Google's Eric Schmidt on why bankers deserve little sympathy and Obama does

It is a little odd that Schmidt seems to be channeling Andrew Jackson, who refused to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States (emphasis mine):<p>"I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. <i>When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank.</i> You tell me that if I take the deposits from the Bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out and, by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out."

he's full of schmidt. the private sector responds to the shitty incentives the government provides. the private mortgage market had no incentive to act responsibly because the government backed fannie and freddie were buying responsible and irresponsible loans indiscriminately. if banks had actually been holding the loans themselves they wouldn't have made such crappy investments.

Eric's been hitting all the high notes lately. I'm waiting for his pronouncement on climate change.

There's a bit of irony in the CEO of an advertising company complaining that people overspent their means. A man who profited from promoting consumption thinks there was too much consumption.

Clueless.<p>"I want to be clear here that the blame, to the degree that there was, is largely in the United States, not in Europe, not in Britain."<p>Because the American branch of the Illuminati run Iceland, Northern Rock, those German manufacturers who were having to finance their customers because banking disappeared, and so forth?<p>"And it was fundamentally because a low-interest policy created too much money. It was an easy-money policy and eventually an easy-money policy catches up with you."<p>Most of the bubble money supply came from leverage (massive fraud with a sprinkling of "deregulation"), not interest rates.

What the hell?

<i>"I want to be clear here that the blame, to the degree that there was, is largely in the United States, not in Europe, not in Britain," Schmidt said.</i><p>... Right. I would be more concerned if this remark wasn't coming from a man who is little more than the world's best-paid babysitter. I am sure he would be delivering a different line if he were talking to the New York Times.