Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
We Are Very Concerned About the Anger We're Fomenting
Here's a bizarre Adam Nagourney piece in today's New York Times:
The Obama administration is increasingly concerned about a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street, worried that anger at financial institutions could also end up being directed at Congress and the White House and could complicate President Barack Obama's agenda.
The administration's sharp rebuke of the American International Group on Sunday for handing out $165 million in executive bonuses — Lawrence H. Summers, director of the president's National Economic Council, described it as "outrageous" on "This Week" on ABC — marks the latest effort by the White House to distance itself from abuses that could feed potentially disruptive public anger.
"We've got enormous problems that need to be addressed," David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's senior adviser, said in an interview. "And it's hard to address because there's a lot of anger about the irresponsibility that led us to this point." [...]
[A] shifting political mood challenges Mr. Obama's political skills, as he seeks to acknowledge the anger without becoming a target of it. A central question for Mr. Obama is whether his cool style — "in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger," he said in his address to Congress last month — will prove effective when the country may be feeling more emotional.
Got that? The administration is "increasingly concerned about a populist backlash," so then feeds into it, and then complains about it, all while the president continues to merit (undeserved) praise for the New York Times for his "cool style," even though he has been bashing Wall Street and banks in such non-inconspicuous settings as a nationally televised speech in front of a joint session of Congress.
I suspect that what the administration might really be worried about is that there's a glaring contradiction at the intersection of its messaging and policy. Officials talk like they're really gonna stick it to AIG this time, then they ladle out another $20 billion. You want to punish a banker or a Wall Street executive? Let his company fail. And if he's broken the law, prosecute him.
Instead, the plan seems to be throw taxpayer money at whoever's too big to fail this week (including companies that don't even want the money), then channel all that anger into public shaming exercises of CEOs, coupled with new requirements driven by politics instead of profit and loss. The real threat that populist anger poses for Obama is that it may focus attention on the yawning gap between his word and deed.
Lester Hunt|3.16.09 @ 12:18PM|#
A somewhat different interpretation of this administration rhetoric: They are trying to manipulate this public anger so that it supports a future policy move that they have in mind. One obvious possibility would be that they intend to give these giant corporations more billions but then slap on plenty of government controls because that's what those blankety-blank rascals deserve. On toward the corporate state, in other words.
jtuf|3.16.09 @ 12:20PM|#
I wonder if it was like this during the demise of the railroads. Before their demise, liberals demanded that we take on "evil" rail road corporations. After they declined, liberals demanded that we save "essential" rail service. Maybe I'll scan the New York Times archives for articles about rails written in between those two times.
|3.16.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Let me quote myself:
Once the current partisan generation is long gone, analysis of our current situation will be able to recognize that the housing bubble, disastrous wars, imprudent, stupid loans and banking practices, and the painful and expensive process of moving away from fossil fuels would not have been enough to completely bring this economy to its knees without the constant drumbeat of doom and gloom put out by the Democratic candidates and their enthusiastic supporters in the mass media during the 2008 election cycle. It will be understood that the Democratic superstructure attempted to do what it did in 1992--namely destroy confidence in our economy through the media to get a liberal/left candidate elected--but this time did it to a weakened economy and rather than stagger it, they knocked it completely out.
Both parties thought the economy was resilient enough to play political football with. The right thought they could use it to fund endless wars of political spectacle and payoffs to the AARP, and the left thought they could badmouth it enough to ride in on a wave of mutilation and then boost it quick enough to fund payoffs, welfare, and wealth-redistribution schemes.
Neither major party has clean hands and may they both soon be consigned to oblivion for all our sakes.
They seem to be admitting my thesis.
|3.16.09 @ 12:33PM|#
lester hunt said
"A somewhat different interpretation of this administration
rhetoric: They are trying to manipulate this public anger so that
it supports a future policy move that they have in mind. One
obvious possibility would be that they intend to give these giant
corporations more billions but then slap on plenty of government
controls because that's what those blankety-blank rascals deserve.
On toward the corporate state, in other words."
That is about right...they want to run the money, because he who
runs the money wins....
Hang on Toto we aint in Kansas no more!
This whole deal has nothing to do with "saving the little guy", it
is about power and stealing it....all of it.
alan|3.16.09 @ 12:34PM|#
You want to punish a banker or a Wall Street executive? Let
his company fail. And if he's broken the law, prosecute
him.
I guess we can count our blessings that no one was saying 'too big
to fail' when Enron went down. That probably saved us a trillion in
the public treasury.
Robert|3.16.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Come on, Sugarfree, even a knocked out boxer eventually gets up. There's no time limit on "the economy".
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 12:39PM|#
alan,
The failed policies of the Bush administration allowed the
Corporate Greed of Enron to enrich some at the expense of
many.
At least Obama is not turning a blind eye to corporate greed.
|3.16.09 @ 12:42PM|#
Robert,
It's not about whether the economy eventually recovers (of course
it will,) it's about whether it was necessary to destroy the
economy just to keep McCain from being elected.
The economy, like my tax money, does not exist to fuel our
government, no matter who's running it. There's no way to have a
economically non-interventionist government in the modern world,
but the economy is a cycle that can have only so much of it's
energy drained before it falters. You can only beat a horse so much
until he just decides to lay down.
|3.16.09 @ 12:43PM|#
How nice of the administration to let us know how much it sucks without a long wait.
|3.16.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Come on, Sugarfree, even a knocked out boxer eventually gets
up.
Obama and his administration are treating the economy like Ray
Mancini treated Duk Koo Kim.
|3.16.09 @ 12:46PM|#
SugarFree,
Democrats always talk down the economy in an election year when
there's a Republican president. Remember John Kerry's "misery
index" which purported to show that the economy was worse off in
2004 than it was in 1978? Yet somehow the markets didn't crash and
there weren't banks going belly up left and right.
This storm's been brewing for a long time and is the responsibility
of politicians from both parties. Blaming it on the Dem campaign is
silly and makes you look like a right-wing partisan, which I know
you're not.
Alan Vanneman|3.16.09 @ 12:47PM|#
Matt, I'm not one to criticize, but I haven't heard the dudes at
AIG offering to give the federal money back. In fact, I believe AIG
wrote a memo to the feds saying that if AIG went down, they'd take
the rest of the world with them.
OK, it's not fun being on Wall Street these days. But in the old
days the BSDs paid themselves multi-million dollar bonuses for
making multi-billion dollar deals. Now they pay themselves
multi-million dollar bonuses for scoring multi-billion dollar
subsidies. They know there's a difference, but they won't admit
it.
|3.16.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Also, in 1988, Michael Dukakis was playing up how the prosperity of the Reagan years was funded by massive debt and was going to come crashing down soon. Before that I was too young to understand campaigns, so I don't know if Mondale or Carter dissed the economy during their challenges to Republican incumbents.
Reinmoose|3.16.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Sugar -
The problem with 2008 was perhaps not as much with the tactics the
Obama campaign used as it was with the fact that they worked. The
country has been slowly being turned from a country of
self-enterprising optimists to self-victimizing populists.
|3.16.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Sugerfree,
I can't really argue with anything you say. That is exactly what
the Dems and Obama did to the economy in both 92 and now. As far as
"foreign wars" go, I know that is your pet peeve. But suppose for a
moment that we had told the Taliban we were a ok with them not
turning over Bin Ladin and suppose for a moment we had told Saddam
by gones were by gones and welcomed him back to the world order
with open arms and brought back all of our troops for Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait. How much money would that have saved? Maybe a trillion
or so? Let's say 1.5 trillion just to cut the difference down the
middle. That is of course assuming that the Taliban would have
loved us for not invading them and Saddam would have been chastened
and caused no more mischeif and we all would have lived under the
din of our new Suger Freeness.
So we are now 1.5 trillion dollars ahead of where we were. First,
who is to say that Congress wouldn't have pissed away the money for
other pruproses? Second even if they hadn't and they dutifully paid
down the debt with that money, that money would have bought us
precisely one round of TARP bailouts and one McHopey stimulus bill.
It would have done nothing to pay for the spending explosion BO has
planned and would do nothing to touch SS and Medicare problems that
we face. All and all, it is pretty small potatoes shockingly
enough.
There are legitimate reasons to debate the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, but putting them on the same plane of responsibility for our
financial troubles as TARP, Stimulus and entitlements is not one of
them.
|3.16.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Of course, what this underscores is that, before you give out bailouts, you need to think seriously about whether you're going to wind up throwing good money after bad. Though it's admittedly kind of hard to do that when THE WORLD WILL END TOMORROW IF CONGRESS DOESN'T PASS THIS RESCUE IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!111
alan|3.16.09 @ 12:52PM|#
TofuSushi,
Haven't you ever heard the expression, a trillion saved is a
trillion earned?
I'm doing Obama a favor. He can use that trillion that did not go
to Enron and count towards the balance of his next budget.
|3.16.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Maybe Congress should've thought about what might happen before they rushed to pass an ill-conceived law or two. And ditto Mr. Obama.
|3.16.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Obama and his administration are treating the economy like
Ray Mancini treated Duk Koo Kim.
That's the guy Boom Boom killed in the ring, right?
|3.16.09 @ 12:54PM|#
Apparently the Democrats' criticism is carried by tachyons, because it travels back in time to start recessions before the campaign actually begins. The housing bubble was actually a sinister Leftist rip in the fabric of space-time.
Reinmoose|3.16.09 @ 12:55PM|#
That is, if millions of people are so gullible and uninformed about the world around them that a swift talking man in a suit can get them to believe just about anything, I hold very little sympathy for those people and am not entirely sure that we can pin it all on the guy who saw the weakness and exploited it. If he didn't, someone else would. And if we could have, would we?
|3.16.09 @ 12:55PM|#
crimethink,
I am and will continue to blame the Democratic presidential
campaign. I think both sides are completely to blame, but the
knock-out blow, the action that really has put us on the slip n'
slide to doom was the press talking down the economy to get Obama
elected. Since a huge section of our economy is based on
confidence, constantly hammering away at by the media is going to
effect it. They do it quite consistently.
I am not saying what we have right down was the intended out come.
This isn't what they wanted, but the underlying weakness in the
economy due to Bush and the lingering effects of 9/11 and the
dot.com bubble is why their presidential gambit has yielded such
disastrous consequences this time around.
I fully expect to be called a raving rightwing loon for this. But
I'm asserting that history will prove me out.
|3.16.09 @ 12:59PM|#
I am not saying what we have right down was the intended out
come.
I'll say it: it was. They need a crisis to not waste.
|3.16.09 @ 1:00PM|#
"This isn't what they wanted, but the underlying weakness in the
economy due to Bush and the lingering effects of 9/11 and the
dot.com bubble is why their presidential gambit has yielded such
disastrous consequences this time around."
What exactly did Bush do to the economy? Run deficits? The deficits
were not large in the 00s by historical standards until TARP. The
biggest mistakes make during the 00s seem to be letting the housing
bubble get out of control and as a part of that the Fed being too
lose with the money supply. It seems to me to be a bit much to
blame Bush, as opposed to about a million other people for the
housing bubble. Maybe he is responsible for the Fed, but Greenspan
ran the Fed not Bush. Unless you can show me evidence that Bush
forced Greenspan to maintain lose money, I don't see how that is
his responsiblity either. Furhter, I recall everyone outside of a
few dissenters thinking Greenspan was a genius in the 00s and the
guy who was saving us from the idiot Bush. So I doubt Bush could
have done much to pressure Greenspan into doing much he dind't want
to do.
|3.16.09 @ 1:01PM|#
SF, the thing that precipitated this whole mess was the housing
bubble collapsing. There is absolutely, positively, wholeheartedly,
under no circumstances, no way on God's green earth, that Obama's
campaign caused the housing bubble to collapse.
You're not a raving rightwing loon -- which is why I'm so surprised
that you're acting like one.
|3.16.09 @ 1:02PM|#
The comments about taking advantage of crises have got to be the most disturbing statements to come out of an administration, which is quite an achievement coming on the heels of Bush.
|3.16.09 @ 1:02PM|#
John,
It's not about the money spent on the wars, it's the uncertainty
they created about the future that did the damage to the economy.
Talk of open-ended wars troubled the investor class. Uncertainty
drives futures bubbles. The perception of "optional" wars boosts
some industries and dampens some.
I don't want to rehash Iraq, we have a difference of opinion that
probably will never go away. But the string of missed milestones
and the perception, real or not, that the Bush administration was
willing to lie about our progress, and pollyanna about the reality
of the situation on the ground hurt the economy too.
|3.16.09 @ 1:08PM|#
crimethink,
Show me where I said the housing bubble was the fault of the Obama
administration.
I don't think Bush did even one thing right with the economy. Maybe
the tax rebate checks. Maybe.
I am talking about proximate causes. I'm talking about why the
Obama administration can't seem to bring confidence back up.
Obama's mistakes are many and sundry but his high approval ratings
should be bolstering the economy and it's not. I'm trying to
articulate a reason.
|3.16.09 @ 1:09PM|#
"But the string of missed milestones and the perception, real or
not, that the Bush administration was willing to lie about our
progress, and pollyanna about the reality of the situation on the
ground hurt the economy too."
That strikes me as a real reach. Now, I think you could argue that
mideast instability caused the oil price bubble in 07-08 and that
as much as anything finally burst the housing bubble and started
the chain of events that got us to where we are now. But even then
I don't see how you can say that the invasion of Iraq was the
instability that caused that. There was a lot of other things going
on and Iraq's oil production had returned to pre-war levels by
then.
I think it is lazy reasoning to just say "Bush killed the economy".
Certainly, if we could do things over again, I wish Bush had come
out and killed the housing bubble in about 2002 and put us through
the recession that we should have had after the tech bubble burst.
Had he done that things would be a lot better today.
But if he had done that, the Dems and the media would have killed
him. It is not like anyone on either side was willing to be
responsible. So it seems to me to be a little rich for Dems to know
blame the housing bubble on Bush when they did everything they
could to abet the bubble.
|3.16.09 @ 1:15PM|#
"We've got enormous problems that need to be addressed,"
David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's senior adviser, said in an interview.
"And it's hard to address because there's a lot of anger about the
irresponsibility that led us to this point."
This is from Divid Axelrod, so some interpreting is required. The
correct quote is, "I distinctly recall speaking ot Mr. Obama on
this matter. He indicated to me, we have minor problems that could
just be ignored. This is easily addressed because there isn't any
anger as we got to this point as a result of exemplary
responsibility shown by all parties involved"
|3.16.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Obama's mistakes are many and sundry but his high approval
ratings should be bolstering the economy and it's not. I'm trying
to articulate a reason.
The Leader's high approval ratings don't bolster the economy. If
they did Venezuela would be living high on the hog right now.
Unless we're living in John's magical fantasy world where the media
being negative on Iraq was causing us to lose the war, in which
case I must yield to your expertise.
There are real problems with our economy. It's not all in our
heads. Seriously, it's embarrassing to have to explain this to a
non-troll, but here I am.
Matt Welch|3.16.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Matt, I'm not one to criticize, but I haven't heard the
dudes at AIG offering to give the federal money back. In fact, I
believe AIG wrote a memo to the feds saying that if AIG went down,
they'd take the rest of the world with them.
AIG and the Obama administration are definitely partners in
dysfunction here, and likely will be for the duration of his
presidency.
Reinmoose|3.16.09 @ 1:18PM|#
SF - Obama himself says that the economy is like an ocean liner, not a speed boat. Repeated attempts at boosting confidence by his administration will produce results, but only in time if they're repeated enough. If you say something on TV enough times, eventually it becomes conventional wisdom.
|3.16.09 @ 1:18PM|#
"We've got enormous problems that need to be addressed,"
David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's senior adviser, said in an interview.
"And it's hard to address because there's a lot of anger about the
irresponsibility that led us to this point." [...]
This is merely today's manifestation of the classic Democratic
Party view that the people should just sit passively by, and allow
their government betters take care of them.
|3.16.09 @ 1:18PM|#
Show me where I said the housing bubble was the fault of the
Obama administration.
You didn't say this. You did however assert that his speaking
negatively about the economy was more destructive than the housing
bubble! This is patently ridiculous.
Reinmoose|3.16.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Didn't AIG get a new head after the first round of AIG bailouts? I distinctly remember hearing a glowing interview on NPR's Morning Edition last year with the new guy who talked about responsibility, etc. etc.
|3.16.09 @ 1:21PM|#
"If they did Venezuela would be living high on the hog right
now. Unless we're living in John's magical fantasy world where the
media being negative on Iraq was causing us to lose the war, in
which case I must yield to your expertise."
What hell was that shot for? Last I looked the insurgency got its
ass kicked in Iraq. The only magical thinking I saw was from the
people who were convinced that you can never beat an insurgency,
even though historically very few insurgencies actually succeed.
Yes, if the media plays up the success of an insurgency, it makes
the insurgency that much harder to kill by making the populace feel
less secure. It is called information warfare and the media
generally wages it on behalf of our enemies.
|3.16.09 @ 1:24PM|#
John, I was going to try to go back and dig up an example of you saying the media was making us lose in Iraq back in 2006, but luckily you provided an example in the post above. Thanks.
|3.16.09 @ 1:27PM|#
Obama talked down the economy for the short term political goal of getting the porkulus through. If any other President had done that, they would have been crucified.
|3.16.09 @ 1:28PM|#
crimethink,
All I've asserted is that real problems in the economy were
survivable if consumer and investor confidence hadn't been
systematically destroyed by the media in order to get Obama
elected. And that the Bush administration contributed to this
confidence erosion as well.
All I'm talking about is a tipping point. If you want to argue for
another tipping point, fine with me. But stop putting words in my
mouth.
|3.16.09 @ 1:28PM|#
crimethink,
That is not magical thinking. That is reality. Any manual on how to
run an insurgency will tell you one of the keys is controling the
flow of information so that your acts have the maximum effect on
the populace and its sense of security.
|3.16.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Reinmoose,
If you say something on TV enough times, eventually it becomes
conventional wisdom.
Which is why every time I'm no TV I make sure to point out that
Rachel Maddow is unattractive, even for a lesbian.
|3.16.09 @ 1:31PM|#
"All I've asserted is that real problems in the economy were
survivable if consumer and investor confidence hadn't been
systematically destroyed by the media in order to get Obama
elected. And that the Bush administration contributed to this
confidence erosion as well."
While that appeals to my instinctual hatred of the media and BO,
can you honestly say that Lehman and the bank failures of last fall
didn't have more to do with shaking confidence than BO? Further,
wasn't Paulson running around claiming we had to have TARP or we
faced the next depression just as bad as anything BO and the media
did? Or McCAin for that matter?
Reinmoose|3.16.09 @ 1:32PM|#
John, I'm confused. Did OUR media make the Iraqis feel insecure? Did our media make US feel insecure? If we feel insecure, how does the insurgency win? If we felt secure enough to just pull out, would that mean that we won?
Reinmoose|3.16.09 @ 1:35PM|#
Which is why every time I'm no TV I make sure to point out
that Rachel Maddow is unattractive, even for a lesbian.
She fellates Obama enough that it's difficult to believe your
charge that she's a lesbian. You're going to have to repeat that an
awful lot.
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 1:37PM|#
You were brilliant @ 1:30pm!
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino would eb the perfect
breakfast partner for Rachel Maddow and they can call me kitten
after serving them both.
I heart you.
Stagman|3.16.09 @ 1:37PM|#
"Wasn't there once a lethal bantam weight named Rookie
Carroca?"
"Tell me, what was that rather pungent taste?"
"Parrot! And they're not easy to work with. They put up some
squawk."
|3.16.09 @ 1:40PM|#
Reinmoose,
In the day and age of the internet, there is one world media.
Something said on CNN or printed in the New York Times goes
everywhere. When the media ran around and downplayed successes and
played up failures, that was effective information warfare on the
part of the insurgency. Was that the only thing that mattered? Of
course not. But it didn't help that is for sure.
Seward|3.16.09 @ 1:42PM|#
crimethink,
Not to agree or disagree with sugarfree, but I do think that all
the changes in course over the past year or so as well as all the
"crisis" and "Great Depression" have not been helpful. In other
words, some portion of the current downturn can definitely be
attributed to regime uncertainty, and I have yet to see the latter
abate much so far.
|3.16.09 @ 1:44PM|#
John,
While that appeals to my instinctual hatred of the media and
BO, can you honestly say that Lehman and the bank failures of last
fall didn't have more to do with shaking confidence than BO?
Further, wasn't Paulson running around claiming we had to have TARP
or we faced the next depression just as bad as anything BO and the
media did? Or McCAin for that matter?
I'm willing to apportion blame to the dying throes of the Bush
administration and a chunk the McCain campaign as well. But the
bailout stuff came at the end of a long summer of economic scare
stories and nimrods like Jim Cramer screaming about people selling
off their portfolios and having to eat dog food in their
retirements.
I'm not advocating it be the Shiny Happy News, but think about this
time last year: the mass media was afraid to utter "recession" on
the air, and then spent the entire summer screaming it at the top
of their lungs.
I fully admit I could be wrong, and I'm not much for partisan
wrangling. I think both parties suck beyond the measuring of
it.
|3.16.09 @ 1:45PM|#
That's the guy Boom Boom killed in the ring,
right?
They made hypocrite judgments
After the fact
But the name of the game
Is get hit and hit back
|3.16.09 @ 1:46PM|#
One good thing about Obama/Clinton talking down the economy is their voters are suffering way more than they need to. Serves them right for being such fucking idiots. Of course the Democrats could care less.
|3.16.09 @ 1:54PM|#
"I'm not advocating it be the Shiny Happy News, but think about
this time last year: the mass media was afraid to utter "recession"
on the air, and then spent the entire summer screaming it at the
top of their lungs."
That is true. If you go back further, one of the things that got us
into this mess I am convinced is the failure to let the tech bubble
and 9-11 cause a full blown recession as opposed to a one quarter 0
growth. Recessions serve a function in an economy. They weed out
speculators. They provide moral hazard to encourage responsible
behavior. And they burst bubbles before they get out of control.
Had we had a real no shit recesion in 2001 and 2002, we never would
have had the real estate bubble.
Why did we not have recession? Because Greenspan pumped up the
money supply and the real estate bubble, which in turn got people
spending with their new found equity and kept us out of a
recession. Part of the reason he was able to get away with that was
that politicians are terrified of recessions and the media would
have killed Bush for it. If we had an honest media that knew
anything about economics instead of a pack of partisian chimpanzees
who run around screaming and throwing shit, perhaps the politicians
could have had an honest policy discussion about the economy in
2001.
|3.16.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Stagman,
Nice catch. I love that movie, but I expected the reference to go
unnoticed.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|3.16.09 @ 1:55PM|#
It's not about whether the economy eventually recovers (of
course it will,) it's about whether it was necessary to destroy the
economy just to keep McCain from being elected.
I'm starting to think that maybe we should have taken McCain just
to keep Obama from being elected. You'd be hard pressed to convince
me McCain would really have been any worse.
SF,
I don't think Bush did even one thing right with the economy.
Maybe the tax rebate checks. Maybe.
He kept us out of Kyoto and didn't railroad us into a carbon tax.
That's a net positive good on his balance sheet.
Of course his net positive goods make for a very short list.
I am talking about proximate causes. I'm talking about why the
Obama administration can't seem to bring confidence back up.
Obama's mistakes are many and sundry but his high approval ratings
should be bolstering the economy and it's not. I'm trying to
articulate a reason.
Good line of questioning but I propose you back up a step. Why is
that Americans "trust the Democrats with the economy" more than
Republicans? There is absolutely no rational basis for "trust" in
either party. The Republicans gave up even the pretense of
principles sometime during the Bush era, and the Democrats are
consistent and unapologetic socialists.
John,
I think it is lazy reasoning to just say "Bush killed the
economy".
Amen. I've said for a long long time, the cost of Bush's BS is
small compared to our other looming economic disasters. And that's
before you top the cake off with BO "green energy" and all-out
socialist medicine.
We can eventually pay off the Iraq and Afghan wars. Carbon taxes
and socialist medicine, like Batman, are forever.
jester|3.16.09 @ 1:56PM|#
I think the AIG 'life-line' is very consistent with standard
liberal orthodoxy, an orthodoxy Pres. Obama ascribes to very
faithfully.
The story goes that the 'conservative' Bush admin. failed to
regulate the economy right down to the nitty-gritty of CEO pay.
Obama's admin. is correcting this by protecting the jobs of the
masses, some who work for AIG, a huge employer, and are showing the
oversight Bush missed by paying attention to the nitty-gritty of
CEO pay.
Obama is popular because people mostly believe this story and he
can continue to spend and spend on corporate bailouts as long as he
publicly pilories the greedy CEO. He's working for the people
because he's saving millions of jobs.
It always has been and always will be about regulation for the
orthodox liberal.
The very purpose of the government is to regulate. And you don't
have to go back to the Railroads. Remember when the airlines were
de-'regulated'. An orthodox liberal will tell you every problem in
the industry was due to deregulation.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|3.16.09 @ 1:57PM|#
If we had an honest media that knew anything about economics
instead of a pack of partisian chimpanzees who run around screaming
and throwing shit, perhaps the politicians could have had an honest
policy discussion about the economy in 2001.
Alas, yet more proof that the fundamental theory our democracy is
based on, is flawed.
Not that I've found a good alternative to democracy. Or do you want
to call it "a republic"? Today I find it hard to see much real
difference, in the net balance.
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 1:57PM|#
When all jobs are government jobs we will no longer have these problems.
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 1:59PM|#
An orthodox liberal will tell you every problem in the
industry was due to deregulation.
Excuse me?
Jimmy Carter deregulated in the right way, then Reagan and Bush ran
the deregulation in the wrong way.
|3.16.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Good line of questioning but I propose you back up a step.
Why is that Americans "trust the Democrats with the economy" more
than Republicans? There is absolutely no rational basis for "trust"
in either party. The Republicans gave up even the pretense of
principles sometime during the Bush era, and the Democrats are
consistent and unapologetic socialists.
I think it really just is a fundamental inability to grasp that
economics is not an instrument or result of government. This is the
same blindness that drives the misunderstanding of the free
market.
JB|3.16.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Obama is nothing but a two-bit fascist.
He has no idea the anger out there. Just look at sales of guns
& ammo.
|3.16.09 @ 2:03PM|#
"Jimmy Carter deregulated in the right way, then Reagan and Bush
ran the deregulation in the wrong way."
REally? Airline deregulation sure produced a stable industry didn't
it? Not to bash on dergulation. I am a believer. But you could make
a good argument that airlines, because of the peculiar nature of
their business model are a fundementally unstable market and are
the least likly candidate for full derregulation.
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 2:04PM|#
JB,
He is not a Fascist, he is a Socialist.
There! I said it proud, now I will say it loud, SOCIALIST!
My fellow leftists need be closited no more!
</|3.16.09 @ 2:05PM|#
Obama?
I hope he fails!
Looks like the corporate compensation bashing chickens are coming
home to roost at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 2:06PM|#
John,
It was stable under Carter, unstable after, except for when Clinton
was in office. Just read the stories in The Nation if you
can't remember.
jester|3.16.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Unfortunately, anger is expressed in unproductive ways. More unfortunately, most anger doesn't really know its own source so it latches on to whatever is convenient.
Becky Zerlentes|3.16.09 @ 2:08PM|#
"Come on, Sugarfree, even a knocked out boxer eventually gets
up"
No, not always.
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 2:09PM|#
jester,
Anger is bad, it is like hate. We should not hate, we should love
more.
|3.16.09 @ 2:13PM|#
You want to punish a banker or a Wall Street executive? Let his company fail.
Whoa! That's crazy talk man! You free market fanatics don't
understand, we have to punish them by giving them
bailouts!
Ebeneezer Scrooge|3.16.09 @ 2:13PM|#
Of course you all realize that this debate we're having here is
all for naught.
If the Republicans had had the balls to stay the course and
actually do the "small government" thing, they may well have won
out in the long run. But they didn't, and now they've given up the
idea of having principles.
Which means in the long run BO and his ilk are going to win, for
the same reason they won this last election. The Republicans are a
bunch of monkeys now at the intellectual level. So even if the
Democrats are offering a horrible alternative, at least it's a got
a line of logic to it.
We're about to become an extension of Europe. And the Chinese are
going to be really, really pissed off about it, but there won't
really be much they can do about it. Maybe take Taiwan at long
last, and give S. Korea and the Japanese some head aches, but what
are they going to do about the fact that we aren't going to be able
to pay our bills?
Nothing. Not-a.
jester|3.16.09 @ 2:15PM|#
For the consumer deregulation of the airlines meant leaving
price controls to go to the haphazard bucket pricing model.
Depending on what routes you fly, airline pricing is good or bad,
but for the avg. consumer, it has made flying an option for just
about everyone.
The airlines are not completely unregulated. They face the rules of
the FAA and its cutting-edge use of technology in everythying
aviation (snark intended!)
|3.16.09 @ 2:20PM|#
"We're about to become an extension of Europe. And the Chinese
are going to be really, really pissed off about it, but there won't
really be much they can do about it. Maybe take Taiwan at long
last, and give S. Korea and the Japanese some head aches, but what
are they going to do about the fact that we aren't going to be able
to pay our bills?"
Yeah, hope and change and restablishing our place in the world now
means fucking the Chinese and anyone else dumb enough to have
loaned us money by trying to inflate out of our debt. How fucking
ironic is it that the very people who have been running around for
the last 8 years wondering why the world hates us now want to give
the world a legitimate reason.
JohnD|3.16.09 @ 2:22PM|#
On a more serious note: is TofuSushi real or just someones idea
of a bad joke?
If this is a real person, then is incredably uninformed and maybe
borderline MR.
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#
PL,
I resent being lumped in with the trolls! Unless you were
seperating me from the trolls, then very nice.
jester|3.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#
I disagree. The world will love us more, if I understand what
you mean by the word 'world'.
I think a lot of us don't want or need that love. It isn't true
love anyway.
Stagman|3.16.09 @ 2:30PM|#
Nice catch. I love that movie, but I expected the reference
to go unnoticed.
I love it too. It's a goldmine of great one-liners.
Reinmoose|3.16.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Anger is okay. It just needs to be regulated.
what we need is a law that guarantees that news networks will give
an equal share of time to positive spins on the news as they do
negative spins on the news
OO===D|3.16.09 @ 2:31PM|#
"Which is why every time I'm no TV I make sure to point out that
Rachel Maddow is unattractive, even for a lesbian."
Well I for one think she's both attractive and sincere in her
beliefs, unlike that sportscaster Olbermann.
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 2:33PM|#
Olbermann is a sportscaster? All this time I thought he was a serious anchor.
|3.16.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Stagman,
As well it should be, with characters based on Mel Brooks (who
produced the film), Sid Caesar, and Errol Flynn. Not to mention
Richard Benjamin as director and, of course, Peter O'Toole kicking
ass on screen.
Speaking of Richard Benjamin, Quark is being released on
DVD later this year. Awesome.
|3.16.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"Well I for one think she's both attractive and sincere in her
beliefs, unlike that sportscaster Olbermann."
If you like teenage boys maybe. I guess if bull lesbians are your
thing, she is better than Cynthia Nixon's girlfriend.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|3.16.09 @ 2:46PM|#
How fucking ironic is it that the very people who have been
running around for the last 8 years wondering why the world hates
us now want to give the world a legitimate reason.
:)
I wondered if I was the only one that caught that neat little twist
in the fabric....
OO===D|3.16.09 @ 2:47PM|#
"If you like teenage boys maybe. I guess if bull lesbians are
your thing, she is better than Cynthia Nixon's girlfriend."
At least I don't get turned on by the picture of a battered
woman.
|3.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#
"Speaking of Richard Benjamin, Quark is being released on DVD
later this year. Awesome."
Wasn't that only on for like four episodes before it was canceled?
I remember watching it as a seven year old and being disapointed
when it left.
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#
At least I don't get turned on by the picture of a battered
woman.
What about braized?
|3.16.09 @ 2:55PM|#
Eight episodes, and its cancellation was a crime against humanity. Or so I recall. It was the brainchild of Buck Henry.
|3.16.09 @ 3:04PM|#
If only that were so. Unfortunately, it was not Buck Owens but Buck Henry. A mere great in comedy history, not a god like Buck Owens.
Kingston TriObama|3.16.09 @ 3:10PM|#
And I don't give a damn about a greenback dollar, spend it as
fast as I can.
For a wailin' song and a good guitar, the only things that I
understand, poor boy, the only things that I understand.
|3.16.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Buch Owens was a God and the Buckaroos the greatest roadhouse band ever. Period end of story.
|3.16.09 @ 3:16PM|#
I was mostly kidding, but I just remembered that Hit & Run did
give Buck Owens some love when he passed.
I'm a big fan of Buck Henry, who has been involved in some great
stuff over the years. Not the least of which was Get Smart
(the TV series, that is). I just checked out a first season DVD
from the library. I demand the Cone of Silence, Chief!
whiskeytangofoxtrot|3.16.09 @ 3:17PM|#
The backlash clearly has to be against wall street and not the
administration.
Talk about putting yourself on a pedestal and then throwing stones
at glass houses.
This highlights something present in every aspect of government
from cities to congress. Holding the public trust is not a career,
it's a fucking responsibility. If the public is pissed at you, you
have more than likely violated that trust. I know guys digging
ditches and hot patching roads that understand this better than
people with MPPA or MPAs. The disconnect between those in
government and those governed has grown so great that the people
governing don't even realize when it is their actions that cause
the problem.
Johnny Nowhere|3.16.09 @ 3:29PM|#
How fucking ironic is it that the very people who have been running around for the last 8 years wondering why the world hates us now want to give the world a legitimate reason.
Aside from perhaps the weeks following 9/11, Lefties haven't been
wondering why the world hates us. They've been pretty clear in
blaming the hate on (a) Bush's policies or (b) broader US
imperialism.
economist|3.16.09 @ 3:31PM|#
Populism is like nitroglycerin. It's dangerous, unstable, and tends to blow up in one's face.
Paul|3.16.09 @ 3:34PM|#
I guess we can count our blessings that no one was saying
'too big to fail' when Enron went down.
Enron was a criminal enterprise which had fingerprints from both
sides of the isle all over it. The quicker Enron could cease to
exist, the better.
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Wasn't Buck Henry defiling Julia Louis-Dreyfus when they were
both in Saturday Night Live?
I think it was on a quiz in my History of Late Night Weekend Comedy
during my graduate studies.
jester|3.16.09 @ 3:37PM|#
The falcon cannot hear the falconer.
When has that not been true in a long time? No, the Second Coming
is not nigh. Never will be. Authority will always try to take away
freedom. It was true under Bush. It is true now with Obama. And
when Obama is a distant memory, it will still be true.
And people will still play Go Team! as if authoritarian government
isn't pandemic.
Paul|3.16.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Rachel Maddow
My wife and I used to play a game while driving around Capitol
Hill. It was called "16-Year-Old boy, or Lesbian?"
TofuSushi|3.16.09 @ 3:45PM|#
Paul,
Is that like the "13 or 30" game for females in officewear during
intern season?
Buck Henry, robotics pioneer|3.16.09 @ 3:46PM|#
Hymie: [at Max' bachelor party] It's 5 minutes to 10, Max, I
think we should show the movies now.
Maxwell Smart: Movies?
Hymie: Yes Max, I understand that's what they usually do at
bachalor parties, show films.
Maxwell Smart: Oh, what have you got, Hymie?
Hymie: Oh, what have you got, Hymie? Well, it took a little doing,
Max, but I managed to get these:
[hands over a list]
Maxwell Smart: [unfolds list eagerly] "Down the Colorado River by
kayak". "The Wonderful World of Zinc" and "Holland, land of dykes
and tulips".
Samantha Ronson|3.16.09 @ 3:59PM|#
"My wife and I used to play a game while driving around Capitol
Hill. It was called "16-Year-Old boy, or Lesbian?""
My deepest sympathies to you both.
|3.16.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Paul,
My wife and I used to play a game while driving around Capitol
Hill. It was called "16-Year-Old boy, or Lesbian?"
Here in Kentucky it's played a little differently: "Mildly Retarded
15-year-old Boy or Lesbian."
Samantha Ronson|3.16.09 @ 4:11PM|#
"Here in Kentucky it's played a little differently: "Mildly
Retarded 15-year-old Boy or Lesbian.""
So which one are you?
|3.16.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Enron was a criminal enterprise which had fingerprints from
both sides of the isle all over it.
Then its an even bigger miracle it didn't get bailed out.
jester|3.16.09 @ 4:28PM|#
"Holland, land of dykes and tulips"
Could be a porn film, but probably a documentary.
|3.16.09 @ 4:51PM|#
I for one welcome our inflationist overlords.
I'm 25% invested in gold right now. Bring it, bitches!
jester|3.16.09 @ 4:56PM|#
And then the govmint makes holding gold illegal. Cash it in at the artificial govmint price, you greedy hoarder. Sometimes, you just can't win.
Get Ready for the Gold Bubble |3.16.09 @ 5:00PM|#
"I'm 25% invested in gold right now. Bring it, bitches!"
Good luck with that.
|3.16.09 @ 5:20PM|#
As I mentioned in the other thread, the real scandel isn't the
executive bonuses, but the multi-billion dollar payouts to Goldman
Sachs and other banks which AIG had insured.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0316/aig.html
Earlier it emerged that AIG passed on $22.4 billion worth of US
government bail-out funds to other banks and financial firms.
France's Société Générale, Germany's Deutsche Bank and US
investment bank Goldman Sachs were the top three recipients.
....
The payments were made between mid-September and the end of
December on credit default swap contracts - complex financial
products which are a type of debt insurance.
The focus on executive bonuses is a distrction away from the
stealth multi-trillion dollar bailout of the financial
industry.
Keeping in mind that a lot of the credit default swaps were just an
exotic a means of gambling by hedge funds.
Yowza .... heres an idea:
Step One: Buy insurance on Bank X from AIG.
Step 2: Short Bank X. Drive it's share price down through market
manipulation.
Step 3: Collect payoff from AIG when Bank X fails.
Step 4: Get AIG on taxpayer support so you can repeat from step one
indefinitely.
Kolohe|3.16.09 @ 5:21PM|#
Furthermore, with actual bars or coins? Or with pieces of paper and/or formations of electrons that say 'iou au'?
squarooticus|3.16.09 @ 5:31PM|#
Get Ready for the Gold Bubble to Break
"I'm 25% invested in gold right now. Bring it, bitches!"
Good luck with that.
A good sign of the (lack of) confidence in your prediction is your
posting anonymously.
FTR, people have been saying that since the last time it topped
$1000, and were in fact gloating when gold dropped to $680. Bubble
popped, right? Bzzt: it's back over $900.
From what I can tell, gold has a long way to go before it is even
*in* a bubble of the sort real estate or tech companies were in.
Remember when everyone was flipping houses or buying stock in
companies that sell kitty litter over the internet? I do. Remember
when everyone was buying gold? I hope not, because it hasn't
happened since the last bubble burst in 1980. Most people I talk to
don't even know what to *think* about gold; forget being willing to
actually *buy* some.
Kolohe|3.16.09 @ 5:41PM|#
Maybe I watch too much Fox news (because it's always on at work)
but I'm seeing G Gordon Liddy and some non-Sam Waterson actor from
Law and Order pushing gold several times an hour.
Liddy's ad is in fact on right this minute.
squarooticus|3.16.09 @ 6:23PM|#
@Kolohe: I imagine those ads are quite profitable even if their conversion rate is very low. When those ads start appearing on the Superbowl, I'll concede we're in a bubble.
|3.16.09 @ 6:27PM|#
Before their demise, liberals demanded that we take on
"evil" rail road corporations. After they declined, liberals
demanded that we save "essential" rail service
It's rather reminiscent of how liberals used to say how important
it was to put factory workers into higher paying white collar jobs,
but now that manufacturing employment (but not manufacturing GDP)
has declined they say how important it is to save manufacturing
jobs.
|3.16.09 @ 6:30PM|#
It's almost as if the practice of crafting your arguments under
their terms is doomed to failure...
Hrmm....
|3.16.09 @ 6:38PM|#
I'm 25% invested in gold right now. Bring it,
bitches!
Just out of curiosity, do you store that yourself at home or do you
shell out for Blanchard or somebody to store it for you? If you
store it yourself, do you use a lot of fancy locks?
There's no traps or anything, right?
Because that's not fair. And anyway, I have like a 17 dexterity, so
it wouldn't matter.
I mean, in a gaming context, obviously.
|3.16.09 @ 6:39PM|#
The failed policies of the Bush administration allowed the
Corporate Greed of Enron to enrich some at the expense of
many.
What policy would that be? Please be specific.
|3.16.09 @ 6:46PM|#
SugarFree, even if what you're claiming is true, it's deserving
of the "who cares" bin. It's like a guy whose roof blows off in a
windstorm, and then looters come in and steal all his clothes.
Then, when the inevitable rain comes, he sits naked in his
uncovered house cursing the rain for making him wet and cold.
Presidential candidates running against incumbents play up problems
that can be blamed on the opposing party. This is not new, and it
happens on both sides of the aisle. If our country can't withstand
this behavior then we're doomed anyway.
As far as the media conspiracy angle you're pushing, I know some
Truthers who would find that interesting. But not me.
|3.16.09 @ 6:47PM|#
Not that I've found a good alternative to democracy. Or do
you want to call it "a republic"? Today I find it hard to see much
real difference, in the net balance.
We haven't been much of a Republic since the 17th Amendment (direct
election of Senators). I would argue that, as much as anything,
contributes heavily to the corruption and fiscal craziness we see
in Congress.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|3.16.09 @ 7:26PM|#
That may very well be true. This is something I haven't studied very much though.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|3.16.09 @ 7:26PM|#
Populism is like nitroglycerin. It's dangerous, unstable,
and tends to blow up in one's face.
We can only hope.
Paul|3.16.09 @ 7:31PM|#
Why does the government insist on paying multi-billion dollar
bonuses to AIG and half a dozen other TBTF firms? Hmmmm?
Obama's
mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore.
Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, earlier Monday charged that the move to pay bonuses amounted to "rewarding incompetence."
No, Mr. Frank, giving AIG $170 billion in government guaranteed
bonuses is rewarding incompetence. A mere $165 million in executive
bonus money is a fucking side show. But hey, "get tough" all you
want Dems. Tough, in my narrow world would be to stop the Billions
in federal aid. That would be tough.
Dems and their fucking corporate welfare. I never want to hear word
one about corporate welfare from the progressive front.
Dan Murray|3.16.09 @ 9:12PM|#
...and so it goes. The contradictions from the politico's would be funny if they weren't so fateful.
Cara Ellison|3.16.09 @ 9:54PM|#
A bailout for Enron would have been greatly preferable to the bailouts for the companies we are seeing today. Enron actually created value for the people invested in it, and actually did more than just move money around. They were a great company brought down by exactly the kind of rhetoric Obama is spouting. It's disgraceful.
Aurora F|3.17.09 @ 10:18AM|#
Why is Reason afraid of president Obama saving the world?-
Saving the world?
He's ruined our country by eveserating our future and handing out
all of our tax dollars to people who can't keep the money.
If any 'Normal' citizen had done what AIG had done, we'd be in jail
already with a 450lb man/ woman ready to make us Jail
bitches.
No Obama isn't helping our country. None of this free for all for
tax dollars I havn't even earned yet!!!
Screw this rock.
I'm moving to Mars.
Oh wait thats right, the money that could have been used to land,
and put people on mars to research and live there was BLOWN on a
POINTLESS F"N WAR! And the rest just went to AIG for TP.
The Wine Commonsewer (You can |3.22.09 @ 1:51AM|#
Where's my got dam pitchfork?
Sugar: you bring the stick matches and the kerosene.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245