Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
David Brooks Has Not Noticed the Recession
David Brooks pronounces the government's bailout of Wall Street a huge success. This is an interesting assessment. It is true that the financial sector profits are at a record high as a share of all corporate profits and the financial sector has reached a new record share of private sector income, and the industry stands to pay record bonuses this year, but these may not be the best measures of success to people other than Mr. Brooks.
There is little doubt that if the government gives enough money to the Wall Street banks that they can stay afloat and prosper, as they have shown. However most taxpayers might have preferred some benefit from the trillions of dollars lent or given to the Wall Streeters other than being able to read about their high lifestyles in the gossip magazines or Goldman Sachs $500 million (@ 2 percent of its FDIC loan guarantee) contribution to charity.
Brooks also wrongly characterizes Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's view of government: "you’d probably say that he starts with a set of fairly conservative instincts about the role of government." His actions during the crisis suggest otherwise. He seems to believe that the government is obligated to play a very large role in protecting large financial institutions and their executives from the consequences of their actions. This makes him a classic nanny state conservative.
--Dean Baker
COMMENTS (5)
Thank you , Dean Baker. You are the first economist to explain to me clearly why a little inflation is not a big deal for average workers. I've often wondered about the trad-media's and trad-pundits' obsession with inflation and with measures controlling it, no matter what the effects are on wage-earners.
Posted by: nancycadet | November 20, 2009 7:39 AM
The Brooks column appears in the far left column on the opinion page. A Krugman column appear in the far right column on the same page. It's easy to see why the Nobel committee selected Krugman without giving Brooks even a nod.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=1&hp
Posted by: Ron Alley | November 20, 2009 8:25 AM
Ron, are you under the impression that there is a Nobel Prize for opinion writing?
In case you aren't joking, Krugman won for academic work he did a long time ago.
Posted by: Erik L | November 20, 2009 8:28 AM
You mean that an ultra-right wing conservative is appreciative of the government bailing out private sector basket cases, as in communist Russia ?.
Oh my God. Next we will hear about Jon Kyle praising Treasury Secretary Paulson's heroic efforts to avoid the calamity he and his ilk caused.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2009 1:25 AM
David Brooks is an odd case. From some of his writings it's obvious that he has read the recent research in cognition, neural development and primate behavior. In this he is unique among conservative thinkers today--who seem to be an under-educated lot. And like most who have kept up with ongoing research, he has cast off the view of man as a rugged individual struggling alone in a dog eat dog, rapacious world where life is nasty, brutish and short. But he just can't bring himself to draw the correct conclusion--that we are all in this together and rely on each other. The general question is; how big is the circle we draw around ourselves within which we say "we"? The challenge specifically for Brooks is; can a timid man grow into a world view that circumscribes contemporary industrial America.
Posted by: Don | November 21, 2009 1:12 PM