Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The crash in Republican economics (Andrew Leonard, Salon)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:02 AM
Original message
The crash in Republican economics (Andrew Leonard, Salon)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/03/18/economy/

March 18, 2008 | "In a free market, there's going to be good times and bad times," said President George Bush in a speech at the Economic Club of New York on Friday. "That's how markets work. There will be ups and downs."

Whether you label them fatuous or wise, the president's comments are not off the mark. The business cycle is real; economies expand and contract; what goes up must come down. But the corollary, unmentioned by the president, is that such ups and downs have real political consequences. When a down cycle occurs in an election year, the incumbent party in the White House takes the heat. Conversely, economic growth is good for the powers that be. Just ask Bill Clinton in 1996, or Ronald Reagan in 1984.

The upward and downward blips that Americans have experienced in the past quarter century, despite their considerable impact on the profits of big corporations and the lives of real working people, don't amount to all that much when measured on a scale that spans centuries, however. Not for nothing have the past few decades been dubbed by economists as the "Great Moderation." The rich have gotten richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class relentlessly squeezed, but there have been no society-wide economic dislocations in recent years that match the inflation-and-unemployment miseries of the late 1970s, much less the outright disaster of the Great Depression.

Until now? Consider the following extraordinary commentary: Alan Greenspan saying, "The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the second world war." Former Reagan economic advisor Martin Feldstein saying, "Could this become the worst recession we have seen in the postwar period? I think the answer is yes." Paul Krugman writing that the current situation "looks increasingly like one of history's great financial crises."

Even George Bush concedes that we face "challenging times," which, when judged against the standards of his usual rosy rhetoric, should inspire a wave of survivalist stockpiling that will make the great Y2K scare pale in comparison.

It is also worth noting that two of the assessments quoted above came before the startling events of this past weekend. The Federal Reserve brokered a bailout of Bear Stearns, an elite Wall Street investment bank that imploded after trading partners started to worry that the brokerage -- hammered by exposure to bad subprime mortgage bets -- could no longer make good on its contractual obligations. The Fed also took unprecedented steps to provide credit and liquidity to the global banking system. These extraordinary moves only underscore that we are witnessing historic events. And historic events have historic consequences. The current financial crisis may determine much more than which political party occupies the White House in 2009 -- it could (and may already have) remake the zeitgeist. The Great Depression of the 1930s spawned the New Deal. Will the Great Credit Crunch of today potentially restructure how government, the financial markets and the general welfare intersect?

. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. I keep returning to the fact that * wanted to reinvest Social Security into the stock market.
Edited on Tue Mar-18-08 11:12 AM by no_hypocrisy
I've read about the real cries of desperation of those with shrinking 401(k) plans which are private pensions/investments.

Suppose all you had to depend on was Social Security and it was invested in Bear Sterns. Or the market generally and you weren't privy to inside information. What then?

It was *'s plan to change Social Security to help float the market until he got out of office. It didn't exactly work out that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I don't think even SSI in the market would have kept it afloat
But it WOULD have disappeared, which is what * wanted in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. I sure hope this creates some sort of backlash
Because given the damage our economy is taking, the response so far has been tepid, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stubtoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Or at least a new discussion about regulation. They brought this on themselves,
the rest of us are collateral damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
4. K&R, and bookmarked.
Thanks swag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DinahMoeHum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. Republikkkans. Suck. Like. A. Hoover.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bronxiteforever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. Kick & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. Only if the public's paying attn -- and tragically,
there's little sign of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC