Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life

    Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life by Naomi Klein

    I vote to banish Larry Summers. Not from the planet. That wouldn't be nice. Just from public life.

    The criticisms of President Obama's chief economic adviser are well known. He's too close to Wall Street. And he's a frightful bully, of both people and countries. Still, we're told we shouldn't care about such minor infractions. Why? Because Summers is brilliant, and the world needs his big brain.

    And this brings us to a central and often overlooked cause of the global financial crisis: Brain Bubbles. This is the process wherein the intelligence of an inarguably intelligent person is inflated and valued beyond all reason, creating a dangerous accumulation of unhedged risk. Larry Summers is the biggest Brain Bubble we've got.

    Brain Bubbles start with an innocuous "whiz kid" moniker in undergrad, which later escalates to "wunderkind." Next comes the requisite foray as an economic adviser to a small crisis-wracked country, where the kid is declared a "savior." By 30, our Bubble Boy is tenured and officially a "genius." By 40, he's a "guru," by 50 an "oracle." After a few drinks: "messiah."

    The superhuman powers bestowed upon these men -- and yes, they are all men -- shield them from the scrutiny that might have prevented the current crisis. Alan Greenspan's Brain Bubble allowed him to put the economy at great risk: When he made no sense, people assumed that it was their own fault. Brain Bubbles also formed the key argument Greenspan and Summers used to explain why lawmakers couldn't regulate the derivatives market: The wizards on Wall Street were too brilliant, their models too complex, for mere mortals to understand.

    Back in 1991, Summers argued that the subject of economics was no longer up for debate: The answers had all been found by men like him. "The laws of economics are like the laws of engineering," he said. "One set of laws works everywhere." Summers subsequently laid out those laws as the three "-ations": privatization, stabilization and liberalization. Some "kinds of ideas," he explained a few years later in a PBS interview, have already become too "passé" for discussion. Like "the idea that a huge spending program is the way to stimulate the economy."

    And that's the problem with Larry. For all his appeals to absolute truths, he has been spectacularly wrong again and again. He was wrong about not regulating derivatives. Wrong when he helped kill Depression-era banking laws, turning banks into too-big-to-fail welfare monsters. And as he helps devise ever more complex tricks and spends ever more taxpayer dollars to keep the financial casino running, he remains wrong today.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

  • #2
    Re: Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life

    Yes. The best and brightest are serving in the new administration.



    he has been spectacularly wrong again and again



    Btw: The whole idea of knowledge of a subject leading to good predictions regarding that subject, has never worked out. See experts at the track. They can tell you the split times, and be right. They just can't pick the winner.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life

      Here's another bubble: Naomi Klein's reputation. I have listened to her talk on many occasions and I can't figure out what the appeal is. She imparts so little insight and gains such praise. The only explanation that I can come up with is that she offers a way for complacent westerners to tutt-tutt corporate behaviour without actually bringing the analysis home to roost in the behaviour of these same people. Hello? These corporations are our employers by and large. They are us!

      I swear that her appeal lies in the shallowness of her interpretation. The idea that the problem with Summers is somehow the cult of the "brainiac" is like looking over an armoury of weapons and picking a rubber band and a paper clip from an adjacent desk. [ I edited out an unfair criticism here: she gets the OTC derivatives problem on a second read.]

      I really think she's an artifact of the same attitude that has had us benefitting from (i.e., complicit in) a generation's-worth of asset-price-inflation without wondering how it made any sense. Her point of view is superficial and anodine enough that it doesn't actually rock anyone to their core - hence the sales.

      When there's Husdon and Keen out there (among others), why does she get any attention?

      Please tell me there's something more here. Why do you value her opinion?
      Last edited by oddlots; April 21, 2009, 11:09 PM. Reason: Unfair criticism

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life

        Originally posted by oddlots View Post
        Here's another bubble: Naomi Klein's reputation. I have listened to her talk on many occasions and I can't figure out what the appeal is. She imparts so little insight and gains such praise. The only explanation that I can come up with is that she offers a way for complacent westerners to tutt-tutt corporate behaviour without actually bringing the analysis home to roost in the behaviour of these same people. Hello? These corporations are our employers by and large. They are us!

        I swear that her appeal lies in the shallowness of her interpretation. The idea that the problem with Summers is somehow the cult of the "brainiac" is like looking over an armoury of weapons and picking a rubber band and a paper clip from an adjacent desk. [ I edited out an unfair criticism here: she gets the OTC derivatives problem on a second read.]

        I really think she's an artifact of the same attitude that has had us benefitting from (i.e., complicit in) a generation's-worth of asset-price-inflation without wondering how it made any sense. Her point of view is superficial and anodine enough that it doesn't actually rock anyone to their core - hence the sales.
        Klein's ideas are fairly straight forward and well documented in her "Shock Doctrine" book. It's too much based on an organized elite for me to take at face value, but it's basic idea is defensible. Summers suffers from being a complete jerk and lately orchestrating the 40-50% fall in Harvard's endowment. Two minor media characters in the moment we'll have to reflect on 10 years from now.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life

          Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
          It's too much based on an organized elite for me to take at face value, but it's basic idea is defensible.
          I DO TAKE IT FACE VALUE! (seriously)

          I just had a conversation with my well-connected (to the DNC) friend for SF, and the reasons he states for a lack of actionable and successful policy decisions have the same basis as the process she describes. Absolutely credible , from my information (and pretty damn chilling as to the implications)

          For what it;s worth.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life

            Can we also ban him from private life?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life

              Originally posted by Chomsky View Post
              Can we also ban him from private life?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life

                Originally posted by Rajiv View Post


                I was thinking more along the lines of:

                http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9541

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why We Should Banish Larry Summers from Public Life

                  Simon Johnson on Larry Summers
                  Summers made five points that reveal a great deal about his personal thinking - and the structure of thought that lies behind most of what the Administration is doing vis-a-vis the crisis. Some of this we knew or guessed at before, but it was still the clearest articulation I have seen.
                  1. All crises must end. The “self-equilibrating” nature of the economy will ultimately prevail, although that may take massive one-off government actions. Such a crisis happens only ”three or four times” per century, so taking on huge amounts of government debt is fine; implicitly, we will grow out of that debt burden.
                  2. We will get out of the crisis by encouraging exactly the kind of behaviors that “previously we wanted to discourage” two years ago. It is “this insight, this view” particularly with regard to leverage (overborrowing, to you and me) that “undergirds the policy program in the United States.”
                  3. There is a critical need to support financial intermediation and to ensure it is adequately capitalized, with a view to the risks inherent in the current situation. He then said, with a straight face, that the current bank stress tests are designed with this in mind.
                  4. Growth in the 1990s and more recently was based too much on finance (this appears to be a relatively new thought for Summers). The high and rising share of finance in corporate profits “should have been a warning”. The next expansion should be based less on asset bubbles and more on investment in key public services.
                  5. The financial regulatory system “in fundamental respects has been a failure”. There have been too many serious crises in the past 20 years (yes, this statement was somewhat at odds with the low frequency of major crises statement in point 1).
                  Better late than never?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X