Presidents from Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson have been quoted as more or less telling their political constituencies "I agree with you. Now make me do it" when it came to tackling the issues of their day where the right course of action was otherwise not politically tenable. Obama has the wrath of a wide swath of the American people in play and he knows it:

Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees — and, by extension, to themselves.

“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”

But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

(Click my sig for the source of this quote/paraphrase.)

Why is Obama standing between the bankers and the (at least figurative) pitchforks? Why is he blowing so much political capital giving aid to the 'Masters of the Universe' that got us here while simultaneously pulling back from GM (258k jobs plus a multiplier of five to seven for tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers) when what is needed there (whether GM is effectively bankrupt or not) is such a pittance in comparison to what is being thrown at Wall Street?

To date, regardless of what some may hypothesize is the potential rate of recovery, the fact is that the US government is on the hook for $12,800,000,000.000.00 in some combination of appropriated expenditures, guarantees and loans. How much money is that? Well, in a nation of 300 million people, that's a tad more than 40 thousand dollars for every man, woman and child. 40 grand each. For all of us.

As far as Swagel's statement on critics ("...the next sentence should set forth the section of the U.S. legal code that allows such a course of action"), well, no. They have much authority that has not been used and there is much leeway (with Supreme Court rulings to back it up) for what the government may do to salvage a situation in the midst of a national emergency.

I appreciate that it's a difficult situation, and nothing here is simple, but the argument about political cover and the argument which says in effect "our hands are tied" simply does not stand close scrutiny. Now...where's my pitchfork.

Key for me that helps debunk "the speculators did it" argument: "...and far-out, forward contracts rose much faster than spot prices."

Indeed. What do people think became of the fortunes of those people who held those contracts? If you bet on futures, you either have to be able to sell your contract or take delivery. And at delivery, the thing that counts is the actual price, not the price that you bet on.

If you can't hoard (and look up what happens to great fortunes like those of the Hunt Bros who gambled on cornering the silver market), you can't drive price. You may effect it a little, but when there is excess supply of a commodity, you won't affect it a lot or for long.

Margins between production and demand in a fast growing world economy were slim. Now in a contracting world economy? Demand destruction means we are basically awash in oil. But when this all turns around (and eventually it will), the price of oil will once again head towards the sky.

People can say I'm wrong if they want, but if they do, I hope they are later kind enough to admit it. I know that I will happily admit it if it turns out that my take here is misguided. Hell, I hope it is misguided. Who wants to pay four to ten bucks a gallon for gas/diesel/heating oil? Not me, I promise.

The media will support whichever candidate looks most likely to support the status quo of the establishment. Party doesn't really matter. If you want to see disparate treatment, why not go back to 2000 when Gore and Bush were running. One guy had multiple falsehoods repeated in the press almost endlessly, focus given to the color of his suits and just about all substantive arguments he was making either ridiculed or ignored. The other guy wanted to make the pie higher and was hailed for the great achievement of not falling flat on his face in the debates. (It looks like a budget. It has a lot of numbers.)

How about 2004? The "liberal" media assisted the Democratic power structure in taking down Howard Dean. Long before "Yarrrgh!", there was the Dean-morphs-into-Bin Laden ad in Iowa which was put together, paid for and run...by Democrats. Dean was an outsider. He represented a potential authentic challenge to the status quo and we can't have that. Just look at how the Obama admin has rewarded Dean's efforts to rebuild the Democratic Party and make it relevant in all 50 states. Oh...wait. (See my point?)

Many of the letters that are so upset about this column/article amount to "fingers in the ears/la la la/I can't or don't wanna hear you" whining.

About the only way I know of to gain an understanding of someone else's point of view is to listen to and engage their arguments. Telling people you don't agree with to essentially STFU is not very productive. It smacks of the small mindedness I used to think was confined to rightwingnuts. Apparently, that sort of thing (the desire to shut out opposing points of view and act authoritarian) crosses party lines.