Re: He had a "Rooseveltan" opportunity but he just threw it away.
If he had nationalized the big banks (like numerous economists argued at the time that he should do because so many big banks were technically bankrupt...) then it is likely that the rebound from the depths of the Great Recession could have been FASTER (because lending would have returned quicker, and the tens of billions siphoned-off for executive bonuses and such would have not ever been sucked out from the banks capital)... but what would the economic result have been over the LONGER-TERM?
That remains very much an open question but I believe that by sticking with the free market way insofar as conditions made possible, instead of taking the short-run more efficient route of nationalization, Obama may well have gained a more beneficial long-term economic growth rate for the country. (Albeit at the personal cost of political capital... which may, or may not, ever be replaced.)
As far as your complaint that Financial Reform came "too late" I share your feelings on that one....
Still... (Washington being Washington! Nothing much moves very quickly inside the Beltway).
And, if a financial reform bill had been passed by --- say --- last summer (hard to imagine in the tumult of the Health Care Reform debate going on at the time, I know... <g>), arguably it would have been a much *WORSE* bill then we are likely to arrive at here in about a month.
The benefit of hindsight, a more reflective look at the underlying causes of the financial collapse (which same bubble started out-gassing in late 2007 / early 2008, as history now clearly shows), and a more focused outrage from the public has helped to beat back the ever present status quo interests from Wall Street, and their traditional bought-and-paid-for political shills... and, arguably, produced a better, tougher bill then we could have realistically gotten anytime during 2009.
Not 'perfect', that's for sure... but better then we had any reason to hope for just a couple of months ago. |
