• Home
  • News
  • Posner Writes Book Questioning His Free-Market Views, and Keeps on Writing

Judiciary

Posner Writes Book Questioning His Free-Market Views, and Keeps on Writing

Posted Feb 26, 2009 10:15 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Judge Richard Posner has written a new book questioning his own free-market views, but he’s finding it difficult to let go of the project.

Posner, a judge with the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, originally finished the manuscript Jan. 30, The Boston Globe’s Brainiac blog reports. But he wrote more—another 10,000 words more—in response to current events. And he plans more updates on a planned Posner Economic Crisis Blog after the book is published by Harvard.

“How fast does the prolific law professor and appellate judge Richard Posner write?” Brainiac asks. “Faster than the Harvard University Press can edit.”

The book, titled A Failure of Capitalism, says the government response to the economic crisis has been inadequate and calls for new regulations, a Harvard press publicist told Brainiac.

Hat tip to How Appealing.

Comments

1.

J.D.
Feb 26, 2009 11:00 AM CST

Yeah, this country went from a plot of land to a world superpower, with the highest standard of living ever seen on Earth in only 200 years as a result of free market capitalism, but as soon as Congress fails to balance a budget, capitalism has FAILED! It’s time to welcome socialism!

Give me a break. It’s simply wishful thinking on the part of the post-American crowd.

2.

Michael
Feb 27, 2009 11:24 AM CST

I think you need to study history, economics, and Posner.  I’d be surprised if he’s ever been labeled a socialist before.

3.

J.D.
Feb 27, 2009 2:58 PM CST

It’s the promotion of these anti-capitalist views by the Left to which I’m referring. It’s a phenomenon that has reemerged from the day Obama took office.

The Soviets are happy.

4.

Paul the Magyar
Feb 27, 2009 5:26 PM CST

Lets all eat the rich.

Actually, this country went from a plot of land to a world superpower, with the highest standard of living ever seen on Earth in only 200 years as a result of large supplies of raw materials, cheap labor, and increasingly well-managed and appropriately-regulated market capitalism. 

The problem is not regulation, but lack of appropriate and meaningful regulation.  Conservatives are re-writing history to label any regulation as bad, anti-capitalist, un-American, etc.  This is facile name-calling and recent experience suggests the citizenry are fed up with it.

The real economic and social advancement of our country occurred simultaneously with the growth of our federal government and the standardization of laws nationally, regulation of banks, and the creation of various social security policies.

If one wants to see what unregulated free-market capitalism looks like, see “Slumdog Millionaire”—and if that is attractive to you, please do move to Mumbai forthwith.

5.

B. McLeod
Feb 27, 2009 7:35 PM CST

Milton Friedman used to argue that regulation was unnecessary because consumer choice would enforce safety.  He had a point to the extent that if a product or condition kills a consumer, that consumer won’t purchase or support that product or condition again.  In history, however, it has not worked well.  Illustrations include Love Canal, the Ford Pinto, cigarettes, and Bernie Madoff’s investment products (to mention only a few).

6.

Heidi O
Feb 28, 2009 12:48 AM CST

This nation went from a plot of land to a world super power because of free market capitalism?  Given that much of our early economic prosperity came on the backs of slave labor, I find that an ironic statement.

What a great idea, let’s just allow the banks to fail, the foreclosures to proceed apace, and the people to literally starve because they can’t afford to buy food to eat.  Of course the government being involved to any degree in regulation or investment/ownership in the banks or in creating jobs for people who have none is socialism.  Let’s just call it socialism and link it to the Soviet Union with our language and call those who support it “post-American;” maybe if we say it enough people will believe us.  Give me a break.

What’s your plan?

7.

J.D.
Mar 1, 2009 4:31 PM CST

It’s shocking how much libs are willing to be dependent on government. The founders are rolling in their graves.

Will some banks fail if the government doesn’t turn socialist? YES. Which banks? The ones that made bad decisions and did a crappy job running things.

Does that mean the market for “banks” has run dry? Of course not. There’s ample opportunity for some new blood to start a bank—or to reorganize the existing ones. It’s called competition; it’s called the free market. Maybe you all oppose it because you have no imagination and no skill sets—you’re too scared to compete.

But with the gov’t stepping in, YOU ALL are requesting the status quo and additional incompetence. Do you really think Bush would have done a fantastic job running the banks? Because if you can’t say “yes” unequivocally to that question, then you shouldn’t be advocating gov’t control of the banks. Obama isn’t going to be in power forever.

8.

FaQ12
Mar 3, 2009 2:23 AM CST

It’s pretty sad how every discussion these days devolves into a liberal-conservative name calling mud-slinging event. Also pretty tiring.

The comments have nothing to do with the topic and they’re more or less worthless-a dime a dozen in the current era. Can’t people get their heads out of the political muck for a minute?

FYI, discussions of the benefits and dangers of free-markets go well beyond the moronically acute context of the Obama administration (or the would-have-been McCain administration).

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.