The problem with Obama is a simple one. One association does not a radical make. But in Obama's case, the list of left-wing radical mentors and associates is seemingly endless, (Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi , etc., etc.) with a new revelation practically every day. With that trend, a picture begins to emerge, and that picture is that Obama is as steeped, not in just left-wing political thought, but in radical left-wing economic and race ideology, to the same extent that Pat Robertson was steeped in the ideology of the radical Religious Right. I would not have voted for Pat Robertson for dog catcher, and for similar reasons, I will not vote for Obama.
JUDGMENT CALLS
Robert J. Samuelson
Good Times Breed Bad Times
We suffer cycles of self-delusion, sometimes too giddy and sometimes too glum. The next recovery usually lies in the ruins of the last recession.
Published Oct 18, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Oct 27, 2008
- Share:
-
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
A dozen years ago, James Grant—one of the wisest commentators on Wall Street—wrote a book called "The Trouble With Prosperity." Grant's survey of financial history captured his crusty theory of economic predestination. If things seem splendid, they will get worse. Success inspires overconfidence and excess. If things seem dismal, they will get better. Crisis spawns opportunity and progress. Our triumphs and follies follow a rhythm that, though it can be influenced, cannot be repealed.
Good times breed bad, and vice versa. Bear that in mind. It provides context for today's turmoil and recriminations. The recent astounding events—the government's takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Treasury's investments in private banks, the stock market's wild swings—have thrust us into fierce debate. Has enough been done to protect the economy? Who or what caused this mess?
We Americans want problems with instant solutions. We want victories and defeats with clear heroes and villains. We crave a world of crisp moral certitudes, when the real world is awash with murky ambiguities. So it is now. Start with the immediate question: has enough been done? Well, enough for what? If the goal is to prevent a calamitous collapse of bank lending, the answer is probably "yes."
Last week, the government guaranteed most interbank loans (loans among banks) and pressured nine major banks to accept $125 billion of added capital from the Treasury. Together, these steps make it easier for banks to borrow and lend. There's less need to hoard cash. But if the goal is to inoculate us against recession and more financial turmoil, the answer is "no."
We're probably already in recession. In September, retail sales dropped 1.2 percent. The housing collapse, higher oil prices (now receding), job losses and sagging stocks have battered confidence. Consumption spending—more than two thirds of all spending—may drop in the third quarter for the first time since 1991. Loans are harder to get, because there's been a "correction of lax lending standards," says financial consultant Bert Ely. Economist David Wyss of Standard & Poor's expects unemployment, now 6.1 percent, to reach 7.5 percent by year-end 2009.
Ditto for financial perils. "The United States has an enormous financial system outside the banks," says economist Raghuram Rajan of the University of Chicago. Take hedge funds. They manage nearly $2 trillion and rely heavily on borrowed funds. They could destabilize the markets as they're pressured to sell. They've suffered heavy redemptions—$43 billion in September, according to the Financial Times. There's also a global chain reaction. Losses in one market inspire losses in others; and nervous international investors sell everywhere. Brazil's market has lost about half its value in the past year.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
