Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forum
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
Elizabeth Warren and the Wrath of the Wall Street Snowflakes
By Paul Krugman Given all the recent focus on health policy, you might think that the medical-industrial complex would be heavily involved in the Democratic primary race, going all out to block Elizabeth Warren. And a coalition of drug companies, insurers and hospitals is indeed running ads attacking Medicare for All. But the health industrys political role has been relatively muted so far. Partly this may reflect realism: Even if Warren becomes president, the chances of getting Medicare for All through Congress are small. It may also reflect the surprising openness of doctors to reform. While the American Medical Association still officially opposes single-payer, at a recent meeting, 47% of the delegates voted to drop that opposition.
No, the really intense backlash against Warren and progressive Democrats in general is coming from Wall Street. And while that opposition partly reflects self-interest, Wall Streets Warren hatred has a level of virulence, sometimes crossing into hysteria, that goes beyond normal political calculation.
... The real tell here, I think, is that much of the Wall Street vitriol now being directed at Warren was previously directed at, of all people, President Barack Obama. Objectively, Obama treated Wall Street with kid gloves. In the aftermath of a devastating financial crisis, his administration bailed out collapsing institutions on favorable terms. He and Democrats in Congress did impose some new regulations, but they were very mild compared with the regulations put in place after the banking crisis of the 1930s.
He did, however, refer on a few occasions to fat cat bankers and suggested that financial-industry excesses were responsible for the 2008 crisis because, well, they were. And the result, quite early in his administration, was that Wall Street became consumed with Obama rage, and the financial industry went all in for Mitt Romney in 2012.
...In any case, the point is that Wall Street billionaires, even more than billionaires in general, seem to be snowflakes, emotionally unable to handle criticism. Im not sure why that should be the case, but it may be that in their hearts they suspect that the critics have a point.
What, after all, does modern finance actually do for the economy? Unlike the robber barons of yore, todays Wall Street tycoons dont build anything tangible. They dont even direct money to the people who actually are building the industries of the future. The vast expansion of credit in America after around 1980 basically involved a surge in consumer debt rather than new money for business investment.
Moreover, there is growing evidence that when the financial sector gets too big it actually acts as a drag on the economy and America is well past that point.
Now, human nature being what it is, people who secretly wonder whether they really deserve their wealth get especially angry when others express these doubts publicly. So its not surprising that people who couldnt handle Obamas mild, polite criticism are completely losing it over Warren.
What this means is that you should beware of Wall Street claims that progressive policies would have dire effects. Such claims dont reflect deep economic wisdom; to a large extent theyre coming from people with vast wealth but fragile egos, whose rants should be discounted appropriately.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/11/05/paul-krugman-elizabeth/
No, the really intense backlash against Warren and progressive Democrats in general is coming from Wall Street. And while that opposition partly reflects self-interest, Wall Streets Warren hatred has a level of virulence, sometimes crossing into hysteria, that goes beyond normal political calculation.
... The real tell here, I think, is that much of the Wall Street vitriol now being directed at Warren was previously directed at, of all people, President Barack Obama. Objectively, Obama treated Wall Street with kid gloves. In the aftermath of a devastating financial crisis, his administration bailed out collapsing institutions on favorable terms. He and Democrats in Congress did impose some new regulations, but they were very mild compared with the regulations put in place after the banking crisis of the 1930s.
He did, however, refer on a few occasions to fat cat bankers and suggested that financial-industry excesses were responsible for the 2008 crisis because, well, they were. And the result, quite early in his administration, was that Wall Street became consumed with Obama rage, and the financial industry went all in for Mitt Romney in 2012.
...In any case, the point is that Wall Street billionaires, even more than billionaires in general, seem to be snowflakes, emotionally unable to handle criticism. Im not sure why that should be the case, but it may be that in their hearts they suspect that the critics have a point.
What, after all, does modern finance actually do for the economy? Unlike the robber barons of yore, todays Wall Street tycoons dont build anything tangible. They dont even direct money to the people who actually are building the industries of the future. The vast expansion of credit in America after around 1980 basically involved a surge in consumer debt rather than new money for business investment.
Moreover, there is growing evidence that when the financial sector gets too big it actually acts as a drag on the economy and America is well past that point.
Now, human nature being what it is, people who secretly wonder whether they really deserve their wealth get especially angry when others express these doubts publicly. So its not surprising that people who couldnt handle Obamas mild, polite criticism are completely losing it over Warren.
What this means is that you should beware of Wall Street claims that progressive policies would have dire effects. Such claims dont reflect deep economic wisdom; to a large extent theyre coming from people with vast wealth but fragile egos, whose rants should be discounted appropriately.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/11/05/paul-krugman-elizabeth/
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 506 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (18)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elizabeth Warren and the Wrath of the Wall Street Snowflakes (Original Post)
BeyondGeography
Nov 2019
OP
FUCK Wall Street!! Elizabeth has it EXACTLY right...love that she's callin these elitest pricks out!
InAbLuEsTaTe
Nov 2019
#1
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)1. FUCK Wall Street!! Elizabeth has it EXACTLY right...love that she's callin these elitest pricks out!
Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided