So the stock markets are leveraged with massive amounts of almost free QE money. Instead of "a hair of the dog" they shaved the dog and fed all the hair to Wall Street. Wall Street, meanwhile, has done NOTHING positive for Main Street. Wall Street's profits, instead of revitalizing the economy, are exacerbating the already massive mal-distribution of wealth that is already choking the economy. The consumer has been sucked dry, so first Paulson and Bernanke under Bush took out a $700 billion mortgage on future generations to prop them up and restore them to profitable operation and then under Obama Geithner and Bernanke doubled down on the policy.
Keep in mind that while this is going on retirees, many of whom had depended on interest income for much of their living, have gotten ZIP, as in Zero Interest-rate Policy, which has translated into 1% returns or less unless they put their money back in the Wall Street shark tank. They were used to 3-4% relatively risk free. Real recovery is unlikely unless and until consumers have more money to spend. Continuing policies that further concentrate profits in Wall Street firms does not further that end. And people have noticed.
Wall Street is the problem. Had Obama taken down the big banks a year ago, things might have gotten worse for a while, but debt would have been written down and the basis for a recovery would have been put in place. The debts that are being protected are mostly counterfeit gains from mortgage scams orchestrated by Wall Street to begin with. But Obama is supporting Wall Street in their efforts to get our grandchildren to make good on their fraudulent gains. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I think the stock market is bogus in any case. It is, as Keynes noted the action of people attempting to guess what other people are attempting to guess and so on, ad infinitum. What Obama has done, deftly, is postpone the banking collapse by tossing money at the banks, while making an investment in new manufacturing and energy. He may not have done enough, there may not be time to do enough. But, to me, the flim-flam nature of the banking rescue is an essential feature of any banking rescue.
From the magic pony?
Here's a secret. A head of state acting at the behest of the military/corporate elite can act more forcefully and mobilize the power of the state more easily than one acting to limit the power of those elites.
...and when has that ever ended well? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
And it will only get worse for the foreseeable future. The next 12 months will show if Obama has it in him. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Oh please. (A) The government did not have the legal authority to break up the banks.
FDR faced a crisis of failing banks. He declared a bank holiday by executive fiat and let it be known that the banks would not be re-opened until they were sound and regulations were in place to insure they remained sound. The legislation sailed right through Congress. On this there was and is similarity between then and now.
There was and is great public anger at the big banks. The TARP, all of the trash the Fed has taken onto its books and throwing the full faith and credit under obligations such as Freddie and Fanny, Citi and AIG, etc. that total $13 trillion or more, many of which, arguably, are the result of un-prosecuted fraud, are a large part of the reason the public is concerned about Federal debt and obligations. And all of this was done without extracting any concessions from the banks.
To me, hamstringing economic and social policy by giving the big banks unlimited, unconditional support scarcely qualifies as "deftly propping up the banks". Instead, it leads people to wonder for whom he is working and undermines his administration's support from moderates and independents while alienating many of those who were genuine supporters.
Somewhere, in this thread I believe, you noted that you have been accused of being an Obamabot. Were you bragging or complaining? Or a little of both? Continual disparagement of opponents with terms such as "delusional", phrases such as "Oh please" and accusations of following various right wing memes, as though we could not possibly have come to that conclusion on our own I find annoying but unworthy of routine response and at least as objectionable as my referring to Obama's putative Idol status. It is better to counter the substance of the argument, as I try to remind myself. I too am often tempted to pick up the rhetorical sledge hammer, as, like yourself, I feel strongly about current events. But we have different focuses, histories and personal styles, though we are both concerned about the future of the country. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Um, no, by act of Congress. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
The Emergency Banking Act was introduced on March 9, 1933, to a joint session of Congress and was passed the same evening amid an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty as over 100 new Democratic members of Congress swept into power determined to take radical steps to address banking failures and other economic malaise. The sense of urgency was such that the act was passed with only a single copy available on the floor and most legislators voted on it without reading it.
