Barney Frank's Meatloaf Impersonation When it Comes to Freedom: Two Out of Three Ain't Bad (But It Ain't Good Enough, Either)
Here's Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) talking with Conservative News Service (CNS) who, like the Canadian Mounties, always seem to get their man when it comes interview:
"I would let people gamble on the Internet," Frank said. "I would let adults smoke marijuana; I would let adults do a lot of things, if they choose."
He added: "But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? The individual is not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems."
As Meatloaf documented so long ago, two out of three ain't bad (baby), but in this case, it really hurts worse than Phil Rizzuto's play-by-play in "Paradise By The Dashboard Light."
Frank is nothing less than a trickster figure in American politics, especially for us libertarians who believe that economic and civil liberties are conjoined at the hip, the Chang and Eng of what makes this miserable world worth suffering through. As the comment above suggests, Frank is as good as it gets on most lifestyle issues (indeed, he even had Reason's Radley Balko testify about repealing online gambling bans) and yet he's a real lummox when it comes to economic freedom. His role in the banking and housing crisis is genuinely godawful. Not only did he strongarm mortgage companies to extend more and more credit to shakier and shakier customers, he did so all while denying anything was amiss at the government-sponsored behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that literally underwrote the mortgage mess.
And Frank's at his worst again, now pushing The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009, which critics charge would vastly increase the level of complexity in lending and make it more difficult for low-income borrowers and others to get access to credit.
Frank is not nonplussed by that sort of chatter, or the very idea that all liberties should be considered indivisible.
CNSNews.com asked Frank … whether Frank's proposal might undercut personal responsibility and the freedom of individuals to make decisions.
"We're not just talking individual responsibility," Rep. Frank answered. "We have a world-wide economic crisis now, because of this. If it were purely individual responsibility, OK, that's why I disagree with the ranking member."
That, of course, is an argument constantly thrown against drug-taking and gambling (what about the children of addicts, etc.).
If we do in fact have a worldwide economic crisis (as opposed to a recession), it's clearly less because of a surfeit of "total freedom to take on economic obligations" by individuals and more about governments' inability either to leave markets alone in the first place or step aside when bad actors have to pay their own bills (including governments!).
If only Barney Frank and others like him in Congress would think their positions through a bit more and arrive at a consistent, and consistently libertarian, POV when it comes to recognizing that the right to smoke pot or play online strip poker means precious little without the economic freedom that helps you earn the money to buy pot or wager. If only…
In the meantime, here's Meatloaf ripping "Like a Bat Out of Hell" circa 1977, a simpler time when the Misery Index was busting out all over like, well, Meatloaf from his jeans:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
From Lemmy to Meat Loaf in three posts... ouch.
Nick Gillespie has become rantastic! I smell a cable TV show!
But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society?
The Red Queen Barney wants to send federal troops to disband the California State Legislature?
Frank is as good as it gets on most lifestyle issues ... and yet he's a real lummox when it comes to economic freedom.
Isn't that the problem with left-liberalism/progressivism as a whole?
Yo, fuck Barney Frank. If I ever see that fat waste of life out on the street, I'm throwing rocks. He's such a great argument FOR torture.
Christ on a cracker, I hate that man.
Nick Gillespie has become rantastic!
I like angry Nick. Outrage seems to stimulate his creativity.
(Though I think he may have used "nonplussed" incorrectly.)
For the record, I believe Chang and Eng were joined at the liver, but your point still applies.
God, I hate Meatloaf (and Barney Frank). The best thing Meatloaf ever did was get shot in the head in Fight Club.
"In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name!"
The best thing Meatloaf ever did was get shot in the head in Fight Club.
I liked it when he killed a car.
Nick,
Keep on rantin'!
Also, love the cute pic of Amy Aklon in the left margin ads.
economic and civil liberties are conjoined at the hip
Neither will save you if your nation collapses into mass revolution as happened in Russia and France.
I'm missing something.
If he's bad because:
Not only did he strongarm mortgage companies to extend more and more credit to shakier and shakier customers
but he's also bad because:
pushing The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009, which critics charge would vastly increase the level of complexity in lending and make it more difficult for low-income borrowers and others to get access to credit
What exactly should he be doing?
Also, love the cute pic of Amy Aklon in the left margin ads.
You have now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, HEB, that you are insane. I always suspected it.
Drug War Update: This Pro-Legalization youtube video came out today. Apparently there's a phone petition drive going arround to legalize marijuana. I don't know if it is the cause, but Senator Menendez's phone line and the White House phone line were both beyoung capacity when I tried to call.
Does anyone know how much money Phil Rizzuto has received in royalties for Paradise By the Dashboard Light?
Here's the series title: "Nick Gillespie, Libertarian Paper Tiger". Each week, Gillespie rails against some politician, while a cutaway shows the politician laughing over how nothing Gillespie rants about will have any sort of impact on their career.
If Reason weren't just a paper tiger more interested in sucking up to power instead of fighting it, they'd do something like this.
We all know what would happen if Reason tried to do something like that: they'd make JoeKlein look like EliotNess.
Barney Frank is a very bad meatloaf recipe. At least eight or nine entries away from placing in just about any county fair just about anywhere in our country.
Folks don't exactly eat meatloaf in Barn(acl)ey Land. They prefer Shillfish.
Hey, Nick. Wrong link on The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009. You just re-linked to the Meat Loaf songfacts page.
J sub - probably just a one-off fee, but he did get a gold record for the album's success.
back row dude, how bout he just stay the hell out of something he obviously has no understanding of?
I wouldn't trust Frank to balance my checkbook, much less help me decide which mortgage product I should get.
Meatloaf gave hope to all of us folks of rotund proportions that we could maybe, like posibly, have sex with gorgeous women.
I shall always have a tender spot if my heart for Meat.
Goddam Orange Line Special,
You sound like Gillespie's jilted high pulp lover. As if libertarian ranting will go anywhere.
Me, I just upload my videos to youtube. Check this recent post. Gigawagaloogazabillions of hits! Fuck AppleGillesPie. Get it? Har, Har, Gilles is a French name. I knew it! Fuckin' froggy faker.
OK...drum roll...here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShTm8MnUAjo
LoneWacko, You Erect my Offense,
You seely beetch
There is some question about the legitimacy of the 973 polling phone number from the youtube video I linked to, however even if you don't call the 973 number, at least call your reps in DC. Here are the White House number (202-456-1111) and the Capital Hill number (202 - 224-3121). You can verify them at the White House and Congressional websites.
How about letting lendors and their customers arrange their own goddamn affairs?
I recall my older brother buying Bat Out of Hell based solely on the cover art and name. To this day he will say he has never felt more ripped off. No truth in advertising there.
Just once, I'd like to hear an interviewer on The NewsHour or some other talking heads gabfest let loose on Fwank, thusly:
In H.S. debate it was known as the "spread offense/defense" - make so many points that your opponent can't possibly answer them all in the time allotted. Fwank uses it all the time, even though he is prone to its often fatal flaw. A poor spread debater can speak so fast that the points he thinks he's making aren't absorbed by the judge or audience. Combine breaking the audio speed limit with a speech impediment, such as Fwank's almost sterotypical lisp, and unless your judge is an ex-debater used to "listening fast," you just may lose.
Mind you, I am not a fan of the O'Reilly trick of potting down anybody who disagrees with the moderator just as they are making a telling point, but Bawney seems to think that everyone in the media to the right of Jim Hightower is about to kill his mike.
Kevin
Great blog!
You should check this one out too: http://www.riseofreason.com
Why do you guys take the bait when a leftist like Frank starts talking about decriminalizing pot or legalizing online gambling? He's all for it, until someone actually does it. Then who do you think will be the first in line to punish the "evil wealthy corporations" who are "exploting" the "gambling and substance addictions" of The People...just like the evil banks "misled" The People into borrowing from them?
What exactly should he be doing?
He could start by acknowledging the efficiency (and historical success) of willing-buyer/willing-seller capitalism.
If he wants to control the terms on which money is borrowed and lent, he should open his own goddam bank, and loan HIS money, not mine.
I'd love to see Americathon again.
He added: "But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? The individual is not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems."
This can be used to justify any intervention in private life as well. There are few personal choices that do not have some kind of economic effect. The health-care/lifestyle intersection is a case in point that has been discussed often before.
It's just a short step from there to porn or teen pregnancy.
This is like the externalities debate we were having in another thread. If you start including negative impacts on your life from changes in people's behavior (people buying houses, people not buying houses), then you're basically arguing that you've got some sort of ownership right over people's status quo economic behavior. I.e. "My livelihood is dependent on home prices rising. If home prices fall because of a rise in forclosures, thats a negative externality, therefore I'm entitled to control other peoples home-buying behavior - such as loan terms - to protect my livelihood."
It's screwed up. You can't own consumer choice patterns.
Shut the fuck up, LoneWacko.
Shut the fuck up, Barney Frank, you gigantic boil in the already-festering armpit that is the Capitol.
Shut the fuck up, all you Meatloaf haters. He would do anything for love, but he won't... do... that. But you would, assholes.
He would do anything for love, but he won't... do... that.
I've always assumed Mr. Loaf was talking about pegging.
Or at least Chris Kelly hopes so. He likes 'em meaty.
No new article in over two hours? What are they doing on Conn. Ave, drawing the print edition by hand?
SF,
Missed you on the pr0n thread.
"No new article in over two hours? What are they doing on Conn. Ave, drawing the print edition by hand?"
Well, it is Friday and Fridays tend to be a bit slower. I do somewhat agree with you though. Fuckers need to kick it up a notch, Emeril style.
Thanks, I missed the gist of the post.
Frank's comment only needs one small change to be accurate:
But allowing Bananke and Paulson total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? These individuals are not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems.
FTFY, Barney.
I look forward to the day someone takes a baseball bat to Barney Frank's face. I hope they videotape it too.
Orange Line Special | April 24, 2009, 1:35pm | #
Here's the series title: "Nick Gillespie, Libertarian Paper Tiger".
much better than "Lonewacko, whateverthefuckian self-published pussy cat with a shitty website"
Shut the fuck up.
Yeah, Bat Out Of Hell was a total rip, you expect metal from that album cover but what you get is the most dorky glee club shlock singing imaginable.
I remember my older brother had this, Cooper's Killers, and Cat Scratch Fever on 8 Track. Guess which one of the three got tossed out of the Trans Am?
Bam!
I take issue with that demotivator.. Wouldn't Barney Frank have been in bed with Freddie Mac?
No new article in over two hours? What are they doing on Conn. Ave, drawing the print edition by hand?
Staff meeting.
It takes balls to argue that financial markets should be unregulated right now.
Or a case of being the victim of right-wing propaganda regarding Rep. Frank's role in the financial crisis.
It takes ignorance to blame the financial mess on an unregulated financial industry.
You tell 'em, Tony! Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were financially sound and doing the work of the people until some right winger numbskulls started sniffing around and criticizing their mission.
It takes balls to argue that financial markets should be unregulated right now.
It takes balls to argue that one of the most heavily regulated industries in the western economy failed because we didn't have enough regulations.
It takes monster balles to claim that the best way to avoid crony capitalism where regulated industries flood both political parties with campaign cash to get more favorable regulation is by having the government take an owernship stake in the companies that make those compaign contributions to the very people that both own it and regulate it.
Say what you will, but Meatloaf has a great set of pipes. And Jim Steinman's songs, while repetetive, are ear candy.
It takes even more monster balls, for the person who is responsible for the tinkering that led to the disaster to make the claim that more tinkering is what we need, and if only he'd been aloud to tinker more, everything would still be peachy. Good fucking grief.
DAMNIT! Noisewater beat me to it.
The problem is that he's murdering the concept of externalities. Externalities occur when there are costs imposed on third parties not associated with either of the two contracting parties in an association. TWO PEOPLE SIGNING A MORTGAGE CONTRACT, WHILE ONE OF THEM CANNOT PAY THE CONTRACT AND IS BEING STUPID, IS *NOT* AN EXTERNALITY!
You hold onto the "Fannie and Freddie caused the crisis" trope like a security blanket. What proof do you have? Most of the bad loans were not made through Fannie and Freddie.
BTW, is LoneWacko for real?
Say what you will, but Meatloaf has a great set of pipes. And Jim Steinman's songs, while repetetive, are ear candy.
Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, and I think he is a vocal pyromaniac, but the music ain't my cup of tea.
I take issue with that demotivator.. Wouldn't Barney Frank have been in bed with Freddie Mac?
Fannie Mae was born into this world Franklin Michael. Modern science took care of the rest. There's no conflict of interest here on Bawneys end!
If only Barney Frank and others like him in Congress would think their positions through a bit more and arrive at a consistent, and consistently libertarian, POV when it comes to recognizing that the right to smoke pot or play online strip poker means precious little without the economic freedom
ChicagoTom referred to this as 'compartmentalization'. I thank him for that.
That's right, tell these assholes, Tony! Freddie and Fannie had nothin' to do with this. Nothing! These are public institutions so you can't consider it a bailout. These are investments we are making in them for the good of the people.
Ha ha, I get it. Barney Frank is a gay.
You hold onto the "Fannie and Freddie caused the crisis" trope like a security blanket. What proof do you have? Most of the bad loans were not made through Fannie and Freddie.
I love this. If Freddie and Fannie didn't make any bad loans, what happed to those entities? Why the crisis? If all the paper that Freddie and Fannie held was solid, then they're financially sound, no?
No, you keep suckin' on that Freddie and Fannie binky. Here's an article from fucking 2004... 2004! on Fannie. But yeah, nothing to see here, move along.
franglo | April 24, 2009, 3:49pm | #
Ha ha, I get it. Barney Frank is a gay.
People think I come across as angry, but that is just a by product of doing my job effectively. I am actually quite a happy guy.
Say what you will, but Meatloaf has a great set of pipes.
Which he's used to parlay one album-- ONE ALBUM fer chrissakes, for something like 50 years. What's next, Bat Out of Hell XXVIII, the Revenge of Bat Out of Hell?!!
Hey Paul, did you ever consider taht Fannie and Freddie went under because their borrowers were poor and were hit the hardest by teh financial crisis caused by the large unregulated banks?
This
Hey Paul, did you ever consider taht Fannie and Freddie went under because their borrowers were poor and were hit the hardest by teh financial crisis caused by the large unregulated banks?
Contradicts,
You hold onto the "Fannie and Freddie caused the crisis" trope like a security blanket. What proof do you have? Most of the bad loans were not made through Fannie and Freddie.
So, you are now saying FM&FM defaults are a part of the equation?
Hey Paul, did you ever consider taht Fannie and Freddie went under because their borrowers were poor and were hit the hardest by teh financial crisis caused by the large unregulated banks?
No, a very, very large percentage of the people in trouble are/were middle to upper-middle class homeowners who borrowed far more than they could afford to pay back because rising home prices would allow them to sell of at in the future with a substantial financial gain.
Unfortunately, home prices turned south and they are/were fucked.
You need to go read the archives where joe valiantly defended low-income borrowers who were not the real culprits in the fiasco.
alan,
Ask the spoof troll. This is only my second actual post.
And I'm starting to feel that lack of motivation to argue that comes with a Friday afternoon.
Okay, I admit it, I just wanted to play Devil's Advocate and if my questions made me look like an utter tool, I figured I would use the handle of somebody who's already an utter tool.
Hey Paul, did you ever consider taht Fannie and Freddie went under because their borrowers were poor and were hit the hardest by teh financial crisis caused by the large unregulated banks?
But the loans were good. They were solid.
Little timetable shifting? Financial crisis caused good loans to go bad. Or was it bad loans that caused the crisis? I'm so confrused.
None of this is to mention that a lot of the initial bad loans were upper-middle class yuppies who just had to have the super-cute craftsman with high ceilings and wooden floors in the quaint, walkable neighborhood. And they were willing to take a loan on any terms to get it.
My vote is still bad loans causing the crisis. Fannie and Freddie didn't make all the bad loans, they just bought the paper that other people made. So Fannie and Freddie were mere dupes of the unfettered free market. Fooled by the cruel and capitalistic evil-doers. Innocent babes in the woods of the financial markets.
Read that article...from 2004! Freddie and Fannie were committing fraud.
Your attempt to cover that up and thus paint Freddie and Fannie as unwitting victims of the crisis is dubious, to say the least.
But then again, the crap I posted *was* gleaned from past joe, MNG, Chad, or Tony posts.
Guy Who Was Spoofing Tony
Well that suck. Spoof troll, go fuck yersef.
Paul, seriously, even though I posted exactly what Tony would post whenever confronted with the Fannie and Freddie point, the two posts were not actually Tony's posts from today.
Besides, it's unproductive to focus on Fannie and Freddie. Federal Reserve. Arguably the agency of the federal government with the most influence over the economy, and with the most capacity to encourage a problem on the scale of the housing bubble.
But to the extent that FMx2 were responsible for the financial crisis, it was because of a lack of regulation--which Rep. Frank himself tried and failed to pass until 2007 because of Republican majorities and a president who opposed them.
I don't see how you can have this both ways.
"Well that suck. Spoof troll, go fuck yersef."
Oh, come on, it's not like I had Tony act as big of an ass as he often does. In reality, I think my spoof was an improvement on the actual model. Less full of "you guys suck" asides, which form roughly half of all Tony posts.
I don't think libertarians suck. I just wish they'd learn a little practicality. Rep. Frank is better than just about every Republican on certain issues you guys champion, so why not celebrate?
He is a leftwing liberal, so it's silly to be surprised that he's in favor of tighter financial regulations.
"But to the extent that FMx2 were responsible for the financial crisis, it was because of a lack of regulation"
Really, it had nothing to do with the government's guarantee to back the loans FM*2 made? Nothing at all?
"Rep. Frank is better than just about every Republican on certain issues you guys champion, so why not celebrate?"
Gee, he's better on legalizing marijuana and online gambling, both of which I have no interest in, and terrible on not running up deficits and not confiscating a large portion of my income, which I have a great deal of interest in. Yeah, lots of reason to celebrate.
"Jim Hightower"
Jim Hightower is quite possibly the most ignorant human ever.
Besides, it's unproductive to focus on Fannie and Freddie. Federal Reserve. Arguably the agency of the federal government with the most influence over the economy, and with the most capacity to encourage a problem on the scale of the housing bubble.
Yes, and I would add the forensics point to Paulson screwing up the Washington Mutual buyout, but Frank being the subject of the thread, obviously, he being their protector, the role of Freddie and Fannie in this deserves a shout out.
Kinnath, joe made a decent defense of the CRA as at best being a minimal culprit in this which I too felt was a weak argument coming from some quarters, but the other arguments on Fannnie and Freddie didn't really fly.
I mean, seriously, stop me before I suffer a stroke from the euphoria.
Honestly, I think the only member of Congress who's not mostly or completely full of it is Ron Paul. And I also think he's a little nuts.
So, Guy who spoofed...
Are you maybe leaning towards the idea that Federal Reserve manipulated all of this while an already unpopular president would take the blame from the left and a dumbass Congress would take the blame from the right and put one of their own in place at Treasury with the in-over-his-head-just-wanted-to-be-president so they could own teh world?
Eh, why not? We're all fucked anyway. So...
I agree! Kill the Fed bastards!
Plus, Tony, how long before a bunch of people go broke from online gambling and Frank leads the charge against "teh evul corporashunz who exploited online gambling FOR THEIR OWN GAIN, OMG!"
engineer,
I'm fully aware you're an anti-tax zealot to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. I'm sure others around here are happy that a prominent congressman is vocal about his support for legalized weed.
Nick,
No, I think the Federal Reserve was operating under the erroneous assumption that they could maintain an economic boom forever through low interest rates. No nefarious purposes, just shortsightedness.
Tony, has Frank ever written legislation to allow people to gamble online or do drugs legally? Just because he would vote for something, doesn't make him good. He has to actually do something good, unlike what he actually DOES in Congress (economic meddling) which is all bad all the time.
I don't think libertarians suck. I just wish they'd learn a little practicality. Rep. Frank is better than just about every Republican on certain issues you guys champion, so why not celebrate?
I would if he were the drug czar, but as he's on the banking committee, his opinions (which I disagree with) on banking issues carry disproportionate weight.
But to the extent that FMx2 were responsible for the financial crisis, it was because of a lack of regulation--which Rep. Frank himself tried and failed to pass until 2007 because of Republican majorities and a president who opposed them.
Um, that's exactly what we dispute, RealTony: that "lack of regulation" is responsible. In fact, I claim that excessive regulation in the form of various initiatives to promote home ownership were ultimately responsible for the housing bubble. FMx2 were the conduits by which this regulation was enacted. Barney INSISTS that this has nothing to do with it - even as people from his own party (like that brave kid from Harvard last week) call him out on his nonsense.
Come on, Guy. Mine was way more fun. And I was giving you all the credit. Embrace the Conspiracy!
Tony, I am not anti-tax zealot "to the exclusion of everything else". I would prefer a flat tax. I would even be happy to have some of the burden shifted to carbon taxes (shifted, not created as an additional burden) which you should actually agree with, given your monomaniacal focus on AGW.
That said, taxes aren't the only issue. An irrational, pro-cyclical monetary policy also strikes me as an important issue, and one that receives far less attention that it should. And I consider the drug war an absurd waste of money. However, in the grand scheme of stupid things the government does that anger me, not being able to ever smoke pot ranks fairly low.
Supposedly FMx2 did not have a government guarantee. But everyone knew that Frank, Dodd, and other congresscritters would not allow FMx2 to fail.
No, I think the Federal Reserve was operating under the erroneous assumption that they could maintain an economic boom forever through low interest rates. No nefarious purposes, just shortsightedness.
I'll agree that the Fed kept rates to low, to long. But that's not the whole story. When the Fed raised rates, long rates (which the fed can't manipulate, and on which mortgage rates are based) stayed low. Remember Greenspan's "conundrum"? The reason for this is partly global economic imbalances (China's massive product oversupply and currency devaluation) and partly crap like FMx2 keeping risk spreads artificially low at the behest of people like Barney Frank (and Bush!)
An irrational, pro-cyclical monetary policy also strikes me as an important issue, and one that receives far less attention that it should.
cite please.
"Barney INSISTS that this has nothing to do with it - even as people from his own party (like that brave kid from Harvard last week)"
There's a brave kid from Harvard? Could I have a link?
FMx2 were part of the equation, but focusing on their role to the exclusion of other more important causes is nothing but part of the discredited GOP attempt to shift blame to poor people.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall, the failure of the SEC to do its job, a lax Fed and very low interest rates, and bogus debt assessments by ratings agencies are the proximate causes of the crisis. FMx2 was involved to the extent that it was not regulated properly. Hence, the cause was a lack of regulation.
Thanks domoarrigato,
For anyone to state that Frank tried to reign in FM&FM is glaringly dishonest. The man who infamously stated, "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of crisis?" I was going to go find some old Boston Globe links for tony to chew on, but I think you saved me the trouble.
"a problem on the scale of the housing bubble."
Here's what happened.
The dot.com bust made everyone ask, "Jesus! Where am I gonna invest? Oh, I know, real estate. It always appreciates!"
But of course it didn't.
So now everyone asks, "Jesus! Where am I gonna invest now??? Oh, I know, GOLD!!! It always appreciates! And it's a great hedge against inflation!!!"
Gold is the next one to burst.
And after that, Municipal Bonds, which is where the busted gold money will go.
Do I have to? I was up all night finishing my term paper, and I don't feel like citing another damn thing.
I mean heap scorn on FMx2 all you want, but it's dishonest not to also implicate, say, the mortgage industry which not irrelevantly bankrolled a lot Republican campaigns.
If only Frank would listen seriously to the senior Republican on his own committee once in a while, instead of rolling his eyes and reflexively dismissing everything Ron Paul says.
Or go back and read the transcripts of their hearings and wait for the light bulb to go on about who saw all of this coming....
Craig,
Tony says we're not supposed to talk about that. Remember, Barney Frank is the prescient hero who tried to stop all this before it became a problem and is trying to save us all from the evul free market fundamentalists!
I don't think libertarians suck. I just wish they'd learn a little practicality.
Yeah, right.
Believing that politicians put aside their own personal and political goals to promote the interests of the little guy is a vastly more practical way of looking at things.
I mean heap scorn on FMx2 all you want, but it's dishonest not to also implicate, say, the mortgage industry which not irrelevantly bankrolled a lot Republican campaigns.
If you think I am shilling for the GOP you are grossly mistaken. Buuut, the mortgage industry donated a lot to Deomcrats too. People who benefit from rent seeking like to play both sides of the field, just in case. And I did mention Bush upthread.
Glistening Lamb's Marrow,
Nope, the bubbles are deflated for now, we have seen too much collective destruction of balance sheet to get another bubble just now. I agree gold is a bubble - but you see that the bubble flowed into sucessively smaller markets as time went on: first stocks, then housing, then oil, then gold. the return of beanie babies is next, but no one will notice.
"I mean heap scorn on FMx2 all you want, but it's dishonest not to also implicate, say, the mortgage industry which not irrelevantly bankrolled a lot Republican campaigns."
[Citation Needed]
"Nope, the bubbles are deflated for now, we have seen too much collective destruction of balance sheet to get another bubble just now. I agree gold is a bubble - but you see that the bubble flowed into sucessively smaller markets as time went on: first stocks, then housing, then oil, then gold. the return of beanie babies is next, but no one will notice."
Bubbles is bubbles.
If you think I am shilling for the GOP you are grossly mistaken. Buuut, the mortgage industry donated a lot to Deomcrats too. People who benefit from rent seeking like to play both sides of the field, just in case. And I did mention Bush upthread.
Of course this is true, but what was the mortgage industry seeking in return? And who were the ones willing to give it to them?
There's no way you can get around the fact that, generally speaking, a lack of regulation was the culprit here. You're admitting as much when you implicate FMx2.
it's dishonest not to also implicate, say, the mortgage industry which not irrelevantly bankrolled a lot Republican campaigns.
It's a good thing Chris Dodd never took any money from the evil predatory lending cabal.
"Of course this is true, but what was the mortgage industry seeking in return? And who were the ones willing to give it to them?"
Ooh Ooh! Bailout! Memememememememe!
There's no way you can get around the fact that, generally speaking, a lack of regulation was the culprit here. You're admitting as much when you implicate FMx2.
Eh? Come again?
FM&FM are Oskar Lange type creations designed to do mimic what private parties do through a beauracratic process instead of an entreprenual one, but without the risk involved. They are the managerial state you advocate.
Tony, these are you standard DNC talking points:
FMx2 were part of the equation, but focusing on their role to the exclusion of other more important causes is nothing but part of the discredited GOP attempt to shift blame to poor people.
Wrong, Blaming Fmx2 is not blaming "poor people" - it's blaming those who pander to poor people to advance their political careers. By hiding behind the skirts of the poor, you enable this perverse and foul behavior.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall
If anything, the repeal of GS helped create institutions that were better able to withstand the downturn. The banks that actually got bankrupted (LEH, GS, AIG sort of) were not impacted by the repeal.
the failure of the SEC to do its job,
This is proof that regulation doesn't work, not that we need more of it. I have worked with the SEC first hand, they are the best buffoons a government salary and work ethic can buy.
a lax Fed
agreed between Q1 2003 and Q3 2004
and very low interest rates,
China, FMx2 partly to blame - since I assume you mean long term rates
and bogus debt assessments by ratings agencies
Or how about excessive regulatory based reliance on said debt ratings. If not for that, debt ratings would be nothing more than an opinion, asshole not included.
FMx2 was involved to the extent that it was not regulated properly. Hence, the cause was a lack of regulation.
Except that it's very existence, and subsequent use as a tool to manipulate is a result of government meddling.
So, you're basically 170 degrees off.
I've always assumed Mr. Loaf was talking about pegging.
Or at least Chris Kelly hopes so. He likes 'em meaty.
Dear Sugarfree,
I don't think "pegging" means what you think it means.
PS: Noob!
a lack of regulation was the culprit here.
Please: what regulation, Glass Steagal is irrelevant and was repealed by Clinton anyway. What magic regulation would you impose that would have stopped this - all else being held equal?
Dear Sugarfree,
I don't think "pegging" means what you think it means.
PS: Noob!
Oh dear, this could get interesting...
and bogus debt assessments by ratings agencies
Why would you not give anything with a government guarantee attached anything less than a AAA rating when the rating is an assessment of risk for the investing party, and not society in general?
" Glass Steagal is irrelevant and was repealed by Clinton anyway"
id also point out that the US was the esception to the rule with Glass Steagal. Every other major industrialized nation has allowed merging of finanical industries. Many of them even allow non-financial companies to merge with industrial ones. And in all cases, this has never happened anywhere else before.
Plus anyone who points to removing Glass Steagal as the culprit needs to explain why and how. They just cant say "ha a deregulation... i win!" How did allowing banks and insurance companies to merge possibly cuse this mess?
it has far more to do with lose monetary policy from the fed, mixed with massive foreign capital inflows and then channeled into housing via an overleveraging fannie and freddie. That how the bubble formed and its popping is why we have this mess.
Why would you not give anything with a government guarantee attached anything less than a AAA rating when the rating is an assessment of risk for the investing party, and not society in general?
Lots of AAA CDO's achieved that status through over-collateralization that turned out not to be "over enough", bad default assumptions, and insurance wrappers from companies that also did not have government guarantees. So this is somewhat misleading.
Please: what regulation, Glass Steagal is irrelevant and was repealed by Clinton anyway. What magic regulation would you impose that would have stopped this - all else being held equal?
I think it's manifest that Glass-Steagal was not irrelevant. Notice the lack of financial crises on this scale between the great depression and now.
There's plenty of evil in the GOP on other issues that I'm not gonna lay all the blame at their feet. Clinton was a culprit the Reagan revolution in too many ways, in my opinion (not that he had much choice).
Banks should never have been allowed to engage in the high-risk speculation that led to the crisis. This speculation was in no way encouraged by too much regulation, but rather an innovation of a too-unchecked marketplace.
How did allowing commercial banks and insurance companies investment banks to merge possibly cuse this mess?
Sorry to pick nits...
This speculation was in no way encouraged by too much regulation, but rather an innovation of a too-unchecked marketplace.
Well, I've listed at least one way in which it was encouraged by regulation - so just saying the opposite is kind of repetative. Care to try and refute my assertion?
I have to go start my weekend, but I'll check back on you Tony, and see if you have anything substantive to add to this apart for DNC talking points.
Notice the lack of financial crises on this scale between the great depression and now.
Ironic that the democrats want to let 17 year olds get abortions or the morning after pill without a parent's consent, but if you want a credit card and you are under 21, you have to have parental consent?????
"Banks should never have been allowed to engage in the high-risk speculation"
But thats the problem tony... no one thought mortgages were "high risk", inluding your government overseers who you put so much trust in regulating correctly. In fact the Government fo years were pushing more mortgages in every which way.
Also, you seem to not understand what repealling Glass-Steagle did. In no way did Glass Steagle prevent anyone from "higher risk speculation." In fact most of the institutions that went belly up, Countrywide, Indymac, WaMu were not effected by removing glass steagle at all. They were just banks. And Glass Steagle in no way prevented bad loans or over levergage of institutions.
Plus, the US was the exception to the rule. Most countries have always allowed the merging of investment banking, commerical banking and insurance, and they have never had such a crisis. Other then mere correlation, what is the logical argument for how reppealing Glass Steagle led to this crisis? Please spell it out to me. I have yet to ever hear anyone explain this dynamic.
So, you stoop to the level of the Democrats and make fat jokes to prove your point?
Novel.... Simplistic, but quite novel.
....and by the way; on the behalf of fat people everywhere:
Fuck you. Seriously... fuck you. You skinny bastards have zero clue.
"Ironic that the democrats want to let 17 year olds get abortions or the morning after pill without a parent's consent, but if you want a credit card and you are under 21, you have to have parental consent?????"
That makes perfect sense. Abortion is legal. A 17-year-old girl has reproductive rights. Simple as that.
But give her a credit card and she'll just use it to charge a bunch of slutty clothes from American Apparel, a case of wine via the Internet, a room at the Hilton, and then get knocked up all over again.
It's not that difficult to understand, people.
If only the Fed had allowed Buffett to buy out LTCM.
For those of you who don't get the reference in the picture, Frank's boyfriend of 10+ years was Herb Moses, a '90s Fannie Mae executive who helped loosen lending restrictions. But don't worry: Frank assured everyone there was no conflict of interest. What a relief!
Thanks, Papaya. I was wondering what the "literally" referred to.
OT - my favorite fake motivational poster hier.
I think it's manifest that Glass-Steagal was not irrelevant. Notice the lack of financial crises on this scale between the great depression and now.
Tony is absolutely right. Between 1933 and 1999, the Glass Steagal Act kept the US safe from financial crises, pirate attacks, Global Warming and many other perils besides.
From his own lips
What exactly should he be doing?
Nothing. Nothing at all. He's done enough damage to this country already.
I think it's manifest that Glass-Steagal was not irrelevant. Notice the lack of financial crises on this scale between the great depression and now.
Can you explain how the things Glass-Steagal prohibited were not present in other countries banking rules and those countries have had little to no issue? Or are you just drawing the correlation on nothing more than an anecdotal comparison
Damnit hit submit before I was done.
oops.
"Frank is as good as it gets on most lifestyle issues ... and yet he's a real lummox when it comes to economic freedom.
Isn't that the problem with left-liberalism/progressivism as a whole?"
not really. progressives/liberals are also terrible with lifestyle issue freedom. see: speech, right of businesses to choose to allow smoking, transfat, etc.
Lots of AAA CDO's achieved that status through over-collateralization that turned out not to be "over enough", bad default assumptions, and insurance wrappers from companies that also did not have government guarantees. So this is somewhat misleading.
I meant 'implied guaranty' because it is a more realistic usuage of the term than a mere contractual arrangement, in our times.
Domo, if you were in the business of assessing risk (hell, you just my be, but for the sake of argument), and you had to assess if the government would bail out a particular product as a factor, would you have said, yes to the cases you mentioned? I know I would have even before Paulson, based on what I have witnessed with the FedGov reaction to Hurricane Hugo, without a doubt, yes.
The few exceptions, hedge funds where the managers are not significant players, and venture capitalist, especially in politicaly incorrect sectors of the economy.
Tony-
-which Rep. Frank himself tried and failed to pass until 2007 because of Republican majorities and a president who opposed them.
Which house(s) of Congress did the Repubs control in 2007?
Democrats, which is why he was finally able to pass it.
But to the extent that FMx2 were responsible for the financial crisis, it was because of a lack of regulation--which Rep. Frank himself tried and failed to pass until 2007
What. The. Fuck?
You have this exactly 180 degrees wrong.
It wast he REPUBLICANS who were trying to reign in Fannie and Freddie.
Barney Frank PERSONALLY INTERVENED to protect them from further regulation.
He was NOT pushing for more regulation. He was pushing to exempt them from the regulations that were applied to the private sector.
You don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about Tony.
here's Barney frank circa 2003 on Fannie mae and Freddie Mac :
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Hey Tony, you fuckwit piece of shit. Here is a fact for you:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/03/business/chi-re-fannie-unsold-home-0803aug03
I hope you choke on it and it kills you.
Lying liberal scum.
That there Barney Fag, uh, Franks likes a big meat loaf right up his putrid ol' round brown.
"Frank is as good as it gets on most lifestyle issues (indeed, he even had Reason's Radley Balko testify about repealing online gambling bans) and yet he's a real lummox when it comes to economic freedom."
Left liberals are good on civil liberties in the abstract. In practice, when they begin to realize how lifestyle issues affect their interventions into economic matters their attitudes on the specific issues become governed by utilitarianism and their own personal peccadilloes, not a coherent set of principles.
Down deep this is all about Barney's paternalism and incipient racism. He thinks one way about blacks and quite another about white libertines.
Hazel,
You don't know what you're talking about. You don't ever do anything but intone libertarian platitudes as if they're the beginning and end of all wisdom.
I'm tired of debating with people who won't even bother to go to Wikipedia to get some grasp on general facts.
I'm tired of debating with people who won't even bother to go to Wikipedia to get some grasp on general facts.
Because Wikipedia is, like, totally the ultimate resource.
"You don't know what you're talking about. You don't ever do anything but intone libertarian platitudes as if they're the beginning and end of all wisdom."
Uh, Hazel actually provided a link to the NY Times that backed up her assertion. Just because Barney Frank jumped the Fannie and Freddie ship in 2007, when the proverbial shit began hitting the fan, doesn't excuse him for shilling for the two banks back in 2003 when these regulations could have served some useful purpose besides covering his floppy asshole.
Really, Tony, you are the ultimate partisan shill douchebag. If you actually carried through on your "threat" to stop posting here, we wouldn't lose a thing in terms of intellectual depth or insight. But I highly doubt that you will, mostly because of what I've observed of your behavior since you began posting. It's become abundantly clear that, apart from your fellow travellers, most everyone here pisses you off. And you waste no opportunity to tell us, Lefiti-style, how stupid and irrelevant you think we all are. Which leads me to believe that you simply have a perverse desire to be pissed off. You're not interested so much in arguing, as simply berating. It feeds your ego to come here and say "You guys are stupid. If you would all only be more like me, you wouldn't suck so much."
"Left liberals are good on civil liberties in the abstract."
Left liberals are good on civil liberties...until something bad happens to a person who exercises them, and then suddenly it becomes necessary to regulate every activity related to the exercise of those liberties. I would bet a cool $10,000 bet, to any lefty who argues that Frank is better on civil liberties because, for example, he supports legalizing online gambling, that as soon as news comes out about people being bankrupted because they pissed away all their money on online poker, he would quickly lead the charge against the online gambling industry.
P.S. I know somebody else made this argument upthread, but I'm too lazy to cite it. Sorry.
If there was a tax on bullshit, Tony would be on the run from the IRS for deliquency.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Tony, EVERYONE who has been paying even modest attention to the subprime mortgage crisis knows that Barney Frank is probably the one person most directly responsible for sheilding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from stricter oversight back in 2003.
I can't help it that you are an ignorant fool.
Hazel,
Don't be too hard on the Tonster. As I explained above, he mostly does this to soothe his own fragile ego.
What opened my eyes to Tony's egomania/self-hatred bipolarism was when he explained that he "believed in government" because it kept his "boundless ambition in check".
Whoa! You wouldn't happen to have a link, would you?
Art P.O.G.
Wait, I remember this one. Tony said that on one of the "seasteading" articles. Basically, he claimed that all libertarians are really crypto-dictators and therefore any libertarian seastead would become a dictatorship, a few people (including myself) called bs on the notion that supporting a minimalist government somehow makes someone a little Caesar, and then he responded with some bs about how the government was good because it "kept his boundless ambition in check". He may have been joking, or, as I'm inclined to believe, he may have been dead serious.
Certainly, Tony does seem to alternate between being an egomaniac and being self-deprecating.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132796.html#comments
This computer's screwed, so unfortunately I can't embed the link. Tony's post is about 2/3-3/4 of the way through.
Darnit, that should have said "screwed up" not just "screwed".
I'm tired of debating with people who won't even bother to go to Wikipedia to get some grasp on general facts.
The entry on Barney Frank's involvement in FNM/FRE, like most Wikipedia articles on anything of importance, is nauseatingly long and full of non-sequiturs, trivial facts, and confusing statements. It pretty much fails to even have a coherent narrative. Why would anyone want to base their understanding of any issue on Wikipedia?
mark,
"Why would anyone want to base their understanding of any issue on Wikipedia?"
How dare you question the SoleSource of all Tony's subjects, the All-Knowing WIKIPEDIA!
economist,
I'm pretty sure that was someone spoofing Tony.
Or else, he was being facetious.
Anyway, I don't think he's totally unreformable. He at least makes an attempt at rational discourse, even if he frequently repeats talking points and falsehoods propagated by the partisan Democratic milieu.
After all the only major difference between liberals and libertarians is on economic theory. If one is at least modestly open to reason then they might be somewhat willing to reconsider the relationship between free markets and individual liberty.
The Wiki article actually covers Franks involvement in blocking reform of FNM/FME back in 2003.
It just then continues to discuss his ass-covering moves after the shit started hitting the fan.
But the notion that 2003 didn't lead directly to 2007 is just obvious BS. You can draw a straight line between the accounting scandels of 2003 and the subprime bender the FNM/FMA went on that contributed to getting so many subprime mortgages mixed into the securities market. After all they were explictly let off the hook on the condition that they push "affordable housing" even more.
"Anyway, I don't think he's totally unreformable. He at least makes an attempt at rational discourse, even if he frequently repeats talking points and falsehoods propagated by the partisan Democratic milieu."
That's what they said about joepboyle of Lowell, Massachusetts. And then one day he snapped, called us all jackasses, and left. I personally think that the disconnect between what they honestly believed and said before Obama's election and the forming reality now is causing the liberal posters to become increasingly unhinged. Note also that John, who seemed fairly-well unhinged several times during George Bush's presidency, is now normal.
Conclusion: Defending the party and president in power makes people go insane. Which is the great upside to being a libertarian: We're never in power, so we don't have to perorm incredible feats of mental acrobatics to defend our politicians.
"I'm pretty sure that was someone spoofing Tony.
Or else, he was being facetious."
Dude, Tony says stuff like that all the time,in complete and utter seriousness.
Correction: "perform incredible feats of mental acrobatics".
"After all the only major difference between liberals and libertarians is on economic theory"
I must respectfully disagree. Liberals and libertarians disagree on economic issues for a simple reason: most liberals are not in favor of liberty so much as equality. Their justifications for their positions on social issues (on which we're more likely to agree) generally derive from egalitarian rather than libertarian principles e.g. the liberal argument that drug laws are bad because they tend to have a disparate impact on minorities. Doubtless they do, and it's definitely an extra point against them, but it's not the chief reason (from a libertarian perspective) for why they are a bad idea. Some liberals might have a libertarian streak, which manifests itself in their positions on a number of relatively inconsequential social issues, but it is completely overridden by their egalitarian dispositions with respect to economic issues.
True, but I think a lot of liberals are just confused libertarians. There are lots of people who buy the gay marriage and drug legalization arguments on libertarian rather than egalitarian grounds. They just get sucked into the left-liberal side of the spectrum because that's what's around them, and end up supporting all the economic garbage merely because it happens to be attached to the program. Nevermind that the Marxist-socialist left deliberately insinuates itself into these kinds of issues to spread their propaganda. (See ANSWER.) You get this partisan identification thing going on where once someone starts thinking of themselves as "left" or "liberal" they start feeling compelled to support all the other junk associated with being "left" or "liberal".
"True, but I think a lot of liberals are just confused libertarians."
Meh. If they are, I've never met them.
With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.