Crisis & the Law with Richard Epstein

Considered one if the most influential legal thinkers of modern times, Richard Epstein brings his libertarian views to bear on the current financial crisis –government incentives were perverse, so the actions of the private parties were perverse– and rates the performances of George Bush and Barack Obama in their responses to the crisis. He speaks to the importance of contracts and the constitutionality of the expo facto taxation on AIG executives and the Employee Free Choice Act embraced by President Obama. Finally he speaks of his personal and professional dealings with Barack Obama when they were law school faculty mates at the University of Chicago.

Related Blogs

    Tags: , , , , ,

    9 Responses to “Crisis & the Law with Richard Epstein”

    1. dcdanta Says:

      Mr. Robinson assumes–mistakenly in my opinion– that Milton Friedman would have advocated increases in the monetary base during the “credit crunch.” A better approximation of Mr. Friedman’s view would probably be that of Anna Schwartz’s, his coauthor in a Monetary History of the United States:”The Fed has gone about as if the problem is a shortage of liquidity. That is not the basic problem.”

    2. Wormtail81 Says:

      That is an excellent point.

    3. selfmadenow Says:

      Yes, Mr. Danta, excellent point indeed.

    4. logant44 Says:

      I don’t understand a word this guy is saying

    5. stonergeo33 Says:

      Holy shit. This guy is great. His voice flows and he thinks so fast! So well spoken!

    6. lavedon Says:

      2nd only to Thomas Sowell

    7. 7beers Says:

      Epstein is one smart cookie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    8. lg44351 Says:

      You must be joking

    9. godwithin060988 Says:

      1st off,
      the income tax IS unconstitutional because it is a direct tax and NOT apportioned like the constitution demands.
      the supreme courts have ruled, the Stanton case (1916) being one of them, that the 16th amendment did not give the government ANY new taxation power.
      the definition for “income”, just to mention ONE case, was given in the Doyle vs Mitchell 247 U.S. 179 (1918), which turned on the idea of “GAIN OR INCREASE ARISING FROM CORPORATE ACTIVITY”.
      End of argument.