My last article cites some of the prescient things he said about the real estate bubble. Bashkim Rrahmoni writes to point out that Ron was even much more prescient than this:
The center piece of Weisberg's contention (if there was anything specific) was "deregulation". Liberals who actually try to name something specific focus on GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT that changed Glass-Steagall. While the jury is out on that charge Ron Paul himself opposed it and put the following in the congressional record in 1999:
* Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. . . .
* The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. . . .
* The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. . . .
It's pretty amazing that Ron Paul was this precient. Wiesberg even cited LTCM as his canary in the gold mine but Paul (again amazingly) addressed it 9 years ago and cited it as a moral hazard in a corrupt pseudo deregulated system. This argument beats him on his own premise.
I'm sure the liberals would scoff at his suggestion of completely deregulating the system but isn't Paul's statement prima facie evidence that a libertarian (the only one in government) opposed the bill and predicted the hazard accurately? Wiesberg hangs the entire crisis on the neck of libertarianism so that it may be forever discredited. But wouldn't it be fair for us to now expect him to advocate Ron Paul's position of complete deregulation now given this evidence? It's only fair that if he's going to indict an entire movement's credibility for being wrong shouldn't the only self described libertarian in government be given credit for being right. Probably not because Mr. Wiesberg "like all true ideologues, [he] finds a way to interpret mounting evidence of error as proof that [he was] right all along."