Obama Doesn't Get It

I've pulled these bits (out of order) from a Paul Krugman posting on his NY Times blog. Krugman is complaining that Obama doesn't understand the problem with Wall Street bankers salaries (let alone the risk taking these executives led which caused the world economy to collapse). I've bolded key bits:

QUESTION: Let’s talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

...

...the White House is trying to limit the damage from those Obama remarks about bankers’ compensation, providing more context. I wish I could say that it helps a lot; but it doesn’t.

Again: the president compares Wall Street paychecks to baseball players. That’s really bad messaging: first, baseball players didn’t trigger a global economic collapse, and second, the baseball industry isn’t the beneficiary of a massive and continuing taxpayer bailout (continuing because banks would be in deep trouble even now if it weren’t for the belief that they have a government backstop).

Yes, he said some things about making compensation better tied to results — but it was framed purely in terms of stockholder interests, with no mention, again, of the damage bankers have done and the public support they still require.

Sam Stein says that Obama has said somewhat similar things before. OK, although I wonder if that was in direct response to a question about Lloyd Blankfein. Moreover, on previous occasions he has also said something about Wall Street’s reliance on public bailouts; if that’s in this interview, it hasn’t been released.

And anyway, if people didn’t really pick up on previous instances onf similar tone deafness, so what?

I mean, how hard is it for the White House to understand that it’s a really, really bad idea to be saying nice things about bailed-out bankers, Goldman Sachs in particular? Even if you think it’s a bad idea to come across too populist — and why, exactly? — be evasive and judicious, say something neutral. Do NOT praise Lloyd Blankfein’s savvy, OK?

Maybe it was a bit strong for me to say that we’re doomed, but this really is shocking and dispiriting.

...

Just to be clear: what freaks me out about this isn’t what it says about Obama’s policies, it’s what it says about failure to read the mood of the country. The president seems solely concerned that someone might think that he’s anti-business, without — in this interview, at least — appearing to consider it necessary to say a thing about the pervasive sense of unfair Wall Street privilege. He doesn’t have to bash bankers every step of the way, but to respond to a question about bonuses solely by praising free markets and comparing bankers to baseball stars is … clueless.

Yep... that sums up my disappointment with Obama. He's a bright guy, but when it comes to economics, and employment, and income inequality, and growing the economy, and the uneven playing field that makes America less socially mobile for the meritorious poor than Europe... he is clueless.