TOPICS

Economist James Galbraith on the Obama administration's approach to the country's financial crisis:

Technically it would have been fairly easy, 10 months ago, to get this bus back on the road. There could have been open-ended fiscal assistance to stop the budget hemorrhage of the states and cities. There could have been a jobs program and effective foreclosure relief. There could have been a payroll tax holiday. There could have been a strategy for sustained massive effort on infrastructure, energy and climate. There could have been prompt corrective action to resolve, instead of coddle, the worst of the banks.

I mostly don't blame President Obama; he and his team went as far as they felt they could. I blame the head-in-the-sand politicians in Congress, the over-optimistic forecasters, the half-educated press, and the power of the financial lobby. I blame the avatars of fiscal virtue, the public debt scare-mongerers, the astrologers for whom thirteen significant digits (a trillion) for the stimulus package was just too much. I blame the Senate, which hands the balance of power to small states at the expense of disaster areas like California, Florida and New York. I do blame the Bush-Obama financial policy team, who either believed that "credit would flow again" if you stuffed the banks with money, or knew that it wouldn't.

The Bretton Woods point deserves another word. According to the system established in 1944, the U.S. current account deficit -- and by extension our public budget deficit -- was limited by an obligation to exchange foreign-held dollars for gold. Richard Nixon abolished that arrangement. Since the early 1980s, the world has held the Treasury bonds that the U.S. chose to issue. The system is fragile. But so long as it lasts, it doesn't discipline our budget (and if it broke, we could replace it). Low interest rates prove this: despite all the dire predictions, there is no difficulty in placing Treasury debt. Hence, we are free to pursue high employment, if we choose to do it.

Can anything be done now? Well yes, technically: the same steps that could have been taken in January 2009 could be taken in January 2010. But they won't be, because for the moment we are seeing the inventory bounce, a productivity surge, real GDP growth, and other "good signs." So we'll be told to wait, to be patient, and to make sure we don't buy what we can't afford. And double-digit joblessness will linger on, breeding frustration and anger -- perhaps all the way through to the mid-term elections. After which, what will be possible is anyone's guess.



Login or Register to post comments.

54 comments

America: the only example of where the people who broke it don't have to pay for it.

.

Better yet, they get paid grotesque salaries to keep on breaking it.

Nothing is going to get solved in this country until the root problem is fixed, namely, that our government is for sale to anyone willing to pay the bribe. It has generally been concealed, but the Baucus/Wellpoint health care bill made the process quite transparent.

Of course, it was obvious when we have an over $500B defense budget, with useless weapon systems being budgeted, while parents of the troops over in Iraq had to finance their body armor.

... and the idiots who have to pay for it all wonder why they don't have any incentive to fix things.

is DOA

Dead
On
Anniversary (100th) (born). december 1913 (died) dec 2013

to come up with a new talking point.

Obama has decided to send more troops into Afghanistan.

mercenaries to that by the way ...

America's Spokesmodel President just jumped the shark ...

Just?

"Since the early 1980s, the world has held the Treasury bonds that the U.S. chose to issue. The system is fragile. But so long as it lasts, it doesn't discipline our budget (and if it broke, we could replace it)." is no doubt true. It might be interesting to test that hypothesis. The test would run something along the lines of the test conducted at Chernobyl. Shut off the safety systems and run the reactor above maximum power settings. I wonder how easy it would be to repair the damage caused by rendering Treasury Bonds worthless. Glen Beck would actually be right for a change: better buy gold.

...not one mention of the federal reserve bank in that whole interview...

bank protests are apparent everywhere ...but not a single mention of the "audit the fed bill"

Hmmmm...(can you say)? ..."don't anyone look overhere! "

)O(

The argument about jobs is that's generally considered to be Main street as opposed to Wall Street, and cash flow management, where particularly when a troubled corporation on Wall Street announces a massive number of lay-offs, their stocks can fly sky high.

Or some company moves their headquarters to Dubai.

That's like saying what about the churches, "don't anyone look over()here!"

while I agree with these guys (and love Moyers), it's not like the level of joblessness has changed from the Bush years.
The metrics used to measure have changed (back to what they were, in part, before Bush).

I don't really have much of a point other than: this has been going on a very long time, and until America decides to be honest with itself (not going to happen...) this shit will just keep on keeping on.

...construction jobs are not to be found!...I guess you work behind a desk huh?

so?

it's not that much different than it was.

and yes, mr. Kreskin, I do happen to work behind a desk, at least for part of the day.
I also work in the store room, and I do the books, pack orders, and other things.

I think the joblessness has increased. I was laid off in 2004, so I recall the job market then. By around 2006, I could have gotten a different job - had an interview then, but decided to be rehired by my former employer. The job market was acceptable until the financial collapse started in Aug 2008.

Right now, with the unemployment extensions stringing out unemployment to over a year, I think a number of people are being counted that wouldn't have been counted in the last recession of this (unemployment) magnitude, namely the recession that occurred during Reagan's term. Back then, unemployment was 26-30 weeks, and a federal extension of 13-15 weeks, depending on the State involved. So, when the numbers now are compared to the Reagan era, so far, I think the unemployment was more severe during that era.

However, insofar as pulling out of this, the U.S. economy is likely to be a lagging economy compared to the rest of the world. While all of the world suffered under the criminal fraud associated with the grading of the mortgage backed securities as "AAA", it is within the U.S. that the real estate bubble occurred, and where there is significant loss of wealth due to the real estate pricing collapse. Many homeowners are "under water". So, this economy is going to rebound much slower, and from what I understand, is going sideways at present. So, I think any rebound from the current level of unemployment is going to be slow.

And estimates are that jobs will turn to the positive in the mar-may period.

The manufaturing jobs are gone and not coming back.

The rest of the job market will renound as the economy rebound. If the economy tanks so will the possibility of job growth. That is why the process seems slighted towards the banks and Wall Street.

"we'll be told to wait, to be patient"

Yes and that is also good advise.

... I assume the common person who has been laid off and has no money to pay bills, buy food, or pay rent. I wonder if they too can go ahead and tell his or her bank/collection office/whathaveyou to "wait and be patient."

Right?

...all across the U.S. last sunday!

here is a real bank protest in NYC!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC7el3azq7Y&fe...

End the fed!...(funny) (not for work)

Sorry, I appended it to the wrong comment,and the system won't let me remove it, only edit it.

Is he dithering or fiddling? Or can Obama fiddle while dithering!?

)O(

I prefer diddling.

You said the "D" word.

Per Capita Income $3500 a year

This is a list of companies who either own factories, or have contract factories producing their products in China. Some of the companies produce 100% of their products there, and others only produce parts,
or certain ingredients for their products. The list below is approximately 1% of the actual Corporate list.

http://www.jiesworld.com/international_corpor...

...tariff on everything those bastards try to ship in.

make everything so expensive that we are forced to make stuff here again!

(Obama could use a good slap also) Geithner and Burnbanke should get a punch in the nose (on top of some jail time)

I'm with you

Read on 1929 and 1930... Jeez.

Over protectionist tariffs by the Hoover admin are among the factors that aggravated the original panic/recession into a full blown depression.

"Politicians must be taught, in no uncertain terms, that the only real way to economically 'stimulate' the Productive Class is to stop stealing their fucking money! If the government announced a total tax amnesty, as well as a complete, permanent end to individual and corporate taxes - repealing all unconstitutional economic regulations would help, too - this depression would be over by the end of the week." ~ L. Neil Smith

Tax the hell out of corporate income...

and stop the IRS from collecting an "Income tax" from people who earns hourly wages!

(my assertion is)

"if you gotta go out and get it"..."it ain't income"

(Income is) ...when you can sit back...and the money just (comes in)

)O(

Technically what we earn is wages.

Income generally comes from rents, stocks and other investments.

so where do we find the definition of income then?

blacks law dictionary?

IRS codebook?

or the supreme court?...I was asking cuz I know very little about the law...(according to you)

)O(

Black was probably the ultimate source, but it was a part of Abraham Lincoln's definition of an income tax he wanted to impose on the wealthier Americans starting in 1900 to pay for the Civil War.

And Honest Abe was a Republican.

I seem to recall Adam Smith using that construction in The Wealth of Nations as well.

booby prize for you!

Income was defined by the supreme court!

defined as... (corporate activity) ....(multiple times)

"Income" whats in a word?

)O(

Legally everything is ultimately defined by the Supreme Court, but your question was about etymology not legal precedent.

)O(

Additionally, the Supreme Court mostly finds or not finds for a lower court, and all the courts use precedent, and Black's Legal Dictionary as a tertiary source.

You also seem to be referring to Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), which was overturned, along with other cases using it as precedent when the XVI amendment was passed in 1916, so their decisions became moot.

And of course Adam Smith predated the Supreme Court by at least by 13 years, and the case I mentioned by 119 years.

The legal definition of Income was not overturned.

Income (as defined by the supreme court) ...is still (profit from corporate activity)....stocks bonds corporate ownership ect...ect...

...merely including the word "income" in a constitutional amendment ...does not change the meaning of the word.

It would take another supreme court case before the meaning of income could be "changed"

Doyle vs. mitchell bros.
247 U. S. 179 (1918)The purpose of the Corporation Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112, 38, is not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect

http://supreme.justia.com/us/247/179/

... you make a good construction worker.

...I think.

)O(

Actually savings are also considered a form of income.

So, once you go beyond bare subsistence living, farming for your own food, or what the 19th Century Robber Barons called "starvation wages," if after mortgages, rents, and basic food is covered, any money you have left over that you squirrel away, like a good little rodent, is considered income.

)O(

Additionally, one can suspect that, like your messiah, that the aim of your weak arguments is to say the income tax is unconstitutional, despite the existence of the XVI Amendment, at the expense of programs the middle-class and the poor depend upon, to increase the wealth of the wealthy, and not sock the upper end of the scale with a heavier tax bill, as the term income would seem to suggest,

)O(

Your citiation appears to have a narrow definition by the Lore Supreme Court, typical of that period, which was also during the larger Progressive period.

They were specifically talking about the Corporation Tax Act of August 5th 1909, not the the Income Tax amendment that was seven years away, or the economic concept of income in general.

In other words, the wrote in support of the definition of income that the CTA used, that obviously someone contested, and not on individual's income taxes not yet at issue.

And just because something is forbidden to the corporations doesn't mean it's allowed to the citizenry, or vice versa, for example fraud.

A thought just ocurred to me, although I'd have to Sheppardize it, and I don't have access to a law library, I would suspect that the Corporaton Tax Act of 1909 was used as historical precedent for the XVI amendment of 1913. In other words, it supports the concept, not detracts from it.

(All references above were off by three years, as I was half-asleep and thinking 1916, not 1913, for amendment XVI).

did you come to the conclusion that "my question was about "the etymology" of the word Income?

I don't understand how I can mention the supreme court, Black's law dictionary, and IRS code...

but yet (a smart guy like you) somehow thinks I was inquiring about etymology...

)O(

"so where do we find the definition of income then?"

You should've asked for the legal definition then, implying doesn't cut it.

)O(

Ultimately, because of exemptions and deductions on dependents, the average wage earner actually pays more in payroll taxes and deductions to support such things as FICA, and health care, than they do actual federal income taxes.

But they also pay state, city and property taxes which tend to be for local concerns like education, first responders. What really stinks is some sales taxes, because they are generally by nature regressive.

Here in Texas we have no state tax, but then we also rank 45-47 in social services among the 50 states.

Yet every Texas politician runs on cutting taxes.

[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

The entire show is on podcast in ITunes and is well worth the effort to download and listen. Just. wish the Obama team would do that. We need leadership here, and what we are getting wont come close to cutting it

“ Low interest rates prove this: despite all the dire predictions, there is no difficulty in placing Treasury debt. ”

I'm unconvinced. The Fed has been "printing" dollars to buy Treasuries directly, in a program called quantitative easing. Absent the Fed's intervention, using simply the supply/demand of the Treasury auction markers, I think interest rates would have had to go much higher in order to place that debt. I think the last time quantitative easing was used was during World War II. The Krugman article suggest that the Fed bought $1 trillion in debt. What is the deficit this year, $1.6 trillion? If so, that means a majority of the debt was "placed" through the Fed printing money.

I like Galbraith, but I would have liked to hear of this issue addressed in his analysis.

[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

...you're casting Obama in the role of Nero, doesn't that make Bush Caligula? 'Cause the little boot fits him SO well.

I can count on Ms. Madrak to bring me down.

[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]

Sad but true.

HEALTHCARE = FAIL
ECONOMY = FAIL
WAR = FAIL

OBAMA = FAIL

Voted for him and everything. Now have to live with the shame

)O(

Only 11 months so far

MERKIN=FAIL

Galbraith mostly doesn't blame Obama?!

That's ridiculous. He was not forced to bail out the banksters - neither by the right nor the left. More than 99% of the calls to Congress were against it. Obama and the Democratic 'leadership' put unbelievable pressure the real progressives who were against it. That was shameful - every bit as shameful as having the neocons on the right side of the battle (no pun intended).

The Bush-Paulson bailouts were one of the few Bush policies that forced the Republicans in Congress to balk - loudly, strongly, and correctly. (Really, how many times did you hear of the Republicans giving Bush a hard time?) Need I remind anyone that Senator Obama was head cheerleader for that debacle?

Where the devil was Galbraith when this was happening?!

54 comments

Login or Register to post comments.