Isn't that what the Roman dramatist said?
On the one hand there's Wojtek, who argues that the technical details are irrelevant: this is a story about power alone.
Obviously, that goes too far; the technical details are vitally important. How can collapse be averted? How can the velocity of money be increased? What's the best method? The answers are almost wholly technical. (And yes Jordan, Michael P's points should, at long last, be addressed. In addition to tapping Doug on the shoulder, I suggest emailing "Baseline Scenario's" Simon Johnson for his view. I'm not joking. He routinely asks for smart challenges to his opinions and might welcome the debate.)
But on the other hand, there's Jordan, insisting that Wojtek's focus on power is pretty much irrelevant, this is a story about technical details alone.
I think this also goes too far. The Obama administration is trying to accomplish two goals:
1.) Fix the money circulation system.
2.) Do it in a way that preserves existing relations.
Much of the frustration people are feeling (and not just critique loving lefties) is inspired by a sixth sense that after all has been said and done, the financial sector will resume its activities -- maybe with a bit more oversight and somewhat differently configured -- and we'll all end up in some other pot of hot water, sooner or later.
Because nothing important will have changed, or changed enough.
That strikes me as a matter of power -- i.e., Washington's interventions are both practical *and* shaped by a concern for preserving current power relationships. This may or may not be clearly felt by people like Mr. Geithner (I'm sure no one's sitting in a smoke filled room twirling mustaches and swilling cognac) but it seems to me that this is precisely what's happening.
.d.