Larry Summer it is

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
6,012
Daps
132,750
There's report now that Summers as Fed chair is basically a done deal. Janet Yellen isn't even being vetted, despite most of Congress and reputable economists like Joseph Stiglitz, who taught her in college, everywhere vouching for her.

I really don't get Obama still. There are investigative reports and books that shed light on his off-the-record private statements. In Confidence Men, it was reported that his slogan for handling the banking situation when he kept repeating when he first got into office was "Sweden, not Japan." But he ended up just pumping more taxpayer money into zombie banks like Summer and Geithner wanted. Geithner snaked him and moved without his knowledge and authority and he still kissed his ass publicly and privately. He wanted a much larger stimulus but it was scaled back to get the votes of Snowe, Collins, and I think one more Republican Senator. Obama called for more stimulus later, which he's been unsuccessful at getting. Larry Summers wanted it to be even SMALLER than that...like $600 something billion.

Obama is fully well aware of how Summers and Rubin refused to regulate derivatives trading and shadow banking pools which led to the financial collapse, and his role in getting rid of Glass-Steagall.

What is up with Obama's man-crush on this guy who has been wrong about everything, so much so that's he's going to bat for him despite him being disliked by Democrats and Republicans? Why is he getting to be the next Fed chair, and the person who most people thought was Bernanke's qualified clear successor a few weeks ago is apparently now not even being considered?
 

zerozero

Superstar
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
6,866
Reputation
1,260
Daps
13,497
Personally abrasive guy but an intelligent man by all accounts :yeshrug:

I never bought the whole "let's go after summers & geithner" thing on the left even in 2009/2010. That said I don't know enough about the internal workings of the bailout situation to really make a judgement
 

MVike28

right around the ACC
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
24,662
Reputation
4,604
Daps
102,064
Reppin
T.O.
Did you guys read that memo that vice got a hold of? shyt is disturbing.

DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP
'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate[sic] cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate[sic] cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.
The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.
 

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,319
Reputation
3,285
Daps
30,746
I just don't fukking get it. WHY?! :mindblown:

This is like getting your daughter's rapist to marry your daughter on some old testament shyt. This guy doesn't even deserve to have his current job right now. Let's not even get into his personal character, his track record is simply trash. :pacspit: :wtf:
 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Superstar
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
6,303
Reputation
101
Daps
15,240
DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP
'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate[sic] cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate[sic] cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.
The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.

:comeon:Read the first two paragraphs...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo
 

the next guy

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
39,539
Reputation
1,554
Daps
37,722
Reppin
NULL
Top