In Praise of Looters: Harry Binswanger’s Defense of Goldman Sachs

[JamesShrugged]

http://dailyanarchis...-goldman-sachs/

Harry Binswanger’s 2011 praise of Goldman Sachs at Forbes.com ignores the context that the US does not have a free market economy. The US is a mixed economy, whose financial sector is monopolized by banking cartels. Counter to Binswanger’s argument that, “since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created,” the corporate profits of Goldman Sachs are the result of lobbying, government insider favors, the infamous 2008 bailout of AIG. and their membership in the central bank’s monetary monopoly. This misdirection is the primary characteristic of what Roderick Long called “right-conflationism.”

--Read More--

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't read much by Binswanger, but his latest public pronouncements like that Forbes article seem to blur the lines between capitalistic giants and crony capitalists.

He lumps them all as "top earners" and extols his praise.

I wonder if he ever heard of James Taggart...

Michael

[JamesShrugged]

True. As I remember most of the villans in AS are crny businessmen. Mr. Thompson is the only politician, right?

[Selene]

True. As I remember most of the villans in AS are crny businessmen. Mr. Thompson is the only politician, right?

Hmm...I think Kip Chalmers is also an elected politician. However, essentially you are correct.

[JamesShrugged]

You are right, I forgot about Ol Kip

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

I haven't read Binswanger's article, so I don't know if he is guilty of the following acts I have observed.

Is it just me or does it seem that many liberty-minded folk tend to defend the so-called 1% (the top earners) in their entirety? Surely not everyone in the top-earners bracket is praiseworthy just as not everyone in the top-earners bracket is contemptible.

On one side, I see some liberty-minded folk wholly praise the top earners while, on the other side, I see others (think Occupy Wallstreet) wholly damn the top earners.

I just sit in the background, smack my head, and say: wholly shit.

A more nuanced approach is needed.

[JamesShrugged]

Kyle, one is avaliable throught the writings of libertarians (Kevin Carson, Roderick Long). They seem to be worlds ahead of Objectivists in some respects.

[anthony]

I haven't read Binswanger's article, so I don't know if he is guilty of the following acts I have observed.

Is it just me or does it seem that many liberty-minded folk tend to defend the so-called 1% (the top earners) in their entirety? Surely not everyone in the top-earners bracket is praiseworthy just as not everyone in the top-earners bracket is contemptible.

On one side, I see some liberty-minded folk wholly praise the top earners while, on the other side, I see others (think Occupy Wallstreet) wholly damn the top earners.

I just sit in the background, smack my head, and say: wholly shit.

A more nuanced approach is needed.

Yes. As James rightly indicates, how big would they be without political pull? I've no doubt the same companies would thrive in a free market - but perhaps not so well, and there would be more of them.

I do not understand some Objectivists' attraction to 'the bigger the better' (with or without cronyism). And absolutely, I admire 'the producer'. However, the implication is that the big corps - because they produce far more and because they have huge numbers of personnel - have higher value. I'm certain Rand's producers were those initiating individuals who create and sustain something worthy- from nothing- all equally admirable, irrespective of size.

Not to say big is ugly, mind you.

I just think I detect a note of intrinsicism in Harry B's praise of power.

[Samson Corwell]

Arrgghh. First Binswanger calls on people to essentially grovel and now he's defending cheaters. It's turned into worship.

[Samson Corwell]

I haven't read Binswanger's article, so I don't know if he is guilty of the following acts I have observed.

Is it just me or does it seem that many liberty-minded folk tend to defend the so-called 1% (the top earners) in their entirety? Surely not everyone in the top-earners bracket is praiseworthy just as not everyone in the top-earners bracket is contemptible.

On one side, I see some liberty-minded folk wholly praise the top earners while, on the other side, I see others (think Occupy Wallstreet) wholly damn the top earners.

I just sit in the background, smack my head, and say: wholly shit.

A more nuanced approach is needed.

Bang on, sir! We live in reality and it is very messy, so we mustn't approach it from the ideal and instead use Aristotelian prudence (dealing with reality). I call it the centrist perspective. Defense of capitalism must not morph into worship of what it produces just as cherishing tradition shouldn't wind up impeding its evolution!