Comments (12)

• Mark Ennis

  Whistlin' past the graveyard now, sheesh.

  Published: June 5, 2009 12:48 AM

• Mac

  Hypocrisy is the art of the politician. And bureaucrats? They are but constrained politicians.

  Cheers

  Published: June 5, 2009 5:59 AM

• Lucas M. Engelhardt

  "These guys are usually better out of office than in. If we could just keep everyone out of office, we'd be good to go."

  Well said.

  Published: June 5, 2009 6:12 AM

• Bill R

  Greenspan, the culprit, as usual lagging real economists. From a masterpiece, Mr. Bailout, by Anton Mueller , from LvMI's very own Bailout Reader :

  "By functioning as a "lender of the last resort" in order to guarantee "financial system stability," central banks willingly provide a safety net for their debt-ridden governments and accordingly for the big players in the financial industry. This provision establishes an incentive for the governments to expand without end and for the financial intermediaries to opt for size at the cost of prudence in order to become "too big to fail." As bailout institutions with the promise of unlimited liquidity, it the central banks themselves that lay the groundwork for "financial distress" to emerge—not just as "episodes," but in a way that makes the modern financial system permanently fragile."

  How maddening!

  Published: June 5, 2009 7:08 AM

• Bill R

  Oh, and I should mention the above was written in 2004!!!

  Published: June 5, 2009 7:11 AM

• Bruce Koerber

  Money and Ethics
  Friday, June 5, 2009

  The Myth of “Too Big To Fail”

  Let’s look at the rallying cry of the interventionists. They say that “This or that is too big to fail.” There are many points of attack on this ridiculous claim.

  First of all, if bigness is a good thing then never would it get to the point where bigness could fail since being big is good. However if bigness is not necessarily a good thing then failing is what is destined to happen and is much needed.

  Second, it is strange that the interventionists would make the claim that ‘such and such is too big to fail.’ This is strange because the only way ’such and such’ was able to get ‘too big to fail’ was because of intervention. In other words the interventionists created the problem to begin with and now they want to make the problem even worse.

  Thirdly, which point of view does the interventionists take, what viewpoint is being adopted by the interventionists? How can it be considered a failure if the errors in the market are purged? Everyone benefits from errors being purged from the system except those who are using the system to unethically redistribute wealth to themselves and their buddies. So we find that the interventionists and the socialists and the fascists are the ones that benefit from having an economy that is not allowed to correct itself. No wonder they use propaganda to try to convince the masses that a free market is not a viable option.

  And finally as we approach the big counterfeiter with questions about its relevance (HR 1207), the reply of the interventionists is that the economy needs the Federal Reserve to fight inflation and to stabilize the economy as if it is too big to fail! It is not too big to fail. In fact, its failure is the correction that the economy needs!

  Published: June 5, 2009 8:26 AM

• J Cortez

  Can I believe it? Yes, I can.

  Greenspan is an opportunist hack. He might be more knowledgeable than most, but he is still a hack. The fact he is knowledgeable makes him more dangerous and more evil, in my opinion. This is a man that knew better, but still sold out. I can't help but see him as a traitor. He spoke out against central banks only to join one.

  The fact this man became Fed chair was bad enough. As is the case with every central bank manager, his policy decisions were bad, very noticeably in the long run. To me, the most damming thing about him was that incredibly stupid muppet show he did in front of congress where he said he was wrong to trust "unregulated markets" as if somehow his policies only existed in a void and somehow a central bank never intervened in the markets regularly.

  I can't stand Greenspan. I hope for a better world. One where he is vilified and scorned, not because he was once a true capitalist, but because he became an anti-market central banker.

  Published: June 5, 2009 8:27 AM

• Matthew

  Who is Alan Greenspan?

  Published: June 5, 2009 10:46 AM

• mikey

  He knows he's an old man with not much time left,he's trying to patch his damaged reputation, plus avoid going to hell.
  Keynes reputedly recanted also just before he died.

  Published: June 5, 2009 12:02 PM

• David Spellman

  "These guys are usually better out of office than in. If we could just keep everyone out of office, we'd be good to go."

  Truer words were never spoken. :)

  Published: June 5, 2009 3:07 PM

• I Hate Taxes

  Sorry but I don't see any wrong or fault in Greenspan, Obama, Bernanke, Bush and all the other politicians, statists and tyrants in this world.

  The fault lies in each American individual who accepts US dollars.

  You could refuse US dollars as payment, you could demand Gold or other things.

  But since you all accept US dollars, then shut the fuck up, you deserve what you got.

  You people are sheeple who pay lip service to the libertarian philosophy while espousing statism in your everyday lives.

  Nobody here is willing to stand, you are plastic people.

  It would seem that being plastic and sheeple is programmed in the human genome. If this is so then libertarianism will forever be an impossible dream.

  You all wait that everybody does the same thing before you do it.

  You are all affraid to stand alone against tyranny, you are all affraid to stand out of the statist crowd.

  You obey the various intrusive and tyrannical laws and regulations the government shoves down your throats.

  You accept their toilet paper money as payment.

  You even vote, thereby giving legitimacy to the whole system.

  If you ought to blame somebody, don't blame Obama, don't blame Greenspan.

  Blame yourselves !

  Published: June 5, 2009 7:23 PM

• Alexander S. Peak

  "I Hate Taxes" write, "You could refuse US dollars as payment, you could demand Gold or other things."

  No, actually the legal tender law (1) forces us to accept U.S. dollars for all debts (Title 31, § 5103) and (2) prevents us from minting metal coins and using them (Title 18, §§ 486 and 489). On this latter point, I recommend looking up the Liberty Dollar, which recently had its metal stock stolen by the federal government. Last I checked, this was going to be challenged in court.

  Further, there is nothing unethical in accepting a piece of paper in exchange for things, or in offering pieces of paper for things. It doesn't magically become unethical simply because Uncle Sam has placed his stamp on the paper.

  You write, "You even vote, thereby giving legitimacy to the whole system."

  Read up on Rothbard and Spooner. Neither believe that the state becomes legitimised because unnames people vote.

  Mr. Tucker writes, "These guys are usually better out of office than in. If we could just keep everyone out of office, we'd be good to go."

  So true. But I have to wonder, is someone like Ron Paul were to get elected to the Presidency, who would he nominate for the Fed? I mean, he won't be able to abolish the Fed without the consent of Congress, so if the Congress should balk at his suggestions (despite the clear mandate that would exist if he were to get elected), the best option left up Paul's disposal would be to nominate an Austrian to be chairman of the Fed. But if no Austrian is willing to accept the post, we would end up with another central planner like Greenspan or Bernanke.

  Solemnly yours,
  Alex Peak

  (DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post should be misinterpreted as supporting the existence of the state.)

  Published: June 6, 2009 8:11 PM