Reappointing Bernanke: Obama’s ‘Heck of a Job, Brownie’ Moment? 10 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Popout
Early on, I believed in Barack Obama’s campaign for change. I donated to his campaign multiple times. Since then, his continued support for bailouts, and his appointment of banking insiders to key political positions has turned me off to the Democratic Party forever. Republicans are no better, and I question whether I will ever again vote for a non-third-party Candidate again.
The news that Obama will reappoint Ben Bernanke was disheartening to say the least. Bernanke proudly claimed that he would “not let a depression happen on his watch”. Is that meaningful, if his actions only delayed the inevitable? Reflating the bubble is not a sustainable proposition. I thought Obama would be tough on banks, institute clawbacks, let defunct banks fail, etc.
If Bernanke’s thesis that disaster has been averted turns out to be false, where will that leave Mr. Obama? I can’t help but think of Bush’s endorsement of Brown as head of FEMA. Especially after seeing this quote from the NYT:
The president thinks that Ben’s done a great job as Fed chairman, that he has helped the economy through one of the worst experiences since the Great Depression and that he has essentially been pulling the economy back from the brink of what would have been the second Great Depression
Obama’s legacy rests on the validity Bernanke, Summers, Geithner, and others now. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, and that Bernanke did save us all. But skepticism runs deep deep in me, and for good reason. Bernanke’s predictions have been near-awful so far:
Popout
Best of luck to you Mr. Obama, sincerely. But I fear you have offered your ear to the wrong crowd. Mr Volcker was the last decent Fed Chairman we had, and you essentially cast him out, favoring Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and Ben Bernanke. History, a subject you know well, will be your judge. Heck of a job, Bernanke.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
I believe in the two-party system (since it is a replica of Nature, governed at Day by the Sun and at Night by the Moon). Nothing is worse than Italy's 'a party for every issue' version of democracy. But our two parties, at the moment, are the same.
On Aug 25 03:15 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:
> Politicians cannot do the right thing unless the political will is
> flowing from the people. The American people don't have the education
> to understand the issues and are being bombarded with propaganda.
> This is going to take a long time, may be decades by which time the
> US economy will rank 5th ot 6th globally. The reappointment of Bernanke
> represents a lost opportunity to do something proactive to address
> the fundamental issue of American competitiveness but it is hardly
> surprising.
Denis Hughes, president of the New York state branch of the AFL-CIO, had been serving as acting chairman of the New York Fed board since May, when Stephen Friedman stepped down from the position." - WSJ AUGUST 25, 2009 - Labor Leader Named Head of New York Fed
Does This Seem "A Bit Odd" To Anyone Else?
Payback For Support?
One "Racket" To The Next - I guess he might be "Qualified".
He also misread just about every aspect of the housing crisis and totally misread the contagion of sub-prime which he asserted would remain contained. In August 2007, the collapse in credit markets forced Fed policy makers to lower the discount rate just two weeks after declaring inflation was their paramount challenge.
Looking forward, the critical questions are whether he has the capacity to deal with the challenges that lie ahead, including continuing to help the economy and markets heal and engineering the exit strategy when it’s appropriate to do so. And whether he can do this while retaining some semblance of Fed independence.
Monetary policy in its most elelmentary form is diffcult to calibrate; current policy, which has no precedent, has encouraged the Fed to swell its balance sheet making the process of unwinding the balance sheet as much art as anything else. My fear is Bernanke will keep the liquidity spigots open too long.
> Feedlede and Feedledum (sp?). In American history, after the death
> of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Party (the first Republicans)
> disappeared. The Republicans need to disappear again; and the Democrats
> need to split into two parties, the ones that are owned by the banksters
> and the ones who are not.
>
> I believe in the two-party system (since it is a replica of Nature,
> governed at Day by the Sun and at Night by the Moon). Nothing is
> worse than Italy's 'a party for every issue' version of democracy.
> But our two parties, at the moment, are the same.
So you think the Republicans should go away, we should only have current democrats and socialists and that the 2 party system is good because we have a sun and a moon?
Thanks for the laugh!
I was speaking metaphorically about the Sun and Moon. I know rational people (scientists) reject metaphor -- but some of the greatest minds in the history of the Earth were masters of metaphor -- metaphor is the basis of most philsoophies. I know it is a language that Western Civilization has unlearned over the last few hundred years, but its one that we are going to need to re-learn at some point, so we can understand what is going on under the surface of things.
As far as the splitting of the democrats into two factions< I was remembering what happened historically after the Federalists (the first Republicans) vanished from the scene.
From "Turn Out the Lights":
With the death of Hamilton -- Federalist leader George Washington’s had died in 1799 – and with the retirement of John Adams, the Federalist party essentially withered, never regaining the presidency nor control of Congress. The only real influence of the Federalist party from 1816 through 1824 was through Supreme Court Justice John Marshall.
In 1824, the Democratic-Republican party collapsed when Speaker of the House Henry Clay essentially stole the election from Andrew Jackson (the political descendant of Thomas Jefferson), using his position and influence in the House of Representatives to throw the election to John Quincy Adams, even though Jackson had received the majority of electoral votes in the general election. Most surviving members of the Federalist Party soon after joined with Clay and other anti-Jackson Democratic-Republicans to form the National Republican Party, which soon thereafter morphed in to the Whig Party.
Democrats dominated the national American political landscape from Thomas Jefferson’s first election as president in 1800 until the election of Whig candidate William Henry Harrison in 1841. But not all was well in the Democratic party. Ideological divisions like the division between Jackson and Adams first appeared in the early 1820’s. The rift between the northern Democrats and southern Democrats also became a fissure in the 1850’s as the issue of slavery divided the nation. Democrats fought over the nomination of who should succeed James Buchanan as President. Northern anti-slavery democrats left the part to join the new Republican National Union Party, headed by Abraham Lincoln. As the war dragged on, northern Democrats divided into War Democrats (who supported Lincoln) and Peace Democrats (who did not support Lincoln); southern Democrats formed their own party.
The new Republican Party controlled the White House until 1884.
The Democratic Party was split into two factions: the first and the dominant faction, was the pro-business Bourbon Democrats, led by Samuel Tilden and Grover Cleveland, representing mercantile, banking and railroad interests, opposed imperialism and overseas expansion, supported the gold standard, fought against tariffs, high taxes and corruption. (This all sounds very much like the current Republicans, except for the imperialism issues.) The second faction, Agrarian Democrats, were more connected to the original party of Jefferson, and eventually overthrew the Bourbon Democrats in 1896. The Agrarian Democrats vigorously attacked Eastern moneyed interests, demanded ‘Free Silver’ – unlimited silver coin minting sought by the poor, indebted classes of the West and opposed by the hard money Eastern conservatives -- and nominated William Jennings Bryan to run for the presidency in both 1900 and 1908 – which elections he lost to Republican William McKinley.
On Aug 25 08:46 AM John Galt wrote:
> > I agree with you entirely. The Republicans and the Democrats are
I Disagree.
A Triumvirate Or More Works Best. The More Involved -The More That Have To "Agree In Mutually Beneficial Arrangement".
2 Or Less "Trip Switches" Skew The Will Of The Many.
If the Repub/Dem "Parties" had not "Agreed In Mutually Beneficial Arrangement" to write the "Qualifications To Run For Office" Legislature => There Would Me More "Voice At The Table => And Better "Possibility Of Representation". There is Much "Evidence Of Collusion For Personal Gain" By Both Parties Written Into Law.
Things Are Worse Than Just "Economic Metrics".
Complexity Favors The Sinister.
To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish.
On Aug 25 09:22 AM Michael Clark wrote:
> Not exactly. A two-party system works best. But we really don't
> have a two-party system at the moment. And the republicans screwed
> the pooch -- and won't be forgiven for many years, if at all.
>
> I was speaking metaphorically about the Sun and Moon. I know rational
> people (scientists) reject metaphor -- but some of the greatest minds
> in the history of the Earth were masters of metaphor -- metaphor
> is the basis of most philsoophies. I know it is a language that
> Western Civilization has unlearned over the last few hundred years,
> but its one that we are going to need to re-learn at some point,
> so we can understand what is going on under the surface of things.
>
>
> As far as the splitting of the democrats into two factions< I was
> remembering what happened historically after the Federalists (the
> first Republicans) vanished from the scene.
>
> From "Turn Out the Lights":
>
> With the death of Hamilton -- Federalist leader George Washington’s
> had died in 1799 – and with the retirement of John Adams, the Federalist
> party essentially withered, never regaining the presidency nor control
> of Congress. The only real influence of the Federalist party from
> 1816 through 1824 was through Supreme Court Justice John Marshall.
>
>
> In 1824, the Democratic-Republican party collapsed when Speaker of
> the House Henry Clay essentially stole the election from Andrew Jackson
> (the political descendant of Thomas Jefferson), using his position
> and influence in the House of Representatives to throw the election
> to John Quincy Adams, even though Jackson had received the majority
> of electoral votes in the general election. Most surviving members
> of the Federalist Party soon after joined with Clay and other anti-Jackson
> Democratic-Republicans to form the National Republican Party, which
> soon thereafter morphed in to the Whig Party.
> Democrats dominated the national American political landscape from
> Thomas Jefferson’s first election as president in 1800 until the
> election of Whig candidate William Henry Harrison in 1841. But not
> all was well in the Democratic party. Ideological divisions like
> the division between Jackson and Adams first appeared in the early
> 1820’s. The rift between the northern Democrats and southern Democrats
> also became a fissure in the 1850’s as the issue of slavery divided
> the nation. Democrats fought over the nomination of who should succeed
> James Buchanan as President. Northern anti-slavery democrats left
> the part to join the new Republican National Union Party, headed
> by Abraham Lincoln. As the war dragged on, northern Democrats divided
> into War Democrats (who supported Lincoln) and Peace Democrats (who
> did not support Lincoln); southern Democrats formed their own party.
>
> The new Republican Party controlled the White House until 1884.<br/> The
> Democratic Party was split into two factions: the first and the dominant
> faction, was the pro-business Bourbon Democrats, led by Samuel Tilden
> and Grover Cleveland, representing mercantile, banking and railroad
> interests, opposed imperialism and overseas expansion, supported
> the gold standard, fought against tariffs, high taxes and corruption.
> (This all sounds very much like the current Republicans, except for
> the imperialism issues.) The second faction, Agrarian Democrats,
> were more connected to the original party of Jefferson, and eventually
> overthrew the Bourbon Democrats in 1896. The Agrarian Democrats
> vigorously attacked Eastern moneyed interests, demanded ‘Free Silver’
> – unlimited silver coin minting sought by the poor, indebted classes
> of the West and opposed by the hard money Eastern conservatives --
> and nominated William Jennings Bryan to run for the presidency in
> both 1900 and 1908 – which elections he lost to Republican William
> McKinley.
"The Democratic Party was split into two factions: the first and the dominant faction, was the pro-business Bourbon Democrats, led by Samuel Tilden and Grover Cleveland, representing mercantile, banking and railroad interests, opposed imperialism and overseas expansion, supported the gold standard, fought against tariffs, high taxes and corruption. - Michael Clark
BRING ON THE BOURBON !!! Thanks For The History Lesson. I Know Of Some Of The Era. Boss Tweed And The ConeyIsland "Presidential Election Fraud". (Coneyisland New York Was A Phenomenal Place => Truly Something To Be Researched => Theme Parks.)
As With All Things => Too Much Bourbon And The Mind Comes To "Ill Conclusion" => However, A Little Can Be Medicinal.
In Reference To "Bourbon Democrats" (This all sounds very much like the current Republicans, except for the imperialism issues.) - Michael Clark
The "Money Party" Is All That Is Left Of The "Representation" Of Both "Clubs". => They Are The Same In Action. "Imperialism" is a product of "International Corporations That Purchase Governments".
Self Interest Is A Root Of Humanity. (Most do not understand that if you “Protect Your Brother In Virtue” The Power Of The Many Is Exemplified. Not All Have Courage; Benevolent Self Interest Has Greater Power, But Is Lived By Less.)
> both 1900 and 1908 – which elections he lost to Republican William
> McKinley. "
McKinley was assassinated in 1901. The '08 election went to WH Taft. Makes the entire quote suspect.
BTW Bryan also ran in 1896, source of the relatively well known 'cross of gold' speech.