iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
James K. Galbraith

James K. Galbraith

Posted: November 5, 2010 04:16 PM

Bruce Bartlett says it was a failure to focus. Paul Krugman says it was a failure of nerve. Nancy Pelosi says it was the economy's failure. Barack Obama says it was his own failure -- to explain that he was, in fact, focused on the economy.

As Krugman rightly stipulates, Monday-morning quarterbacks should say exactly what different play they would have called. Paul's answer is that the stimulus package should have been bigger. No disagreement: I was one voice calling for a much larger program back when. Yet this answer is not sufficient.

The original sin of Obama's presidency was to assign economic policy to a closed circle of bank-friendly economists and Bush carryovers. Larry Summers. Timothy Geithner. Ben Bernanke. These men had no personal commitment to the goal of an early recovery, no stake in the Democratic Party, no interest in the larger success of Barack Obama. Their primary goal, instead, was and remains to protect their own past decisions and their own professional futures.

Up to a point, one can defend the decisions taken in September-October 2008 under the stress of a rapidly collapsing financial system. The Bush administration was, by that time, nearly defunct. Panic was in the air, as was political blackmail -- with the threat that the October through January months might be irreparably brutal. Stopgaps were needed, they were concocted, and they held the line.

But one cannot defend the actions of Team Obama on taking office. Law, policy and politics all pointed in one direction: turn the systemically dangerous banks over to Sheila Bair and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Insure the depositors, replace the management, fire the lobbyists, audit the books, prosecute the frauds, and restructure and downsize the institutions. The financial system would have been cleaned up. And the big bankers would have been beaten as a political force.

Team Obama did none of these things. Instead they announced "stress tests," plainly designed so as to obscure the banks' true condition. They pressured the Federal Accounting Standards Board to permit the banks to ignore the market value of their toxic assets. Management stayed in place. They prosecuted no one. The Fed cut the cost of funds to zero. The President justified all this by repeating, many times, that the goal of policy was "to get credit flowing again."

The banks threw a party. Reported profits soared, as did bonuses. With free funds, the banks could make money with no risk, by lending back to the Treasury. They could boom the stock market. They could make a mint on proprietary trading. Their losses on mortgages were concealed -- until the fact came out that they'd so neglected basic mortgage paperwork, as to be unable to foreclose in many cases, without the help of forged documents and perjured affidavits.

But new loans? The big banks had given up on that. They no longer did real underwriting. And anyway, who could qualify? Businesses mostly had no investment plans. And homeowners were, to an increasing degree, upside-down on their mortgages and therefore unqualified to refinance.

These facts were obvious to everybody, fueling rage at "bailouts." They also underlie the economy's failure to create jobs. What usually happens (and did, for example, in 1994 - 2000) is that credit growth takes over from Keynesian fiscal expansion. Armed with credit, businesses expand, and with higher incomes, public deficits decline. This cannot happen if the financial sector isn't working.

Geithner, Summers and Bernanke should have known this. One can be fairly sure that they did know it. But Geithner and Bernanke had cast their lots, with continuity and coverup. And Summers, with his own record of deregulation, could hardly have complained.

To counter calls for more action, Team Obama produced sunny forecasts. Their program was right-sized, because anyway unemployment would peak at 8 percent in 2009. So Larry Summers said. In making that forecast, the Obama White House took responsibility for the entire excess of joblessness above eight percent. They made it impossible to blame the ongoing disaster on George W. Bush. If this wasn't rank incompetence, it was sabotage.

This is why, in a crisis, you need new people. You must be able to attack past administrations, and override old decisions, without directly crossing those who made them.

President Obama didn't see this. Or perhaps, he didn't want to see it. His presidential campaign was, after all, from the beginning financed from Wall Street. He chose his team, knowing exactly who they were. And this tells us what we need to know, about who he really is.

This post originally appeared on Common Dreams and is cross-posted from New Deal 2.0.

 
Bruce Bartlett says it was a failure to focus. Paul Krugman says it was a failure of nerve. Nancy Pelosi says it was the economy's failure. Barack Obama says it was his own failure -- to explain th...
Bruce Bartlett says it was a failure to focus. Paul Krugman says it was a failure of nerve. Nancy Pelosi says it was the economy's failure. Barack Obama says it was his own failure -- to explain th...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 779
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (29 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balloonman
04:32 AM on 12/02/2010
Barack Obama sponsored by WALL STREET, was it even a part of his equation to sell us out? Our saviour. My oh my. Oh we yearned, we yearned. Yearned for miracle. Be delivered, a real hope and change person. Finally we skeptics and cynics got our man to prove us wrong, things can change! Betrayed so long by Presidents intentionally, or caving, giving us over to Ayn Rand elite Darwin fittest gilded sharks should rule. And righteous Milton Friedman free market little government intervention Chicago economics, tempered. John Birch/Goldwaterism, drain Treasury leaving little enuf to care, handsomely for us as we deserve, we who gear the nation to run at all, delivered from that less for the people illogic. FDR people policy, chipped away for the past 30 years, that nightmare would end. End us so beholden big business. Obama was not expected superman but a decent, intelligent, compassionate man who would do right by us, for us. Hard to totally give up on the man, but oh, all the opportunities he had for restructuring. So many bottom barrel, no where to go but up chances. Chance after chance to redeem himself for not really standing up tall for us. But he is who he is, and that person never really was for us first and foremost. Who would have thought? Weren't we told his campaign was financed by small donors? Wall Street, Wall Street owns him, that's that. Not to mention the Pentagon. It hurts bad.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DrJykell
Truth hunter
12:33 AM on 11/17/2010
They played it nicely,,, coming in to fix a problem they themselves created,, after everyone collects their cut,,, and everyone walks away from the largest banking heist in American history scot free...

Obama had to have been up to speed on the problem and how those same bankers had planned it all along,,,,,,,,,,,,,, This is the modern day American govt,,, for the ppl,,, by the ppl....
How in the world does anyone ever trust the American govt for anything anymore?
The elections mean nothing...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hysterian68
bureaucrat/historian/ranter
05:17 AM on 11/15/2010
"The banks threw a party. Reported profits soared, as did bonuses. With free funds, the banks could make money with no risk, by lending back to the Treasury. "

On Nov. 2 we saw the biggest switch of seats in the House in an off-year election since 1938. Is it any wonder? Well, it's nice to see someone has reason to be thankful this month, even if it is only bankers and their shareholders. FDRoosevelt managed to win re-election in 1940 to a third term. Care to guess if BObama does?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cadawa
03:33 AM on 11/15/2010
Right on all counts. The mistakes the President made, why the economy isn't recovering and what we can expect from this President all in a nice, neat well written easy to understand package.
I hope Obama reads it.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
01:02 AM on 11/15/2010
I think Galbraith is right on.  President Obama should have brought in new blood as opposed to a continuation of the old. New economic leadership would have felt responsible for the success of Obama instead of just covering up past mistakes and old bureaucratic in-fighting. Geitner and Summers did throw their lots in with the banks making sure they had fantastic profits in coming quarters. No one was looking out for the average men and women on Main Street under water with mortgages worth more than the underlying properties. Obama promised change and should have been more visionary when making his economic picks.
photo
Intolerantcentrist
No thanks…I brought my own air.
09:17 PM on 11/08/2010
And now that the Bankers have turned on Obama, supporting GOP candidates in the midterms, why isn’t he going after them; he has nothing to lose but the chance to be unelected?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
hrpmap
Retired man still active..
11:59 PM on 11/08/2010
Why don't people wake up? Different admin same players, people wake up.
photo
Intolerantcentrist
No thanks…I brought my own air.
12:41 AM on 11/09/2010
The same influences (the banks) provide the need for the same players. This should help to make clear the corruption of our government. Yet people can’t seem to connect the dots…
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:26 AM on 11/09/2010
Agree 100% !

If we daily put kids in jail for a stealing a few thousand, maybe for several years,
then why haven't we put Wall St. and other white collar crooks in prison
for an easy 5-10 years ? Sure there's Madoff but not many more
than that, or even taken to court...?!?!

With hundreds of Billions if not Trillions illegally speculated with or lost
where are the Fed's, you'd think an easy 50-200 of them
must be vulnerable to charges. And if they throw
money at the GOP then why not go after them ?!
photo
Intolerantcentrist
No thanks…I brought my own air.
12:47 AM on 11/09/2010
Like Bush, Obama has always had the executive powers to investigate and prosecute. Yet nothing…and yet he wonders why the Midterms went the way they did.
04:22 PM on 11/08/2010
Your last paragraph says it all, except that I would delete the first sentence. What this country needs in non partisan elections, with 100% public financing, all national officials elected by the entire nation and all state government officials elected by the entire state. What we have is big money from special interests that own both parties. There is no political consituency for anyone who represents America.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
racetoinfinity
restore Glass-Steagall now!
03:15 AM on 11/15/2010
To quote Paul Street: "I support (We need) a Democracy Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to fundamentally overhaul American elections in ways that would permit third and fourth parties to become relevant political and policy players. Election reforms required include proportional representation, full public financing (all private money out of public elections), a significantly shortened election season, the end of paid campaign ads, a totally different debate structure, etc."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:19 AM on 11/15/2010
FOUR parties?? That would cost big business a lot to buy off FOUR parties!! Give the darlings some slack!!
03:29 PM on 11/08/2010
Reading this synopsis it seems obvious that each Progressive that said as such in the beginning should be awarded an honorary PhD in economics. Also, it would be appropriate to rescind Ben Bernanke's and Larry Summers' PhDs. It would likewise be appropriate to get Timothy Geithner a job as a bank teller in the drive up in Wichita Falls, Texas in the Summer without air conditioning.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
racetoinfinity
restore Glass-Steagall now!
03:16 AM on 11/15/2010
I like your idea for Geithner's new employment. We sure need to get him out of his current position.
02:52 PM on 11/08/2010
Obama, like all Democrats, stands by the American myth that rich people create wealth rather than the reality, which is that they steal labor. And until American laborers stop believing that they too will one day be prosperous and have part of the American Opiate Dreamworld, they will continue to participate in ritual elections that are no more populist or democratic than the anointing of kings . . .
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
InsiteFX
01:50 PM on 11/08/2010
In other words the Government, Wall Street and Banks! are all ABOVE THE LAW!!!

We need to do away with the privately own FEDERAL RESERVE!

Go back to the American green back and take back our RIGHTS!

This country is now ran by the ABOVE THE LAW Bankers that control everything that happen's in this country!

Until this happen's the American People are DOOMED! to the MONEY CHANGERS!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
hrpmap
Retired man still active..
12:01 AM on 11/09/2010
Audit the fed and then end the fed, problem solved.
01:47 PM on 11/08/2010
Great article. I couldn't agree more. As soon as I saw Larry Summers as part of Obama's team, I knew we were doomed. Ben Bernanke = Alan Greenspan. Even David Stockman has wised up. Did you see him on 60 Minutes or This Week this weekend?

I will not be voting for Obama in 2012. I am no flaming liberal, professional liberal or any other derogatory term Obama's own people call us. I am a Recovering Republican (Reagan did me in) who stocked her family home with goods made in the USA. Now, we are a bunch of empty factories and there are no jobs. Obama, like Tom Friedman thinks the world is flat. We are dying here and what is he doing? Making deals with India to ship more jobs overseas for a few airplanes. Sheesh
01:25 PM on 11/08/2010
In other words : Delegate wisely and more !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
> there is no endless growth
06:10 AM on 11/08/2010
Obama's Problem Simply Defined: It Was the Banks
YES
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
> there is no endless growth
06:09 AM on 11/08/2010
answer: yes
03:56 PM on 11/07/2010
Great read. Agree with most of it except the bigger stimulus part. One can't solve a debt problem with more debt. It's called kicking the can. It's called, paying the rent with a credit card.

It's called - destroying your future to improve your present which is ultimately what the American people want - short-term fixes to long term problems.

We're going bankrupt because the very basic concepts of what money is, how credit works and debt servicing are being thrown out the window in favor of - let's make TODAY as great as we can and to heck with tomorrow.

Tomorrow is coming.

Count on it.
01:11 PM on 11/08/2010
"The bigger stimulus part" is also correct. The federal government can and must spend money to put people to work when no one else is hiring. We need new bridges and sewer systems, green jobs and scientific innovation to make our country better. Let the government pay people to do the work that needs to be done so our country is improved, and more people in our country have more money to spend to buy more products from other people in our country, It's not the same as one family keeping to a strict budget. A good federal stimulus program is all of us together using our present and future tax dollars to help our nation for the good of us all.
02:40 PM on 11/08/2010
Correct about infrastructure, it is falling apart, needs to be fixed, now is not the best time because using borrowed money stinks, but it does create some limited and short term economic activity, and is necessary for the long term.
Wrong about green energy, big big big waste of dough (and I am a participant in the industry!).
Wrong about debt, it is a ticking bomb, Obama & Co are going to try and inflate us away from the problem, China will go berserk, prepare yourself for REALLY bad times acomin'
10:35 PM on 11/08/2010
Sorry, but Mr. Galbraith and yourself is incorrect.

The ONLY way spending can get someone out of a debt problem is IF (HUGE if) there is an EXPONENTIALLY larger source of future revenue.

If you pay your rent with a credit card - you now owe DOUBLE plus interest. You should ONLY do this if you KNOW you will somehow be able to pay DOUBLE the rent PLUS interest in the near future.

If not - ALL you have done is bring yourself one step close to BANKRUPTCY.

And since .gov is what feeds and houses everyone on Social, food stamps, unemployment etc. - bankruptcy is not just bad - it's TERMINAL.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aforesti
...to each according to his needs
04:27 PM on 11/08/2010
Galbraith explained that borrowing in bad times makes sense, in order to fill the economic gap that the private sector is unable/unwilling to fill. Then, reduce the deficit and start reimbursing the debt during the good times, just like Clinton did in the 90s.
10:38 PM on 11/08/2010
That is not true. To keep credit growth growing, we would need a MONSTROUS source of exponentially larger revenue. It isn't going to happen and the whole concept of SPENDING our way out of a DEBT hole with DEBT will be seen as absurd and insane - because it IS.