Lying or Not Getting the Straight Skinny?

Yves Smith is really very upset with President Obama:

I’m so offended by the latest Obama canard, that the financial crisis of 2007-2008 cost less than 1% of GDP, that I barely know where to begin. Not only does this Administration lie on a routine basis, it doesn’t even bother to tell credible lies. .And this one came directly from the top, not via minions. It’s not that this misrepresentation is earth-shaking, but that it epitomizes why the Obama Administration is well on its way to being an abject failure.

Her explanation for this is that the president believes that public relations can solve every problem.

I don’t think that’s right. I think he doesn’t know any better. I think he’s not particularly well-informed or curious about areas far afield from his core interests, relies on informants, his informants are afraid or otherwise not motivated to tell him the truth, and he is ill-served by his subordinates.

13 comments… add one
  • Still…it could indeed lead one to being an abject failure. Not having the right information is a bad thing. Not sure what is worse having the wrong information or not having the information at all. I’m inclined to think the first is worse. If one is ignorant one knows it and can solve that deficiency. Having the wrong information and having minions that are afraid to correct you would allow you to press full steam ahead with the wrong policy.

    The claim that Obama’s first term will be Bush’s third term is looking to be more and more true as time goes by.

    Change you can believe in.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I can see why Yves might make this conclusion; I saw some of the program and I belive Obama was to some extent blaming the messaging. John Stewart: “What have you done that we don’t know about? . . . Are you planning a surprise party for us, filled with jobs and health care?”

    But I agree, it’s just about always better to presume inadvertence over fraud.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I also think to call someone a liar you need to make a far shorter case than Yves does. I believe there are some reports that FDIC/RTC made money off of the S&L crisis. At some point it’s just a matter of opinion as to how you account for indirect costs.

  • john personna Link

    Well, my guess-of-the-moment would be that young Barak was sucked from less affluent paradises into eastern elitism. It isn’t really liberal elitism. People who guess that are only half right. It’s the kind of eastern fraternity thinking that leads you to believe the NY Fed, or Goldman Sachs, really does have the best answer.

    Obama has become conventional. He listens to conventional thinking from established players.

    Maybe that wouldn’t be so bad in the best of times, or when established players were putting out a better game.

  • Drew Link

    “I think he doesn’t know any better. I think he’s not particularly well-informed or curious about areas far afield from his core interests, relies on informants, his informants are afraid or otherwise not motivated to tell him the truth, and he is ill-served by his subordinates.”

    I think this is the most plausible explanantion. The man hasn’t run a damned thing in his life, and has no organizational sense.

  • john personna Link

    Drew, Obama did exactly what the NY Fed asked him to. Heck, he did what GWB’s Fed Chairman asked him to.

    In another age you would have loved that. The Dem deferred to conventional business interests. It’s just that in this case you don’t agree with what the business elites are saying:

    WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Thursday that the fragile economy still needs government stimulus spending to strengthen the recovery and help reduce unemployment.

    Your partisan filter is ridiculous on this. The neophyte Obama didn’t punt, or make this up on his own. He went with convention.

    I am not actually a Larry Summers fan. I think we could have done without him. But he also doesn’t fit your narrative. He wasn’t some rube in from nowheresville, with no understanding of Wall Street.

    His problem was that he was too much Wall Street.

    Maybe my challenge to you would be to name a policy that Obama could have dreamed up on his own that would have worked in the economic and political senses.

    Let banks and auto companies BK? What fantasy. GWB couldn’t do that either.

  • John,

    I think you err in being such a presumptuous twat. Sepcifically,

    GWB couldn’t do that either.

    I think it is quite possible that Drew would not like such a thing under Bush either.

    Perhaps you need to check your own partisan biases instead of running around castigating everyone else.

  • john personna Link

    Ah go low when faced with facts, eh Steve?

    Not to mention use language that adult males never use face to face.

  • Drew Link

    JP –

    You gotta teach me that mind reading thing sometime. Steve V is correct, just because GW Bush might have done it doesn’t mean I would have agreed. Pretty light, JP.

  • What facts John? You are assuming you know what Drew is thinking. That if Bush did it is something Drew would approve of. That because Bush didn’t do it, Drew should give Obama a pass. You are pretending to know what others are thinking…those aren’t facts it is arrogant presumption.

    Like I said, instead of running around whining about the biases of others, look to your own instead. Your holier than thou attitude is tiresome and grating.

  • sam Link

    @Verdon

    “The claim that Obama’s first term will be Bush’s third term is looking to be more and more true as time goes by.”

    Well, except for this:

    Profits have surged 62 percent from the start of 2009 to mid-2010, according to the Commerce Department. That is faster than any other year and a half in the Fabulous ’50s, the Go-Go ’60s or the booms under Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

    Under another president, especially a Republican president, the data on corporate profits would be envied. George W. Bush, who dedicated a good deal of his presidency to tax cuts aimed at boosting business profits, probably would have loved such results. It took Bush nearly four years to post the gains that Obama has managed in less than half the time. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44268.html#ixzz13efXrYag

  • john personna Link

    I decided Steve must be having a bad day in general, outside these forums, so gave him a day off.

    But actually neither Steve nor Drew answered my real question, which was about the continuity between the GWB and Obama administrations, and the reasons for it. They seem to have gotten very similar recommendations from their advisers (in some cases the same advisers) and taken them. This is why I make my question about some other plan “would have worked in the economic and political senses.”

    I didn’t doubt that Drew didn’t like GWB’s solution.

    I don’t think GWB liked GWB’s solution either, which is kind of the point.

  • sam,

    Well, except for this:

    Profits have surged 62 percent from the start of 2009 to mid-2010, according to the Commerce Department.

    Aside from the fact that this is perceived as a bad thing by many, that is one difference, but overall Obama’s policies have largely been a continuation of Bush’s policies.

    John,

    I decided Steve must be having a bad day in general, outside these forums, so gave him a day off.

    Actually it is your annoying arrogance and sanctimony such as your mind reading with regards to Drew than ascribing to him a position of partisanship that was at best inaccurate.

    But actually neither Steve nor Drew answered my real question, which was about the continuity between the GWB and Obama administrations, and the reasons for it.

    What question, I’ve gone back and re-read the thread and see no question from you aside from this rhetorical one,

    Let banks and auto companies BK? What fantasy.

    Of course, you then go partisan on us with this comment that immediately follows,

    GWB couldn’t do that either.

    Tell us again how you are a bipartisan moderate. Now you come of with this false sense of bipartisan holiness.

    You did make this statement,

    Maybe my challenge to you would be to name a policy that Obama could have dreamed up on his own that would have worked in the economic and political senses.

    It isn’t a matter of naming policy. My view is that during a crisis politicians seek to exploit the crisis to push through objectives they otherwise would not get through. Ostensibly in the name of addressing the crisis, but in the end it often works to extend or deepen the crisis. In other words, Obama and Co. decided to exploit the crisis to push through legislation they otherwise would not have been able to get through and the impact has been, if anything, one of extending the crisis. For example, health care reform has not made businesses less uncertain of the future it has increased it which is probably a factor in the sluggish economic growth.

Leave a Comment