In his monthly column, Princeton economist Alan Blinder gave President Obama an "A-" for his financial rescue plan, commending him for "wisely resisted the siren songs coming from both the left (“nationalize the banks”)."
Of course, Professor Blinder does not have a clue about what would have happened if we tried some path of nationalization. (This guy couldn't even see an $8 trillion housing bubble.) We do know what has happened in the absence of nationalization. The banks share of corporate profits now exceeds even the peaks reached in the bubble years. The executives at banks like Goldman Sachs stand to earn higher bonuses than ever before. Nothing has been done to prevent a comparable collapse in the future and there is every reason to believe that the financial sector will siphon off an even larger share of GDP in the future than it did in the past.
If this merits an "A-," then Professor Blinder is a very easy grader.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
