News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets reopen. Parent comment

Re:China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets r... by lubujackson on Sunday February 02, 2020 @03:52PM (#22219337)
It is certainly not a popular opinion. But as diametrically opposed as they appear, there are plenty of problematic issues under Obama that Dems (and Republicans) conveniently ignore. My biggest disappointment at the time: Obama kept all of Bush's economic team intact when he came into office. Yes, the same people who enabled the housing crisis and had strong ties to Goldman Sachs. Probably it should have been the biggest issue of the election but the dialogue was (and is) dominated by identity politics.

The underlying issue is that Obama was beholden to the exact same corporate influences as Bush. You don't rise through Chicago politics that fast without some deals in place. This isn't a condemnation of Obama, by the way, but recognition of the system's vulnerability.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:China to inject $174B of liquidity on Monday as markets r... by rayiner on Sunday February 02, 2020 @04:09PM (#22219438)
I disagree with your conclusion. Obama wasn’t “beholden to corporate interests.” He genuinely believed in the neo-liberal orthodoxy, and still does: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/11/21/sorry-presiden...

I grew up during the Clinton/Blair/Merkel era. I thought socialism was defeated in 1991. Everyone understood that markets and the private sector, with some levels of “nudges” as necessary, were the solution to everything. “Politics” was about how much you thought we should nudge in various directions, and whether you thought kids should learn about condoms or abstinence in school. So when Obama initially ran for office, I didn’t perceive Obama’s fundamentally neo-liberal capitalist world view as being a profound similarity between him and Bush. It wasn’t until people like Sanders and Corbyn started getting substantial traction that I realized we weren’t yet at the end of history and a commitment to the current economic world order was actually not universal.

[ Parent | on HN ]