TNR On Larry Summers - Only For Those Who See Beyond Black and White

[Median Democrat]

I have defended and critiqued Krugman, and have noted how folks tend falsely portray him as directly opposed to Obama's agenda when the truth is that he does generally support Obama's economic approach, though he does want more.

Likewise, the kneejerk reaction by many on this board is to demonize or caricature Larry Summmers as a free market idealogue, which he is not. Summers certainly is not a socialist, but he also is not shy about the government's role in the economy. Now, if you just want to vent and troll, then you may not want read the following. But, if you are looking for a more balanced view of Summers, then I think you will find the following interesting.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aaa57c05-d73e-4321-8893-70d5b45577d1&p=6

/snip

It was Summers who concluded that the bill would have to be larger. "He was very, very focused on the macro impact--job creation, the magnitude of fiscal stimulus in 2009, the magnitude of fiscal stimulus in 2010," recalls one White House aide. The group accepted Summers's recommendation for up to $775 billion--then a very large number with few historical precedents--after four hours of deliberation. No one was bitterly opposed, but several questioned whether a stimulus of that size was truly necessary. Some wondered if it could survive Congress, and if it was even possible to spend so much so quickly. In the end, Summers helped persuade his colleagues that "doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much," as he later explained in a Washington Post op-ed.

* * *
In 1991, Summers collected some of his thoughts on the subject in an informal paper for a volume edited by Martin Feldstein. At the time, the economics profession was still consumed by the market crash of October 1987--the largest one-day percentage drop in stock-market history. Perhaps more importantly, many economists wondered why the crash hadn't triggered a recession. Some suggested that the link between Wall Street's performance and the economy's performance--so devastating in the pre-war era--had been severed by modern policymaking.

Summers countered that it would be a mistake to draw confidence from 1987. He spent part of the paper constructing a nightmare scenario: In the run-up to a boom, regulators approved "mini-stock market futures contracts" that allowed investors to control $35,000 worth of stock with just $2,000 in cash. "Lawyers and dentists explained to one another that investing without margin was a mistake," Summers drolly observed. Then came the crash, which, in an eerily prescient detail, ensued "after a poorly supervised trader lost $500 million ... in the newly developed foreign-mortgage-backed securities market."

Before long, banks were failing, credit was contracting, and bodies were piling up faster than in an '80s slasher flick. "The result was the worst recession since the Depression," Summers wrote. And none of it had required a leap that was implausible in the early '90s or today. The only way to avoid this gruesome fate, Summers concluded, was for the government to take quick, bold steps to restore confidence.

* * *
In July, when he was still a civilian, Summers argued in the Financial Times that the government should use its "receivership power" over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to wipe out holders of regular and preferred stock and certain types of bonds, "conserving cash for the benefit of taxpayers." He said it should run the companies until the financial crisis passed--perhaps a period of several years--before selling off certain components to the private sector. "It is a time for decisive action," Summers wrote.

/snip

[MannyGoldstein]

1. A Year And A Half Ago, I Heard Summers Being Interviewed On NPR

He was whining that, instead of complaining about almost-free trade with China that he and Clinton spearheaded, people should be giving him credit for lowering the prices that we pay for stuff at Walmart. A guy called in whose job had been offshored, and informed Summers that low prices don't mean jack if you don't have any money because you can no longer find work. It was classic.

Almost-free trade with China and wholesale financial deregulation, followed by a lucrative stint at the world's second-largest hedge fund. Nice guy, very helpful.

[xchrom]

2. um -- i think you're leaving out some of summer's history

where he participated as a kind of architect for where we are now.

and what has happened? -- along with others he has been 'richly' rewarded for his -- um -- mistakes.

[Skwmom]

3. Cheap junk that breaks so you have to replace it again, and again, and

again so it ends up costing you more in the long run (and this doesn't even take into account the cost of lost jobs, environmental costs, or the fact that the junk can be dangerous - e.g., contain lead paint, melamine, etc). But what the heck, Larry's only a man so we'll overlook his math deficiency.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Larry Summers, the genius who after the S&L debacle, which was caused by the repeal of the first half of Glass-Steagall, decided it was a good idea to repeal the second half. He really deserves a dunce of the century award.

Edit: I meant this as a reply to post #1.

[Median Democrat]

5. So, are you saying you disagree with everything he has helped develop?

If so, why are you against the stimulus, and what is your alternative? I know it is easy to paint things in black and white, good and evil. Heck, George Bush did that all the time. My point is merely to note that Summers does have good ideas, as does Paul Krugman. And everyone makes mistakes. Heck, millions of Americans unwisely purchased homes that they could not afford on a thirty year fixed, yet I am not going to throw them under the bus Santelli style.

[Raineyb]

29. The stimulus wouldn't be needed if it were not for what he helped create in the first place

I can't really give him props for coming up with a stimulus plan (which frankly is too small and included some of those odious tax cuts that won't help) to help prop up an economy that's in the shitter because of policies helped put out in the first place.

A lot of those people purchased homes they would have been able to afford had the mortgage companies not ripped them off and put them into an ARM when they wanted a fixed rate loan. Millions were able to afford their homes until they lost their jobs thanks to greedy companies outsourcing their jobs. Most of the foreclosures are not due to wrongdoing on the part of the purchaser. I don't think it's safe to blame the purchasers for the most part. Yet we're rewarding crooks and thieves by throwing more money at them and not doing a damn thing for the people on the bottom.

I have a huge problem with that.

Regards

[Skwmom]

30. To compare Summer's monumental mistakes to an unwise house purchase is ludicrous.

Using your logic (everyone makes mistakes...), why don't they just put Rumsfeld back in charge of the defense department b/c surely he too has learned from his mistakes. :sarcasm:

While everything might not be black and white, one thing is obvious - it dumb, dumb, dumb, to put the idiots who destroyed our economy back in charge of that economy. That simply defies common sense, or any kind of sense for that matter.

The stupidity of it all is simply mind boggling and is testament to the fact that never was a truer statement uttered than "the mind has the infinite capacity to rationalize." Though, one would think it would require some mind altering drugs to think this was a good idea.

[Median Democrat]

31. I Think Bush and Republican Congress Had Something To Do With The Economy

"While everything might not be black and white, one thing is obvious - it dumb, dumb, dumb, to put the idiots who destroyed our economy back in charge of that economy. That simply defies common sense, or any kind of sense for that matter."

Wounldn't you agree that you are painting with a very broad brush in blaming Summers for destroying the economy? What about Bush? What about the Republican congress?

I do recall that both Summers had been for reducing the budget deficit. Woundn't you agree that we would be in better shape if Obama had not inherited a trillion dollar deficit?

Also, don't you need regulators who actually are trying to enforce the laws on the books? Are you saying there is a magical law that would have made Chris Cox and effective SEC Chairman?

Again, I see a lot of ranting, but your explanation of why Summers is at fault, sounds like something I would read on Free Republic. No real analysis or facts. Just venting and rants.

The post that precedes yours in this subthread is on topic in criticizing Summers, rather than just offering generalities.

[Skwmom]

34. How many times do people have to point out:

1. Summers pushed for deregulation of the financial industry(the repeal of Glass-Steagall, that was enacted after the Great Depression to keep a major collapse from happening. And it worked well for decades until Summers and the gang of idiots, including Republican Phil Gramm pushed for its repeal. And of course Bubba, the "defender of the working class" signed it into law.

2. The idiot also pushed "free trade" that anyone with a functioning brain cell (not blinded by greed) could see was going to cripple the U.S. economy as corporations fled to other countries where they could pay cheaper wages and not be bothered with environmental or worker rights. And the companies that didn't want to flee - well they were left with no choice b/c they couldn't compete with those companies that had already fled the U.S.

I always wonder what jobs they expected the U.S. to keep. It's now become rather obvious that they thought we would be the financial capital of the world, and he and his buddies would keep their high paying finance jobs. But now that the world has seen how stupid and corrupt our financial system is, good luck with that. Hmmmm.... maybe that's why they are trying to in-debt my children and great grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren... If they make the big money players whole they are offering them a system with only an upside, the working class of America will make good on any of your loses.

Freepers? Have you noticed how they ALWAYS make an excuse for whatever any Republican does no matter what damage it does to this country or to its people? Hmmm... does that sound familiar?

The Republicans repealed the first have of Glass Steagall and gave us the S&L debacle. But did that teach Summers and his gang of idiots anything? Heck no, they just thought further regulation was the way to go.

[Median Democrat]

32. Really? Personally, I Would Love The 1990s Economy Now

I know some people have criticisms of Bill Clinton, as do I, because I think he let his personal issues ruin what could have been a great Presidency, but I thought he was a very good President, and one of the best we had in the past 30 years. So, I would give Summers some of the credit for that. Don't you agree?

If not, who gets credit for the 1990s economy?

[Skwmom]

35. Often, when a piece of crap legislation is enacted, it takes a while

for the disastrous effects to be felt. So how is Bill Clinton's push for NAFTA, giving China favored nation status, passing media consolidation, deregulating the financial industry (which is the cause of the financial collapse) working out for this country?

In America, we haven't had a REAL economy in decades. The feel good economic times under Bill Clinton were a mirage and now the chickens are coming home to roost. The Republicans played a major role in this but they couldn't have done it without Bill Clinton and his gang that couldn't shoot straight.

[Median Democrat]

41. Disagree That 1990s Economy Was Not Good - Real Median Household Income Grew

Real median household income grew in the 1990s compared to the Bush years were median income adjusted for inflation fell. So, unless you are saying that this growth was attributed to Bush the older, I think Bill Clinton and his economic team deserve credit for that, as well as for reducing the deficit, which helped lower long term interest rates.

I know some folks really believe there is no difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush on economic matters, but I don't buy it. Who is President makes a difference, yet there is a small minority in DU who insist that Bill Clinton is no different from Dubya is no different from Obama.

My question is then why are you on a "Democratic" forum if you hate the Democratic Presidents?

So, to focus, real median income grew under Bill clinton, and his ecnomic team. See? That was not so hard.

<>

[Two Americas]

36. I don't

Recent events show us that the "propsperity" of the 90's came at a heavy price, and the day of reckoning has now arrived. The propensity was an illusion.

I would under no circumstances want to go back to the economy of the 90's, but in any case it is no longer possible. You can only have so many fire sales before the shelves are bare.


...

[Median Democrat]

43. Most Middle Class Families Saw Their Incomes Rise

That is real income adjusted for inflation. Personally, I am for increasing the real wages of American familes, not just the top 2 percent. Hey, that's just me. Under this measure, the 1990s were a success.

Also, remember Enron? To the extent deregulation caused a problem, there was ample notice and opportunity to fix things. Bush didn't.

<>

[Runcible Spoon]

4. Fuck that sexist pigshit smear of a man.

Summers SUCKS.

[Median Democrat]

6. Okay, that really helps the dialogue. Anything constructive?

Any comments on his current proposals or do you think ad hominem attacks carry the day?

[stillcool]

8. That poster is obviously well...

learned in all matters of global finance. It isn't the tv that is our problem, it isn't the Republicans, it is the intellectual laziness of the American people, of which I count myself as one. Funny how the internet has changed.

[Runcible Spoon]

11. Sigh.

Actually I am quite learned of globalism and neoliberal economic policies. I've been screaming about Chicago School sycophants forever. The search function is there if you don't believe me.

Don't make the false assumption that having some sort of reasoned and intelligent debate about Summers would actually accomplish anything. The man is dangerous and his policies threaten the already weakened health of our economy.

He does not DESERVE to be legitimized by discussing the intricacies of his policies and positions. He deserves to be shunned and shut out.

The selection and activities of Obama's economic team is far and away his biggest error.

Of course, you COULD just act all high and mighty and talk smack about an anonymous poster with absolutely no idea of who I am, what I stand for, and how I came to those conclusions.

You want an intellectual discussion? I'm game-just throw a topic that doesn't include enabling a d legitimizing neoliberal criminals if you want me to take you seriously.

[Runcible Spoon]

10. Summers deserves no "reasoned" dialogue.

He and his policies deserve to be thrown into a dark cell.

[Median Democrat]

26. Sadly - Same Level Of Cro-Magnon Type Dialogue Is Applied To Krugman - Very Bush-like

You are either for us or against us. Sadly, some of our liberal breatheren are just liberal versions of the neocons who cannot engage in dialogue with anyone who does not already agree with them 100%.

[Runcible Spoon]

49. what a load of horseshit.

Summers is crooked and his economic policies don't belong ANYWHERE in this administration. Being liberal does not mean swallowing dangerous and corrupt opinions, sorry. What IS freeperlike is the kneejerk defense of neoliberal pigs.


Thanks for playing, and enjoy your fake outrage.

[Two Americas]

37. not an ad hominem attack

Summers is not a participant in this discussion.

[Thrill]

7. Sexist? The same guy who named Elena Kagan Dean of Harvard?

[Runcible Spoon]

9. Teh google is your friend.

Not my job to educate you.

[Thrill]

12. Hard to call him a sexist. I'm aware of his one time remark

but his action speaks a lot louder

[Runcible Spoon]

13. Nope. it's not hard at all.

His remarks indicate a deep, established, and deliberate viewpoint that can only come from buying into social evolutionism/social Darwinism, not an uncommon ideology for neoliberal economists. He is educated enough that I'm not convinced he is just merely ignorant and following the popular trend of misusing science to explain alleged "gender differences" without full awareness of the logical consequences of those "theories".

And please excuse me if I don't buy his disingenuous little whimpers about non-issues like AIG bonuses which anyone who is paying attention knows is merely a smokescreen to redirect heat from the more egregious realities, such as AIG's payouts.

[Thrill]

14. If he was sexist, my guess is he wouldn't have named Kagan Harvard Dean

You know a Sexist, could find plenty of reasons to name a man to the post.

[Runcible Spoon]

18. That has more to do with her Chicago School connections than her gender.

besides, she's not in "hard sciences" so I'm sure Summers thinks she is perfectly capable. :eyes: Besides, the whole evolutionist argument is about trends, and they're pretty good at arguing "token" exceptions to the general rule.

I'm not sure why you're such a defender of one of the biggest advocates for repealing Glass-Steagall and other deregulation shenanigans.

[Runcible Spoon]

15. And in case you don't believe me:

"In a speech at the Kennedy School of Government in September 2000, Summers declared: "The traditional industrial economy was a Newtonian system of opposing forces, checks and balances... While, in contrast, the right metaphors for the new economy are more Darwinian, with the fittest surviving."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/larry-summers-brilliant-m_b_178956.html

[DevonRex]

16. Why are you hijacking the thread? It was posted in the spirit of real

discussion of his views on economic policy, which are not all bad and not all good. The OP was very interesting.

[Runcible Spoon]

19. Read the subthread if you don't think I'm discussing policy to your liking.

I'm sorry if my opinions threaten your little fantasy world in which the administration has only pure intentions.

[Median Democrat]

27. Whoa, Now Attacking DUers And Setting Up Straw Men

Now, that was uncalled for. "hreaten your little fantasy world in which the administration has only pure intentions." I don't see anyone saying that the Obama administration has only pure attentions or any indication that the person you are responding to lives in a little fantasy world.

There is a lot of hate being directed at fellow DUers. Is it appropriate? Strikes me as you are the one who is going off-topic with a discussion of gender in a thread on economics.

[DevonRex]

33. Par for the course. Thanks for quoting it tho, since I put the poster on ignore

right after I responded to her. And that looks to have been a good decision, doesn't it?

[Runcible Spoon]

48. If you are still blindly defending Summers, your opinions deserve no respect.

Besides, Devonrex has her own history of abusing posters who fuck with her idol.

[DevonRex]

17. Thank you. So it seems that Summers actually had some good ideas.

It's good to know that he is the one who wanted it to be larger.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. The New Republic?

This New Republic? Of course they would find Summers acceptable....

"Once TNR , along with The Nation , was indeed a leading journal of left opinion. But when Martin Peretz, a Harvard instructor best known for his outspoken pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian views, purchased it in 1974 with money from his wife's inheritance, the magazine's politics swung unmistakably rightward (Extra! , 8/90). TNR 's decisive departure from the left is old news, perhaps best illustrated by its editorial support for every major U.S. military intervention in the last two decades: the 1983 Grenada invasion, the 1986 bombing of Libya and the 1989 Panama invasion, as well as both wars against Iraq. The magazine also repeatedly editorialized in support of the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, who deliberately killed thousands of civilians.

A survey of the magazine's weekly unsigned editorials reveals a commitment to middle-of-the-road domestic and trade politics. In 1995, conservative TNR editor Andrew Sullivan (Washington Post , 4/8/95) asserted that his magazine could not be faulted for hypocrisy over its lack of diversity because "we've taken an editorial position against affirmative action." The magazine also supported the roll-back of welfare in 1996 and continues to judge policy-makers based on their record of support or opposition to it (11/24/03).

More recently, TNR (1/19/04) endorsed the presidential candidacy of Sen. Joseph Lieberman—the most conservative of the 2004 Democratic presidential hopefuls—saying that "for over a decade, few Democrats have better embodied the principles we hoped would one day define the party as a whole." TNR has championed Lieberman's centrism throughout much of his career, faltering in its support of him only rarely, as when he changed his position to support affirmative action in 2000 (TNR , 11/13/00).

After the 2002 mid-term elections, the magazine had this advice for the defeated Democrats (11/18/02): "The party needs centrist leaders willing to give the country not merely a Democratic alternative but an attractive one." Consistent with that recommendation, over the past four years TNR has endorsed fast-track trade authorization (12/24/01), criticized Bush's Israel policy from the right (4/5/04) and urged the Democrats to endorse drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a deal with congressional Republicans (5/6/02). Soon after the September 11 attacks, owner Martin Peretz (10/15/01) opined in favor of racial profiling."


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1970

[QC]

23. The New Republic(an) has lately become very popular here.

Interesting, isn't it?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. You noticed too?

;)

[QC]

39. Yes! The New Republic(an) and Andrew Sullivan are treated as oracles in these parts.

At one time they were disdained.

[Median Democrat]

28. Nice Ad Hominem - Why Read Krugman Than? He Publishes In NYT...

Which printed a series of articles that were supportive of the Iraq war. Feel free to criticize the substance of the article, but are now going to attack Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, because she appears on MSNBC, which is General Electric company, which also owns CNBC?

What's the difference?

[Two Americas]

40. guilt by association

What you are objecting to is guilt by association, not an ad hominem attack.

[Median Democrat]

45. Guilt By Association Is An Ad Hominem Attack

Wikpedia:

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

And

"Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument."

Still, whether it is called ad hominem or guilt by association, the same logical infirmness persists.

[Two Americas]

47. that's true

It can sometimes be.

[DevonRex]

46. You have a point. At least your article gave me things I could look up

about him. Economics isn't my area of expertise, so I have to admit to being behind the curve on the current crisis.

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. Larry Summers is a great guy

and he mixes one Hell of a Martini.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

22. He is polite and always on time. nt

[Two Americas]

38. yeah

Great golf partner, too.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

42. Also well groomed. nt

[AtomicKitten]

24. I don't recall this kind of backlash when these Clinton retreads served before.

Maybe I was napping or out of town or something.

[Jennicut]

44. My thoughts on Summers

I am sure he made a huge mistake advocating for the deregulation in the 1990's. Clinton wanted economic prosperity to help the middle class and Summers and Rubin and others made it happen but we are paying the price now. (Reagan also started us down this road as well). Not many spoke against it except maybe Byron Dorgan and a few others. Free trade was wanted by some in both parties. Ross Perot, nutso as he was was indeed about it. I thought free trade was the right thing to do back then but I was only 19 or so, at least I have an excuse.
Also, as far as reading The New Republic or The Nation or any of these publications, they all have their own points of view. None of the media is objective. It takes time to dig up facts and then decide for yourself what is true.
One more thing is I studying how brains develop in child development class last semester. Its true the brains of girls and boys ARE different physiologically but its also true that it can be overcome with extra help and encouragement in school. By the way, boys have trouble with language and especially articulation of words when they are younger. So neither sex is superior, just different. That is not to say Summers is not a sexist. He might be.

[Runcible Spoon]

50. More on Summers' hijinx:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3810597#3810611

PLEASE people get a CLUE. Summers represents all of the destructive and crooked policies we are supposed to stand against.