Fear mongering among the investor class, sweeping generalizations to prove that Obama is going to screw up. For example, he thinks giving money to banks was a good idea, but asking them to lend it is bad. I thought the whole idea of the bailout was to resolve the liquidity crisis. Without lending you still have a liquidity crisis. And the article is a little short on alternative policies.
>"he thinks giving money to banks was a good idea, but asking them to lend it is bad:
Giving banks money was to prevent further financial collapse and panic. Forcing them to lend money to people that they don't think can afford it sounds like deja vu, this time with government backing. I couldn't think of a more short-sighted policy. Talk about not learning from history, and in this case history is 2006.
Furthermore, he says:
>"Large "confidence" costs were always destined to flow from the extreme steps being taken, even if advisable, to prop up the economy. The federal government's alternating takeovers and bailouts of companies are inherently destabilizing and create massive uncertainty in investors and businesses."
One of the reasons that economists who study the matter think the Great Depression took so long to end was that the sudden, drastic, and unpredictable actions of the New Deal created uncertainty and reduced business investment. It is certainly a valid point to keep in mind with a President promising a "Green New Deal" and a "New New Deal".
Obama hasn't got in office yet, but his stated ideology is certainly troubling to me.
