Bank On It

To mark the third anniversary of America’s Covid lockdown hysteria Rob, James and Peter give their uncredentialed thoughts on Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse and the FDIC doing something very different than what it was created for. They think through free market solutions, the fate of little banks and the buildings and what they meant for small town America.

The guys also chat with Stanford Review editor Walker Stewart to discuss the outrageous disruption of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judge Kyle Duncan on the law school campus.

Also, Happy St. Patricks Day!

 

Song of the week: I’m Shipping Up To Boston by Dropkick Murphys

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 38 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Leslie Watkins (View Comment):

    I support our efforts to help Ukraine against the Russian invaders. But it also seems to me that the pointer in our political compass is far from set. So while I too agree with the criticisms about DeSantis’s use of “a border dispute,” I believe his position on the conflict may be much more politically popular than our podcast hosts think.

    “Why should we care if this Hilter guy wants to take over Kretcho—, Kzetcho—, whatever the hell the name is!”

    • #31
  2. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: I expect Putin would just love for you to shift your attention elsewhere.

    Everything we did right in handling the Soviet Union we did wrong in China.

    Everything we did in China could have been done in the post-Soviet Russia and the new Republics. And we didn’t. The neocons enriched the CCP and continued to threaten and encircle Russia. We totally screwed it up.

     

    Sure, but to many people that seems to mean treating Russia the same as China, when what really needs to happen is treating China the same as Russia, if not moreso.

    “Encircle Russia”?!?   Who’s “encircling” whom?   After 700 years of imperial expansion, Russia is 6,000 miles long, extending to the Pacific Ocean in the East and the Arctic Ocean in the North.   

    After Russia grabbed Crimea (on Obama’s wink-and-nod), it nearly encircled Ukraine, which is why it could attack from the North and East and South, as well as once again making the Black Sea a Russian lake (meaning supplies for Ukraine can’t travel by water any more).

    From the collapse of the Soviet Union until last year, our policy toward Russia has been one of appeasement.   If the polls showed that Putin was unpopular, then the Democrats were quite happy to call him names, for public consumption, and then quietly give him whatever he wants:   de facto recognition of his occupation of parts of Georgia and Moldova; a mild response to his 2014 invasions of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea; authorizing his new pipeline to Western Europe, bypassing Ukraine.   Each successful land grab or power play merely increased Putin‘s appetite for more.

    • #32
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: I expect Putin would just love for you to shift your attention elsewhere.

    Everything we did right in handling the Soviet Union we did wrong in China.

    Everything we did in China could have been done in the post-Soviet Russia and the new Republics. And we didn’t. The neocons enriched the CCP and continued to threaten and encircle Russia. We totally screwed it up.

     

    Sure, but to many people that seems to mean treating Russia the same as China, when what really needs to happen is treating China the same as Russia, if not moreso.

    “Encircle Russia”?!? Who’s “encircling” whom? After 700 years of imperial expansion, Russia is 6,000 miles long, extending to the Pacific Ocean in the East and the Arctic Ocean in the North.

    After Russia grabbed Crimea (on Obama’s wink-and-nod), it nearly encircled Ukraine, which is why it could attack from the North and East and South, as well as once again making the Black Sea a Russian lake (meaning supplies for Ukraine can’t travel by water any more).

    From the collapse of the Soviet Union until last year, our policy toward Russia has been one of appeasement. If the polls showed that Putin was unpopular, then the Democrats were quite happy to call him names, for public consumption, and then quietly give him whatever he wants: de facto recognition of his occupation of parts of Georgia and Moldova; a mild response to his 2014 invasions of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea; authorizing his new pipeline to Western Europe, bypassing Ukraine. Each successful land grab or power play merely increased Putin‘s appetite for more.

    But we didn’t outsource a huge part of our economy to Russia.  I suppose that Russia just didn’t have the big slave-labor population etc for that, so “appeasement” could only go so far.  But still, Russia didn’t seem to benefit as much as China has.

    • #33
  4. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: I expect Putin would just love for you to shift your attention elsewhere.

    Everything we did right in handling the Soviet Union we did wrong in China.

    Everything we did in China could have been done in the post-Soviet Russia and the new Republics. And we didn’t. The neocons enriched the CCP and continued to threaten and encircle Russia. We totally screwed it up.

     

    Sure, but to many people that seems to mean treating Russia the same as China, when what really needs to happen is treating China the same as Russia, if not moreso.

    “Encircle Russia”?!? Who’s “encircling” whom? After 700 years of imperial expansion, Russia is 6,000 miles long, extending to the Pacific Ocean in the East and the Arctic Ocean in the North.

    After Russia grabbed Crimea (on Obama’s wink-and-nod), it nearly encircled Ukraine, which is why it could attack from the North and East and South, as well as once again making the Black Sea a Russian lake (meaning supplies for Ukraine can’t travel by water any more).

    From the collapse of the Soviet Union until last year, our policy toward Russia has been one of appeasement. If the polls showed that Putin was unpopular, then the Democrats were quite happy to call him names, for public consumption, and then quietly give him whatever he wants: de facto recognition of his occupation of parts of Georgia and Moldova; a mild response to his 2014 invasions of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea; authorizing his new pipeline to Western Europe, bypassing Ukraine. Each successful land grab or power play merely increased Putin‘s appetite for more.

    But we didn’t outsource a huge part of our economy to Russia. I suppose that Russia just didn’t have the big slave-labor population etc for that, so “appeasement” could only go so far. But still, Russia didn’t seem to benefit as much as China has.

    One big difference:   China was socialist for a shorter time than Russia so that, when the economy was freed up in the Eighties, there were still a lot of old people around who remembered how to run private businesses.

    Also, China was less corrupt than Russia; again, possibly because it was socialist for a shorter time, and socialism leads to corruption.

    • #34
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: I expect Putin would just love for you to shift your attention elsewhere.

    Everything we did right in handling the Soviet Union we did wrong in China.

    Everything we did in China could have been done in the post-Soviet Russia and the new Republics. And we didn’t. The neocons enriched the CCP and continued to threaten and encircle Russia. We totally screwed it up.

     

    Sure, but to many people that seems to mean treating Russia the same as China, when what really needs to happen is treating China the same as Russia, if not moreso.

    “Encircle Russia”?!? Who’s “encircling” whom? After 700 years of imperial expansion, Russia is 6,000 miles long, extending to the Pacific Ocean in the East and the Arctic Ocean in the North.

    After Russia grabbed Crimea (on Obama’s wink-and-nod), it nearly encircled Ukraine, which is why it could attack from the North and East and South, as well as once again making the Black Sea a Russian lake (meaning supplies for Ukraine can’t travel by water any more).

    From the collapse of the Soviet Union until last year, our policy toward Russia has been one of appeasement. If the polls showed that Putin was unpopular, then the Democrats were quite happy to call him names, for public consumption, and then quietly give him whatever he wants: de facto recognition of his occupation of parts of Georgia and Moldova; a mild response to his 2014 invasions of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea; authorizing his new pipeline to Western Europe, bypassing Ukraine. Each successful land grab or power play merely increased Putin‘s appetite for more.

    But we didn’t outsource a huge part of our economy to Russia. I suppose that Russia just didn’t have the big slave-labor population etc for that, so “appeasement” could only go so far. But still, Russia didn’t seem to benefit as much as China has.

    One big difference: China was socialist for a shorter time than Russia so that, when the economy was freed up in the Eighties, there were still a lot of old people around who remembered how to run private businesses.

    Also, China was less corrupt than Russia; again, possibly because it was socialist for a shorter time, and socialism leads to corruption.

    The “reason” doesn’t particularly matter.  The result was that it didn’t make sense to outsource factories etc to Russia.

    • #35
  6. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The school’s associate dean of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), Tirien Steinbach, did not do anything to quell the disruption. Instead, Steinbach gave an emotional speech accusing Duncan of causing harm through his work on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The students were particularly angry at Duncan for a 2020 opinion in which he refused to use a transgender sex offender’s preferred pronouns.

     

    https://original.newsbreak.com/@ commify-1614076/2954839879428-federal-judge-heckled-at-stanford-law-school-speech-on-free-speech-and-transgender-rights

    I’m not seeing it on the Internet, but I heard it was a pedophile.

     

    Associate Dean Steinbach demonstrates once again that “DEI” is Division, Exclusion, and Intolerance. 

    • #36
  7. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The school’s associate dean of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), Tirien Steinbach, did not do anything to quell the disruption. Instead, Steinbach gave an emotional speech accusing Duncan of causing harm through his work on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The students were particularly angry at Duncan for a 2020 opinion in which he refused to use a transgender sex offender’s preferred pronouns.

     

    https://original.newsbreak.com/@ commify-1614076/2954839879428-federal-judge-heckled-at-stanford-law-school-speech-on-free-speech-and-transgender-rights

    I’m not seeing it on the Internet, but I heard it was a pedophile.

     

    Associate Dean Steinbach demonstrates once again that “DEI” is Division, Exclusion, and Intolerance.

    I saw the pedophile reference again. I’m pretty sure that’s the case.

    • #37
  8. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    “Pre-crazed for your convenience.”  This is why I love @jameslileks.  P.J. O’Rourke has gone to his eternal reward, but we still have James.

    • #38
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.