Everything wrong with economics today.

"For an ambitious economist like Peter Orszag, going to work for Citigroup represented a choice. As a young staffer working in the Clinton White House, he saw laid before him two different paths: Stiglitzism and Rubinism. There were both intellectual and career-arc components to these. While both are liberal Democrats, Rubin was the consummate insider, whose philosophy was that the free markets, balanced budgets, and limited regulation would create a rising tide that would lift all boats (or at least make Wall Street not complain too much about Clinton’s social programs). Stiglitz, the public intellectual, is as concerned with the boats as with the tide. Orszag certainly had a lot in common with Stiglitz’s academic mien, having grown up in an intensely intellectual family in Lexington, Massachusetts, outside Boston. His father is a celebrated Yale math professor. But Orszag possessed an ambition that would take him beyond the ivory tower. He ultimately chose Rubinism. It makes perfect sense that Orszag would have been drawn toward Rubin. It must have been incredibly seductive seeing this world, watching the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party move so easily from government to Wall Street boardrooms to the table with Charlie Rose."

It is increasingly exasperating to see some of the best and brightest have to veer away from solving world issues in order to complete careers that might be counter-productive to that goal. 

Irony: Wiretaps and Goldman

Combining my two most favorite subjects lately...

"The successful prosecution of Raj Rajaratnam suggests the difficulty prosecutors would have against Goldman Sachs. At this point, the big question for prosecutors is less about what they know to be true and more about what they can prove. And "to make a criminal case out of the mortgage activities, prosecutors would need at least one credible witness from inside the firm to point the finger at Goldman and its executives to show the company's culpability, proving that it was more than just a sharp operator."

Investigators do not have that one credible witness from the inside, and it's doubtful it will find one. Omerta will likely hold.  Unfortunately, investigators do not have wiretap evidence--something that would prove superior to a bunch of suggestive but not definitive emails."

The Obama Administration seems hellbent on renewing PATRIOT and violating the rights of average Americans even more than the Bush Adminstration.

Now there's a scenario this constant surveillance might have actually been very useful, and we've hit a wall. Instead of trying to catch a bunch of lunatics who leave other very obvious intelligence signs, we could have been wiretapping the banks, and getting enough evidence to stop what amounted to something terrorists have always aimed to do---bringing the American economy down with clandestine activities.

I guess that's irony, folks. 

Terrorist or freedom fighter?