Oh, I don't know. Our President-elect could ask Ms. Mitchell's husband for economic advice.

Uh, isn't Robert Rubin one of Obama's campaign advisors?

Maybe you should watch a little more TV...

I think Osama Bin Laden would have a great deal of expertise to offer in the war on terrorism. Unfortunately he would not be motivated properly and his job performance would suffer. Not really analogous to the Rubin/Summers situation

It was politically advantageous for Obama to associate himself with Clintonites, since the Clinton administration is widely viewed as being successful economically. Whether he recognizes the implications of Rubin's and Summers' policies is something we didn't learn from the campaign - the media were preoccupied with other matters.

Watch the BBC if you can get it on your cable package. Far less commericals.

S.F., are you by any chance thinking of Robert Reich rather than Robert Rubin?

isn't it ironic, andrea mitchell, wife of alan greenspan, senior correspondent nbc news, speculating on how the new president will be influenced by her husband's friends rubin and summers

Laurel--

Unfortunately SF is referring to Robert Rubin. He, Summers and Paul Volcker are Obama economic advisers.

In what way are Rubin and Summers responsible for the meltdown? They didn't swell the deficit, create subprime income stagnation, or cut consumer protections that would have prevented much of the subprime mess.

The meltdown that did happen under the Rubin/Summers watch was Mexico. They handled that brilliantly.

Um, I think Mr. Baker is being sarcastic, guys. Or maybe sarcasm isn't quite the word for it, but he clearly knows who BO's economic advisors are. He's pointing out how crazy that is.

Crazy about Andrea Mitchell and Greenspan, I had no idea. (the strangest thing is that someone MARRIED that guy.)

Rubin and Summers were brokers of the deal that, in 1999, eliminated most of the regulation that had protected the banking system from just the kind of speculation that brought down. Rubin and Summers argued (along with Greenspan) that bankers wouldn't do something that would bring their banks to the brink of ruin. Hmmm.

And Summers should be remembered, in addition to his rather unusual views on the mathematical competence of women, for a World Bank memo issued just before Christmas in 1994 in which he suggested that moving toxic industries to Third World countries was a good thing because people in those countries didn't live long enough for the toxics to do their full damage.

The items that PeonInChief mentions, by themselves, suggest that confirmation hearings for Summers would be rocky, and one would have to anticipate, as well, testimony from Brooksley Born on the Rubin & Summers opposition to her attempt to regulate credit derivatives. My guess is that if Mr. Obama were to favor any one of the principal architects of financial deregulation (an awfully big "if"), Jim Leach would have the easiest time getting confirmed.

Perhaps Born herself (the Anti-Summer) might be a better choice. How shocking would that be: a FEMALE Treasury Secretary? Or how about a "competence" contest between Summers and, say, Jill Considine?

Time to ask Greenspan why on 2 points

6.5% Interest Rate
Cut to 1% for Bush

M-3 Total Money Supply doubled prior high in first six of Bush.

Plenty money + low interest rates

banks please loan loan loan loan

Developers built homes too large too expensive for middle class buyers

Price up 68% in six of Bush.

who will press for honest answers

p.s Fed stopped shown M-3 in reports in 2006.

said "save money". Ho.
a few numbers save money???

They know they blew it

Devalued dollar with excess money

clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net

Not to be too gossipy since I love the fact that your blog is so substantive Mr. Baker... but do you have any thoughts/suggestions on who should be treasury secretary? And I trust that recommendations from you would be accompanied by evidence of a track record starkly different from the miserable-failure crowd that seemed to be all the buzz in the media so far.

Clinton Success

CLINTON-GORE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
ALL AMERICAN TEAM
SHOW ME A BETTER RECORD
GDP--rose from 6,300 to 11,600
NATIONAL INCOME- 5,000 to 8,000 Billion--
JOBS CREATED—237,000 per month to replace Jimmy Carter record of 218,000.
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS--$360 to $478
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS WORKED--never hit 35.0--hit that mark 4 times in 80's
UNEMPLOYMENT--from 7.2% down down down to as low as 3.9%
MINIMUM WAGE--$4.25 to $5.15
MINORITIES--did exceedingly well
HOME OWNERSHIP--hit all time high (no big deal most can say this-except Reagan)
DEFICIT--290 Billion to whoopee a SURPLUS
DEBT----+28%---300% increase over prior 12 years by Conservatives.
FEDERAL SPENDING--+28%---+80% under Reagan- who is da true conservative?
DOW JONES AVERAGE—3,500 to 11,720 top in 2000. All it's history to get to 3500 and Clinton zooms it
NASDAQ--700 to 5,000 top in 2000.---All of it's history to get to 700 and Clinton zooms it
VALUES INDEXES-- almost all bad went down--good went up in zoom zoom zoom
FOREIGN AFFAIRS--Peace on Earth good will toward each other---Mark of a true Christian--what has Bush done to Peace on Earth?
POPULARITY---highest poll ratings in history during peacetime in AFRICA, ASIA AND EUROPE . Even 98.5% in Moscow--left office with Highest Gallup rating since it was started in 1920's.
STAND UP FOR JUSTICE--evil conservatives spent $110,000,000 on hearings and investigations and caught one very evil man who took a few plane rides to events.
BOW YOUR HEADS—“Thank you God for sending us a man of Bill Clinton's character, intelligence, knowledge of governance, ability to face up to crises without whimpering and a great leader of the world. Amen”.
THANK YOU GOD FOR THE GOOD TIMES THE CLINTON YEARS.

CLINTON VS REAGAN
1.JOBS—grew by 43% more under Clinton.
2.GDP---grew by 57% more under Clinton.
3.DOW—grew by 700% more under Clinton..
4.NASDAQ-grew by 18 times as much under Clinton.
5.SPENDING--grew by 28% under Clinton---80% under Reagan.
6.DEBT—grew by 43% under Clinton—187% under Reagan.
7. DEFICITS—Clinton got a large surplus--grew by 112% under Reagan.
8.NATIONAL INCOME—grew by100% more under Clinton.
9.PERSONAL INCOME—Grew by 110% more under Clinton.
SOURCES—Bureau of Comparing Democrat’s hero-CLINTON—versus Republican’s hero--REAGAN
Labor Statistics (www.BLS.Gov)--Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org)—Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003 (annual issues)
www.the-hamster.com (chart taken from NY Times)
National Archives History on Presidents. www.nara.gov
LA Times 10-11-00 on Market--www.Find articles.com

A vote for a Republican is a vote for Less Success.
A vote to reduce the Standard of Living for all Americans.

Clarence Swinney-Political Research Historian-Lifeaholics of America-President
Please submit comments to clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net or P.O. Box 3411-Burlington NC-27216

This is just silly, but I can't resist. I have various cartoons up outside my office door. One of them dates to right after Mitchell and Greenspan got married. It shows the outside of a door to a honeymoon suite, witjh a sign on it "Greenspan/Michell." A voice in a balloon is coming from the other side of the door, saying, "Alan, pleeeeeease! Not another speech about the evils of irrational exuberance!"

"Rubin and Summers were both major advocates of the one-sided deregulation of the financial industry under which we maintained the security blanket of "too big to fail" for the Wall Street big boys, but gave them the green light to take whatever risks they wanted in order to enrich themselves."

Is there a good summary out there of the changes they passed and how they contributed to the current mess?

I'd like to reiterate the request for Dean's suggestions on who should be Treasury Sec (nice if it could be him, but thoughts on others would be informative).

amorphous wrote, Is there a good summary out there of the changes they passed and how they contributed to the current mess?

Much of it wasn't changes they made, but rather changes they prevented.

See e.g. "What Went Wrong", about Brooksley E. Born's desire to regulate derivatives, and the pushback from Greenspan, Rubin, and Arthur Levitt, Jr.

Thank you, Liberal for the link.

Hi all,

The thing we should be focusing on is the incredible "inequality" in our society. I am particularly thinking of wealth, and power.

I am reading a book called So You Call This A Democracy, by a man named Kivel, and he says that 1% of the population owns 47% of the wealth, and a managerial class controls another 44%, and the middle class is quite tiny, along with the working, and then there is the negative wealthers. Quite a pyramid.

My questions is what will we do about this?

John MacLean
617-308-7293