Matt Taibbi’s post last month in Rolling Stone is worth a read:

How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the OWS Protests

Taibbi is still unable to put his finger on what I think the Ocuppy movement is about – a manifestation of the desire by hopeful people to rebuild meaningful civic life and social capital in the face of erosion by corporatism, and to insist on greater accountability at a local level of both business and government – but he’s at least making an honest effort.

I recommend the whole post. but I excerpt below (emphasis added):

… The first few times I went down to Zuccotti Park, I came away with mixed feelings. I loved the energy and was amazed by the obvious organic appeal of the movement, the way it was growing on its own. But my initial impression was that it would not be taken very seriously by the Citibanks and Goldman Sachs of the world. You could put 50,000 angry protesters on Wall Street, 100,000 even, and Lloyd Blankfein is probably not going to break a sweat. He knows he’s not going to wake up tomorrow and see Cornel West or Richard Trumka running the Federal Reserve. He knows modern finance is a giant mechanical parasite that only an expert surgeon can remove. Yell and scream all you want, but he and his fellow financial Frankensteins are the only ones who know how to turn the machine off.

That’s what I was thinking during the first few weeks of the protests. But I’m beginning to see another angle. Occupy Wall Street was always about something much bigger than a movement against big banks and modern finance. It’s about providing a forum for people to show how tired they are not just of Wall Street, but everything. This is a visceral, impassioned, deep-seated rejection of the entire direction of our society, a refusal to take even one more step forward into the shallow commercial abyss of phoniness, short-term calculation, withered idealism and intellectual bankruptcy that American mass society has become. If there is such a thing as going on strike from one’s own culture, this is it. And by being so broad in scope and so elemental in its motivation, it’s flown over the heads of many on both the right and the left.

The right-wing media wasted no time in cannon-blasting the movement with its usual idiotic clichés, casting Occupy Wall Street as a bunch of dirty hippies who should get a job and stop chewing up Mike Bloomberg’s police overtime budget with their urban sleepovers. Just like they did a half-century ago, when the debate over the Vietnam War somehow stopped being about why we were brutally murdering millions of innocent Indochinese civilians and instead became a referendum on bralessness and long hair and flower-child rhetoric, the depraved flacks of the right-wing media have breezily blown off a generation of fraud and corruption and market-perverting bailouts, making the whole debate about the protesters themselves – their hygiene, their “envy” of the rich, their “hypocrisy.”

The protesters, chirped Supreme Reichskank Ann Coulter, needed three things: “showers, jobs and a point.” Her colleague Charles Krauthammer went so far as to label the protesters hypocrites for having iPhones. OWS, he said, is “Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters [denouncing] corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.” Apparently, because Goldman and Citibank are corporations, no protester can ever consume a corporate product – not jeans, not cellphones and definitely not coffee – if he also wants to complain about tax money going to pay off some billionaire banker’s bets against his own crappy mortgages.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the political spectrum, there were scads of progressive pundits like me who wrung our hands with worry that OWS was playing right into the hands of assholes like Krauthammer. Don’t give them any ammunition! we counseled. Stay on message! Be specific! We were all playing the Rorschach-test game with OWS, trying to squint at it and see what we wanted to see in the movement. Viewed through the prism of our desire to make near-term, within-the-system changes, it was hard to see how skirmishing with cops in New York would help foreclosed-upon middle-class families in Jacksonville and San Diego.

What both sides missed is that OWS is tired of all of this. They don’t care what we think they’re about, or should be about. They just want something different.

We’re all born wanting the freedom to imagine a better and more beautiful future. But modern America has become a place so drearily confining and predictable that it chokes the life out of that built-in desire. Everything from our pop culture to our economy to our politics feels oppressive and unresponsive. We see 10 million commercials a day, and every day is the same life-killing chase for money, money and more money; the only thing that changes from minute to minute is that every tick of the clock brings with it another space-age vendor dreaming up some new way to try to sell you something or reach into your pocket. The relentless sameness of the two-party political system is beginning to feel like a Jacob’s Ladder nightmare with no end; we’re entering another turn on the four-year merry-go-round, and the thought of having to try to get excited about yet another minor quadrennial shift in the direction of one or the other pole of alienating corporate full-of-shitness is enough to make anyone want to smash his own hand flat with a hammer.

If you think of it this way, Occupy Wall Street takes on another meaning. There’s no better symbol of the gloom and psychological repression of modern America than the banking system, a huge heartless machine that attaches itself to you at an early age, and from which there is no escape. You fail to receive a few past-due notices about a $19 payment you missed on that TV you bought at Circuit City, and next thing you know a collector has filed a judgment against you for $3,000 in fees and interest. Or maybe you wake up one morning and your car is gone, legally repossessed by Vulture Inc., the debt-buying firm that bought your loan on the Internet from Chase for two cents on the dollar. This is why people hate Wall Street. They hate it because the banks have made life for ordinary people a vicious tightrope act; you slip anywhere along the way, it’s 10,000 feet down into a vat of razor blades that you can never climb out of.

That, to me, is what Occupy Wall Street is addressing. People don’t know exactly what they want, but as one friend of mine put it, they know one thing: FUCK THIS SHIT! We want something different: a different life, with different values, or at least a chance at different values.

There was a lot of snickering in media circles, even by me, when I heard the protesters talking about how Liberty Square was offering a model for a new society, with free food and health care and so on. Obviously, a bunch of kids taking donations and giving away free food is not a long-term model for a new economic system.

But now, I get it. People want to go someplace for at least five minutes where no one is trying to bleed you or sell you something. It may not be a real model for anything, but it’s at least a place where people are free to dream of some other way for human beings to get along, beyond auctioned “democracy,” tyrannical commerce and the bottom line.

We’re a nation that was built on a thousand different utopian ideas, from the Shakers to the Mormons to New Harmony, Indiana. It was possible, once, for communities to experiment with everything from free love to an end to private property. But nowadays even the palest federalism is swiftly crushed. If your state tries to place tariffs on companies doing business with some notorious human-rights-violator state – like Massachusetts did, when it sought to bar state contracts to firms doing business with Myanmar – the decision will be overturned by some distant global bureaucracy like the WTO. Even if 40 million Californians vote tomorrow to allow themselves to smoke a joint, the federal government will never permit it. And the economy is run almost entirely by an unaccountable oligarchy in Lower Manhattan that absolutely will not sanction any innovations in banking or debt forgiveness or anything else that might lessen its predatory influence.

And here’s one more thing I was wrong about: I originally was very uncomfortable with the way the protesters were focusing on the NYPD as symbols of the system. After all, I thought, these are just working-class guys from the Bronx and Staten Island who have never seen the inside of a Wall Street investment firm, much less had anything to do with the corruption of our financial system.

But I was wrong. The police in their own way are symbols of the problem. All over the country, thousands of armed cops have been deployed to stand around and surveil and even assault the polite crowds of Occupy protesters. This deployment of law-enforcement resources already dwarfs the amount of money and manpower that the government “committed” to fighting crime and corruption during the financial crisis. One OWS protester steps in the wrong place, and she immediately has police roping her off like wayward cattle. But in the skyscrapers above the protests, anything goes.

This is a profound statement about who law enforcement works for in this country. What happened on Wall Street over the past decade was an unparalleled crime wave. Yet at most, maybe 1,500 federal agents were policing that beat – and that little group of financial cops barely made any cases at all. Yet when thousands of ordinary people hit the streets with the express purpose of obeying the law and demonstrating their patriotism through peaceful protest, the police response is immediate and massive. There have already been hundreds of arrests, which is hundreds more than we ever saw during the years when Wall Street bankers were stealing billions of dollars from retirees and mutual-fund holders and carpenters unions through the mass sales of fraudulent mortgage-backed securities.

It’s not that the cops outside the protests are doing wrong, per se, by patrolling the parks and sidewalks. It’s that they should be somewhere else. They should be heading up into those skyscrapers and going through the file cabinets to figure out who stole what, and from whom. They should be helping people get their money back. Instead, they’re out on the street, helping the Blankfeins of the world avoid having to answer to the people they ripped off.

People want out of this fiendish system, rigged to inexorably circumvent every hope we have for a more balanced world. They want major changes. I think I understand now that this is what the Occupy movement is all about. It’s about dropping out, if only for a moment, and trying something new, the same way that the civil rights movement of the 1960s strived to create a “beloved community” free of racial segregation. Eventually the Occupy movement will need to be specific about how it wants to change the world. But for right now, it just needs to grow. And if it wants to sleep on the streets for a while and not structure itself into a traditional campaign of grassroots organizing, it should. It doesn’t need to tell the world what it wants. It is succeeding, for now, just by being something different.

I recently ran across a blog post Jason Brennan entitled: Dear Left: Corporatism Is Your Fault, at the “Bleeding Heart Libertarians” blog. The blog hosts the writings of various “Left Libertarians”, such as Roderick Long and Gary Chartier, who “believe that addressing the needs of the economically vulnerable by remedying injustice, engaging in benevolence, fostering mutual aid, and encouraging the flourishing of free markets is both practically and morally important.”

The post is worth a read; no doubt quite a few of you will like it. I didn’t, and left my comments at the bottom:

Brennan is Assistant Professor of Business and Philosophy at Georgetown University. He is the author of The Ethics of Voting (Princeton University Press, 2011), and co-author of A Brief History of Liberty (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).  He earned his PhD in philosophy from the University of Arizona.

I excerpt liberally from the original post (emphasis added):

1.  Dear Left: Corporatism Is Your Fault

… Dear members of the moderate left,

America is suffering from rampant, run-away corporatism and crony capitalism. We are increasingly a plutocracy in which government serves the interests of elite financiers and CEOs at the expense of everyone else.

You know this and you complain loudly about it. But the problem is your fault. You caused this state of affairs. Stop it.

Unlike we libertarianish people, you people actually hold and have been holding significant political power in the US over the past 50 years. [ What have you done with this power? You’ve greased the corporatist machine every chance you’ve gotten. You’ve made things worse, not better. Our current problems are your fault. You need to stop. …

You complain, rightly, that regulatory agencies are controlled by the very corporations they are supposed to constrain. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create power—and you people love to create power—the unscrupulous seek to capture that power for their personal benefit. Time and time again, they succeed. We told you that would happen, and we gave you an accurate account of how it would happen.

You complain, perhaps rightly, that corporations are just too big. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create complicated tax codes, complicated regulatory regimes, and complicated licensing rules, these regulations naturally select for larger and larger corporations. We told you that would happen. Of course, these increasingly large corporations then capture these rules, codes, and regulations to disadvantage their competitors and exploit the rest of us. We told you that would happen.

It’s not rocket science. It’s public choice economics. You recognized, rightly, that public choice economics was a threat to your ideology. So, you didn’t listen, because you didn’t want to be wrong. Public choice predicted that the government programs you created with the goal of fixing problems would often instead exacerbate those problems. Well, the evidence is in. You were wrong and public choice theory was right. If you have any decency, it is time to admit you were wrong and change. Stop making things worse.

You spent the past fifty years empowering corporations and the most unscrupulous of the rich. You created rampant moral hazard in the financial sector. You created the system that socializes risks but privatizes profit. You created the system that creates a revolving door between Obama’s staff and Goldman Sachs. …

You balk: Isn’t the problem the regressive pro-market post-Reagan politics? Please, people. Let’s be serious a moment. Reagan used a bunch of pro-market, pro-liberty, anti-big government rhetoric, but the man was no libertarian, and he did little to make the country more libertarian. Reagan spent and spent, and thus ran up the debt. He doubled the number of imports with trade restrictions. He pursued militaristic foreign policy. He increased rather than decreased the size, scope, and power of government. Reagan ramped up the war on Americans civil liberties drugs. He wasn’t even a big deregulator—that was Carter. Look past rhetoric to reality. Reagan was in practice just a more militaristic version of one of you. …

Unlike we libertarianish people, you members of the moderate left will continue to hold and exercise power. So, learn some public choice, and use what you learn in practice.

2.  My comments:

3.   As for Walter Block, see this short post regarding his views on the rise of environmentalism.

This is a precis of my preceding post.

As I noted, veteran shareholder activist Robert A.G. Monks has concluded that – in brief (emphasis added):

the people who exercise power for the corporations need to be accountable to somebody.  Over the years, it has become clear that they really are not accountable to anybody, and our experiment in self-regulation and minimal oversight has failed.  In practice, this has meant that a small group of individual CEOs exercise power over financing elections and lobbying the passage and enforcement of laws. …

Society is a give-and-take proposition but for now, the powerful take much more than they contribute and that is not sustainable. 

Robert A.G. Monks is another well-known Republican now railing at runaway crony capitalism and its related corruption of government.  I have referred to Monks twice previously:

More by Bob Monks on the shareholder marginalization at the core of the crisis of public corporation capitalism

WSJ: Governance guru Robert A.G. Monks blames investors for crisis (but both he and WSJ miss that irresponsible, ineffective shareholders is a consequence of limited liability and “public co” regulation)

Before embarking on a 40-year crusade as a corporate governance consultant, Monks had an extensive history in business and government. He was once the Republican candidate for Senate from Maine and corporate governance adviser in the film “The Corporation“. According to Wikipedia, “Monks has written widely about corporate governance and has published more than a hundred papers in publications around the world.He was the recipient of the Award for Outstanding Financial Executive from the Financial Management Association in 2007. Monks is the subject of a biography chronicling the corporate governance movement, A Traitor to His Class by Hilary Rosenberg.

Bob Monks’ 30-Year Crusade“, 2003), “In the early 1980s, Monks established Institutional Shareholder Services, a leading corporate governance consulting firm, and, in the early 1990s, he opened Lens Asset Management, a fund that used shareholder activism to shake up underperforming companies. But today — in the aftermath of Enron, the corporate profligacy of Tyco International management and the like — Robert A. G. Monks appears to be a man for the moment. Monks, author of the book The New Global Investors, argues that shareholders, especially large institutional investors, have become passive, essentially abandoning their responsibility of overseeing the behavior of executives who are charged to serve them, and, Monks argues, the common good.”

Monks’ books include:

• Power & Accountability. HarperCollins, 1991. (with Nell Minow)
• Watching the Watchers. Capstone, 1996. (with Nell Minow)
• The Emperor’s Nightingale. Saint Simons Island, Georgia: Brook Street, 1999.
• The New Global Investors. Capstone, 2001.
• Capitalism Without Owners Will Fail: A Policymaker’s Guide to Reform. London: CSFI, 2002. (with Allen Sykes)
• Reel and Rout. Saint Simons Island, Georgia: Brook Street, 2004.
• Corpocracy. New York; Wiley, 2007.
• Corporate Valuation for Portfolio Investment. London: Wiley, 2010. (with Alexandra Lajoux)
• Corporate Governance (5th Revised Edition). London: Wiley, 2011. (with Nell Minow)

His blog is here. Below I cross-post in full , with his approval, Bob Monk’s October 31, 2011 post, together with the comment I left in response at his blog (emphasis added)

Corporate Power & Government Capture

I left the following comment in response at Bob’s blog (emphasis added):

Allow me to shill for Gonzalo Lira, a Chilean-American novelist, filmmaker, founder of the Strategic Planning Group, and an economic blogger who contributes  to Zero Hedge, naked capitalism, Seeking Alpha and Business Insider.

I ran across an interesting blog post by Lira that, in contrast with other pieces on LvMI (such as George Reisman‘s), expresses strong support for the “Occupy” movement. 

Lira kindly gave me permission to cross-post his piece. (I note that I seem to be more of a classic liberal and skeptic of government than Lira, and so I don’t fully endorse his ‘conservative’ positions.)

Why I Support The Occupy Movement (emphasis added)

David Brooks has an excellent op-ed piece in the December 1 New York Times that speaks to the very worrisome and ongoing destruction of crucial social capital – what Hayek called “market morals“, and what Brooks calls the “spirit of enterprise”.

I excerpt liberally from the op-ed (emphasis added):

Why are nations like Germany and the U.S. rich? It’s not primarily because they possess natural resources — many nations have those. It’s primarily because of habits, values and social capital.

It’s because many people in these countries, as Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, believe in a simple moral formula: effort should lead to reward as often as possible.

People who work hard and play by the rules should have a fair shot at prosperity. Money should go to people on the basis of merit and enterprise. Self-control should be rewarded while laziness and self-indulgence should not. Community institutions should nurture responsibility and fairness.

This ethos is not an immutable genetic property, which can blithely be taken for granted. It’s a precious social construct, which can be undermined and degraded.

Right now, this ethos is being undermined from all directions. People see lobbyists diverting money on the basis of connections; they see traders making millions off of short-term manipulations; they see governments stealing money from future generations to reward current voters.

The result is a crisis of legitimacy. The game is rigged. Social trust shrivels. Effort is no longer worth it. The prosperity machine winds down.

Yet the assault on these values continues, especially in Europe.

Over the past few decades, several European nations, like Germany and the Netherlands, have played by the rules and practiced good governance. They have lived within their means, undertaken painful reforms, enhanced their competitiveness and reinforced good values. Now they are being brutally browbeaten for not wanting to bail out nations like Greece, Italy and Spain, which did not do these things, which instead borrowed huge amounts of money that they are choosing not to repay.

The estimated costs of these bailouts vary enormously and may end up being greater than the cost of German reparations after World War I. Germans are being browbeaten for not wanting to bail out Greece, where even today many people are still not willing to pay their taxes. They are being browbeaten for not wanting to bail out Italy, where future growth prospects are uncertain.

They are being asked to bail out nations with vast public sectors and horrible demographics. They are being asked to paper over fundamental economic problems with a mountain of currency.

It’s true that Germans benefited enormously from the euro zone and the southern European bubble, and that German and French banks are far from blameless. It’s true that the consequences for the world would be calamitous if the euro zone cracked up. It’s true that, in a crisis, you do things you wouldn’t otherwise do; you do things that violate your everyday values.

But our sympathy should be with the German people. They are not behaving selfishly by insisting on structural reforms in exchange for bailouts. They are not imprisoned by some rigid ideology. They are not besotted with some semi-senile Weimar superstition about rampant inflation. They are defending the values, habits and social contract upon which the entire prosperity of the West is based.

The scariest thing is that many of the people browbeating the Germans seem to have very little commitment to the effort-reward formula that undergirds capitalism. On the one hand, there are the technicians who are oblivious to values. For them anything that can’t be counted and modeled is a primitive irrelevancy. On the other hand, there are people who see the European crisis through the prism of some cosmic class war. What matters is not how people conduct themselves, but whether they are a have or a have-not. The burden of proof is against the haves. The benefit of the doubt is with the have-nots. Any resistance to redistribution is greeted with outrage.

The real lesson from financial crises is that, at the pit of the crisis, you do what you have to do. You bail out the banks. You bail out the weak European governments. But, at the same time, you lock in policies that reinforce the fundamental link between effort and reward. And, as soon as the crisis passes, you move to repair the legitimacy of the system.

That didn’t happen after the American financial crisis of 2008. The people who caused the crisis were never held responsible. There never was an exit strategy to unwind the gigantic debt buildup. The structural problems plaguing the economy remain unaddressed. As a result, the United States suffers from a horrible crisis of trust that is slowing growth, restricting government action and sending our politics off in strange directions.

Europe’s challenge is not only to avert a financial meltdown but to do it in a way that doesn’t poison the seedbed of prosperity. Which values will be rewarded and reinforced? Will it be effort, productivity and self-discipline? Or will it be bad governance, now and forever?

Brooks’ insights are incomplete; he fails to note how government-establish deposit insurance underwrote and capital standards (most government bonds enjoy a 0% risk-weighting under BIS standards) encouraged the irresponsibility of German and other EU banks in lending to Greek and other national governments in the first place.

Right now, the Japanese government only funds 40-45% of its budget from taxes, and so is quietly looting its citizens’ banking, pension and insurance assets for the shortfall. US citizens are more fortunate, because our dollar hegemony has meant that our government has largely been looting foreign bond purchasers and their customers instead.

Here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577040373463191222.html

[This is an edited re-post.]

Libertarians have not quite focussed on how the state grant of limited liability to shareholders – something that cannot be obtained merely by voluntary transactions) has set in motion and greatly fuelled the growth of the state and battles over the wheel of government — battles in which insider elites, generally acting through corporations, have the overwhelming advantage.

I have posted extensively on limited liability; for the interested reader perhaps the following post will be a quick introduction:

The Cliff Notes version of my stilted enviro-fascist view of corporations and government

For those of you who prefer NOT to let their fingers do the walking, I have noted elsewhere that (ed: some slight revisions):

“I am NOT arguing FOR a general rule that shareholders SHOULD be liable for corporate torts; rather, I have:

(1) pointed out that limited liability itself has served to muddle the question of whom, exactly, should be responsible for the very real harms that corporations frequently cause,

(2) noted that the limited-liability corporate form has enabled risk-generation and -shifting on a massive scale, with innocent third parties frequently being stuck holding the bag (not simply when liabilities exceed assets, but more generally since the cycle of escalating government interventions to rein in corporations perversely ends up raising barriers to entry and giving corporations “rights” to engage in activities that damage others, which rights curtail recourse even when sufficient assets are available),

(3) argued that libertarians should reconsider the grant of limited liability for torts (as opposed to limited liability as to those who contract with the corporation on a voluntary basis) not simply because it is clearly non-libertarian to begin with, but because it has had profound consequences in feeding the snowballing and increasingly centralized regulatory state– consequences at a serious enough level that state-loving libertarians concede simply by troubling themselves to argue against curtailing limited liability,

(4) noted that the most efficiacious way to roll back the regulatory state lie in the direction of shifting ultimate responsibility for managing risks to enterprise owners (and ending the counterproductive regulatory risk-management experiment), and

(5) noted that a curtailment of limited liability for torts could be hedged by shareholders via insurance, and could be achieved by state governments and the federal government offering more lenient regulation to busness enterprises that operate as partnerships, unlimited liability corporations, or in cases where shares are NOT “fully paid up” so that calls for signifcant additional capital could be made against shareholders if needed to pay claims. “Creative destruction” by new firms will eventually bring down the limited liability firms.

Testimony by George Mason University economics professor Russ Roberts in 2010 before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuZxLdGdUPQ&feature=player_embedded:550:0]

In a letter to the editor cross-posted to Cafe Hayek on October 23, Steven Horwitz, in responding to a reader who croticizes George Will’s recent column on Elizabeth Warren, challenges “a number of fallacies about the recession and financial crisis”.

In trying to distinguish ‘capitalism’ from the “government intervention and crony corporatism” that Horwitz sees as the cause of our current mess, Howitz seeks to lay blame off on government, while absolving from responsibility the firms that benefitted from the government inverventions:

If all the traffic lights in Watertown were stuck on green, we’d hardly blame the drivers for the ensuing accidents. When government distorts the signals and incentives facing producers and consumers, the blame for the resulting disaster should fall on government not the private sector.

Nonsense. Even if it was government that created signals that mucked up the works, government acted in response to pressure from people who stood to benefit, and we have every right – nay, we OUGHT – to be upset with them, as well as with others who acted to suit themselves, knowing that the downside would be borne by others.

Our outrage is our final line of defense against damaging behavior; we should tune and direct it, not dampen it. More on “Moral suasion” here.

I left the following comment (emphasis and link added; slight edits):

TokyoTom October 26, 2011 at 8:28 am

Let’s face it: our financial sectors is a massive, stinking mess, resulting proximately from rampant moral hazard encouraged by government laws and regulations – chiefly, the deposit insurance that substituted Government and .taxpayers’ pockets for oversight by depositors who no longer considered that they were putting their money at risk.

The central role of ‘government’ does NOT. however, eliminate the responsibility of men and women in various institutions that took advantage of incentives to maximize personal gain while shifting risks and losses to others.

In this, I have to disagree strongly with Steve, who seems to want to hold only ‘Government’ responsible. Emphatically No – to increase responsibility we must not simply restore risk, but also demand better behavior and call out those whose actions are shameful.

The relaxation of leverage standards much discussed above took place only because investment bankers who had gone public – and thus were playing largely with public investors’ capital and not their own – wanted to load up on risk, the better to reap massive profits during the bubble and downloading risks to shareholders (in addition to risks deliberately played off to insured banks, Franie and Freddie, and to other market participants giddied by the bubble).. They all played this game so well that they made billions in bonusses, even as they made their own institutions so opaque that they could no longer measure each other’s counterparty risk and brought each other crashing down. Lehman’s CEO Fuld, who made over $100 million annually in compensation and bonusses in each of his last few years, is just one example.

Those who sought, took advantage of and approved of this nonsense, and then sought and approved of bailouts ALL richly deserve and NEED our strongest condemnation.

None of this “We can’t blame drivers for ‘accidents’ that hurt others, because Government messed up the signals” for me.