It sounded like such a soft, even conservative speech.
But let me get this straight:
1) banks will be punished (do I understand this right, by a committee headed by Eric Holder?) if their lending is too risky,
2) and they will be required (by another special committee, I believe) to give more home loans (meaning to people who would otherwise not qualify for the loans, or else the government would not have to be involved) at lower rates (which means rates that do not compensate them as much as the market says they need to be compensated for the risks they are taking, all of which sounds like a new edition of the policies that brought on the financial collapse),
3) which must mean that they will have to pull back on risky lending someplace other than homes,
4) the only place that most banks would be able to pull back on riskier customers would be loans to small and new businesses,
5) but these are the businesses that have created just about all the jobs over the last 20 years and he said early in the speech he wants to encourage them,
6) so maybe their growth capital will come from selling stock to the kinds of people who invest in new and small businesses,
7) but through the Buffet Rule he’s going to double the tax rate on investment income for those people, meaning that, like the banks, they can’t be fully compensated for the risk of backing small and new businesses,
8. so they will not invest more in small and new companies but in big established firms,
9) so more of those small and new firms will have to turn to the government for capital,
10) which luckily he said would up its investing in early stage businesses with “the best” ideas,
11) “the best” ideas meaning, I guess, as with Solyndra, ideas that advance his agenda through companies whose owners support his candidacy),
12) or maybe it would be companies that agree to invite unionization (since the unions have failed to organize the new and dynamic sectors of the economy, which is why they have been shrinking),
13) but then with the big businesses, he wants to punish American companies if they invest overseas,
14) and he wants to increase exports,
15) but being competitive in the global markets often means having part of your production near your markets, which is why many companies have opened production facilities abroad and many foreign companies (BMW and Honda, for example) have opened their facilities here,
16) so he’ll make these companies less competitive, meaning less able to export anything that might be paired with some other product the company makes abroad in order to attract buyers,
17) and it also means he’ll have the U.S. ignoring many of the international trading rules of which we have been the principal sponsor since the end of WWII, rules that have led to an incredible growth in widely shared wealth all over the planet,
18) which means that, if he follows through, he’ll blow up the post-WWII global economic system,
19) which in the very short run may help the uncompetitive American labor unions but in the not-so-long run would devastate every economy on earth,
20) but it would also mean he would be in a position to decide where big companies could invest, and when, just as he’ll be in control of all new and small businesses, too.
I believe that’s what I heard the president advocate tonight. Am I wrong?