I don't want to oversimplify, but
if the voters wise up, then we will
get better candidates.
Also, supposedly both Clinton and
W saw the housing bubble blowing
and the threat but believed that
politically there was nothing they
could have done about it. So, they
just hoped for the best -- and wrecked
the US and advanced world financial
system the worst since the 1930s.
With smarter voters, no way could
Obama, the CBC, Frank, etc. get
Fannie and Freddie to back junk
paper that was the real gasoline
for the heat for the bubble blowing.
E.g., get the 'Frontline' piece
with its interview with the COB of
Wells Fargo: He was very clear.
He saw the bubble blowing, told
lots of the right people in various
committees in DC, put such a warning
in his annual report, and told people
that we were not going to like the
results. Still, we did nothing.
With better informed voters, a president
could have put 10 minutes in one of
his State of the Union addresses
showing the strong parallels --
bubble blowing from over leveraged
financial assets where the bubbles
pop and wipe out much of the financial
system and take much of the economy
down with it -- with The Great Depression
and stated clearly that the only
responsible thing to do was to
get a soft landing and save the
country. Then have some meetings,
say, about the CRA, Fannie, and
Freddie, AIG, some of the CDS
swap manipulations, the fast and
loose work by the bond ratings
agencies, the abuses of the
variable rate mortgages and no-doc
loans, etc.
In 1980 I was in Ohio and heard
some of the stories about the
suffering then in the Rust Belt.
Just take a list about every
bad thing that could happen
to people, families, and
communities, and that's what
happened. So, got domestic
violence, street crime,
alcohol abuse, drugs, infant
mortality, divorces, heart attacks,
suicides, all through the roof.
Bad gumment can be really ugly
stuff, hurt the middle class a lot
and hurt the poor much more.
I'm no fan of Obama, and while I
see a lot to like in Romney I
thought that from his 47% remark
on he just blew his campaign.
But my reading of Obama is that
in part he reads the winds and
sometimes goes with them, maybe
only temporarily, reluctantly,
ineffectually, but is willing to
appear to go with the flow. Well,
with better informed voters
speaking more loudly, I suspect
that he can actually pretend to
go with the winds and at least
mostly get out of the way as
Congress does the real work.
I believe it's in the hands of
the voters and, then, from the
media, and now from the Internet.