Answer: Not a single mention of Obama.
More than three years into his presidency, the messiah who, promising change, was swept into office following a financial crisis that almost sent the West into an economic stone age, apparently has no responsibility for JPMorgan Chase's most recent devastating loss.
Of course, Krugman is quick to blame Romney:
"It’s clear, then, that we need to restore the sorts of safeguards that gave us a couple of generations without major banking panics. It’s clear, that is, to everyone except bankers and the politicians they bankroll — for now that they have been bailed out, the bankers would of course like to go back to business as usual. Did I mention that Wall Street is giving vast sums to Mitt Romney, who has promised to repeal recent financial reforms?"
Krugman does not mention that among the top contributors to Obama's 2008 campaign were employees from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS and Morgan Stanley (see: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638).
Krugman also pointedly refuses to acknowledge that the so-called banking "reforms" enacted since Obama was inaugurated have not prevented yet another financial disaster.
Will salvation come from the Volcker Rule? I doubt it. Both Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase have indicated that the Volcker Rule will not affect their trading revenues (see: http://www.thestreet.com/story/10860335/1/bofa-ceo-says-volcker-rule-wont-be-too-tough.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEFI).
Instead of the Volcker Rule, why not reenact the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and take trading activity away from the banks altogether? Yeah, I know, the banks claim that this would make them "uncompetitive" with foreign banks, but I believe JPMorgan Chase's most recent loss evidences the need for strong medicine.
Moreover, reenactment of the Uptick Rule, which went into effect in 1938, would provide an immediate boost to the American economy, while admittedly harming the bottom line of predatory hedge funds engaged in sowing panic among shareholders of innovative small-cap companies (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/paul-krugman-hijacked-crisis-paul-heres.html).
Those of us who have worked in the financial industry are familiar with persistent concerns among bankers regarding where their institutions stand relative to other organizations in terms of balance sheet and profitability.
Wouldn't it be a pleasure if, instead, banks were to vie to be the safest financial institution for their customers, and the financial journals were to list organizations in terms of safety?
Dream on, Jeffrey.
Yesterday, by mistake I turned on "Smiley, West" (just at the end of the program) and predictably got irritated. I must explain that I have an allergy to demagoguery. Naturally there was the host (the dean of all demagogues) and required guest demagogue (yes, Krugman) and an announcement of the coming guest demagogue (Michal Moore). How not to get sick?
ReplyDeleteI probably said it before that Krugman is a personal disappointment. I usually sense all eyelashes flapping manipulators well, but this time I allowed myself to be cheated. A lesson learned.
"Did I mention that Wall Street is giving vast sums to Mitt Romney." Here is typical manipulative Krugman. Some of us have actually good memory and remember well who received vast sums of money from Wall Street not so long ago.
There was a competition on this program, but Krugman with his increasingly prima donna voice and an audible eyelashes flapping was even more repulsive that "the brother."
BTW, thank your this blog.
Wouldn't it be great if investment banks were only permitted to charge management fees on earnings? I'd gladly pay >20% on profit made as opposed to >1.5% of my entire portfolio (plus other fees) even when they irresponsibly gamble away my retirement savings. Dream on, America.
ReplyDeleteFair point Jeff, but where does that leave us? Obviously Obama didn't push for meaningful regulations because he was bought by the banking industry during the 2008 election cycle. Now,it's Romney's turn to get the bulk of the cash, so we can be sure he will do nothing as well.
ReplyDeleteJeff, Here's a good one from our friends, the Turks, written in your favorite newspaper.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/opinion/can-islamists-be-liberals.html?_r=1&hp
...and a suggested title if you care to comment on the article:
"Salafis are Liberals": War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.