When progressives make libertarian arguments and the WNJ censors itself

Today's story in the WNJ that Senator Carper, Senator Coons, and Governor Markell all oppose the reinstatement of anything resembling Glass-Steagall on our "too big to fail" banks is pretty damn predictable.

Those corporations bought and paid for these individuals a long time ago, and though Coons managed to keep his image of an actual liberal/progressive for longer than Carper and Markell, as they in the investment world: Sooner or later, there will always be a margin call ...

Curiously, however, the WNJ has scrubbed the following paragraph from its current online edition of the story:

Returning to Glass-Steagall would go further, but the legislation doesn't have much support in Delaware, where banks employ thousands and are powerful contributors to political campaigns.

It is, however, at least a little silver lining to find cassandra m of Delawareliberal in a rare fit of spouting libertarian economics in response:

There is little doubt that markets and banking would have been worse without TARP and the various other programs that used taxpayer funds to bolster the balance sheets of these banks. But the pain would have been short and sharp; the economic pain may have been shorter; and certainly the free market would have worked. Importantly, banks would have it built into their DNA that they own their own risk taking. Now they think taxpayers do.

One thing I can always agree with an intelligent progressive like cassandra is that the State has no business privatizing profit while it socializes loss.

Comments

delacrat said…

The "progressives" at DelawareLiberal have been bemoaning Tom Carper's fealty to the TBTF banks for years. Yet they failed to talk up Carper's 2012 primary opponent(Keith Spannarelli). Likewise, for the general election, they only bad-mouthed Alex Pires, but never a positive mention of Andrew Groff.

July 23, 2013 at 8:00 PM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

Search This Blog