Bailouts
John says Wall Street is dropping under Obama because it's skeptical of bailouts.
But wasn't it Paulson, the patron saint of Wall Street, who pushed for the massive $700B bailout? And aren't most Wall Street people insisting that they're too big too fail? I can't find an example of Wall Street saying that government should stay out. John, the bailouts have happened because Wall Street begged for them, so that's why it's Wall Street's fault, not Obama's fault. Did AIG say, "No, no, please don't give us money?" Did other Wall Street firms say that is set a bad precedent? Not that I'm aware of.
I just got off the line with my financial advisor, who felt that the government did what it needed to do to prevent a complete Wall Street crash and new Depresssion. Maybe that's a real positive, I don't know. I actually am leery of the bailouts, myself. Still, your comment seems like a cynical shot at Obama, given how the free-market minds of Wall Street (and their Bush administration supporters) have been demanding our money.
I have thought of myself as more libertarian than liberal, John. But the era of government bailouts requested by industry and the era of foreign state-driven wealth funds that fund U.S. industry and government, mean that the line separating government and industry have been blurred.
Good to know at least one person is reading my comments. AIG and other companies asked for bailout money as a means to stay afloat - they were looking out for what was best for them, not necessarily what was best for the economy as a whole.
I wasn't taking a "cynical shot" at Obama nearly as much as I was criticizing the bailouts. As I mentioned in a previous comment, Obama is more or less continuing the policy established by the Bush administration - ironically resulting in no change, which is fine with liberals and not so fine with libertarians and true conservatives (read only some Republicans).
I'm against government intervention into what is supposed to be a free enterprise system (but which has been compromised for a good many years now, and not for the better), whether that comes from Democrats or Republicans (who have lost their way).
However, Obama has stated several times that only government can turn the economy around - criticizing such a statement is, I think, a perfectly reasonable and justified action.
>>However, Obama has stated several times that only government can turn the economy around - criticizing such a statement is, I think, a perfectly reasonable and justified action.
That, I think I can agree with, John. There. Our first agreement!
I personally wish that the former president and the new one used their pulpit more to remind Americans of reasons to A) be confident in the future; and B) to realize that sometimes you just gotta suck it up, cut back on fat foods and booze, get back on the treadmill, and work hard in order to get healthy again. And I wish they'd tell Wall Street that investment in America's future involves more than greedy short-term speculation, and that perhaps we should chase off some of the greedy wimps rather than coddle them.
But most Republican and Democratic economists today seem Keynesian in the clutch, and that's framed the debate.
Isn't Obama, then, doing the exact opposite of what you're wishing? How many times has he told us the economy will get worse before it gets better? How are we - and Wall Street - supposed to feel confident about the future, at least in the near-term, when the President-Elect and now President tells us otherwise? I think Obama is trying to scare everyone as a means of building momentum behind is so-called stimulus package.
By the way, what do you think of the job Obama has done to date (since November 4)? What do you think of his cabinet appointments, for instance?
Yeah, in some ways Obama is doing the opposite of what I'm wishing. So would have McCain. So was Bush doing. So is every mainstream politician. So says every mainstream economist.
But again, you're focused on the idea that this prevalent approach is damaging Wall Street's confidence, and I keep pointing out that Wall Street has been pushing for this approach.
All and all, I think Obama's done fine with his cabinet appointments. I would imagine, based on your pre-election concerns, that you're relieved that he didn't appoint Bill Ayers as Secretary of Defense or Jeremiah Wright as Secretary of State. Am I right?