Over 600 people have signed on to a petition calling for conservative commentator Matt Walsh to be banned from speaking at Washington and Lee University on March 30. That is hardly surprising given the regular cancel campaign on our campuses. However, what was striking was how many faculty signed the petition, including a number of law professors, despite its anti-free speech sentiments. The petition notably does not even contain the customary homage to free speech before eviscerating its underlying premise. Indeed, free speech is not mentioned even once. Instead, the petition denounces the university for allowing “one-sided platforms for harmful ideologies” to be held on campus. Notably, these faculty do not object to speakers holding opposing views from being one-sided. Indeed, the letter later objects to other speakers who engage in “both-sideism” on panels. The petition also states:
“While W&L’s Facility Use Policy states that allowing an event on campus does not imply endorsement of the views shared at the event, the school cannot escape responsibility for providing a platform for one-sided, non-academic, harmful rhetoric.”
Again, the objection only raises additional questions. Have these faculty members also objected to “non-academic” speakers from the left or insisted that such speakers have opposing views stated at the event? Have they objected to controversial, one-sided speakers from the left?
A couple years ago, Ibram X. Kendi spoke at the university without opposition from these faculty over his one-sided and controversial views. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, previously attacked Justice Amy Coney Barrett over her adoption of two Haitian children and suggested that it raised the image of a “white colonizer.” He suggested that the children were little more than props for their mother. In addition to calling for “defunding the police” and limiting free speech, Kendi insists that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” Kendi also maintains that “The life of racism cannot be separated from the life of capitalism…In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.”
The fact is that I would not oppose Kendi coming to my campus or insist that he should not be allowed to give a “one-sided” presentation. His views are provocative and controversial, but they are precisely the type of diversity of viewpoints that higher education should foster.
Matt Walsh is clearly a lightening rod for controversy and has described himself as a “transphobe.” I disagree with Walsh but many do not. The issue is whether universities should censor such views based on what faculty may consider “harmful.” That is particularly chilling when faculty are applying such a clearly selective standard for those speakers who hold opposing views.
The “speech-as-harmful” rationale is now a virtual mantra on our campuses. This dangerous trend in academia is discussed in my law review article, Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
The resulting viewpoint intolerance has produced a chilling effect on our campuses that has both faculty and students engaging in self-censorship. The current generation of the faculty and administrators are destroying the diversity of thought that sustains higher education.
This petition to bar any speaker viewed as supporting a “hateful ideology” would only reinforce what has become an academic echo chamber in higher education. Yet, the petition has the support of law professors and other faculty members who openly seek the barring of opposing views while, fittingly, omitting even a reference to free speech.
Below are the faculty in order of their signing. These are only those who listed their academic titles on the petition. They stretch across different disciplines and departments. I have removed the large number of staff members.
Brenna Womer, English Professor
Alan M. Trammell, Law Professor
Chelsea Fisher, Environmental Studies Professor
Avvirin Gray, Professor of English
Michael Berlin, Visiting Assistant Professor of English
Carliss Chatman, Law Professor
Diego Millan, Assistant Professor of English and Africana Studies
Ellen Mayock, Ernest Williams II Professor of Romance Languages
Jessica Wager, Institutional History
Lubabah Chwdhury, Professor of English and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies
Nneka Dennie, Assistant Professor of History and Africana Studies
Kary Smout, English Professor
Domnica Radulescu, The Edwin A. Morris Professor of Comparative Literature
Jane Harrington, Visiting Assistant Professor of English
Romina Green Rioja, Assistant Professor of Latin American History
Mia Brett, VAP of African American History
Allison Weiss, Law Professor
Joan M. Shaughnessy, Roger D. Groot Professor of Law
Robert T. Danforth, John Lucian Smith, Jr. Memorial Professor of Law
Kristina Roney, Assistant Professor of French
Karen Woody, Law Professor
Beth Staples, English Professor
Mattie Clear, Archivist and Assistant Professor
Alison Bell ‘91, Professor of Anthropology
Keri Gould, Law Professor
Franklin Sammons, VAP History
Zoila Ponce de León, Assistant Professor of Politics
Jon Eastwood, Professor of Sociology
Elizabeth Belmont, Law Professor
Matthew F. Tuchler, Professor of Chemistry
Lesley Wheeler, English Professor
Carla Laroche, Law Professor
Bobby Jones’14 Assistant Professor / Football Coach
Russell Miller, J.B. Stombock Professor of Law
Mikki Brock, Associate Professor of History
Henryatta Ballah- Assistant Professor of History and Africana Studies
Benjamin G. Davis, Visiting Professor of Law
Jill Fraley, Professor of Law
Chris Gavaler, Associate Professor of English
Josh Fairfield, Law Professor
Chris Seaman, Professor of Law
Mary Z. Natkin, ‘85L, Emeritus Professor of Law
Fernando Zapata, Ted DeLaney Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy
Molly Michelmore, Professor of History
Stephen P. McCormick, Associate Professor of French and Italian
Erin Ness Associate Professor of Physical Education
Shane Lynch Professor of Music and Director of Choral Activities
Margaret Anne Hinkle, Assistant Professor of Earth and Environmental Geoscience
Paul A. Gregory, Professor of Philosophy
Angela Sun, Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Emerson Lynch, Visiting Assistant Professor of Earth & Environmental Geoscience Megan Fulcher, Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Science
Emily Filler, Assistant Professor in the Study of Judaism
Clover Archer, Director of Staniar Gallery
Heather Kolinsky, Professor of Practice W&L Law
Mohamed Kamara, Professor of Romance Languages and Africana studies
Nathaniel Goldberg, Professor & Chair of Philosophy
Holly Shablack, Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Science
Jenefer Davies, Professor of Dance & Chair of Theatre, Dance & Film Studies
Bill Hamilton, Professor and Head of Biology
Fiona Watson, Associate Professor of Biology & Neuroscience
Helen I’Anson Perry Professor of Biology & Research Sciences, Neuroscience
Nadia Ayoub, Professor of Biology
Gregg Whitworth, Associate Professor of Biology
David Bello, Professor of History
Lawrence Hurd, Professor of Biology
Sarah Blythe, Associate Professor of Biology & Neuroscience
I know this is off topic, but the IRS has sent a portion of its 87,000 new goons to Matt Taibbi’s home in New Jersey:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/irs-silent-timing-visit-journalist-matt-taibbis-home-often-makes-house-calls
As I’ve said before, the leadership of the IRS, FBI, DOJ, CIA and Pentagon need to be relocated to districts where somebody might actually prosecute and convict them for malfeasance and abuse of power. They are ruthless because in the District of Corruption, there are no consequences for tyranny and conspiracy.
One might arrest the agents who intimidated Matt in NJ, but they were “just following orders.” If any of them had a conscience, he/she/they/it might consider resigning.
I have a feeling Professor Turley is going to have something to say about this.
Intimidation? IRS agent visited journalist after he testified on censorship, Jim Jordan reveals
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/gop-rep-jordan-suggests-irs-attempted-intimidate-journalist-who-testified
Change “sending the IRS “ to “sending the “IRS Gestapo to Matt Taibbi’s home” for crimes against the new “Fourth Reich,” i.e., the Dems, et al.
“[T]he IRS has sent a portion of its 87,000 new goons to Matt Taibbi’s home . . .”
A horse’s head in your bed. And a “visit” from the IRS.
Morally and tactically, there is no distinction.
Those most opposed to speech they do not like, are the ones in greatest need to hear it.
“Those most opposed to speech they do not like, are the ones in greatest need to hear it.”
Turley is opposed to openly racist speech on his blog. Clearly he doesn’t like it. He’s stated he will delete it if it appears on the blog. It seems he needs to hear it the most according to your statement. As a free speech absolutists Turley shouldn’t be deleting openly racist comments. But if he’s allowed to delete such comments because he doesn’t like them why can’t the private college? Obviously a majority of students and the staff don’t like openly transphobic speech. Why should they allow it? Turley doesn’t allow racist comments on the blog because they sully the ‘credibility’ of his blog. Students and staff at W and L college don’t want speech such as that of Walsh’s to sully their school’s character they should be able to deny him a platform on campus. That does not mean Walsh is not free to speak elsewhere in town. That clearly shows he still has his right to free speech fully intact.
Simple:
https://my.wlu.edu/provosts-office/for-faculty/freedom-of-expression-at-wandl#:~:text=A%20member%20of%20the%20Faculty,the%20relevant%20Washington%20and%20Lee
“Washington and Lee University values the central importance of freedom of expression in a vibrant and intellectually challenging university community. Our commitment to honor, civility, and the free exchange of ideas defines who we are as an educational institution. These commitments often mean discomfort, challenge, and vigorous debate about ideas and the implications of ongoing thought and interpretation. We are committed to the civil and unfettered exchange of ideas, confident that a vibrant intellectual community can withstand disagreement and debate and find common ground even where we disagree.”
Freedom of expression is quite literally the reason the school exists. Without that, there is no reason fort their door to continue to remain open.
To try to equate a university with a small private blog is specious and the height of disingenuousness.
WL does a disservice to its staff and students by coddling them and protecting them from ideas they do not like.
A college is a safe space FOR ideas, not FROM ideas.
Students do not like tests, and grades and school work – should they be safe from those ?
Are you completely unable to tell the difference between a blog, a college and a government ?
Or between ideas that offend you and words that we have chosen to restrict ?
Do you understand that Colleges are run FOR students, not BY students ?
Or that Staff are Employees ?
John Say,
That would require critical thinking skills.
Something she poorly lacks.
George Washington must be wondering somewhere if the War for Independence was worth it. Dictatorship of a king is preferable to the dictatorship of lunatics.
it is a white, privileged private university named in part, after Confederate Robert E Lee, so naturally the university faculty feel obligated to enable their racist employer. The demographic profile of the university is instructive as are the aceptance rate and costs
If Matt Walsh were intelligent he would seize on the following info and skewer the racist faculty by name
Student life[edit]
The institution has 1829 students as of 2019. The median family income is $261,100, with 55% of students coming from the top 5% highest-earning families, 8% from the bottom 60%, and 1.5% from the bottom 20% (among the lowest of any U.S. college or university).[62] 82% of students are white, 4.5% are Hispanic, 3.4% are Asian, and 2.2% are Black.[63]
– Wiki
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/washington-and-lee-3768
PUBLIC/PRIVATE
Private
UNDERGRADUATE POPULATION*
1,865
STUDENT POPULATION*
2,269
AVERAGE GRANT AID*
$46,752
TOTAL ANNUAL COST*
$77,600
ALUMNI SALARY‡
$152,300
ACCEPTANCE RATE*
25%
SAT COMPOSITE RANGE*
1350-1500
ACT COMPOSITE RANGE*
32-34
How childish and naive to have such fear of mere words. And to display their abject fear with such pride! Cowardice wears a brave face these days. It is a symptom of lives spent immersed in the academic setting, from students graduating to faculty, never having to face the unknown terrors of the real world. A total lack of sophistication.
Well said Cionnath.
Having been exiled from Cuba in the 1960s, having all our property expropriated and having my dad jailed in Cuba for 5 years for opposing it, I can tell you we have one rule in our household. You fill in the blank. The only good communist is a _________ one.
OT: Two years later, Jan. 6 video footage raises new questions about police and prosecutors
federal prosecutors belatedly admit there is footage of some cops consorting with the riotous crowd and a retired Capitol Police executive divulges there are sizzle reels of all defendants inside the Capitol that were prepared for the FBI. …
Pickett’s description of a large library of compilation videos comes as federal prosecutors divulged in the case of one Jan. 6 defendant, William Pope, that there is police body-cam footage they don’t want to make public that shows D.C. Metropolitan Police officers — some in plain clothes — consorting with the protesters and even exhorting “Go! Go! Go!” as the protesters are trying to penetrate the Capitol.
https://justthenews.com/government/security/tuetwo-years-later-jan-6-video-footage-raises-new-questions-about-police-and?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
So many things happening all the time that undercut the left on virtually everything
Who is reporting that China is successfully brokering deals with some of out Allies – like Saudi arabia, and that the coalition of nations isolating Russia is limited to The West. That Biden has successfully done the one thing the US wanted to never happen and drove China and Russia together.
During the Trump admin – India was engaged in joint military excercises with the US.
Today they are negotiated Trade deals with Russia and China that bypass sanctions and undermine the US global currency regime.
NARA has just had to release Communications of Joe Biden proving he was intimately involved in many of Hunters deals including Burisma.
And there are now emails directing people to NEVER refer to Joe Biden in written communications – the Biden’s are absolutely paranoid about that.
Only 0.3% of people are Trans – and yet it appears that of the recent Mass killers almost 50% are Trans.
A Rand Paul Staffer is brutally stabbed in DC in daylight.
The IRS raided Matt Taibbi the day of his congressional testimony.
Just to name a few things.
“NARA has just had to release Communications of Joe Biden proving he was intimately involved in many of Hunters deals including Burisma.”
AAAAND? Those are?? No link or excerpts? I looked and couldn’t find what you were referring to. NARA did release records related to communications regarding Trump, but no Biden.
“Only 0.3% of people are Trans – and yet it appears that of the recent Mass killers almost 50% are Trans.”
Evidence? Stats? Where did you get the info from? It sounds like you’re making stuff up. Sketchy, very sketchy John.
With respect to Biden.
It is not my problem that you can not find information.
Are you atleast past the idiotic claim that Joe Biden was not involved in any of this yet ?
Joe is Slowly being connected inch by Inch to the influence peddling activities of his family.
Is this proven Criminal ? Not yet. But it is moving that direction.
Is it evidence they Biden’s are corrupt, and untrustworthy ? Absolutely.
Is it evidence that Government the media and social media conspired to supress publicly available information that voters were entitled to know in order to rigg the election ? Absolutely.
Is it FURTHER Damning evidence that those on the left are untrustworthy ? Absolutely.
Those of you on the left seem to think that paying a porn start to be quite about an alleged affair – is some-kind of campaign finance violation that I still can not figure out how you think is illegal.
Wouldn’t by that idiotic theory, paying staff to lobby SM and media to supress a story ALSO be a violation of the campaign finance laws ?
Finally the question – the goal is NOT to convict Biden.
It is to expose his corruption.
That is proceeding quite Well.
<Effort to squash Biden family stories long predated Hunter laptop, newly released emails reveal
“Stephen Miller, the president of America First Legal, said the records suggest the news media has been complicit in burying negative news about the Biden family for at least a decade.
“Joe Biden and the Biden vice presidency were intimately involved in the Hunter Biden Burisma affair,” Miller said on the Thursday edition of the “Just the News, No Noise” TV show. “They were intimately aware of it. They were intimately aware of the ethical objections, and they were intimately involved in trying to spin and control the press about it.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/new-memos-government-effort-suppress-biden-family-stories-began
This is only going to grow.
The core problem for the Biden’s is the “coverup”
While it is arguable – even likely that The Biden family investments were not illegal.
It is inarguable that they were corrupt and at the very least “smelled rotten”
Even if there was nothing illegal in the coverup – and that is not yet established either.
There was a deliberate effort to deceive the american people.
Again not a crime, but certainly a reason not to vote for someone.
Those here on the left seem to think that unfavorable truths about their candidates coming to the fore is election interference.
While the truth is the opposite.
What is it you doubt – that trans people make up a tiny portion of the population ?
Or that they make up a significant portion of mass shooters ?
At 0.3% of the population, that means that out of 300 mass shootings, 1 mass shooter at most should the Trans.
The average for mass shootings is slightly over 1/month – 15-20 a year. Though they are so infrequent that some years have 30 and others have 8.
Regardless. There have been only about 300 mass shootings in the 21st century and There are atleast 4 that were Trans in the past couple of years.
Do I care ? Nope. Mass shootings are so infrequent that all statistics are highly unreliable. They are so rare they are essentially noise.
There are more drownings and poisonings of children in a year than mass shootings in 2 decades.
Regardless, most mass shooters are mentally unhealthy. And Trans are disproportionaly mentally unhealthy.
I would expect a dis proportionate number of Trans mass shooters.
But this is not about me so much.
It is about you.
You keep claiming this is a right wing problem – while I can not think of a “right wing mass shooter” in this century.
Do we have a domestic terrorism problem with Trans people ?
Maybe it is not guns that kill people but Trans that does ?
That is actually stupid – but not as stupid as your claims.
The Colorado Springs shooter identified as non binary.
The Denver shooter identified as trans.
The Aberdeen shooter identified as trans.
The Nashville shooter identified as trans.
Screwing with hormones and psyche’s can lead to bad results.
S. Meyer,
I am not suggestion those of the “trans” community are some kind of unique threat to society.
What I am thinking is these are people whom have serious mental health issues. They may be gravitating towards the whole “trans” community as a means of dealing with their mental health issues. When that does not work, they lash out.
I am not a mental health professional.
However, I also think if a lot of people with mental health issues were to seek professional help, they could and would become well adjusted adults.
Surgery and hormones in the pre-teen or teen ages is not the solution.
The recent Nashville mass shooting, the shooter actually drew out her acts of violence in her art. I would like to think had she or someone else identified the signs and symptoms of mental issues, this tragic event could been avoided.
One additional note, Red Flag laws did not work.
And, okay two notes, Nashville PD is reporting she targeted two other schools, but thought they were too well secure and went with the least secure school for her attack. I would advocate for armed guards or teachers who are willing to get trained and CCW in school.
I can tell you this, in Afghanistan, a chow hall full of armed Marines, we never had a mass shooting.
“However, I also think if a lot of people with mental health issues were to seek professional help, they could and would become well adjusted adults.”
I am not enamored with mental health professionals or doctors specializing in the problem. Take a look at the prominent schools that shut down their centers that were promoting disguising the human body. There is a lot of money anywhere people suffer and one has to be careful that money doesn’t lead the science which it has in this area.
I honestly don’t care.
I am not surprised that groups with significant mental health issues have high proportions of mass killers.
But mass killings are very rare – essentially noise.
More people are dying from Covid in a day still than have died of mass shootings in the 21st century.
But the left cares about this nonsense, and should have to deal with the facts that disrupt their naratives.
Top Economist Tyler Cowen provides an excellent explanation of why all regulation fails.
While his remarks include disclaimers – that some regulation is necessary – the FACT is that his argument makes clear that Regulation CAN NOT WORK.
The economy is far too complex to regulate and all regulation ever does is move problems around.
Cown covers many current and likely failure of regulation.
One of his more interesting overservations is that the Current bank failure was the OPPOSTITE in certain ways to 2008.
In this case these banks Did NOT purchase derivatives and the like to hedge against problems with more typical loans.
Economics is mostly fairly simple – the Economy is far more complex than can be imagined.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/regulation-cant-prevent-the-next-financial-crisis-10320061.html
“The economy is far too complex to regulate and all regulation ever does is move problems around.”
Hogwash. The economy can be regulated and still work. Cowen’s article omits a very obvious fact that most economist would point out. The current bank collapses and problems happened because regulations that were in place to prevent such occurrences were repealed by Trump. Cowen even acknowledges this when he says. “It makes sense to try to limit and prevent these crises, and the systemic reforms the US and EU mandated more than a decade ago were appropriate.”
A lot of those systemic reforms have been weakened or repealed piecemeal by banks who were complaining these regulations were too burdensome. They were saying that because they couldn’t do what they did recently resulting in collapses and taking stupid risks which those rules were designed to mitigate. Cowen stated they were appropriate because they were working.
The recent collapse of SVB were the result of regulations being removed, not added. It’s not ‘more’ regulation. It’s putting back previous regulation that worked. It wasn’t until the regulations were repealed or weakened that we start to see these bank failures and risk taking.
The 2008 finanicial crisis was preceded by the repeal of the glass stegall act in 1999. That allowed banks to take uneceaty risks. Nearly all of the financial crises and fraudulent crimes were preceded by repealing regulations that were designed to prevent or minimart such incidents. The current financial problems stem from Trump repealing regulations that were specifically designed to prevent banks like SVB to get to where they were before the collapse. Proposing to re-instate the regulations which did work is not “more regulation’. It’s bringing back previous regulations that were working.
Svelaz – the mortgage meltdown was caused by the policy of the federal government in encouraging banks to make sub-prime loans. See Gretchen Morgenson, Joshua Rosner, “Reckelsss Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed and Corruption Led to Econoimic Armageddon” (New York Times Books, Henry Holt and Company 2011); and Peter Wallison, “Hidden in Plain Sight: What Really Caused the World’s Worst Financial Crisis and Why It Could Happen Again”, (Encounter Books 2015). At one point, it seems that 58% of the mortages on the books of Fannie Mae were sub-prime.
“[T]he mortgage meltdown was caused by the policy of the federal government in encouraging banks to make sub-prime loans.”
Yep. And by socializing the risks.
That socialist policy was akin to: Going to Vegas with unlimited access to other people’s money. Then having access to other people’s money to cover your losses.
“Hogwash.”
Nope, truth.
“The economy can be regulated and still work.”
Yes, but it will work less efficiently and standard of living will improve less, or possibly decline.
“Cowen’s article omits a very obvious fact that most economist would point out. ”
Nope.
“The current bank collapses and problems happened because regulations that were in place to prevent such occurrences were repealed by Trump.”
Nope, Presidents do not have the power to change laws. Dodd Frank was passed in 2009. and remains in effect today.
Further neither the financial crisis, nor the recent problems have anything to do with regulation – which is why Dodd Frank did next to nothing about banks.
The only error in Cown’s analysis is his mistaken and unargued beleif that any regulation would have worked.
One factor Cowen does not address is that the Fed is raising interest rates. It is doing so to reign in inflation – by SLOWING the economy.
That is ALWAYS going to cause some businesses to Fail.
You can not choke the economy and expect that NOTHING Bad will happen.
If the absurd claim that you are making that regulation could have prevented the current Bank Failures, that would have meant failures elsewhere.
““It makes sense to try to limit and prevent these crises, and the systemic reforms the US and EU mandated more than a decade ago were appropriate.””
It does make sense to limit or prevent these GOVERNMENT CAUSED crises.
His statement that the reforms following the Financial crisis were appropriate is unsupported by facts or evidence. While his actual argument refutes his own argument.
“A lot of those systemic reforms have been weakened or repealed piecemeal by banks who were complaining these regulations were too burdensome. ”
Apparently you can not read. Banks like SVB were made weaker BY THE REGULATIONS.
The assorted derivatives and other hedges that were FALSELY blamed for 2008 – a stupid claim given that No bank EVER excercised their options regarding a CDS or CDO. AIG had by far the largest exposure in 2008 as it had essentially hedged most of the mortgage industry.
But no bank ever sought to exchange their MBS’s for Cash from AIG – Why ? Because that would have been a bad financial choice.
The former CEO of AIG actually sued the US govenrment over this. He claimed – lkiely correctly, that the Fed illegally diluted AIG’s stock value and defrauded him.
That had the Banks actually demanded payment from AIG that AIG would have had no problem raising capital to pay the Banks – IN RETURN FOR THE M’s that the Banks were required to turn over to AIG for the Cash AIG would give them.
As Cowen points out – these Banks did NOT hedge their investments as a result of Regulations and THAT contributed to their failure.
As I have said before – Economics is simple.
The economy is incredibly complex. Far to complex to regulate.
This was not as a result of Dereulation. It was the result of 2009 Regulation.
I know the concept is foreign to you – but Regulation – especially those of 2009 creates MORAL HAZARD,
That GUARANTEES future problems.
“They were saying that because they couldn’t do what they did recently resulting in collapses and taking stupid risks which those rules were designed to mitigate. ”
Aparently you can not read. Cowen said close to the opposite that these failures occured not because the banks took stupid risks, but because they had to many LOW RISK LOW PERFORMING investments and not enough Hedging (higher risk) against failure to perform.
AGAIN economics is simple – the economy is complex.
“Cowen stated they were appropriate because they were working.”
And yet they did not.
“The recent collapse of SVB were the result of regulations being removed, not added. ”
Dodd Frank is still the law of the land.
This is the constant left wing nut claim when ever anything goes wrong. Regardless of reality YOU always claim it is too little govenrment.
When it is nearly always too much.
“It’s not ‘more’ regulation. It’s putting back previous regulation that worked.”
ROFL
“It wasn’t until the regulations were repealed or weakened that we start to see these bank failures and risk taking.”
Then you would be able to specify the act of congress that repealed Dodd Frank ? or Some other regulation ?
Again economies are complex.
The Bank failures have multiple causes – though most are tied to one thing – Inflation and the efforts to combat it.
I would further note that most of the banks that are currently failing were NOT covered by Dodd Frank or the regulations you are ranting about EVER.
Nor would those regulations have prevented this. SVB was given a clean bill of health by regulators only a few months ago.
“The 2008 finanicial crisis was preceded by the repeal of the glass stegall act in 1999.”
Which had absolutely nothing at all to do with the finanical crisis.
“That allowed banks to take unnecessary risks.”
Both False and stupid.
There is absolutely no way that you., I or government can make a determination regarding the necessity of Risks.
Regardless the Financial crises was caused by the housing bubble collapse, PERIOD.
The housing bubble collapse was caused PRIMARILY by the Fed keeping interest rates too low for too long.
The same problem that lead to the great depression.
When interest rates are too low for too long, all the low hanging fruit is consumed. Throughout the oughts Banks with the encouragement of Democrats and republicans were writing mortgages as fast as they could. This drove prices up. but more importantly it slowly exhausted the pool of creditworthy borrowers.
Even this would not have been fatal – except that as the average creditworthiness of borrowers declined, and home prices rose, Interest rates did NOT rise.
Because the Fed kept rates too low too long.
“Nearly all of the financial crises and fraudulent crimes were preceded by repealing regulations that were designed to prevent or minimart such incidents.”
A stupid and false claim. There was no financial regulation in the 19th century as an example yet during the 19th century financial crises were FEWER than since the creation fo the federal reserve.
“The current financial problems stem from Trump repealing regulations that were specifically designed to prevent banks like SVB to get to where they were before the collapse. ”
If that were Trump – you would KNOW which regulations were repealed (something that only congress can do).
And you could directly tie those to SVB’s Failure.
But SVB’s problems were 3 fold. First – as Cowan explains, there are always problems when you have liquid investment at one end – bank deposits, that you hare using for illiquid investments – like mortgages. As the Fed raised interest rates, depositors fled for higher rates of return.
Next SVB – like other Banks and investment firms bough into this Woke ESG nonsense.
It is actually fiscal malfeasance to chose an ideologically drive investment over one at odds with your ideology that delivers a better return for the same risk
When you deliberately chose a lower return for the same risk you WEAKEN your bank. Individuals can do that with their own money. People like Banks with a fiduciary responsibilty can’t.
SVB’s other problem was that it was heavily invested in ‘Silicon Valley Startups and did not have high enough risk premiums for its investment.
That BTW is not a problem from last year, but a problem over a decade in the making.
“Proposing to re-instate the regulations which did work is not “more regulation’. It’s bringing back previous regulations that were working.”
Beleif is not reality.
The reality is the market disciplines itself.
Regulations are harmful.
Bailouts are harmful.
Your making this worse not better.
Cown does not make ALL the arguments for this.
But he makes many of them.
And you fixate on the two sentences he has with ZERO facts to support them – rather than the long analysis that is well supported by evidence.
Svelaz knows as much about banking and economics as he knows about the law, i.e., nothing.
Basic economics is not very hard.
It is the economy as a whole that is hard – because there are a million peices. While what drives each one is moderately simple – the complexity created by many peices and their interactions is indecipherable.
That is why – absent ideological blindness it is usually easy to see what caused something AFTER the fact, but not before.
It is as an example predictable BEFORE the fact that:
Interest rates too low, too long will result in a bubble and collapse SOMEWHERE.
Too much government spending financed by printing money will result in inflation, but the Specifics of Where the inflation will be greatest are driven by other factors.
Raising interest rates will tighten money supply AND put the brakes on the economy. Resulting in weak businesses failing.
Svelaz is also not honest.
I make my sources and influences clear.
In areas like law where there is a disconnect between what the constitution actually says and what the Supreme court says the Constitution actually says,
I try to make it clear whether I am arguing the law as it is, or as it should be.
Svelaz and most on the left not only always argue the laws as they want it to be, but they do so without any anchor. They do not care about the constitution, or any other foundational principle.
One of the problems whether purported “greater good” reasoning, is that it is very easy to argue anything is for the greater good – The Nazi’s convinced themselves that exterminating the jews was for the greater good.
John Say,
That was a very good summary.
Trying to simplify – as my response was pretty long.
There are several major problems with Regulation/Government acting in the markets.
First, it creates moral hazard. After 2009 there is an implicit or implicit guarantee that Government would bail out the big banks subject to the new rules and stress tests. If you guarantee that you will bail someone/something it – you pretty much guarantee that you WILL HAVE TO bail them out in the future.
Rather than encouraging good conduct a guarantee encourages BAD conduct. Those regulated will instead of studying the market to find the best return at reasonable risk, will study the regulations, to figure out how they can get high returns regardless of risk and still be guaranteed.
You do not want people trying to game the regulations – you want them trying to game the economy.
The economy will respond instantly to efforts to game it – if those efforts are a bad idea. Regulation will do the OPPOSITE.
If ONE Bank figures out how to game the regulations ALL banks will be doing so in short order.
Which brings us to problem #2 with regulation.
Regulation gets all actors in the market moving in the same direction.
Even what that is a “good direction” – it is still very bad to have all actors going the same way.
There is always such a thing as too much of a good thing.
The housing crisis should have proved that to everyone.
As noted before – democrats and republicans alike were encouraging home mortgages.
They were not wrong about the benefits.
They were not wrong that there were more people who could and should get a home mortgage.
But what is true of some, most, is not true of all.
Further we are NOT all equal. Each person is not equally able to pay off a mortgate.
It is not even that most wont – most people who are higher risk WILL pay of their mortgage – but All wont.
And when you have run out of low risk buyers you move slowly to higher and higher risk.
This is why Rates too low too long is a problem. Rates too low too long get market actors all moving in the same direction.
That ALWAYS results in SYSTEMIC failures.
The #3 problem with regulation is the presumption that failure is Bad. It is not, it is critical that weak investments FAIL.
That frees up resources for better investments.
Failure is a necescaity. All resources are limited. When a poor choice ties up lots of resources,
failure is the means to free those reources to be used for better purposes.
The #4 problem is that Government is and is supposed to be FRICTION.
Whatever it meddles in – we get less of. We want less crime. We do not want less rise in standard of living.
The US has seen its rate of rise in standard of living drop through the 20th and 21st centuries.
Just as Europe and other countries that embraces statism of some form – typically socialsm.
The USSR did not economically collapse. It merely dramatically under performed the West.
And it was obvious to those living in the USSR that those in the west were gaining faster than they were.
The #5 problem which I have stated repeatedly recently is that economics is simple, The economy is complex.
This is like Mathematics. There are only a handful of fundamental axioms to mathematics.
These few axioms still result in a field with complexity so great that it takes incredible minds to understand very small portions.
The fundimental math principles for self driving cars are simple. Their application is unbelievably complex.
You can understand all the principles of economics and still not have a clue how the economy is going to work.
Most of the real world is far too complex and dynamic for government
These are just SOME of the reasons that regulation is always bad.
Financial regulations, one side of the story:
John, bad investments lead to failure. Economic changes can make sound investments unsound and cause a loss of money.
The reason for regulations is to stabilize risk hoping for increased investment. The $250,000 government guarantee was to help lower-income people preserve a safety nest while at the same time raising funds for investment by larger entities. The smaller investor cannot take the same gambles as the better-financed players.
Stabilizing risk increases instability and failure while reducing total profits. It is a trade-off.
The game is insurance. Insurers make money off the float and cash available. The insured as a group have less than the premium returned, or the insurer goes bankrupt. The insurance company is buying risk from the client.
“bad investments lead to failure. Economic changes can make sound investments unsound and cause a loss of money.”
Correct. Happens all the time.
“The reason for regulations is to stabilize risk hoping for increased investment.”
So ? You can create a reasonable sounding reason for anythig.
It can even prove to work.
But unless you factor all effects in you can not know if you are not positive or negative.
And as I noted often effects we think are positive – are actually negative.
What is avaible to invest is a consequence of growth. We have more to invest because of past growth.
Regulation MAY result in stability (in fact it usually produces instability), but also less growth – reducing not increasing investment.
AGAIN everything or most everything headed in the same direction is BAD not good.
Most of existance is a yin/yang chaos/order in the right balance, and that balance is dynamic not static.
Economics is easy. Economies are complicated.
“The $250,000 government guarantee was to help lower-income people preserve a safety nest while at the same time raising funds for investment by larger entities.”
The FDIC is “insurance” – I have no problem with insurance. What I have a problem with is mandated insurance, and insurance provided by government.
Again governemtn gets everything all running in the same direction at the same time – that is BAD not good.
That is how you get systemic failures.
Private insureres (like government) make demands of the uninsured. But unlike government those demands are developed in a dynamic and competitive market – NOT in some regulators head. People and banks can refuse insurance if they do not like the demands. in the end overtime the insurance companies and banks learn what works and what does not.
Further we do not end up with 250K of insurance – we end up with low balance insured accounts and high balance insured accounts, and low balanace uninsured accounts and high balance uninsured accounts.
Lots of choices.
“The smaller investor cannot take the same gambles as the better-financed players.”
Why not ? Why is it governments business who can take what gambles ?
“Stabilizing risk increases instability and failure while reducing total profits. It is a trade-off.”
It maybe. It also may as we saw in the financial crisis, just set us up for bigger failure.
Stability is NOT itself inherently good. Too much stablility is a bad thing.
again systemic failure requires getting everything moving in the same direction
That is a form of stability and only government can do that.
“The game is insurance. Insurers make money off the float and cash available.”
Does it matter how they make money ? That is their problem, not yours, not mine, not governments.
“The insured as a group have less than the premium returned, or the insurer goes bankrupt.”
Actually by your own argument that is false. Regardless, that is their concern not mine.
“The insurance company is buying risk from the client.”
Sure. So ?
And why would we want Government – that does not know what it is doing buying risk FOR US, at discount ?
And introducing moral hazard and the oportunity for systemic failure ?
Economics is simple – the economy is complicated.
You are actually postulating the opposite.
You think you can apply simple static solutions to complex dynamic systems with predictable positive results.
I have noted that it is nearly always – especially when you do not have ideological blinders on simple to understand the causes of a failure AFTER THE FACT.
Failure as a result of rising interest rates was inevitable. In fact it was intended, or at the very least it was an unavoidable consequences of what was clearly intended.
Those of us who could have figured BEFORE the fact that the failure would have been in Small and medium Banks would have been able to profit from our ability to foresee that failure.
But After the fact – while it is still not possible to argue that it was OBVIOUS the failure would occur in Banks.
It is easy to see WHY these banks failed.
Failure is an essential part of a good economy.
If you want stability – you do NOT want the absence of failure. What you really want is constant but repetitively small failures concurrent with constant and preferably large successes.
Regulation can not achieve that.
.”But unless you factor all effects in you can not know if you are not positive or negative.”
John, I wasn’t judging the efficacy. I explained the ideas behind risk abatement. I considered using the words moral hazard in my reply but felt it might make what I said saying harder to understand. Moral hazard is the problem you are mostly referring to.
“Stability is NOT itself inherently good. Too much stablility is a bad thing.
I will quote what I said: “Stabilizing risk increases instability and failure while reducing total profits. It is a trade-off.” I wasn’t making value judgements. Moderation is frequently the best answer, but that might go against your political ideology.
>>“The game is insurance. Insurers make money off the float and cash available.”
>Does it matter how they make money ? That is their problem, not yours, not mine, not governments.”
Again, my comment was explanatory and understanding how insurers make money is crucial to understanding why the return on insurance (risk abatement) is less than the premium value.
>>“The insured as a group have less than the premium returned, or the insurer goes bankrupt.”
>Actually by your own argument that is false. Regardless, that is their concern not mine.
Please explain why it is false. It is the basis of insurance. Profit requires Premium value in >er than Premium value out.
>>“The insurance company is buying risk from the client.”
>Sure. So ?”
My statement was explanatory, not argument.
“And why would we want Government – that does not know what it is doing buying risk FOR US, at discount ?”
Where did I say that is a good thing?
“Economics is simple – the economy is complicated. You are actually postulating the opposite. You think you can apply simple static solutions to complex dynamic systems with predictable positive results.”
Where did I say any of that?
“I have noted that it is nearly always – especially when you do not have ideological blinders on simple to understand the causes of a failure AFTER THE FACT.”
So?
“Failure as a result of rising interest rates was inevitable. In fact it was intended, or at the very least it was an unavoidable consequences of what was clearly intended.”
So?
“It is easy to see WHY these banks failed.”
It doesn’t take a genius to see that.
“Failure is an essential part of a good economy.”
True.
“If you want stability – you do NOT want the absence of failure”
True.
“What you really want is constant but repetitively small failures concurrent with constant and preferably large successes. Regulation can not achieve that.”
True.
What you need to do is read my posts more carefully.
Many people here beat me justifiably over spelling and grammar and typos.
I do not care.
But I do try to be very careful with my choices of words – particularly key words.
And I am often critical about others use of words.
Alot of this ids driven by the left’s word mangling.
I ALSO – by choice read the posts of others presuming their words mean their natural and common meaning.
Many of my critiques of others are for misuse of words.
Not because people need to be any more careful in their choice of words, then their typing and grammar.
But because the choices that are being made are deliberately or lazily very deceptive.
Liberal does NOT mean Left, it means one who prizes liberty.
Words, are not violence.
I am not criticizing posts for imprecise dictionary use of words.
But for using words in ways that is so at odds with their natural meaning that
the use is deceptive.
Turley posted about the fact that the UK now prosecutes people for Thought crime.
I just loved where the UK police were claiming to prosecute speech likely to lead to violence.
That can be claimed for anything.
There is disporportionate violence associated with Islam. Should we arrest every musilm.
In the UK they are now arresting people for praying silently at abortion clinics.
Or calling homosexuality a sin.
At the same time as in the US transexuals are murdering school children – should we lock people up for speech aqdvocating for transexualism.
This is not a sliperly slope – it is a highway to hell.
The UK is already way too deeply ensnared.
And the US is headed that way.
John, I basically agree with you but do not know how this post is linked to my posting you are responding to.
Typical left wing nut – belief as a substitute for FACTS, and reality.
Which regulations were “repealed” that caused this ? And exactly how did they do so ?
One of SVB’s problems – and that of Banking more broadly, is that it had too much LOW RISK LOW RETURN investiment, and when interest rates rose depositors went elsewhere.
That is close tot he opposite of your claim.
Certain things are FACTS – whether you like them or not.
Government created inflation –
Milton Friedman famously said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”, meaning that it can only be produced by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output due to government spending priorities
The only known means to reign in inflation is to raise interest rates.
This slows the economy. shrinking the velocity of money and money supply.
If you slow the economy – YOU WILL HAVE FAILURES.
Weak businesses will FAIL.
In this case banks.
The FED did not intend for SVB to fail.
But they did INTEND the economy to slow – and that meant the weak would fail.
No amount of regulation could stop that.
I had forgotten about Yuri and here’s the video that explains in 1984 how these Marxist schmucks in academia have been manipulated.
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1640303169132527618?s=20
“Below are the faculty . . .” (JT)
Need any more proof that your universities are run, not by scholars and academics, but by propagandists and fascists?
“The Nazi government and its supporters manipulated several aspects of the country’s traditional university system to turn German higher education into a crucial source of support for the new regime. [. . .] A Report on the Camaraderie House for Female Students of Göttingen shows how Nazi student groups used the format of traditional student organizations to train both men and women to become the next generation of Nazi leaders. (https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/higher-education-in-nazi-germany)
Johnny the Walrus” by Matt Walsh must get progressives in the gut. He became the #1 best-selling LGBT author on Amazon.
It’s a book worthy of placement in a school library and reading in class K-4. For those who think that people on the right are transphobes, they too should read the book.
S. Meyer: Thanks for bringing this up.
I believe we cry out and protest the loudest when we are afraid of the speaker’s words. Please note that liberal Amazon’s customer reviews for “Johnny Walrus” show him at 5 stars, with over 7,000 global reviews. Must be frightening. https://www.amazon.com/Johnny-Walrus-Matt-Walsh/dp/1956007040. Even his “Elephants are Not Birds” has 4 stars.
That book wouldn’t pass Florida state criteria. Can’t discuss gender identity in K-3 or above. HIs book discusses that. Walsh isn’t an LGBT author. He’s an anti-LGBT author. Are you trying to say Walsh is gay or trans?
“He became the #1 best-selling LGBT author on Amazon.”
He’s LGBT?
“That book wouldn’t pass Florida state criteria. “
It would pass Florida laws. If you had sufficient intellect, you would note the book doesn’t discuss gender identity.
“He’s LGBT?”
If you bothered to use Google you would have found out that Amazon is the one to place the book in that group.
It is difficult dealing with such a dull person who refuses to educate himself.
It is difficult dealing with such a dull person who refuses to educate
himherself.misgendering!!! um, it seems to be catching on what with USA Today, CNN, NYT complaining that the Nashville police misgendered the school killer
priorities priorities
so tell us Svelaz, what are your pronouns and how many vials of testosterone to you shoot to make you be so alpha butch-like?
https://thepostmillennial.com/usa-today-accuses-nashville-police-of-misgendering-trans-school-shooter-who-killed-6-people-including-3-children-at-christian-school
“USA Today accuses Nashville police of ‘misgendering’ trans school shooter who killed 6 people, including 3 children, at Christian school
“That book wouldn’t pass Florida state criteria.”
Why ? There is not a thing about Sex in the book.
“Can’t discuss gender identity in K-3 or above.”
Walsh doesn’t.
“HIs book discusses that.”
False.
“Walsh isn’t an LGBT author.”
Correct.
“He’s an anti-LGBT author.”
Incorrect.
“Are you trying to say Walsh is gay or trans?”
No.
Not relevant.
This long list of faculty members wanting to ban a conservative speaker once again illustrates just how effective the Communist ideology has infiltrated down into American Colleges and Universities. They would all be right at home in Communist China. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Since Washington and Lee university is named after George Washington and Robert E. Lee, both slave owners and one led an army against the United States, these academics must be terribly conflicted. If they were truly righteous they would never have allowed themselves to be employed by such a terrible institution and they can only rectify that conflict by all immediately all resigning from the faulty and then go out a get a real job. I, personally, would like to see how they do in the job market since they would be judged and evaluated by “non-academic” people. God Forbid.
I somewhat ascribe to Mao Zedong, who put the academics to work in the fields. Of course his Great Leap Forward” was a disaster for China so maybe we should alter the scale and just teach in the morning, then do all the rest of the work that the University needs done in the afternoons. I think that this might add perspective and humility. Seems like too many academics no longer have a sense of how the other half or more of the nation lives day to day.
The academics are starting to put themselves out of jobs. There is a greater and greater movement for employers to no longer require degrees in résumés.
Turley uses Matt Walsh’s self professed term of ‘transphobe’.
What does that mean exactly. I mean does it mean that transgenders tend to ‘freak’ him out?
Does it mean that transgendered people shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else?
Some could conclude that seeing a guy in drag with a mustache who wants to be called Shelia, is out of the norm and unsettling.
Some could also conclude that Matt Walsh is as evil as .
I’m just curious. Personally I think its the former. I’ll wager if asked Walsh would agree that transgenered people have the same rights as everyone else. But not more.
Same for J K Rowling and other TERFs
-G
Perhaps Matt Walsh is just sick to death of such a small minority of people wanting not just acceptance but celebration, and there seems to be more of an indoctrination than an actual large number of people who actually feel like they are the opposite sex. There are very many people who thought they wanted to change and did, and then regretted it. If you want to dress in the opposite clothes from the sex you were born with, who cares? If you are gay, who cares, but forcing this down everyone’s throat, and if you don’t celebrate with them, don’t allow drag queen story hour in your grade school, don’t allow them to play in sports unless it’s the biology you born with, don’t allow penises to bop along in a girls locker room, and don’t applaud them at every turn, you are supposedly some evil person. They can have the same rights as everyone else as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.
Time to end all Federal aid and loans to colleges and cities.
Also to tax all non-profits where anyone gets $100k+ including colleges, hospitals, various sham non-profits, etc
Also cut fed government 50% and move 75% of it from DC to the heartland
We are becoming a fascists state!
If the leftists at Washington and Lee are looking for something to do, and seems as if they are, why not start by removing two slaveowners from the name of the university?
or abolishing the Democrat Party started by slave owners which ALSO fought to keep slavery?
Heck Democrats keep slaves on their inner city plantations so they can spend money on public unions to fail for 60+ years!
What’s scary is that many signatories will fear what happens if they do NOT sign the petition. Petitions that speak truth to power are signed by the brave, petitions that invoke power against truth are signed by cowards.
…..and the State of Utah boasts elected representatives and others who are ‘in cozy’ with the CCP. Are we in deep shit or not??
@ZZDoc,
We’ve been in deep S for the past 40yrs.
We have actual proof that communism/socialism doesn’t work. Yet we have had this being force fed to kids over the past 20 yrs or so.
The damage has been done.
Those in charge are feckless and clueless.
There is going to be a war and I don’t know who’ll be around to survive it.
-G
I have no problem denying a person with no academic credentials a college platform.
so you hate Free Speech? Do they receive Federal Dollars?
It’s a private school
So, no college speaking platform for people like Abraham Lincoln, the Wright Brothers, Harry Truman, Rosa Parks, and Steve Jobs. Amazing.
So only those with “academic credentials” enjoy their 1st Amendment rights? And who decides what are qualifying credentials, you? A GED is an academic credential.
And no college speaking platform for authors like Ray Bradbury, Charles Dickens, William Faulkner, Jack London, and Mark Twain.
“I have no problem denying a person with no academic credentials a college platform.”
That’s fine. As long as we can deny a propagandist and fascist like you a culture platform.
And you just proved some with academic credentials have no intelligence or common sense.
Home about Bill Gates ?
Until recently Greta Thunberg ?
Oprah Winfrey ?
A foolish notion. Leftists believe that a “college platform” is some sort of prize to be captured and defended. But colleges are supposed to be places of education. Walsh was invited by a student group. He was going to speak at their request. The leftists did not “deny him the platform”; they restricted the rights of their fellow students.
@Turley,
Its good that you point out the hypocrisy in their petition.
But lets consider something else.
Suppose you were a professor at Wayne State.
You didn’t have tenure.
You were presented this petition to sign. What do you think would happen if you didn’t sign?
Even if you had tenure… do you really want to put a target on your back?
That’s the danger here. Join us or else mentality of the far left.
I’m curious what would happen if the DoEd came in and said that Wayne State was going to lose their federal funding unless they released the teachers who signed the petition? Would the administration say no to federal funds, or say good bye to the teachers? What would the teachers say? Would they argue that they were penalized for expressing their 1st Amendment rights?
-G
Good points as they underscore that the price of resisting intimidation can be quite high whether it be from the local neighborhood thugs, your boss or the government (DoEd example). Intimidation is not limited to far left, far right or anywhere in between. To name a few other types: sexual, racial, financial and political.
At what point does one take the high road and deal with intimidation or just take the low road to avoid putting “a target on your back”? What do you expect your leaders to do? What do you tell your kids to do?
Woke philosphy: “Someone has a different opinion from mine – I’m going to die!”
Incorrect…Woke philosophy: “Someone has a different opinion from mine – they are going to die broke!”
@JDaveF,
Son, we’re all going to die eventually.