TARP, AARP, GM and More

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Diane Brady, senior editor of Business Week, breaks down the president's big economic speech yesterday, what to expect from changes in the TARP program, GM bankruptcy, and other economic goings-on.


Diane Brady

Comments [25]

kai from NJ-NYC

Mr. Phil, proof is based on such evidence as verifiable documents, like the birth certificate provided by the State of Hawaii, which it turns out is part of the USA.

Proof is not based on unverifiable claims and conjecture based on witnesses (who?) provided in the papers of the opposing side, that is why courts try cases and outcomes are not assumed. Therefore, unless there is more evidence than unreliable witness testimony, your "proof" is null and Law and Truth are upheld.

The funny thing with your logic is that you want the rule of law when it attempts to rule out Obama's presidency, yet you look down on the state which declares law in this land.

Which is it: Do you want laws which emanate from states or self-rule/anarchy where laws are determined within specific enclaves? From your rhetoric, it sounds like you are anti-USA.

Apr. 15 2009 03:27 PM
Robin Durnford from Nova Scotia

I really hate it when reporters such as Diane Brady of Business Week attempt to speak for "the vast majority of people in the country right now" (who just happen to want whatever the reporter wants them to want!). Diane Brady should be asked where she's getting this information--people on the street? at the supper table? polls? Give us the source of your wild generalization (and wisdom). It's really misleading to talk about people wanting this and people wanting that. Poll after poll has shown, for example, that people want socialized medicine in the U.S. (as a number 1 priority) but, according to reporters, "people" usually "want" whatever the reporter wants them to want! This is untrustworthy analysis, and this show is better than that.

Apr. 15 2009 01:27 PM
Phil from Queens

Kai -- see Berg v. Obama and other cases -- there is substantial proof that Obama was born in Kenya. His paternal Grand Ma and cousins were witnesses and are on tape stating such. The Kenyan and Hawaiian authorities have sealed their records, but the truth will come out. The airlines would not let his mom fly to the US in time. But, what do Statist Marxist liberals care about the rule of law or the truth?

Apr. 15 2009 12:32 PM
Phil from Queens

To (20) aka Karen --

I doubt that you know a tenth of what I know or have lived or have heard first hand from people who where there (Russo-Japanese War, WWI, the Russian Revolution, the Depression, WWII, Nazi Concentration Camps, Korea, the Civil Rights Movement, Viet Nam, etc.). My friend you need to be alert to this Gov’ts illegal and immoral activities -- history repeats itself, including well meaning people looking the other way until it’s too late.

Apr. 15 2009 11:31 AM
kai from NJ-NYC

Phil, you certainly have no credibility and show your ideological stripes if you still purport the erroneous claim that Obama does not have a valid birth certificate.

Check here:

Moreover, it seems that the "adults" you speak of, the Milton Friedman-Greenspan crony-corporatists, were the ones that have gotten the global economy into this mess. Bully for you if want more systemic economic disorder, but you won't get what you want in 2010.

Apr. 15 2009 11:26 AM
Karen from Westchester

pick up a good American history text book and read the whole thing, Phil.

Apr. 15 2009 11:02 AM
Phil from Queens

Yes, this is what we need -- a Marxist state senator form Ill. that can't produce a valid birth certificate that could get him a drivers license micro-managing or rather mis-managing the largest and most complex economy in the history of the world. Yes, we are in good hands -- Saul Alinsky's disciples driving down an America that they hate despite it being so good to them whether they were real citizens or illegals from Kenya. The Prez has no experience managing anything and even more surprising not much of a legislative record despite 12 years getting paid for that job at the state and federal level. Yes, we are in good hands. Let's hope that in 2010 we get to be in better hands, when the adults take back the republic.

Apr. 15 2009 10:57 AM
Emily Gertz from Brooklyn

Ms. Brady is shortsighted on why cutting greenhouse gas emissions and taxing carbon pollution need to happen now, hand in hand with other programs to reform the economic system and improve the economy.

When polluters finally have to pay for their climate-altering pollution, their motivation to lower their "exposure" to these costs will increase -- accelerating the expansion of employment in cleaner energy manufacturing, construction, operations and maintenance, as well as spurring increased R & D spending on new products, manufacturing, and energy generation.

As long as the regulatory environment remains uncertain, companies and industries will hesitate to spend on anything that will eventually add to their pollution costs, because they cannot figure out how much risk they will be taking on.

In my experience of covering these issues for the past few years, most disinterested (non-coal, non-oil, non-automotive) corporate leaders see federally-reglated carbon cuts and pay-for-pollution as inevitable. So putting these regulations off perpetuates economic instability.

Apr. 15 2009 10:52 AM
Karen from Westchester

See the attutude of Jacksonian Democrats during the 1830's depression when unemployment was relatively worse than it is today. The attitude of the "Common Man" in the 1830's and 40's, (the village mechanic, the small farmer, the city factory worker) toward banks and economic policy has not changed in 180 years, except at the time they were called "Democrats". Banks and big government were seen as the enemy. The common man's standard of living under Jacksonian Democracy went down, however. And the policy of the Federal Govt made the depression much worse. They pulled money away from banks and industry - they did the opposite of what our current Administration is doing. They did what was done after the 1929 crash when the Depression was exacerbated by the gov't policies fueled by the "common man's" politics.

Apr. 15 2009 10:45 AM

The admin mistake is that they focus on the supply of credit, and assume that if the supply becomes available, demand will magically appear. But households are unlikely to do so in this economy.

BTW, credit is available for Big Pharma mergers.

Apr. 15 2009 10:40 AM
Joe Corrao from Brooklyn

see now for sake of argument...if you DID bailout people directly people would pay off their bills and the banks would still get the money....but...IT WOULD ELIMINATE PERSONAL DEBT!!!!!!!!! and the banks do not want that...doesn't that make sense....
but in the end its all fiat cash so its worthless....

Apr. 15 2009 10:40 AM
kai from NJ-NYC

Tell me Ms. Brady, when is a good time to offset the externalities, such as greenhouse gases, that business, for example, emit? Secondly, does she believe the the economy is embedded in the natural world, and if so, does it matter if humans begin to have diminishing returns due to the limits of natural resource access/distribution and the vagaries of climate change?

Apr. 15 2009 10:37 AM
Karen from Westchester

Nature is cruel and this is her way of reducing a world population growth that the planet can not withstand. Man is naturally selfish and will not curb population growth by an act of will. The destructive force of nature is in play.

Apr. 15 2009 10:35 AM
Darius from Prospect Heights

Big paper companies are doing just fine ( but we do need stronger small-industry paper companies.

On economic issues, Obama's definitely gets a C (Summers and Geithner get a Ds or Fs). Overall, I'd give Obama a B+ thus far.

Apr. 15 2009 10:35 AM
immature from NY

america does make stuff construction equipment .. airplanes ..bombs ..tanks ..and a lot of guns

do what you're good at. Leave cheap plastic, and textiles where they do it best. No need to change the economy to make things inefficiently. ie ethanol fuel(not actually green, well.. except that it takes massive subsidies to be economical)

Apr. 15 2009 10:34 AM
jeremy stone from new york

the concept of comparative advantage explains for callers like john why industries have moved away from the united states. it makes economic sense...and i would ask john, how exactly do yoy force a company to stay in the US...businesses are in the business of business. :)

let's let so-called "smoke-stack" industries move on, and develop the hi-tech manufacturing for which we still have a comparative advantage...but first, educated our workers so they'll be able to do the manufacturing!!!

Apr. 15 2009 10:34 AM
Susan from Kingston, New York

We need manufacturing at all levels. Get some experts to talk about this. How do you define green technology jobs? Lets an informed converstation instead of this drivel....

Apr. 15 2009 10:33 AM
Joe Corrao from Brooklyn

hemp is waaayyyy better than corn to get bio fuel...look it up...another example of government wasting tax money on good ole boy politics...its also cheaper for us to get bio fuel from brazil from sugar cane than what we do here cause corn is less effective but its a special interest group...

Apr. 15 2009 10:32 AM

Obama makes a pretty speech, raising the age old question of whether lip service is better than no service at all.

Apr. 15 2009 10:28 AM
Joe Corrao from Brooklyn

You made mention of the "fractal banking" quote he made.....thats the problem right there...its a failed system...can NEVER work in the long run its a ponzi scheme. The government can't stimulate the economy...they collect tax money and spend it..but not wisely, they take money that would go to successful stuff and bailout failed banks! shovel ready projects from the governemnt means 2 guys dig a hole and 2 guys fill it in...the money gets wasted..EVERY inovation comes from private entrapeneurs...cut big government, cut military budget, lower taxes and people have more money to is economic fascism ;) ;)

Apr. 15 2009 10:28 AM
Darren from Brooklyn

My grade for Obama: C (i.e. average)

As much as I was caught up in the historic election of Obama, on the policies he has proven that he fundamentally misapprehends the issue at hand. Spending or no spending, the issue here is that the economic crisis is not *a malfunction* of the economy, it is *the function* of the economy. Take a look at Schumpeter, take a look at Marx: crisis is vital to the reproduction of power and exploitation in capitalism. Until we address the system, the "problem" will continue to produce itself.

Apr. 15 2009 10:27 AM
Darius from Prospect Heights

Reform "defense" spending! Bob Gates' budget is an improvement but clearly not enough.

Apr. 15 2009 10:25 AM
Susan from Kingston, New York

How can we buy anything? Cities and town all across New York State are raising local real estate and school taxes. After a long winter we are still paying our heating bills. After that there is no money left to spend on anything! And you better believe that gas prices will go once the weather gets better.

Apr. 15 2009 10:24 AM
Darius from Prospect Heights

I would think that appliance sales would be down... since millions of people no longer have homes!

Apr. 15 2009 10:22 AM

Obama's economic advisors are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Summers, Geithner, Bernanke belong in jail (trials first), not determining U.S. economic policy.

The widely forecasted jobless recovery, modeled on the last two, can't happen. The last two jobless recoveries depended on consumers who still had jobs borrowing more. Not gonna happen this time.

Apr. 15 2009 10:22 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.