As for Romer, head of the Council of Economic advisors for Obama, and sidelined for her entire tenure, it’s ’bout time she quit. It’s one thing to trade your soul and reputation for power and access. It’s another thing to trade your soul for powerlessness.
Really nothing worth saying about the job numbers. They were to be expected. Obama decided to save his TARP slush fund for his own reelection. Too bad for Congressional Dems, but hey, they were complicit.
anon2525
…economy sheds 131,000 jobs…
Well, approximately. Until the revision. Here’s Hugh’s note about the downward revision for June. Tack on an additional 96,000 jobs lost:
-131,000 jobs lost in July (initial estimate)
-221,000 revised job losses in June, up from -125,000
-181,000 decline in the size of the workforce in July
Dean Baker’s report isn’t available yet. He usually provides a detailed description of the employment report.
pdgrey
If Paul Krugman is right, (he links to Ryan Lizza) first Emanuel thought it would be hard to sell it to congress, then Axelrod worried what the “world” would think, then Summers worried about “the risk of doing to little is greater than doing to much”, Ahh, the political consideration! What to do, what to do. Oh yea, don’t show anyone Romer’s numbers, that’s the answer, YEA! Problem solved.
anon2525
…Emanuel thought it would be hard to sell it to congress, then Axelrod worried what the “world” would think, then Summers worried about “the risk of doing to little is greater than doing to much”…
1. “…thought…worried…thought…” This is the incompetence, naiveté, and corruption of so-called “reporters” — someone says something to these “reporters,” and they record it as the actual motivation of the speaker, never questioning whether the speaker might have a motivation other than what they say is their reason.
2. In other words, they weren’t worried about the wellbeing of their families, their friends, or themselves. They were all taken care of. Then apply the Sinclair principle, and you get people who argue against a solution instead of fighting for it.
jeer9
I don’t know if anyone saw Howard Dean on Olbermann last night but the two of them were pathetically clueless about the current state of the Democratic party, too busy snorting and giggling over the idiocy of the Tea Party clowns and Bush’s deregulatory fiasco to realize their own side has done next to nothing to warrant support. Just a reminder to the Left and good government types everywhere that the Republicans are crazy and Versailles believes you’ll come back to the fold in November. Otherwise, things will get much worse. The slow slide toward fascism continues unabated. Maddow’s long list the other evening hyping Obama’s accomplishments made me think I’d entered an alternate universe. Only Stewart’s “I Give Up” segment seemed to capture the ineptitude of both parties. Sanity seems to reside on the outskirts of depression and indifference.
Lori
Sure, Obama has tons of accomplishments, it’s just not one of them is worthy of a Democrat. That’s the part they skip. And since ordinary people aren’t going to benefit, who cares?
jcapan
Jeer,
Bingo. I’ve come to loathe dem partisans. B/C unlike the average Palin-drone, they’re smart enough to know better. I don’t only mean those who directly benefit from the false-divide (D/R vs. haves/have nots). IMO, the partisans’ pathology is far more contemptible than the MSM. The latter practicioners, after all, are drawing soothing paychecks for their false narratives. I guess Yglesias or Digby gain some petting behind the scenes that I’m unaware of but…
Nevertheless, the partisans greatly outnumber us. I liken the rank & file’s loyalty to an article of faith. Regardless of their doubts, too many are unwilling to jettison a core component of their identity, and thus unmooring themselves to face chaos without the refuge of institutions. However broken the institution, it’s more comforting than the alternative, impotent despair/nihilism. Guess that’s why some who loathe the Catholic Church hierarchy can continue to go to service every week.
Chris Hedges recently put it:
“We have to stop believing that we can effect change through established political or social organizations or electoral politics, and I think that still remains a huge hurdle for us people who in the end, through accommodation of fear and very clever advertising, are herded like sheep into a dysfunctional system, which is how so many people who should have known better voted for Obama. The environmental crisis that we’re about to face will be even more catastrophic than the economic, and we have to, on a personal level, reconsider how we relate to the society at large and to the ecosystem. We have both personal and social decisions to make. At this point most people are not willing to make those choices or take those steps.”
Especially that latter pt. Most people simply aren’t yet ready, but per Greenwald’s post today they will be. Odds are, it’ll be too late by then, one or another negative utopias firmly in place. Emigres, have your bags packed/papers in order.
jeer9
jcapan,
I think you’re exactly correct that it’s too terrifying for many people to look at the darkness of our failed institutions without some hope (Obama’s deeply cynical rhetorical strategy) that one party can ameliorate the suffering somehow. And a certain amount of comfort can be derived from making fun of teh stoopid (I’m not immune from it) but after a while it gets old and tiresome and the ultimate point behind it seems to be to re-elect the corporate Dems, which by now most sentient beings should realize doesn’t nearly improve matters enough. I have numerous relatives who refuse to read about clerical pederasty because they don’t want their faith in the general proposition undermined. However, there’s no ignoring all the particular evidence of structural betrayal, and Greenwald certainly gives you a daily dose of it. So I’m left to vote in protest while watching Stewart and Colbert to ease the political pain. At least those two are indiscriminate in their satire. The temptation from an artistic viewpoint is just to distance yourself from the horror, bury your nose in a novel, and frame the whole sad spectacle as an aesthetically well-choreographed farce, except for the real world consequences (I have two kids in college whose futures concern me) and the fact that heartlessness doesn’t help anyone.
jcapan
Jeer,
As a former lit lecturer now teaching ESL, as a film geek on acid, and as an expat living in Asia, I still can’t quite escape the real world. And believe me, I’ve tried.
I’d say the artistic viewpoint is one of the most courageous, unblinking ones you can find. I think this is the reason I’ve veered towards more British lit in recent years, Conrad, Greene, Lessing … they’re far more politically embedded than the American authors I studied so intensely. However, the commentary’s slant here does make me think of Cormac McCarthy.
And I hear you about kids–I have a baby girl who’s made me realize there are merits to a degree of cognitive dissonace, if we’re to look at them without crying.
anon2525
The temptation from an artistic viewpoint is just to distance yourself from the horror, bury your nose in a novel, and frame the whole sad spectacle as an aesthetically well-choreographed farce…
If you have these temptations, then you are too rich/wealthy. You might still be a middle-class american (they’re not all gone yet).
https://www.ianwelsh.net/being-poor/
Only Stewart’s “I Give Up” segment seemed to capture the ineptitude of both parties.
I think that Stewart does not yet grasp the economic phenomena of the rent-seeking “industries.” He has praised and not criticized “Obama’s health care reform,” for instance. His criticism of the democrats is that they lack conviction (“they’re pussies!”), rather than that they are protecting the status quo because it benefits them:
https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-tea-party-and-the-ancien-regime/
anonymous
“His criticism of the democrats is that they lack conviction (”they’re pussies!”), rather than that they are protecting the status quo because it benefits them.”
Yeah, they are pussies, but I think they may believe in what they say. They really can’t imagine standing up for their principles because that would not be nice and they might be called extremists. Only an extremist would not take the corporate titans’ counsel. Only an extremist would harsh the upper class’s mellow by talking about raising taxes, that would risk stressing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I don’t think they even understand the dangers we face. They probably just think the grown ups are in charge (for now), Americans do everything better, and things will go on as blessedly as before. There was a little moment of shock back in Sept 2008, but they think they finessed that and are reconfirmed in their confidence that America just can’t go wrong. It’s their god given right and duty to continue as they have.
jcapan
Having not seen him for years, it’s sad to hear that’s Stewart’s slant–talking about dem entrails as opposed to their beliefs. But the spineless do exist (see Kucinich, HCR). IMO, this betrayal of conviction begins when you decide to run for office as a D or R in the first place. Whether you’re Kucinich or Ron Paul–once inside the party apparatus, your energy is naturally sublimated. Real iconoclasts aren’t satisfied with vanity projects.
Celsius 233
…and Elizabeth Warren would be in the same position against Summers. How can one administration waste so much genuine talent? Hopelessly/helplessly down the toilet are we.
anon2525
They really can’t imagine standing up for their principles because that would not be nice and they might be called extremists.
Which they can do because they are wealthy, at least in the sense that they have no concern that all of the trappings of upper-middle class life will ever be unavailable to them. This is a significant part of the reason why they did not reform how medical services are paid for — they have insurance, it pays for everything they and their family need, and they always expect to have it.
Yeah, they are pussies, but I think they may believe in what they say.
This is the point in the discussion where Upton Sinclair’s quote about human behavior needs to be brought up again: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it.”
Of course they “believe” what they say. So do the republicans when they say that cutting taxes on the wealthy is good for the gov’t. deficits and that the cuts pay for themselves. This is why the phrase “self-serving” came into the English language. (To quote the character George Costanza from “Seinfeld”: “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”) People are capable of “believing” many things that are not true so long as they are wealthy enough to escape the consequences of their beliefs.
anon2525
Elizabeth Warren would be in the same position against Summers.
I’m more in agreement with your view than the view of many concerned people who would like to see Warren nominated/confirmed for the CFPA position. Sure, go ahead and put her there. It’s always good to see qualified and well-intentioned people put into gov’t. positions where they are needed. But I will be surprised to see that it affects much. And it won’t make up for the ridiculous non-reform that makes up the multiple thousands of pages that was signed into law.
What has Steven Chu accomplished at the Energy Dept.? Obama, the democrats, and the republicans, and the majority on the supreme court are the problem, not lack of qualified people heading gov’t. bureaus.
jeer9
anon2525,
Yes, I have a pretty good life: a secure, union-protected job (not that I’m incompetent, mind you) that affords me a solid income; a home that’s paid off; good health coverage; a decent pension plan. Still, the frustration mounts when one sees the possible good options available for political action in our country that our Dem representatives simply choose not to select, whether through venality, ignorance, or perversity. (If you need particulars, then you really aren’t paying attention.) But again, heartlessness in the face of all this despair doesn’t help anyone unless you’re an investment banker, health insurance bigwig, or pharmaceutical executive. I disagree about Stewart. I think he “gets” it better than most commentators. While his interviews with reactionary nutjobs can sometimes be lame and weak, it’s often because he’s excessively civil in face-to-face confrontations (the Cramer situation was an exception.) He and Colbert deserve a bigger audience (though they’re probably too sophisticated for most Amurricans). I have colleagues in my department who still don’t understand TCR’s schtick.
Anonymous,
I’d just like Reid in the Senate for once to force the issue and demand the Republicans act on their filibuster strategy. But no, the comity of the Senate is a greater priority than 10% unemployment, better health care, or financial regulatory reform with teeth – not to mention that the theater of Republican foot-dragging would be to Dems’ political advantage. They’ve all got a three-day work week to worry about, and it’s not like their job involves solving problems.
jcapan,
Politicians should be asked whether they’ve read Heart of Darkness and 1984. In fact, please give us a critical response to their themes instead of more political bromides and demagogic promises. Not that the poverty of their answers would much discourage the sort of voters who supported Bush, but I think Dems might get a better idea which candidate has more substance. BHO is allegedly a Constitutional scholar, yet look how he’s shredding the damn thing. I read Mahfouz’s trilogy on Egyptian society this summer to better grasp the nuances and subtleties of Arabic and Islamic culture and can’t recommend it highly enough. Also, Vassily Grossman’s Forever Flowing (we’re not anywhere near the Soviet dystopia yet), Frank Norris’ McTeague (surprisingly good), and Schulberg’s What Makes Sammy Run? (which could easily be transposed into Wall Street’s or the pharmaceutical industry’s culture.) I’m gearing up for school at the moment and trying not to think about Race To The Top.
Cujo359
jeer9 : re: Olbermann and Dean, what ought to be really scary to Democrats is that Josh Marshall gets it. Writing about the stimulus bill in view of the unemployment numbers today, he wrote:
I’d say there are at least two other reasons they’re going to go down, but nevermind – if Mr. TPM gets it, I think the Dems are really in trouble.
That Olbermann doesn’t get this yet doesn’t surprise me overmuch, and Dean is still a Democratic politician – he has to be optimistic in public.
anon2525
I disagree about Stewart. I think he “gets” it better than most commentators. While his interviews with reactionary nutjobs can sometimes be lame and weak, it’s often because he’s excessively civil in face-to-face confrontations
It is not only the reactionary nutjobs. I would recommend watching Stewart’s interviews with people from the Obama team. Goolsbee, for example, has been on at least twice. He goes beyond civil to praising them. Same observation for his interview with (non-Obama team member) David Walker who was on to discuss his book about cutting social security and medicare, or as he called it, “fiscal responsibility.” If all I knew about Walker was what you can glean from the interview, I would have no idea what he was up to with his work with Peterson:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/david-walker
Despite that, I still think that Stewart’s observations are a net plus for the country. And we desperately need the criticisms and humor that TDS provides.
S Brennan
TPM [Toliet Paper Man] always “gets it” after the fact.
You have only to read his clever/sophisticated “sell” for the Invasion of Iraq to understand that Josh is never there when it matters…but afterward…he is shocked…shocked…SHOCKED to find out he has been duped once again…and now that it matters not…he writes on…about how nobody foresaw the dire results.
Josh lost my trust back in 2003, but hey, what are a million lives when your career is on the line?
jeer9
S Brennan,
You may be right about Marshall. I’ve been pretty disappointed in all the boring horserace coverage that he devotes his space to of late (rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic), although he did break new info on the US attorney firings scandal – not that it ended up coming to much. We’ll see how he deals with the machinations of the Catfood Commission sponsored by BHO in comparison to the way he got worked up over Bush’s scheme.
jcapan
“Politicians should be asked whether they’ve read Heart of Darkness and 1984”
Funny, I’ve always said I’d rather know what’s on their bookshelf than what/if any god they profess to worship. You choose two excellent texts for an interlocution. Though it’s almost cliched these days, 1984 conveys more distilled wisdom than any book I know. I would also like to hear their reaction to The Quiet American’s Alden Pyle.
Doris Lessing said: “I have to conclude that fiction is better at ‘the truth’ than a factual record. Why this should be so is a very large subject and one I don’t begin to understand.”
Anyway, thanks for the recommendations. On this theme, I’d also strongly recommend Ondaatje, Rushide and Coetzee.
Mandos
If we’re giving politicians a reading list, I’d like to put the collected works of Octavia Butler on it. Well, at least Parable of the Sower and Wild Seed and a few others.
anon2525
Dean Baker’s report isn’t available yet. He usually provides a detailed description of the employment report.
For those who are interested, Dean Baker’s report is now available. (He usually provides this on the day that the unemployment numbers are provided but there was some delay.) This provides details about which sectors were growing or shrinking:
Job Loss Sends Employment Ratio Downward
He, too, mentions the June revision (downward).
He ends with these observations:
CMike
Of the two Joseph Conrad works,
“An Outpost of Progress” (1896)
“Heart of Darkness” (1899),
I always thought the former, the seven or eight page short story, was the more essential read.
BDBlue
Al Schumann posits that Romer and Orzag were getting out to distance themselves from the upcoming Cat Food Commission debacle. Not a bad theory, IMO.
jeer9
Sounds about right.
Z
I can’t stand orszag … he’s a rubinite punk that the democratic establishment/rahm tried to build up to rock star status in order to give some credibility to the continuance of the democratic party’s pro-wall street policies. He’s also a political opportunist and though he may slime away from being associated with the catfood commission, he doesn’t deserve to since he was a proponent of it.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/06/21/nyt-peter-orszag-out-as-wh-budget-director/
orszag is a rubinite thru and thru … a proxy for that piece of garbage who is right up there with greenspan IMO in responsibility for where we are right now … and you’d have a tough time finding any difference between what orszag favors and rubin wants. Basically, he’s part of the jewish mafia … something that most liberals have little desire to even acknowledge yet confront … that has played a very large role in the looting of this country.
Z
Z
orszag also is being groomed for membership … probably as a director … on the council of foreign relations. He’s done a good job … for himself … in building up his credentials within the establishment, and I’m sure he’ll fit in quite well …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Orszag
Z
BDBlue
I didn’t mean to suggest Orzag – or Romer, for that matter – wasn’t awful. Orzag is awful and I’m glad he’s gone. Romer is better, but that’s no kind of standard. She was still wrong, for example, about exactly how bad things would get. She was simply more right than Summers, which is also no kind of standard.
And while I believe Orzag fully supports the coming gutting of Social Security, and so he might not be leaving to protect his reputation. But just because he supports gutting Soc. Sec., doesn’t mean he wants credit for it. And so he might be leaving to avoid taking responsibility for his own policy. Wouldn’t be the first time.