Good luck with that.
A number of folks have linked to Paul Krugman’s article praising the Occupy Wall Street protests. He titled it “Confronting the Malefactors”, though, assuming by “malefactors” he means Wall Street bankers, I have to ask: this is confronting them? Really?
Quoth the Krugman:
In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.
I highlighted the bit about reckless lending. Really, that’s what created the crisis? In the mortgage industry, didn’t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encourage reckless lending? And how does reckless lending auto-magically translate into AAA ratings for bundles of sure-to-default mortgages, or bundling them and reselling them in what (if I’m not mistaken) was a fairly opaque marketplace? And isn’t reckless borrowing an automatic corollary to reckless lending?
And as for the 3rd act—it was entirely predictable. Of course that’s how it worked out, as many people, both left and right, predicted. Numerous conservative pundits—Rush Limbaugh, to name one—characterized the bank bailout as being necessary to preserve the wealth of the friends and associates of Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner. It was such an emergency because if their friends had to lose their second (or 3rd) home in the Hamptons, Bernanke and Geithner’s names would have been mud (that was the Limbaugh theory, anyway).
Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?
I mean, yeah, sure. But in my experience, they’ll be applauding themselves with enough enthusiasm and vigor for all of us. And of all the things in their lives they could possibly have an actual positive influence on (albeit, a positive influence that does not stroke their egos nearly as effectively), they pick the “influence” equivalent of buying a dozen lottery tickets in order to make their first million. If they tried to start a movement to get folks to pick up litter around their own neighborhoods, they’d probably have a more positive influence. But I suspect Occupy Wall Street (and the attention it’s getting—visiting their grandparents at the nursing home would never get them TV coverage) makes them feel special, and like they are part of a movement, and while I was quite judgmental of that in my college years, I do understand it, and can’t blame them. If can evoke a lot of positive feelings about yourself and your friends, make you feel like you can make a difference (while, ironically, doing nothing that’s actually going to make a difference), releases endorphins, and I’m sure more than a few of those people have gotten laid where the otherwise would have spent their nights alone, commenting on blogs, like . . . well, never mind that. ; )
The people who ought to have taken a stand—our politicians, both left and right—either did not, or did very mildly, with input from their banker friends, lobbyists, and, of course, Wal-Mart (not a slam; you know I love me some Wal-Mart). The resulting legislation was mostly crafted by the winning oligarchs, not by thoughtful bureaucrats attempting to over-regulate the banking sector in order to prevent future financial devastation coming from the same stupid incentive system.
Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don’t have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer.
Says the guy who I almost always see in a suit. Just an observation.
remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble
And who was yelling from the roof tops that not only was their a real estate bubble, but that a collapse was coming? Glenn Beck. Just noting, for the record.
And . . . here comes the co-option by serious-minded academics and policy people:
A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn’t make too much of the lack of specifics. It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.
You see what he’s doing there, right? Oh, these fine young people, they are so admirable. I love them so much. Now, that they’ve got your attention, let me tell you what we should do. It will be remarkably similar to what I personally advocate all the time, but it’s all about the young people. Occupy Wall Street!
Finally:
And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.
That would be lovely, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 18 Comments »
Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
All Things in Moderation 