This could be the week when the greatest financial crisis in history finally reached its nadir. Then again, it could merely be another week in which a brief rally in global stock markets has suckered more investors, politicians and commentators into assuming that the worst is over, when the tentative improvement in financial confidence is just another false dawn.
So which will it be? The answer depends, even more than usual, on the finance ministers and central bankers gathering at a potentially chaotic G20 meeting this weekend. The omens are not benign.
It is now understood that the global financial system can be stabilised and economic demand revived only through government intervention. Private businesses and consumers do not have the access to credit or the confidence to start spending and investing again. But government intervention will work only with some degree of international co-operation and that requires leadership from America. Yet despite the mandate won by President Obama, Washington has proved muddled in its economic priorities and indecisive in its financial response to the crisis.
Do I interpret part of this statement as saying the US should bail out banks globally? If you can’t support your loss in the stock market you shouldn’t be in it locally (US) or globally
I agree with the broad sweep of Kaletsky’s remarks, but the piece about the GOP made me chuckle. The hapless GOP, stripped of power in the last election, has no part to play in the resolution of this crisis. The voters wanted it so; the Democrats were given a mandate to fix the crisis and they have everything they need politically to do it – majorities in both house of Congress, and the Presidency. The Republicans could vote party line against everything the Democrats propose, and it would not matter one bit. They are simply irrelevant now. So the Democrats own every piece of the response to this crisis, and what we’ve seen is far worse than amateur hour.
I just am not sure right now if the Democrats are really this incompetent and stupid, or if this is all part of a plan.
TriVA (#2.) said,
“So the Democrats own every piece of the response to this crisis, and what we’ve seen is far worse than amateur hour.”
You are correct and the Republican performance in the face of this Democrat dominance of the executive and legislative branches has been pitiful.
Republicans can have an impact, but did you see any/many of them spurning the “pork” that the Democrats have been passing in Congress and the President has been signing.
By spurning the “pork,” the Republicans could have legitemately attack the Democrats where it will hurt the most, in their own home states and districts.
They could have exposed those Democrats who feign to say that ‘my pork is good pork’ and could have connected what appears to be “good pork” to the ‘bad pork.’ This can have the effect of tainting all pork.
Why haven’t the Republicans proposed an Omnibus Special Projects Bill containing the “pork” included in other legislation that would be debated in Congress and would survive or fall on its own merit?
You missed my point entirely, #3. The Republicans are irrelevant. They simply don’t matter right now, at least until 2010, and probably not even then (I suspect they will not get either House or Senate back in 2010).
Look, the Democrats aren’t waiting for the Republicans to give them a spending bill. They wouldn’t accept one if they did. It’s their time now, this is the will of the voters. Now they have to live up to the 2008 campaign promises.
One proof that the Republicans are irrelevant is that Nancy Pelosi passed new rules forbidding them from offering alternate legislation or sponsoring amendments to House Bills. So, in effect, House Republicans have been neutered in the House.
In the Senate, they can still make a bit of difference, but only if they can get all Republicans to vote the same way, and convince some Democrats to vote with them. So far, that hasn’t happened.
Two more years until that changes, hopefully.
If our leaders in Washington D.C. treated this “crisis” as more of a “crisis” and less as an opportunity to fund their pet projects, I would be more willing to act myself as if this were a crisis.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Indeed, Mr. Snyder. When we’re solemnly promised “no more earmarks” and then witness a bill stuffed with 8,500 of them signed by the very man who issued the promise, it’s apparent we’ve been deceived. [url=http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/03/brilliant.html]This is not the hope we were looking for.[/url]
TriVA (#4.) said,
“You missed my point entirely, #3.”
I didn’t miss your point, I merely made my point.
The elected Republican politicians can be compared to a pastor who preaches against carnal lust and excessive alcohaol consumption and then sponsors the construction of a saloon that features strippers and lap dancers.
If you claim the higher ground of responsible politics, then you must ‘walk the walk’ that goes along with standing on that higher ground.
Otherwise, the voters will not be able to distinguish a Republican from a Democrat.
And the voters have shown us that when they can’t distinguish between the candidates on the basis issues critical to our country’s future, they will vote for the candidate who ‘makes them feel good’ regardless of the long-term consequences of their choice.
And that just what the voters have done.