Skip to main content

That's apparently the message from the Associated Press' "economics writer".

A defeat of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's quest for another four-year term could raise the risk of a "double dip" recession if political jousting over a successor were to drag on for months, economists warn.

Wow, that's what economists say? Like who?

Lynn Reaser, chief economist for the National Association for Business Economics, is among them.

Okay, that's one. Who else?

Um, that's it. Great journalism, AP!

The piece quotes another economist, but that one is whining about the Senate's role in confirming Bernanke for another term.

"Do we get to the point where instead of having an independent Fed chairman who keeps his hand on the wheel and does what is right for the economy, we have a Fed chairman spinning the wheel at the behest of Congress?" says Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland.

Mercy me! Who knew that once George Bush nominated Bernanke, we'd be stuck with him forever and ever, even though he was asleep at the wheel when the economy imploded and is more concerned about keeping inflation down than trying to get unemployment down below 10 percent! That would mess with his "independence"!

The Bush Administration already made a mistake with Bernanke, and the Obama Administration appears desperate to follow suit. In fact, it would've been nice to see Obama fight for real health care reform with the same energy.

But when the White House is incapable of finding a Fed chief interested in Main Street, rather than his pals over at Morgan Stanley, then it's the job of Congress to show that it is still an awake and engaged co-equal branch of government.

And it's time to stop pretending that anything but a Bernanke re-confirmation will somehow lead to economic armageddon. Such fear campaigns were the staple during the Bush years. I have little appetite to see the Obama team follow that same ridiculous path.

Update: ctkeith in the comments:

Who knew

Berneke was the only "qualified" person in the world to be Fed Chairman. They use to tell us that was Greenspan.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:30 AM 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

  •  Sure, Like Bush's Independent SCOTUS Majority (19+ / 0-)

    which will last 15-20 years, and that may well BE "forever and ever" from the perspective of the country.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:31:42 AM PST

  •  Bernanke fails, "unqualified person" gets in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobdevo

    Two years later: 2012.

    Just sayin'.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:31:55 AM PST

  •  The fate of the world depends on it!! (34+ / 0-)
    Amazing that we get this now.

    Confirming Bernake is like promoting the captain of the Titanic because there were some survivors.

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

    by TomP on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:33:18 AM PST

  •  The Only Correct Response (24+ / 0-)
    is the one they are never going to give.

    And it's the same response we SHOULD have given when Bush said, "bail them out or we all die."

    We'll Take Our Chances

    The fact that we don't have the nuts to formulate this obvious, correct, and sane response ... is all the proof I need to be assured that we are fucked...forever.

  •  Peter Morici is a professional Obama-basher (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    majcmb1, Ken in MN, JML9999, TomP

    A good go-to guy for AP-- he never has a positive thing to say about the current President.

  •  i know this isn't the popular stance to take but (6+ / 0-)

    i support bernanke's nomination.  i also think it's the right thing to do at this time.  you can't always be popular.

    save our democracy! freespeechforpeople.org

    by thoughtful3 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:35:44 AM PST

    •  Wow, thanks for providing all the cogent reasons (7+ / 0-)

      for your supporting him.  Being that you didn't, I'll assume there aren't any.

      I see traitors, but they don't know they're traitors....

      by hcc in VA on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:39:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  here: (5+ / 0-)

        I support him because I believe he helped avert another great depression.  I don't like the bailouts, but I think they were necessary.  They've made the right moves in keeping interest rates near zero.  They've actually made a substantial profit on the bank lending program so far, returning billions to the treasury that will help with the deficit.  He supports financial regulatory reform. I think he's learned the lessons and knows what he's doing, and I think we need the stability at this point in time.  I think the president should be given the benefit of the doubt and be able to have him as fed chief for one more term, with all that's on his plate.  I don't think it would be wise to vote him out and cause months of instability while the president tries to find a replacement, and then be forced to go through the obstructionist senate for confirmation, which the republicans would make sure lasts past the November elections.  It's a bad idea.

        save our democracy! freespeechforpeople.org

        by thoughtful3 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:47:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why do you think it's the right thing? (0+ / 0-)

      I am not convinced, but I am willing to be so.

      Krugman's point seems to be that Bernanke's reappointment is less risky than bringing in a replacement of unknown value (compared to Bernanke's known quantities) and having a huge fight in getting him vetted and confirmed.

      The real question for me is "what is going to be different now?" no matter who's butt is in the Fed seat.

      Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

      by boadicea on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:43:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  see my reply to hcc in VA (0+ / 0-)

        See my reply above.

        save our democracy! freespeechforpeople.org

        by thoughtful3 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:49:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you. (5+ / 0-)

          Though that still leaves me with my fundamental question-what is going to be different with Bernanke this time?

          Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

          by boadicea on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:54:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  nary a thing. and one of his jobs (5+ / 0-)

            is to maximize employment.

            Bernanke was Sancho Panza to predecessor Alan Greenspan's Quixote, gleefully touting banking deregulation while blind to the dangers of an $8 trillion housing bubble.  He celebrated an economy in which incomes of most Americans were declining, household debt was soaring, and inequality reached Gilded-Age extremes. Once named Fed chair, he chose not to exercise the regulatory powers he had to curb predatory lending, police the Wall Street casino, or crack down on the derivatives that Warren Buffett, among others, warned were financial weapons of mass destruction. Instead he scorned the worriers and predicted steady growth—even after the recession began.

            The Federal Reserve is charged with pursuing price stability and maximum employment. Now we're experiencing the highest levels of unemployment in over a quarter century, and the dollar is in decline. Foreclosures continue, and one in four mortgage holders owe more than they own. Bernanke and Geithner, et al may have staved off a Depression, but we sure aren't ending up where anyone would want to be.

            Worse, Bernanke opposes letting Congress or the public know what he did with the trillions in commitments he made to private companies and foreign central banks. The Federal Reserve added over $1.2 trillion to its balance sheet, while taking on trillions more in credit risks off its balance sheet. Who got the money? On what terms? Why did Bear Sterns get saved and Lehman get the shaft? Why take over an essentially bankrupt AIG and pay Goldman Sachs and others full price for the bad bets they made? Why take on $230 billion in toxic Citibank liabilities with no upside for taxpayers?
            It is simply inconceivable that in a constitutional republic, the Federal Reserve can commit trillions of dollars to private companies with no vote of the Congress, no review, no audit, no accountability. How can the Senate even judge whether Bernanke merits reappointment without being able to look at his books

            "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

            by hester on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:08:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

              These opinions based on generalizations, assumptions, and emotion, with no facts or details -- are really tough to take.

              Has anyone bothered to follow the Bernanke story all these months?  Bothered to read anything other than the NY Times about it?  Anything at all?

    •  Fair enough (9+ / 0-)

      Let's chat about the histrionics and inflexibility of a market that will, purportedly, only accept the confirmation of this embattled Fed chief.

      This reaction hardly projects the image of steely-eyed, ingenuity. It speaks of systemic weakness and corruption that knows full well its gaming the U.S. and the world and needs President Obama to provide them with cover.

      What does it say about the U.S. and the President to appease that market?

    •  Hey, Britney Spears is popular, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      maybe she'd be good in that job.

      Air America listeners, check this out

      by shpilk on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:14:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I read this (15+ / 0-)

    hair-on-fire piece in my local paper this morning.

    Bernanke was at the wheel when the bus went off the road, and nearly over the cliff. And we're supposed to believe nobody else is qualified to lead the Fed?

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:35:49 AM PST

    •  See thanking an Arsonist for helping put out the (8+ / 0-)

      fire they started.

      Afghanistan:Graveyard to empires-It's not just a bumpersticker

      by JML9999 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:37:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So Were Many Of Those Currently In Congress (4+ / 0-)

      Bernanke was at the wheel when the bus went off the road, and nearly over the cliff

      Yet nobody is crucifying Chris Dodd or Barney Frank.

      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      by superscalar on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:39:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And Many Won't Survive The November Elections.n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon
      •  You obviously aren't watching Fox. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper, happymisanthropy

        Oh, and the Fed has direct control over hundreds of taxpayer billions 'lent', and yet refuses to tell Congress who got the money and what the terms and conditions were.

        Air America listeners, check this out

        by shpilk on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:13:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You Are Talking About Effect (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah, 1eastexn

          I am talking about cause. As to what Fox is or is not doing, why is whatever Fox is doing credible when one wants it to be, yet not credible when one does not want it to be?

          <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

          by superscalar on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:22:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wvmom

        Dodd had to retire because his approval ratings are so low, he can't get reelected.

        Barney Frank?  Don't know how he'll fare but I can tell you that I'll never believe another word the guy says.  Ever.

      •  The right is (0+ / 0-)

        crucifying both of them over the economic collapse. This in spite of the fact that both were members of the minority party until January of '07, when Democrats assumed control of congress. By then the Bush economy was well on it's way to collapse.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:23:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Go read up on their history..... (0+ / 0-)

          both of them....look at some votes on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac years ago.  Look at the bankruptcy bill in 2005.

          This bailout business in 2008 was only the latest in a bunch of bullshit the 2 of them pulled in their places on their respective committees.

          •  You are, I'm assuming, aware that (0+ / 0-)

            Freddie and Fannie had no role in the subprime and Alt-A markets, as they were prohibited from buying the loans? After all, that's what "subprime" and "Alternate-A" meant... they were "not prime" loans because the GSE's could not buy them?

            That the statutory limits on the size of mortgages that they could purchase precluded them from participating in any of the bubble markets, as there were almost no houses selling for those amounts? That is, after all, what "jumbo" meant.

            That Fannie and Freddy were prohibited by law from buying no-down, no-doc, negative-amortization, pay-option, etc, etc mortgages?

            You do know that, right?

            There is no way that the real estate bubble can be blamed on the GSE's... the numbers just don't work.

            The entire "Fannie and Freddy caused the housing bubble" meme is bullshit from the word "go". The whole private secondary mortgage market developed because the GSEs could not purchase the kinds of loans that were required to sustain the price appreciations that were happening in the bubble markets.

            It was, and still is, all about prices.

            --Shannon

            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

            by Leftie Gunner on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 02:25:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  NY Times, September 30, 1999 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

              In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

              The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

              Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

              [ ... ]

              In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

              [ ... ]

              Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

              <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

              by superscalar on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 04:40:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  End Of The World As We Know It (4+ / 0-)

    .........."Birthday party, cheesecake, jellybean boom !!"

    Be scared, very scared....

    If I were to get a job in a factory, the first thing I'd do is join a union.---FDR

    by frandor55 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:36:07 AM PST

  •  Keeping inflation down? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, Ken in MN, JML9999, SilverOz

    Bernanke has the most lax monetary policy since the creation of the Fed.  Not exactly an inflation hawk.  

    •  yeah, inflation has been such a HUGE (6+ / 0-)

      problem the past few years.  Isn't it just awful?  Prices are going up at a glacial pace.  It is frightening.

      Rest assured, whenever an "economist" talks about "fears of inflation" what they mean is that they have fears that some of the productivity and profitability gains being made may be given to employees.

    •  There is no inflation to hawk on. nt (0+ / 0-)
      •  This Is The Same Mistake The Helped (0+ / 0-)

        There is no inflation to hawk on

        Bring on the recent crash in the first place i.e. looking for the inflation in the U.S. The inflation didn't occur in the U.S., it occurred in China, a de-facto extension of the U.S. economy.

        <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

        by superscalar on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:59:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The convential wisdom (0+ / 0-)

          is that keeping rates too low for too long caused inflation in housing prices.  And that Greenspan and Bernanke deserve the blame for this.  Maybe.  But this is not fighting inflation at the expense of workers.  It is the exact opposite.  I think if we are going to go on a full-throated Bernanke bashing, we ought to at least bash him for things that he has done, or is doing, wrong.  

          •  What caused the inflation in housing prices (0+ / 0-)

            was the wholesale abandonment of traditional underwriting standards (~20% down, no more than 30% payment-to-income ratios) by the private-sector mortgage vendors.

            If more money is available to chase the same amount of stuff, the price will rise to meet the available money. Since buyers base purchase decisions on monthly payment amounts, and not on hard dollars, what you can borrow determines what you can pay.

            If not for the decision to do away with proven risk models and the lending standards based on those models, the housing boom would have blown up in 2002-2003. But the REIC thought they had found the perpetual money machine. How many times did you read "it's different this time"?

            Here's a hint...

            It's never "different this time".

            --Shannon

            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

            by Leftie Gunner on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 02:29:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The only way Washington is going to convince (11+ / 0-)

    Main Street that It gets it is to throw Bernanke under a bus and start over.

    Afghanistan:Graveyard to empires-It's not just a bumpersticker

    by JML9999 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:37:20 AM PST

  •  I need to have some change I can believe in on (8+ / 0-)

    this issue.  It would encourage my fantasy that Wall Street does not run this country.

  •  It is the cult of personality. Remember (20+ / 0-)

    how no one could "imagine" a Fed without that idiot tool Greenspan?  Oh my goodness, who will continue to drive us into the ground once the almighty Greenspan is gone?

    Greenspan proved in his own words and actions how very wrong he was on almost every issue.  He even admitted it, but no one cared to admit that he admitted it.

  •  The Crux Of The Biscuit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    suresh

    As I see it right now is monetary policy, and the political ramifications of the Fed raising rates.

    I believe the possibility that there will be a rate increase anytime soon scares the shit out of the Democratic Party, most especially so given recent events.

    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

    by superscalar on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:37:39 AM PST

    •  At these rates there's no buyers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, Losty

      Look at the Fed's action; they know there are no buyers at these rates so quantitative easing started. $1.2 Trillion in MBS purchases since last year. The entire housing market is being kept artificially up by the Federal Reserve, how much longer can that happen? They will have to raise rates to find buyers for MBS's and Treaury notes or keep quantitative easing in place. If the latter happens, watch for the dollar to fall much further.

  •  The mushroom clouds are gathering ......... (15+ / 0-)

    ....... Bernanke is now "too big to fail".  

    Is there a bottom to this stupidity?  Or is this administration just getting started?

    •  No, there isn't.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThAnswr

      No fight for Van Jones, No fight for the TSA Rep, No Fight for Single-Payer, Public option, and now ANYTHING..

      But, Endless war in Afghanistan? Check
      Propping up a charlatan in Afghanistan? Check
      Propping up Too big to Exist bank CEOS? Check
      100% to Goldman Sachs? Check
      Head of the NY Fed as TREASURY SECRETARY????  Check
      People giving up and dropping out of the possible workforce at record rates? Check

      And Now this.

      Endless War, Unemployment and no hope, Timmay, Ben, and No Health Care.

      This is what the Democratic Party gets to run on this year.  

      This is what we fought for all of '08-'09.

      •  There's always those laundry lists (0+ / 0-)

        This is what the Democratic Party gets to run on this year.

        There's always those laundry lists that include everything but the kitchen sink.  OTOH, I believe some do include the kitchen sink.  

        Really, this administration is moving into farce territory.  

  •  The fears are unfounded. (6+ / 0-)

    Whether Bernanke is confirmed or not the world won't end. However, I'll give Bernanke credit in that his programmes, like TARP were hugely successful, and precisely what he advocated in his PhD thesis.

    However, as Krugman notes, Bernanke has become too much of a "respectable central banker." What he is doing now, being afraid of inflation that isn't on the horizon, makes Wall Street love him, but is not a sensible strategy and runs in direct opposition to Bernanke's own research.

    Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

    by Dauphin on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:37:43 AM PST

  •  It's a con game. (11+ / 0-)

    They aren't the smartest guys in the room if their recent appearance before Congress is any indication. The only thing they were ever any good at is mind games -- and now they are losing those, too.

    "It does not require many words to speak the truth." -- Chief Joseph, native American leader (1840-1904)

    by highfive on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:37:50 AM PST

  •  Tim Geither said it too. (6+ / 0-)
    Which is why Tim Geither needs to be the "former" Secretary of the Treasury.
  •  As Krugman has pointed out ... (15+ / 0-)

    ...there ARE other choices. But if there is only one person in the entire USA who can possibly handle the job at the Fed, then obviously that operation is the biggest too-big-to-fail operation. And Bernanke is essentially a reappointment to keep bail it out from its near-failure under Greenspan.

    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:38:03 AM PST

  •  Don't we do the same thing? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Badabing, 1eastexn

    Pass the stimulus, or the world ends.
    Bail out the banks, or the world ends.
    Pass health care reform, or the world ends.
    Elect Coakley, or the world ends.

    We create a disaster scenario for everything.  It's no wonder the idea has caught on.

    Not to mention that whole, "Stop global warming, or the world ends..." thing.

    I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

    by The Navigator on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:38:36 AM PST

  •  the dollar hawks call him Helicopter Ben (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilverOz, cybrestrike, Losty, Floande

    is more concerned about keeping inflation down

    out of derision for his loose monetary policy.

    http://motherjones.com/...

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:38:37 AM PST

    •  Helicopter Ben (0+ / 0-)

      At the time, I assumed he was doing it to ensure that the inevitable collapse wouldn't happen until a Democrat took office.

      The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

      by happymisanthropy on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:51:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So ol' Ben is indispensable, eh? No such animal. (13+ / 0-)

    "The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men." -Charles de Gaulle

  •  And if he was hit by lightning (18+ / 0-)

    tomorrow we would have to go on a 10 year search while his seat remains vacant to find the child who was his reincarnation so once again we could have a boom bust economy run by and for the elite.

  •  Wall street likes Bernhake also (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, happymisanthropy, bluegrass50

    Stockts tanked on Friday when it looked like he was out, now they're back up because he's apparantly back in.  

  •  yep (7+ / 0-)

    here wall street tries agin to blackmail via scare tactics.

    Sorry, too big to fail was bullshit ( but yet how many still believe it?),  then, without ginat bonus the talent that lead to the collapse will levae ( never understood that one),  now this. Bernanke is their STOOGE, that is the ONLY reason they are playing the scare tactic.  That wall street WANTS this guy should be enough to tell us as a nation, we SHOULDN'T

    (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

    by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:39:33 AM PST

  •  The good news... (12+ / 0-)

    Obama starts to fight!

    The bad news...

    For a Bush appointee's job.

  •  aren't these economists the ones that are always (7+ / 0-)

    shocked at the "unexpected" rise or fall of everything

  •  It's another variant of (7+ / 0-)

    "government by Dow" as you so eloquently put it . . .

  •  In the deep recesses of my mind, (0+ / 0-)

    the phrase "Hillary 2012" is starting to percolate....

    I see traitors, but they don't know they're traitors....

    by hcc in VA on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:41:31 AM PST

  •  I like Bernanke (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, dvogel001, Dauphin, SilverOz, jim283

    He's done a good job in managing a bad situation. The housing bubble started to collapse shortly after he was elevated to Fed Chairman.

    He's not a creature of Wall Street. He was in academia before going to the Fed.

    The liberal urge to purge the government of everybody, who was involved in the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve system for the past 20 years seems like misplaced anger.

    Hopefully enough people are pragmatic enough to have learned the important lesson that markets are not capable of acting rationally and self-regulation.

    The ones, who have not learned this need to be pushed out of government.  But there's no need to for a purge.

    People, who learn from their mistakes, are among the best to rectifying problems.

    •  huh (9+ / 0-)

      People, who learn from their mistakes,

      people in politics, and even academia NEVER learn from their mistakes, they have too much riding on them.  SO they usually double down and entrench.

      (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

      by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:45:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He has REFUSED to provide info on how (11+ / 0-)

      the bailout money, YOUR money, was spent.  If it makes me have a "liberal urge" to disqualify him because of that alone, than I am proud of that.  You, apparently, think keeping what the banks do with our money a secret is perfectly fine, correct?  And hey, let's give a cheer for those bonuses too.

      I see traitors, but they don't know they're traitors....

      by hcc in VA on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:45:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Misplaced Anger? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      majcmb1, 0wn, happymisanthropy

      The liberal urge to purge the government of everybody, who was involved in the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve system for the past 20 years seems like misplaced anger.

      Where should we place our anger if nor with the folks in charge of the whole mess?

      •  Was anyone in charge? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        teachingmathnow, jim283

        From what I've read / learned about the financial collapse, there wasn't one single person in charge. Basically one hand didn't know what the other was doing.

        There are some fundamental assumptions made about the superiority of deregulated markets to make rational decisions to what they were doing complying with a more heavily regulated environment, which can't be justified anymore.

        We need to change the thinking of this country, from 30 years of Reagan-conservative ideology. Wanting to turn on Obama because of Geithner, Summers, etc. doesn't help because the hordes of Fox News watching, Rush Limbaugh listening, Michelle Malkin reading ideologues, who want to double down on Reaganomics, are using liberal angst after one year of Obama's Presidency as a way to get back control.

        Most people don't like health care reform. It's a common cry from the right-wingers now. Why is HCR polling badly?  Because 20% or so of liberals feel it doesn't go far enough and just as angry as the 20% of right-wingers, who don't want to do anything, plus the 20% of independents who are just disgusted with the whole process.  Add it up and even though each group has their own reasons for being unhappy with HCR, Fox News gets a great headline "60% of Americans don't want HCR".

        Personally, I'd love single payer, but turning on any progress towards universal coverage just gives more fuel for right-wingers to say an issue President Obama supports is unpopular.

        I don't see the benefit in introducing uncertainty into the financial markets right now, by appointing a new Fed chairman.  Another panicked selling off of stocks, isn't going to help Democrats in 2010.

        This isn't just about one person and one job. If the stock market get jittery about a new Fed chairman, and it will, it will be more ammo to aim at Democrats this year. Let Bernanke serve another four year term and if President Obama is re-elected, let him appoint a new Fed chairman in 2014.

        The last thing we need are Republican majorities in Congress, because they do want to double down on failed policies.

    •  great comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BabetheBlueOx

      I agree with you.  Very good points.  I hope the reasonable long-term-thinking people will outnumber the ones who want to push what's popular at the moment.

      save our democracy! freespeechforpeople.org

      by thoughtful3 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:51:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bunning And Shelby Are Not Liberals. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Bernanke steered the US Titanic toward iceberg, (10+ / 0-)

    and Congress knows it, but they want to be among the top 1% who gets a seat in the lifeboats.

    Congress and the corporate media are like the orchestra aboard the Titanic, playing music to keep the 2nd and 3rd class passengers calm while the 1st class passengers board the limited lifeboats in time (transfer our wealth up to them, so that they can afford to survive when the truth of our failed economy hits the fan), without the majority commandeering the vessels by virtue of the power of being more numerous.

    Without the ability to rouse the lower class passengers to mutiny in time, which translates to removing the skipper Bernanke from the helm, we may have to watch the wreck happen and see the masses perish, while the high mucky mucks make a break for safety.

    Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by CIndyCasella on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:43:13 AM PST

  •  Volcker is another who thinks Bernanke (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, jim283

    should stick around.  

    Politics is like playing Asteroids - You go far enough to the left and you end up on the right. Or vice-versa.

    by Jonze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:43:52 AM PST

    •  Yeah, Volcker's said some good things recently (6+ / 0-)

      but I remind you that it was Volcker who "broke the back of inflation" by wrecking U.S. manufacturing with high interest rates and the repeal of usury laws.

      And Volcker played a large role in setting us on the path of financialization when the Fed under his direction choose to save the banks that had bankrolled the Hunt brothers' attempt to corner silver, but turned down Chrysler's request for access to the discount window.

      So, I am very uncomfortable with hold up Volcker as some great paragon of financial wisdom and virtue. Nonetheless, I thoroughly agree with his recent dressing down of financial executives (except for ATMs, all financial innovation of the past few decades has been useless).

      On this point (Bernanke), I strongly disagree with Volcker. Even though he's correct that the financial markets will react with horror. But the financial markets are going to have to take their lumps sooner or later. The real problem is that President Obama and his team don't see this or accept this: that we are in a fight to the death between Wall Street and America. Volcker certainly does not see it in such stark terms.

      But the fact is that Wall Street has abused the credit mechanism of society, so that credit flows only to speculation, usury, and economic rent-seeking behavior, instead of flowing to the creation of solutions for the problems that society faces: a transition off of fossil fuels, climate change, rising inequality, and the hardening of class stratification.

      A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

      by NBBooks on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:11:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not just financial markets... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, jim283

        That will take their lumps, but real live people.  I tend to think there is a lot of really bad shit the Fed is hiding in hopes they can fix the mess largely without anybody knowing.  In order to try and fix it they need a stable economy, if Bernanke was removed the economy would be thrown into a huge flux again and it would damage possibly the only change at fixing it.

        Banks collapse and a lot of people are hurt really, really badly.  

        Politics is like playing Asteroids - You go far enough to the left and you end up on the right. Or vice-versa.

        by Jonze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:20:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, that depends on other actions other (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah

          officials in the government take. But, I fear you may prove correct if - IF - the reigning ideology of economic "neo-liberalism" (free markets, efficient market theory, and free trade) is not consciously and deliberately abandoned, and an ideology of national economic development is restored, along with the concept of the "common good" and "general welfare." It is really rather simple to replace the big money center banks. Remember, only about 15 or so large financial institutions is where all the derivatives problems are located. The real banking operations of these "systemically dangerous institutions" could easily be parceled out to the 8,000 plus smaller regional and local banks that comprise the rest of the banking system.

          The financial markets are a different matter, but the financial markets long ago ceased actually functioning to supply credit to real wealth-creating economic activity. See my Debunking the Myth of the Financial Markets.

          I think the most likely course, given the unbroken and now-expanded political power of the corporatists, is that we as a nation will stumble blindly along a painful path that forces us to eventually resuscitate the ideas of national economic development, common good, and general welfare. I think we're looking at about another 12 to 15 years of deepening penury and misery before the public begins to demand the type of radical change required.

          A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

          by NBBooks on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:42:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Amen. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah

        I kills me to see lefties talking about how great Volcker is.  Is he less of a crook than most of these assholes?  Probably.  Is he anything close to being a friend of working people?  No way.

  •  Dems terrified that Big Ben will start raising... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Goodman

    interest rates later in the year...Prolly well-founded apprehension.

  •  kos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jim283, JC from IA

    care to show me an 'end of the word' quote from the admin to support your hyperbole?

    Such fear campaigns were the staple during the Bush years. I have little appetite to see the Obama team follow that same ridiculous path.

    So far I see Gibbs answering a question about 'repercussions' by saying the question is moot if the chair is reconfirmed.

    And this...

    But when the White House is incapable of finding a Fed chief interested in Main Street, rather than his pals over at Morgan Stanley

    Comments like these imply that the entire 'meltdown' was a fraud and saving the big investment houses was a scam.

    I think without a little more meat on the bones, that implication fall short when people look at their 401ks and pension funds.

    Remember thats why we were told we needed to bail them all out in the first place.

    Sure exec compensation is obscene and during tough economic times is an easy political target, but if we expect to keep indys and moderates we can't go around denying the reality of global capital and it's effects on main st.

  •  Dems should study Prisoner Dilemma. (6+ / 0-)

    game theory predicts why the Democrats take it up the rear all the time.

    Prisoners dilemma is a "game" whereby two thrives are caught by tyeh cops and interrogated seperately. The cops need a confession to prove their case due to a sparcity of evidence.

    So, the prinsers each have two choices:

    Choice 1 is to finger the other guy.

    Choice 2 is to deny responsibility and refuse to confess.

    There are three outcomes for the players:

    Otcome 1: They both blame the other guy, and the police cannot prove which one did it. But, they can use the oter's testimony against the other and cinvict both of them. Neither prisoner gains an advantage.

    OUtcome 2: They both clam up and deny any responsibility. Thus, the poloice have no evidnce with which to convict them, and have to let both of them go.

    Outcome 3: One clams up and the other fingers him. Thus, the one who clams up and denies responsibility is let go -- while the other is convicted.

    The "safe" thing to do is o blame the other guy. The "worst" that happens is you both get convicted. No on gains an advantage.

    The smart choice is that both deny responsibility. IOW -- they cooperate for their mutual benefit and both go free.

    The Democrats play politics -- generally -- and Obama espeically, like the other side is going to cooperate for everyone's mutual benefit. Instaed, the GOP attacks tyhe Dems and "fingers" them so the worst outcome happems. The GOP gets off scot free and the Dems take the blame.

    •  The problem is that the Dems can't cooperate... (0+ / 0-)

      with themselves. They also have a bit of Stockholm syndrome/battered wife syndrome after decades of Republican terrorism and abuse under the Communists/Terrorists Under the Bed theory and the racist Southern Strategy.

      "I don't belong to an organized political party--I'm a Democrat."--Will Rogers

      [Health Care is] a serious political threat to the Republican Party.
      Bill Kristol
      License: Creative Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike

      by Mokurai on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:45:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The way they're determined to ram Bernanke (4+ / 0-)

    down our throats reminds me of those horrible crankeroo machines they use to force-feed geese used for liver pate. I hope people are getting that someone they must sledgehammer into office like this probably isn't who we want.

    When an old man dies, a library burns down. --African proverb

    by Wom Bat on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:45:32 AM PST

    •  Really? How do "they" intend to do that? (0+ / 0-)

      Won't there still be a confirmation vote?

      •  Obviously, the pressure is to get "yes" votes, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        ...and my using "they," again obviously, was for brevity's sake.  

        When an old man dies, a library burns down. --African proverb

        by Wom Bat on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:23:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But, there's still going to be a vote, right? (0+ / 0-)

          If pressure from the WH was that effective, a lot of things would be different, wouldn't they?

          The WH gets to say who they favor for a job; that doesn't mean they are ramming anyone through anything.  In this particular case, I expect they are thinking that replacing the Fed Chairman would make already-nervous markets piss themselves and run for the hills.  MBAs get really scared when somebody changes something.

          •  The rhetoric pro-Bernanke seems overheated (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            goinsouth

            to me, and it's reflected in your words.    

            they are thinking that replacing the Fed Chairman would make already-nervous markets piss themselves and run for the hills.

            Reminds me of that sign on to TARP or be doomed stuff we heard in 2008. But the picture of Wall Streeters pissing on themselves and running off into the wilderness, that's terrific.

            When an old man dies, a library burns down. --African proverb

            by Wom Bat on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:16:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Feinstein and Menedez (5+ / 0-)

    have come out for him.  He'll likely get through as enough senators heed the threats of their wall street masters.

    Big tent leads to big fail.

    by Paleo on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:46:51 AM PST

  •  voting down Bernake would be stupid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shrike, Denverlibertarian

    Not the end of the world, perhaps, but very, very, very stupid.

  •  Watch what they do, not what they say (5+ / 0-)

    Populist rhetoric is cheap.  Their actions, like nominating and sticking by Big Ben, are what counts.

    Big tent leads to big fail.

    by Paleo on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:47:49 AM PST

  •  It is not a scare tactic... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland

    it will happen...because the market hates uncertainty...the devil you know is better than the one you want...

    It will literally freeze our economic growth until the market has a replacement that will not go through a bruising Senate confirmation battle...

    This is not the time to switch horses with our fragile recovery starting just to do liberal/progressive chest pounding...

    Obama's second term...fine with me...

    Obama - Change I still believe in

    by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:47:58 AM PST

    •  uncertainty (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, majcmb1, happymisanthropy

      uncertainty only matter for the short term traders. But then again wall street stopped being an a good long term investment vehicle a long time ago.

      (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

      by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:50:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You miss the point... (0+ / 0-)

        the market does drive a certain amount of positive or negative sentiment of whether entreprenuers want to expand or contract their businesses, whether retirees want to spend or save, whether middle class families who do have jobs want to take their family out to dinner or save that money because they are scared...

        It is not about the market...it is about the consumer sentiment...it is all linked together...jobs, economy, stock market and consumer sentiment...

        Obama - Change I still believe in

        by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:58:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  no (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hester, lotlizard, happymisanthropy

          sorry, momnetary blips in the dow matter slittle to people any more.  You think people are changing their lives and so forth because of the violatility in the DOW?  please.  If Bernanke gets kicked out, so what if the Dow tanks a few more hundred points or so.

          Dow is still gonna tank this year.  The economy here STINKS, keeping the same players that caused the mess, and thinking things are gonna change is delusional.

          (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

          by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:03:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  My retired parents... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MattR

            bought a new house based on the rise in the stock market...

            Absolutely it makes a huge difference...go into any retirement community (55 and over) and see the difference today to 11 months ago...they were all hunkering down 11 months ago thinking they could have to live on their SS checks alone...now they are back to their old spending ways...

            People who have steady jobs and are not likely to be laid off...they look at their retirement funds and make decisions based on that as well...they look at their college funds that were 50% depleated last year and see them recovering and say well we do not have to double our savings into the college fund...

            Now this is not going to affect the "hand to mouth" person...but the people with disposable incomes and the people deciding whether to add zero jobs or 20 jobs this year...it makes a huge difference...

            Obama - Change I still believe in

            by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:07:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  well (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              goinsouth, happymisanthropy, Losty

              well you did your parents a disservice by encouraging them spend when housing still has 20% to drop.  They should be hunkering down.

              The correction is coming to wall street, its not a big secret.

              (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

              by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:20:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I did not encourage them to do it... (0+ / 0-)

                they made their own decision...and case-schilling would disagree with you that housing has another 20% to drop...

                Obama - Change I still believe in

                by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:28:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  historic (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  happymisanthropy

                  historic trend lines which show a time tested relationship between household income and home prices would disagree.  18-20% it shows to have the trend lines fall back into historic line.

                  Incredible 18% drop in existing home sales just last month should give you a clue as to who is right.

                  (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                  by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:32:11 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And other data points to a bottoming... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pozzo

                    out of home prices...of course averages are skewed by data in highly depressed areas...so some areas will continue to decline significantly while other areas will level off and slowly increase...housing is not just a commodity..

                    It depends on the type of housing, location and size...

                    55 and over communities will continue to have significant demand as our baby-boomers continue to reach retiremet age...

                    Obama - Change I still believe in

                    by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:37:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Market predictions (0+ / 0-)

                I love it when people are so certain of the market moves.  If this is your view, just short the market and make a fortune.  Or better yet, short the homebuilders.  

            •  umm (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              hester, happymisanthropy

              People who have steady jobs

              no such thing anymore in this country.

              (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

              by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:21:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not really true... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pozzo

                most teachers, police, civil servants, healthcare pharma...have relative steady jobs...

                Not to mention accountants (which I am an accountant)...

                Obama - Change I still believe in

                by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:30:00 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  LOL (4+ / 0-)

                  no, sorry teachers? you kidding me,  Police?  again you kidding me, the budgets are so tight police are being laid off all over.

                  Civil servants? again, you are so clueless as to what is happening in the governemnt agencies , its scary.

                  Accountants?  just wait, your outsourcing wil be coming this decade.

                  (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                  by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:34:22 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You cannot outsource your local accountant... (0+ / 0-)

                    and I am not talking about preparing a tax return...I am talking about helping you with your business...

                    Obama - Change I still believe in

                    by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:39:25 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually, Yes you can. (0+ / 0-)

                      There are multi-million dollar business plans being written in Bangalore as we type this, for much less than here.

                      A Neat receipts scanner and e-mail.  

                      The tax question would be the only issue, as they may give you the numbers and a report, but the FedEx bill from India for the "paid preparer" signature would be expensive.

                    •  You Are About Eight Years Behind (0+ / 0-)

                      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                      by superscalar on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:38:41 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Those are really bookkeeping services... (0+ / 0-)

                        not high level accountancy and advice services...wrong again...

                        Obama - Change I still believe in

                        by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:19:35 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  best friend (0+ / 0-)

                          cpa, with an mba is taxation. CFO of a fortune 500 company.  He was laid off and says things SUCK out there for highend applicants.

                          (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                          by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:35:19 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes... (0+ / 0-)

                            for those in private industry it is slow...I am talking about public accounting and controls work...especially IT auditing...(my speciality)...I have never been busier...

                            Keep on specializing and reinventing yourself and you will never be outsourced...

                            Obama - Change I still believe in

                            by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 01:08:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yeah and (0+ / 0-)

                            what about the other 99% of america?

                            only 20 some percent even have college degrees, let alone specialization

                            (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                            by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 01:56:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My only point is... (0+ / 0-)

                            that in some industries with specialization...you are immune to outsourcing to a great extent...I did not say the other xx% was not immune...

                            Obama - Change I still believe in

                            by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 01:59:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Accenture Offers High End Accounting Services (0+ / 0-)

                          In India, but keep believing that your job is secure because you are oh so fucking smart.

                          I know a lot of electrical engineers who are most probably a whole lot smarter than you who thought the same thing. Fact is I knew a guy with a PhD in mathematics who thought the same thing. Last time I heard from him he was living in a homeless shelter.

                          <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                          by superscalar on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:44:28 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  The reality... (0+ / 0-)

                    is that jobs are comming back and people who have jobs are more secure in those jobs as the companies announce that layoffs are over...

                    That may not be your personal situation...but surveys show it is true...

                    Obama - Change I still believe in

                    by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:40:41 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  jobs are coming back? (0+ / 0-)

                      when did this happen?  We as still LOSING JOBS.

                      DVog, I give you credit as you are an eternal optimist, but man reality just isnt even close to supporting any of the optimism you hope for.

                      Layoff are over? huh considering Wallmart/Oracle/and Xerox just announced a boatload in the last few days, umm.. dont think so.

                      (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                      by dark daze on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:33:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dvogel001

      It's not just about the markets.  Like it or not, the real economy is, in fact, inextricably tied to the markets--not as much as it should be (more so in downturns than in recovery)--but enough so that they could choke off what little economic growth and recovery that we're barely beginning to have.

      save our democracy! freespeechforpeople.org

      by thoughtful3 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:58:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing more than Financial Terrorism (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, majcmb1, happymisanthropy

      Take a look here

    •  The market loves free money (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      You don't get it.

      Bernanke isn't a devil to them. He's an angel.

      America: our highest paid profession is thief.

      by Paul Goodman on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:08:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bernanke and Geithener... (0+ / 0-)

        have already announced that they are planning on unravelling the liquidity put into the market 11 months ago and TARP is ending...so what is the problem...???

        Obama - Change I still believe in

        by dvogel001 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:14:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Be careful what you wish for, though. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson

    It is not a guarantee that if Bernanke's nomination goes down that Obama will pick someone like Krugman or Alan Blinder -- who we all agree would be a vast improvement.

    Obama may decide to move -- God help us all -- Larry Summers or even Tim Gethner! -- to the Fed instead.

    I'm not sure that's any better than Bernanke, and may even be worse.

  •  Not meaning to be simplistic, (0+ / 0-)

    but economists seem to consider money as the defining element in their sphere of interest--that it fuels exchange and trade--while I would argue that money is really a lubricant.  So that, similar to draining the oil out of the engine, the withdrawal of money, for whatever reason, causes the gears to seize up and come to a halt.

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:49:03 AM PST

  •  WWBD (6+ / 0-)

    What would Bernie Sanders do is a valid option for anyone not well versed in government--and Bernie says NO.

  •  Not under here, nor here. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard, Losty

    Nope, can't find one.

    But when the White House is incapable of finding a Fed chief interested in Main Street, rather than his pals over at Morgan Stanley, then it's the job of Congress to show that it is still awake and engaged co-equal branch of government.

    This is the same Congress that wrote laws to support Bush's agenda after the fact?

    Torture, Iraq invasion, Executive priveleges, renditions, White House visitors log, domestic spying, telecom immunity, anything Cheney, and ignoring the findings of special commissions.

    Here is a short list.
    What is right with our Congress and America today?

    A bad haircut lasts 2 to 3 days, bad political decisions last forever.

  •  just heard Dean Baker on NPR (11+ / 0-)

    he thinks Bernanke should go. Period.

    Keeping him only sets the president for any future Fed Chairperson to act in reckless and potentially devastating ways only to know that you're likely to keep your job. Kind of like the banks; take risks, even when they fail miserably, you'll get rewarded.

    Like the old saying about what the definition of "crazy" is...

    Crazy, and stupid.

    "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

    by ridemybike on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:50:37 AM PST

  •  Krugman's giving up (6+ / 0-)

    ...and proved it by saying we should re-up Big Ben for another term as Fed Chairman because the next guy could fuck up even worse.

    Jesus, God. I never thought the Krug Man would ever give up like that. How could anyone possibly fuck up any worse than Bernanke?

    Speaking of the Gray Lady: Anybody read Harold Ford's op-ed in the NY Times this morning? He's basically saying, "OK, OK, I'm a Republican."

    JP
    http://welcomebacktopottersville.blo...

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:50:47 AM PST

  •  They left out the part about it being (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    majcmb1, happymisanthropy

    best for the American people.

  •  It appears Bernanke is not getting paid enough, (7+ / 0-)

    as he is apparently the ONLY PERSON IN THE FUCKING UNIVERSE who is qualified to lead the Fed.

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:51:44 AM PST

  •  The Fed is already politicized. (4+ / 0-)
    Elections matter. George W. Bush got to pick a rightwing successor to Alan Greenspan because he was the Preznit. Obama shouldn't be forced to keep Bush's appointment. Nor should he be blackmailed into it by the "markets."
  •  Did I miss something? (0+ / 0-)

    The Bush Administration already made a mistake with Bernanke, and the Obama Administration appears desperate to follow suit. In fact, it would've been nice to see Obama fight for real health care reform with the energy and

    I'm sure there was meant to be more at the end of this paragraph...?

  •  I think Yahoo Financial News . . . (0+ / 0-)

    Share the same writers with AP.

    The Only Way to Save the Democratic Party is to Allow Republicans to Win - Some Moron at DKOS

    by kefauver on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:53:45 AM PST

  •  An easy one for Obama to fire up the base. (0+ / 0-)
    Dump Bernanke. I can understand, though, why Obama would not want to have his fingerprints on it. He would probably not be all that broken up about it if the Senate killed the nomination. He can then say to Wall Street: "Hey. The Senate doesn't want this guy. I tried."
  •  Already diaried ;p (6+ / 0-)

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Seriously, it's always this

     title=

    and I'm getting sick and tired of it.

    Air America listeners, check this out

    by shpilk on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:55:30 AM PST

  •  Democrats acting like scared little girls (0+ / 0-)

    is worse for the country than keeping Bernanke.

  •  But what about the CHILDREN!!!!!!! (5+ / 0-)

    The Terrorist WIN!
    Marital law if we don't hand over 700 Billion!

    Its the end of the WORLD!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

    Give me a fricken break!

  •  I'll email the History Channel (4+ / 0-)

    Their next Doomsday special can be "The Day Ben Bernanke Overslept!".

    •  You Spell "Bernanke" By Crossing "Nostradamus" (0+ / 0-)

      with "Revelations," subtracting the letters "UFO" and setting the resulting scrabble pieces onto a Bigfoot hillside path.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:03:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Economic predictions: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    For the most part, 21st Century voodoo.

    I'd rather get the economist's take on the existence of God.

    Don't do vibrato. There'll be plenty of that naturally later when you're old and shaky. (Miles Davis, quoting his music instructor)

    by dov12348 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:58:22 AM PST

  •  Well, the AP sucks, especially the DC Bureau. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah

    Still, I'm not sure the "Bernanke must go to save the economy!" meme makes a lot more sense.

  •  Here's what they're afraid of: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JC from IA

    "Dow loses 1000 points."  Same as when Carter briefly considered someone other than the man who was at that time the banks' choice: Paul Volcker.  Stocks tanked, Carter gave in, and Volcker (unlike Greenspan with Bush 43) gave absolutely no consideration to Carter's political health in implementing his draconian economic plans.  They don't want a Fed Chair who will try to strangle the economy.

    On the other hand, that's pretty much what Bernanke says he's going to do anyway....

  •  Is ANYONE going to believe Obama's expected (4+ / 0-)

    populist message in the SOTU if he is going around bending arms on behalf of smelly Bernanke?

    Bad, bad politics.

    "So here's us, on the raggedy edge" - Mal Reynolds -8.88, -7.90

    by Presumptuous Insect on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:01:00 AM PST

  •  Sanders, Boxer, Dorgan, Merkely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah

    all say no so far that I know of. It looks like McCain, Cornyn, Shelby and that asshat Jeffery Beauregard Sessions the Third are also saying no.

    "Bi-partisanship" at last.
    But I wouldn't want to drink from their cup.

    [cue Democratic Luntz]

    Air America listeners, check this out

    by shpilk on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:01:12 AM PST

  •  LOL, wingnuts on the right and left... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    liberaldregs, Inland, shrike, JC from IA

    ..love to bash Bernanke.  The comment in the diary about Bernanke worrying more about inflation than jobs is out to lunch.  Inflation hawks HATE Bernanke for expanding the money supply, an INFLATIONARY tactic! His main concern was preventing a DEFLATIONARY spiral from occurring and we should all be thankful for that; deflation is even worse than inflation.  The man probably knows more about the root causes of the Great Depression than most living economists.  The guy deserves rebuke for not fully appreciating the magnitude of the bubble economy but he DID make the right call by easing monetary policy.  I think reconfirming him is the right move at this time, feel free to flame away.

    "The more laws, the less justice."

    by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:01:24 AM PST

    •  Here's my response: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah

      I'll grant you that he made the rioght decisions to avoid a deflationary spiral. But, he is already talking about riasing rates before there's any sign of inflation creeping back into the economy. Doing this may satisfy the inflation "hawks," but it will also throttle the US economic recovery.

      •  fair enough (0+ / 0-)

        Expanding the money supply IS an inflationary policy.  The idea is to use inflation as a way of staving off deflation.  At some point the deflationary danger will pass and the results of these actions may be quite inflationary. It's kind of like lurching a ship's tiller from side to side.  If the deflation danger remains for the time being then yes, fighting inflation would be counterproductive to economic recovery.  If the danger has passed, then having this extra money floating around has to cause some inflation at some point.  It's very tricky waters indeed, I like having an academic like Bernanke dealing with it than a bunch of political hacks.  Politization of the FED right now would be crazy...i.e.  polls say people want rates lowered so lo0wer em' or vice versa. It would be nuts!

        "The more laws, the less justice."

        by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:15:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Talk is cheap. (0+ / 0-)

        Get back to us when he actually raises the prime rate.

        Money talks, bullshit walks.

        •  so what then? (0+ / 0-)

          Are you saying you want him to raise the prime rate or not? Your comment is vague.

          "The more laws, the less justice."

          by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:18:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, not at all. (0+ / 0-)

            I'm saying that talking about raising it isn't the same as raising it.

            •  OK (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JC from IA

              lol, half the people on here are saying he's crazy to be considering raising it and the other half are saying he should do so but is too chicken.  

              "The more laws, the less justice."

              by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:27:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  CW says he must be just about right, then! (0+ / 0-)

                I'm still trying to figure out the "Bernanke must go!" side, as much as the "Bernanke must stay!" crowd.

                I certainly can't think of any economic geniuses out there that I think would do a "better" job, whatever that means.

                •  LOL, I think he is just about right (0+ / 0-)

                  It does show the danger of how much power is vested in the FED though.  Kinda like dictatorship, if the guy is Marcus Aurelius then it may be OK.  If it's Nero then we're screwed. LOL

                  "The more laws, the less justice."

                  by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:40:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, indeed, the Fed is awfully powerful. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PsychoSavannah

                    This has always been kind of a convoluted system we have here, it seems to me.

                    Still, whether Bernanke stays or goes, I don't see our system changing any time soon.  Neither will some sort of Congressional "audit" of the Fed make much difference, IMO.

                    The Chairman has to consider the markets as well as the money supply, it seems to me, and that means he must enter the realm of psychology and metaphysics.  The last one chose to use tenets put forward by a novelist, then excused himself with a wordy version of "My bad!".  Which meant that many MBA types thought he was a genius.

                    •  Greenspan was a tool, no doubt... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JC from IA

                      ..about it!  For all the blunders of the Bush admin, appointing Bernanke as his successor was a surprisingly good move.  Love him or hate him, the man is a respected academic and has a few chops in the realm of economic theory.  I agree with the thrust of your statement, like it or not the FED is here to stay for the foreseeable future and politicizing it isn't going to help.  Can you imagine if the prime interest rate was determined by what the latest polls showed?  i.e 60% of the public thinks it should be raised, raise it! or...55% think it should be lowered, lower it! Crazy I say!

                      "The more laws, the less justice."

                      by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:01:30 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  you're right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JC from IA, Denverlibertarian

      Won't make much difference around here though

      save our democracy! freespeechforpeople.org

      by thoughtful3 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:13:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's Keynesian Economics that has failed... (0+ / 0-)

      The most leftist of all the 30's policy wrote. It amazes me as I read this board how little is understood about the government regulation of the Fed and roots of the fiat money crisis that are linked there.

      Keynesian economics is about bailouts and bubbles by design, insuring investors with variable value money to both encourage and cheat them at the same time. It robs the working poor as well but the left is married to it. This is an inflationist system that helps the "rich" as it often quoted on this site yet 99% would fight against a fixed unit of exchange (gold for example) that would prevent the levels of both government and private excess. How ironic is that? On policy most are helping the rich by thinking we should be even more inflationist and more permissive with credit.

      Those in the "know" here are hypocrites as they know their benefits are tied to the phony money system at the government benefits level as well. With real money the fed would be greatly constricted, government tied benefits would be judged far more fairly as deadbeats.

      The "crisis" took both the fed and government "regulation" to achieve the results. Yet the game of make-believe here is pretend all the villians are private sector "rich" and all the errors were a "lack" of regulation? Both the fed and government are at record levels of scope and power in post ww2 scale. You can't hate TARP at the same time ignore the level of government involvements that drove the "system" to that result or feather a million small nests in the same fashion. How could you argue for more government authority looking at the obvious of what busted the economy and what was clearly fraudulent about the last "boom"? corruptisima re publica plurimae leges

      •  aaaahhhh the gold standard (0+ / 0-)

          Now abandoned by every nation in the world.  If only we'd stayed on it everything would be a-ok right?  Problem is that under the gold standard unemployment tends to be higher, and economic downturns tend to be worse.  The gold standard played a major role in the great depression too, the longer a country stayed on it the worse it was for them. http://econ161.berkeley.edu/...  
           What we really need isn't a return to the gold standard, but a balanced budget amendment to keep both parties (esp the republicans) from running massive deficits.

        "The more laws, the less justice."

        by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 01:49:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Straw dog point.... (0+ / 0-)

          There were manipulations and excess government even with a gold standard, when they collapsed people had in their pocket money and it usually appreciated in value. Now money becomes worthless over time, like expiring options on falling stock. This is tied to fiat money and government controls over the monetary system. It's what is really at the heart of massive trade imbalances and the credit crisis itself, who printed all of this leverage that failed in 08' as one easy example? It was not possible without big government and it dwarfs private interests in scale.

          War is perhaps the ultimate excess, it's deeply tied to why sound money was abandoned and Keynesian debt culture was born. First to try and resolve war debt then the bust cycles that followed. Distortions create inflation and countries abandon gold when they decide it wiser to pay with paper rather than maintain real money (first oil crisis 71' was the final for Bretton Woods, which was a phony/weak gold regime in many ways).

          Deflation in the face of rising productivity, credit instability and harsh cycles can be tied to real money. The understanding and tools used to manage the excess in the later 19th century for example were certainly poor. Just remember that it is the modern industrialist and elite who are in the best position to exploit inflation excess and you are siding with them even as you imagine yourselves as champions of the "poor" or against these interests. Just another loss of logic in the American left in particular. Then again Populism isn't logical it's emotional and can win elections but can't raise confidence in the longer term.

          As for gold's importance in the great depression you have the culprit all wrong. The British can be blamed first but nothing but confusion followed when the world left gold;

          http://www.youtube.com/...

          England's failure was tied directly to its war debts. As for FDR you couldn't have 100 Trillion+ in debt and future obligations by this point without a fiat money system. The Bretton Woods system was inferior and doomed from the start. Here was the writing on the wall from the Kennedy years;

          http://www.youtube.com/...

          Of course we had to deal with Cold Wars and global management on a vast scale. Same complaints the British may have had by 1930.

          The world is confused and economies difficult with or without gold but a society that produces more debts than real income as an economic way of life is reaching the end of the line. If you think TARP was evil you shouldn't contridict yourself and think fiat money is good at the same time. They are fruit of the same tree. Fiat balanced budgets are the ultimate joke, they always depending on imbalances that kill private interests to sustain government expansion.

          Leaving gold is always a sign of social and economic decline. The entire world is in this decline doesn't make it better for us. It's often forgotten, while Hoover's progressive policies made that phase of the Depression worse the economy was recovering until it was politically certain FDR would be elected. Confidence collapsed and it was very related to gold policy. Many things in common with 08' and the end of the Bush years, the excess could not be passed on or over to Obama or McCain. So Hoover was wrong on Tariffs and tax rates he was on the right side of honest money but it was too late and the right domestic policy was not to be found among FDR or Hoover. Hence a very long decline and a poorly prepared for global war to follow.

          I never said gold could solve everything or it would survive at the moment if that was the case. I only point out the national banking system and fiat debt culture cheat the poor both here and around the world and the one claim to fame about government managed, Keynesian smoother cycles, has been pretty well refuted. It's time for something different and layering more debt with "lower rates" is a non-starter. Obama and you can miss your Tulips but reflation through these tools has peaked.  

  •  Bring it on. (0+ / 0-)

    America: our highest paid profession is thief.

    by Paul Goodman on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:01:42 AM PST

  •  No it doesn't end (0+ / 0-)

    That's preposterous.

    First of all, the Fed chairman is not the all-controlling oligarch; you need to deal with the Board of Governors who make most of the policy.

    Second, while rejecting Bernake would probably result in one rather bad day on Wall Street, it doesn't affect the day to day operations of the Fed and it's not going to cause a financial meltdown.  Furthermore, Bernake stays on until Obama nominates someone else.

    There is some considerable value to rejecting Bernake.  He's probably being made to take a fall that isn't 100% his fault -- he is a reasonably competent theoretical economist (read Krugman's piece, BTW Krugman favors reappointing Bernake) but the brutal reality is that a lot of this went down on his watch.  As the leader of the Fed, he's responsible for their screwups.  The failure of anyone in Washington or on Wall Street to accept responsibility for their actions is appalling.  

    •  would disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lying eyes

      the damage was done during Greenspan's watch, Bernanke is stuck with the cleanup.  Under Greenspan, interest rates were kept artificially lower than what the market, allowed to function, would have supported.  This set off a classic Austrian Business Cycle scenario and led to the bubble economy.  Bernanke could have listened to the inflation hawks and just let the market correct itself, with a great deal of pain caused by a domino style string of business/bank failures, but he didn't.  He decided that letting the bottom fall out wasn't an option and he made a clutch call to expand the money supply.  It was the right move and history will bear him out.

      "The more laws, the less justice."

      by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:09:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey, Bernanke isn't COMPLETELY worthless. (4+ / 0-)

    Wait.  Yes, yes he is.

    Don't do vibrato. There'll be plenty of that naturally later when you're old and shaky. (Miles Davis, quoting his music instructor)

    by dov12348 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:04:02 AM PST

  •  "Reconfirm Bernanke or else?" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Badabing, Losty, Ann T Bush

     This was the identical message other Admin talking heads were putting out on the Sunday talk shows. Or else what? Goldman Sachs and the other big investment banks will punish America? More than they have already? How exactly? They'll stop stealing all the money in the country? The big investment banks have become nothing but a curse, a parasitical plague, on the 21st century. Boot Bernanke and let the Wall St mavens cry all they want. They belong in prison, not in their Manhattan office towers. And everyone knows the market is still over-valued. It will go down because its only the tricky-Dick shenanigans of Geither, Bernanke and the rest that keep it artificially propped up. Let it.

  •  Fear Campaigns: 50% of the Populace (0+ / 0-)

    Hate Campaigns: 50% of the Populace
    General Mood of Blanket Loathing of Everything in the Country These Days: 100%

    If 50% of those with an opinion think Bernanke's a terrible Fed Chairman and 50% of ditto think the opposite -- which from listening to financial TV commentators, reading financial blogs, and watching politicians seems to be the case, I'd say Bernanke is exactly the right person for the job.

    The Fed Chair doesn't exist to please anyone.  If the Fed Chair is doing his job right, equally divided opinion as to that is what I'd be looking.

    "Give me but one firm spot to stand, and I will move the earth." -- Archimedes

    by Limelite on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:04:37 AM PST

  •  Obama is a like a new Football GM --> (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, zyangunc

    ...who was just hired to fix a franchise that went 1-15 -- who then proceeds to retain the head coach and the defensive coordinator.

  •  OT, why are Obama and Biden on tv (3+ / 0-)

    talking about "retirement security" and the deficit.

    I hope they're not peddling that terrible plan to let an outside commission develop a plan to forgive the fed debt it owes to the Social Security Trust Fund by privatizing social security.  They think by couching it in terms of job creation and forgiving student loans.

    Holy cow. The WH is completely tone deaf to middle class voters.  Stupid. Not not just stupid but apparently lacking a moral compass.

    "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

    by Betty Pinson on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:05:41 AM PST

  •  Bernanke... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shrike, Losty, JC from IA

    ...is trying to keep inflation down? Wow, that's a new one I haven't heard.

    Keeping interest rates at unnaturally low 0% is not "keeping inflation down".

    Putting tons of crap and who knows what on the balance sheet of the Fed isn't "keeping inflation down".

    Playing endless games of hiding losses as far as possible isn't "keeping inflation down".

    Blowing up yet another stock market bubble that's completely divorced from fundamentals isn't "keeping inflation down".

    No, the reality is that Ben is trying (and failing, as he will and must) to start inflation. He is trying desperately (and misguidedly) to stave off deflation, which is in fact the cure, not the disease.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:06:57 AM PST

    •  So correct! Populists want a scalp (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JC from IA

      but Ben is bald.

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:11:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I want to get rid of Bernanke too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        In her own Voice

        But perhaps for very different reasons than a lot of people here. With Bernanke, we are virtually guaranteed to have a Japan-style multi-decade deflationary slump with a significant probability of a high-profile blowup of our economy at some point there. Bernanke is unwilling or incapable of recommending that we take our medicine now instead of later, so he plays all these stupid games trying to pretend that reality is not reality.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:14:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But you can't "take your medicine" in a (0+ / 0-)

          deflationary spiral.  I know you know that.

          I fear bank stagnation too while they take a decade to repair their balance sheet.

          But BB knows this too of course.

          "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

          by shrike on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:19:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Bernanke is going to allow a deflationary slump? (0+ / 0-)

          He took the most aggressive monetary action in recent history to prevent a deflationary spiral! He's been getting from all sides by the inflation hawks for doing so. If japan had sprung the liquidity trap by aggressively easing monetary policy their "lost decade" probably wouldn't have occured.

          "The more laws, the less justice."

          by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:34:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  that's basically what it comes down to (0+ / 0-)

        That's how it works when you've got populist anger directed at anything and anyone.

        save our democracy! freespeechforpeople.org

        by thoughtful3 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:15:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  yup with 20% real unemployment (0+ / 0-)
      basic econ says most americans have less money on average, meaning with supply and demand prices on commodities should go down. Need to prop up the rich with socialism for them to make sure prices don't go down (meaning less profits for corporations).
    •  Deflation's the cure? Wow. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm wondering who you want appointed to the fed; it's too bad everyone who was running things at the beginning of the last "cure" of the Great Depression is dead.

      Subsidies without cost controls, regulatory reform means that citizens get a little more awful insurance at a huge cost to taxpayers. Like Part D but worse.

      by Inland on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:05:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Politics by Mel Brooks: (2+ / 0-)

    "Put down your guns -- or the economy gets it. I think he means it. Do as he says! Do as he says!" - Ben Bernanke.

  •  key kos please continue this thought (0+ / 0-)
    You typed: "The Bush Administration already made a mistake with Bernanke, and the Obama Administration appears desperate to follow suit. In fact, it would've been nice to see Obama fight for real health care reform with the energy and"

    I think you forgot to include the rest of that sentence?

  •  I could do a better job than Bernanke, (0+ / 0-)

    fer cripe's sake.

    "So here's us, on the raggedy edge" - Mal Reynolds -8.88, -7.90

    by Presumptuous Insect on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:14:50 AM PST

  •  Ugh - please people, don't listen to Markos only (3+ / 0-)

    And it's time to stop pretending that anything but a Bernanke re-confirmation will somehow lead to economic armageddon

    Okay - it's hard to argue it would lead to economic Armageddon, but it's possible that it could shake up things at a moment where uncertainty isn't needed.

    There's an argument to be made either way, but there's no real content in Markos' argument.  Only that Bernanke is for Wall Street and blah blah blah.  It's like when TARP was up for debate and Markos only argued it on the politics, but not on the substantive economic issues at stake.

    People, do your own research and reach your own conclusions, but Markos' non-substantive reasoning is irresponsible given the megaphone he has.

    I'm shocked to learn that 1 in 12 Americans do not know that the bird, is in fact, that word.

    by dansac on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:15:16 AM PST

    •  With the adjustable interest-rate mortgages (4+ / 0-)

      hitting the next quarter, it doesn't matter who is Fed Chair when the double dip comes.

    •  God forbid the Dow should drop a few (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      goinsouth, 0wn, In her own Voice

      thousand points, eh?

      Let's hold America Hostage, instead.  

      Air America listeners, check this out

      by shpilk on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:22:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly right Dansac! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dansac

      People are angry and hurting, looking for someone to blame, and Bernanke is a convenient target.  Economics must be considered along with the politics.  The economy will recover, eventually, if allowed to function.  Playing crazy politics with the situation isn't going to help anything.

      "The more laws, the less justice."

      by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:25:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pathetic. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        0wn

        crazy politics

        is what bailed out the banks, auto makers, insurance companies, etc.  Allowing them to fail is the free market we don't have anymore.

        •  It's a no win situation... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          If the businesses fall like dominoes then panic could ensue, undermining public confidence and throwing millions out of work.  If the businesses are bailed out, then it may encourage further irresponsibility on the part of CEO's when they realize the good ole' taxpayer will save the day.  I

          "The more laws, the less justice."

          by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:05:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oh NOEZ. Please don't let market forces (4+ / 0-)

      actually correct the idiotic speculation we continue to be engaged in.  I'll tell you about irresponsible - that would be the propping up with public money of failed buisnesses.  That would not be capitalim, nor would it be free markets.  It is stealing from the public to save the wealthy.  Let them and their enterprises fail, due to mismanagement.  Anything else fuels moral hazard in the extreme.  

      •  In theory that's true (0+ / 0-)

        But in reality just letting the bottom fall out or our economy would have horrific consequences.  Under NORMAL circumstances I agree with you, the free market provides the freedom to succeed or fail upon one's own merits.  If during this crisis, the greatest in 70 years, banks and businesses were allowed to fail one after another it could very well have set off the second great depression.  Watching businesses fall like dominoes would increase the fear factor for remaining companies/workers/consumers.  Thinking the panic was here, spending would have cut back, unemployment would have skyrocketed, businesses would have to cut prices to attract business, resulting in less profit, resulting in more unemployment, workers who were laid off would spend less, resulting in less profit etc.etc. and we would be on our way! http://www.mint.com/...

        "The more laws, the less justice."

        by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 02:05:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And you are hopeful that this has been avoided... (0+ / 0-)

          I think it has been merely postponed.  America is no longer a leader in the world, aside from our large standing army.  The 'green shoots' are a myth, and our so-called consumer economy is a lie predicated on continuing to pile debt on debt.  It will end, and beliefs to the contrary are magical thinking.  Many are ready fo something different - perhaps a system that places value on things other than the frivolous and mundane.  We'll certainly be living in interesting times, won't we?  

          •  Jury is still out... (0+ / 0-)

            ...on whether the deflation scare is over.  I think the worst is over if Bernanke is allowed to oversee the conclusion to the actions he's taken.  Eventually inflation will have to be monitored as a followup to all this monetary expansion, fortunately there are more tools that exist to tackle that.  America is most certainly still the leader in the world, we still have the largest economy and the largest army.  China appears to have been fudging some of their economic numbers for a while so they have their problems too.  Europe can get up on their high horse all they want but at the end of the day our economy will still out perform theirs too.  If we have a system that values the frivolous and mundane whose fault is that?  If the people in this country value American Idol, Budweiser, and Sarah Palin then that's their problem.  

            "The more laws, the less justice."

            by Denverlibertarian on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 03:50:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Tom Blumer questions AP Aversa's economic spin (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    goinsouth, Losty
    Economy Not Impressing? Never Fear, the AP's Jeannine Aversa Is Here is a blog entry by MSNBC's Tom Blumer, who points out how she spins the economy.

    He then wrote another article criticizing her for reversing her position soon thereafter:

    Split Personality: One Hour After Cheerleading, AP's Aversa Goes Dour on Economy
    in which he satarizes AP as, Absolutely Pathetic.

    Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by CIndyCasella on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:17:06 AM PST

  •  triple digits DOW drops are wallstreets way of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    goinsouth

    holding their breathe until they turn blue...  like spoiled children.

    What is needed here is a bit of TOUGH LOVE... remember, when the dow tumbles WALLSTREET also loses money and they will tolerate it for just so long before day traders start caring more about making profits then about making political demands.

    "don't send birkenstocks to battle spiked heels"

    by KnotIookin on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:27:56 AM PST

    •  Except it wasn't "Wall Street's" Decision (0+ / 0-)

      They dont' want the market to go down. It was investors who drove the market down, rightfully scared by the possibility of instability and fear of the unknown if populist rage, instead of logical thinking, is allowed to carry the day.

  •  Paul Krugman's take is an absolute (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, HamdenRice

    must in any intelligent decision on Bernanke.

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

  •  Making a clean sweep (0+ / 0-)

    of things is something I learned at age 16 when I had been one week at a job in a faltering restuarant. The new guy came in and summarily fired all but me. He said he wasnt sure why the previous owner failed but that the old crew sure didnt seem to have been a help. He kept me only because I was new and had not yet learned the ways of the failed ownership.

  •  Bernanke is the best Fed chair of our lifetimes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, shrike, Denverlibertarian

    I realize it's popular to lump Paulson, Geithner, Summers, et al together with Bernanke, but that is based simply on not understanding what the Fed did during the economic crisis.

    Bernanke is, hands down, the greatest Fed chair of our life times so far.  Problem is, you have to know a lot about finance to understand what he did to avert a global economic catastrophe when much of the rest of the global financial system was collapsing.

    People complain that Bernanke's Fed only bailed out Wall St and not Main Street.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts.

    In fact, when the financial markets were collapsing, Bernanke by passed the banks and funneled over $1 trillion -- that's trillion with a "t" -- directly to companies so that they could make payroll through the commercial paper program.

    If Bernanke had not done that -- had not purchased hundreds of billions worth of commercial paper -- then something like all the job losses we've seen in the last year might have been concentrated in a few weeks in September and October.

    To put it bluntly, the Fed put up hundreds of billions in money that went directly to pay payrolls, purchase inventories and supplies and pay for all the other stuff that kept the economy going, rather than freezing up completely -- when the commercial paper market collapsed to almost zero activity.  If you work for a company, there's a good chance that Bernanke funded your paycheck for a few weeks.

    Bernanke should be confirmed not because failing to do so will make Wall St nervous; he should be confirmed because he's pretty much the greatest Fed chairman you or I have seen and maybe will ever see.

    He spent his entire life studying the Great Depression and how to avoid it, and was in exactly the right place at the right time.  I doubt anyone else would have known what to do and had the balls to do it.

    He's not a banker.  He's a professor.

    •  Thanks Mom, sorry about your 401K... (0+ / 0-)

      Could you please also write to that nice young black fellow and tell him how his policy of letting no henhouse go unfoxxed is utter brilliance?

      XXOOXX  

    •  The old Paulson eye rolling treatment for us (0+ / 0-)

      naive peasants, of course. He has both successes and failures, like the rest of the human race, all deifying aside.

      Regardless of his qualifications, the old world-will-come-to-an-end argument just isn't going to convince anyone at this point, especially those who believe there is somewhat of a bubble at this time anyway.

      That sort of fear mongering was laughed at during the campaign, and seems disingenuous from anyone in the Admin at this point of time.

      Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.- George C.

      by gereiztkind on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:20:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not fear mongering (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shrike

        It's the best person for the job -- especially considering we're not out of the woods.

        Did you read Krugman's op ed?  Just who precisely is more qualified at this point than Bernanke to use the Fed to help steer the global economy away from depression 2.0?

        And any substantive opinion on the commercial paper program?

        •  Well then why won't he disclose what he did (0+ / 0-)

          with the trillions in commitments he made to private companies and foreign central banks. The Federal Reserve added over $1.2 trillion to its balance sheet, while taking on trillions more in credit risks off its balance sheet. Who got the money? On what terms? Why did Bear Sterns get saved and Lehman get the shaft? Why take over an essentially bankrupt AIG and pay Goldman Sachs and others full price for the bad bets they made? Why take on $230 billion in toxic Citibank liabilities with no upside for taxpayers?

          "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

          by hester on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:45:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are conflating TARP, AIG and the Fed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hester

            which seems pretty common.  

            The Fed took on all those assets on its balance sheet in order to save the economy by making loans directly to companies that needed to issue commercial paper (kind of like corporate checks payable later).

            I keep reading this quote about him not knowing what foreign banks received the money, but what he's saying makes perfect sense.  He established currency swaps with the other big economy central banks -- Bank of England, Japan, etc., and when they traded liquidity, how's he supposed to know what Bank of England did to save their banks?  The Fed's currency and liquidity swaps were with other central banks.

            •  okay. why not disclose the particulars? (0+ / 0-)

              BTW, I respect what you are trying to do here so tipped and recommended. Thank you.

              "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

              by hester on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:01:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think it was kept secret to prevent panic (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                hester

                The basics of a run on a bank are pretty well shown in the movie, It's a Wonderful Life.  Banks are always, in a sense, unable to meet their obligations if people demanded they meet them at once.  

                I admit the Fed was dangerously leveraged.  For a while it became the biggest hedge fund on the planet -- but that's what Bernanke figured had to be done if we were to have a chance of avoiding a Great Depression.

                It's like if George Baily in IAWL had to give financials to his depositors as they were lined up to withdraw their funds, his little speech would have had no effect ("Mrs. Smith, I can't give you all your money right now -- it's in Mr. Valletta's restaurant, and Mr. Williams house ...")

                The Fed was in catastrophic shape and they kept some of that secret so that the international financial system would not lose faith in them.  It worked, and the Fed actually made money by being the lender of last resort, has wound down it's risky positions and deposited it's profits in the US Treasury.

                That said, they were disclosing a lot of aggregate numbers, which I was following in real time in the fall of 2008.  I think a lot of the noise about the Fed not disclosing anything is from journalists who simply were too lazy to click on the Fed's website and read the details of the programs.

                Now, I think the criticism of Bernanke is deserved if he doesn't disclose what happened.  The crisis is over and we need to look closely at what worked, where the Fed made money and where they lost money (presumably quite a lot).  

                And thanks for the rec!

                •  wow, thanks for the excellent explanation. (0+ / 0-)

                  again I tipped you. may I suggest that, if you have the time, you write a diary. Your explanations seem clear, concise and you don't talk 'down' to me.

                  I understand, I think :-) that at the time, secrecy was maintained so as to prevent panic and further collapse. I think you actually changed my mind.... about Bernanke. So thanks.

                  Curious to know what you think about Geithner and Slimy Summers? sorry could not resist about Summers.

                  "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

                  by hester on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:54:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  correct Hamden (0+ / 0-)

          of course Bernanke has a seat on the Fed Board till 2020 anyway so his one vote will remain intact - and Kohn would replace him - who shares the same monetary philosophy.

          They want a scalp - no matter the wishes of the President.

          "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

          by shrike on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:47:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed, but that doen't mean he should stay. (0+ / 0-)

      It's a politically dopey move.

      Does Obama really think that he can keep the bailout team in place and convince the America people that he's on their side and not the Wall Street banker's side?  That he would have dealt with the crisis in any other way if he was POTUS in 2008?

      You don't have to be a teabagger to think that sounds like BS. I think that the American people are wrong to be so pissed off, but I'm not going to try and convince them otherwise.

      One day soon Obama's going to find himself in front of a crowd talking about how justified their anger is and it will suddenly dawn on him that he's the one they are angry at.

      Sanctimony thy name is Joe Lieberman.

      by roguetrader2000 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:42:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's certainly terrible political story telling (0+ / 0-)

        People can't seem to distinguish between TARP, AIG and the Fed programs, and the administration and Bernanke aren't doing a very good job of explaining what happened.

        Obama and Bernanke should just come out and say how many payrolls were met through the commercial paper program and how many jobs were saved and distinguish it, as a direct loan to main street, from the Wall St bailout.

  •  Best quote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Losty

    "...it would've been nice to see Obama fight for real health care reform with the same energy."

    "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

    by tjcha1try on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:00:04 AM PST

  •  Japan in the 1990s became the goal rather than... (0+ / 0-)

    the cautionary tale once Goldman Sachs was threatened.  Low interest rates and subpar growth as far as the eye can see. But the banks are solvent.

    So the President is going to try to capture some bailout and anti-Wall Street anger, but retain everyone responsible for those decisions?

    How stupid does Obama think the American people are?

    Sanctimony thy name is Joe Lieberman.

    by roguetrader2000 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:29:19 AM PST

  •  It's Armageddon if we don't defend Kuwait #1 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester

    It's Armageddon if we don't invade iraq #2
    It's Armageddon if we don't bail out the baks
    It's Armageddon if we don't bail out Chrysler and GM
    It's Armageddon if we don't pay AIG at Par..
    It's Armageddon and a matter of National Security that we don't see what AIG, the NY Fed (Run by the FREAKING TREASURY SECRETARY, And the Fed did regasrding the payments
    It's Armageddon if we don't reappoint Bush's man Gates
    It's Armageddon if we don't reappoint Bush's man Ben

    And we worked like hell and gave like hell in '08-09 for this???

  •  Great diary Kos... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester

    The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

    by Bobjack23 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:41:04 AM PST

  •  Call their bluff (0+ / 0-)
    I think they're bluffing. I think the market gurus know it, too. The market is hoping that he doesn't get fired.

    The financial world isn't going to end if the President fires "Bernie." He's as expendable as any other public official.

    "Ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope of success." -7.75/-6.05

    by QuestionAuthority on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:09:23 AM PST

  •  Good. Similar to BoNY in 2006... (0+ / 0-)

    asking/leaning_on/complaining/whining that the Housing Bubble had to remain hidden.

    The mortgage crooks had to be allowed to write more fraud paper.

    The MBA bond market had to be allowed to soak in another trillion of so in fraud paper.

    Stand & Poors had to be protected despite the fraud ratings.

    It all had to happen.... or else the world would end.

    Dontcha know.

    Angry White Males + Personality Disorder delusionals + Pro-Life Christians

    =EQ=

    The GOPer Base

    by vets74 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:18:45 AM PST

  •  Of course, (0+ / 0-)

    the Federal Reserve was created by Congress.

    So it's disingenuous in the extreme to say that having the Fed answerable to Congress is somehow illegitimate.

    They could do away with the whole thing with two votes, one each in the House and the Senate.

    The Constitution give Congress the power to regulate the currency. The Federal Reserve is simply the mechanism that Congress has chosen to execute that power.

    What Congress has created, Congress can just as easily uncreate.

    So to say that Congress should not interfere with the Federal Reserve system is fundamentally ignorant. They can, and there's no arguing it.

    --Shannon

    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 02:10:56 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site