This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair. ... It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. ...
- Paul "Keynes is God" Krugman, NY Times, March 22, 2009
Given his statist world view I would normally appreciate anything that would make Krugman "despair". Unfortunately I share this despair.
Obama appears bought, paid for, and owned by Wall Street and its avaricious grand sorcerers (esp. sorcerer central : Goldman Sachs) who made millions and billions for themselves concocting a complete financial mirage, the collapse of which threatens bringing our country to its knees, or worse, if we are not already there.
Now Obama has these wizards "in charge" of the economy, with a seamless flawless continuation of a Treasury Department brought to you by and in service of the scions of Goldman Sachs.
No one can say they weren't on notice, including Krugman. Obama took gobs of campaign cash from this crowd. Krugman wants government to be the master of the universe. Obama is showing Krugman and all of us who the real masters of the universe are, and how they are the real masters of our government.
Krugman refers to "growing perceptions" that Obama is excessively close to Wall Street. Hey Krugman where the hell have you been? (Oh that's right, with your head in the sand of leftist ga-ga government salvation world).
It's not perception. It's reality.
Nonetheless, the degree to which Obama has so quickly and affirmatively sold out to the highly-concentrated financier and banker class has even the most skeptical of Obama critics (and the most delusional of Obama worshippers) taken at least a bit by surprise.
Big finance and big government, married in one fell swoop, with a dowry fleeced right out of America's back pocket.
Obama's answer : 'You're doing a heckuva job, Timmy.'
Comments
In fact both parties have been bought and sold a hundred times over. Whether a "d" or an "r", neither party are working in the interest of the citizens. They are performing lock stock and barrel with the corporate elites...we are not even considered. Get ready for the big meltdown to arrive fall of 2009.
There is a story out that this is not about bailouts, but about power. At the G20 summit a presentation will be made to do away with the american dollar and go with an international currency. Gordon Brown is a big proponent. The people of Europe who went through the transition to the
"euro", say it took 10 years and the people suffered terribly until it all stablized.
Banks are in the business of lending, and the economy will restart once we get the lending going again.
Frankly, I don't understand Krugman's objection to this action. Nor have I seen any other plan to get the lending started. Maybe I've missed something?
One other solution I've seen is to nationalize the big banks. I'd rather see the bankers run the banks, not the government, but with government regulation and oversight.
Or another, we could work more than planned so far, on stimulating the demand side with more infrastructure, education expansion and improvement, and a more cost effective and better healthcare delivery system, ie, on job creation. But are we at the tipping point on borrowing right now?
Perry Hood
LOL, Tyler!
Privatize profits, socialize losses!
anonone
The actions of Geitner and Summers permitting th $165 million in bonus to AIG lies directly with them.
Obama should promptly demand both Geitner and Summers resignations, fire the CEO of AIG, Libby, (80% of AIG belongs to the american people, so the US has that power at any time). It would also be a good idea to fire CEO's of all the leading banks that are not this point surviving on govt bailouts.
This would allow Obama to correct the fundamental mistake he made during his Transition by installing a bunch of Clinton era economic advisors, and Bush holdovers to be his economic team.
Krugman, Joseph Stigletz, and economist James Gailbrath come to mind as people who would offer new and better approaches to the immediate crisis.
Of course, it could be that Obama is really not interested in radically changing the economy or the financial system.
The voters who sent Obama to Washington have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt even with his lousy cabinent picks.
As each week passes, the disaster becomes less Bush/Cheney and more Obamas.
liz