ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Richard Holbrooke Served on AIG Board Until July 2008

aleqm5goppozof0fr_tsg6bw2_ji7ugpmg.jpg

From the “I Can’t Believe It Took The GOP Oppo Shop Until Just Now to Bring This Up” file, it turns out that from February of 2001 until July of 2008, Richard Holbrooke was on the AIG Board. This has no particular relationship to his work as special envoy to the Afghanistan and Pakistan issues, and I think spokesman Tommy Vietor’s statement that “Mr. Holbrooke had nothing to do with and knew nothing about the bonuses” is quite credible.

But of course it’s a little too credible and points toward the rotten nature of corporate governance in America, as well as the incestuous relationships between our overlapping elites in big-time politics and big-time finance. One assumes Holbrooke had nothing to do with any substantive aspect of AIG’s business—he was just there so AIG could fill the board seat with someone important and unlikely to make any trouble for whatever anyone at the firm was doing.

Politics

CNBC host: Wall Street companies can’t ‘be run well’ by those making under $250,000.

As several bloggers and television pundits have noted, CNBC has consistently advocated on behalf of the interests of the rich during the recent financial crisis. Indeed, in an interview with Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) today, CNBC host Mark Haines made the curious claim that Americans who earn under $250,000 per year — or 98 percent of the population — can’t run Wall Street companies:

HAINES: Let’s get back to what I regard as a fundamental issue here. I know it’s politically unpopular, politically incorrect. I know it goes against all of the populist indignation that’s out there right now. But you can’t really, it seems to me, expect that these Wall Street companies are going to be run well by a bunch of people who don’t make more than $250,000.

Watch it:

Of course, Wall Street has been run so smoothly under millionaire CEOs. Haines also seems to be criticizing the management ability of America’s small business owners, the vast majority of whom do not earn over $250,000 in gross income per year.

Update

The Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo notes that today Haines also compared Wall Street to Nazi Germany in arguing that AIG should keep its bonuses:

It’s just like when the Allies were victorious over Nazi Germany in World War II, when we occupied the country, we left a lot of Nazis in place because they were the ones who made the trains run on time and the bureaucracy function properly, etc. And it was distasteful, but you needed them.

Yglesias

The Rotten Crowd Gap

“They’re a rotten crowd,” I shouted across the lawn. “You’re worth the whole damn bunch put together.”

I’ve always been glad I said that. It was the only compliment I ever gave him, because I disapproved of him from beginning to end. First he nodded politely, and then his face broke into that radiant and understanding smile, as if we’d been in ecstatic cahoots on that fact all the time.

—The Great Gatsby

I saw some folks puzzling a few days ago over the fact that Bernie Madoff has a non-zero approval rating. I told one of them that I had some sympathy for that point of view amidst the ruins of the Second Gilded Age just as in an unguarded moment Nick does seem to approve of Gatsby despite the fact that he “disapproved of him from beginning to end.” Of course I don’t really approve of Madoff and his fraud. But the more it looks like a huge swathe of the big money game was just an elaborate fraud, the more an undercurrent of respect for the very boldness and criminality of Madoff’s fraud comes through. He plead guilty in a court of law, while the architects of Citibank’s bankruptcy remain wildly wealthier than the average American—people who no doubt would be completely competent to destroy a major business as well as anyone else—slinking around somewhere and various finance types skulk around the streets of New York feeling sorry for themselves because congress might screw around with their bonuses.

All of which is by way of introducing Michael Hiltzik’s point about changing attitudes toward the wealthy:

For decades, the wealthy have been held up as people to be admired, victors in the Darwinian economic struggle by virtue of their personal ingenuity and hard work. [...] One factor fueling the public fury over the AIG bonuses, so inescapably in the news this week, is the recognition that so many huge fortunes landed in the hands of the undeserving rich. Some of them added little value to the economy but merely moved money around in novel, excessively clever and ultimately destructive ways; others are corporate executives who were ridiculously overpaid whether they succeeded or failed at their jobs. [...] The shift in sentiment should surprise no one. As the management sage Peter Drucker once predicted, “In the next economic downturn there will be an outbreak of bitterness and contempt for the super-corporate chieftains who pay themselves millions. In every major economic downturn in U.S. history the ‘villains’ have been the ‘heroes’ during the preceding boom.” Drucker was speaking in 1997, two downturns ago.

A lot of people, myself included, spent a lot of time in 2007 and 2008 observing that a lot of the old gaps inside the progressive camp had narrowed or vanished since the 1990s. But I think the Panic of ’08 is tending to reopen a new gap. On the one hand you have people basically inclined toward Hiltzik’s that a lot of the people making the big bucks for the past 10 years are basically scammers who lucked into the ability to siphon tons of money out of the economy without really doing anything useful or valuable, and between people who think that they’re genuinely smart hard-working people who just happen to deserve to pay somewhat more in income taxes than they currently do.

In other words, was Madoff really a black hat among honest businessmen, or was he just one unusually crude player amidst a rotten crowd?

Climate Progress

Why the United States REQUIRES a strong climate bill to remain competitive, Part 1

Contrary to popular belief, a strong climate bill will not harm US competitiveness. Quite the reverse — it is our only hope for restoring U.S. leadership in key job creating industries such as solar energy, wind power, and automobile manufacturing, which was lost in large part because of conservative orthodoxy (see “U.S. left in dust, having invented solar PV technology” and “Why Anti-wind McCain had to deliver his climate remarks at a foreign wind company” and below).

While the media debate over green jobs and cap & trade has begun in earnest (see here and here), most of it misses a key point. Action on global warming and resource efficiency is inevitable. Conservative deniers do not understand that, so they contract out for economic analyses that assume the choice is between action and inaction.

Read more

Politics

Bush’s book deal fetches just $7 million.

bush-reading.jpgPresident Bush has signed a book deal with Crown to publish his memoir, tentatively titled “Decision Points.” The deal is worth a reported $7 million — a hefty sum, but it pales in comparison to the rumored $11 million Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) might fetch. As Gawker pointed out, other political figures have landed more lucrative deals:

It’s $5 million less than Bill Clinton’s advance for My Life, $1 million less than Hillary Clinton got for Living History, and $2 million less than the advance for the memoirs of Tony Friggin’ Blair.

Late last year, some publishers were suggesting that Bush hold off writing a book, because of his dramatically low approval ratings. “[G]iven how the public feels about him right now, I think patience would probably be something that I would encourage,” Paul Bogaards, executive director of publicity for Alfred A. Knopf, said.

Politics

Palin rejects nearly half of state’s stimulus funds meant for education, health care, and labor.

ap090211033627.jpg Following the lead of the other 2012 GOP presidential contenders, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) announced today that she would reject nearly half the $930 million Alaska was set to receive from the economic stimulus package. Like Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), Palin is set to further cripple the state’s education system:

The biggest single chunk of stimulus money that Palin is turning down is $160 million for education. There’s also $17 million in Department of Labor funds (vocational rehabilitation services, unemployment services, etc.), about $9 million for Health and Social Services and about $7 million for Public Safety.

During the press conference announcing her decision, Palin asked, “Will we chart our own course, or will Washington (D.C.) engineer it for us?” She also quoted Thomas Jefferson and complained about “the strings attached” to the stimulus funds. “What we think we need is kind of a time-out, where we back up, we pause, and we really think about what we’re doing here,” Palin said.

Media

Carol Baum: Welfare CEOs are Just Like John Galt

atlasshrugged1_1.jpg

Bloomberg columnist Carol Baum puts together a baffling analogy:

The hero of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” is smiling because he’s seen it all before: the government’s intervention in the private sector; the constraints placed on business in the name of the people; the desperation on the part of government bureaucrats when they realize their leverage is limited; and — this part is still fiction — the decision on the part of business leaders to walk away from the enterprises they built. [...] The government needs Liddy and Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit and Bank of America’s Ken Lewis to continue working to restore their firms to prosperity in the same way the looters in Rand’s novel need Hank Reardon and Francisco d’Anconia and Dagny Taggart, respectively, to run their steel mills, copper mines and railroad.

Atlas Shrugged is a stupid book, Ayn Rand is a stupid woman, and John Galt’s ideas are stupid. That said, none of them are nearly this stupid. Rand’s novel isn’t about a world in which executives who build companies based on a lot of incorrect decisions, then pay themselves millions of dollars while bankrupting their firms, then come to the government hat-in-hand asking for bailouts, then find that the bailers-out want to attach some strings to their hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds and then go to hide out in Galt’s Gulch. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

If the folks running Citigroup and Bank of America and AIG were good at their jobs, we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place. That’s the point. But they weren’t good. They lost staggering sums of money. Their companies went broke. They had to beg for taxpayer dollars. You don’t get to do that and then turn around and “go Galt.”

Security

Petraeus ‘Frustrated’ By Admirers Lindsey Graham And John McCain’s Opposition To Chris Hill

mccaingraham.jpgEarlier this month, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced their opposition to the nomination of Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. “While Mr. Hill is a talented diplomat who has served our country for many years, his selection for this post concerns us,” said the two senators in a statement. The McCain/Graham statement was the first shot fired by “a cadre of Senate Republicans” aiming to sink Hill’s nomination.

But the senators’ effort to derail Hill took a major hit today when Foreign Policy’s Laura Rozen reported that “Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, top Iraq commander Gen. Raymond Odierno, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are frustrated by the delay in getting a U.S. ambassador confirmed and into place in Iraq.” Though Rozen’s initial report was based on anonymous sources, she later updated with an on the record statement from the Pentagon:

The U.S. military chief spokesman Geoff Morrell told The Cable Thursday: “Generals Odierno and Petraeus have come out very publicly and very forcefully in support of Amb. Hill’s nomination. I know they support it. They know him from previous assignments, they like him, they believe he is well suited to the job and are anxiously awaiting his confirmation because they do need help, frankly. … With regards to [Senate] members who have issue with him, I would say this,” Morrell added. “We appreciate their steadfast support of the Iraq mission. But you can’t be bullish in support of that mission and not send an ambassador in a timely fashion.

The pushback from Petraeus must be especially stinging considering the high esteem that senators like Graham and McCain have for the general:

– Asked in August to name “the three wisest people” who he “would rely on heavily in an administration,” McCain replied, “First one, I think, would be General David Petraeus, one of the great military leaders in American history.”

– “Thank God for General Petraeus, one of the great generals in American history,” said McCain in April 2008.

–On Meet The Press in July 2007, Graham spoke of Petraeus as though he “could see past obstacles that blocked ordinary men.” “I will not vote for anything until generous—General Petraeus passes on it,” said Graham.

– “If I could promote you to five stars, I would,” said Graham when Petraeus testified before Congress last April. “I cannot tell you how proud I am of both of you,” he said to Petraeus and Ryan Crocker.

Former McCain aide Michael Goldfarb writes at the Weekly Standard that Petraeus and Odierno’s support for Hill deals “a serious blow to the campaign against his appointment.”

Climate Progress

Newt Gingrich’s Voodoo Cap-And-Trade Economics

Our guest blogger is Laurie Johnson, Chief Economist for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center.

Gingrich at CPACNewt Gingrich has taken to calling President Obama’s proposal to cap global warming pollution an “energy tax,” even specifically claiming it would be a “hidden $1,300-per-family energy-tax increase“:

If the country’s No. 1 priority is to create jobs, then a hidden $1,300-per-family energy-tax increase in the guise of a cap-and-trade system is absolutely destructive. Herbert Hoover raised taxes in 1932, and it further crippled the economy.

Newt Gingrich’s assertion is voodoo economics — designed to scare us into believing we can’t afford climate protection.

In Newt’s nightmare tax math, the economic value of the carbon market just disappears! He assumes the money doesn’t get returned to taxpayers; it doesn’t get spent on any worthwhile investments in cleaner, smarter energy resources; it doesn’t get invested in ways to reduce the energy we waste today, saving us money; it doesn’t get used to help communities adapt to a changing climate; it doesn’t get used to address regional differences in the cost of cutting global warming pollution. No, in Newt’s scary world, the money just vanishes, leaving us only with the bills. Fortunately, in the real world the dollars created by the carbon market will go to all of these purposes, providing us with a safer climate, reduced dependence on oil imports, and creating new jobs to build our economic recovery.

In reality the cost of climate protection is far smaller than the size of the carbon market, from which the $1,300 estimate is derived. The cost to physically achieve the emission reductions — i.e., the compliance costs for polluting corporations — are roughly 10% of total carbon market value, according to the Energy Information Administration. The remaining 90% is just shifting money away from polluting activities toward cleaner goods and more secure sources of energy.

So, even if Newt were right that the total carbon market size worked out to $1300 per household, the actual cost of cutting that pollution would be more like $130 per household per year (minus any savings we earn from increased energy efficiency), or $2.50 a week.

And for that $2.50 (or less) per week we’d be getting a bargain that is hard to beat.

Just four categories of climate damages alone (hurricanes, higher energy bills, property lost to sea level rise, water supply impacts) are predicted to cost the average household $2,000 a year by 2025, $3,000 in 2050, rising rapidly to over $11,000 by the end of the century. And these estimates ignore (because they are too hard to count accurately), the added costs of droughts, floods, wildfires, agricultural damages, and the value of lost lives. We may not be able to eliminate all of these costs by acting now to cut pollution, but we sure can help reduce them dramatically.

So think twice before you rely on Newt for financial advice.

Crossposted from the NRDC Switchboard.

Yglesias

Bush’s Somalia Blunder

I’m going to quote this whole post from Robert Farley:

Osama Bin Laden has released an audio tape denouncing Somali President Shariff Sheikh Ahmed, and calling for Somalis to resist the new government’s rule. Shariff Sheikh Ahmed is formerly the head of the Islamic Courts Union, which Ethiopia overthrew in 2006 with American assistance. The United States was concerned that the ICU was closely associated with Al Qaeda, and that it might harbor terrorists. Bin Laden’s tape is either an elaborate ruse to make the Bush administration look incomparably stupid, or further evidence that the Bush administration was incomparably stupid.

Note that the consequences of this policy have included a massive humanitarian disaster and the growth of the Somali piracy problem. More Somalia-blogging here.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up