When the Next Banking Scandal Hits…

by: Mike Lux

Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 11:05


The way Tim Geithner has structured the banking plan, the Obama administration will, sooner or later, almost certainly be facing another AIG bonuses type of outrage. For example, Dean Baker told me that his biggest fear is that some sleazy character will make a fortune off the leverage given by the government, or that a bank will arrange an insider deal under which a front  buys its assets at an inflated price, leaving the government with a big loss.

If this happens, I can already hear the cries of the faux populists in the Republican Party, those same folks who created this crisis with their opposition to regulatory oversight of Wall Street. If they were still in charge, we'd be having one of these kinds of scandals every week. But they will be full of howling indignation that Obama let this happen.

Those of us who are opposing this bank plan, in part because we are worried of just these kinds of scandals described above, will need to restrain ourselves from doing too much I-told-you-so-ing, because we will need to be helping to save the Obama team from themselves. We need to be ready, though, to step into the moment with our own very aggressive plan to put the banks into receivership and break them up. No matter how populist Republicans will want to pretend they are, they will never be willing to actually do something that progressive. If Obama is willing to go there, and do it decisively, it will help Obama to get over all the recriminations and saber-rattling that inevitably happens in such a moment.

I very much wish that Obama was moving bolder and more progressive in dealing with the banking crisis. To paraphrase a friend, I feel like he is giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a system that needs to die. But if we are to get through the problems that will almost inevitably come from the Obama/Geithner plan, those of us who want to save Obama's agenda need to be ready with a strategy to turn things around ASAP when another scandal flares. Unlike Bush, Obama is smart enough to change direction when something isn't working, and progressives need to be ready to help him when that day comes.

Mike Lux :: When the Next Banking Scandal Hits…
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I agree. Excellent post, Mike. (4.00 / 1)
I told you so is meaningless, because this is not a game.

It's real life and it matters.  Obama, for all his centrism, is more on our side then not.

We need to be advocating for correct policies now and ready to support Obama and Congress folks when they finally see the light.

A very good post on HuffPo today by Arianna:

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The Obama Economic Team's Flawed Cosmology: Still Believing the Universe Revolves Around the Banks

Key is this:

A series of recent meetings with members of Barack Obama's economic team (including running into Larry Summers on my way to an appointment in the West Wing, leading to a spirited back-and-forth that made me feel like I was back at Cambridge, debating the smartest kid in the class), left me with a pair of indelible impressions:

1) These are all good people, many of them brilliant, working incredibly hard with the best of intentions to solve the country's financial crisis.

2) They are operating on the basis of an outdated cosmology that places banks at the center of the economic universe.

Talking about our financial crisis with them is like beaming back to the 2nd century and discussing astronomy with Ptolemy. Just as Ptolemy was convinced we live in a geocentric universe -- and made the math work to "prove" his flawed theories -- Obama's senior economic team is convinced we live in a bank-centric universe, and keeps offering its versions of "epicycles" and "eccentric circles" to rationalize their approach to the bailout. And because, like Ptolemy, they are really smart, they are really good at rationalizing.

snip

That's where we find ourselves today, wandering about in a dark financial labyrinth -- being led by good men blinded by an obsolete view of the world.

President Obama needs to open his inner economic circle to those untethered to this flawed way of thinking and acknowledge that navigating our economic crisis using maps based on a cosmology that places banks at the center of the universe can only lead to our being lost at sea for years to come.

These neo-liberal economic policies are advocated by people with good hearts, for the most part.  And I believe Obama's heart is good and he seeks to lessen the great class stratification as he supports an economic recovery.

They just are wrong because they are opeerating under the wrong world view.

When the time comes, and it will, we need to offer a different world view and support the President when he adopts it.    


Here's the difference between (4.00 / 2)
the characters on the Obama economic team and Ptolemy.

When Ptolemy was around, roughly the second century AD, no one had yet proposed, in a serious, mathematical way, a theory in which the Sun, not the earth, was the center of the "universe". Copernicus didn't pop up until over a full millennium later, in the fifteenth century AD.

So if, until Copernicus came on the scene, Ptolemy believed what he did, and his many followers believed what they did, it would not be so terrible an affront to Reason.

But the case of Geithner and Summers could hardly be more different. Virtually all even vaguely liberal economists outside of the Obama economic team think that the PPIP is a flawed plan that will not work. The most sympathetic of those economists simply express their hope or trust that it will transition someday to one which embraces nationalization of some or all of the troubled banks; I can't think of a single one of them who thinks that anything short of ultimate nationalization will work. And there is nothing that either Geithner or Summers has said that would seem to embrace in any real way the possibility of nationalization, and much that they have said that would suggest the opposite.

So this situation is far more like the desperate hanging on of Ptolemy disciples, against all evidence, and against all theory accepted by impartial and competent astronomers, to the theory of the geocentric universe.

And who were those who nonetheless believed such things, back in the day when Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo took over astronomy? Why the Vatican and the Inquisition -- who had, as do the Obama economic team -- a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, however inconsistent with fact.

Who, really, does the Obama economic team most resemble? How about a certain representative from the Vatican who was said to have visited Galileo. The man demanded that Galileo withdraw his claim that Jupiter had moons, because that implied that the heavens weren't immutable, and Church dogma declared that they were. Galileo brought him a telescope, and asked him to see for himself. But the man refused, "knowing" that the instrument could only represent the trickery of the Devil to offer such objects to the eye.

Arianna Huffington pretends to reconcile the decisions of the Obama team with their supposed "good faith" and "good intentions", and with their alleged independence from all consideration of the venal interests of Wall Street.

Yet how one can really do so passes all understanding.  


[ Parent ]
Mouth-To-Mouth Resuscitation To ZOMBIES (4.00 / 4)
To paraphrase a friend, I feel like he is giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a system that needs to die.

I think you mean he's giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to zombies, Mike.  It's not that they deserve to die.  They are already dead, just still walking around.

And, to extend the metaphor a bit further, they also want to eat your brains.

Only, with Giethner and Summers in place, I think they already have.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


Okay, so Obama's wrong on the banksters... (4.00 / 1)
and he's wrong on unions...

and he's wrong on health care...

and he's wrong on Afghanistan...

And he's wrong on Iraq (rebranding doesn't mean 'withdrawing')...

And he's wrong on Iran...

And he's wrong on missile defenses in Europe...

And he's wrong on domestic spying...

And he's wrong on 'state secrets'...

And he's wrong on the 'stimuli'...

And he's wrong on the Bushevik holdovers...

And he's wrong on 'bi-partisanship'...

And he's wrong on medicinal marijuana...

And he's wrong on militarizing the border...

And he's wrong on GMO/Frankenfoods...

And he's wrong on 'clean coal'...

And he's wrong about pursuing legal remedies against the Busheviks...

And he's wrong about fleet gas-economy standards...

and I am certain there are a few more, maybe many more, I've overlooked, since the foregoing list is just off the top of my head...

So I've gotta ask: Was the change we for which we were hoping just that Obama might be wrong about a whole new set of problems?


Whoa! (4.00 / 1)
     It's seems a little hysterical to me--just a little.
This is the crazy black & white world that the GOP and conservatives live in.

[ Parent ]
What flavors that 'new' kool-aid? (0.00 / 0)
Or do you just swig it down without tasting it?

[ Parent ]
Which Raises the Question (0.00 / 0)
which part of Obama's agenda is worth saving?

Hard to maintain hope (0.00 / 0)
Robert Reich, who was a progressive name on Obama's economic transition team, has gone all out cynical in his blog posts this month: http://robertreich.blogspot.com/. It's hard not to see in that cynicism some feeling of being snubbed by the administration.

Obama has been snubbing Krugman since the earliest primaries. Now he seems to have stopped any meaningful exchange of ideas with Reich. I hope his mindset is worthy of the glass-half-full expectations of DeLong - in which case he will actually strongly pursue a second stimulus package and the authority to take over the big non-banks, and he will use that authority when it comes time.

But at this point, it really is a leap of faith to think that he will ever trade in the financiocentric worldview for the progressivism of DeLong - and even that wouldn't be completely satisfying to those of us who would like to see the populist progressivism of Reich.


DeLong Supported Geithner's PPI Plan (0.00 / 0)
     Obviously, he is no cheerleader, but he gave a thoughtful anylsis on the subject.  I think, sooner than later, we will take these financial instutions into recievership.  Unfortunately, we lost a lot of money doing the Paulson, Geithner TARP 2.0 plan.

     I wonder what is going on in Jared Berstein's mind?
He has to be a voice getting some attention--I hope.


[ Parent ]
Yes, DeLong supported it (0.00 / 0)
But DeLong's support presupposes that the Geithner plan will make it easier to do more later, and DeLong makes it abundantly clear that he thinks more will need to be done later.

That's why I think there is still a chance Obama has a DeLong progressivism in mind.

But, the DeLong view of the Geithner plan as a means to a more progressive end isn't inherent in the way the Geithner plan is set up. The Geithner plan could just as easily be the result of a financiocentric worldview that actually thinks that giving money to Masters of the Universe is the best way for government to help the financial industry right itself. In that case, Obama really has no plans for a further stimulus (government spending isn't necessary if you think that fixing the financial industry will bring the rest of the economy up with it) and has no intention of restructuring the financial industry, only somewhat reforming oversight.

What is clear is that Obama has no intention of any Reich style populist progressivism or Krugman style derivatives-are-history progressivism.


[ Parent ]
who is "we"? (4.00 / 2)
i am trying to figure out who this post is talking to.

how exactly do you see "saving the Obama team from themselves" happening?

who is it that has a voice that Obama will hear? and who hears you as well?

who is there who could offer this "very aggressive plan" who is not already offering it?

you say you want to avoid "i-told-you-so"s because... well that part isn't clear, really. what, you think that if we don't say it, that makes it magically unhappen? that months of public warnings in speeches and columns by the very people who could put together an alternate plan will vanish?

i sort of get and agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, i think. but i don't see how it actually translates into anything that can happen.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


Donate to Open Left
PREMIUM AD

ADVERTISEMENTS


MENU

OpenLeft in your inbox!

 

Or, subscribe to each author individually.

QUICK HITS