Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Obama got rolled by Wall Street

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
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 08:36 PM
Original message
How Obama got rolled by Wall Street
Adapted from Capital Offense, by Michael Hirsh, a new book on the 30-year history behind the financial crash and ongoing economic crisis.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/29/how-obama-got-rolled-by-wall-street.html

Obama’s Old Deal
Why the 44th president is no FDR—and the economy is still in the doldrums.


Barack Obama was “incredulous” at what he was hearing, said one of his top economic advisers. The president had spent his first year in office overseeing the biggest government bailout of the financial industry in American history. Together with Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, he had kept Wall Street afloat on a trillion-dollar tide of taxpayer money. But the banks were barely lending, and the economy was still mired in high unemployment. And now, in December 2009, the holiday news had started to filter out of the canyons of lower Manhattan: Wall Street’s year-end bonuses would actually be larger in 2009 than they had been in 2007, the year prior to the catastrophe. “Wait, let me get this straight,” Obama said at a White House meeting that December. “These guys are reserving record bonuses because they’re profitable, and they’re profitable only because we rescued them.” It was as if nothing had changed. Even after a Depression-size crash, the banks were not altering their behavior. The president was being perceived, more and more, as a man on the wrong side of an incendiary issue.

And so, prodded forward by Vice President Joe Biden—the product of a working-class upbringing in Scranton, Pa.—the president began to consider getting tougher on Wall Street. “We kept revisiting it,” said the economic adviser (who recounted details of the meetings only on condition of anonymity). One big proposal the White House hadn’t adopted was Paul Volcker’s idea of barring commercial banks from indulging in heavy risk taking and “proprietary” trading. In Volcker’s view, America’s major banks, which enjoy federal guarantees on their deposits, had to stop putting taxpayer money at risk by acting like hedge funds. This had become a grand passion for Volcker, a living legend renowned for crushing inflation 30 years before as Fed chairman. He had long been skeptical of financial deregulation. Beyond the ATM, Volcker asked, what new banking products had really added to economic growth? Exhibit one for this argument was derivatives, trillions of dollars in “side bets” placed by Wall Street traders. “I wish somebody would give me some shred of neutral evidence about the relationship between financial innovation recently and the growth of the economy,” he barked at one conference.

Yet for most of that first year, Obama and his economic team had largely ignored Volcker, a sometime adviser. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Larry Summers still questioned whether Volcker’s proposals were feasible. Now Obama was pressing them—very gingerly—to reconsider. “I’m not convinced Volcker’s not right about this,” Obama said at one meeting in the Roosevelt Room. Biden, a longtime fan of Volcker’s, bluntly piped up: “I’m quite convinced Volcker is right about this!”

Obama’s cautious, late embrace of Volcker was all too typical. He had arrived in office perceived by some as the second coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Yet Obama hadn’t acted much like FDR in the ensuing months. Instead he had faithfully channeled Summers and Geithner and their conservative approach to stimulus and reform. Early on, Obama’s two key economic officials had argued down Christina Romer, the new chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, when she suggested a massive $1.2 trillion stimulus to make up for the collapse of private demand. They opted for slightly less than $800 billion. “We believe that this is a properly sized approach to move the economy forward,” said Summers, who didn’t want to expand the federal deficit or worry the bond market. With the recession still darkening their outlook, Summers and Geithner also didn’t want to tamper too much with what they still saw as the economy’s engine room: Wall Street. Partly on their advice, the president “explicitly decided not to break up all big financial institutions,” said another top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. People make different choices.
And on another note.

Yes you could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. he demanded no accountability
oh wait, yes he did - from teachers, not bankers :thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. From FDR's first inaugural address
Edited on Sun Aug-29-10 09:23 PM by MannyGoldstein
"Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

...

Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency."


And FDR went on to walk that talk, and it worked - until Reagan and Clinton dismantled the thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. A very fitting cite.
Thanks for adding it here, Manny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. Doesn't seem like the thought
of firing Geitner or Summers has even occured to him. It should have been done long ago so it really seems that he is very willing to go along with their philosophy, it matches his own thinking. And we all now pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
6. Let's kick this ecomomy into gear for the children....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. Definition of Insanity Applies Here
Why haven't some GS cronies been flung out of their offices into the gutter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. at least to symbolically throw a bone to the rest of us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-10 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. Amazing...
That he was at all surprised
Their behavior has been border-line criminal for over a century and he assumed that giving them help would make them change.

on note: I say 'border-line' because their behavior had been kept in check for about 60 years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-10 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
9. He didn't get rolled.
If he wasn't a willing participant, Geithner, Summers, Goolsby, et al, would never have been a part of the process. Warren, Romer, Volker and more, would have had a much more prominent role in decision making.

He fancies himself as like Lincolnm with a "Team of Rivals", but he's listening to the people who are telling him to invade Pennsylvania and New York.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I agree. Obama didn't get rolled.
He was a willing participant of the gang that "rolled" the American Working Class (the lower 98%).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. agreed. another attempt to let obama off the hook.
but even if you believe he was fooled, and i don't, you have to believe he doesn't belong where he is. lose-lose for obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. All you needed to know on Day 1:

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Bruce Bartlett (advisor to Bush I) says: "You Fucked Up. You Trusted Us."
Blocking Stimulus for Political Gains ?
by Barry Ritholtz

Peter Goodman has a longish article in the NYT Week in Review, What Can Be Done to Cure the Ailing Economy?.

It is notable for a few reasons: Great chart porn (see right), a few good quotes (see above), and a bombshell from Bruce Barlett, the Treasury economist in the first Bush administration.

Bartlett has become a pariah to the Republican party, saying out loud what few people dare to even think. He notes that we are already in gridlock, with the GOP deploying a blocking strategy. He thinks nothing substantive is going to change for a simple reason:

“Clearly, a weak economy in 2012 will be very good for whoever the Republican presidential candidate is. It’s hard to see how the Republicans lose by blocking stimulus .”


That is a pretty damning accusation. Bartlett is essentially arguing that the anti-stimulus crowd is doing so not for ideological beliefs, but for political advantage. He is implying their goal is to keep the economy weak in order to prevail politically.

That is quite an accusation . . . Do any of you buy it?
(RITHOLZ RECIVED A CLARIFICATION FROM BARTLETT, HERE:

UPDATE:

Bruce Bartlett writes in to clarify my interpretation:

I don’t actually believe that there are any Republicans intentionally blocking policies that they know would help the economy just so that their party would benefit.

But on the other hand, there is no denying that a bad economy is good for the out-party, especially in presidential elections. So what we have is a situation in which Republicans can’t lose. Insofar as they actually believe that their policies would be better for the economy than Obama’s, and insofar as Obama’s policies are in fact bad for the economy, Republicans benefit politically from gridlock either way.

The only way Republicans can lose is if Obama suddenly gives them carte blanche to enact whatever policies they want and we get a 1937-type double-dip from inappropriate fiscal tightening. But then it would still be Obama’s fault for listening to them. As Otter explained to Flounder in Animal House, “You f&%ed up. You trusted us.”


Article at::
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/08/blocking-stimulus-for-political-gains/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-10 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
13. This was, sadly, Obama's key missed opportunity...
More than anything else I voted for Obama because I hoped he would face this economic storm head-on.

Volcker, IMHO, is one of our best living professional economists. He should have been put in charge of the response from the beginning.

Summers and Geithner (especially Geithner) are too tied to the Wall-Street status quo. And is is Wall Street and Wall Street's ways that caused this disaster. Geithner needs to be fired, but I don't know if Obama will ever do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
14. reading this, it sounds like Summers and Geithner can choose to ignore the presidents wishes
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 Sun May 05th 2024, 01:33 PM
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