In the world I've been living in, Wall Street financiers confiscated the rest of the country's wealth by gambling it away in a craze of greed and speculation.

Apparently, in Andrew Leonard's world, Wall Street financiers have the power to levy taxes and to print more money. That's the only way I can imagine that he can justify his claim that Wall Street financiers "confiscated the rest of the country's wealth." In my world, Wall Street financiers have no such power to confiscate wealth, and are dependent upon government to do it for them - which government did, in fact, oblige them.

Talk about a howler...

What you are describing is neither printing money nor confiscating assets. It is simply fraud, at worst, and malinvestment at best. All participants, regardless of how misinformed they might have been, were voluntary. The only "confiscation of wealth" that occurred was at the end when the government bailed them out with taxpayer money.

Words mean things. Fraud is not Confiscation. The distinction is important.

If you really want to understand what happened here, recognize the behavior for what it really was - excessively risky, nothing more nor less - and look into what enabled it. Risk at this level doesn't happen in a vacuum - this isn't just the way people behave when they have the opportunity to. Most people, whether they be you or I with ten credit cards, or Wall Street Financiers, don't borrow on this scale unless either (a) someone, or something, convinces us that we will somehow be able to pay it back, or (b) someone, or something, convinces us that we won't have to pay it back.

We should all think on that, instead of stretching the meaning of words to fit our own pre-made conclusions.

Ever watch the MacLaughlin report?

"WROOONG, SIR!!!!"

While I am fairly libertarian in my leaning (a recent development - until a few years ago, I was a happy big government liberal), I have not read anything by Rand, and from what I know of her and her philosophy, probably would not count myself as an Objectivist. For me, at least, it didn't start with Ayn Rand.

History (and neuroeconomics) indicates that people left to pursue short-term self-interest will almost always behave in this fashion.

No citation, just a mere assertion on your part. However, be that as it may, most people try to minimize or avoid risk, and, if they know about it, usually don't view extreme risk as either in their long term or short term interest. That goes for both individual borrowers and institutional lenders and investors. That's why it "doesn't happen in a vacuum." Something enabled it.

As for economics, I didn't major in it in college, and it is kind of a new interest of mine. I'm not "bad" at it, but I will confess I could be a bit more educated. I've read Friedman and Hayek, and have Mises on my list. However, it is my understanding of money and banking that the growth or contraction of the money supply, also, doesn't happen in a vacuum, and that it is contingent upon among other things, the interest rate. When a central bank is involved, that means that it is contingent upon the whim of the central banker - government control of the money supply being the whole point of central banking in the first place. Thus, in our Federal Reserve system, the power to "print money," ultimately, lies with the Federal Government - at least as I understand it.

Regarding all of the people you cite who are currently losing their homes - what is happening to them is reposession, not confiscation. Once again, words mean things, and the distinctions are important.

I do take umbrage at your assertion that I am "bad" at logic. Fraud and Confiscation are qualitatively different things. In the case of fraud, voluntary action is required on the part of the victim to put himself or herself in that position. Thus, the frequently fuzzy line between regret and victimhood is ususally a complicating factor. Confiscation, on the other hand, involves no victim-cooperation. It implies a straight up taking, and there is nothing morally fuzzy about it.

P.S. Thanks for calling me a loser right up front. Helps to know exactly where you're coming from.

....is not simply that its un-PC. The humor lies in the fact that Larry, despite being rude, mean spirited, selfish, inconsiderate, and insanely out of touch with the rules of social decorum, is also almost always right. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a logic to his action that cannot be denied, and when that logic clashes with polite society, it simply is funny.

Personally, I think he's great at playing himself. I can't imagine anyone else who could carry it off.