Bear in mind (for both candidates) that several of these corporations are very large, in terms of staff etc., and of course the majority of employees are well paid. If they've given the max donation of $2300, you're talking about 500 or so people.
And yet Obama just delivered a speech talking about the need for giving the new regulatory powers and proposing substantial market reforms. 2 years ago this would have been poison to Wall street, but now that they're suffering from a nasty financial hangover he sounds more like the doctor gently saying 'you've got to cut back on all that gearing...it's making you sick.'
By contrast, the Clinton economic plan doesn't have much meat, and certainly not much new. Close tax loopholes and give incentives not to move jobs overseas - both candidates have said this for a while. Create lots of new green jobs - ditto. Even McCain says we can create more jobs by backing environmentally friendly power/technology.
The unique parts of Clinton's plan are more money for job training (good), and a government savings credit (also pretty good - save $1000, the govt. will match it for people earning up to $60k a year, or match it with $500 if you earn up to $100k). But that's about it. And while it's nice, it's basically a medium term fiscal stimulus, aka a handout - albeit an anti-inflationary one. The reason I'm lukewarm is that her plan shies away from anything resembling structural or regulatory reform: although I hate to say so, it's kind of 'tax and spend'.
She's smart to direct its effects towards ordinary people, whereas Obama's plan may look abstract by comparison. But I'm struck by the fact that Clinton proposed nothing at all with regards to Wall Street - it's business as usual when it comes to the financial industry.
In fact, if I sold financial products I'd be salivating over the Clinton plan because it looks like a juicy pile of new capital...sign up 1000 people for a 'smart savings' fund or something, have them deposit a million bucks, and the govt. will kick in another million? Well, now I have $2 million in cold hard cash, so I could (VERY conservatively) leverage that into a $20 million, fully hedged market position, work that for about a 10% annual return, pay the savings account holders 3% in the interest and pocket the ~$1.5 million I'd have left after my overheads.
Now change the '1000 people' to a million people and the millions to billions and we're looking at making some real money, baby. This is as much a promise of liquidity for banks as it is a bonus to savers, because the matching fund will be contingent on leaving your savings in the bank or fund for at least 1 year, if not 3 or 5.
Read the whole speech here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032701916.html.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
