Matt Taibbi

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/new-york-to-repeat-chicago-s-parking-meter-catastrophe-20120613

doesn't seem to jibe with your depiction of his stance on parking

read upthread milo, already did this

where has taibbi called for a return to the gold standard?

I've never seen him suggest that farming out government services to the private sector is a good thing - cf. parking. Not terribly libertarian of him.

I understand the ease of characterizing self-righteous, loudmouth white guys as libertarians... but that covers a lot of 'progressives,' too.

yes, iatee, even if you want to argue that Taibbi is wrong about the parking deal, his reasons aren't those you ascribe to him. You don't like the guy, awesome - but you've strawmanned the fuck out of him.

Matt Taibbi: Quantitative easing is a completely lunatic program that is interestingly, not very well known here in America. Remember when Barack Obama had his 800-billion-dollar stimulus package, which was ostensibly intended to create jobs there was uproar all across the country that is this is socialism and how could we do this, just the government giving money away. Well that was actually real money that existed, that 800 billion dollars that they spent ostensibly creating jobs. Quantitative easing was a program where the Federal Reserve did like an “I Dream of Jeanie”-thing and like invented out of thin air now two trillion dollars essentially to buy T-bills and mortgage-backed securities and artificially prop-up Wall Street. And this is money that didn’t even exist and they simply were pumping it into the financial bloodstream, so that Wall Street could stay alive a little bit longer. It’s a completely insane program. There is a reason why you can’t just print money and get yourself out of economic trouble that way. There is a tremendous inflationary danger here, but they’re doing it anyway, which speaks to the total desperation and craziness of our current economy.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/26446

its better on camera

^for everyone itt who thinks taibbi is a good explainer of financial stuff my lord

he's like an uglier michael moore

if antipathy to recent QE makes one a Paulite, I think Paul Krugman needs to be lumped in as well...

...

"if antipathy to recent QE makes one a Paulite, I think Paul Krugman needs to be lumped in as well..."

Huh?

wuuut

Krugman thinks the treasury should be doing more stuff like QE and NOT worry about the inflationary danger (until it becomes like an actual danger.) Seems like that's the opposite of what Taibbi is positing above.

anyway it isnt the antipathy toward qe that makes one a paulite its the belief in real money

he's like an uglier michael moore

― iatee, Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:02 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tbf moor is waay better at making movies than taibbi is at writing

I don't think Taibbi is a libertarian though (or a Paulite.) There are plenty of non-Paulite who have insane inflationary fears.

yeah krugman's pretty far from a hayekian or a goldbug for that matter

"this is money that didn’t even exist!"

Taibbi's objection is about use in defense of Wall Street, not QE as a concept
Krugman, AFAIK, argues that QE hasn't gone far enough, not getting past Wall Street

iatee's argument is that Taibbi is a Paulite for his objection

xxp Right until Taibbi advocates for a return to the gold standard I don't think he should be lumped in with Ron Paul.

eh i still like taibbi better than i like moore

Taibbi's objection is about use in defense of Wall Street, not QE as a concept
Krugman, AFAIK, argues that QE hasn't gone far enough, not getting past Wall Street

this is indistinguishable

taibbis monetary views prob have more to do w/just not understanding stuff good and knee jerk dismissal of anything the government does than any sort of ideology

ideology is hard, being really angry is easy

think you guys might be giving taibbi too much credit though to think he's actually in any way thought his monetary philosophy out xpost lol

There is a lot of stuff to be angry about tbqf.

hey man free country

it's definitely true that monetary expansion will "benefit wall street" but just about any economic improvement would. if your position is that anything that makes bank balance sheets healthier is p much evil at this point, then a looser central bank is going to look like not giving the vampire quids (tm) their punishment.

its kind of like saying hit records are evil because they prevent the major labels from collapsing

taibbi is pretty irritating and has an awful rhetorical style but i don't think a guy who favors breaking up monopolies and tighter bank regulations can fairly be called a 'libertarian,' no matter how many vague worries about 'fake money' they express.

you can’t just print money and get yourself out of economic trouble that way. There is a tremendous inflationary danger here...

I have a hard time believing Taibbi hasn't figured out this whole "printing money" thing, but if this is an accurate quote, then he hasn't learned much from his last four years of interviewing and writing.

In a nutshell: during the boom years before 2008, vast boatloads of money were created out of nothing, and by this I mean many trillions of dollars. Except this money wasn't created out of nothing by the Federal Reserve. Instead, it was banks that did it. This is what banks do, even when they are operating properly -- as they were not during the boom. Creating money out of "nothing" is their business model.

In 2008, when the credit bubble built by the banks collapsed, many, many trillions of dollars of money vanished. They reverted back to thin air. But the economy was still built around the reality that this money once had, and that reality persisted in the form of contracts. Except there wasn't enough money in the whole world to fullfill those contracts. That is why the Fed has printed so much money lately. It isn't dangerously inflationary. It is profoundly necessary.

The worst part of this is that Congress should have been the agent for the Fed's easing. Congress should have authorized the spending and the Fed should have monetized the debt by buying up a few trillions of T-bonds and T-bills. Instead, the Congress went batshit and balked at doing its plain duty to the country and the Fed has been pumping all this largesse directly into the banks instead, where it does much less good.

Taibbi ought to know this. Apparently he doesn't.

he was just labeled a libertarian re monetary policy xp

confusion about QE is pretty widespread among radical populist types in general. But that said, it is sort of a big juicy target, and the main effect (insofar as it has had any) has been to shove some money to people who don't need it. It's just that inflation doesn't really enter the picture.

taibbi's written about this more cogently elsewhere actually.

and the main effect (insofar as it has had any) has been to shove some money to people who don't need it.

― s.clover, Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:26 PM (59 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well that and avoid total economic calamity

brb writing dystopian novel re mccain presidency

Chabon or Lethem beating you to it

curses

Chapter 1: McCain Dies, Palin becomes President

dun dun DUN

"I can see Williamsburg from my house!"

taibbi's written about this more cogently elsewhere actually.

― s.clover, Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:27 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

taibbi admits that his source for knowledge on monetary policy is zerohedge

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/02/19/on-the-bailout-hustle/

it's not exactly godwin's law but come one, you need to be very leery of anyone who calls himself 'tyler durden' on the internet

ha er 'come on'

Matt Taibbi ‏@mtaibbi

If you or someone you know has had a very bad experience in jail after being convicted of a relatively minor offense, pls write to me
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

well that and avoid total economic calamity

― lag∞n, Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:29 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think we did this discussion elsewhere, like a year ago. but yeah, I don't think QE mattered that much. Never saw any research that showed it moved markets more than a smidge. Ironically, ZH and similar types are the ones who have insisted that it's had the most impact. There's so much money in play at such volumes that QE never amounted to much, huge as it seems. And the end of QE didn't matter that much either, which helps bear this out. Lots more money than QE was doled out at the peak of the crisis in much more direct ways too, remember. And rates were hitting zero regardless, so...

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/07/24/1094601/the-academics-on-qe-for-now/

my reading of that post tends to support my point, but you know, who cares.

otm

Fact schmacts.