….the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.
Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing.
Sic transit America?
 |
| Flagging: a US sailor stands on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington |
If a week is a long time in politics, a decade is starting to look like an age in geopolitics. Comparing the America that began the 21st century with the America of today is to witness a country that has in some ways quite radically altered its view of itself and its relationship to the world.
In short, the metallic rust of decline has crept into the American soul. “You could argue that the first decade of the 21st century was the last decade of the American century,” says David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official and student of US foreign policy. “We are now entering the multipolar century.”
Self-doubt tarnishes Brand America
It’s getting more and more obvious. Last week, in two separate incidents, those favoring abortion set forth their goals and services in religious language. During a December 2nd “Stop Pitts” rally in Washington and in new video advertisements for a Michigan abortuary religious language was used to seize the moral high ground. Clearly, we are dealing with something spiritual. But what is really being championed here is the work of the devil.
The final speaker at the “Stop Pitts” rally was Rev. Carlton Veazy, head of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Veazy encouraged the few hundred rally participants to take on the Catholic bishops “because no one religion, no theological perspective should get the kind of weight that they can [to] put pressure on the Congress.” This is admittedly an odd argument for a religious coalition aiming at political influence, especially since Veazy’s message was deliberately religious: “Don’t let anybody tell you that religious people don’t support choice. You not only have a constitutional right for abortion, but you have a God-given right.”
But perhaps Veazy is consistent after all. Perhaps it is only true theological perspectives (as in deriving from the study of God) that shouldn’t carry any weight. But what if Veazy’s god is really the devil, and Veazy’s position is really a demonic suggestion. After all, nobody has said demonic suggestion shouldn’t be a potent political force. Indeed, Veazy’s program is reminiscent of child sacrifice to Ba’al, the “god” worshipped by the Phoenicians at Carthage. In return for future favors, parents sacrificed their babies on the arms of a bronze statue over burning coals in a ritual that even other pagans in the region identified as demonic. This is one reason Cato always ended his speeches with the statement “Carthago delenda est”—Carthage must be destroyed.
Then there was the video advertisement put out by the Northland Family Planning Centers of Michigan. In this ad, a spokeswoman points to a sign hanging in their abortion facility which reads: “We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here bring only love.” But whom should we love? The concept of the circle of life and death is primarily associated with Hindu reincarnation and Wicca, both of which are rooted in polytheism, the worship of multiple gods or “forces”. Universalists, who have emptied Christian doctrine of as much meaning as possible, tend also to go down this road (and I emphasize the word “down”).
In any legitimate Christian theology, and indeed in any world-view derived even remotely from the natural law, these “sacred” powers—these bloodthirsty recipients of our love—can only be construed as demons. Pro-lifers have long realized that the fight over abortion was a fight with principalities and powers, as St. Paul said: “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:1). But it is one thing to know this is so and another actually to see the culture of death take an overtly religious form. It is yet a third thing to call these gods of death by their right names.
Jeff Mirus at Catholic Culture
Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.
On the eve of Saturday’s showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn’t secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.
And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote — and to trumpet the financial “fix” she had arranged for Louisiana. “I am not going to be defensive,” she declared. “And it’s not a $100 million fix. It’s a $300 million fix.”
It was an awkward moment (not least because her figure is 20 times the original Louisiana Purchase price). But it was fairly representative of a Senate debate that seems to be scripted in the Southern Gothic style. The plot was gripping — the bill survived Saturday’s procedural test without a single vote to spare — and it brought out the rank partisanship, the self-absorption and all the other pathologies of modern politics. If that wasn’t enough of a Tennessee Williams story line, the debate even had, playing the lead role, a Southerner named Blanche with a flair for the dramatic.
After Landrieu threw in her support (she asserted that the extra Medicaid funds were “not the reason” for her vote), the lone holdout in the 60-member Democratic caucus was Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Like other Democratic moderates who knew a single vote could kill the bill, she took a streetcar named Opportunism, transferred to one called Wavering and made off with concessions of her own. Indeed, the all-Saturday debate, which ended with an 8 p.m. vote, occurred only because Democratic leaders had yielded to her request for more time.
Even when she finally announced her support, at 2:30 in the afternoon, Lincoln made clear that she still planned to hold out for many more concessions in the debate that will consume the next month. “My decision to vote on the motion to proceed is not my last, nor only, chance to have an impact on health-care reform,” she announced.
Landrieu and Lincoln got the attention because they were the last to decide, but the Senate really has 100 Blanche DuBoises, a full house of characters inclined toward the narcissistic. The health-care debate was worse than most. With all 40 Republicans in lockstep opposition, all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had to vote yes — and that gave each one an opportunity to extract concessions from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) won a promise from Reid to support his plan to expand eligibility for health insurance. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) got Reid to jettison a provision stripping health insurers of their antitrust exemption. Landrieu got the concessions for her money. And Lincoln won an extended, 72-hour period to study legislation.
And the big shakedown is yet to occur: That will happen when Reid comes back to his caucus in a few weeks to round up 60 votes for the final passage of the health bill.
Republicans also knew that a single defection would kill the bill, so they tried to pressure the holdouts. “That’s what we’ve got to choose today: Do we choose life or do we choose death?” declared Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). “We just need one vote, one vote on the other side.”
But Landrieu had already made up her mind. She went to the floor during the lunch hour to say that she would vote to proceed with the debate — but that she’d be looking for much bigger concessions before she gives her blessing to a final version of the bill.
“My vote today,” she said in a soft Southern accent that masked the hard politics at play, “should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end.” Among the concessions she’ll seek: more tax credits for small business and a removal of the version of the “public option” now in the bill.
That turned all the attention to the usually quiet Lincoln, who emerged from the cloakroom two hours later to announce her decision. Her attire was school-principal prim — blue suit with knee-length skirt, orange silk scarf tied tightly at the neck — and she was clearly uncomfortable in the spotlight. She spoke with the diction of somebody giving a dramatic reading, and she stumbled more than once as she read, botching the crucial line: “I will vote to support, of, the, the, will vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill.”
She argued, a bit too strenuously, that “I’m not thinking about my reelection” in 2010. All the same, she made clear that Democratic leaders would have to give more if they want her to vote yes as the health-care debate continues. Specifically, she demanded removal of the public option. “I am opposed to a new government-administered health-care plan,” she warned, further cautioning that “I will not vote in favor of the proposal . . . as it is written.”
By the time this thing is done, the millions for Louisiana will look like a bargain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272_pf.html
The Apparatchiks
Public Trust has Economic Consequences
Public trust has economic consequences, by Howard Davies, Commentary, Project Syndicate: Public trust in financial institutions, and in the authorities that are supposed to regulate them, was an early casualty of the financial crisis. That is hardly surprising, as previously revered firms revealed that they did not fully understand the very instruments they dealt in or the risks they assumed. … But … if this loss of trust persists, it could be costly for us all.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson remarked, “Our distrust is very expensive.” The Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow made the point in economic terms almost 40 years ago: “It can be plausibly argued that much of the economic backwardness in the world can be explained by the lack of mutual confidence.”
Indeed, much economic research has demonstrated a powerful relationship between the level of trust in a community and its aggregate economic performance. Without mutual trust, economic activity is severely constrained. …
So if it is true that trust in financial institutions – and in the governments that oversee them – has been damaged by the crisis, we should care a lot, and we should be devising responses which seek to rebuild that trust. …
In the United States,… a … systematic, independent survey promoted by economists at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business … did show a sharp fall in trust in late 2008 and early 2009, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
That fall in confidence affected banks, the stock market, and the government and its regulators. Furthermore, the survey showed that … if your trust in the market and in the way it is regulated fell sharply, you were less likely to deposit money in banks or invest in stocks.
So falling trust had real economic consequences. Fortunately, the latest survey, published in July this year, shows that trust in banks and bankers has begun to recover, and quite sharply. This has been positive for the stock market.
There is also a little more confidence in the government’s response and in financial regulation than there was at the end of last year. The latter point, which no doubt reflects the Obama administration’s attempts to reform the dysfunctional system it inherited, is particularly important, as the sharpest declines in investment intentions were among those who had lost confidence in the government’s ability to regulate.
It would seem that rebuilding confidence in the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission is economically more important than rebuilding trust in Citibank or AIG. Continuing disputes in Congress about the precise details of reform could, therefore, have an economic cost if a perception that the system will not be overhauled gains ground. …
Researchers at the European University Institute in Florence and UCLA recently demonstrated that there is a relationship between trust and individuals’ income. …
The data show, intriguingly, that … if you diverge markedly from society’s average level of trust, you are likely to lose out, either because you are so distrustful of others that you miss out on opportunities for investment and mutually beneficial exchange, or because you are so trusting that you leave yourself open to being cheated and abused. …
Maybe we should trust each other more – but not too much.
Washington Post Crashed-and-Burned-and-Smoking Watch: …[The Washington Posts's] Fred Hiatt this morning:
Re-Stimulating. Unemployment is bad. More fiscal debt might be worse: At 9.8 percent, the unemployment rate is higher than it has been since it hit 10.1 percent in June 1983. Since the recession began 21 months ago, the economy has shed nearly 7 million jobs. Whole industries — cars, housing, finance — have been devastated and may never recover fully. Nevertheless, White House economists reported in September that “employment is estimated to be between 600,000 and 1.1 million higher than it would otherwise have been” because of the Obama administration’s stimulus plan and other government policies, especially the Fed’s monetary expansion. While no one can prove or disprove that — much less apportion credit between fiscal and monetary policy — basic economics suggests that things might have been even worse if the government had done nothing…
It does not necessarily follow, however, that the economy needs more stimulus now. Government has managed to blunt the recession, but at a cost — a higher national debt burden, which future Americans must pay off by working harder and saving more than they otherwise would have…
Ummm…
So far the stimulus spendout has been some $160 billion. The midpoint estimate by Christy Romer and company is that GDP is now 1% higher than it would have been otherwise. That higher level of production and employment than we would have seen otherwise is going to lead to the collection of an extra $80 billion in tax revenues. That means that the net effect of the $160 billion we have pushed out the door has been to raise the national debt by $80 billion. The Treasury can now borrow through its TIPS program for 20 years at an interest rate of 2% plus inflation. That means that taxes in the future have to be higher by $1.6 billion per year–by $5 per person per year.
Thus the stimulus package so far:
- Incur an extra forward-looking tax burden per person of 1.3 cents per day…
- Get an extra 800,000 people productively at work–and get all the stuff they make and do–this year…
That looks like a very good deal: buying an extra productive job for an American today at a cost of $2000 per year in higher taxes looking forward–particularly when you think that some of those extra jobs build up our productive capacity to make us richer in the future as well.
The stimulus arithmetic suggests we should be doing more of it. The benefit-cost ratio at current stimulus spending levels is very good…
But nobody on Fred Hiatt’s staff realized this. For nobody on Fred Hiatt’s staff thinks that doing any arithmetic is part of their job description. Indeed, nobody on Fred Hiatt’s staff is capable of doing any arithmetic at all.
By MarketWatch
LONDON (MarketWatch) — Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s decision to quit her day job as Alaska’s governor is starting to pay off.
Palin, who abruptly resigned as governor last summer to widespread media guffaws, made her debut on the international speaking circuit Wednesday, addressing fund managers and financial professionals at a Hong Kong conference sponsored by CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets. See related story.
The speech apparently had something to do with the views of main-street Americans. But as the press was barred from covering it, the details aren’t readily available.
It doesn’t matter.
As with so many things about Palin, the message isn’t what she says, it’s who she is.
In this case she is the financially savvy politician, as sharp as anybody who was present in the room.
Palin was reportedly paid a fee in the low six figures for her chat with the fund managers. If true, the money essentially replaces, in a single hour’s work, the annual income she gave up when she quit being governor. The fee also puts her in the top ranks on “the circuit.”
A few more appearances like Wednesday’s and the legal bills from Palin’s time as governor go away.
Then, it’s on to the serious business of raising funds and profile for whatever future she wants.
Whatever lack of gravitas Palin may suffer from is overwhelmed by her money-making potential: Think of the choice of pitches for a potential political donors: “Give $5,000 and get your picture with Mitt Romney or give $5,000 get your picture with Sarah Palin.”
Notwithstanding the horrific press bashings she’s endured — perhaps even because of them — Palin remains as hot a political commodity as the right has.
And if there’s one thing fund managers are supposed to keep track of, it’s what the hot stocks are.
Palin gives fund managers lesson in finance
In Bank Leverage: Forever Blowing Bubbles Part Two, Edward Harrison considers the consequences of massive global liquidity, which to Harrison look like inflation and malinvestment. Also see Stephen Roach is Talking Double Dip Again by Edward Harrison.
Americans Want ‘Freedom to Pay Too Much for Inferior Health Care’
US President Barack Obama has lost his messianic status in the row over health care reform, say German media commentators. The debate reveals the downside of America’s ideological aversion towards government: Americans are ready to put up with an inferior health service in the name of freedom, it seems.
Godfrey Hodgson | 12 August 2009
Barack Obama‘s stalled healthcare-reform plan reveals how crucial features of the American political system operate. Read more…
Obama Popularity Edges Downward
Though the majority of Americans still view President Obama as more capable of handling the economy and health care than Republicans, the president’s margins are shrinking, according to a Quinnipiac University poll. Read More
New Jersey: More Older Voters Want Corzine Out
Campaign help from President Obama hasn’t helped Gov. Jon Corzine improve his chances in this year’s election, according to a poll from Research 2000/Daily Kos conducted Aug. 3-5. Read More
Sic Transit Gloria America
As U.S. deficits increased, global investors edged away from the dollar into the German mark, the Japanese yen, the Swiss franc, the Euro, and more recently baskets of Asian currencies.
Which brings us to today. Only goodwill (defined both as an accounting term and as political deference to military might) now supports the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency, which is what allows the United States to issue dollar-denominated bonds in world money markets.
It is this borrowing capacity that allows the Obama administration to bailout the banking industry, offer to pay for universal health care, fight colonial wars in the Middle East, stimulate the economy, send billions to Egypt and Israel, buy out General Motors, and subsidize every windmill start-up company in Nancy Pelosi’s home district. (Madoff’s problem was that he failed to set himself up as a country. He otherwise understood deficit spending.) But the shell game requires full faith in the dollar.
For those riding out financial storms by “sitting on cash,” here is what’s under your seat: in recent months U.S. federal debt has grown to $11.3 trillion, almost equivalent to gross domestic production. About one quarter of this indebtedness, or $2.8 trillion, is held abroad, and China and Japan hold just under half of those assets (liabilities to Uncle Sam).
Elsewhere on the American balance sheet is another $11.4 trillion in household debt, an annual trade deficit of about $725 billion, and a federal budget deficit that is estimated in 2009 to be approaching $1.8 trillion. That’s if the economy grows at 3 percent.
Off-balance sheet risks, what accountants call contingent liabilities, include about $10 trillion in new bailout guarantees (Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns, Countrywide, and whatever the administration launches as its New Deal of the Day). None of the above includes the unfunded liabilities of Social Security ($41 trillion), which, by comparison, make the shares of Lehman Brothers and AIG look like Scottish bonds held for widows and orphans.
The geese laying the golden eggs of U.S. financial stability are the printing presses of the U.S. Treasury, and, for now, those collecting them in their Easter baskets include a number of countries and regions perhaps tiring of American arrogance, if not of the drop in the dollar’s value. Who would blame such popular targets of moral abuse as China, Russia, Switzerland, Arabia, or Latin America for dumping their dollar-denominated assets?
All that lies between the U.S. dollar and a financial Armageddon is the Faustian house of credit cards under which Asian economies invest their trade surpluses in U.S. Treasury instruments — to keep the dollar strong, their own currencies weak, and purchases brisk between the likes of Wal-Mart and the Asian Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Sooner than we think, China and Japan, like all nervous creditors, may send the United States a letter, suggesting that, henceforward, if Washington needs to borrow money, the bonds be issued in renmimbi, yen, or a basket of Asian currencies (a Pacific Euro).
Wall Street bankers did the same to the farm interests in the late nineteenth century, when they insisted that debt be based on a gold standard, as opposed to “free silver.” President Obama may be as eloquent as William Jennings Bryan. But at that point he will need to use all his oratory for the business of selling junk bonds.
The Dollar: Running On Reserve – Matthew Stevenson, newgeography
Over the decades, “garbage in, garbage out” has been shortened to its acronym, GIGO. In politics, one of the places where you’re most likely to run across the GIGO phenomenon is in the construction of a survey sample. Read more
Hank Paulson appeared before the House committee on (Lack of) Oversight and (Prevention of) Government Reform last week to defend his actions in the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch deal. For those of you who haven’t been following along, Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis has accused Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson of pressuring him to complete the Merill acquisition even after discovering that the losses at Merrill were several orders of magnitude higher than what he thought when the deal was struck. Bernanke and Paulson allegedly told Lewis that he and the entire board would be replaced if he didn’t conceal the losses until the deal was approved by shareholders.
I didn’t think Hammerin’ Hank’s reputation could fall any further but after listening to his arrogant testimony this week, I think I have to revise that. Paulson cast himself as the hero in his testimony:
“Many more Americans would be without their homes, their jobs, their businesses, their savings and their way of life,” he said in written testimony prepared for a hearing Thursday.
While losses have been staggering, “that suffering would have been far more profound and disturbing” had the government not intervened, he will tell the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
“Our responses were not perfect … But, having had the benefit of some time to reflect, and to consider views expressed by others, I am confident that our responses were substantially correct and they saved this nation from great peril,” Paulson wrote.
Well, gee, thanks Hank. There is no way to know how things would have turned out if you hadn’t bailed out every firm that acted as a counterparty to your net worth (Goldman Sachs), but it’s nice to know it hasn’t affected your self esteem.
While Bernanke prudently fell back on the “I don’t recall” defense, Paulson, believe it or not, defended his threat to Lewis:
Paulson said he told Lewis that reneging on the promise to purchase Merrill would show “a colossal lack of judgment.” He then pointed out to Lewis that the Fed could remove management at the bank if it saw fit, he said.
“By referring to the Federal Reserve’s supervisory powers, I intended to deliver a strong message reinforcing the view that had been consistently expressed by the Federal Reserve, as Bank of America’s regulator, and shared by the Treasury, that it would be unthinkable for Bank of America to take this destructive action for which there was no reasonable legal basis and which would show a lack of judgment,” Paulson said.
Paulson said he believed his remarks to Lewis were “appropriate.”
Faced with being forced out with only a golden parachute to cushion his fall, Lewis decided that maybe those Merrill losses weren’t really so important that they needed to be disclosed to BAC shareholders prior to voting on the merger. Based on the performance of BAC’s stock price since then, shareholders might disagree, but hey that’s a small price to pay for saving the “system”, right?
The charge that the failure of large financial institutions represents a systemic risk is one that suffers from a lack of evidence. Is the system really better off maintaining Citigroup on life support rather than letting it die a natural death? Is the system really better off by expanding the allegedly already too large to fail Bank of America? Is the system really better off when poorly managed companies are rescued at the expense of those who acted more prudently? Is the system really better off when losses are spread far and wide rather than concentrated with those who took the risks? What message does it send to prudent managers when their imprudent competitors are bailed out? Will they be so prudent next time?
The economic success of the US is not dependent on maintaining the status quo. Capitalism is a system which requires failure to advance. The failure of a few companies is not evidence that capitalism has failed but evidence that it is working. Failure sends a message to other market participants that the practices that caused the failure should be avoided. That message applies not only to private companies but to the government institutions that also failed us in this crisis. Attempting to return to the status quo rather than allowing private company failures and reforming failed government institutions does not advance us as a society. It mires us in mediocrity.
It is Paulson, Bernanke and Bush who showed a colossal lack of judgment. It is the management of Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who showed a colossal lack of judgment. It is Alan Greenspan and all the member of the Federal Reserve who showed a colossal lack of judgment. It is most of Congress that showed a colossal lack of judgment. It is Tim Geithner and President Obama who continue to show a colossal lack of judgment. And it is the American taxpayer who will have to pay the tab for the colossal lack of judgment shown by all of them.
The long term consequences of government actions over the last two years will become evident to investors in the coming years, but for now, attention is focused on the immediate situation. And the immediate situation is still improving. The stock market rallied 7% last week as earnings season kicked off with some highly visible positive surprises. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America and Citigroup all reported better than expected earnings (thanks in large part to the implicit guarantee of the government) and the remainder of the financial sector seems likely to follow suit in the coming weeks. Intel and IBM got the tech sector off to a good start. Next week will see a flood of companies reporting their second quarter results and while there will be a few disappointments such as Google last week, I believe the aggregate numbers will continue to be better than the market expects.
Paulson: A Colossal Lack of Judgment – Joseph Calhoun, Alhambra Inv.
Obama’s Big Sellout
Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers “at the expense of hardworking Americans.” Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it’s not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.
Then he got elected.
What’s taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.
How could Obama let this happen? Is he just a rookie in the political big leagues, hoodwinked by Beltway old-timers? Or is the vacillating, ineffectual servant of banking interests we’ve been seeing on TV this fall who Obama really is?
Whatever the president’s real motives are, the extensive series of loophole-rich financial “reforms” that the Democrats are currently pushing may ultimately do more harm than good. In fact, some parts of the new reforms border on insanity, threatening to vastly amplify Wall Street’s political power by institutionalizing the taxpayer’s role as a welfare provider for the financial-services industry. At one point in the debate, Obama’s top economic advisers demanded the power to award future bailouts without even going to Congress for approval — and without providing taxpayers a single dime in equity on the deals.
How did we get here? It started just moments after the election — and almost nobody noticed.
Previous Next Page