Ann Sandhorst Replies:rnriie kindlord/artists of the Soho Alliancernare an embarrassment to the artists ofrnSoho. Sean Sweeney’s letter is factuallyrnincorrect in all of its points. Space considerationsrnallow me to respond to only arnfew.rnPolice officials point directly to Ms.rnFreed and her alliance as the source ofrnpolitical pressure to arrest artists displayingrnon Soho’s streets. Sweeney charactcristicallvrnprojects his own misunderstandingrnof First Amendment issuesrnonto federal judge Ccdarbaum. ThisrnJune, the United States Supreme Courtrnstated, “The Constitution looks beyondrnwritten or spoken words as mediums ofrnexpression . . . a narrow, succinctly articulablernmessage is not a condition of constitutionalrnprotection, which if confinedrnto expressions conveying a ‘particularizedrnmessage’ would never reach the: unquestionablyrnshielded paiirtings of JacksonrnPollack.” About 300 skilled andrnhighly talented artists presently displayrnand sell their own original art along NewrnYork City’s 800 miles of public streets.rnRobert Lederman was elected by tliemrnto help defend their right to freedom ofrnexpression. Rather than face the constitutionalrnissues, Sweeney, Freed, and theirrnalliance attack Lederman as a “megalomaniac”rnand characterize artists displayingrntheir own works as “art dealers”rnhawking “merchandise. ” Numerousrnartists besides Lederman are plaintiffs inrnthe same federal suit and are protectedrnby the same restraining order. New YorkrnCity’s vending ordinance already exemptsrnanyone selling First Amendmentprotectedrnmaterial, including comicrnhooks, baseball cards, and incense, fromrnthe licensing requirement.rnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnT H E MEXICAN BAILOUI’ was a bipartisanrnscheme, meaning that its detailsrnwere kept shrouded in secrecy. ThernWhite House and the congressionalrnleadership conspired with the bankingrnindustry, and Alan Greenspan even telephonedrnRush Limbaugh and orderedrnhim to support it. Limbaugh did notrnneed to be told.rnAlmost alone. Senator Alfonse D’Amatornstarted looking into this caper, usingrnhis small staff as investigators. He sponsoredrna bill that would have restrictedrnthe flow of cash to Mexico and forbid anyrnrepeat performances. The party-controlledrnFEIC suddenly slapped him withrnhefty fines for trivial campaign violationsrnthat he denied committing. I le has nowrnmoNcd on to other matters.rnGroups like the IMF, unlike the rest ofrnus, ha’e permission to pronounce on thisrnsubject. Its report on Mexico was revealing.rnIt turns out that the peso collapsernwas not caused by foreign investorsrndumping pesos and investments in Mexico.rnThe spark was the Mexican businessrnclass, which scrambled to sell at the toprnof their inflated market. That is theirrnright. What is criminal is that Americanrntaxpayers were forced to make up the difference.rnThe IMF report also denies that Mexico’srntroubles could have triggered arn”contagion effect,” a banking crisisrnspreading throughout Latin America, tornNorth America, to Asia, and finally to allrnthe world’s economies. But who knows?rnIf the peso collapse would not haverncaused it, some other crisis still might.rnMurray Rothbard, in his book I’hernCase Against the Fed, asks an interestingrnquestion. Why do banks in developedrncountries, unlike firms in every other industry,rnrely on the public’s “confidencernin the system” to keep them afloat?rnWhy must depositors never wonder ifrnthey will get their money out? If yournthink about it, a grocery store would welcomerna “crisis of confidence” that resultedrnin periodic “runs” on its products.rnImagine people sitting at home wondering:rnWhat would happen if the store: ranrnout of goods? They then rush out tornstock up in the process. If a business isrndealing honestly, a wave of suspicionrnwould either be good or irrelevant.rnBanks are different because they arernpermitted by law to hold only a fractionrnof the deposits they claim to hold. It isrnmade possible by deposit “insurance,”rnwith government (taxpayers and sa’ers)rnthe payer of last resort. It has not ahvaysrnbeen this way. In the 19th century,rnbank-runs kept banks honest. Credit wasrnappropriately tight, money was bac;kedrnby gold, and loan officers had to be surernabout projects before they funded them.rnStill, the bank-run was a staple; now thernrun is considered an evil act of betrayal.rnWith the end of the gold standard—arndegenerati’c process that lasted fromrn19n until 1973—came the age of inflation.rnThen came deficits, explosions inrngovernment s size. worsening businessrncycles, domestic and foreign bailouts, paperrnbillionaires, and an extension of thernwelfare principle into credit markets. Paperrnmoney and perpetual credit inflationrnare malevolent institutions that benefitrnboth big bankers and big government.rnThey are the root cause of most of ourrneconomic troubles. Say what you willrnabout the old populists, they knew thatrnmonetary issues are more central thanrnthey first appear. They communicatedrnthis to the masses, much to the consternationrnof the elites.rnContrast this with the modern right.rnThe last time conservatives talked aboutrngold was in the early 1980’s. Now, thernnew Republican Congress has cut backrnthe frequency of Alan Greenspan’s testimonies,rnso as not to interfere with hisrn”independence.” The Democrats werernat least curious about what he and hisrnfriends were up to in Washington’s Templernof Doom.rnUnder a gold standard, there would bernno bailout of bankrupt government. Underrnthe present system, we are lootedrnsubtly and insidiously, and do not knowrnwhom to blame. It is a sad state of affairsrnwhen a person who questions the Mexicanrnbailout is seen as a crank. That’s thernworld that Greenspan, his predecessors,rnand current co-conspirators have createdrnfor us.rn—Jeffrey TuckerrnW H E N SENATOR JESSE Helmsrnwas in his prime, one newspaperman describedrnhis crusades on the Senate floorrnas “stompin’ trompin’ ultra-right action.”rnUltra-rightists of the lielmsianrnkidney were not offended, and mostrnwere despondent when the most reliablernman on the right went into ideologicalrnhibernation during the Reagan-Bushrnyears. Helms went after a few leftistrnnominees for ambassador and vainlyrntried to stop some of the shenanigans atrnthe National Endowment for the Arts.rnNOVEMBER 1995/5rnrnrn