Skip to main content

View Diary: Geithner and his pseudo liberal critics (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  at last - we can agree on something (0+ / 0-)

    but you don't have to remain an ignnramous who cites Samuelson and shouts  "Econ 101" like some RedState savant explaining why welfare is bad.

    Malatesta had some very clear explanations of why economics was such a misleading discipline.

    self-appointed intellectual cop

    by citizen k on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 04:17:28 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Oh my... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheMomCat, Shotput8, JesseCW, Nada Lemming

      Well you've really shoved a boot in your mouth now.

      A purism argument?  Here?

      Malatesta was a committed revolutionary: he believed that the anarchist revolution was coming soon, and that violence would be a necessary part of it since the state rested ultimately on violent coercion.
      I am all about self organizing.  OWS all the way except for "consensus leadership".

      It's an oxymoron (note, that has moron in it).

      I eschew violence in all forms and a have a severe distaste for bullies.

      •  really? (0+ / 0-)

        You don't like bullying, but think that coming into this diary and shouting dim insults is ok?

        As for what you mean by purism above, I'm intrigued. It appears that your argue-by-keywords algorithm is starting to sputter.

        Read some Malatesta and some Keynes for that matter.

        self-appointed intellectual cop

        by citizen k on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 04:37:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about some you? (4+ / 0-)
          In the dominant neo-classical school of economics, the kind of direct government investments in manufacturing that the Obama administration has pursued just cannot work - even though they do and did. Belief in this theory is widespread and people like Dean Baker and Christine Romero are in the faith as much as the "freshwater" Chicago scholars, the Hayekians, and the Libertarians. This makes the "liberal" or "left" critics of the administrations economic record unable to even admit the existence of the most important part.

          Ignoring the auto-rescue's unfortunate departure from theory, Ms. Morgenstern is mostly exercised about what she calls "kid-glove treatment of the  big banks", asserting in an oddly worded phrase, "banks recovered quickly and the Dow is around 14,000". The odd wording sidesteps the fact that Citigroup shares are 83%  down even after a good last couple of weeks, Bank of America is 70% or so down, HSBC is 20% down, and even Goldman-Sachs is 20% down. The Dow is back to 1400, but a number of the biggest financial players  pre-crisis are gone or deeply wounded. The provisions of the Obama administrations banking law reform that allow the government to fold up big non-bank financial institutions like AIG or CitiGroup (much more than a bank) and claw back benefits from management in the even of failure are also not mentioned.

          We agree more than you think, but calling Geither's critics 'pseudo' liberal is missing the point.

          They are liberal.


          Which is to say that they dangle the bright and shiny objects of social liberalism in front of you to distract from the fact that they are complete captives of Chicago-school freshwater economics.

        •  BTW... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheMomCat, Nada Lemming

          Not Liberal.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site