A suggested revision:

Above, in

Obama didn’t lift a finger, probably too busy worrying about how to cut Social Security and Medicare to balance the budget.

“balance the budget” should appear in quotes. ALWAYS should appear in quotes when tied to slashing social security & Medicare.

Thanks for this diary, Masaccio. And thanks also: whether knowingly or not, you picked up an item from Robert Kuttner about how we should STOP calling the current [and continuing] situation the “Great Recession” and instead refer to it as “The Lesser Depression” or “The Great Deflation.” [Recessions, he notes are mind and temporary dips in the economy, something this is certainly NOT.]

For anyone who hasn’t perused yesterday’s book salon with Mr. Kuttner re his latest book, Debtors’ Prison, I urge you to check it out. I also strongly urge you to read his book. It’s wonderful: clear, direct writing plus a straight-forward, understandable description of so many of the elements of the current crisis. Upon reading it, you will feel better educated and more prepared to fight the good fight.

the prevailing winds were and are blowing from Wall Street.

With any luck, perhaps by 2016 we can transform the dialogue so that being a “Wall Street stooge” or “in the pocket of Wall Street” will be an epithet that will drag someone down.

Well, in fairness, I think the “absent Daddy” remarks were made tongue in cheek.

Interesting got any links?

Several stories over @ Naked Capitalism, but I don’t have specific links. Just articles I’ve read over time.

That assumes, however, that he really BELIEVES in the “progressive points.” I think an awful lot of us have come to believe that Obama really LIKES those right wing positions he always “caves in” to. He certainly likes the guys who propose them [see, e.g., Bowles, Simpson, Dimon et al.]

Among some in the “blog-osphere,” this is often referred to as Obama’s “absent daddy syndrome:” always trying to please so “daddy” will return.

But a lot of the banks have created a bag of tricks that keep the properties [whose value is less than the mortgage on it] OFF their books: they don’t complete a foreclosure and release the debtor. Debtor retains “title” and can’t get rid of the damn property, is fined by the municipality for uncut weeds, vandalism, etc. All because the banks DON’T want these lousy properties on their books.

If Hillary runs/win in 2016, do you think she’d be any harsher on Wall Street that Obama’s been?

Must we wait for Warren?

Revise. Should be:

I don’t see Obama touring the country, talking to people who’ve lost their homes and or/job, who’ve been hammered by gigantic medical expenses, whose kids are crushed by student debt and living in the basement, unable to find a job.

As someone who’s halfway into retirement, it seems to me that the current “keep interest rates low” policy also serves to push the elderly towards riskier stock investments [and the related fees]. The “return” from those safe CDs doesn’t beat inflation, so the temptation is to look elsewhere.

Bob, this whole book is so SENSIBLE. While it’s understandable why Peterson & his paid lackeys [and there are LOTS of them!!!] wouldn’t “get it,” why can’t others in this area see what you’ve so sensibly laid out?

Stupidity? Inability to break away from traditional thinking? Fear of not being part of [and agreeing with] the “in crowd?

And is Obama really so STUPID that he believes this dreck, or is he just evil like Rubin et al? I don’t see him touring th”edical expenses, whose kids are crushed by student debt and living in the basement, unable to find a job.

I get the feeling he NEVER has contact with anyone other than his “best and the brightest,” and THEY certainly don’t have these problems.

what stuff stood out the most Mauimom?

1) laying out the reasons why Peterson and his ilk hate deficits and social security [I knew about {we want the fees from investing your money" but hadn't thought about "social security demonstrates that government works effectively, contra to what the Peterson crowd bleats];

2) the different “types” of debt. How they’re often co-mingled in the public’s mind [and in the minds of the pundits]but how each has a different cause & effect;

3) “70% of banks’ profits come from securities creation and trading” vs. where the profits of small or community banks come from. The effects of this.

4) the effect of deflation [and other forces] on wages.

5) as noted above, that the lack of regulation, and the resulting financial abuses, are what really caused the “crash,” not “loans to people of color” or “people taking out HELOCs and buying big-screen tv’s.”

Finally, THANK YOU for criticizing the oft-used term “The Great Recession” and pointing out that is NOT a “recession” but actually a “Lessor Depression” or “Great Deflation.”

I thought you made an interesting point about overburdened people being faced with a Hobson’s choice: reduce purchases [often of essentials] to keep up with the payments on your debt vs. default and have your collateral [assets] seized and sold at a depressed price.

Just another reason of why this craziness impedes any recovery.

Yes!!!! I’ve always wanted to scream about this too!!!

Roll up a bunch of bad debts as business: you’re a “job creator,” “entrepreneur,” whatever and it’s good social policy to forgive YOUR debts.

Roll up a bunch of debts because of over-priced college tuition, exorbitant medical expenses, or your inability to pay your mortgage because you lost your job: BAD person. No bankruptcy relief for YOU!!

Later in the book Bob takes up the story articulated in the movie Heist: Who Stole the American Dream and Hedrick Smith’s book of the same title: that Pete Peterson and his ilk have worked for 40+ years to obscure the real story, and to provide their bogey men answers ["need to cut social security to reduce the debt," "can't tax the job creators"].

But I totally agree: the brilliance of the book is how clearly it explains what is really going on, how it distinguishes, for example, among various “kinds” of “debt,” how it presents facts many of us have never seen.

Obviously I agree with you about the EFFECT of all the financial abuses in CAUSING the crash. I’m hoping that we’re at last moving towards a place that the public will be more open to this idea. It seems like a good time to push this issue hard. Folks can see how horridly the banks behave; let’s follow up with some “these laws won’t let them get away with that again.” [Thank you Brown & Vitter.]

“Deflation” is not a word you hear any too frequently these days [rather "scary, scary inflation"], so it was interesting to read your explanation: how deflation comes about and what the effects of it are.

Again, this is just not an issue that’s dealt with AT ALL these days, and yet you’ve demonstrated how important it is.

Welcome, Bob.

I just finished your book, and I am blown away. SO much relevant information!!

Every few pages I would wish that there were a way to rent out the “scroll” in Times Square and put up one of your perfect observations. I’ll start with the first one I wrote down:

“[when focusing on] the prolonged aftermath of the crash and its relation to deficits, financial abuses are at the center of the story.”

Charlie Munger: “I do not think you can trust bankers to control themselves. They are like heroin addicts.” And the US has no intervention strategy.

Well then Charlie Munger ought to a) read the linked Yves Smith article on JP Morgan & Jamie Dimon; and b) whisper in his friend Warren Buffett’s ear about what criminals Diman/JPM are.

The support of Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway provide far too much of a shield for the despicable Dimon.