Althouse: Richard Epstein talks with great speed and substance about his former law school colleague, Barack Obama, and all sorts of details about the economy.

November 22, 2010

Richard Epstein talks with great speed and substance about his former law school colleague, Barack Obama, and all sorts of details about the economy.

50 comments:

Kansas City said...: Mr. Epstein seemed a little too sure of himself to me. The subjecs he talked about are not that black and white.

Mr. Epstein is a fast talking egotist, while President Obama is a slow talking egotist. What is it about these law school professors?; 11/22/10, 9:07 PM
Bob_R said...: Saw this earlier. He has the O pegged pretty well. I'm basically in agreement with him about a lot of things, so I probably give him too much credit for intelligence and insight.; 11/22/10, 9:08 PM
Kirby Olson said...: Very very good: BO had total confidence combined with amateur notions. Just what the White House needs. A goofball with a pink belt who thinks he has a black belt. Great conversation.; 11/22/10, 9:08 PM
rhhardin said...: Try the Epstein podcasts at econtalk.org.

The Rule of Law one is good for a start; then the one on Regulation.; 11/22/10, 9:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama wasn't interested in the U of Chicago Law School or in serious scholarship.

He was a man on a mission. He had places to go.

The Law School was a temporary pit stop for Obama.

So was the act of real and substantive thought, which is why Obama repeats every lefty platitude ever uttered by a sophomore.; 11/22/10, 9:17 PM
Kansas City said...: I think President Obama was a very bad choice for president and will probably wind up a lousy president, but I have a hard time believing now that he has the job, he is not trying to figure out what is best for the country and at least considering ideas that are not traditional lefty stuff.; 11/22/10, 9:25 PM
dbp said...: Epstein is as bright as all the right people (used) to think Obama was.; 11/22/10, 9:28 PM
former law student said...: I can't listen right now -- does Epstein still have a hard on for Obama? I like to hear smack as much as the next guy -- does he have anything new?; 11/22/10, 9:29 PM
Unknown said...: Kirby got the total confidence (actually, unbounded confidence in himself, but why quibble?), but left out the other half of the entry: a very poor skill set to deal with these problems.

And people say The Zero is going to be re-elected?

Maybe if Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and Spain sinks the battleship Maine.; 11/22/10, 9:38 PM
Photog714 said...: "I think President Obama was a very bad choice for president and will probably wind up a lousy president..."

Wind up?; 11/22/10, 9:41 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Interesting use of language..

@5:35 On the legal challenge to Obamacare.. turns out that the totalitarian state model might be a "novel argument" for Obamacare !?

Why use the words "novel argument" in that context.. when he had just described it as the stuff of totalitarianism?

There is nothing novel in..

This guy is a professor.. he must know what he means.; 11/22/10, 9:44 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/22/10, 9:48 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Ok.. maybe I didn't..; 11/22/10, 9:53 PM
chuck b. said...: "Hope and change turns out to be discord and confusion." (11:30)

I think he practiced that, but I like it!

Ugh. Just had a little shudder of the 2008 recollection. Obama's presidential campaign was so plainly objectionable. I'm glad I was not paying much attention to it. Further recollection would be unbearable.; 11/22/10, 10:00 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: The thing is that when I think of a "noble argument" I dont think of it as facetious or duplicitous..

If somebody makes a.. lets use the word "interesting argument" does that mean that if someone else says that was a "novel argument" he meant it as a put down?

It seems to me we open up possibilities of being misunderstood (aside from bad spelling) for the sake of going for something extra.; 11/22/10, 10:03 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Schwiiiiing. Great interview. Your signal that it's time to wrap up the interview is when the guy starts repeating himself. Hope and change turns out to be discord and confusion, and there's no way you can stop that, you cannot stop the blunders of one government program by putting another one on top of it … hey! … that déjà vu thing is happening again. My tingling spider senses tell me that was editing.; 11/22/10, 10:07 PM
chuck b. said...: "As the politics become more controversial, and the unpopularity of the plan becomes more evident, the willingness of judges to entertain novel arguments will increase and therefore the odds [of overturning] Obamacare will move up."

Ummm, is that a good? Lol.

Gillespie changes the subject.

Also, Nick Gillespie is a very handsome man. More of his interviews, please.; 11/22/10, 10:09 PM
ricpic said...: Short version: Barry ain't that bright.; 11/22/10, 10:15 PM
Kansas City said...: I think a more accurate short version if that "Barry" is not as bright as he thinks he is. I think he also is ill served by a staff that idolizes him.; 11/22/10, 10:18 PM
Wince said...: I think the second constitutional argument against Obamacare that Epstein alluded to but does not describe (or might have been cut) is his own argument about impermissible ratemaking (i.e., price controls without a reasonable profit, much like the TCF bank card fee claim he talks about).

I introduced that argument at a Federalist Society health care reform forum in Boston last spring. One of the liberals on the panel poo-pooed the argument thusly: "if the argument was made by Richard Epstein, it is wrong." Seriously, that ultimate ad hominem was her argument.

In the fall, just before the election, Governor Deval Patrick froze premiums on certain health insurance policies by fiat through the Div of Insurance.

Epstein has their number, and they don't like it.; 11/22/10, 10:25 PM
AllenS said...: Our country desparately needs more people like him to tell it like it is.; 11/23/10, 5:10 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Kansas City,

Mr. Epstein seemed a little too sure of himself to me.

You're going to have to learn to get over that. I despise the way men today can be penalized for confidence.

On the other hand, I equally despise how "Barry" could waltz through the corridors of power, with nothing more than an upraised chin, and the rest of these fools could think of nothing else to do but open another door for him.

It's all kind of hard to explain. Chuck b. says Nick Gillespie is a very handsome man. Yea, because he's asking questions - not a hard thing to look good doing. He's asking those questions of Epstein and, I think, rightfully so.

Women have been allowed to warp our view of manliness to such an extent I wonder how many of us, today, can spot true competence and/or who really has leadership abilities. People are so shallow now, judging and elevating men on surface qualities ("The Situation" is famous for what?) while penalizing others for stuff that doesn't matter, like crudeness or not being superficially "nice". Fuck if he's a "good man" - he swears a lot and, as I've seen it said in this very forum, swearing is a sign of,...something.

Chuck also said he got a shudder from thinking of 2008. That's good. Proves you're aware and awake. (I still don't know how Ann sleeps at night.) From what I can see, you're going to need that awareness to navigate the hard times ahead - and they are ahead of us, approaching fast - who are you going to listen to? The guy with his chin in the air and a head full of empty platitudes? The confident, fast-talking fellow, that only half the audience can understand? Or the crude survivor who swears and could give a shit what you've been told by your mama to think about it?

I've been shot at, and had too many guns put in my face - for just existing - to misunderstand my own place in the hierarchy. People always focus on me - male and female alike. In a "civil" society, I can't be allowed to flourish because it means nobody could give a shit about them. But when the shit goes down, that's when who-knows-what matters. And damn anybody who gets in my way. Laws are made to protect bitches, male and female alike.

I've told you, from Day One, what y'all should be focused on - NewAge. (Oprah did bring you "Barry"...) You don't agree? Wanna study monetary policy instead? Fine by me, as NewAge fraud is proven daily to be eating away at the financial (and other) infrastructure of our nation. You've blinded yourselves to it, either by accepting NewAge beliefs as your own (Ann) or rejecting my thesis because NewAge, too, seems superficial and (I love this) "harmless". It seems almost cruel to attack it, doesn't it? Like picking on a child. But that kid's name is Damien.

Anyway, by now, I'm sure many of you are rolling your eyes, or have already me tuned out, but that's O.K. - I'm used to your ignorance and can recognize weakness on display. You're the types who won't be happy until evil is at your door - then you'll move but in the wrong direction - still too "sophisticated" to follow rats on a sinking ship. And not men enough, to do what's right, now.

"If Mama ain't happy ain't nobody happy"?

That'll be your downfall right there.

Mama picked "Barry" because Oprah said so.

How they convinced your dumb asses to pull the lever, too (or even to stay home) is the part that's always fascinated The Macho Response.

Oh - and BTW - you can save the aftermarket chest-thumping that I can see coming a mile away:

If you were "all that" we wouldn't be discussing any of this, but how everybody was trying to take YOU out, and not me or "Barry".; 11/23/10, 5:39 AM
Robert Cook said...: What is Epstein saying by contrasting Obama's "unfounded self-confidence coupled with a minimal skill set to solve the problems he's facing" (with which I don't disagree) with George Bush?

Is he saying that Bush was similarly ill-equipped but at least had the good sense to know it? That he was more humble? Or is he saying Bush had self-confidence coupled with the appropriate skill set to solve problems (and to warrant the self-confidence)?

I don't think Bush and Obama are necessarily the same at all as people, but they share the qualities of self-certainty coupled with incompetence. Obama caves in more readily to the Republicans and their agenda, while Bush virtually ignored and steam-rollered over the Democrats.

They're largely alike in not only their inadequacies, but in their roles as as minions of the corporate state, doing that which serves the interests of Wall Street, the banks and corporations, and the minority of wealthy private citizens who collectively hold most of the wealth of our country.; 11/23/10, 5:55 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Cookie,

I steer clear of you, because you're a fool, but I will say this much:

The only quality Obami and GW share is to somehow be a rorschach for others. In Bush's case, pretty much everyone sees their own weakness and stupidity reflected. In Bambi, they saw a vision of their competence and strength. Only now are they discovering both images were an illusion.

Cowboys are strong and smart. Professors are stupid and weak. As we can now see, a professor without someone to protect them won't be making many discoveries, but will only fumble along trying to stay alive.

And BTW - your class warfare mentality is crippling.; 11/23/10, 6:29 AM
frak said...: Epstein is a national treasure.; 11/23/10, 7:04 AM
Crimso said...: "Obama caves in more readily to the Republicans"

Because nothing says "caves in" like "I won."; 11/23/10, 7:18 AM
madAsHell said...: Wow!
Everyone agrees with Epstein!
Where were you in 2008?

How many zillions do we spend on "entitlements"?...and how do we justify the money spent?

w/v: dicit - Rangel is full of dicit!

Do word verifications project on us, or do we project on word verifications? Do they shape the arguments presented here?....and what did Billy Joe throw off the Tallahatchie bridge?

oh, yeah....Epstein ROX!!; 11/23/10, 8:01 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: It's refreshing to hear a lawyer come out and say we have too many laws and regulations. Which is heresy to liberal Dems and most Congress critters.; 11/23/10, 8:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Obama caves in more readily to the Republicans and their agenda,

Hysterical.

It is almost as if the Democrats didn't have a large house majority and 60 or 59 Senators since January of 2009.

Once again, you beclown yourself with such ease.; 11/23/10, 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: while Bush virtually ignored and steam-rollered over the Democrats.

Is that why he signed the Ted Kennedy authored prescription bill entitlement?; 11/23/10, 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: by the way, here is a real world impact of the Obama approach to health care.

The New York Times reports there is a “growing frenzy of mergers” in the health care field in which hospitals and other care providers, pressured by the new law’s provisions, are joining forces to save money. “Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve,” the paper reports, “by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses.”

Question for all you true believer leftists: how do you get to keep your doctor when you health insurance plan goes away and your current doctor is not a participant in the new plan?

Oh, it was all a silly lie.

Nevermind.

VW: joked

Yes, it is all a joke to you lefitsts. You just want to control every aspect of our lives.; 11/23/10, 8:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Where were all these people in 2008?

Obama's job approval rating as calculated by the Zogby Poll has now sunk to 39%, a new low for his 22-month presidency that began with so much hope and excitement and poll numbers up around 70. As recently as Sept. 20, his job approval was 49%.

A whopping 60% now disapprove of his job, up from 51% disapproval Sept. 20.

Obama now trails in hypothetical 2012 matchups against Republicans Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the next Bush, Jeb.

I hope he is a one-termer...; 11/23/10, 8:24 AM
jungatheart said...: RH, thanks for posting that link. I listened to the rule of law one last time you posted it, and re-listened last night. I like the way Epstein speaks. So lucid. I like his voice, also. Reminds me of David Albert, if you ever caught him on bhtv with Sean Carroll. I'm looking forward to listening to the other five on the list, especially the one on happiness, inequality, and envy.; 11/23/10, 8:27 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Somebody just dropped this in my box:

Did you know that Deeprak Chopra is the Chairman, Chief Executive, Director and President of OSIS, the company that makes the Rapiscan airport security company freinded by Michael Chertoff.

http://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/goto/evaluate/snapshot.jhtml?symbols=OSIS

I'm checking to see if it's the same DC.

Study NewAge, people, it's the key to understanding our world - especially the things we hate about it.; 11/23/10, 9:00 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: JAY,

“Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve,” the paper reports, “by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses.”

I see homeopathic "medicines" in our future,...just as Britain is wrestling with (with NewAgers demanding they be paid for though they're only water) because they're claiming they're cheap and, of course, there's "no side effects".

And don't forget where this all started: Mr. Alternative Medicine himself - Tom Harkin, baby!; 11/23/10, 9:08 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Obama's job approval rating as calculated by the Zogby Poll has now sunk to 39%, a new low for his 22-month presidency that began with so much hope and excitement and poll numbers up around 70. As recently as Sept. 20, his job approval was 49%.

A whopping 60% now disapprove of his job, up from 51% disapproval Sept. 20.

And don't you dare mention Oprah,....; 11/23/10, 9:10 AM
bagoh20 said...: Regardless of the arguments, I would say it would take Obama about six weeks with a
teleprompter to deliver the same number of ideas. Man that guy talks fast. It comes faster than you digest it, which is refreshing in a way. I can't stand waiting through the ums and ahhs.

If Obama talked like that, some of you slower kids could have figured out he was full of shit BEFORE the election; 11/23/10, 9:10 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: bagoh20,

Look at that Tom Harkin link - I mean, really look at it - and tell me if that's a government you recognize.; 11/23/10, 9:12 AM
bagoh20 said...: Oprah and Obama share that strategy of keeping their fans happy by giving away stuff, but Oprah at least uses her own money.

From up here, you can see that in both cases the fans are being bought with their own money. Genius!; 11/23/10, 9:14 AM
Michael said...: Epstein's teleprompter is awesome!! Wonder how it can move so fast, it's almost like he's saying the very things he is thinking at that moment. Very clever device.; 11/23/10, 9:17 AM
bagoh20 said...: Thanks Crack. The FDA regulations concerning supplements versus pharmaceuticals reminds me of gun control laws and many other regulations
where only the honest are subject to rules, giving the frauds and the dangerous free reign.

Unintended consequences are for the little people and the honest to just deal with.

My life was saved by a wide array of pharmaceuticals and advanced procedures, but I had friends (who wear funny clothes) telling me to avoid all that and go "natural" with this crap or that prayer. I would be dead today if I listened, but they still believe simply because......well I don't know why.; 11/23/10, 9:29 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Hysterical.

"It is almost as if the Democrats didn't have a large house majority and 60 or 59 Senators since January of 2009."

Yes, which is why it's all the more pathetic that the spineless Obama caves in to the Republicans and their agenda...all in the name of bipartisanship.; 11/23/10, 10:23 AM
Michael said...: Robert Cook: "Yes, which is why it's all the more pathetic that the spineless Obama caves in to the Republicans and their agenda...all in the name of bipartisanship."

Actually the bipartisanship came from the Democrats who voted w/ the Republicans enough to stop some of the boy genius' "ideas."; 11/23/10, 10:27 AM
Robert Cook said...: while Bush virtually ignored and steam-rollered over the Democrats.

"Is that why he signed the Ted Kennedy authored prescription bill entitlement?"

http://www.dailystrength.org/groups/no-way-no-how-no-mccain-08/discussions/messages/7872905

Pertinent excerpt:

" It wasn't until 2003 that a prescription drug benefit was passed, and when it was passed, it was -- as Kennedy had warned could happen -- a bonanza for the health care industry. (In the wake of the plan's passage, Billy Tauzin left Congress and became the top lobbyist for prescription drug manufacturers.)

Early in the process, Kennedy had worked with Bush and the Republicans, even helping pass a bill he could support through the Senate. But at the last minute, Bush and the GOP stabbed Kennedy in the back, swapping out the Senate-passed legislation with the industry-friendly boondoggle in conference committee.

As a result, Kennedy went from supporting the process to opposing it. Along with all the senators in the room -- including Bayh -- Kennedy voted against the Bush plan and spoke out loudly in opposition."; 11/23/10, 10:32 AM
Tarzan said...: Great interview, but not a single mention of his work with The Beatles back in the day. Sheesh!; 11/23/10, 11:08 AM
former law student said...: I got a chance to watch it; the big takeaway for me is that what Richard Epstein doesn't understand about Wall Street isn't worth knowing -- at least in Richard Epstein's opinion.

The world needs to carve out a domain in which Epsteinian ideas can be tried. Perhaps Argentina would be willing to give up a thousand square miles of land for this purpose. A land in which life would be nasty, brutish and short except for Nature's noblemen like Epstein.; 11/23/10, 11:54 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Actually the bipartisanship came from the Democrats who voted w/ the Republicans enough to stop some of the boy genius' 'ideas.'"

I don't exclude the Dems from culpability for selling out their principles or promises...they're spineless servants of the empire as much as Obama is, but don't think Obama is somehow a radical firebrand being held in check by the "more sensible" bipartisan Dems in Congress. They're all of a kind.; 11/23/10, 11:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes, which is why it's all the more pathetic that the spineless Obama caves in to the Republicans and their agenda.

You can't provide a singular example of this.; 11/23/10, 12:26 PM
Robert Cook said...: Well, there's Obama's continuation and even expansion of Bush's war policies, his failure to close Gitmo, his decision not to pursue criminal investigations against the cabal of Bushies who committed war crimes, (well, he's joined them now, so we know it'll never happen), his apparent readiness now to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone, his major cave in on "health care reform" (sic), his apparent willingness to put the evisceration of Medicare and Social Security on the table, etc., etc.

He's basically Bush with a less overtly obnoxious manner. (It's a more subtly obnoxious manner.); 11/23/10, 12:43 PM
Anonymous said...: his decision not to pursue criminal investigations against the cabal of Bushies who committed war crimes,

Wow, you really are a fringe lunatic.; 11/23/10, 6:27 PM