02 December 2008
Could criticizing banks be considered hate speech?
10:06 AM
In Latvia, it is a crime to criticize the bank:
Think of what's going on. We all know, or suspect, that talk -- mere talk -- can affect the market. Mere talk could cause a run on a bank. If we have businesses too big, too important to fail then we certainly have banks too big to fail. And the biggest bank of all is the Federal Reserve system. Since the government has oversight of the economy and is empowered to regulate it, we shouldn't be surprised if someday, some pol makes the suggestion that speech having deleterious effects should also be regulated, as something very like hate speech.
Today, it's just Latvia.
It is a crime to criticize the stability of the banking system in Latvia. Economists have been prominent among those rounded up recently in these uncertain times (that phrase would be about as far as you can go in Riga) for suggesting that one could lose money through exposure to the country's banking system.One "Arend" offers this astute comment:
Monday's Wall Street Journal explains on its front page how the now-51%-government-owned biggest bank in the country has become the beneficiary of such protection.Hayek's dictum that economic control entails the control of all rights and freedoms is once again demonstrated. -- Here.
One should be really careful in calling the Latvian banking system fundamentally unstable, because just as criticizing the system will contribute to its collapse, just believing... BELIEVING the system is stable, and good, and wonderful will just make it a fact. That's how one beats reality, my dear friends. Government style.Don't say, "Things are not all right" and things will be all right.
Think of what's going on. We all know, or suspect, that talk -- mere talk -- can affect the market. Mere talk could cause a run on a bank. If we have businesses too big, too important to fail then we certainly have banks too big to fail. And the biggest bank of all is the Federal Reserve system. Since the government has oversight of the economy and is empowered to regulate it, we shouldn't be surprised if someday, some pol makes the suggestion that speech having deleterious effects should also be regulated, as something very like hate speech.
Today, it's just Latvia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- James Frank Solís
- Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(252)
-
▼
December
(20)
- Proclaim “Welfare!” and throw liberty to the winds
- Strictly speaking, post-modernism was not subjecte...
- Wise Man's Trip
- The War on Christmas
- A couple of favorite scenes from one of my favorit...
- Christian Commitment and the Christian Scholar
- Why is everybody picking on poor, old Uncle Sammy?
- What do you mean, there was no credit crisis?
- The more things change, the more they don't -- not...
- Dems become hoarse when topic is UAW
- Art as doxology
- Thou shalt not "bash" unions, for they are good, h...
- But why are college costs so high?
- Would they be in this kind of hurry if McCain had ...
- Post-modernism and the economic crisis
- The economic crisis as a test, not of capitalism, ...
- That was shop victoriously, not savagely
- Where did Epiphanes go wrong?
- Could criticizing banks be considered hate speech?
- Deliver us from evil, O Divine State
-
▼
December
(20)
0 comments: