The Federal Reserve - Lapdog to Goldman Sachs

But Don...there's something wrong with libertarians. Don't you see, that's the real story here. And apparently in pretty much every other thread as well.

robeiae said:

But Don...there's something wrong with libertarians. Don't you see, that's the real story here. And apparently in pretty much every other thread as well.

Click to expand...

When you have 5649 threads started about the same one note subject of "Government is evil" and a similar number of posts that turn every subject under the sun into the same explanation, an occasional reminder of what libertarianism actually consists of is not out of line.

rugcat said:

When you have 5649 threads started about the same one note subject of "Government is evil" and a similar number of posts that turn every subject under the sun into the same explanation, an occasional reminder of what libertarianism actually consists of is not out of line.

Click to expand...

Amen.

I saw this thread and knew it would be a libertarian screed, hence my lack of participation thus far.

No, I do not want to discuss libertarianism. No, I'm not going to play the Evil FedGov game. I already have religion. I think I might change my byline to something along the lines of "No Soliciting."

"Occasional reminder." Lol.

Regardless, there's some serious meat in the article Don posted imo. No one seems prepared to address that in the least. Why is that? Don't get me wrong, the tangent doesn't bother me, it's not out of line. It's no skin off my nose if people want to return to a dissection of libertarianism.

But what about the central thesis here, that Goldman Sachs (and other similar firms) are getting favorable treatment--to say the least--from the Fed, particularly the New York branch? From the article:

In 1998, when the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management blew up, the New York Fed helped organize a $3.65 billion bailout. In March 2008, the New York Fed, under the leadership of Timothy Geithner, helped manage the near-failure of Bear Stearns, and its hastened sale to J.P. Morgan Chase, even though Bear wasn’t a regulated bank. Five months later, the New York Fed tried (without success) to organize a bailout of Lehman Brothers. It then helped design and implement the bailout of insurer AIG, which, like Bear Stearns, was not regulated by the Fed.

Click to expand...

Imo, the tone of this is overly generous and kind to the New York Fed. But at least it's pointing to the questionable behavior, at least the writer of the piece accepts this reality.

Yet amazingly on these boards, the champions of social justice, the people most given to be on the liberal side of pretty much any issue appear compelled to obfuscate on this topic, whenever it is broached.

How does talking about the collusion between Goldman Sachs and the Fed require an indictment of libertarian thought as a matter of course? Is it not real? Is it being made up?

Wall Street is evil 99% of the time. When is it not? When the subject turns to the role of the Fed in all of this (or the roles of Fannie and Freddie), when the discussion will end up making some Democrats in power--and their appointees--look pretty fucking bad. Imo.

Don said:

Except it's so much bullshit, as Michael pointed out way back in post #14. Property rights are a subset of personal rights.

The libertarians I know support the right of secession, not the right to own other people. Of course, conflating the two makes it easier to strawman libertarian philosophy.

Click to expand...

Not a strawman at all. Libertarians have explicitly placed the right to secede above the right to not be owned. It's a fatal contradiction that dooms libertarianism thought to the crassest sort of hypocrisy.

And don't try to argue that their reason for wanting to secede was motivated by anything other than the desire to preserve the institution of slavery. That line of argument has been thoroughly refuted over and over again.

robeiae said:

"Occasional reminder." Lol.

Regardless, there's some serious meat in the article Don posted imo. No one seems prepared to address that in the least. Why is that? Don't get me wrong, the tangent doesn't bother me, it's not out of line. It's no skin off my nose if people want to return to a dissection of libertarianism.

But what about the central thesis here, that Goldman Sachs (and other similar firms) are getting favorable treatment--to say the least--from the Fed, particularly the New York branch?

Click to expand...

The cozy relationship between Congress and the financial institutions is a disgrace.

I would argue that any attempt to rein in the financial sector has been blocked by Republicans, but I will admit that Democrats have been not a whole lot better on this.

But any view that simply explains the problem in a sweeping government is bad fashion is not very helpful. Nor is the idea that regulations on industry are bad, while at the same time complaining that the regulators are not living up to their responsibilities.

People with money figure out ways to game the system – any system. People and institutions with billions of dollars have so much power that fighting them is almost impossible. But it can be done, slowly, two steps forward one step back, while realizing complete victory is indeed impossible.

There's a difference between discussing how this problem can be addressed and what measures can be taken to improve things and a philosophical argument that nothing can be done unless the entire societal governmental system is abandoned or dismantled.

Which is the same argument expressed by some ad nauseam to every conceivable problem society faces.

robeiae said:

Wall Street is evil 99% of the time. When is it not? When the subject turns to the role of the Fed in all of this (or the roles of Fannie and Freddie), when the discussion will end up making some Democrats in power--and their appointees--look pretty fucking bad. Imo.

Click to expand...

It's certainly the partisan slant on things - I have nothing but contempt for the Fed's role in propping up/enabling the bad actors, but I have no wish to send the economy further off the cliff than they did. That required certain actions, IMO. Doesn't mean they aren't all shits.

I do find a certain amount of irony in the prevalent libertarian view in that sector, however.

robeiae said:

Regardless, there's some serious meat in the article Don posted imo. No one seems prepared to address that in the least. Why is that? Don't get me wrong, the tangent doesn't bother me, it's not out of line. It's no skin off my nose if people want to return to a dissection of libertarianism.

Click to expand...

I discussed it briefly. I said get rid of Wall Street.

rugcat said:

When you have 5649 threads started about the same one note subject of "Government is evil" and a similar number of posts that turn every subject under the sun into the same explanation, an occasional reminder of what libertarianism actually consists of is not out of line.

Click to expand...

How is that the original subject of the thread?

Seriously, it's about the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs, just like the title says. If you think the subjects are being treated unfairly, then you can certainly argue for that. To me, the whole "government is evil" shtick is really your own, if anything; it's meant to steer things away from the specific story here.

It's a shame really, because-imo-there's a sizable chunk on the left who really see this issue for what it is. I certainly don't think all those commenters at The Daily Beast are all hardcore libertarians.

Monkey said:

Amen.

I saw this thread and knew it would be a libertarian screed, hence my lack of participation thus far.

Click to expand...

The OP was an article from The Daily Beast. Don's comments were the following:

The story goes on to detail that sorry history.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, apparently.

Is anybody surprised?

Click to expand...

Where's the screed?

No, I do not want to discuss libertarianism.

Click to expand...

Great. That wasn't the original subject.

kuwisdelu said:

I think you know what I meant, and I think you know that's not it.



I think it's fine as part of a strategy. It shouldn't be viable as an entire business plan.

But then, I'm not enamored of capitalism in general.

Click to expand...

It should be noted that Wall Street's sole existence is not for the sake of investment but to facilitate investment. That being said, the trust and hedge funds of Fairfield County are interesting behemoths whose utility is peculiar.

Michael Wolfe said:

To me, the whole "government is evil" shtick is really your own, if anything; it's meant to steer things away from the specific story here. . .

. . . Where's the screed?

Click to expand...

Right here:

Don said:

We need more Underwriter's Laboratories and Consumer Reports and Angie's Lists and ASMEs and ITEFs and W3Cs, not more Centers for Food Safety and USDA and Corps of Engineers and occupational licensing. We need more National Wildlife Federations, not more Bureaus of Land Management. . .


. . .And generally, Uncle Sam does a pretty crappy job providing that "help" that citizens expect, given the problems with rent-seeking and regulatory capture that we're all too well aware of.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the lengthy differentiation between things that are malum in se as opposed to things that are malum prohibitum -- things illegal by statute. The differentiation being a cornerstone of libertarian philosophy.

So you might want to follow the original thread to realize I did not respond at all to the op. Only when I read still another libertarian rant did I respond -- and directly to that rant. I did not bring it up. Responding to a post initiated by another is what we do here.

I'm not the one who steers things off course.

rugcat said:

Only when I read still another libertarian rant did I respond -- and directly to that rant. I did not bring it up. Responding to a post initiated by another is what we do here.

Click to expand...

Pardon, but no. You responded to blacbird's post that was basically little more than a bit of flame bait aimed at Don, insofar as it was a faulty presentation of Don's opinion re government regulations (albeit one Don is more than happy to share).

And you responded with a general "critique" of libertarianism--via some blog--that was just begging for a response:

Sticking your ear inside an air conditioner for several hours is ultimately a more enlightening procedure than having a libertarian explain his or her stance to you for just a few minutes.

Click to expand...

And again, all of this is fine imo. It's the way things often roll around here.

rugcat said:

Responding to a post initiated by another is what we do here.

Click to expand...

That's also what Don did, no? Blacbird asked a question and Don answered it.

I'm not the one who steers things off course.

Click to expand...

Disagree, though you weren't the first.

rugcat said:

You are more than welcome to post a link to any article that opines on how foolish sheeple liberals are.

Click to expand...

I don't think either one is in line with the sticky in this forum regarding name calling.

Things seem to stay pretty clean in regards to the two main parties and mainstream left-vs-right ideas, but things that don't nicely fit in either of those tend to more often be the recipient of name calling. A few months ago someone (I don't recall who, but it wasn't a regular) responded to one of my posts with some nasty variation on the word libertarian, and I regret not immediately posting that link and/or clicking the red triangle.

benbradley said:

Things seem to stay pretty clean in regards to the two main parties and mainstream left-vs-right ideas, but things that don't nicely fit in either of those tend to more often be the recipient of name calling. A few months ago someone (I don't recall who, but it wasn't a regular) responded to one of my posts with some nasty variation on the word libertarian, and I regret not immediately posting that link and/or clicking the red triangle.

Click to expand...

I almost want to be name-called now just to find out what name I would be called.

You filthy HOOSIER, you!

BenPanced said:

You filthy HOOSIER, you!

Click to expand...

Oh that's dirty.

I may have been born here, but I consider New Mexico my home.

Except on Memorial Day weekend.

Don said:

The libertarians I know support the right of secession, not the right to own other people. Of course, conflating the two makes it easier to strawman libertarian philosophy.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but they do support the "right" of an individual and independent state to make its own rules about whether or not to own other people. That was kind of the reason we fought the bloodiest war in the NATION's history.

caw

Don said:

Correct. And in response to a long and detailed response describing exactly how blacbird had misstated my opinion, and specifically how the common wisdom that regulatory agencies protect society from rapacious corporations is flawed, his comeback was a retreat from the debate in the form of a not-even-particularly-original joke.

No defense against the points I raised concerning regulatory capture, rent-seeking or crony capitalism, just a retreat under the cover of humor from the philosophical derail he started.

Click to expand...

I was tired.

And I still think my comment was both appropriate and correct. Your solution to "protect society from rapacious corporations" is . . . a lot of verbiage, near as I can discern

caw

Should we ask for a cite for that (claim in post #48)? What other rights are supported by the libertarians Don knows?