America the Tarnished
Ten years ago the cover of Time magazine featured Robert Rubin, then Treasury secretary, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Lawrence Summers, then deputy Treasury secretary. Time dubbed the three "the committee to save the world," crediting them with leading the global financial system through a crisis that seemed terrifying at the time, although it was a small blip compared with what we're going through now.
All the men on that cover were Americans, but nobody considered that odd. After all, in 1999 the United States was the unquestioned leader of the global crisis response. That leadership role was only partly based on American wealth; it also, to an important degree, reflected America's stature as a role model. The United States, everyone thought, was the country that knew how to do finance right.
How times have changed.
Never mind the fact that two members of the committee have since succumbed to the magazine cover curse, the plunge in reputation that so often follows lionization in the media. (Mr. Summers, now the head of the National Economic Council, is still going strong.) Far more important is the extent to which our claims of financial soundness - claims often invoked as we lectured other countries on the need to change their ways - have proved hollow.
Indeed, these days America is looking like the Bernie Madoff of economies: for many years it was held in respect, even awe, but it turns out to have been a fraud all along.
It's painful now to read a lecture that Mr. Summers gave in early 2000, as the economic crisis of the 1990s was winding down. Discussing the causes of that crisis, Mr. Summers pointed to things that the crisis countries lacked - and that, by implication, the United States had. These things included "well-capitalized and supervised banks" and reliable, transparent corporate accounting. Oh well.
One of the analysts Mr. Summers cited in that lecture, by the way, was the economist Simon Johnson. In an article in the current issue of The Atlantic, Mr. Johnson, who served as the chief economist at the I.M.F. and is now a professor at M.I.T., declares that America's current difficulties are "shockingly reminiscent" of crises in places like Russia and Argentina - including the key role played by crony capitalists.
In America as in the third world, he writes, "elite business interests - financiers, in the case of the U.S. - played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive."
It's no wonder, then, that an article in yesterday's Times about the response President Obama will receive in Europe was titled "English-Speaking Capitalism on Trial."
Now, in fairness we have to say that the United States was far from being the only nation in which banks ran wild. Many European leaders are still in denial about the continent's economic and financial troubles, which arguably run as deep as our own - although their nations' much stronger social safety nets mean that we're likely to experience far more human suffering. Still, it's a fact that the crisis has cost America much of its credibility, and with it much of its ability to lead.
And that's a very bad thing.
Like many other economists, I've been revisiting the Great Depression, looking for lessons that might help us avoid a repeat performance. And one thing that stands out from the history of the early 1930s is the extent to which the world's response to crisis was crippled by the inability of the world's major economies to cooperate.
The details of our current crisis are very different, but the need for cooperation is no less. President Obama got it exactly right last week when he declared: "All of us are going to have to take steps in order to lift the economy. We don't want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren't."
Yet that is exactly the situation we're in. I don't believe that even America's economic efforts are adequate, but they're far more than most other wealthy countries have been willing to undertake. And by rights this week's G-20 summit ought to be an occasion for Mr. Obama to chide and chivy European leaders, in particular, into pulling their weight.
But these days foreign leaders are in no mood to be lectured by American officials, even when - as in this case - the Americans are right.
The financial crisis has had many costs. And one of those costs is the damage to America's reputation, an asset we've lost just when we, and the world, need it most.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
93 Comments so far
Show AllREMINDER: New American Tea Party
Mail out your tea bag on April 1st, alone, or with a written message.
Barak Obama
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington , D.C. 20500
Last I checked, over one million people have already agreed to this. Let's send him a message of our disapproval.
Gail, thanks.
Great idea --- I don't know how I missed seeing this movement.
Alan
Paul, great article, and great tribute to you.
However, as I wrote to you before, there could be only one grander prize for you --- The Krugmanic Oath ---- for explaining to the public the the seminal importance and proper ethics of dealing with externalities: "First do no harm".
I could not help but notice the amazing breath, brilliance, and consistency of the reader comments on your latest/greatest column, "America the Tarnished".
Many articulate readers noted the imperialist hubris of the US, that the US has not progressed (like the 'social democracies' of Europe and Japan toward a sustainable post-Empire, post-fascist success model), that the US is dominated by guileful elitist distortions and destruction of our former democracy, and that this combination is deadly --- (i.e. existential).
However the one aspect of understanding that you could add to these heartfelt and well understood citizen concerns of Empire, Elitism, and potential Extinction is the hidden economic nuclear trigger mechanism of Externalities ---- and particularly how 'gaming' negative externality cost dumping for faux private profits ---- could catalyse the explosion of the economic WMDs that Buffet describes, and bring about a nukular winter.
BTW, Paul, per your blog entry, "Party like it's 1931 --- here's a hard drinking Irish/American fiction writer who seemed have amazingly 'Sobered up like ti's 1925'.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/partying-like-its-1931/#comment-159953
As an economist, I don't know if you get any kick out of fiction, but one thing has struck me recently about your subject today, the Great Crash/Great Depression.
Roger Babson (among some others) got a great deal of notoriety, and financial reward over time, for calling the crash early, and perhaps understanding its inevitability.
Yet every time I reread "The Great Gatsby" (1925) I am struck by Fitzgerald's seeming omniscience in calling it before any economists, understanding the reason (excess), mourning the passing of the personal and public American Dream --- and even recognizing the "dark fields of the Republic rolling on into the night" (of empire).
Surprising for a non-Nobel, eh?
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Paul Krugman's explanation of economics is always appreciated.So are Robert Kuttner's (The Squandering of America), and James K. Galbraith (The Predator State) among others.
Lacking in Krugman's recent contributions is his emphasis on UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. The legislation in the House (HR 676) currently has over 72 co-sponsors. It is not "socialist" but financed. It excludes for-profit involvement. It thereby contains cost. We do not need "health insurance COVERAGE but health CARE. The marvelous industrial groups are "cooperating" for the money, not to provide comprehensive health care.
The Obama administration is not going to buck who funded his campaign. The hundreds of labor unions and professionals all across the land are shut out time and again from so-called "summits".
It was clear from the beginning that the "changes" would be no change at all. It is deceit. The US is becoming a "third world". Sacrifice is always what workers and unions do, never bankers. Bankers are not asked to work 3-4 days only so that their colleagues can keep their jobs.
Mr. Obama is eloquent. I had no choice but to vote for him, an act I knew I would regret. I got a commodity President. How tragic it is!
peterloeb@yahoo.com
"the crisis has cost America much of its credibility,"
What credibility?
"and with it much of its ability to lead."
What ability?
"And that's a very bad thing."
A VERY GOOD THING.
Big brother Krugman, down is up, false is true, war is peace!
it's quite amazing tracing the Empires that have brought Capitalism:
ENGLAND and its descendant the USA....
were once each outposts of a predecessor empire:
England or "britannia" was once the northernmost outpost of ROME...which literally , consciously, MARKED "the end of" its boundaries - by building the low stone hedge - or fence - so low one could just jump over it - that basically demarcated "britannia" from Scotland..and the fence still stands today from east to west coasts of the isle...
the Romans named it Britannia to describe "faraway" outpost....
and then the british established THEIR empire's outpost in the USA
which establishes its outposts everywhere, including trying to grab OIL which it doesn't own to become an "oil empire".
funny, tragically funny. especially the most recent attempts at empire by a country flying the banner of "freedom, liberty, justice and democracy" by means of the most EXPLOITATIVE and MISUSING ideology ever invented -- CAPITALISM.............
Well, there is some good news:
Sometimes irony rules...
Thomas Friedman’s World Is Flat Broke
But based on the bad news coming out of shopping-mall owner General Growth Properties [GGP], it is no wonder Friedman is feeling crankier than usual. That’s because the author’s wife, Ann (née Bucksbaum), is an heir to the General Growth fortune. In the past year, the couple—who live in an 11,400-square-foot mansion in Bethesda, Maryland—have watched helplessly as General Growth stock has fallen 99 percent, from a high of $51 to a recent 35 cents a share. The assorted Bucksbaum family trusts, once worth a combined $3.6 billion, are now worth less than $25 million.
Well, well, Mr. Tom Friedman, I seem to remember you telling Charlie Rose that the U.S. had to tell Iraq to "Suck. On. This." What goes around comes around, but I bet you didn't think it would come this fast did you, Tommy? Hey, Tom? Suck. On. This.
ekaton
What does CHNAGE mean?
Gheez, Rachel Maddow, chortle all ye care to, lovely girl, wish she was my daughter, had a Dem congressman on that predicted in 1999 whomever voted Yea on whatever bill, forgive me I'm broke as hell call it whatever, damned if 0 years uh huh. He was quite a bit more shall I say nonresponding insofar as saying, in a Krugman, great guy knows his Nobel, but this man was very nonchalant. Not a thing but common sense, he said he warned them. 8 Total Nay votes. Waddaya gonna do!
You lost me after Maddow. Er, what??!! Listening to you, I feel as if I'm Alice in the Looking Glass.
America, the screwed and the screwer... Bush, Nero the Modern, watched Rome as rome burned....
We have been had by the great moneymakers who care naught about Americans... they care about their bank accounts, be those accounts here or be they offshore, including Switzerland.
I seem to remember, that all profits gained during wartime were demanded returned... we had wartime, we still have wartime, do we not? How about
excessive profits being returned?????
Wake up American, don't fiddle as we sink further... get ready for more tent cities....
When integrity is reestablished between the money men and the citizens of our nation, we may see some hope ...
Let us outlaw lobbyists immediately... and any Congressperson receiving money from lobbyists should have their membership in our great Congress terminated...
Let us return to INTEGRITY ASAP.
" our foreign wars are a racket by our Big Money, Big Oil, Big Finance, Big Banks, Big Industries...to help our Chamber of Commerce gain control of other countries...they have their "Brains People"...people who indentify to destroy those that could challenge our power...Their Big Muscle is our Military and Armed Forces...I was the Chief Enforcer..you wanted to pacify the Caribbean for our big Banks ? I'd do it...make Panama, Nicaragua , Latin America safe for our industries to run rampant? I'd do it for you....you want our Big Oil to act unmolested in China? i'd do it for you...
ALL in service of our BIG BOSS....our Supernationalistic Capitalism".
GEneral Smedley Butler, US MARINES
"WE ARE A RACKETEER NATION"........
"i was the Chief Enforcer of our Big Money, Big Corporation, Big Bank, Big Industries Racketeers...so you can say i was the Chief Racketeer...our foreign policy has nothing to do with freedom, or democracy or justice...War is a racket by our big money and our chamber of commerce and banking and big industries"....
"the trouble with america is that if our Dollar can't buy 6% at home...we want to go abroad so it can buy 100%...and where the Dollar goes, the flag follows, where the flag goes , our military follows".
"OUR FOREIGN POLICY HAS ALWAYS BEEN GEARED towards gathering as much of the world's resources unto ourselves, at the expense of other countries...the True purpose of our Military is to make the world safe for Capitalism and our Cultural and Economic Assault".
GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER, US Marines, 1933.
"what americans do not understand completely is that we are able to live the lifestyles we have ONLY because it is part of a VERY, VERY VICIOUS system of exploitation and empire that ENSLAVES and MISUSES people across the planet.....we have an empire, the largest the world has known..and we have gotten away with building this empire of ours through manipulation, blackmail, torture, covert and overt wars, fomenting instabilities and insurrections in countries that do not do as we say...in order to make weaker nations PERMANENTLY subjugated to the will of our Chamber of Commerce ...I was part of that project of Empire Building..."
"we are indeed the Modern Rome....but the difference between ourselves and the Roman empire was: the Romans at least had the decency to actually grant citizenship to those they conquered....while we don't even want to admit we are an empire".
JOHN PERKINS....former CIA "economic hitman" : "CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN"
It's amazing to me that right here on the North American continent within a few hundred miles of Washington, DC all the banks in a neighbouring country were making money hand over fist without breaking (the bank) themselves. They are today some of the strongest financial institutions in the world and are able to continue business as usual. Where were the financial pundits when the egregious activities of US institutions were preparing the way for all he** to break loose in the US? Did no one look a few miles north and wonder if maybe, just maybe they knew something the rest of us didn't? Did Americans simply dismiss Canadian financial business methods as too restrictive, too hide bound, too regulated, too reliant on government and last but not least too boring? Wow talk about missing the boat!
We certainly can't thank the the intelligence and prudence of our Canadian banking industry for escaping the carnage in decent shape - we can however thank the brainpower of the government at the time (the Liberals) for withstanding the assault and pursuit by the big bankers for "deregulation". If the government of the day had granted the wishes and desires of our banks, our financial industry would be in the same boat load of trouble. Seems our bankers wanted to be "players" just like their big cousins - the American bankers. Paul Martin, the wisest Minister of Finance this country has had in a long, long time, said NO! This was followed up by Jean Chretien, Prime Minister, saying NO!
The current idiots in power (the Conservatives) would have undoubtedly said YES!
American bankers viewed Canadian banks as staid and boring but they all have foreign operations. The Bank of Montreal's ownership of Harris Bank in Chicago maybe accounted for its payout from AIG due to hedging Harris operations.
Our banks have incurred some losses from the global financial problems and have over the last 9 months floated both debt and preferred to shore up capital into the 10-12% range. The Bank of Canada requires our banks to maintain 8% reserves.
Bank dividends are likely secure (I don't think they've been reduced in over 60 years). At least I hope so since, as one of many retired folks, I rely on them for income.
How about selling your bank stock and investing in cottage industries in your local community?
I need the dividends to provide income that I can spend at the cottage industries, local produce, local suppliers of goods and services etc. They can't survive without customers.
Lebanon's central banker forbade their banks from buying derivatives. Today, they are some of the few institutions depositors want their money to go, secure that the bank won't go belly up tomorrow.
The only people who cry out for American leadership live in the United States. We forfeited ANY right to lead shortly after World War II. Our "leadership" has been based on brutality--the ability to massacre, exploit, and enslave littler, browner people for the good of the rich, whose goverment, owned lock stock and barrel, is ours.
one old atheist
Debt is not wealth. Those same American officials don't understand this.
Ok, so maybe I don't understand Paul Krugman or maybe this guy is getting inconsistent here. Doesn't he support some of those neoliberal policies such as NAFTA? And if Paul Krugamn is really outraged, why didn't he fight to take Tim Geithner's place and why isn't he even thinking about it now? And why did Krugman ignore Nader and Mckinney last year? Yes Mr. Krugman, I see that you're a big FDR fan but Nader's far closer to FDR than most Democrats while Barry's nothing but a corporate shill who even praised Ronnie Raygun on "hope and inspiration". I'm sorry but this entire article stinks because Krugman appears to be writing based mainly what happened on Wall Street while leaving out Main Street at large. If my assessment is wrong, please feel free to correct my misunderstanding. Thank you.
You're confused. Krugman is a realist and as such wouldn't waste his time with Nader. Every leftist worth his weight in spit knows that what Nader says makes sense, regarding--excessive military spending; US imperialism; the deeply disfunctional control of $$$ on our political process; the fact that the Dems and the Repugnants are too close to one another and that a good left 3rd party would help; etc., etc. We all know that. We don't need Nader to bleat that obvious stuff. And Nader has NO leadership potential. He's a weird, authoritarian, 74-year-old dweeb who used to make sense, and now is a caricature of his former self.
But Krugman can ANALYSE. If you read properly, you'd know that Krugman had been warning us about the housing bubble for several years, and warning us about the lack of regulations on the financial sector, and that the financial sector was taking up way too much space. And nobody would listen. The likes of you were foolishly and naively hanging onto Nader's every repetitive word, that he's been bleating for years, like a broken record.
So I suppose Krugman should have... ordered (!!???) Obama in the pages of a major newspaper to hire him???? "Mr. Obama: You're making a mistake in hiring that other dude; I'm better. Here's my cellphone number"!!!????
"Barry", as you say, trying to pretend that you're a bit hip, and not the boring teacher's pet that you surely are, did not in the least "...even praised Ronnie Raygun on 'hope and inspiration'..."
Obama very simply, and correctly pointed out that Reagan's philosophy of small government, privatization, deregulation--the Washington Consensus (look it up)--had dominated US internal politics since the 80s. Nothing could be more obvious. And nothing could be more obvious than Obama spoke out constantly against Reagan's message ("the gov't is the problem, not the solution"). That he 'praised' Reagan's message or ideology is nothing but the most shameful demagoguery and stupidity on your part. Shame on you. If you don't get it, read. If you get it and the problem is integrity, you're pitiful.
This article doesn't stink at all. You don't get it.
I've put up with insults just like yours so you're not hurting me. But let's get back to what Barry's doing. About that economic "stimulus" package, if Barry was really against Raygun's faux "small government" which actually grew bigger throughout the 1980s, then why did he push for another Raygun/Dubya style tax cut package filled with more tax breaks for the already well-to-do and pork barrel more than actual funding needed to repair the country's infrastructure? And why is Barry using the rightwing frame of "stimulus" ? As to your notion that Nader's sounding like a broken record, he was actually correct all along but YOU lack the decency to acknowledge it. Krugman should at least acknowledge Nader and team up with him rather than leaving Nader hanging dry. Sure, government is the problem and not the solution but that's because Raygun and his gang in both parties created this and I haven't seen Clinton or Barry reversing it. Sure, they can tell us to shut up and sacrifice while they sell you and I out to Wall $treet. Is that what you like? I'm sorry but Barry has yet to prove me wrong and even a few small good deeds he's done isn't enough. Let's see him withdraw troops and mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan, cut down war spending and abolish the CIA, and stop bailing out Wall $treet. Then he'll start earning my sympathy.
"Sure, government is the problem and not the solution..."
What?!!! And you pretend to be a follower of Nader...a leftist!????? You can't even tell the difference between 'the government' and a particular administration--i.e., that of little Bushie-boy.
You are so simple... Government for anybody with brains IS NOT THE PROBLEM!!! The ultra right-wing, neo-fascist Reagan, in cahoots with the likes of Greenspan, Milton Friedman and other idiot neo-fascist followers of Ayn Rand (whether or not they were aware of it) launched an extreme right-ward slide of our whole political system by declaring that government is the problem. (TO ANY SELF-RESPECTING LEFTIST, INCLUDING NADER....IT IS NOT!!!) We're not talking here about a particular administration, but the government in general.
Reagan's ultra right-wing, stupid, obviously wrong assertion that gov't was the problem was the anchor to the whole slide to the right: DEREGULATION (let businesses do whaterver they want!); PRIVATIZATION (hand everything over to business, even gov't functions like prisons!!); REDUCED GOV'T (leave citizens, particularly the most vulnerable totally at the mercy of greedy profiteers); REDUCED TAXES (for the rich); etc., etc.
Obama explained again and again how that right-wing stupidity was (OBVIOUSLY) the main part of the problem, and that gov't could (OF COURSE!) be part of the solution. He criticized Reagan for his approach and ideology, but he simply said that Reagan's ideology had totally dominated US politics since the 80s and had given citizens a false sense of the value of gov't vs. the private sector, giving people the illusion that everybody could have more $$$ if we reduced the gov't to practically nothing, as the right-wing Grover Norquiest said: "My goal is ... to get it (the gov't) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
You don't even understand the basics.
You've heard the expression about people keeping their mouths shut and having other people think they don't know anything. And then they open their mouths and prove they don't know anything.
Ironic that you do not even realize how much apart of the problem you yourself seem to be. For a president supposedly convinced that the right wing is the problem Obama has, from the first,pandered to it, appointed members of it to his cabinet, and followed the war strategies of it.
Go back and reread my post and stop distorting my words !
Well-said, GetReal! Well-said indeed!
One man's meat is another's poison apparently. Ralph Nader both analyses and makes perfect sense to many of us, apparently not to you two though. In fact, what he posits may be obvious to you but he has the national forum to get the message out.
Further, while I respect Krugman's intellect and economic depth of opinion I find Nader gives more concrete and useable suggestions.
Lastly, the use of ageism simply sucks, betrays an underlying meanspiritedness and uselessness of opinion as well....
Thank you Red Rick for trying to clear the confusion here. I don't hate Krugman but when he doesn't acknowledge Nader since they share a lot in common, I get suspicious and then think that Krugman is living in the bubble that he claims to rail against. I sincerely apologize if I'm taking Krugman a bit too hard. Just like the way CA ignored Peter Camejo and Cindy Sheehan, I feel that even some of the best economists are ignoring Nader and the likes despite their common agreements and that this is the reason why the neolibs and neocons are winning. At least Amy Goodman gives Nader a chance to speak up and educate those who are willing to listen and learn.
I believe that Krugman sees globalization as inevitable and that the course of American economic lifesblood lies as a service oriented economy.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/nafta-demagoguery/
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49394/paul-krugman/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-nafta-its-fore...
The truth of the matter is that I see something rather similar, but I got no Nobel Prize....I am an advocate of world government frankly, as I believe we are just stupid enough to use nationalism and economic wars to end all life on this planet. Is working in concert such a bad concept?
Global economy doesn't have to necessarily be a bad thing. What really breaks my heart is when I notice that both the US workers and the foreign workers are being marginalized and yet fighting against one another while the elites on both sides keep laughing their ways to the bank.
The second link I'm not getting since there's a ... thing.
"a thing"?? The link works for me, but then I use Mozilla.
I'm using firefox myself. The link reads as
"http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49394/paul-krugman/the-uncomforta..."
without the quotes. Maybe they cut off long links or something. I'll try to do a google search and recover the link though. Thanks.
When I paste the link, as is, into my address line the entire link pops up and I am taken directly to the article.....Of course Im sort of blindly lucky that way, being just a dumb hardware guy.
I don't think so.
I do think allowing Cheney to run around playing unofficial ambassador is outrageous. If he were under investigation as he should be other things would occupy his time.
"And that's a very bad thing."
Err, that'll be a no,then.
What sort of disaster actually has to happen to you country to dent your sense of American exceptionalism.
The arrogance behind this statement is stunning.
This is why we need a revolution and violence in the streets. Since the politicians and the Dept. of Justice aren't going after these fraudsters, they continue to get away with stealing our money. If a mob burnt down a few corporate headquarters, or barricaded CEOs in their homes, we might see some changes. In the meantime, Citibank, after firing 50,000 workers worldwide, is about to spend $10 million to redecorate their president's office. Why aren't more people out there protesting? If I could walk, I'd be out there with a placard, or maybe a few bricks....
What a bad article, replete with bad assumptions.
Shame on you Prof. Krugman for still singing the hackneyed song of the United States as leader, and as correct in matters of economic policy!
And you are doing that, Prof. Krugman, while standing on the deck of the sinking Titanic.
You get the gold medal for willful, "proactive" (don'tcha love that stupid word?), actionable self-deception.
You don't get it. Krugman has correctly analysed and predicted what's happening for years. Go back to reading your comic books. (Find somewhere else to practise your 'vocabulary' words like: replete, hackneyed, proactive...)
'Actionable'....LOL. What a pretentious dweeb you are.
"Your honor, the people of the State of West Whatamoron charge the defendant..."
Well, GetReal, I'll have to forgive your sarcasm b/c you do make me LOL. And today I really needed that, so thanks.
I know...my kind of sarcasm is not that cool, I know it and I often hate it. But Jesus H(ussein) Christ... for a so-called 'progressive' site, the commentary is so shallow.
Krugman has his limitations, but his record of getting it and making accurate predictions over the past... almost 10 years is remarkable. Can we at least make sense about it and stop this ridiculous more-radical-than-thou nattering to (I guess...) try to prove we have something to say.
Thanks for the comments. I know most of the time I should just shut up.
Never shut up, even when I disagree with you! :-)
It's G-20 time and I'm afraid we're in for a long night. Krugman says the world needs to work together on the economic meltdown even though the US still believes it's the only country that exists. Good luck, US! And now comes the news that capitalism is the latest God that failed. Once the economy gets on a even keel (if it ever does), the malefactors of great wealth will deregulate whatever Obama's /Geithner's regulations achieve. (never trust Geithner, he lies like a rug on things like past taxes and bonuses!)
How easy is it for the big timers on Wall Street to take your hard earned money? Let us count the ways. The biggest scam ever was the subprime mortgage business (1). Credit was so easy (2) that anyone with a pulse (3) was given a junk mortgage, these, in turn, were shoveled through the doors of the banks and insurers like AIG (4). Next, our best and brightest bankers prevailed (5) upon the rating agencies to label the junk as AAA securities. These “troubled assets” were then sliced and diced, securitized , leveraged 30x and sold around the world as if they were gold (6). The business was such a money machine that it was impossible to say no to it. When the housing bubble burst, people lost their life savings, and countries went down. (Take particular notice of the "securitization" part. This is the way they turn junk into gold. They can do this any day of the week, including Sundays: beware when Madoff or Summers knocks on your door!)
Capitalism has finally developed its own economic weapons of mass destruction: cdo's, quants, credit default swaps, securitization, mega-million dollar salaries. Combine this with the usual greed, fraud and avarice and you have a killer system. Except it will kill itself.
Your only reasonable points are plagiarized, the rest is simply confused.
All empires die! And it's our bad luck and an accident of history that we are all here to watch it start to go. Good riddance to the empire but will most future Americans be able to adjust to being a second world nation? Probably not. So they'll sit and grumble and chew their livers out, just like us, but won't have as many toys to amuse their boredom and keep the demons away.
Sioux Rose
DR WU: Exactly! And well-said!
Do you think the President's staff read any of this stuff? If they do, will it do any good?
No, really, our situation today isn't at all like a movie.
We should all be getting a pretty good idea of what Wall Street, Congress, the Secretary of the Treasury, The Fed and jerks like Krugman mean by recovery... and it ain't regular employment at a living wage freed from the anxieties of old age and disease or the overwhelming inadequacy and expense of educating our children or not having to send them more than half-way around the world in cruel games of political unreason or usurpation of another's sovereignty. NO sir. What they mean is the return of another bubble economy where a bunch of fat-ass harvard MBA's pile up massive fortunes buying and selling empty securities using leveraged debt ratio's of 400 to 1 and depositing their profits in tax-sheltered off-shore, Swiss and London bank accounts. Yea, get the credit flowing again!
Although Krugman will never read this, the current economic crisis and the Geithner "solution" are endemic. Adam Smith is at "fault," but unitentionally. Smith defined value as exchange, without constraint on what is exchanged. Abstractions engendering fewer "external costs" than tangibles, value increases faster exchanging abstractions than tangibles. Investment houses dealing in abstractions, and manufacturers dealing in tangibles, investment houses generate value far more rapidly than manufacturers. Additionally, entropy limiting tangibles, and not limiting abstractions, abstraction exchange value grows at an increasing rate while, as environmental economists argue, tangible exchange value grows at a decreasing rate. Economists attempt to escape this latter with the "substitution effect," assuming an equally satisfying substitute exists for any exhausted resource. However, resolving this assumption, undeniably abstractions do not suffer entropy. As a result, they most make possible economic "growth." All but psychologically useless, however, they reveal the emptiness of the very concept of economic "growth."
If THINK what you are trying to say is that in the classic economic model the resources upon which production depends are not infinite. For example, the slag from a coal mine does not simply disappear into thin air. It falls off the miountain, piles up and creates a toxic mess the clean-up of which is not accounted for in the marketing of the coke. Thus, it's not simply that under Capitalism (so-called "free" markets) Bubbles ocasionally arise and then fall back into place in some sort of painful yet ultimately tolerable cycle- as long as certain necessarily limited "regulations' are held in place naturally-but that Capitalism itself- the model of cconstant expansion of the GDP- is itself a bubble, though something that might be tolerated in certain limited sectors of a well-managed, socially-responsible and modestly sustainable national or perhaps even global economy (who knows?)
I mean this is what it has come to; instead of frankly stating the facts, we dodge and weave and entangle ourselves in impossibly absurd obscurities. Why? Afraid Fox News might get wind of your real sympathies?
One should note, however, no doubt in keeping with his illustrious status as a economic columnist for the nation's "paper of record" ( "if its not in the Times its not news'!), Paul makes no specific mention of the reforms he envisions. Transaction fees? Income-like capital gains taxes? Controls on "bundled" derivatives and default swaps? How about recounting recent remarks by the head of the Central Bank of Europe and the Finance Minister of the Republic of China regarding the future liquidity of U.S. Treasury bonds in the absence of transparency and regulation of "shadow banks". How about huge and perfectly legal deposits of black-market revenues in Citcorp , Bank-of-America and all the rest? How about the myriad of tax dodges and shelters which have sustained our "treasured" financial institutions for the last twenty years?
How about suggesting that if a so-called assset has absolutely zero value on the market without massive tax-payer funded underwriting, its a sham and a lie to even call it "toxic". Putting the adjectival modifier "toxic" in front of the term "asset" does not, in and of itself, actually breath any real-time, real-economy life into it.
Paul, your excursions into LA-La land are becoming exceedingly tiresome.
Paul has spoken out against many of the issues you raise. "Bundled" as you describe it, is the basis for securitization, and he posted an article calling the model a failure just last week.
Sioux Rose
JOHN: Thank you for your incisive honesty. The real alchemy is the language that masks the toxicity of these "products."
The parallels with the same game plan Naomi Klein exposes in "The Shock Doctrine" create motive and opportunity sufficient for skilled prosecutors to use if there was any genuine interest in holding those guilty to standards of culpability. Unfortunately the opposite lesson is being learned and applied adroitly: that not only does crime pay, when crime is done on an order of this magnitude it pays substantially!
Sioux, such people do not think they are criminals. Rather, they believe they are the entitled masters, and a master is never wrong. "Economic cycles happen" cries grandmaster Greenspan and the others nod their heads in polite agreement and continue the process of exploiting people.
Sioux Rose
TS: Their egos might fall to the mantra of "no wrong doing" when they look in the mirror, but their souls are fully aware of the carnage they wreak upon others' lives. There is no karmic free pass. They will pay for the usurpation of the public's trust and purse.
I want them to pay NOW! :)
Sioux Rose
SLIM: Patience is a virtue better cultivated in the East than in the "instant gratification" cultures of the West, led by the US of "I want it now!" A. Life doesn't always deliver on our preferred time lines.
The United States today, nearly all of it, certainly both so-called political parties, are like the character Alec Baldwin played in the film version of "Glen Garry Glen Ross" who asks the assembled, underperforming and frightened salesmen before him, "You know what it takes to sell real estate?" He then pulls a pair of brass balls out of his attache case. He shows them his Rolex watch. "This costs more than any of you assholes made all last year." Baldwin represents the Republican party and today's finance industry pirates and the cowed and frightened salesmen are the Democrats. Barack Obama is Alan Arkin and thinks he's Al Pacino. Timothy Geithner is Ed Harris plotting to steal the Glen Garry leads and solve all his problems. And we expect this motley crew of cowards and corrupt assholes to save us from financial extinction? We don't even win the steak knives. We get fired.
"But these days foreign leaders are in no mood to be lectured by American officials, even when - as in this case - the Americans are right."
Giving all our tax money to the crooks who caused the problem is "right"? Keep dreaming, Mr. Krugman.
"America the Tarnished"-----Mr. Krugman must be visiting from another planet, America began with "tarnish"----has never even considered the need to "polish", and now the "tarnish" has become "RUST"----and the world knows it.
America, you may have time to make some very serious changes. Always remember that human kind loves a "reformed offender" more than anything else, because the "reformed offender" is a living example of "change and improvement"---and hope for the future.
But you are most likely to arrogant to consider "reforming"----
and the clock ticks --------- and the world cannot possibly tolerate you much longer; a dangerous rogue nation, untrustworthy, you lie cheat and never keep your promises---then go to extremes of "galactic proportions" to justify your behavior, and now-----"you've become to expensive"---------------
Tick tock, tick tock.
I would wish you "good luck", but you most likley have run out of even that.
"...Many European leaders are still in denial about the continent's economic and financial troubles .... although their nations' much stronger social safety nets mean that we're likely to experience far more human suffering. Still, it's a fact that the crisis has cost America much of its credibility, and with it much of its ability to lead...And that's a very bad thing."
- Why the implicit assumption that America "should lead"? The very fact that Europe has much stronger social safety nets shows that Europe is more advanced than we are. We are the reactionary retards of the developed world. America should not "lead." We don't deserve to. We lost our "credibility" because our system deserves no credibility. We are ruled by gangsters; our population is brainwashed & ignorant; & our "democracy" is a pathetic charade. What is the argument, exactly, that the world "should" follow the lead of such society?
So very true!
It's high time Amerikkka no longer leads.
I believe it was WW2 that caused this. US suffered tremendous losses of course, and US soldiers DO deserve our praise. But compared to other countries, the US got off easy, and basically remained in tact while the other European countries were literally decimated. It's like all the good players on the team got the flu, so the bench warmer finally got a chance to play and be the hero.
Of the WWII Allied and Axis Powers, the US and Canada were the only members left standing in 1945, primarily due to their geographic expanse and isolation from the other powers. The US obtained global supremecy by default and, the combined vast untapped natural resources of the US and Canada gave it a great advantage in holding on to that supremecy for a half century.
Good One!
It was unfortunate for the human race that the US ever was put in a position of international leadership. The US, at best, was a country of con artists and salespersons trying to make a buck by fooling the gullible sheep, the last immigrants off the boat or the rubes who came in on the turnip truck, and of ruthless, reckless cost-externalizing exploiters of the natural environment. Personally, I have never found much use for the American "freedom" jargon that was meant to explain uniquely American perspectives and policies, as I believe it to be mostly the product of an underdeveloped and crude social philosophy that best-suited pioneers and others in a resource rich land with low population. It is a poor fit for a developed economy or a social environment with high density population and a highly interactive economy. So when the US government began to use that primitive and completely inadequate philosophy and rhetoric as a basis for governing the world, the only possible result was the creation of a cynical and ruthless corporate class that would ignore all risks in an attempt to exploit the world without limit. And the entire world is now experiencing the natural fruits of those efforts.
A gem, this post! Totally on the money!
Agreed.
Man, talk about getting to the meat in so few words. Excellent.
Totally agree!
Sioux Rose
KIVALS: One of your best postings/assessments yet. The only thing I'd like to add is that America, as an entity, is not yet a concluded statement. In an essay published July 4 a few years ago written by James Carroll of the Boston Globe, he eloquently related the difference between America's ideals, those positive attributes the nation strives for, against the grain/heritage of its actual record. What he didn't realize was the degree to which his analysis fit the astrological blueprint of America as a Cancer sun sign/July 4 nation (power built upon family traditions, and families possessed of generations of passed down wealth and power) with its moon in humanitarian, visionary, inventive Aquarius. There is enormous tension between these signs and the principles they animate. America is still an experiment in progress, with the word progress temporarily inverted mirroring the manner by which ocean waves roll backwards under themselves in order to acquire new forward momentum. (Of course this experiment could have an expiration date if America insists on using its overwheming military to stir up nuclear responses in highly unstable nations like Pakistan.)
Leadership is a vaccuum - it fills itself. The human civilization ought to get away from models that require "leadership" and instead focus on achievable transformative values.
I like the nice contrast supplied by American...best-suited pioneers and others in a resource rich land with low population. vs. It is a poor fit for a developed economy or a social environment with high density population and a highly interactive economy.
With the growth of material wealth the class of money-capitalists grows; on the one hand, the number and the wealth of retiring capitalists, rentiers, increases; and on the other hand, the development of the credit system is promoted, thereby increasing the number of bankers, money-lenders, financiers, etc. With the development of the available money-capital, the quantity of interest-bearing paper, government securities, stocks, etc., also grows. . . . However, at the same time the demand for available money-capital also grows, the jobbers, who speculate with this paper, playing a prominent role on the money-market . . . . With the development of the credit system; great concentrated money markets are created, such as London, which are at the same time the main seats of trade in this paper. The bankers place huge quantities of the public’s money-capital at the disposal of this unsavoury crowd of dealers, and thus this brood of gamblers multiplies.
Karl Marx, Capital Vol. III, Part V, Chapter 32, Money-Capital and Real Capital. III.
-----------------------------------------
What Is Marxism? - a short primer on a subject the working class needs to know.
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html
Reading this it appears that the dominant capitalists have forgotten the objections of a competing economic theory and have committed the same follies.
Regardless, both corporate capitalism and communism ultimately suffer from the same problem - they both lead to plutocracies or oligarchies.
It is time to look at hybrid systems, where multiple models can co-exist.
It's time to look at participatory economics.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
Obama recites rhetoric--but it is what he does or doesn't do that matters.
He cozies up to and defends Wall Street, puts on mock outrage over their excesses and then claims his hands are tied. Then he announces it must be a shared suffering and demands Union concessions, breaking legal contracts as if they were nothing. For appearances he puts up an act rejecting the auto industry bailouts while our money that could be used for the common good go rushing into his favored financial coffers. Who does he think he is kidding?
He makes me sick because he offered himself up an the agent of change in contrast to Bush, when ultimately he just continues pandering to Bush's base. With Bush it was anticipated at least, Obama squanders and disappoints.
The thing with financial recession/depressions, like the rise of fascism, is it is never the same, it is never identical--each one must be dealt with individually. Fighting the Depression of the thirties, while not ignoring the similarities, must recognize different factors-offshoring, global financing--not just saving the banks. That's all Obama seems overly concerned with--the rest is window dressing.
Sioux Rose
VERN: Have you read "The Shock Doctrine?" Obama's role reminds me of that of Nelson Mandella or Lech Walesa, or the leader of any nation seeking to create policies of benefit to its citizenry when such efforts are completely hijacked by the devotees of the Chicago School of Economics. Likely reincarnated from past ages of nobels and serfs or slaves and pharaohs, these types still think wealth belongs at the top of the pyramid with all humanity groveling for crumbs for its daily bread. A disgusting sort of sick individual, today's economic climate is like rotting yeast upon which all these moral bacteria get to richly feed. Still, when "bacteria" take over, woe to the host!
Very good, Sioux Rose. Mandela and Walesa were very good leaders, but they wound up handing their people over to the neo-liberals. Obama appears to be the same way, in spades.
Sioux Rose
GREEN DRAGON: I have to say I never read the background information that forced the hand of these well-intentioned leaders until Naomi Klein exposed it all. They played the same game on Gorbachev. Powerful "free world" leaders who seem to support the democratic developments in other nations step in to force all these "liberalization" programs that enslave workers and allow fortunes to amass to a few. The quality of life is reduced for the many to enrich the "small circle of friends" to the Chicago Business School and its advocates. This economic model is to the health of nations what cancer is to the health of the human body. It is absolutely diabolical, and that it's been invited into high places to corrupt so many regions and thus far not been called to task probably explains why the chickens have come home to roost and now OUR (U.S.) money won't mean shit to a tree. (Thank you Gracie Slick, for that metaphor.) Social programs will be cut because the population has tolerated its treasure wasted on war and is so used to this "operational procedure" that it may believe the liars-in-chief when told there is simply NO money for the things government has been tasked to do, having as it does, access to our taxes.
Lawrence Summers attended a meeting of the Bilderberg Club along with Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Henry Paulson as the economic crisis was unraveling.
No Mainstream Media person has ever questioned what this Bilderberg Club is...Bill Clinton admitted that he had attended "It was just a bunch of European businessmen." Yet, he was chosen to be nominated and then elected President of the United States after that meeting. Tony Blair attended before he was chosen to be Prime Minister.....Listen to Alex Jones talk about them.
No, Obama has chosen Wall Street to cure and watch after Wall Street.....You don't see a: Krugman, Stiglitz, or a Williamson ......You only see Wall Streeters protecting Wall Street...
Remember, when you are "Evil", human life has no meaning.
Yes, but Alex Jones isn't held to much of a standard of journalistic integrity. I listened to a discussion between him and Noam Chomsky and Jones stated that there were more gun deaths in the UK than in the US in recent years (maybe per capita, but I don't recall). He was trying to assert that banning guns makes it so only criminals have guns and thus you get more murders since no one has a gun to protect themselves. All Chomsky could say was that he didn't believe the statistic.
Anyway, just the fact that Alex Jones talks about Bilderberg meetings makes me want to believe it is all bullshit.
During the Democratic primary I voted for Obama to keep Wall Street's Den Mother (Hillary)from being nominated. Obama turned out to be Wall Street's Scoutmaster...sad.
You are not fit to lick Hillary Clinton's boots. Nor Obama's, for that matter.
Do you find that your constant and unrestrained anger wins you many converts? Or do you note that, upon entering a room, conversations tend to stop...?
And it would take a boot licker to know this wouldn't it?
I don't give a damn about our reputation. I want justice done. I am so glad for what Spain did (announcing the '6'), let's see that list lengthen considerably and let's see them hang.
Right on, Nedlud. The best thing America could do to at least partially restore its credibility would be to prosecute the stinking Bush and his lousy neocon conies. This would send a message to the world that hey, we're going to restore the rule of law in BOTH the political and economic arenas. Let's clean up the mess and move forward.