No, that's not what I'm saying. But recently, Obama lost an intellectual heavy hitter, our friend Mr. Newberry. SN's got his detractors, but one thing no one ever says about him is that he doesn't understand economics. A sample:
The blame lies, of course, with two groups: the monetary authority for its decision to accept all of the risk from the bad debt of the last decade, and hand out fresh money in return, without taking any direction over the resulting financial entities. These entities, of course, flooded the money into the pockets of those in possession of the company.
The write downs obscure how buy outs, golden parachutes, and assorted swap deals have prevented any major reorganization on Wall Street or globally. The same bankers who got us into this mess, by and larger, are still in charge.The second group, of course, is the fiscal authority of the US. Namely the Rahmite Congress, unconvinced of the existence of a recession but willing to engage in their favorite pass time of handing out subsidies to the middle class to consume. The checks sent out were, as I said at the time, partial rebates on the inflation tax for some, who proceeded to do exactly what should have been expected: namely, they spent it on goods that were inflating. What Rahm should have done was just written a check to the oil companies of the world for 150 billion dollars, because that is exactly where all of that money ended up.
The problem here is that the progressive and Democratic spheres have embraced - the supply side economics of Reaganism - so long as their right to fuck is not going to be gutted. They run in fear from McCain, whose voting record is that he is somewhat less of a Reaganite than most Republicans on economics, for a Democrat who has, in his time in office, matched McCain vote for vote in the Reaganite theory that there is nothing that can be fixed by making profits that you haven't earned, with money that you won't payback, for things that people do not need. We are getting a choice between Ronald Reagan with social conservatism, and Ronald Reagan with less social conservatism.
The center-left and left, after having spent decades complaining about neo-liberal, University of Chicago, reactionary economic theories, has embraced them.
The little people, in otherwords, have betrayed themselves, in order to get temporary respite. The activist class, including the vast majority of so-called progressive bloggers, have joined in this. However, the one experiment with Rahmite polices tried so far has been a disaster: a wave of inflation and an economic recovery that will last less than a year, with a global recession predicted by Christmas. And yet, the so-called progressive bloggers praise a speech that was lifted, almost entirely, from the Rahm-Schumer "The Plan" for the economy: massive subsidies for the middle class and ex-urban class, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, and little in the way of fundamental restructuring. Having supported a massive military adventure over seas - and Obama voted for every spending bill that came down, and every expansion of domestic spying once in final form - and supported Supply Side Economics attempted this time around to produce inflation and recession, the Democratic Party has committed itself, and committed Americans, to another Crooked Deal.
He's got a lot more to say in that link that is worth your time.
- chicago dyke's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Front page
Comments
alternate interpretation?
Paul Krugman on Obama's comments about economics at the Democratic convention: "It’s a solid attack on Republican economic management, hitting many of the same themes as the Clintons did this week (and reminiscent of Clinton’s 1992 speech — which is high praise.)"
heh, that's funny, Joe Bob
there's some private backstory i can't exactly share, but i'll hint at: SN and PK have, um, parted ways, as it were. one will never forgive the other for being too soft on Helicopter Ben, for the sake of academic friendship, back when PK's words could've brought more attention to the damage BB was causing our economy/currency. it's too late for it to make any difference now, and for this reason i'm pretty sure that SN considers PK to be at times valuable, but no longer a "leading" progressive econ voice.
SN
he is too harsh, what are progressive bloggers supposed to do? It is not as if bloggers had significant political power, some, but not much.
incidentally, it seems that Obama's ground game is not all it could be, someone is very unhappy.
also--govt as problem, not solution--
Obama reinforces that all the time--even with Gustav and not using the power of govt to help or calling Congress to immediately meet and act, etc--it was perhaps one of the loudest Reagan policies, and we're still paying for it all--and Obama believes in it--instead of Govt.
Krugman (again)-- "... So is the Obama campaign’s plan to mobilize its e-mail list to send aid and volunteers. But personal, voluntary aid is no substitute for an effective public response to disaster.
What we really need is a government that works, because it’s run by people who understand that sometimes government is the solution, after all. ..." -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/opinio...
"too harsh" heh, DCB, if you only knew
seriously, when he's on a tear, there are few that can match his Rage. imho, it's cost him a lot, in terms of why more people don't read his work. people don't like the Shrill
and Angry, at least, the weak willed don't. he seems to have no tolerance for those.
but he hates supply-siders like i hate xtians. perhaps it makes him overly Shrill, but i don't think so. and i have learned a great deal from his work, and of the foolishness that is 'capitalism.'