Am I taking crazy pills or does this analysis by the New York Times make absolutely no sense? And it’s starting to get more and more traction today, as I’ve already seen it discussed on Fox News this morning. How will outrage among average Americans over irresponsible business practice in any way derail or harm an agenda that, at its core, is about demonizing private enterprise and demanding more regulation? As long as the president continues to decry excessive executive compensation and wag his finger at AIG, people don’t seem to correlate continued corporate “large-living” with him. It seems to me that the natural result of the public outcry against this sort of thing will be to demand more regulation, more punishment. The only area that President Obama runs into trouble is with the people who’s concept of punishment is to demand that these corporations be allowed to fail (like, say, me) rather than receive continued bailouts at taxpayer expense. Up to this point, however, our collective voice has had little effect on the success of bailout legislation…

1 comment:

Heathen said...

Personally I believe the best way to fix the banks is to nationalize the failing ones, get rid of the execs and have the government run them until they're working well again. This has worked in the past during the American Great Depression and the 90's in Sweden. I'm surprised the Obama administration hasn't tried to go this route.