Bernanke promoted Patrick Parkinson director of Banking supervision.

This same guy claimed derivatives weren't a problem, were not risky and the CFMA, back in 1999, which deregulated the markets and enabled these vehicles to be successful, all good.

I must say that this is the most clever piece of "liberal" propaganda that I have ever seen and it purports to support a general populist uprising it is actually planting the very seeds of oligarchism that it claims to protest with confused ideas about Shay’s rebellion. They ask a good question in “whether or not doing well is doing good” but fail to locate where the source of doing good would actually be located in society. They say that we need “democracy” and appeal action of the collective as being the “good” as though the mere rebellion by the working classes is sufficient to replace rule by and for the few. There have been many revolutions throughout history and many ruling classes toppled but rarely has it resulted in the empowerment and good interest of the working class.

In ignoring the issue the issue of where is the “good” or the commonwealth of society located demonstrates a “soft power” play by suggesting we must act to “save the planet” and the environmentalist concerns are primary issues belonging to the working class. Externalities are never the dynamic that drives the oligarchical system but rather the internal logic so by diverting us away from the profound issues of nature of the common good into reactionary response to externalities of the system we are thus co-opted programmatic populist into impotent reactionaries.

FDR’s Second Bill of rights is an example of the programmatic populism and I will quote him as to the justification of why this program is truly for the common and not located in the discontents or ambitions of any class but rather true humanism.

Quote from FDR: “We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”

It's sort of this super-fiscal view of the world when often, policy underneath isn't what it appears to be on the surface.

That's why I keep harping on understanding policy effects and details.

This was a film by request and it's extremely popular in "left" circles too but for me, I want more Frontline types of documentaries or economists' lectures, equations and so on. (I love Lowell Bergman, he digs around deep!)

Futures and derivatives are designed to promote production by shifting risk from those who don't want it to those who do. If I am a farmer and can produce a car of corn for $2k, and a contract for a car of corn is selling for $3k, then I can get a contract and begin production with the certainty that if things go as planned I will make $1k profit. There is still risk. If it costs me more than $3k to make that car of corn then I lose money. But I have some measure of control over that. If, however, someone dumps boatloads of nearly free foreign corn on the market between when I begin production and when I harvest (thus making my product worthless) I'm still in the clear because I have a contract. OTOH, if a drought kills everyone else's corn but mine and I could sell my car of corn for a bazillion dollars it's tough cookies for me. I have a contract. The owner of that contract has assumed the risk that future events will change the value of the product so that I can concentrate on actually creating that product. The same can be said of derivatives. If I own a contract, but am uncomfortable with the amount of risk I have assumed, then I can give that risk to someone else that is more comfortable with it.

This is about as far as my amateur grasp of futures and derivatives goes. If I've misunderstood something please correct me, but futures and derivatives make production far less risky for the manufacturer. The problem is when bets are accepted as "Risk Free" by a vast number of people. A positive feedback loop begins, a bubble inflates, more weight is put on the betting system, and when the bubble pops it takes everyone with it. Commercial Real Estate would be the most recent and obvious example. Ideally, strong regulation prevents such a problem from getting quite so out of hand. A good start would be keeping anyone (including banks and insurance companies) from gambling with money they do not actually have, and not allowing them to use existing bets as "assets" for the satisfaction of that requirement.

what I am interested in is the ave. 401k value from a period of 1990-2009. What I suspect is a lot of people lost their retirement. Firstly the entire thing of moving from traditional pensions to this as a "retirement plan" is B.S., yet another financial services agenda....

but I suspect the last generation with sufficient funds for retirement....is currently retired.

So, I'm looking for concrete data. One needs to find concrete data to express thy outrage. Just being pissed is perfectly ok on EP, no doubt about it, but we need to look at the details, data, prove to document the royal middle class screw job.

If you dig such a thing out, you could write it up as a blog post as well.

;) In watching Krugman over time what I would say is he will mention economic realities but almost as a side comment. I was quite surprised to see this on his blog.

I think he knows full well trade policies have hurt the U.S. economy, as implemented and I suspect he knows he really screwed up in discounting the negative consequences for localities and disruptions while coming into equilibrium on trade.

But his math is good and when one reads the details of his work, these effects are in there..

it's not like he's written some fiction anywhere.

I don't think he's been a huge proponent of offshore outsourcing, it's Mankiw who is in denial on the real statistics and overall results.

So, while I can see your anger and this sort of politically correct tap dance around a host of these issues which were often promoted in the 1990's...
is very irritating...

I would not blast him now for writing something that is pointing out China esp. is a real threat to the U.S. economy and worker due to biased trade practices.

God, I hate Krugman!

And why? Because he has long been a strong supporter of corporatization (formerly known as globalization) and for the offshoring of as many American jobs as possible. He has done this both through various economic jobs and positions and his membership with the Group of Thirty (group30.org).

Lately, Krugman has been posturing as a "progressive economist" -- which means he has suddenly discovered that maybe...just maybe...offshoring all these American jobs might just be adding to the dismantling of the American tax base!

What a concept, Krugface!

Now why would I, or anyone else, never take Krugman seriously as an economist?

So if corporate america offshores all the jobs, and refuses to pay taxes.....hmmm...whatever became of the American tax base?

The yield on the 10 year shows a steepening curve, which some (AKA Kudlow) say is very bullish for the economy. How is the housing sector (and the American consumer) going to keep up during such a rise in rates? How is Fannie going to keep lending 125% mortgages when the rate keeps climbing?
OR -- could it be that the Chinese gentleman was right when he said there was a shortage of dollars to buy Treasuries?
Oh Ben, is your hand on the tiller, or are we lost again? Tim, Larry, where do we go from here?
Frank T.

I don't know the percentage or people who lost their 401ks and retirement during this decade but it has to be large.

Many were wiped out during the dot con crash and then this last one wiped out many.

Then, people had to use their retirement to survive because of other financial hardships.