Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke
That notion was true 40 to about 65 years ago: Then, when business prospered, when productivity increased, workers shared in the gains, and the middle class flourished.
Long about the 1970′s, business began seeking a separation from this once happy marriage — on the way to carrying on torrid affairs with lovers in Japan, Mexico, Korea, China and wherever labor is cheap and no-strings arrangements are welcome.
As with any marriage where one partner lies, cheats, steals and fails to support the other partner, America’s jilted working- and middle-class people have a right and plenty of good reason to get a divorce.
Unfortunately, presidents like Barack Obama keep appointing people like Bernanke, Geithner and Summers, effectively blocking all chance for such a split. So, the torrid affairs, lack of support and other abuses not only continue, but are aided and abetted at every turn by those who could and should intervene in behalf of the wronged partner.
President Obama should listen to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who this week put a hold on Bernanke’s nomination for a second term. (See the next post, below, for Sanders’ blistering indictment of Bernanke’s job performance.)
Robert Reich
We strongly suggest Obama consider two eminently qualified people who, unlike Bernanke, are well-suited to the needs of America’s battered middle- and working-class people:
First, economist, author and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (Bio here.) To see why we think Reich is so well suited, read his excellent book, Supercapitalism.
Elizabeth Warren
Second, Harvard law professor, consumer advocate and TARP watchdog Elizabeth Warren. (Excellent interview here. Or see her bio.)
We can’t guarantee either would effect the divorce the American public’s situation calls for, but we’re dead certain Reich or Warren would go a very long way toward making big business and big finance walk a straight and narrow path — to the benefit of virtually all the rest of us.
That’s something Bernanke could’ve done, should’ve done — and not once, not ever, even began to do. As Sanders makes clear, Bernanke can’t be part of the solution because he’s a key part of the problem.
We’re confident Reich or Warren would be precisely the opposite.
Who could do a better job? A sock puppet.
Spot on. I couldn’t agree more. It’s time for a change in economic leadership, why Obama went with the people who were witnesses to the melt down is beyond me, I always liked Reich and saw a Warren interview on TV several months ago, (maybe Jon Stewart) she was very impressive. It would take courage to change horses in mid-stream, but isn’t that what being president all about.
Randal, Alberto Gonzales wasn’t capable of being marginally competent as attorney general, and you want him to be Fed chairman? Come on.
Holte, Obama doesn’t want to be branded an anti-business, class-warfare, radical liberal. As if behaving like a Clinton-style, so-called New Democrat will keep the radical right from calling him all those things and worse.
Obama is going to get branded anti-business commie pinko socialist maoist stalinist no matter who he nominates, so why not nominate Reich (whom I like as well – don’t always agree with him, but I always agree with very few) or WArren (who I’ve only seen a couple of times, but she seems a reasonable choice). Back in the first stimulus, under Bush (and the repubes LOVE to forget that it started with him), they had the chance to really put wall street’s feet to the fire, and frittered it away. Then, come January 2009, Bernanke/Geitner/Summers et. al. really had the chance to put Wall Street’s feet to the grindstone, and frittered that away too, for fears of looking…what? Too “socialist” by people who don’t even know what the word means?
In a strange way they’ve killed capitalism by going to an extreme. We are becoming what the old Soviet Union once was where there is no incentive for a worker to produce since they know that those at the top will get all the goodies.
A sock puppet at this point could do no worse but I guess Sarah Palin is too busy to take the job.
I agree with your conclusions, but I’m thinking I might argue over the idea that “what was good for business was good for America” might have been true 40 to 65 years ago. I’m inclined to think that prosperous time for business and workers had more to do with the rise of workers’ unions than with unregulated free-market capitalism. I’m not clear on how, exactly, “union” became such a dirty word even among workers, but I can’t figure either why tax-cuts for the wealthy play so well with blue-collar workers.
Bee, selective memory loss is a signature trait of Republicans. Goes perfectly with their patented brand of hyprocrisy.
Demeur, it’s not just that those at the top get obscenely large slices of the pie. It’s that those down at the working level can’t count on keeping a job, being able to make payments on a house or car. Every time they start to get caught up on their bills and expenses, start to gain some seniority in a job, along comes another economic bust — and millions are pushed back to scraping just to get by. Get laid off two, three or more times in a decade, and the feeling “what’s the use?” develops.
Jeff, in the time period I mention, high finance and big business were forced to act responsibly by government, which had them on a short leash. They were also fearful of public ire, which could result in tighter restrictions. Unions played a big part, too. Reich explains it excellently in Supercapitalism.
“Unions” became a dirty word among a whole lot of workers back in the 1960′s, when industries and then other businesses large and small deserted the so-called Rust Belt states and Northeast for the Sun Belt. A big part of the southern and western attraction had to do with large nonunion labor pools eager for better-paying jobs and willing to forgo union benefits and protections. That was reinforced with “right-to-work” laws intended to discourage unionization.
Robert Reich and Elizabeth Warren? What do those 2 commies know about the real world?
< / satire >
Seriously though, they’d be great choices. It’s been Of, By and For Wall Street for too long. We need people in charge who empathize with Main Street.
And Bee is right — the wingtards are gonna call Obama a Muslim Fascist Communist Kenyan terrorist no matter what he does. He needs to stop worrying about what the inbreds think and start doing what he has to do.
Tom, if only Obama, Plouffe, or somebody at the White House would read our blogs. So many clues, so much good advice — and it’s free for the taking!
The corporatist rot is in all levels of Government, and I am thinking the rot will have to complete its course before things change.
We’re getting there. We already have a million children skipping meals in this country.
Excellent post, SW. I like your Galbraith quote on your front page, too, and it goes with your post! What is good for big business is NOT always necessary, and the way they try to find justifications for selfishness is disgusting. God’s Own Party… the GOP! Heh… They should be taken out behind the woodshed and spanked with the Golden Rule.
JR, more than half a century after FDR proclaimed The Four Freedoms, we have a million kids missing meals. But we sure have an increasing number of rich and super-rich people, and the latter are amassing fortunes that dwarf those of the super-rich of a century ago. What swell progress that is — for the rich and super rich.
Snave, good to have you comment. Your Golden Rule idea is worth a try, but I wouldn’t bet on it having any lasting effect.