Jacob Weisberg explains how stupid and ideologically blinkered libertarians are for not recognizing the meltdown as a failure of “unregulated markets.” Yes, yes, I know we’ve heard this all before, but it’s almost kind of funny how someone can write a whole article about this and never once — as in not one time — mention central banking.

Jake, buddy, central banks are an intervention into the economy. They also have a teensy weensy bit to do with the financial situation right now.

Professor Jake teaches us that there’s a “natural tendency of lending standards to turn permissive during a boom.” And we’re the ones who supposedly lack an explanation of what happened. A “natural tendency.” It just sort of happens. It has nothing to do with all that cheap credit the central bank is flooding the economy with.

So here’s my question: is Weisberg a moron who thinks monetary central planning is the only brand of free-market thinking that exists, or is he more sinister, deliberately portraying phony free-market thinking as the real thing in order to make a better case for interventionism? Seems unlikely, though not impossible, that the editor of Slate could be just an ignorant blockhead, so I’m not sure where I come down on this.