Skip to main content

While I can't say that I'm surprised (since Obama already had that scoundrel Robert "What Meltdown?" Rubin advising him during the campaign), I am still quite disappointed that Barack Obama has named Timothy Geithner as his choice to be the new Treasury Secretary. Maybe even more disturbing is his choice of Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers to be the Director of the National Economic Council in the White House.

Sadly, I agree with Naomi Klein, who said the following on Tuesday's Democracy Now! broadcast:

Barack Obama won this election saying that taking the status quo, staying with the same policies that have been governing the country for the recent past, was actually a very dangerous course ... Obama said again and again during the campaign that the crisis on Wall Street represented the culmination of an ideology of deregulation and laisse-faire trickle-down economics that had guided the country for the past eight years. The truth is it wasn't just eight years during which those policies guided U.S. economic policy. They certainly guided them under Reagan and they certainly guided them under Clinton.

And that's where Larry Summers comes in because Larry Summers was the last Treasury Secretary under Clinton and along with Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin were really the key architects of the policies of deregulation that created the crisis that we're living now. And those key policies are the killing of Glass-Steagall that allowed a series of very large bank mergers that created these institutions that are "too big and too intermingled to fail" we're told again and again.

The deliberate decision to keep the derivatives out of the reach of financial regulators - that was also a Summers decision. And also allowing the banks to carry these extraordinary levels of debt. 33 to 1 in the case of Bear Stearns.

The above quote comes from a panel discussion. You can watch the video here:

http://www.archive.org/...

(Discussion begins about 10 minutes into the video.)

During that same Democracy Now! broadcast, columns in The Nation by William Greider and Mark Ames were also quoted and I think they both state rather succinctly why Geithner and Summers are disappointing picks;

William Greider:

On Monday, Geithner was busy executing the government's massive rescue of Citicorp--the very banking behemoth that Geithner and Summers helped to create back in the Clinton years, along with Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin, Clinton's economics guru. Now Rubin is himself a Citicorp executive and his bank is now being saved by his old protégé (Geithner) with the taxpayers' money. Geithner has been a central player in the deal-making, from Bear Stearns to AIG to Citi. The strategy has not only failed, it has arguably made things worse as savvy market players saw through the contradictions and rushed out to dump more bank stocks.

Mark Ames:

Ultimately, Summers was one of the key architects of our financial crisis. Hiring him to fix the economy makes as much sense as appointing Paul Wolfowitz to oversee the Iraq withdrawal.

On this Thanksgiving eve, I'm still grateful that Obama won and that McCain didn't. I'm especially grateful that Bush will soon be out of office. Still, it's a good time to remember that electing Obama was only just a start. We've still got a long way to go and now is no time to rest. Well OK, maybe tonight and tomorrow are a good time to rest but I think you know what I mean. ;)

Update: I just ran across a column by Robert Scheer that echoes and expands upon the message (and title) of this diary: Obama Picks Foxes to Guard Henhouse. I particularly agree with this part of Scheer's column:

This outrageous conflict of interest in which Rubin gets to exploit his ties to both the outgoing and incoming administrations was best described by Washington Post writer Steven Pearlstein: "The ultimate irony, of course, is that just as Rubin and Co. at Citi were being bailed out by the Bush administration, President-elect Barack Obama was getting set to announce a new economic team drawn almost entirely from Rubin acolytes."

As opposed to the far tougher deal negotiated on the bailout of AIG, the arrangement with Citigroup leaves the executives, including Rubin, who brought Citigroup to the brink of ruin, still in charge. Nor is there any guarantee of the value of the mortgage bundles that taxpayers will be guaranteeing. That is because, as candidate Obama clearly stated in his major economics address back in March, the deregulation pushed though during the Clinton years ended transparency in banking.

Why then has he appointed the very people responsible for this disaster to now make it all better? Why not ask him? Heck, yes, it is time for the many of us who responded to his e-mails during the campaign to now challenge our e-mail buddy as to why he suddenly acts as if the interests of Wall Street and Main Street are one and the same.

Originally posted to Sagebrush Bob on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yep, I agree with Klein and diary... (5+ / 0-)

    and have written two diaries with my own take on this, but consistent with these sentiments.

    This onediscusses the deeper cost of this bailout, which is cynicism in our core values of justice.

  •  Speaking of Robert Rubin (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Terra Mystica, Acugal

    How many of you caught this interview of Vikram Pandit (CEO of Citigroup) by Charlie Rose?

    I was thoroughly disgusted by him and his smug attitude.

  •  I guess I agree with Obamas explaination of (5+ / 0-)

    Obamas choices and why Obama made the choices that Obama made. I guess I just consider him to be a more credible source on himself than anyone else really.

    "Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," he said. "It comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing [that vision]."

    "The last Democratic administration we had was the Clinton administration," said Obama. "So it would be surprising if I selected a Treasury Secretary who had had no connection with the last Democratic administration, because that would mean that the person had no experience in Washington whatsoever. And I suspect that you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury Secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council, at one of the most critical economic times in our history, who had no experience in government whatsoever. What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking."

    "I think when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom and in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of ways," he went on. "And that's the kind of discussion we want. We want ideas from everybody. What I don't want to do is to somehow suggest that somehow suggest that since you served in the last Democratic administration, that you're somehow barred from serving again. Because we need people who are going to be able to hit the ground running."

    I'm only being hard on you because I know you know better....Ya know ? ;p

    by WeBetterWinThisTime on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:21:12 PM PST

    •  Time will tell how it all plays out (4+ / 0-)

      I do hope your view of how this will play out is vindicated.

    •  everybody . . . except labor (10+ / 0-)

      Screamingly absent from Obama's economic councils is organized labor.

      And what most people have yet to understand is that the U.S. and world economy cannot, repeat CANNOT, be saved without scrapping the ruling economic theory of the past few decades, the "free market" "free trade" neo-liberalism of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, brought to power by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

      The result was the de-industrialization of both Britain and the U.S., and the growth of financial machinations that have little utility for the real economy of production and distribution. Non-financial companies now spend three times more cash flow as payments to the financial system as they did 40 years ago. And financial companies now account for over a third of corporate profits, up from under ten percent 40 years ago.

      My own, more radical view, is that neo-liberalism is the enabling ideology for usury and speculation. And no society that allowed usury and speculation to spread and flourish has ever survived without major crises and upheavals, usually involving a smashing of living standards for the general population.

      Thus, I locate the present financial crises within the historical context of the U.S. abandoning the 1800s Whig policies of encouraging and fostering industrial development, and adopting neo-liberalism instead.

      The problem with Geithner, Summers, Goolsbee, and the rest of Obama's economic advisers - in fact, the problem with Obama himself - is that they are brilliant men who are thoroughly grounded in the ideas of neo-liberalism, but have had little or no exposure to an alternative economic theories. In particular, they have little or no knowledge of the 1800 Whig theories that actually built the United States into an industrial giant.

      Thus, in order to solve the crises we are beset with, Obama and his advisers must grope their way out of the only economic theory they know, and find some way to not just learn, but implement an economic theory they at present know little about.

      The one good thing is that Obama apparently likes to read Lincoln, and nearly two-thirds of what Lincoln wrote actually has to do with economics and finance, not slavery. In the 1850s, Lincoln served as a Commissioner on the Illinois and Michigan Canal, the infrastructure project that created the City of Chicago, and served as a lawyer for some of the railroad companies when major issues of early industrial (i.e. mechanized) transportation, such as rights of way over a river and the placement of bridge piers, were being interpreted in the courts he appeared before.

      But any solution is going to have overcome the fact that all our business and political leaders, and almost all our mainstream economists, have been mis-educated and indoctrinated in neo-liberalism.

      A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

      by NBBooks on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:31:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually it began with Jimmy Carter (0+ / 0-)

        the U.S. and world economy cannot, repeat CANNOT, be saved without scrapping the ruling economic theory of the past few decades, the "free market" "free trade" neo-liberalism of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, brought to power by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

        Those two did the most popularize Friedman's monetarism ("debt doesn't matter") but it was that wonderful economic adventurer, Jimmy Carter, who started things off with the appointment of Paul Volcker.

        Not exactly reassuring to see the return of Paul Volcker.

        Best,  Terry

  •  That does it for me. Anything Naomi Klein says (5+ / 0-)

    I agree with.  Is that compatible with Kos or not?

  •  I wonder if those who criticize Obama's (0+ / 0-)

    appointments have any knowledge on the subject.  I mean do they understand the issues facing the country and what will be required, or do they simply want to see a prominent progressive in the post?

    "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

    by lordcopper on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:38:41 PM PST

    •  I would guess most liberals are not eager (5+ / 0-)

      to see progressives (Republican lites) appointed to positions of authority.

      Obama is just using them as front men?

      Ummm, diabolically clever you think?

      Could be I suppose but doesn't Lieberman's approval send a chill down your spine?

      Hey, lots of economists have some contrary opinions on the subject of dealing with the banking crisis.  One is the latest Nobel laureate in economics.  Those guys don't know anything you think?

      Best,  Terry

      •  What I don't like is the complaining before one (0+ / 0-)

        policy proposal has been announced.  In a world where nobody has any faith in anything, I think its irresponsible to criticize without proposing an alternative.  Of course proposing an alternative would show that most of the complainers don't have a clue as to what's ailing the country, or how to fix it.

        I agree with you about Lieberman, I would have liked to see him walk the plank.  I also agree with your view that liberals think it's time to govern from the left.  I think that would be a mistake.  Now is the time to look for solutions that achieve the desired effect (stabilising the economy).  Rigorous adherence to ideology is why the GOP screwed up so badly.  Let's not repeat their mistakes.

        "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

        by lordcopper on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 11:34:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How are personnel appointments not indicative of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Terra Mystica

          policy?

          To Whom Much is given, Much is expected.

          by lizhoyt on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 11:36:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How are personnel appointments indicative of (0+ / 0-)

            policy?  Obama retained the services of qualified economists and financial experts to analyze, diagnose, formulate and execute.  The Executive sets the direction and scope of any policy. I hear all the complaints, but the guy hasn't been sworn in yet, and will not announce any policy proposals until he is.  Furthermore, ant economist will tell you that there isn't a "conservative" approach to the problems our economy currently faces.  We know the direction we're head we just don't know how far and how fast.  The problem is that too many on this blog would rather have the President-Elect cow tow to their point of view, than solve the problem.

            "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

            by lordcopper on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 12:01:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not that he should cow tow (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NBBooks, Terra Mystica

              to our point of view.

              It's that he's appointing and being advised by people who advocated, implemented and personally benefitted from the policies that have led us to this financial disaster.

              "A country that doesn't make anything doesn't need a financial sector as there is nothing to finance." Paul Craig Roberts

              by Sagebrush Bob on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 12:16:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That could go for international relations, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sagebrush Bob, terryhallinan

                specifically, the war in Iraq, as well. He hasn't drawn from any anti-war people at all, as far as I know. I would love to hear to the contrary.

                To Whom Much is given, Much is expected.

                by lizhoyt on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 04:37:05 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Under your criterion, Obama would be left with (0+ / 0-)

                only participants on DKOS to staff his cabinet.  I think your statements are a bit hyberbolic.  Some of his economic advisers advocated aspects of Gramm-Leach, but did they also advocate that the current administration abandoning the regulatory function?  No.  Contrary to what's been stated on this blog, CDOs and CDSs aren't evil, they aren't even the primary cause of this problem (they haven't helped, but they aren't the primary problem).

                Who are you accusing of implementing and benefiting from these policies?  Not one Obama adviser was involved in implementing the non-regulatory regime, or creating and selling these problems.  Of course there's the DKOS whipping boy Bob Rubin.  Evidently he's responsible for this financial crisis, cancer, and broken mariages because he worked for Citi in a non-operational role.  It doesn't pass the common sense test, and blaming Rubin for everything that has gone wrong in the world only makes this site seem extreme.

                "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

                by lordcopper on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 08:01:31 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hyperbolic? (0+ / 0-)

                  Now you're being just plain silly.

                  I think your statements are a bit hyberbolic.

                  Hardly. This statement, on the other hand, is:

                  Under your criterion, Obama would be left with only participants on DKOS to staff his cabinet.

                  Others here have already named some of the highly qualified economists who weren't involved in advocating and implementing the policies that have mucked things up so badly but you prefer to act as if none exist; just as you prefer to minimize the role of key players like Rubin and Summers have had in this mess. That doesn't change the facts and the facts are not hyperbole.

                  "A country that doesn't make anything doesn't need a financial sector as there is nothing to finance." Paul Craig Roberts

                  by Sagebrush Bob on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 08:51:28 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Silly? (0+ / 0-)

                    Do you even understand the root of our economic problem?  I'll give you a hint, we were headed here even without Gramm-Leach.  I know that issue get's a lot of play on this site, but it wasn't the end all.  You seem to believe that "if only Obama would let DKOS select his cabinet", well you're wrong.   Nobody but the clueless MSM, and those seeking affirmation of their own beliefs think Rubin and Summers are the cause of this fiasco.  

                    "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

                    by lordcopper on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  qualified economists and financial experts (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sagebrush Bob

              I suggest that a "qualified economist or financial expert" would be someone who foresaw the biggest financial crises in three quarters of a century.

              By that measure, nobody Obama has selected is qualified.

              How come people like this -- "The Fallacy of the Revised Bretton Woods Hypothesis: Why Today’s System is Unsustainable and Suggestions for a Replacement" - March 2006 -- are not part of the team?

              A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

              by NBBooks on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 06:19:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  You want to know my proposals? Really? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sagebrush Bob, Terra Mystica

          What I don't like is the complaining before one policy proposal has been announced.  In a world where nobody has any faith in anything, I think its irresponsible to criticize without proposing an alternative.

          Actually Obama has provided a multitude of broad proposals, from a tax cut for the middle class to letting tax cuts for the wealthiest expire.  There has been neglect of proposals for dealing with the terrible bind that those at the bottom rung of the ladder are in and reversal of a regressive tax structure.

          Obama has taken timid steps, in at least rhetorical fashion, to suggest funding infrastructure improvements but even that devoted to the crucial need for alternative green energy has been way wide of the mark.

          For sure, Obama is not yet president and plans remain in formulation but I don't think much of having those who laid waste to the economy being the top policy advisers.

          Should I you think?

          Best,  Terry

  •  Of All People, Madman Jim Cramer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Euroliberal

    noted that the very people who caused the problem are the ones that Obama is appointing to rescue us.

    Cramer, like most market gurus, is seldom right about anything but he has hit a bull's eye on this one IMO.

    Incredible that one can sometimes find light being emitted from a black hole.

    Happens.

    Do astronomers know about this?

    Meanwhile people like Paul Krugman, who once described Obama's economic proposals as disreputable, are full of excuses for some of the talk emanating from Camp Obama.

    I guess honeymoons are like that.  Hard to remember.

    Best,  Terry

  •  possible? (0+ / 0-)
    maybe the point is to hire a couple of foxes, to help you deal with the other foxes?

    sort of the same way that big computer companies sometimes hire hackers?

    i dunno...but this is something i know i might do.

    éí 'aaníígÓÓ 'áhoot'é

    by Librarian on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 11:01:23 PM PST

  •  Error in title. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NBBooks, Sagebrush Bob

    Actually s/b "Foxes guarding the hen's bones." if I'm not mistaken.

    PS Very slow loading. I suspect the video.

    But good points all. I've never seen anything in Obama's speeches, votes, or advisors that shows he isn't on board with global hegemony through force abroad, the sanctity of the monied people at home.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 11:08:36 PM PST

  •  Can't have autorefresh on while in this diary. (0+ / 0-)

    Every update is very slow. The video?

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 11:10:54 PM PST

  •  Agree completely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sagebrush Bob

    It's worrisome.  And I love pumpkin pie too, also.

    Why must I suffer the presence of nincompoops?

    by HenryBurlingame on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 12:11:20 AM PST

  •  also agree completely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sagebrush Bob

    It's as if there is no alternative to the neo-liberal economics Clinton endorsed and Volcker helped usher in. Many Kossaks seem to have no grasp of other ways of thinking about the economy. His choices are extremely worrisome and what's more, I don't see much range of opinion at all.

  •  I share many of your concerns, but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    manwithnoname, bimshire68

    It would be difficult to find any experienced, credible economics expert who has not had his or her fingerprints on the current economic crisis in one way or another, since this crisis is the result of actions and policies dating back to the 1980s.  So all I can do is HOPE that Obama can truly lead these people to use their expertise and knowledge in a way that is better for this country in the future.  

    •  two come to mind right away (0+ / 0-)

      Krugman, and Nouriel Rubini

    •  A whole list was in the Financial Times (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sagebrush Bob

      and picked up by Mark Thoma:

         The vision thing, by Chris Giles, Commentary, Financial Times: It has been a bad year for economic forecasters. So bad that royalty wants to know what went wrong. "Why did no one see it coming?" Britain’s Queen Elizabeth asked during a visit to the London School of Economics this month. ...

         Though there is great entertainment in looking back at the silly things economists have said, more is to be gained by examining the particular failings that contributed to forecasters’ general inability to warn of the current mess.

         First is the unforeseen, but now evident, fragility of the global economy in the face of a systemic banking collapse. ... Second, as Stephen King, chief economist of HSBC, says: "Almost all economic models assume that the financial system ‘works’." ...

         Third was the deep squeeze on household and corporate incomes from the commodity boom of the first half of 2008, which almost no one predicted. This weakened the non-financial sector before banks had any chance to repair the damage from the subprime crisis...

         Fourth, most economic models suggest the demand for money will be stable, but banks and households have now begun to hoard cash. This threatens to make monetary policy ineffective..., something that is not generally factored into forecasting models.

         Fifth is an over-reliance on the output gap – the difference between the level of output and an estimate of what is sustainable – in forecasting. That allowed policymakers to believe everything was fine ... because inflation was under control and growth was not excessive.

         Sixth is the natural tendency to seek rationales for events as they unfold, rather than question whether they are sustainable. ...

         Mention must ... be given to the notable voices of doom, who got important bits of the puzzle correct even if the timing or other details eluded them. Prof Roubini ... wrote a paper with Brad Setser in August 2004 predicting that the world’s trade imbalances were unsustainable and likely to "crack the system in the next three to four years". He has been prescient in understanding the links between financial markets and the real economy.

         William White, the former chief economist of the Bank for International Settlements, the central bankers’ bank in Basel, Switzerland, was a persistent critic of lax monetary policy and the failure to stem credit expansion. Prof Rogoff also spotted the dangers of unsustainable global economic expansion in a 2004 paper with Maurice Obstfeld. In more recent work with Carmen Reinhart he has highlighted how policymakers fell into the "this time it’s different" trap that dates back to England’s 14th-century default.

         Prof Persaud has made an honest living for many years warning about the fallibility of value-at-risk models and the tendency for them to encourage herd behaviour. And in the FT’s new year survey of economists for 2008, Wynne Godley of Cambridge university, also a permanent bear, said: "I think the seizing up of financial markets may well result in a collapse in lending in the US to the non-financial sector so large that it causes a recession deeper and more stubborn than any other for decades – and deeper than anyone else is expecting." Quite.

         Policymakers, too, have been far from consistently wrong. Mr Trichet dines out on stories of how he predicted the crisis and cites a Financial Times article as evidence... Mr King warned for years about the risks evident in the global economy and the IMF repeatedly warned about the unsustainable level of house prices.

         Willem Buiter ... warns not to be too impressed by some forecasts that have turned out to be true, because they were lucky, not wise. "Hindsight is useless," Prof Buiter insists. ...

         Predictive Models: Blown Off Course by Butterflies

         In the 1980s, it seemed that computers held the key to economic forecasting, writes John Kay. With large models and sufficient processing power, predictions would become more and more accurate.

         This dream did not last long. We now understand that economies are complex, dynamic, non-linear systems...

         So economic crystal ball-gazing remains unscientific. The trend is the forecaster’s friend. Extrapolation assumes that the future will be like the past, only more so. We project current preoccupations ... with exaggerated speed and to an exaggerated degree. ...

         If extrapolation is the forecaster’s friend, mean reversion is the forecaster’s crutch. Much of the time, you can predict that next year’s figure will be somewhere between this year’s level and the long-run average. But mean reversion never anticipates anything out of the ordinary. Every few years, out-of-the-ordinary things happen. They just have.

         Still, you might think there would be large rewards for those who succeed in anticipating these events. You would be wrong. People who worried before 2000 that the "new economy" was a bubble, or warned of the terrorist threat before September 11 2001, or saw that credit expansion was out of control in 2006, were not popular. They were killjoys.

         Nor were they popular after these events. If these people had been right, then others had been blind or negligent, and the latter preferred to represent themselves as victims of unforeseeable events. As John Maynard Keynes observed, it is usually better to be conventionally wrong than unconventionally right.

      Thoma does a great service by also mentioning Dean Baker.

      A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

      by NBBooks on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 06:37:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  One more thing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sagebrush Bob

        The fact that so few economists and financial experts saw the disaster coming tells us that the accepted economic wisdom is not really a science, as its adherents claim, but an ideology.

        Why most people are not realizing this is maddening. We're going to have to drive it into their skulls.

        A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

        by NBBooks on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 06:40:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's something to think about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sagebrush Bob

    because what Packer says about the moral development  of the Wall Streeters applies pretty much to the people Obama is surrounding himself - though, I hope, they are bit further along the moral scale Packer refers to.

    The Moral Stage of Wall Street
    The moral code of these Wall Street executives corresponds to stage one of Lawrence Kohlberg’s famous stages of morality: "The concern is with what authorities permit and punish." Morally, they are very young children. The Swiss bankers are closer to stage four, most common among late teens, where a concern for maintaining the good functioning of society takes hold. Stage six, an elaboration of universal moral principles based on an idea of the good society, is a distant dream for the titans of global finance.

    Hat tip to Mark Thoma's Economist's View

    A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

    by NBBooks on Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 06:34:18 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site