What Does Esquire Think is Wrong With Alex Jones? He's Bad for Obama

The September issue of Esquire has a long, interesting, and surprisingly un-hostile profile of conspiricist radio host Alex Jones, not yet online that I could find.

But it is not, of course, completely uncritical. Here's about the most cutting thing author John H. Richardson has to say about Jones (after a few sideways, undetailed suggestions that some of the things he believes might not be strictly true):

...Jones goes back to Clinton killing Glass-Steagall and unleashing the banks. "That's why you can't trust this power structure."

Obama's been trying to pass regulations on Wall Street, I say, and the Republicans have fought it to the bitter end after the banks almost crashed the economy--and you're disempowering Obama with your rhetoric.

"I get that the establishment right-wing wants the wars, wants the torture," Jones says. "I get all that. But they've so leveraged us into a  Ponzi scheme, we can't get out of it. The banks are 'too big to fail.' That's what the bullets and all the preparation for martial law is, for when the whole thing goes under like Argentina."

So instead of attacking Obama, I tell him, you should be saying, "Let's get those regulations in."

For all you need to know on the historical and intellectual background of conspiracy thought in these here United States, note tomorrow is the official release date of our own Jesse Walker's excellent, illuminating (not to say Illuminati-ating) book The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    and you're disempowering Obama with your rhetoric.

    That really says it all doesn't it? What a cult.

  • wareagle||

    Obama's been trying to pass regulations on Wall Street, I say,..

    do you now? And based on what, his being the clubhouse leader in Street PAC money, perhaps? Because politicians are known for biting off the hand that feeds them.

  • Dweebston||

    He's run his reelection campaign, and it worked. So now is when the gloves come off. Now at last he'll power through the anti-Goldman Sachs et al. legislation, and wheel-and-deal with Republicans to see it passed a la the ACA. Just a matter of timing.

  • wareagle||

    no he won't because doing any of that requires work, something the man has little desire to do. He'll speechify, he'll campaign, and he'll blame the Repubs for (fill in the blank) because those things are all that Obama knows to do. They are his DNA.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Capital requirements have increased dramatically - thus lowering leverage at the big banks. Geithner's "stress tests" made them raise capital.

    And now the quality of asset is measured and shitty assets get valued like they should.

    There won't be another 2008 meltdown with the new rules in place.

    I know the LP hates rules but these fuckers have auto-bailout safeguards.

  • WTF||

    BUSHPIGS!!1111!!!CHRISTFAGS!!11!!!!!

  • Floridian||

    There is another safe guard to bail outs. Don't bail them out. When they crash, responsible banks buy the assets at a discount. When there are consequences for dumb actions people stop doing dumb things. Most of the credit unions were fine because they practiced sound lending because they were too small to be bailed out. No reason big banks can't lend sensible.

  • sarcasmic||

    If the banks weren't guaranteed bailouts, perhaps they would have had larger reserves on their own. People do strange things when they are aren't insulated from the consequences of their actions. They like become responsible and stuff. It's really fucking weird.

  • Floridian||

    Hmm. I don't think this is the first time we have posted essentially the same comment at the same time. Excuse me while I go examine my life.

  • sarcasmic||

    If your life is anything like mine the examination won't take very long.

  • Floridian||

    Work, drink, sleep, repeat. Yup you're right, that didn't take long.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    True that the banks were bailed out but it came at a high price to stockholders. Several were even completely wiped out.

    History shows that wiping out the owners has been no deterrent at all.

  • Floridian||

    Except for no one would keep their investment in banks that are likely to fail without bail outs. I'm not going to invest in my local restaurant if they have terrible food and service. In not going to invest in a bank with loose lending policies.

  • KPres||

    That's still a bailout, though. You need a system where depositors are at risk too before healthy business models will develop in banking.

  • #||

    That and what people miss is that it's not just the equity side that is relevent ot bailouts, it's debt too.

    Bondholders were bailed out, as were depositors. This is what allowed the banks to leverage so highly to begin with in the first place, because debtholders knew they were safe and would keep letting them leverage.

    And now Dodd-Frank explicitly has a debt bailout fund in it to prevent contagion, but that means bank debt holders will be gettibg future bailouts even if equity gets wiped out.

    And the capital requirment changes that PB keeps refering to were almost all in Basel III, which was a central bank agreement - not something having to do with Obama.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Basically with the new capital standards Obama inched closer to the Rothbardian nirvana of Full Reserve banking.

  • WTF||

    BUSHPIGS!!1111!!!CHRISTFAGS!!11!!!!!

  • KPres||

    Obama doesn't have anything to do with it, dingleberry. The Fed sets reserve requirements.

  • #||

    I have a feeling that PB doesn;t know what Basel III is, or what the difference between it and Dood-Frank is. Neither of which Obama had much to do with other than breathing when they happend.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It all circles back around to the idea that Obama wants to do good but the Right is standing in his way.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep. If only he could just pass legislation on his own without having to deal with those obstructionist Republicans. Like through executive orders and regulatory agencies.

  • Sevo||

    And not a word about Elvis' alien love child on the grassy knoll?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    So instead of attacking Obama, I tell him, you should be saying, "Let's get those regulations in."

    This really speaks to the cargo cult mentality so many on the left hold towards regulations. Jones is arguing that you can't regulate a system that's fundamentally corrupt to begin with; that only works when the people running things have a greater degree of honesty and integrity than our current crop of sociopaths.

    Richardson is arguing that all that's needed are a few government regulations and everyone will start respecting the rule of law again, which is ridiculous in the face of the last few years.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, Jones is channeling his conspiracy laden nutty Bircher roots - that evil Jewish bankers are the origin of all our problems.

    See also Ron Paul.

  • WTF||

    BUSHPIGS!!1111!!!CHRISTFAGS!!11!!!!!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    All bankers are Jews, shriek?

    How racist of you.

    Have you robbed a Jew for their Jew Gold yet?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Have you ever heard of a Jewish person named FederalReserveNoteMan?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    No, you're sucking Obama's cock again.

    See also all your lefty friends.

  • np||

    Regulation, namely government control of money and the economy and banks, is exactly what got us into this mess and why big banks have as much control as they do.

    There has been more cronyism than ever, and true free markets only exist in the black (outlawed) and grey (unexamined) markets. Everything you do requires asking for permission first, and the rules setup by incumbents serve as barriers to entry.

    Look at: Ice Cream Bank Alarms Pennsylvania Regulators
    or what happened to Bernard von NotHaus for Liberty Dollar
    or what happened to Liberty Reserve, FACTA, or what they are trying to do now to bitcoin

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The banks almost crashed the economy--and you're disempowering Obama with your rhetoric."

    Jesus Christ, I don't know what's worse: the idea that regulation will somehow put a stop to the credit cycle or complete, total ignorance of the credit cycle even existing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement