OWS: Alec Baldwin Civilly Discusses Fed with Fellow Americans
"You have to have capital markets in this country," Hollywood star Alec Baldwin said Tuesday at an Occupy Wall Street audience with wearechange.org.
Baldwin emphasized the risk of allowing Paulites to "shutter" the Federal Reserve, and he declined to support Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), but he kept an open mind about monetary policy:
In this crazy hill of beans world where 49 percent of Occupiers supported and continue to support the Troubled Asset Relief Program; where the notion of a Fed-free economy is held by both the news and opinion pages of the New York Times to be a heresy as intolerable as the heliocentric system; where French farce buffoons like Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke are solemnly portrayed as heroes by Baldwin's fellow stars in white-knuckle HBO dramas, I give Alec Baldwin some credit for admitting he doesn't know.
So why does the New York Observer call this appearance "Alec Baldwin SMACKDOWN on Ending the Fed on Occupy Wall Street"? This defining down of the entire Smackdown concept makes me wish the WWE would copyright the word.
There was a similar case earlier this month, when the American Spectator launched a smackdown of Baldwin's breast cancer charity. The magazine discovered that known TARP beneficiaries had contributed to the fund. This is damning?
We don't live in an ethical experiment. If we did, it would be the ethical equivalent of Kobayashi Maru because it's effectively impossible for a contemporary American to avoid dealing with corporate welfare recipients. It's absurd to claim that every American who expresses anger at corporate welfare has to opt out of the only banking system our rulers allow us to have.
And speaking of opting out, I'd like to alert Baldwin that the financial system whose health he is worried about is now literally using police to prevent people from getting their own money out of their own accounts:
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
[stands and applauds]
That may be the greatest alt-text of all time.
Gambol!
Why did he have to make demands about supporting Ron Paul? I love fucking Ron Paul but I'm not going to demand other people love him because I say so. PERPETUATE THE PAUL SUPPORTER STEREOTYPE FURTHER PLEASE
The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.
Also. OCCUPY ALEC!
literally using police to prevent people from getting their own money out of their own accounts:
The comments to the YouTube video are incomprehensible.
Lots of jew hatred there. I have no idea what is going on in the video from the video...and the YouTube link is of no help either.
The comments to the YouTube video are incomprehensible.
Anyone who's spent more than 18 seconds on Youtube is painfully familiar with this concept.
There's a fun game you can play on youtube. Take a random youtube video that a reasonable number of people have viewed. Anything... "children playing in sprinkler". Then see how long it takes before a tete-a-tete over [current sitting administration] takes place.
Anyone who's spent more than 18 seconds on Youtube H&R is painfully familiar with this concept.
Am-I-right?
Gambol?
Looks bad.
Still, I'm interested in finding out more about what was going on.
Were these people Occupiers who decided to gum up Citi by repeatedly depositing and withdrawing twenty bucks?
Or did somebody at Citi flip out because they hadn't bathed since September?
Or did the cops go bonkers on their own?
It's pretty much as Tim describes it: Occupiers head over to a Citibank branch en masse to close their accounts in protest. Citi accuses them of trespassing and they all get arrested.
Gotta give Baldwin some respect here. It takes some cajones to really claim a level of ignorance on a subject in public, and he did it in a pretty fair and articulate way that I think reflects the way a lot of people feel. A lot of people have a considerable deal of frustration with and suspicion of the Fed, but there has not been a lot of public presentation of what a post-Fed world would actually look like.
Baldwin goes on the record as defending capitalism and markets, and says that banks aren't an inherent enemy, but rather a feature of a market system. His concern is a real one: would sufficient capital be available for business ventures in a post-Fed world. That seems like an eminently reasonable position, and the thing that Paul supporters need to do isn't refer to the history of the Fed, Jekyll Island, et al, but rather paint a picture of how capital will be created and flow in a world absent the fed.
It takes some cajones to really claim a level of ignorance on a subject in public, and he did it in a pretty fair and articulate way that I think reflects the way a lot of people feel.
Yup. 100% SMACKDOWN!
No, but really, he seemed perfectly reasonable.
but there has not been a lot of public presentation of what a post-Fed world would actually look like.
Kinda like 1910 what with stock trading and bond trading and banks and mortgages and savings accounts and pension funds and chattel loans and... You know, capital markets.
But probably without Medicare and ObamaCare and Social Security and the War on Drugs and... You know, entitlements.
Seriously, there would be plenty of money for business ventures that have a good chance of succeeding. Yes, banks et al will still be lending and making a few bad loans - venture capital existed before the Fed and it will exist without it. What won't exist is government handing millions to lame-ass businesses like Solyndra. And I expect that won't vanish either, it will just get curtailed by a healthy 90%.
Federal Reserve Now Backstopping $75 Trillion Of Bank Of America's Derivatives Trades
This is on CDS's created since the 2008 debacle. They took a hard lesson from TARP, namely that the taxpayer piggybank will be there for them.
Thieves, all of them.
What I would like to see is for some of the Mises/Rockwell/Paul supporters to tell the story of what the transition from FED to not-FED would look like.
I'm OK with living without a FED, but how do we get there. I've never seen something like that.
50 worthless internet point to whom ever can explain what would happen if you completely shuttered the Fed.
My first lesson (when I was a kid) on the Fed was that without it, we'd have far more recessions and depressions, caused by financial panics, which the Fed was designed to eliminate. Please ignore the Great Depression, the dot-com bust, the Great Recession, Black Tuesday etc.
Did I miss any?
Or that the Depression of 1920 (before the Fed had a chance to do anything) lasted fewer months than the Depression of 1929 lasted in years.
I don't really know. What I do know is since the Fed was created we have had Depressions, recessions, bubbles and massive inflation.
The real question is why there is double standard where people who stand with the status quo get to gloss over all the horrible shit that happens, while demanding that those call for a change predict every single possible consequence of that change.
We've already survived all horrible shit that already happened. That history is known. The future, and what horrible shit might happen is unknown. People fear the unknown.
But we already survived a pre-Fed world too. That world is also known.
"What would happen if we dismantle the federal reserve?"
After a couple of years of heavy drinking, you could once again probably buy a nice suit for $20.
you would have a system where you're not stealing from the poor and give to the rich.
I'm flabbergasted.
Alec Baldwin (ALEC BALDWIN!) is more lucid, reasonable, and artculate on the topic of capital markets and banking than 90% of our political class.
End times. Dogs, cats, etc.
That was my first thought as well RC. I've long had my misgivings about Alec (although always rather liked him as an actor) thinking that he fell into the camp of typical maginally-communist Hollywood celeb. Some of his past statements have led me to hold that belief, and made him appear rather knee-jerk and black+white in viewpoint. But I have to concede my error. By no means does that mean I entirely agree with him (his characterization of the SEC as non-interventionalist seems a bit absurd as capital markets are among the most highly regulated), and I don't think he recognizes the immense budgetary challenge and unsustainability of the geriatric welfare state, but he seems like a person who is willing to think issues through and won't simply parrot an opinion that he might otherwise be sympathetic to without sufficient evidence to support.
his characterization of the SEC as non-interventionalist seems a bit absurd as capital markets are among the most highly regulated
Yeah...i think there is a perception that Businesses are criminals and therefor when given a set of regulations will simply either bypass them or out right break the law.
It should not a be a surprise that non-criminal business organizations spend time and money and great care intentionally following the law.
Some people have a hard time understanding this for some reason.
The SEC is not throwing the flag every second because no business wants to foul. Doing so is against every interest that they have.
Don't get me wrong they are "criminals" of a sort and wall street did steal literally billions of dollars from American tax payers...what i think the link that is missing is that everything they did was perfectly legal and exactly what the government wanted them to do.
On the other hand, there is no harsher regulation than when you've leveraged (or fractionally reserved) to such an extent that you are insolvent/ bankrupt.
Basically Ron Paul wants the harshest (and simplest) regulation of capital markets while the status quo wants a megatons of regulations that are designed to be nothing but wrist-slaps.
there is no harsher regulation than when you've leveraged (or fractionally reserved) to such an extent that you are insolvent/ bankrupt.
^This. It's commonly repeated that without the bailouts we would have had an 'end times', but that premise ignores the fact that there were stable financial entities around that would have stepped in and taken over the old positions for pennies on the dollar.
Unfortunately the solvent parties didn't have crony friends in the government.
Price, it wasn't what some pinhead in washington said it was, it's what the market would bear.
What's in your wallet?
I dunno, he seemed like he thought the Fed was some kind of financial regulator like the SEC. At least he admits he really doesn't know, but still it's the same old knee-jerk "what will we do without strong regulation!!??" bullshit.
I don't want to denigrate him for being an Average American. But until we get past this "government as God" mindset things will get worse.
To make the post short, I'm in a Jeffersonian mindset in that I think the only heavy regulatory hand the country needs is on the financial system. Regulate that - prosecute fraud - and the rest takes care of itself. And the best way for government to do that is to spend within its means so it isn't reliant on the very system they're supposedly regulating.
If the Treasury didn't borrow from banks (sell its debt to the Fed), people would have distrusted the Fed decades ago and would demand specie or at least Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes (which would have gone the way of the ruble).
Deep down I think people know that ending the Fed means shrinking the federal government to half its size and reducing the entitlement system to the neediest 2 percent. And that scares the shit out of people, especially the vast majority of people who look at the federal government as the invisible hand.
WTF am I looking at in that picture? My highly evolved pattern recognizing brain is just coughing up a big FAIL message.
Beetlejuice
Gambol!
So why does the New York Observer call this appearance "Alec Baldwin SMACKDOWN on Ending the Fed on Occupy Wall Street"? This defining down of the entire Smackdown concept makes me wish the WWE would copyright the word.
1) Trademark. They have it. And they sue everybody who uses it like a trademark.
B) "Alec Baldwin CONSIDERATION of a Paulbot's point" doesn't feed the gonna-getcha smashy-smashy blutfehde feelings the Occupation exists to nourish and put to (idiot) use.
I'm still working out "B", but there's genius in it. I know it.
Dude, the "capital markets" survived two fucking planes crashing into their center and destroying upwards of a few billion in direct capital and upwards of six trillion if you count collateral costs of an overreacting government.
It can survive the end of the fed.
It was a really good answer. Like Baldwin, even economist of the Austrian stripe have that conversation everyday of what a post Fed world would look like. Of course what critics of the idea too often miss is that it is not necessary for them to describe how the world would be perfected by ending the Fed, but how it will be improved.
I agree that Alec Baldwin sounded more rational than I expected, which isn't saying much. John Cassidy is still crazy though for ranking Baldwin as the 4th most unlikely OWS supporter, directly above Charles Moore, Bill Gross and Larry Fink.
Baldwin doesn't know dick about economics or acting.
I was personally impressed with his answer. The guy talking to him came off as pretty pushy, and asking about Ron Paul was idiotic, embarrassing, and diminished the conversation.
We'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.
Corporations derp!
derp is reserved for republican stupid
The state committing homicide is funny! derp!
A single cent of taxes raised on billionaires however is no laughing matter!
Re: Occupier,
Nobody cares what you believe.
"We'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."
Corporations aren't people, only large, centralized governments are people.
I'll believe the occupiers are people when Texas executes one.
You don't need to be able to borrow massive amounts of money cheaply for the country to operate. Capital markets will exist no matter the interest rate paid for the money - those projects whose completion the borrower can afford will go forward. Those that cannot be afforded will NOT go forward. It is precisely this that prevents the booms, and hence the busts. What is so hard to understand about that? During the boom, you get suckered in and buy a house you can't afford. In the bust you lose it, along with all your equity because the market has bottomed and prices corrected. You'd have been a LOT better off saving and renting - with the money you've lost in your failed mortgage, you could have paid CASH for your house. So now you wanna agitate for the privilege of having it happen again?!?!?
You know the truly silly thing about articles like these? That someone would voluntarily choose to believe the people that dug a 16 trillion dollar rat hole despite having control over the world's money supply over the person who correctly predicted the result of their policies SIX YEARS IN ADVANCE. Both Bernanke and Cain didn't know about the crash, and told people everything was FINE days before the crash. Hey, everybody's free to believe whom they please but don't think it makes you look smart to believe those guys over Dr. Paul. Whadda ya, got Stockholm Syndrome?
When it comes to central banking, both the right and the left are whores.
Ron Paul is the man for the job. He's honest and consistent. Imagine that from a politician!
http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/
President Obama's economic mastery is even more evident in Washington, DC, where house prices have been climbing ever since he took office.