This is rich

The backlash against Rick Santelli is in full swing. One thread was started by Playboy (of all places) and it's even been picked up by Barry Ritholz (who is sometimes reasonable as a lawyer turned financial market commentator).

The Playboy rhetoric is not high-minded. The posts names Zack Christenson as the registrant of the Chicago Tea Party domain name--in August 2008--and refers to him as "a dweeby Twitter Republican." Fair enough. I'll probably resort to name calling on this blog at some point, despite my best efforts to avoid it.

The meme goes that Santelli's comments were part of an organized media campaign sponsored by the Koch family. But let's suppose that the story is accurate as written. Conservatives have begun a media effort to oppose policies they disagree with. I just have one question.

Why is it that when MoveOn.org creates a PR campaign with George Soros' help, it's "democracy", but when a "a dweeby Twitter Republican" starts a PR campaign with the Koch's help, it's a conspiracy?

NYC Tea Party

The NYC Tea Party was fairly well -attended. I would have liked to see a thousand people, but it is New York--that bastion of liberalism--after all. The crowd was varied as far as age, but I have to say that minorities were a little underrepresented. On the other hand, one speaker urged the audience not to adjust their cameras, because he was, in fact, a black Republican.

Aside from Obama himself, the politician who seemed to get the most attention was Charles Shumer for his quote that the American people don't care about the "porky" provisions of the stimulus bill. (This group didn't care about the stimulus portions of the pork bill.)

UPDATE: Good photo gallery from Jeff Smith.
(cwcid: Glenn Reynolds)

UPDATE: The New York Post story.

Dear Professor Roubini

I have the greatest respect for your prescience and foreknowledge about the current financial market crisis. I respectfully suggest, however, that your latest Twitter post about your interview with Maria Bartiromo (hereafter referred to on this blog with the greatest respect as "Maria") misses a very important point about the nationalization of the large banks in the United States.

I refer you to Gerald P. O'Driscoll's recent column in the WSJ. As Jerry points out, there are two flavors of nationalization. The FDIC has practiced one flavor for a long time, with respectable effect. In that flavor, the FDIC closes down insolvent institutions, sells off the pieces that they can and the taxpayer is on the hook for the rest. The operative words here are "closes down."

The other flavor of nationalization, which is the one you confuse, is to somehow allow these institutions to continue to operate so that at some later time they can be "sold back" to the private sector.

There are many problems with this approach, but I will mention only one.

THE SALE BACK TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!

Do you honestly think that if Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd were to get their hands on a bank that is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, that they will ever let it go?

Not in a million years.

As Jerry O'Driscoll points out, "nationalized" banks would be quickly politicized.

In fairness, I believe that you think there is some happy median between shutting down the largest financial institutions in the US and having them operate under political control.

I respectfully submit that you are mistaken.

Starting over

I've decided to return to blogging in order to contribute to the debate about how to get out of the current financial crisis. The stimulus plan stimulated me to do this.

Here is a post about one issue that has concerned me for some time--the idea that the number of taxpayers who owe no tax is likely to exceed 50%. When that happens, it is likely to be a tipping point in the debate about reforming the tax system because the majority that pays no tax will outvote the minority that pays something.

Here is one reason this is important.