Laurie Essig

Should We Trust Geithner or Is He Just Making Sure the Rich Stay Rich?

Image via Wikipedia

Geithner to Seek Broader Powers Over Financial Firms - NYTimes.com. What if the result of all this consolidation of financial power in the hands of a few is that the rich get richer?  There is no guarantee that the economic collapse is going to result in a redistribution of wealth, despite the screams of socialism coming from Fox News commentators. In fact, some experts are suggesting that what is really going on is that class interests are being protected by Secretary Geithner and his gang.  According to David Harvey (www.davidharvy.org)  on a recent appearance on the Laura Flanders show on Grit TV, what we're seeing is a consolidation of assets in the hands of a few through the new Obama administration's economic policies.  In other words, there may be a veneer of populism in the new administration's rhetoric, but it is disguising the same old class interests and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few that has been going on under the guise of neoliberalism for three decades. Worse, this consolidation of class power is a response to world wide shifts in the economic balance of power, a claim underscored by China's decision to stop using dollar as the currency of its central bank's reserve(see:  www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/world/asia/24china.html?hp). If Harvey's right and what we're seeing is the continuation of the consolidation of wealth and assets rather than the reversal of this trend, then it's time for an organized and concentrated effort by the media and grass roots movements to reveal what's going on.   Paul Krugman of the New York Times has been doing his best to sound the alarm as well.  According to Krugman, the latest plan is just a subsidy for investors (read:  the rich).  Krugman is skeptical of the pro-market cheerleading of the Obama administration.

It’s a bit disappointing to see the Obama administration engaging in this sort of market-worship — hailing markets as a Good Thing in themselves, rather than as an often but not always useful means to an end. But I have reason to think that unlike the Bushies, they don’t really believe it; it’s just politics. Which is actually better than having genuine market fanatics running things, I guess. Paul Krugman  paulkrugman.blogs.newyorktime.com

I suppose we should be grateful that the Times is providing some opposition to the administration given their record during the Bush years.  But too many commentators on the left and the right have accepted the ridiculous idea that the Obama administration is actually socialist.  Time to do our homework and show that the Emporer's New Clothes may just be the same ol' neoliberal con job of making the rich richer gussied up as populist policy.

Should We Trust Geithner or Is He Just Making Sure the Rich Stay Rich?

Image via Wikipedia

Geithner to Seek Broader Powers Over Financial Firms - NYTimes.com. What if the result of all this consolidation of financial power in the hands of a few is that the rich get richer?  There is no guarantee that the economic collapse is going to result in a redistribution of wealth, despite the screams of socialism coming from Fox News commentators. In fact, some experts are suggesting that what is really going on is that class interests are being protected by Secretary Geithner and his gang.  According to David Harvey (www.davidharvy.org)  on a recent appearance on the Laura Flanders show on Grit TV, what we're seeing is a consolidation of assets in the hands of a few through the new Obama administration's economic policies.  In other words, there may be a veneer of populism in the new administration's rhetoric, but it is disguising the same old class interests and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few that has been going on under the guise of neoliberalism for three decades. Worse, this consolidation of class power is a response to world wide shifts in the economic balance of power, a claim underscored by China's decision to stop using dollar as the currency of its central bank's reserve(see:  www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/world/asia/24china.html?hp). If Harvey's right and what we're seeing is the continuation of the consolidation of wealth and assets rather than the reversal of this trend, then it's time for an organized and concentrated effort by the media and grass roots movements to reveal what's going on.   Paul Krugman of the New York Times has been doing his best to sound the alarm as well.  According to Krugman, the latest plan is just a subsidy for investors (read:  the rich).  Krugman is skeptical of the pro-market cheerleading of the Obama administration.

It’s a bit disappointing to see the Obama administration engaging in this sort of market-worship — hailing markets as a Good Thing in themselves, rather than as an often but not always useful means to an end. But I have reason to think that unlike the Bushies, they don’t really believe it; it’s just politics. Which is actually better than having genuine market fanatics running things, I guess. Paul Krugman  paulkrugman.blogs.newyorktime.com

I suppose we should be grateful that the Times is providing some opposition to the administration given their record during the Bush years.  But too many commentators on the left and the right have accepted the ridiculous idea that the Obama administration is actually socialist.  Time to do our homework and show that the Emporer's New Clothes may just be the same ol' neoliberal con job of making the rich richer gussied up as populist policy.

AIG head questioned by Congress: WTF?

Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses - NYTimes.com Okay, I have twice used the word feckless to describe both Congress and the Obama administration's response to AIG's criminal misuse of taxpayer dollars for $165 milliion in bonuses to the very employees responsible for AIG's collapse (not to mention the billions of dollars used to bail out banks that exploited poor communities with subprime mortgages). But what the heck does feckless mean?  Good question.  Feeble.  Ineffective.  Generally without backbone. But now Andrew Cuomo, New York's State attorney general, is showing some feck  by demanding the names of the recipients of AIG bonuses be made public.  It's a brilliant idea.  If I were getting a bonus from AIG, I would hand mine right back rather than face the wrath of the public (who also seem to have feck). Today, when head of AIG Edward Liddy testifies before Congress, perhaps they'll show some feck and demand those names be turned over to them.  As for the President and his represetative, Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, WTF? (Where's the Feck?)

AIG head questioned by Congress: WTF?

Outcry Builds in Washington for Recovery of A.I.G. Bonuses - NYTimes.com Okay, I have twice used the word feckless to describe both Congress and the Obama administration's response to AIG's criminal misuse of taxpayer dollars for $165 milliion in bonuses to the very employees responsible for AIG's collapse (not to mention the billions of dollars used to bail out banks that exploited poor communities with subprime mortgages). But what the heck does feckless mean?  Good question.  Feeble.  Ineffective.  Generally without backbone. But now Andrew Cuomo, New York's State attorney general, is showing some feck  by demanding the names of the recipients of AIG bonuses be made public.  It's a brilliant idea.  If I were getting a bonus from AIG, I would hand mine right back rather than face the wrath of the public (who also seem to have feck). Today, when head of AIG Edward Liddy testifies before Congress, perhaps they'll show some feck and demand those names be turned over to them.  As for the President and his represetative, Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, WTF? (Where's the Feck?)