So Larry Summers is out. And it didn’t take but a few minutes before a host of center-left commentators warned “the left” to be careful what they wish for. It’s a bit jarring that they think they must not even wait for the ink to dry on the resignation letter before leaping to Summers’ defense. Keep in mind that this is a man who, whenever given access to any levers of power, managed to unleash a wave of deregulation on Wall Street that led to the financial meltdown, destroy the credibility of Harvard University, and short-arm stimulus to cause a stagnant economic malaise. You can put aside his advocacy against fundamental reform on Wall Street even after the crisis and against net neutrality, of all things. Just know that the defense in this case is for a man who has turned to crap virtually every institution he’s come in contact with over his career.
I’m just going to focus on a couple parts of this defense.
2. Summers has been an increasingly progressive influence on the most important economic issue of the day: Jobs. In late 2008 and early 2009, while the administration was drawing up plans for a stimulus, Summers wanted a large program. Exactly how large is a bit unclear; I’ve heard, and read, different accounts. And Summers seemed content with the final package, even though we now know it was too small to do the job: Although it succeeded in avoiding catastrophe, it failed to produce a vibrant recovery.
OK, Ryan Lizza wrote pretty clearly that Summers blocked Christina Romer from presenting a $1.2 trillion dollar stimulus proposal to the President, in favor of smaller versions, because “a package that was too large could potentially shift fears from the current crisis to the long-term budget deficit, which would have an unwelcome effect on the bond market.” This is a bond market which is selling 10-year Treasury bonds at 2.52%, practically begging for more stimulus. At the time, Summers called stimulus a mere “insurance package against catastrophic failure.” Unemployment is now at 9.6%.
Summers may have had a come-to-Jesus moment later, which is what Cohn argues here. But as Paul Krugman argued at the time, the decision on stimulus, given the hysterical right and how they would clearly react, was the original sin of the Administration, and the White House would only get one opportunity to go big. This has come to pass. Furthermore, he structured the policy meetings which Cohn admits offer a narrow, neoliberal perspective on economic matters, and filtered to the President the information he wanted in front of him.
I’m apparently supposed to be scared because Summers’ replacement may not be as “progressive” as he is. Indeed, the Administration is floating that they want a current or former CEO to replace him at NEC. This fundamentally misunderstands how Summers managed the position, differently than anyone who came before, or I’d argue, since. NEC is more of an appendage than anything. Obama floated Summers for Treasury Secretary and got massive pushback from the progressive grassroots and members of Congress. So he stuck him at NEC, which doesn’t require confirmation. He had the influence before coming to the job, and he greatly expanded its role. Whoever replaces him will simply not be as influential, at least not at the outset. I agree that Tim Geithner and Austan Goolsbee will effectively replace Summers. And given their similar position inside the neoliberal consensus, I’m not sure why I should be scared about some terrible, horrible female CEO who’ll come in and ruin everything.
As for the counterfactual that Summers would have been a better Federal Reserve chair than Ben Bernanke, because he would have already engaged in monetary stimulus, I don’t quite know why people take that as gospel, and also Summers would have had to convince the entire FOMC, virtually none of whom at this point agree on the issue of quantitative easing, and have to be eased into it themselves. I certainly hold no brief for conservative Republican Bernanke, but am not sure Summers would have done anything fundamentally different there.
Summers, to put it mildly, didn’t provide solutions that worked. Not in this position or virtually any other. It’s not really any of my concern whether he goes.




6 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Maybe Larry and the rest of the rats leaving the ship plan to spend quality time with one of the best reasons for tiered Internet access, Spread Networks? If you are still connected to The Casino and you are not an inside trader, well, Max Keiser has news for you suckers.
I can only guess that anyone Obama names to replace Summers will, indeed, make us yearn for the heady days of simple Wall Street advocacy.
” . . .I’m not sure why I should be scared about some terrible, horrible female CEO who’ll come in and ruin everything.”
‘Us wimmin’ are very scary to members of the old boys’club (regardless of the age of the old boys). Who knows, maybe the old boys will label us “terrists” before too long.
Of course, some of us do have a concept of the “terrible, horrible female CEO” and two of them are currently running for public office in CA. Sigh.
Money quote. Buh-bye, Larry. Hope the door slams on your butt on the way out.
Wealthy entitled hack Summers had to flee back to the ‘Vard to maintain his academic welfare tenured position. What’s good enough for Summers is definitely not for the likes of mere serfs, who can stfu even without any jobs.
So I should desparately fear that Obummer will hire Meg Whitman to replace Summers??? Well, that wouldn’t be unexpected; cannot stand entitled Goldman Sacks insider trader criminal Whitman; but really: MEH. What’s the difference??????
Unlike T-party boobs, most liberals are not easily manipulated by dumb fear tactics, which is something that current crop of Obamaco Republicans (no matter what party affiliation they “claim,” they’re all rightwing) doesn’t quite get.
The Summer’s pro-business replacement trial balloons are smoke. To appoint anyone perceived as not being on the side of the average joe (unemployed or not) is political suicide. Rahm’s departure might not be totally voluntary–perhaps some form of agree to disagree. There may be a major shake-up afoot.
The glowing rhetoric concerning Summers is the kind of thing you hear when what you really mean is: ‘See you later’. Harvard is Summer’s safety net and it’s a good thing he’s not the kind of person who cares about a warm reception.
The timing (right before the midterms) is important. The announcement of the replacement will be quick if the appointment is someone who can be appreciated by the middle class. The longer it goes unfilled, the higher the chance that it will ultimately be someone who is pro-business.
It may not make any difference if the administration goes from tone-deaf to stone-deaf. Obama’s re-election chances are inversely proportional to the unemployment rate. The economy is beginning to look better but having ever been unemployed is hard to forget.
Good response.
“Harvard is Summer’s safety net and it’s a good thing he’s not the kind of person who cares about a warm reception.”
LOL, billion dollar understatement of the year–OTOH, fellow State criminal Robert Rubin does sit on the Harvard board.
I think Harvard is pretty craven, but, it would be nice to see it shuck these two corn pone mobsters nonetheless.