Wiesberg's). There is evidence, however, that the Democrats' obsession with low-income housing, and the ensuing legislation that lowered lending standards, had something to do with it. The big banks are to blame as well–but there's nothing remotely libertarian about the government protection, corporate welfare, and relaxed lending standards that those banks enjoyed.
...Changing the subject to talk about social policy still ignores the failures of libertarian economic policy (which is a fairly major part of libertarianism, otherwise you idiots would just be normal lefties).
Not Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, nor Congress ever legislated or instituted libertarian economic policy. How is it then, Mr. Quinn, that libertarian economic policy has failed? And no, libertarians wouldn't be "normal lefties." For one thing, economic liberalization is almost always accompanied by increased civil liberties. Take away the former and the others begin to disappear (WWII-era Italy and Germany; modern-day Cuba and Venezuela; Russia and China for the entirety of the 20th-century). In addition, Democrats and non-affiliated liberals are leading a subtle assault on civil liberties in the form of smoking bans, food restrictions, and campaign finance laws.
...you’re smearing liberals just as much by conflating all liberals with the Democratic Party, which is far from the case.
This would be a very good point if it weren't for the fact that most registered liberals vote for Democrats. In other words, you can't expect to be treated as independent of the Democrats if you espouse liberal ideals in the comments section but vote for Joe Biden, a founding father of the Drug War and the PATRIOT Act. Liberals who want to avoid comparisons to crummy Democrats should vote third party–or better yet, stay home in November.
...explain why deregulation didn’t cause the financial crisis and why libertarianism isn’t a philosophy for the sociopathic, the too-wealthy, and the disembrained. Actually, on second thought, I won’t ask you to do the impossible.
Neither is impossible. The burden of apologetics isn't on libertarians for the financial crisis–it's on Rep. Barney Frank and people like him, who thought that sending false market signals would improve the plight of the poor. Or, we could wait for the dust to settle and mete out blame then; but don't expect that Democrats will be off the hook for their failed welfare plans.
As for libertarians themselves: Don't be stupid. George Soros is "too wealthy"; Jeremiah Wright is "sociopathic"; Lindsay Lohan is "disembrained"–and they're all Democrats. Which is to say that every party has its fair share of idiots, jackasses, and weirdos.
4:10 pm
Well, you've totally convinced me: it wasn't the greedy bastards working in a completely unregulated market that caused the mortgage crisis. It was those damn minorities and their low income housing and their welfare.
Christ, if I wanted thinly veiled racism, I'd just read the National Review...
9:48 pm
Mr. Quinn, you've just perpetuated the most typical of cowardly debate tactics: When you can't rationally argue opinions with fact and logic, go after the opponent's character.
You obviously have not read any of the actual facts on the factors that have played into the housing crisis. Instead, saying that we've had a "completely unregulated market" proves that your opinions are based entirely on Barney Frank talking-points and Barack Obama anti-market scare tactics.
Any sane economist -- left or right -- will confirm that the market was FAR from unregulated prior to this crisis. To wholeheartedly claim the opposite is equivalent to saying that 2 + 2 = 4.
9:49 pm
2 + 2 = 5 ****
10:06 am
And Mr. Kirell, proves that his, Kirell’s, opinions are based entirely on recent Krauthammer’s drivel derived, in turn, from some unoriginal nonsense that was out of fashion long before some village idiot fucked Riggs’s mother.
I personally take Mr. Quinn’s view of things. And now we all think Riggs should spend some time in the corner thinking of what he’s done. I meant 'thinking' in the politically correct fashion, of course.
10:13 am
I don't read Krauthammer, Ernest. I get my economics news from actual academic economists, not the talking heads on TV.
Again, what's with all these people and attacking character and trying to degrade people when they can't argue the main point that markets were clearly regulated before the crisis occurred. If you want, you may argue that some aspect that had nothing to do with the regulation or deregulation of the financial market caused this crisis -- and we can debate the civilly -- but to claim that the market was "entirely unregulated" is just absolute nonsense. You won't go anywhere in a real debate if you can't even conceded that simple, blatant point.
10:24 am
Andrew: It's best to ignore Ernest. He hasn't made a valid point ever, on any post, in any subject.
1:42 pm
Really? Every "sane economist" has said that it was not an unregulated market that caused the crisis? What about Allen Greenspan saying it was a mistake to believe that companies operating unregulated and in their own self-interest would also act in the interest of everyone else:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/greenspan-calls-crisis-a_n_137193.html
I could go on and on and on, but I have a feeling it'd only fall on deaf ears. For you stupid libertarians and your almost absolute detachment from reality, "sane economist" usually just means "someone works for the Cato Institute."
Both of your demented libertarian spiels (both Mr. Riggs & Mr. Kirell) points back to the whole theme of this election: a referendum on reality. It's the Republicans who are running against reality, denying that we have any problems and manufacturing their own reality where Obama is a Muslim terrorist. It's you libertarians who are aiding and abetting them, living in an equally unreal world where there are no economic problems, except those caused by those damn black people and poor people who are sponging up money from welfare. You're all running against reality, living on Palin's fantasy small town utopia.
Obama may not have all the answers, but Jesus, at least he recognizes there are problems and is trying to talk to voters about them like adults. The rest of you are burying your heads in the sand, trying to blame this financial crisis on a bunch of poor black people and ignoring any "reality" that's not promulgated by Reason or the National Review (or whatever the nutty right-wingers these days read).
1:50 pm
Riggs,
I feel slightly bad for you...getting all prepared for a decent and well thought out retort only to have your opponent mutter a few racial remarks and crawl back into the dark and ignorant hole from whence he came. Approximately what percentage of the Reason readership is self-righteous, acerbic pseudo-politicos?
3:39 pm
booooooooooring
9:08 am
To say that libertarian policies caused the downfall of the market is a bit short sided… but so is blaming the Democrats push for low income housing.
Michael: When you site that the Democrats “lowered lending standards” you are in fact sitting a form of deregulation. The Democrats did not force banks to lend to lower income families; they just removed regulations that forced lenders to ensure that they only gave loans to those that were economically capable.
Mr. Quinn: To say that Libertarians are detached from reality is unfair at best. The expansion of the government and the increase in taxes on large businesses has been one of the major reasons for outsourcing. Many people think that it’s just the lower costs of wages that entice companies to move off shores but the cost of shipping and building a new factory often offsets the cost of keeping factories domestic. This holds true for all but the most labor intensive industries. When I was at the University of Michigan I had the opportunity to speak with an executive from Ford Motor Company and he sited Michigan’s higher than normal taxes as one of the reasons that he was being forced to outsource one of their truck assembly plants.
To say that deregulation or government expansion is the cause of our current economic woes is not a terribly accurate statement. The reality is that the crisis is due to a lack of preemptive action by Washington. All of the parties saw the writing on the wall. They all new what was happening but failed to act and acted instead on issues that would gain them more notoriety.
As for me. I won’t stay home this November… but I’m seriously debating voting in everything BUT the Presidential Election.
*Note: If someone replies to my comment I will respond but I will out of town for the weekend and will be unable to do so until Monday. Please do not think that I am ignoring you. Play nice until then.
11:48 am
Mr. Allen, you’re great. A relation to the former senator, perhaps?
Now, I’m not an economist, a banker or some such professional (but then one doesn’t need to learn theology to be an atheist, eh). Although I will allow that the crisis had something to do with the fact that the markets were not regulated as they should have been. The rule of the thumb is this: Regulation is good when it’s due and bad when not or downright harmful. All the ruling classes need is the competence to distinguish in a timely fashion which case is which. Oh and I absolutely reject all ideologies, any group mentality for that matter. My main point, however, is that City Paper is hardly a place to discuss these matters.
“Boooooooring, “ says Amanda Hess in a moment of blinding clarity. Indeed it is, Amanda. I only wish you engaged in such honest self-appraisal more often. I don’t mean you personally, by the way, but your paper. Since when, for example, CP became a place for some semi-educated jerk to rub in his worthless second-hand opinions in tedious, heavy, long-winded, insipid language? Could you convey that nonentity how much the readers should enjoy this? I’ve been hammering the point for some time and what response do I get?... None!
But, I hear you object, the guy fancies himself an opinion columnist, so let him.
Absolutely not, says I. This shall not to be borne. No. Fucking. Way. And that reminds me:
Riggs, you are a City Paper reporter, right? Let me repeat with quiet force: City Paper. Reporter. Stick with the reporting then. Report. Every cricket know its picket, as they say. What, nothing interesting is going on the city? How about shenanigans in the mayor‘s office, crime and punishment, street culture, high society, artistic circles, the troubles of homosexuals and so forth? I know what you are doing, Riggs: Nothing wrong with climb from slime, except in your particular case, Riggs, the slime is still dripping from your ears. Every game has its rules, for readers‘ sake. Cut it out.
12:04 pm
1.) I'm not a City Paper reporter. Check the masthead.
2.) Troll while you can, Ernest, because we'll shortly be instituting rules that will make being a bully in the comments section a lot less fun.
12:31 pm
So much for civil liberties, Riggs? You are a complete hypocrite.
12:49 pm
Being an asshole isn't a civil liberty, Ernest. It's called "editorial discretion," and I cannot wait until it goes into effect.
1:30 pm
Below my dignity to rejoin. Unless you really insist, Riggs. Which I suppose you do. Here goes:
Piss of, Riggs. It's too late for "editorial discretion". You've been insulted enough. You should have resigned with dignity laat week, really. C'est tout.
1:52 pm
But what if the City Paper refused to accept Riggs' resignation? On account of his being an indisposable asset of indisputable value to the business. Did you consider such eventuality, Ernest? Well, did you??
2:01 pm
Get back to work, William, before I considered accepting y o u r resignation, with immediate effect.
2:16 pm
You are just too over-confident, aren't you, Ernest. You can't fire me. My dad sits on the board of the directors. Comprenez vous?
2:49 pm
Er. I should think not.
And now we all think Riggs should stop crying and sing an aria of Riggoletto from the operatic classic of the same name. S'il vous plait, Michelle. Michelle?
9:03 pm
So you are dissatisfied with the content, Ernest? And I... I'm delighted with it, yes. Which of us is right, I cannot say. Hateful man.
9:54 pm
Ernest, won't you come over and write anonymous conversations to your self on MY blog?
6:46 pm
I’ve read and read and do not understand a thing, but absolutely nothing, Men are beyond my comprehension. Ernest. Enough said. Meg, you drink too much.
8:21 pm
Everybody likes Ernest.