Linkfest (December 15, 2009)

The disillusionment with Obama continues..

Obama’s Newfound Populism: All Hat, No Cattle Marshall Auerback sees Obama’s current populist rhetoric as empty, given the inadequacy of regulatory reform efforts.

Obama’s Big Sellout The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway

Yes, Obama is Getting Serious About Banks. He is Now Calling Them Bad Names! Are we supposed to take this posturing seriously? The media is now peddling more and more banker-favoring narratives with a straight face.

Obama’s populist rhetoric about ‘Fat Cat’ bankers Another take..

Obama Hypocrisy Meter Off The Charts: “I Did Not Run For Office To Be Helping Out A Bunch Of Fat Cat Bankers On Wall Street” Obama goes back to his Wall Street-bashing rhetoric in today’s 60 Minutes on CBS, after he has already doomed this country to tens of trillions in excess debt to make sure that Wall Street not only thrives, but prospers, courtesy of Bernanke’s vertical bond curve and the daily destruction of the dollar. With statements such as “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street” which the WSJ disclosed will be uttered by Obama shortly, only the most clueless viewers will find empathy with Obama’s latest message of banker “anti-hope.”

I think Barry Ritholtz puts it best:

Don’t be fooled. Those who decry Obama’s policies as ‘socialist’ are doing so for purely political benefit. Are you telling me that Obama is governing in a vastly different way than George W. Bush at the end of his tenure? How exactly would John McCain have been any less socialist? Are you telling me McCain would have bankrupted Citi or BofA? It’s absolute nonsense. I would grant you that McCain would have sought to extend tax cuts for the rich. Otherwise, the cry of socialism is a purely political tactic using Obama’s dip in popularity in order to strip him and his party of any right-leaning independents he may have won in 2008.

The only difference between the established parties is the degree to which they believe in neoclassical laissez-faire economics. The right believes that markets are almost always right and see nearly no reason for government intervention except to lower taxes and promote free markets. The left believes that markets are almost always right too but they see more reason for government intervention in order to protect their traditional base of unions and the working class (think health care reform, taxes on the rich, and the auto bailouts).