Skip to main content

About that "free markets failed us into crisis" narrative...

... it's really worth reading Bill Bonner at Fleet Street Invest today:

Even Henry Kaufman, writing in today’s Financial Times, says that the Fed’s "libertarian dogma" prevented it from controlling the banks properly.

But the Fed is hardly a libertarian organization. It’s a banking cartel. As a cartel, it looks out for its member banks - and doesn’t hesitate to use state power to do so. There is nothing libertarian about it... and no dogma associated with it - except as Greenspan’s eyewash - that is even vaguely libertarian.

The Fed colluded with member banks to fix interest rates. In so doing, it helped create the biggest bubble in credit the world had ever seen. It was a terrible thing for the average fellow - who was lured deep into debt by rising house prices and cheap credit. But it was a great thing for the members of the Federal Reserve cartel. Profits in the financial sector - notably, the big Wall Street investment banks - soared.

But bankers are vulnerable to too much of a good thing - just like everyone else. Soon, they made the classic Wall Street mistake - they came to believe their own hype. Not only did they gin up trillions of dollars’ worth of preposterous financial instruments... they actually bought these debt bombs from each other.

This posed a grave danger to the nation’s economy... and to the banking system. Henry Kaufman claims the regulators dropped the ball because they put too much faith in the free market. But the regulators were little more than front men for the banks themselves. After Alan Greenspan came Henry Paulson as head of the Fed. He was probably still replying to messages at his old address when the crisis began. And the head of the New York Fed - now, US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner - was elected to his post by the very institutions he was supposed to be overseeing.

Neither of them was about to stop the party; they and their friends were having too much fun.


And it would be really very interesting to see somebody actually following up Steve Cordasco's lead regarding the details of insider trading in bank take-overs and the curious role played by a small coterie of former Goldman Sachs people. [You have to fast forward about 35 minutes in the show, or else skim the transcript.]

Because what's happening right now in DC still isn't about the difference between free markets and managerial capitalism, it's still about the profits and power of an extremely small group of people, who have absolutely no intention of allowing you to see behind the curtain what they are doing with trillions of your dollars.

Comments

Hube said…
Brief aside: Did you know Cordasco is a native Delawarean? He lived across the street from me growing up...
Nancy Willing said…
My own brother-in-law started in on my on my blog this morning because I have been keeping up with the news that keeps peeling away the onion skins surrounding the pile of crap that is this Wall Street bailout and I don't have a degree in economics...No Shit.
We need people to investigate what's happening and we need bloggers to blog about what is being reported. It matters.
Bowly said…
Distributed Republic had a great point on this topic today: "One of the reasons I think we libertarians might be missing opportunities for outreach with the Left and overstating them with the Right is that each group seems to think that the 'free market' means the current economic system."

http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2009/04/28/free-market-spotting

Popular posts from this blog

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 — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...