"What Are The Odds Obama Will Win His Bet [On the Economy]? Not So Hot Right Now, Despite Frequent Pep Talks From His Economic Advisers" → Washingtons Blog
"What Are The Odds Obama Will Win His Bet [On the Economy]? Not So Hot Right Now, Despite Frequent Pep Talks From His Economic Advisers" - Washingtons Blog

Thursday, June 11, 2009

"What Are The Odds Obama Will Win His Bet [On the Economy]? Not So Hot Right Now, Despite Frequent Pep Talks From His Economic Advisers"

William Greider is no radical.

A former Washington Post and Rolling Stone editor, Greider has written numerous books and articles on the economy over the course of many decades.

In a new essay for the Nation, Greider nails the Obama economic team on their response to the financial crisis in a way that even a mainstream audience can understand.

Here's the money quote:

The essential bet Obama made as president was to insist on a "voluntary" approach to rescuing the financial system, picking up the main policies launched by his predecessor. An odd-lot chorus of left and right critics (myself included) urged Obama to step up and employ the full force of government's emergency powers to take charge of the troubled system and direct their behavior. Heal the wounded banks or liquidate them, use government financing to insure the lending and investing needed to finance economic recovery. Don't leave it to the bank executives who will naturally take care of themselves first, maybe the country later.

Obama rejected that option. He was most reluctant to nationalize banks or to assert full control of those zombies that government has had to keep on life support. His political logic was obvious--maintain the appearance of temporary interventions to assist private enterprise and avoid any accusations of left-wing activism. The right called him a socialist anyway.

What are the odds Obama will win his bet? Not so hot right now, despite frequent pep talks from his economic advisers. If you think back to where this crisis began last year and what the authorities described then as their emergency response, big pieces are still missing in action.

Bush's treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, stampeded the Democratic Congress into providing $750 billion to soak up the rotten assets burdening the balance sheets of the largest banks. That plan was not pursued. The rotten assets are still largely there.

Obama's treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, came up with an alternative approach--a complicated Monopoly game in which government would underwrite private investors to buy up the bad financial paper. That didn't happen either. The bankers let it be known they would not sell the stuff--not at discounted prices, not if it meant admitting the depths of their true losses.

Meanwhile, the government has also ducked the explosive question of derivatives--the casino-like "credit default swaps" that were very, very profitable for banks like JP Morgan Chase but became the time bomb threatening to blow up the entire system. The time bomb is still ticking. The bankers don't want give up that lucrative business. The Obama officials have not yet found the nerve to go against the bankers' desires.

Finally, there is the real economy where most Americans dwell. Obama's team is counting on a recovery in the second half of this year and his advisors keep predicting it with increasing confidence. The president is betting on that too. If his optimism is not confirmed by events, his problems multiply. The stock-market restoration celebrated by the bankers will begin to look like another financial bubble, driven by false hopes. Banking problems will worsen and they will he back for still more bailouts. And President Obama will have to take a second look at his happy assumptions. He might start by replacing some of the cheerleaders.

1 comment:

  1. I just watched "The Obama Deception". (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756)

    I'm sure it's not all accurate, but it convinced me of one thing: President Obama is not about to change his cheerleaders. They are the un-elected representatives of an oligarchy which helped insure he was elected. I've resisted conspiracy theorists for a long time, but the evidence is mounting that the real power lies behind the facade of our "democratically elected" representatives. And we will not read any serious discussion about this in the NYT, WSJ or Washington Post.

    The private banking interests who wield the real power may not be counting on a "recovery" of the American economy as Greider suggests. Rather, they may be looking to transform the world economy in their interests alone, and if Americans or Africans, or any other group has to suffer, that is the price we must pay for their "success."

    If the current financial crisis has had no other positive effect, it has at least begun to make us suspicious that we are not being ruled by those we elect. The other positive effect it may eventually have is to make more people realize the exponential growth model of an economy (world or local) is not sustainable. Hopefully, such awareness will somehow lead to positive change.


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.