|
I am not directly comparing Rumsfeld to anybody in the coming administration to suggest that they are the same people. Let me put this another way:
Surely you can see that there are capable people who have bad ideas. History is replete with them. No, Summers is not Napoleon or Julius Caesar. However, to discount ideology as a grounds for criticism is a big mistake. How many times have we on this board criticized the rampant "free trade" dogma of people like Thomas Friedman? How many times have we extolled the views of Paul Krugman? Both of those men are knowledgeable and worldly. They are good writers who effectively advocate for their views. The difference between them is that Friedman is a big time free trader who in his book "The World is Flat" essentially argued that the so-called race to the bottom is actually a positive feature of the modern system of free trade. Krugman argues against this and stands up for the American worker who doesn't think he or she should have to compete on a "flat earth", as Friedman puts it, with workers in Vietnam making 17 cents an hour.
So, let's say Obama was going to appoint one of those two men to his cabinet. One could say of Friedman that he really knows his stuff, as he certainly does. He knows the major players and has formulated a sold opinion of his own on how the international economic system should work. Friedman is no idiot. The problem with him is that the main beneficiaries of his policy are big multinational corporations and financial gurus who shovel around millions of dollars as if they were playing cards. It's not that he's not good at what he does, it is just that his ideology that wholly unrestricted free trade and capital mobility is good for this country is not what I agree with.
I doubt anything I can say will make you question any of Obama's moves, but calling me an idiot for using my head and asking of some (not all) of these appointments are the best choice is not the point. Intentionally misreading what I said and putting me down for thinking that I know one or two things about what's going on isn't going to help you either. Here's what I wish you should think about... Yes, the 90's were great times in and of themselves. However, it seems that the prosperity of that period caused some leaders, such as Summers and Rubin, to act as if good times were here to stay - permanently - and that wise leadership would always prevail. Thus, they persuaded the Clinton administration to dismantle a lot of regulations in the financial system which dated to the Great Depression and which people had long pointed to as being one of the enduring legacies of the Roosevelt administration. Removing these regulations allowed financial companies of all stripes to become involved in all kinds of financial business with little or no oversight. Previously, the financial system was compartmentalized into component sectors. Commercial banks could not do investment banking, insurance firms could not sell mortgages, etc. Removing those regulations and not providing for robust oversight allowed the financial industry to work itself into a scenario of mutual interdependence. Now, all of these chain-ganged firms are taking each other down and spreading panic throughout our economy, generating and perpetuating the current crisis.
Summers was one of the biggest players in the 90's who pushed for financial deregulation. The thinking was that we could deregulate and maximize the prosperity of the 90's. But, as usual, the policymakers did not see the long-term consequences of their actions. They did not have the foresight of the Roosevelt administration which recognized that regulations are to prevent wholesale damage during times of excessive greed and bad leadership (the current decade, for instance). Thus, although removing the regulations did not hurt us during times of prosperity and good leadership (the Clinton administration), their absence is really hurting us now. So you have to ask yourself, "are the people who laid the groundwork for this mess the same people I want to clean it up?" Well, are they? Of course Obama had nothing to do with the 90's, and he will bring a fresh perspective. It is possible that he wants people like Summers around to help him enact his own agenda. On the other hand, I think we are right to wonder how much influence people like Summers will have on shaping the views of their boss.
So yes, having experience obviously counts for a lot with Obama and his transition team. But I don't think we are remiss to consider just what kind of experience and viewpoints these appointments are bringing to the table, and it doesn't make us idiots for wondering.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
