raghu wrote: > In other words, you will take every datum and interpret it in the most > cynical way possible until it conforms to your pre-conceived idea that > Obama is irredeemably a stooge for the rich?
My cynicism about Obama has turned out to be pretty accurate so far. But more importantly, it's a mistake to focus on Obama _as an individual_. Though he's likely the most powerful individual on earth, he's limited and influenced by the system he's in, by the current balance of political-economic forces. He's pushed to act like a "stooge" for the rich even if he doesn't want to. (For example, Clinton expressed this early in his term when he lamented about how he had to keep the bond market happy, morphing him into an "Eisenhower Republican.") The fact that he relies on folks like Geithner and Summers and that the relatively "progressive" ideas come from someone as bad as Volcker is quite telling. BTW, as I've said before, the constraints on Obama do allow him some leeway. On this issue and given the current balance of power, I would see these as choosing between what's good for the banks (the immediate self-interest of banking corporations) and what's good for the financial system (its stability and avoidance of future melt-downs).[*] Geithner and Summers lean toward the first, while Volcker leans toward the second. I'm not sure the word "progressive" is apt in either case. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. [*] Even a financial consumer protection agency is good in terms of the long-term interests of banks, though the chances of that being instituted seems to be fading... _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
