1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10124/haines-vs-frank/

Haines vs. Frank

June 11, 2009 by

Representative Barney Frank couldn’t handle questioning by CNBC’s Mark Haines regarding the government’s interference with executive compensation. Rather than attempt to have an intelligent discussion on the subject, he elected to storm off mid-interview.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


Carl June 11, 2009 at 9:02 pm

Zounds that was confusing. I really can’t label him as dodging an honest interview because so much lava was getting slung around. But giving Congressman Frank the benefit of the doubt, can someone spell out the alleged three different questions that Mark Haines asked him?

AJ Witoslawski June 11, 2009 at 9:11 pm

I don’t get it. If the revolutionaries at Bunker Hill didn’t fight for their natural, individual rights, including their rights to buy and sell homesteaded property, then why did they institute a very limited government by creating a constitution with enumerated rights, and why did they explicitly include individual rights (IX Amendment) and state rights (X Amendment)?

Rep. Frank might want to read Randy Barnett’s explanations of the Constitution, found for free at randybarnett.com.

Richie June 11, 2009 at 9:24 pm

What an over-sensitive, egotistical jerk. Politicians are the worst at not being able to handle tough questioning. What a coward.

BioTube June 11, 2009 at 9:33 pm

Here’s a bigger question: if he can recognize that the compensation of Wall Street upper management constitutes a moral hazard, why can’t he see the same of the bailout?

Eric H June 11, 2009 at 9:46 pm

Frank is trying to salvage shareholder activism. He popped his cork when Haines pressed him on clinging to the almost obsolete idea of Mom & Pop sitting down at their TV-dinner trays picking stocks off of the back page of the financial section.

The idea that owning shares means ownership and thus control over management decisions is a joke. We buy shares based on information about how a company is managed, not based on how we think it should be managed. Even if the shareholder world was structured the way Frank thinks it is, believing that means each shareholder has a “vote” (other than selling his share when things hit the skids) in how a company is run is lunacy.

For a laugh: is Frank really willing to bring up what they fought for at Bunker Hill? What is he, an Originalist?

Motive June 11, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Wouldn’t Frank’s changes empower investment banks to have even more influence in the economy than they already do?

Adam H June 11, 2009 at 10:28 pm

This guy is embarrassing. Massachusetts should be ashamed. Irregardless of his crackpot political views, he acts like a damn child any time someone questions his reasoning.

Matthew June 11, 2009 at 10:40 pm

While I’m no fan of Barney Frank, I would attribute his behavior there to the talking heads on CNBC being so rude and disrespectful. That channel is more Jerry Spring Show-type entertainment than worthwhile financial commentary.

Emil Suric June 11, 2009 at 11:55 pm

Bawney Fwank said: “The board and the CEO are joined at the hip, the CEO appoints the members of the board.”

Selective logic by the Democrats. The President appoints the chairman of the FED, and yet they assure us that the FED is a-political. Please!

Bawney Fwank said: “The pay structure caused excessive risk, the risk takers weren’t punished when they lost.”

That’s because you keep bailing them out! And it’s not the pay structure that caused excessive risk taking; it was easy money, in the form of low interest rates, and Greenspan promising to help failing companies.

Bawney Fwank said: “We have an obligation, not only a right, to monitor the pay of the TARP recipients.”

You don’t have the right to prop up failing companies, and them essentially nationalizing them with tax payer money. No one does, this is not part of Obama’s mandate.

Rick June 12, 2009 at 12:48 am

Matthew –

Except why is it that Barney Frank tends to be over sensitive and thus end interviews abruptly more than any other politician I know? Fact is this guy isn’t a smooth talking politician who sticks to talking points and will purposely avoid questions. Rather, Barney Frank’s personality is one of an individual who cannot allow someone to challenge him without striking back.

The only problem is, when this pseudo-intellect finally runs up against someone who can challenge him when he’s wrong (either it be w/ facts or fair discourse) he becomes cowardly. Its one thing to come equipped with invalid arguments (I call them lies) its another when there are individuals capable of poking right through them.

I refer you to his cowardly back and forth with a Havard Student a few months back at a town hall type of meeting / and his spit-fire with Bill O’Reilly.

I unfortunately live in mASSachusetts and am all to familiar with this politicians games.

Jake June 12, 2009 at 12:49 am

Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble?

DOW June 12, 2009 at 4:27 am

Sad, really sad. And this guys an elected official? I’ve never cared much for CNBC analysts, but what’s with the playground action Frank? Akin to “Fine I’ll take my ball and go home”….geeezzz

geoih June 12, 2009 at 7:01 am

As a shareholder in the Federal Government, I think there should be some penalty to Congress and the Administration for their poor performance and excessive risk taking.

Anybody want to buy my shares?

matt June 12, 2009 at 8:01 am

pretty good article over at Cafe Hayek on Bawny:

Enjoy Every Sandwich June 12, 2009 at 8:10 am

It has always amazed me when I’ve heard people talk about how sharp Frank is. I’ve never heard him say anything to support such a conclusion. To me, he sounds about as sharp as a bowling ball.

DNA June 12, 2009 at 9:13 am

The way Barney Frank talks suggests he’s had far too many jawbreakers in his time.

Ryan June 12, 2009 at 9:48 am

I detest that dude.

J Cortez June 12, 2009 at 10:21 am

Wow, for once I was actually on Mark Haines’ side. The more of Barney Frank’s interviews and speeches I see, the more I dislike him. It’s like watching Newt Gingrich speak, he’s such a shameless hack, it is painful to sit through without feeling insulted.

I second matt’s link about Frank over at Cafe Hayek. Seems many of campaign contributors are banks.


gilad June 12, 2009 at 11:09 am

the recession was caused by excessive risk taking? no kidding…

1% interest rate does that to people…

Lee June 12, 2009 at 1:10 pm

This guy makes me believe that all of this is just a ruse for an impending socialist coup.

Porky Pig, erm…, Barney Frank is your typical party water carrier. But, even if he didn’t storm out he wouldn’t have answered the question.

He would have told some sob story about some poor recently fired auto worker that couldn’t make his mortgage payments on time so he had to sell his children to Caribbean slave traders to afford his paraplegic wife’s medical bills that were accrued because of an accident last fall at the hands of a drunk driver that sped off and she might have to get put down because her bills aren’t currently covered by medicare which makes the United States a cruel and heartless nation, shame on you Mark Haines for saying I did something wrong.

See? Wasn’t that easy? By the end of my diatribe you probably forgot about the whole Federal Reserve thing.

S Andrews June 12, 2009 at 2:51 pm

This “Don’t interrupt me” is something that Barney quips everytime he appears on TV for an interview. He just tries to bully the hosts or other guests on the show. However, he will constantly interrupt other guests that he is debating.

Barney is a despicable dude.

tehdude June 13, 2009 at 2:23 am

I can’t imagine the law abiding citizens of any New England state fielding a militia to fight tyranny. All the people who would have gone to bunker hill have disarmed themselves in the name of self protection; far be it from me to question the profound subtleties of progressive logic.

Walt D. June 13, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Didn’t Barney Frank being jail house bitch for Fannie and Freddie constitute a moral hazard? Are firms receiving bailout funds still making political contributions? If they still are this is something that should be stopped.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: