William Greider: Obama's New Monopoly Game Set

[Better Believe It]

Obama's New Monopoly Set
By William Greider
The Nation
March 24, 2009

President Obama has invented a new board game for Wall Street money guys to play that promises to be a lot of fun. It's very much like the regular Monopoly game that kids play--only better--because this one uses real money, provided courtesy of the taxpayers. The best thing about Obama's game is nobody loses. Usually, the winner in Monopoly is the one who winds up with the most money. In the Obama version, the losers get any losses back from the government at the end of the game. The president has promised.

The guy is a genius. He located these two whiz kids--Tim and Larry--who are smarter than God about financial matters. President Obama commanded the advisors to solve the financial mess, raise the zombie banks from the dead and start the good times rolling again. This game is what they came up with. It's a very complicated game and not everyone can understand it. But the Wall Street titans smell hope. For this Monopoly set has no "Go to Jail" card in the deck.

It starts just like the real Monopoly game. The president hands out tall stacks of cash to all the players--hedge funds, insurance companies, big-time investors, any well-heeled capitalist with a serious taste for acquiring greater wealth. The players then roll the dice and move their little titan icons around the Monopoly board. They can buy up properties wherever they land, sort of like landing on Boardwalk and Park Place. Only in this case the properties are the nearly worthless financial assets held by the country's leading banks, like the mortgage-backed securities now known as "toxic assets."

Only adults are allowed to play this game. It is much too complicated for ordinary citizens so sophisticated financiers are needed to do such tricky deals. But Americans at large can have fun watching the action and rooting for various participants. The contest will be a welcome distraction from other anxieties. Who is going to accumulate the tallest stack? It's like Monopoly Olympics for the grand masters of the universe. Will Warren Buffett take a seat at the table? Bill Gross, the PIMCO bond king, is salivating at the prospect of double-digit returns and says Obama's game is "win-win-win." Can billionaire George Soros resist such an opportunity? Will legendary traders at Goldman Sachs square off against James A. Baker III's Carlyle Group with its oil-rich Arab backers? What a kick that these famous people will be playing with our money.

Pleaase read the complete article at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090406/greider?rel=hp_picks

[MarjorieG]

1. Obama is supposed to fix everything else, including redoing Wall St, given pushback for anything,

and their total power. Gimme a break, and I like Greider. Re-regulating, with power to take apart AIU, a good start.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Try waiting about 24 fucking hours after a press conference

where the President kicked some ass before resuming your negative copy and paste posting activities!


Doctors' orders! :crazy:

[babylonsister]

3. The Nation, being negative before it was cool? nt

[Armstead]

8. The Nation -- Being HONEST before it was cool

[QC]

9. The Nation is an enemy of the people. n/t

[chill_wind]

10. "The Nation" is now another entire publication on the shit list, too??

:wtf:

[babylonsister]

11. Nah, who said that?

I don't agree with everything I read from any publication. Do you?

[chill_wind]

12. Then you just meant this Greider piece, then?

No, I don't agree with everything from any single publication I read, either.

[truedelphi]

4. This should be posted in the economy forum. If you post it here

You have to be very very very thick skinned because of the following realities:

Obama the God that we must all worship, has only been in office some sixty days so you cannot blame him, even when it is his Presidency. At some point in the future, his closest worshippers will let the rest of us on DU know when we can complain about any item before Congress, and they may let us complain even if it is about an ultimate robbery, a robbery that takes the last remaining dollars on Main Street and sends them to Wall Street. But until then, we must simply keep thinking good thoughts.

You have done this before. Think back to when you saw high school dramas. If you have ever attended any high school presentation of Peter Pan, then You know the scene I mean. Where the audience is supposed to clap for Tinkerbelle so she can continue to live.

So clap for Obama or the light surrounding him will get very very dim. And then when it turns out that having Bernanke, Geithner, Summers and Gensler running things was a bad idea, the Obama worshippers here on DU will point out how we the nonbelievers and blasphemers are responsible for the failure of the various BailOuts and Toxic Asset programs. It will not be Obama's fault even then. Just our fault for not believing and throwing more pixie dust into the air. WHEE! Clap! WHEE!

[blindpig]

5. Thick-skinned, indeed.

:thumbsup:

[JTFrog]

6. You should post that over at Free Republic, you'd have top recs. n/t

[truedelphi]

15. Oh please, if you have been on DU long enough, you'd know that

I was among the first voices protesting the election machinery that cost Kerry his Presidency.

I have had freepers after me since the late 1990's.

Shame on YOU!

[JTFrog]

19. No, Shame on You for your little RW rant. You should obviously know better. n/t

[truedelphi]

20. If you are going to complain about my rant

You need to complain abt Matt Taibi's eight page rant at Rolling Stone as well.

And about Amy Goodman interviewing him, and about the fifty or so DU'ers that understand that keeping the criminal overlords in place is not a sensible policy on Obama's part, and in the end it will not help our economy but keep this recession/Depression dragging on, like Japan's drag of an economy has been for more than a decade, (if we are lucky), or like the Weimar Republic if we are not.

Taibbi/Goodman here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5329695

[JTFrog]

21. Why? Your rant was aimed at Obama supporters on DU and you used RW spewing points to do it.

Taibi didn't write your little drop trow moment.

[truedelphi]

22. You reminded me of something rather important

I do it rarely but am doing it now

the IGNORE button.

[JTFrog]

25. Yea, hard to face up to being what you are isn't it? n/t

[dionysus]

28. i'll do it for him!matt taibi is a sensationalist douche wishing he was a real reporter like his dad

[dionysus]

26. DK would be ashamed of that pathetic little rant. what a joke.

:rofl:

[flpoljunkie]

7. Does Greider point out Congress very unlikely to provide more bailout money, due to AIG bonuses.

Nationalization will require even more of taxpayers money, but with the possibility of more taxpayer upside from our investment.

From Krugman's blog, a link to Room for Debate...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/room-for-debate/

A Fix, But Maybe Not Permanent

Brad DeLong responds to Paul Krugman:

Paul Krugman asks: Has the housing bust spooked investors, leading to ridiculously low prices for assets which makes banks look even weaker, which forces them to pull back even more, which leads to even more ridiculously low prices for assets. Or did the banks mess up by betting heavily on unrealistic beliefs about housing and consumer finance?

The answer is: “Yes.”

Both things are going on. And I suspect that in the end we will be driven down the road to some form of bank nationalization — and if that is where we are going Paul Krugman is correct to say that it is better to get there sooner rather than later. But unless Paul Krugman has 60 Senate votes in his back pocket, we cannot get there now. And the Geithner Plan seems to me to be legitimate and useful way to spend $100 billion of TARP money to improve — albeit not fix — the situation.

It has the added benefit, I think, of laying the groundwork to convincing doubters of nationalization: “We tried alternatives like the Geithner Plan and they did not work” might well be an effective argument several months down the road.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/will-the-geithner-plan-work/

[scheming daemons]

13. William Greider FAILS again

What else is new?

The Nation is becoming less and less a publication that I care about.


They were awesome on the Iraq War.... but they failed Economics 101.

[brentspeak]

16. So enlighten us

According to Economics 101, how is Greider wrong? Also, when did Greider "fail" earlier?

[Zynx]

18. There is barely an ounce of economics in there.

If you are going to invoke Econ 101, or any Economics course, please do it well.

[On the Road]

30. That is Very Disappointing for Greider

I learned a lot from Secrets of the Temple. And pperversely, a lot of what Greider recommeded in that book (looser monetary policy) is what got us into trouble.

Detractors of Obama's plans seem to always create elaborate metaphors, and repeat general principles. It is striking how few people to be able to talk like a professional when it comes to proposing what else we should do.

[truedelphi]

29. The only people who failed Econ 101 are those who

Think that giving away the BailOut money to those at the top is going to affect our economic recovery in a postive manner. Instead, it will definitely be inflationary, and inflation is the worst tax that the middle class has to endure.

[high density]

14. Yeah let's do nothing instead and let our economy wither for a few decades

At least then the rich can't get richer. Well you and I can't buy a house or a car if we wanted to, but hey, at least the rich got theirs, right?

Bill Gross, et al are taking their own risks. Yes, there is money to be made, but if money is being made we (the US tax payer) will share in the profits.

[brentspeak]

17. Sounds logical to me. Since there are other alternatives available, let's just pick this one

and label not doing it as "doing nothing".

:eyes:

[rug]

23. I want the hat.

[Holly_Hobby]

24. LMAO! n/t

[dionysus]

27. ah, your daily thread of fail! sweet!!!

[genna]

31. I definitely understand that sentiment.

This America has been skewed toward those with money. Giving more money to those with money is indefensible.

Letting America sink because our current stability is tied to those same interest is just as indefensible.

I'm glad he was elected to contain this mess. Far be it from me to imagine McCain at the helm. That would be most indefensible.

At least when I think Obama is making the wrong move, I believe he is mentally capable of remedy the mistake he's making.