But of course, the fact that these risks are being taken by a too-big-to-fail institution, whose failure would cause a global crisis, which would therefore inevitably be bailed out if it got in big trouble, and which benefits from taxpayer-backed deposit insurance, is no cause for concern. None at all.
Emphasis mine. Hello? Earth to Paul Krugman. Are you there?
It’s called “financial reform legislation” in the form of Dodd-Frank, and it promises no more bailouts. You are refuting the liberals whom you pretend to support. Maybe it doesn’t actually do that, but if so your Democratic friends don’t want you announcing it.
And then Paul says that the bank “benefits from taxpayer-backed deposit insurance” without, apparently, knowing what “insurance” means. It means that member banks pay into a fund that holds the money to be used to pay depositors if their money is lost when a member bank fails. Please note that “no taxpayers were harmed in the making of this movie,” because the money was provided by the banks themselves, including the failed bank before it failed.
Still, I guess that’s a slight improvement over yesterday’s “government guaranteed deposits.” At least this time he used the word “insurance.”
He also provided a nicely dramatic chart, with only two bars on it, showing the difference in job creation between George Bush and Barack Obama. I’m not sure what point he was trying to make. My wife is a better driver than my cat, too. That doesn’t mean I’m going to enter her in the Indy 500.
Put Bill Clinton’s job creation record on that chart you coward.