Q & A | 04/28/2009 12:00 am
Naomi Klein: 'The Wall Street Bailout Is the Greatest Heist in Monetary History'

Naomi Klein © Ed Kashi
NAOMI: I’m not saying Obama is corrupt. But I’m saying that, so far, what he has actually done is go to great lengths to reassure Wall Street and it’s very much a top-down recovery model, which is the opposite of what he campaigned on. He campaigned on the idea of a bottom-up recovery. Reinvesting in Main Street, reinvesting in manufacturing. That can happen, but only if we demand it, because in Washington the momentum for the status quo is so tremendous. That’s the problem with the bailout. His stimulus package has some very, very good things in it. The news is not all bad. But the problem is that the bank bailout is so bad that it practically cancels everything else out, in the sense that taxpayers have taken on so much risk, so much debt in the interest of bailing out the banks, that they’ve created a crisis down the road which will then be used to justify cutting social security, cutting health care and not making good on those promises. That’s the real concern.
JOAN: You really think that’s going to happen?
NAOMI: I really believe that this bailout is not a bailout for the economy. The best writing about this has been done by Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs. These are very, very respected economists. Two of them with Nobel prizes. What’s really shocking to me is that they’re in the position of criticizing from the sidelines, as opposed to being in the administration. This administration is trapped in the kind of thinking that created the crisis and I think it should be just gloves-off criticism on this, because it’s very, very serious. It’s very serious that Joseph Stiglitz has not been invited to play a pivotal role in the administration, that Paul Krugman is seen as too extreme. That’s why Summers matters, because Summers is the gatekeeper. Summers appears to be keeping people away from Obama. He’s defining the terms of the debate, and they are outrageously narrow. I think we should take Stiglitz and Krugman and Sachs at their word on the bailout: It’s worse than we thought. The debts that these banks hold are enough to swallow the country’s entire GDP and then some, if we keep throwing money into that black hole. It happened in Iceland. We just saw a national economy be wiped out by the debts accumulated by private banks.
JOAN: Just start with the Icelandic protests. Why are there no protests in the streets in America?
NAOMI: This comes back to the problems of hero worship. It’s hard to protest your hero. But it’s more than that. It’s also that the virulence of the Right in the United States is so frightening and the problem is that it is the merger of the extreme far right and large corporations, in the form of media conglomerates. So Glenn Beck on Fox or Lou Dobbs on CNN have these unbelievable megaphones to attack Obama, and to spread fear, which makes reasonable people feel that their main political role is to defend the Obama administration against this very frightening right-wing onslaught. It’s understandable but it’s also hard to do that while being in the streets protesting that administration’s bailout – which is what’s happening in Britain, which is what’s happening in France, what’s happening in Italy. I think the problem in the U.S. is that many people who were part of the campaign to get Obama into power now see their role as being kind of an unofficial arm of the administration, with some groups even taking talking points from the White House. It’s a recipe for political failure, because what actually makes space for Obama to do more of what we want him to do is to make him look less radical, by being more radical ourselves.
JOAN: A very good point.
JOAN: You really think that’s going to happen?
NAOMI: I really believe that this bailout is not a bailout for the economy. The best writing about this has been done by Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs. These are very, very respected economists. Two of them with Nobel prizes. What’s really shocking to me is that they’re in the position of criticizing from the sidelines, as opposed to being in the administration. This administration is trapped in the kind of thinking that created the crisis and I think it should be just gloves-off criticism on this, because it’s very, very serious. It’s very serious that Joseph Stiglitz has not been invited to play a pivotal role in the administration, that Paul Krugman is seen as too extreme. That’s why Summers matters, because Summers is the gatekeeper. Summers appears to be keeping people away from Obama. He’s defining the terms of the debate, and they are outrageously narrow. I think we should take Stiglitz and Krugman and Sachs at their word on the bailout: It’s worse than we thought. The debts that these banks hold are enough to swallow the country’s entire GDP and then some, if we keep throwing money into that black hole. It happened in Iceland. We just saw a national economy be wiped out by the debts accumulated by private banks.
JOAN: Just start with the Icelandic protests. Why are there no protests in the streets in America?
NAOMI: This comes back to the problems of hero worship. It’s hard to protest your hero. But it’s more than that. It’s also that the virulence of the Right in the United States is so frightening and the problem is that it is the merger of the extreme far right and large corporations, in the form of media conglomerates. So Glenn Beck on Fox or Lou Dobbs on CNN have these unbelievable megaphones to attack Obama, and to spread fear, which makes reasonable people feel that their main political role is to defend the Obama administration against this very frightening right-wing onslaught. It’s understandable but it’s also hard to do that while being in the streets protesting that administration’s bailout – which is what’s happening in Britain, which is what’s happening in France, what’s happening in Italy. I think the problem in the U.S. is that many people who were part of the campaign to get Obama into power now see their role as being kind of an unofficial arm of the administration, with some groups even taking talking points from the White House. It’s a recipe for political failure, because what actually makes space for Obama to do more of what we want him to do is to make him look less radical, by being more radical ourselves.
JOAN: A very good point.
Read more about: Bank of America, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bill O'Reilly, Bob Geldof, Bono, Books, BusinessWeek, Chicago, CNN, Copenhagen, Economy, Ecuador, Fox, Frederik Willem de Klerk, G-20 Summit, George W. Bush, Glenn Beck, Grassroots, Jeffrey Sachs, Jennifer Government, Joseph Stiglitz, Journalism, Larry Summers, Lou Dobbs, Naomi Klein, News, No Logo, Paul Krugman, Politics, Q & A, Rafael Correa, Republic Windows & Doors, Ronald Reagan, Sean Hannity, Shoshana Zuboff, The Shock Doctrine, Tim Geithner, World Bank, Yasuni National Park, Yes We Can
























155 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
I found your article somewhat confusing. People were outraged at the bailouts period.
The Right is very vocale in there attacks. They have tea bag parties. They redicule constanly the bank bail outs. The only thing that is hated worst is the proposed health care plan.
Charges that the government has nationalized the bank and taken over the auto industry is held up by the Right as the government takeover and socialism.
So other than defending and being supportive of President Obama - I don’t see a radical grass roots leader.
Interesting, haven’t read the whole article, just to page 9, but Ms Klein has some very interesting insights. I am glad she mentioned Brooksley Born, Elizabeth Warren and Sheila Blair. Oddly enough I see an ineresting blend of pragmatism and social justice. I do not believe the cause of social justice is finished, it just seems somewhat limited that way the left looks at it.
I don’t know when you did this interview, but Joan you asked Naoimi "Why are there no protests in the streets of America?" when there were the Tea Bag protestors on Tax day. They took to the streets and were mostly organized on Facebook. They got ridiculed instead of supported for their protests against the bank bailouts that would lead to an eventual rise in taxes. Is it because the protests were not done by the left? If all groups of people had joined then maybe it would have made a difference. As in all protests there were definitely people who were very far to the right or were there for the wrong reasons and used the protest negatively, but it was basically working class America protesting the elites. Those who opposed the protest did so to support President Obama and the financial plans of Summers and Geithner, so it seems to me that things are a little upside down and will stay that way until citizens put principles before personalities.
DeBurca
I can always count on you. I knew - almost verbatim - that is what you would say. I don’t know all of the particulars of how the movement got started, but I do know that there were a couple of small protests back in November and then January - even before the inauguration, protesting the first Tarp Funds and those protestors said they were going to throw their own Tea Party. Hardly anyone in the news picked up on it because they were small local events, then some of the more conservative sites started talking about it, then Fox News and then it took off from there. But there were a few women in Florida and some sights on facebook that were kind of a flashpoint for them.
DeBurca
I have nothing to say in response to this post. Both sides of the media have twisted it to mean whatever they wanted it to. But for the most part thousands of Americans decided to protest the bailouts, the eventual cost in taxes to everyone, and no bailouts for the little guy or small business where many of them hold their jobs. If the left had done it (or joined in) you wouldn’t be saying this. When you read some of the facebook groups in different states that participated, they come from all parties, many of them were independents, yes and many more republicans, but there were lots of democrats.
Of course she wouldn’t be saying anything if it had been leftists organizing it. Her entire point is that the FOX News people and their supporters are hypocrites for supporting this mess under Bush but opposing it under Obama. Bush is the one who ran up the deficit. Bush is the one who instilled the latest round of breaks and backslaps and bennies for corporations and their corrupt leadership. OK, he didn’t start the ball rolling, but he definitely knocked it along. Anyone who voted for him either time is part of the problem. Pardon me if I find their protests a bit less than convincing.
Leftists don’t go around making this mess. The centrists and right-wingers do. What happens with leftists is we get laughed at, shut out of politics by BOTH major parties, and thrown in jail when we won’t shut up. I *wish* we would be taken more seriously, then maybe we could all start talking about getting out of this mess in a way that makes sense.
Dana,
As far as I know, because I channel surf during the news, I used to hear it while my husband surfed. If I sit down, I switch between Fox, CNN, and MSNBC - mostly back and forth between O’Reilly and Maddow. I like them both - anyway, Fox News did not support all the spending of congress, they were upset about much of what the Republicans did for the last couple of years, and what we all tend to forget is that the democrats were there spending just as much on earmarks etc, and caucusing programs such as what happened with Fannie and Freddie. I don’t give any of them a pass. They all screwed it up.
My comment to DeB was because she is very left and a good fighter for her cause and she is appreciated as well as questioned for it, just as we all are. If you have commented because you feel you need to protect DeBurca, trust me she can hold her own better than most of them, and we love her for it, doesn’t mean that we agree with her. I like when she questions me, I have no problem with it, but I will answer as I see fit.
On the other hand, if you are approaching my argument (simple as it was) with the same type of argument back, we won’t have great conversations because when these tit for tat arguments get going, they go nowhere and result in an even deeper lack of understanding.
As to the protestors, if you have politically incorrectly stereotyped all of them to fit your concept of "the right" due to the type of media coverage it got, it seems to me you are limiting your worldview.
Mimi
I know, everyone has their own reason for protesting or not. I just know that sooner or later they are going to have to raise taxes to pay for all of this. The democrats complained about the tax rebates and said the gov should be raising taxes, now it is a different story. Obama went to NATO and the G-20 to get more help in Afghanistan so that he could reduce military spending because that is one way he wants to lower the deficit. He didn’t get any help. Today they came out with a proposal to hunt and gather in foreign banks for overseas corporate monies. Corporations have been hiding money overseas so as not to pay corporate taxes. So on the one hand we have one of the highest corporate tax base, but on the other hand they don’t pay them because they move their money and set up the corporations overseas. The Bush Admin was already after foreign bank for hiding money, so that process already has a foothold. I say if they can get the corporate money that should have been paid, go for it, but if there are legalities, then it will take years to get it and probably not help that much to lower the deficit in the long run. I say as long as it does not increase presidential power, then go for it.
One bit of wisdom gained from a homeless person (god rest his soul) is that we are all a bunch of hypocrites. It’s a difficult truth but valuable when it sinks in.
Wrong! The tea party idea started because "Rick Santelli" from CNBC, called for a tea party revolution. Check it out for yourself so at least you look like a credible source when you post. As a matter of fact, GE the parent company of CNBC, got so upset at him for not being on the Obama team that they made him go through training to make sure he only promotes Obama’s agenda. The reason people keep getting it mixed up with Fox is because CBS, CNBC and others were made to try and reflect in onto FOX. You may want to look up how GE owns these media oputlets that you love and how the CEO has run the company into the ground. Then Obama has made a deal with the CEO of GE to represent him in his media outlets in exchange for the tax benefits for cap and trade/ alt energy, that is going to put our country at major financial and employment loss. So GE is now going to run our alternative enery cap and trade policys. And you guys hate Monopolies? Get your facts straight. Your being brainwashed by the Obama media!
Rick Santelli on CNBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA
NBC, GE and media bias
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/amy-ridenour/2009/04/23/ge-owned-networks-media-bias-conflicts-interest-remain-focus-day-after
So please stop bashing fox for having a back bone in this Grave time in Nations history where we are all losing freedom of the press! God Bless FOX News.