Financial Times: "The world desperately needs Mr Obama to take a firmer grip at home & lead abroad

[Better Believe It]

Why Davos Man is waiting for Obama to save him
By Martin Wolf
Financial Times
February 3, 2009

The global downward spiral of uncertainty, caution and cutbacks in lending and spending may continue. Alternatively, policy action may turn the ship around. But that action must be decisive. This is particularly true for the Obama administration, on which so much depends. It has a golden opportunity to reverse the spiral now. After that it becomes part of the problem. So far the evidence is discouraging. It should be far bolder.

Protectionist pressures are rising rapidly, not only in finance, but in trade. On the former, Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, turned up in Davos as hypocrite-in-chief, bemoaning the rise of the financial protectionism his own government has been practising. On the latter, nothing can surpass the folly of the Buy America provision in the draft US stimulus package. This is an invitation to retaliation. For a country that must export its way out of its slump, this is mad. For one that made an open global economy the keystone of its foreign policy for two generations, it is vandalism. Is this the change we must believe in?

Contrary to views expressed in some circles, notably in the US, depressions are neither good for us, nor unavoidable. What is needed is determined and globally co-ordinated action. The lead must come from the US: it remains the hyperpower; the economic system is one it promoted; and the crisis had much to do with mistakes its policymakers and private institutions made, even if aided and abetted by mistakes elsewhere.

The world desperately needs Mr Obama to take a firmer grip at home and lead abroad. The plans he is now announcing give him a chance of doing the former. The April summit of the Group of 20 countries, in London, is his chance for achieving the latter.

Unfortunately, what is coming out of the US is desperately discouraging. Instead of an overwhelming fiscal stimulus, what is emerging is too small, too wasteful and too ill-focused. Instead of decisive action to recapitalise banks, which must mean temporary public control of insolvent banks, the US may be returning to the immoral and ineffective policy of bailing out those who now hold the “toxic assets”. Instead of acting as a global leader, there is resort to protectionism and a “blame game”.

We are living on the cusp of history. The priority is to reverse the downward spiral of despair through overwhelming and concerted action. That will only occur if the US now gives the leadership we need. Mr Obama may even find, as many presidents have found before him, that leading the world is easier and more rewarding than cajoling a recalcitrant Congress. This may not be the challenge he expected. But it is the challenge he confronts. History will judge his presidency on whether he dares to succeed.

Please read the entire article at:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4a44f222-f221-11dd-9678-0000779fd2ac.html

[Uzybone]

1. Something in this piece for everybody

I really agree with the "buy America" rubbish that many DUers foolishly support.

I am not sure what Obama can do to take a firmer grip. We either get the votes or we don't. For all the whining about concessions to republicans very little has been taken out of both the House and Senate bills. if you listed to the blogs, you'd think they had stripped the bills down to the bone.

[Kalyke]

9. Buy American is rubbish?

The reason we're in the crapper is because $20-an-hour manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas leaving us with either no jobs or $12-an-hour jobs.

FWIW, I try to buy American whenever it's possible - and cost is of no concern. I can't always do that, mind you, but I try - and have been my entire life.

[ClarkUSA]

2. Financial Times is the British Tory version of the very conservative Wall Street Journal.

Take any opinion from their pages with a grain of Tory-flavoured salt.

[Better Believe It]

5. In US politics that would place them way to the left of the New York Times!

:)
Do you have an opinion on the article or do you automaticaly reject (without reading) everything that appears in the Financial Times?

[ClarkUSA]

7. An FT editor on CNN today said Obama's plan to cap CEO pay "is ill-advised" and "ridiculous".

He didn't sound "way to the left of the New York Times" to me. He sounded just like the CEO of Wells-Fargo.

Nothing in the article disproves what I've said... FT sounds determined to cast aspersions on the two week old
Obama administration before the stimulus bill is even passed or its effects determined.

Funny how FT kept relatively quiet about Bush's grossly negligent financial malpractice for well-nigh 7.5 years
until last September, when the effects were too ruinous for the world to ignore.

[lxlxlxl]

14. huh dude?

the FT was on top of subprime more than any other paper? they dont have any political clout in the US that's for sure, so maybe that's why you didnt hear any criticisms of bush -- see willem butler's 'henry paulson should take weekend off' op if you are actually interested.

[ClarkUSA]

19. Criticizing subprime lending isn't the same as criticizing BushCo economic policy in general.

As for Butler's article, it came way too late, considering the FT criticism aimed at Pres. Obama after only two weeks
and with the stimulus bill not even complete, much less passed. Talk about jumping the gun.

I am married to a Brit in very senior management and their opinion of FT is opposed to yours. So let's just say again:
your idea of "sensible" is not mine.

[Better Believe It]

15. What does that have to do with Martin Wolf's article? Answer .... Nothing!

Try and stick to the subject matter please.

Diversions simply won't work here.

That's an old tactic.

[ClarkUSA]

18. I answered your question.

Try to pay attention: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8167939&mesg_id=8168080

[lxlxlxl]

6. I disagree completely

Of all the financial newsapapers the FT represents the only sensible opinion on finance out there. comparing it to the WSJ (which published john yoo, rush limbaugh last week) is completely wrong.

[ClarkUSA]

10. Then you think the FT editor on CNN today was "sensible" when he called Barack's cap on CEO pay...

"Ill-advised" and "ridiculous" in commentary that aired right after President Obama's news conference?

If you agree with that, then you also think the CEO of Wells-Fargo is also "sensible" because he made
similar hostile noises to news sources.

Sorry, but your idea of "sensible" is different from mine and President Obama's.

[lxlxlxl]

13. haha...

the FT used to be called the pink paper for a reason, but it has lost a lot of its bravado and willingness to challenge consensus. ill give you that, but it is not a NewsCorp or Newscorp lite clone. if you take media issues seriously then I don't think you can ignore that we have very few options left.pick your poision.

i didnt see the CNN piece. who was it? cynthia freeland? she tends to echo a lot of US media. are you sure it was the editor? give me a link if you have it.

fwiw, the FT also ran an op-ed that was noticed by many people titled "shoot the bankers, nationalize the banks," not necessarily a wall street /free market suckup is it? sorry if this particular editor on cable news didnt agree with you on this issue, but i stick to my original point. The WSJ/NYT are conservative papers that do a horrible job of explaining the material realities of 21st century

executive pay caps are illadvised to me also because THEY DONT GO FAR ENOUGH.

[ClarkUSA]

17. Look through CNN transcripts for today for the exchange.

No, it wasn't Cynthia Freeland. It was a disdainful pompous man speaking to CNN.

Point: Op-Eds don't define FT or any other newspaper; neocon whacko Bill Kristol had a column over at the NYT, for example.

[Better Believe It]

16. What about Martin Wolf's article? You're evading the issues raised in his article!

What do you disagree with and why?

[ClarkUSA]

20. Oh, please... I answered you in an earlier response.

It must be obvious what I disagree with, unless you're trying to be as thick as a brick.

[Better Believe It]

Deleted

Deleted

[Better Believe It]

21. No you didn't.

What specific points in the article do you disagree with and why?

[ClarkUSA]

22. I linked to my response, so you're stating a patent falsehood.

Thus, I have no interest in debating the "specific points in the article do you disagree with and why?" with someone
who is dishonest, nor do I want to kick this thread again. Enjoy FT whining re: the Obama administration. I won't.

[lxlxlxl]

3. the only paper worth reading

unfortunately the FT's writers dont understand the political dynamics of this country as well as some of DU does. Obama can't do this on his own, against a Cable News / Talk Radio / Obstructionist party dedicated to preserving the old 80's Reagan binaries, and a population of people dedicated to keeping their view of the world as simple as taxes vs. freedom.

What this means for the rest of the world should trouble us. A poor china in upheaval will create military panic in this country. Failure of international development programs, already in motion, will destroy any progress in Africa. I'm fearful, and hope the people responsible for maintaining educated discourse in this country step up, and do what they have refused to do over the past year.

[MarjorieG]

4. We have emergencies everyone. To abroad, it's only financial, banks and trade.

Are they going to pay our entitlements, fix our bridges? They certainly enjoyed the international exploitation while it lasted.

Everyone's a critic.

[avaistheone1]

8. The Financial Times is wrong. Our markets were actually better off when we protected them.

I don't think this Financial Times article makes its point very well at all.

[Better Believe It]

12. 1933 is an excellent example.

I don't like NAFTA but protectionist schemes and retaliations world-wide is just what we don't need.

[Better Believe It]

11. The United States banksters and Wall Street tycoons triggered this world-wide depression.

"Are they going to pay our entitlements, fix our bridges? They certainly enjoyed the international exploitation while it lasted."

They certainly have over the past few decades. They've covered our asses so far buying trillions in U.S. government securities to finance wars, social security, infrastructure, etc.,

Let's hope they continue. If they don't help due to U.S. super-nationalist and protectionist policies the United States will be responsible for turning a deep recession into a full-scale depression.

When that happens you won't be able to buy American or foreign. But you can wave your "Buy American" sign when you sell apples on some street corner. It will make you feel really good and patriotic!