In all the outrage over Obama's economic plan, has anyone contemplated

that it's possible that Obama's approach to the crisis is the best approach to spur economic recovery while protecting taxpayers?

Though fewer than the number of critics, there are economists who support his plan, and are willing to give it a chance:

• Nouriel Roubini
  
  
• Brad DeLong
  
  
• More opinions pro and con here, here and here.

I think Krugman did a pretty good job coming back at DeLong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8281884&mesg_id=8281884

and Roubini's support comes with a big caveat -

"A lot of ifs, but if indeed successful, the plan accomplishes mission No. 1, namely the removal of the bad assets from banks' balance sheets. Even if banks wanted to do this on their own, they can't because the market for these illiquid assets has dried up.

But let's not have any illusions. The government bears the risk if and when the investors take a bath on the taxpayer-provided loans. If the economy gets worse, it could get very ugly, very quickly. The administration should be transparent in making clear that there is still a wealth transfer taking place here - from taxpayers to investors and banks."




The only positive I can see is that this plan my succeed in kicking the can down the road aways. That could provide some breathing room for making the real change that's needed. Or not. It could create an even bigger mess, one from which Obama will have a very difficult time recovering from. The system is fundamentally flawed, and even the new regulations, as Greider points out in his interview with Moyer, give more power to the very institutions which helped get us in this mess.

inflation - doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

the problem. And throwing trillions of dollars at the oligarchs - these RICH, LYING, SCAMMING, CHEATING BANKSTERS is just WRONG.

Here's the great back and forth:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/will-the-geithner-plan-work/

I have a lot of respect for Brad deLong, too. Roubini has come out of nowhere -- he's been all over the place recently, and I don't know know what to make of him yet.

A lot of the question boils down to (1) whether the Obama plan is sufficient to address the crisis, and (2) how costly it is to the taxpayer.

Krugman thinks it isn't big enough to be effective, but that remains to be seen. What I think a lot of people miss in the Krugman plan is that is may be much costly in the long run for the taxpayers.

The Geithner plan invests a lot of money, all of which will be paid back provided the recipients stay in business. The only exception would be AIG, which gambled and lost more than it will ever be able to repay. But that is the price of presenting another row of dominoes from falling.

Look at California's Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, as well as California's Proposition 187 banning the provision of services to undocumented immigrants.

thanks, ProSense.

So I am willing to wait to see how things transpire before I trash any approach. These are complicated circumstances without any *specific* precedent. Every approach is going to have risk/rewards.

I instead will spew vomit all over it...