This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Charles Ferguson: "Standing Behind Every Great Con Artist Is Someone Like Glenn Hubbard "

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Charles Ferguson, Oscar-winning creator of Inside Job

Standing Behind Every Great Con Artist is Someone Like Glenn Hubbard

Mitt Romney has a credibility problem. He changes his beliefs like laundry (abortion, medical insurance, whether Bin Laden was worth killing, attacking Iran), refuses to disclose his tax returns, and won't explain how he could possibly pay for the tax cuts he proposes. But there is another scandal in Romney's campaign -- namely Glenn Hubbard, Romney's chief economic advisor, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush, and is now Dean of Columbia Business School.

I interviewed Hubbard for my documentary film Inside Job, and analyzed his record again for my book Predator Nation. The film interview became famous because Hubbard blew his cool after I interrogated him about his conflicts of interest: "This isn't a deposition, sir. I was polite enough to give you time, foolishly I now see, but you have three more minutes. Give it your best shot." But the really important thing about Hubbard isn't his personality; it's that as an economist and an advisor, he is a total, unmitigated disaster.

First, Hubbard has an abysmal track record in economic policy, including the very issues that Romney has made the pillar of his presidential campaign. Second, like Romney, Hubbard refuses to disclose critical information about his income, conflicts of interest, and paid advocacy activities. Third, both in public statements and in my personal experience, Hubbard has been evasive, misleading, and even dishonest when discussing both policy issues and his own conflicts of interest. And last but not least, those conflicts of interest are huge: Hubbard has long advocated policies that Wall Street loves, often without disclosing that he is, in fact, highly paid by Wall Street.

Let's start with tax cuts, since Romney claims that he can cut tax rates sharply without increasing the deficit, and without benefiting the rich. Mr. Romney claims that tax cuts will be fully paid for by closing loopholes and deductions, and will not add to the deficit; Hubbard has publicly supported Romney's claims. Interestingly, Mr. Hubbard has quite a record on this very issue. Shortly after becoming chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in 2001, he spearheaded the Bush administration's tax cuts, and he said lots about them.

How did that work out? First, we now know that over half of the benefits of the Bush-Hubbard tax cuts went to the top 1 percent of the population. In part to benefit the wealthy, the tax cuts were also structured to reward investment in financial assets, rather than either consumer spending or real capital investment. As a result, the tax cuts caused huge budget deficits, yet did little to stimulate growth or job creation: there were basically no new jobs created during the Bush administration, despite adding trillions to the national debt.

That is not, however, what Hubbard said would happen. On August 22, 2001, he published anarticle in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Tax Cuts Won't Hurt the Surplus." Oops. In the article, also, Hubbard predicts that his tax cuts would preserve the Clinton budget surpluses by causing GNP to grow 0.3 percent per year faster.

Hubbard also co-authored an article with William Dudley, then the chief economist of Goldman Sachs, entitled "How Capital Markets Enhance Economic Performance and Job Creation." It was published by the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute in 2004, just as the housing bubble was getting seriously crazy. In my filmed interview, here's how Hubbard described the article:

INTERVIEWER: In 2004 you co-wrote a paper with William Dudley, who was then the chief economist of Goldman Sachs. What do you think about the arguments you made in that paper?

GLENN HUBBARD: As I recall that paper, the arguments were basically to the effect that healthy capital markets are important for the economy, views that I held before and certainly hold after.

Well, here's what that paper really said. Hubbard wrote that "The ascendancy of the U.S. capital markets" had yielded "enhanced stability of the U.S. banking system... more jobs and higher wages... less frequent and milder [recessions}... a revolution in housing finance." Later in the article: "The capital markets have helped make the housing market less volatile... " Next, "Credit crunches... are a thing of the past... " and my personal favorite, "The revolution in housing finance has also... been important in making the economy less cyclical." In other parts of the article, Hubbard and Dudley specifically praise credit default swaps for their role in reducing and spreading risk. Like wow, man.

Hubbard refused to tell me whether he was paid to write that article; no payment is disclosed in the document itself, nor on Hubbard's CV. Which brings us to Mr. Hubbard's many, many disclosure problems and conflicts of interest. After the release of my film Inside Job, Columbia University was forced to establish disclosure requirements for the first time for its professors. At the time, Hubbard stated that he welcomed them. Well, it wasn't quite that way in our interview. Here are some selections, verbatim and unedited:

INTERVIEWER: Let me go back to your own personal business involvements. I'm looking at your résumé now, and I guess it looks to me as if the majority of your outside activities are consulting and directorship arrangements with the financial services industry. Would you not agree with that characterization?

GLENN HUBBARD: Not to my knowledge. I don't think my consulting clients are even on my C.V.

INTERVIEWER: Who are your consulting clients?

GLENN HUBBARD: I don't believe I have to discuss that with you. You have a few more minutes and the interview's over.

Slightly later:

INTERVIEWER: Okay. Who are you a director of?

GLENN HUBBARD: I don't believe I have to answer that question.

Well, actually, now that Columbia had adopted disclosure regulations, we now know at least something about Hubbard's income sources, and the overwhelming majority of them are in the financial sector. The HTML version his CV (which you can read here) does not fully disclose his activities, but if you click on the PDF version, you see more. And what you see is that at least two thirds of his literally dozens of consulting, advisory, and directorship arrangements over the last decade are with the financial sector -- MetLife, KKR, Goldman Sachs, Freddie Mac, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, the list goes on and on.

Even Columbia's new policy does not require Hubbard to disclose how much they pay him; all we know currently comes from required SEC disclosures of his director's fees from the boards of three financial sector companies, which pay him over $700,000 per year. His total financial sector income, including consulting and speaking, is undoubtedly much higher. Yet here's how he described his income in our interview, once again verbatim and unedited:

INTERVIEWER: Forgive me, but I'm going to be direct: How does your personal income compare, your private income as opposed to your university salary?

GLENN HUBBARD: Vastly times more, because I write textbooks, so that's much more remunerative than being a professor.

INTERVIEWER: How about your consulting income from the financial services industry, and your directorships?

GLENN HUBBARD: I don't do much consulting in the financial services industry. I do have some directorships, but the income from those would be modest compared to my other income.

Textbooks. You read that correctly. As for not doing "much" consulting for the financial sector, I counted consulting or directorships with 29 financial sector firms on your CV. And your $700K per year directorship income is "modest" compared to the other stuff? Really, now, Glenn.

But we're not done yet. There is a more that Hubbard still hasn't disclosed, and refused to disclose to us when we were making Inside Job. On his CV, Hubbard lists The Analysis Group as a consulting client. That is misleading at best. The Analysis Group is one of a half dozen major firms that specializes in matching private companies and lobbying groups, who are the real clients, with professors who they pay to support their positions in regulatory, policy, Congressional, and legal disputes. It was The Analysis Group, for example, that arranged for Hubbard to testify on behalf of two Bear Stearns hedge fund managers who were prosecuted for securities fraud in 2009. Hubbard was paid $100,000 for his testimony.

Hubbard has been affiliated with the Analysis Group for many years, but when we asked him, he refused to disclose who he had worked for or what he had done. He also refused to provide us with a copy of the Federal financial disclosure form he was required to submit in 2001; we couldn't obtain it from the White House, because they had already destroyed (yes, that is interesting, isn't it?). Nor has Hubbard provided his total consulting income, his tax returns, or a comprehensive list of his income sources and clients for the period since he left the White House in 2003.

So the next time you hear Mitt Romney refuse to release his tax returns, and then tell you that he can cut taxes and balance the budget while creating lots of jobs, well... I would ask you to remember that standing behind every great con artist is someone like... Glenn Hubbard.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 11/03/2012 - 16:05 | 2944739 Stanley Lord
Stanley Lord's picture

Excellent point, I will continue to read ZH up until the election results, mostly for laughs at the comments after the Reps take the senate and white house.

I am getting so tired of hearing from the guns (ZH readers can't operate a gun, let alone shoot straight), farmland (ZH readers can't farm) and gold (cling to doom) crowd.

I live in NYC, I can't stand Bloomberg, we just had a bad storm-where are the roving bands of maurders you promised?

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 10:58 | 2944087 jimijon
jimijon's picture

Final nail in my voting coffin.

Neither is my vote however I am able to accuate it.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:00 | 2944092 PMakoi
PMakoi's picture

Does not cause me to change my mind.  Ron Paul.  Even if I lose, I don't lose.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:01 | 2944094 Hubbs
Hubbs's picture

Anyone who supports either Obama or Romney is out of his mind! Why do they have an essential two party system? So that the "differences" create such political theater that voters don't look at the third option.i.e.,  a third party.  In theory, a third party would dilute out the massive blocks of special interest voters to a size where the productive minority middle class might have a chance at becoming a majority.

Hubbard, Romney, Obama et all have never done a god damned productive thing in their leeching, apex parasitic lives. They, along with the politiucians and Wall Streeters  should be dragged out into the street gutters and summarily shot as traitors and bloodsucking slime that they really are.

And don't ask me how I really feel.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:36 | 2944180 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

If you don't give a shit who wins, why are you commenting? Just set and suck your thumb, telling yourself you are doing the right thing...nothing...as usual.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 14:09 | 2944506 epwpixieq-1
epwpixieq-1's picture

The standard (stupid) argument for "having to vote" is that if one does not vote, one will give his vote for the OTHERS, whatever they may be, in the name of fear.

This is absolutely not true, if one does not vote their vote CAN be interpreted as a vote AGAINST, the current system (running candidates and so on).

The simple truth is that if one does not vote, his/her vote is counted nowhere. If people, were just to realize, sort of, if the media just allowed them to realized this, that by no voting they DECREASE the power of whoever will COME in power, then the system little by little will start to change due to the simple fact that by NO VOTING, ONE ACTUALLY CAN STILL VOTE, AGAINST THE SYSTEM!

Imagine a president, who is chosen with only 5% of the people's vote ( the really junky ones, who have no idea what the real democracy is all about ), what an interesting (impotent) presidency that would be. Just imagine ...

And, for a disclosure, I would have voted only if Ron Paul was one of the candiates.

 

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 15:58 | 2944724 Stanley Lord
Stanley Lord's picture

Inside each party are several parties fighting for control of the party.

Right now the Dem party (and this willl change drastically after next Tuesday) are controlled by wild eyed power hungry zealots

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:07 | 2944095 TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

The important thing is:

 

Romney believes in the Apocalypse.

 

There is really no need to have a balanced budget going into the latter days.  There is not enough time left to pay down the debt anyways.  Use your tax cut to prep!

 

This information provided by ZOMNEY:

Zombies for Romney

"The 1% will no longer be the very rich, but rather, the very fast."

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:02 | 2944101 Time for Titus
Time for Titus's picture

Fortunately for us, this guy is bad at being corrupt. The smart ones don't do interviews.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:27 | 2944165 pragmatic hobo
pragmatic hobo's picture

specially to a guy doing documentary called "inside job"

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:03 | 2944104 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/03/maher-if-you-vote-...

"Bill Maher on HBO's Real Time Friday might have said one of the most disgraceful things uttered during the 2012 campaign season.

"If you're thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after you""

Neat.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:39 | 2944191 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

This the only place these whackos have to go. Romney wins and we will be hanging th b lack folks and dragging women by the hair!

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:14 | 2944135 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

As I like to say, the problem with Mr. Hubbard is, that on his list of top 10 things he is concerned with, he has himself list 1-9 and tied for 10.

Problem is these days it is very difficult, in our society, to get to the lofty perch Mr. Hubbard has reached without being just that kind of motherfucker.

 

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:14 | 2944138 Bansters-in-my-...
Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

"dishonest"...

You mean a fucking liar.... right.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:15 | 2944141 brokesville
brokesville's picture

zh democrats, yes please do not vote

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:20 | 2944145 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

"He changes his beliefs like laundry (abortion, medical insurance, whether Bin Laden was worth killing, attacking Iran)"

From Plumbing the Depths - How the Gears Turn by Fred Reed:

"It is fraud. In a sense, the candidates do not even exist. A presidential candidate consists of two speechwriters, a makeup man, a gestures coach, ad agency, two pollsters and an interpreter of focus groups. Depending on his numbers, the handlers may suggest a more fixed stare to crank up his decisiveness quotient for male or Republican voters, or dial in a bit of compassion for a Democratic or female audience. The newspapers will report this calculated transformation. Yet it works. You can fool enough of the people enough of the time."

P.S. - I don't support Obama either.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:29 | 2944167 JR
JR's picture

Good to have you back, Winston. Your arguments, however, tend to go in one direction – the reelection of the president.

So isn’t it time, instead of tamping down a vote for Romney, you gave us reasons why Obama should be reelected; his issues are clear and unlike Romney he doesn’t change his mind. He has forged ahead with the destruction of liberty.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:42 | 2944200 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

There are no arguments for Obama. We have seen the hope and we have seen the change. While Romney worries me, a lame duck Obama, with nothing to lose scares the shit out of me!

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 14:18 | 2944528 Vidar
Vidar's picture

The fact that Obama has nothing to lose means he will run the system into the ground that much faster.

Collapse is inevitable and necessary, and Obama will bring it about faster (and with less chance of setting off WWIII) than Romney, so while I don't vote I hope Obama wins. Also, I would rather see the collapse come under a Democrat than a Republican because it will make it that much harder for the media to blame the "free market" (not that they won't, but maybe a few more marginal idiots will see through the lies).

The only hope for a free society is the complete collapse and disintegration of fedgov, the sooner the better. If you really want to help the future forget about politics and focus on doing whatever you can to deny resources to the government: quit your job, go off the grid, pull your money out of the banks and buy PM's, etc. Stock up on guns and ammo, food and water, and gold/silver.

Someone making $100,000+ and paying taxes is doing vastly more harm to the future of humanity than all the welfare parasites put together.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 15:14 | 2944634 hawk nation
hawk nation's picture

No thank you on obama as president when this collapse occurs. The banksters he is in bed with he will kill and then bring in his thugs to turn this country into a totalitarian government. 

Romney may or may not side with the banksters or one world governance but there is a chance he will go back to the original intent of the constitution.

I believe ther is zero chance of obama going back to the original intent of the constitution and bill of right

Plus i dont think the banksters are made up of alot of mormons unless someone can show me evidence

 

 

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 18:46 | 2945085 Vidar
Vidar's picture

Turning this country into a totalitarian government is already under way. It needs to proceed to the point where it is obvious enough to wake people up. Obama will do this faster than Romney, but they are both working for the same people. If you think there is a chance Romney will go back to the Constitution you are delusional. There is NO NADA ZERO difference between the two on essential philosophy. Romney just has to pretend he is for free markets, just like Obama had to pretend he was against war last time. Empires fall, every time. The faster the Amerikan Empire falls, the better off we will be.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 15:55 | 2944719 Stanley Lord
Stanley Lord's picture

Obama for the next two months after he loses scares the hell out of me

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 15:16 | 2944641 hawk nation
hawk nation's picture

Vote for obama because you hate yourself and your miserable life and he willonly make it worse

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 15:53 | 2944718 Stanley Lord
Stanley Lord's picture

Exactly right, I am starting to think ZH readers are the least accomplished, most miserable  people in the room.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:24 | 2944155 diesheepledie
diesheepledie's picture

Vote Obama! Although you don't really have to, it's already locked in. The correct percentage of voting machines in the swing states have been "re-calibrated" to make sure this happens :-) An Obama 2nd term will hasten the move to global governance. It's going to happen anyway, but the Obama agenda has fewer obstacles in the way. Romney would have to pretend he supports American sovereignty for a little while, until his base of 55+ Fox News watching Cialis taking Luddites falls back to sleep - about 6 months. 

Punish the useless yuppies in their cardboard mansions! Give their free lunch borrowed "wealth" to Africa, the next frontier ...

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:23 | 2944157 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

What's the matter?  Don't you believe in academic freedom?

 

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:29 | 2944169 Too Big 2
Too Big 2's picture

The 800 pound gorilla in the room isn't tax rates as much as it is spending.  The government thinks that spending 10% more than last year is a tax cut because they were planning on spending 12% more than last year.  How about telling all departments of government that they have to do the same job as last year but with 20% less funds? 

Both political parties got us into this hole we are in but not one of them (or even the great Obama c..k sucker Buffett) have come out on national TV and tell us the truth which most of us here on ZH know to be true.....we are going down the social and economic road to hell and we need to reverse course NOW.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:45 | 2944206 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture

 

 

Speaking of that bailed out crony capitalist obama backing pig warren

Buffett's firm says 3Q profit jumps 72 percent

http://www.ydr.com/business/ci_21916005/live.ydr.com

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 21:13 | 2945397 Blankenstein
Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:31 | 2944172 Catullus
Catullus's picture

I don't see the conflict of interest and who was really harmed.  Granted, the man was wrong.  And people who took his advise were unwise to do so, but hubris isn't a crime. 

The fact that Romney would choose a man who was so wrong DOES speak to his ability to judge competence.  But the real point is that the president's judge of character shouldn't have this much impact on where and how markets clear. 

I will say this: the people that Romney surrounds himself with have been disastrously wrong over the past decade.  From the war in Iraq, to foreign policy, to encouraging the housing bubble, to the tech bubble, to the financial derivatives bubble.  And you're never going to find solutions from the same people that cause a problem.  Voting for Romney is re-hiring the same people that have been fucking up the past 15 years.  You're going to get two things from them: no acknowledgement that anything is wrong and these people working behind the scenes to cover up their tracks.  (Much the same reason why Hillary Clinton negotiated to become the Secretary of State).

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:47 | 2944217 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture

 

 

Here's a difference a HUGE DIFFERENCE

CONVICTED: Bush 1300+, Clinton 1000+, Obama 0.0

snip

Financial Fraud Conviction Scorecard:

Bush: 1300+, Clinton: 1000+, Obama: 0.0 (+/-)

Meanwhile, not a word of complaint from a single Democrat in Congress, which is especially infuriating given the broad bi-partisan agreement among voters that criminal bankers need to do time.  Too concerned with keeping up appearances and the next election cycle, neither side of the false left-right paradigm of American politics is capable of exposing its own filthwhen it comes to legitimate scandal, and this DOJ non-prosecution madness involving Goldman Sachs certainly qualifies as sordid.

Unfortunately, since it appears to the mainstream media that this is a partisan issue, and Obama is the anointed one, this story will get zero coverage.

---

DOJ Corruption Report via The Daily Caller

Excerpt:

“When we think of cronyism and the problems of cronyism and crony capitalism, we think in terms of economic loss and gain,” Schweizer said in a phone interview.  “What we’re showing here is that cronyism is now permeating our justice system.  So, it’s not just a question of dollars and cents, it’s a question of whether you’re going to face legal jeopardy or not on what you’re doing.”

“The issue of a revolving door — people who go in and out of, for instance, the Department of Energy who go work for energy companies then come back to the Department of Energy — is always there,” Schweizer added.  “But, we’re not used to associating the top leadership of the Justice Department with the revolving door.  And, I think that’s what makes this so troubling — because you can’t trust them.  All their financial interests are tied up with these large firms that do an enormous amount of business with Wall Street.”

In the report, GAI details how the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations both actually took down financial criminals — unlike the Obama administration.  Between 2002 and 2008, for instance, GAI points out how a Bush administration task force “obtained over 1,300 corporate fraud convictions, including those of over 130 corporate vice presidents and over 200 CEOs and corporate presidents.”

Clinton’s DOJ prosecuted over 1,800 S&L (savings and loans) executives, senior officials, and directors, and over 1,000 of them were sent to jail,” GAI adds.

But, despite having “promised more of the same,” especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration’s DOJ has not brought criminal charges against a single major Wall Street executive.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:58 | 2944236 Catullus
Catullus's picture

And?

Is saying Romney surrounds himself with assholes a ringing endorsement of democrats?

But continue to drag Holder's name through the mud.  The guy is a puppet.  I have zero respect for federal prosecutors.  They're all political appointees.

 

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:32 | 2944173 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

All I know is that I want to quit working, get food stamps and a cell phone, and have you pay for it...so I'm voting for Obama because he can deliver the goods and Romney can't. Gobamma!

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:46 | 2944211 guinea
guinea's picture

Some days I just want to pack my bags for New Zealand, and get the fuck out of this Frankencountry that is Democratic welfare statism and Republican corportist theocracy.  If I didn't have family here, I would.  I'm a physician and can work anywhere in the goddamn world. The more I travel around the US, the more Third World this country is looking.  Even the housing in the last decade look like something from China or Bulgaria.

Mon, 11/05/2012 - 01:39 | 2945269 honestann
honestann's picture

Take responsibility.  Take action.

Get your butt out of the USSA, now.  Refuse to help the predators force you (with healthcare rules, regulations, policies, dictates) to harm and destroy ever more human beings.

Get out.  Get out.  Get out.

I know a few physicians who have already left (plus two more almost ready to leave).  ALL of them are happy they escaped.

If you escape, you help others gain the fortitude to escape too.  In the end, escaping saves lives.  More important, escaping saves the best lives... those lives smart enough and honest enough to understand what is happening, and able to do their good works elsewhere.

I escaped 3 years ago.  I haven't regretted my decision or action for one picosecond.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:52 | 2944223 tooriskytoinvest
tooriskytoinvest's picture
Banksters & Their Attorneys Panicking! $43 Trillion – The World’s Largest Lawsuit Now Officially In Federal Court & Moving Forward

http://investmentwatchblog.com/banksters-their-attorneys-panicking-43-trillion-lawsuit-now-officially-in-federal-court-moving-forward/

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:52 | 2944224 BeetleBailey
BeetleBailey's picture

Fuck Hubbard.

Are we all that naive that we think ANYONE....ANYONE....attached to ANY SIDE of the government is "good"?

Gee...ask the fuckwad spammer/troll/parody douchebag MDB....

I say burn everything down...start from scratch.....beginning with fucking polygraph tests ongoing...

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 11:53 | 2944225 Stanley Lord
Stanley Lord's picture

I want Romney to win, but I cant stand Hubbard, he had a front row seat during the Bush debacle.

 Taylor at Fed would be good, if they can force out POS Ben early, if Hubbard gets Treasury, it is business as usual.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 12:10 | 2944265 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture

 

 

I don't like Hubbard either but this author doesn't know if that is who will be picked no one knows right now in fact plenty of people have also speculated about Taylor I could put several articles that show that. This article is meant to incite and even if it did turn out to be the way it worked out how would hubbard be any worse then geithner?

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 13:13 | 2944406 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

I marvel that people here at ZH actually believe the false Rep/Dem paradigm in 2012. Congrats on your ability to sleep through this disaster.

I'm sure Romneys new UST Sect would impress you. You know, someone like Jamie Dimon or maybe even William Dudley himself?

Oh wait, arent those Obama's guys too?

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 14:34 | 2944554 Stanley Lord
Stanley Lord's picture

Everybody can see through the Dem/Rep paradigm, the problem is the liberal dems in this country are wayyyyyyyyy more dangerous to our liberty and freedom than the Reps-conservative or RINO.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 14:45 | 2944570 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

How so? 9/11, Iraq and Afghan Wars, Patriot Act and TSA all came under Bush, among other things.

Thanks, you made my point. Some people are still fast asleep and drinking the Rep Kool Aid.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 15:51 | 2944703 Stanley Lord
Stanley Lord's picture

and how where your  individual freedoms hurt by these wars?

Obamacare alone will enslave us.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 23:04 | 2945574 Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

You must not fly much

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 12:02 | 2944245 moneybots
moneybots's picture

If stimulus is passed, unemployment won't rise above 8%.

 

The political world is full of con jobs, republican and democrat.  After all, we know that a politician is lying when we see their lips are moving.

Politicians tell us we have to spend our way to prosperity, tax cut our way to prosperity.  We have done both, with an economy that is based 70% consumption, and yet we are in the 5th year of an economic depression.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 12:08 | 2944262 janchup
janchup's picture

Could he be a bigger disaster that Geithner?

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 12:10 | 2944267 Brokenarrow
Brokenarrow's picture

LIAR!

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 12:30 | 2944301 yogibear
yogibear's picture

Glenn Hubbard is a good reason not to vote for Romney. Not voting for Obama either. 

Glenn Hubbard is another Keynesian zombi. 

Pick one of the 2 bad candidates.... Neither.

Glenn Hubard, I hope you read this because you suck! So many people realize that your a horrible economic mis-advisor.

Mon, 11/05/2012 - 15:11 | 2944342 SillySalesmanQu...
SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

It is time for the"lie detector chair". Any and every elected official should be sat in one, questioned, and be progressively shocked with increasing voltage until death from their own b.s.,unanswered questions, lies and saying "I don't recall" or" "I don't have to answer that question".

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 13:00 | 2944388 Motorhead
Motorhead's picture

Another fucking dork.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 13:18 | 2944417 oilman8864
oilman8864's picture

This article is lame and not worth of zerohedge purely on it's merits. Bush's tax cut was miniscule. Does somebody actually think the country was run off a cliff because the top braket went from 39.6 to 35% in 2006? 

Also, I'm quite sure that Ferguson made a killing shorting real estate in 2007? The fact is, there were probably few of us (I did ok) shorting real estate, but the fact is, that trade was maddening. I didn't sleep for months setting that up. VERY few people belived real estate would collapse. 

Furthermore, anybody that doesn't understand closing loopholes apparently missed TRA86 which was a bipartisan bill to take away the Byzantine nature of the code and stop people from running losing businesses as tax dodges. 

Finally, the author seems to think that Bush's cutting capital gains taxes from 20-15% was a game stopper, yet Clinton cutting them from 30% to 20% is a good idea. Is there a reason why our media can't come to grips with the fact that Romney created his business under Clinton and was taxed under clinton with a code created by Clinton? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 13:27 | 2944429 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

Obama = Romney - obama care

They are both incompetent to lead this country....both suck at basic math skills but accelerate at partisan math....

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 14:03 | 2944448 JR
JR's picture

One of the Romney campaign's serious worries in recent weeks has been that libertarians, particularly Ron Paul supporters, would not vote for Romney.

Obviously, they are not Obama votes but if the Obama Campaign could somehow keep these libertarians away from the polls, the Obama votes would be more valuable.

With an objective such as this, why not a major investment from the Obama Campaign into cyber efforts at tamping down the libertarian vote for Romney?

What better argument than that both Romney and Obama are bad – so you Ron Paul voters stay home.

Where would a campaign such as this find these libertarian voters and keep them away from the polls? One place is called Zero Hedge.

Hence, the appearance here of two major themes this weekend:

1)    It is not only okay not to vote but it is an exercise in nation building, and

2)    Romney is a blackguard.

Not many mentions, of course, of his opponent.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 14:20 | 2944531 yogibear
yogibear's picture

That's what the GOP gets for blackballing Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

The GOP has become the more conservative democratic party. 

 

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 15:00 | 2944598 JR
JR's picture

As a major worker and contributor in the Buchanan and Ron Paul campaigns, yogibear, I can certainly agree with your appraisal of what has happened to the Republican Party. In fact, I did not vote for George W. Bush.

The primaries were a tragedy for America. But a different problem faces us in this election. Romney’s strategists say that the turnout for Obama from blacks and young people will not be as strong as 2008 and the negatives for Obama mean a stronger turnout by white voters.

But the Obama campaign, realizing this disadvantage, has directed its appeal and registration efforts spectacularly toward getting more black registrations and especially Hispanic voters in an attempt to replicate its 2008 demographic turnout.

This is the beginning of a potential wave of voters who will never approve of the liberty-related issues that you and I treasure. To give Obama four more years, especially with close supervision of the international bankers, will develop a U.S. electorate that, like the states of California and New York, can never be overcome with a partisan, non-Democrat vote.

Even the Ron Paul movement four years from now would have major hurdles if the Obama culture continues to swell.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 14:33 | 2944553 demsco
demsco's picture

Charles, you got credibility issues. First, the tax cuts did not go mostly the the wealthy. In fact, the tax cuts cost the treasury some $378B a year in lower revenue, which is a misnomer because taxes aren't revenue, rather theft, IMHO. Now, out of that $378B the top 1% received annual tax breaks to the tune of $78B/year, this is fact folks, look it up, while 95% of Americans receive some $300B a year in tax breaks. Sure, you can slice the data anyway you want to make your claim, kind of, only a per capita basis supports your argument, but whatever. The bottom line is that the lower tax brackets were either eliminated or cut by 50% which is why Obama wants to KEEP those tax cuts, even though we cannot afford them. However, $78B in tax cuts to the 1% did not "drive up the deficit" it was ALL of the tax cuts, plus wars, etc. Also, tax cuts did NOT create the collapse, period. If you disagree show me data to prove it, not coincidental data, but real data with confirmation. On that note, show me specifically which Bush policies created the crisis? You can't because what caused it was instituted under Clinton, Glass-Steagall, commodity modernization act, lower lending standards at the GSE's. Liberals and facts just don't mix. Oh, I hated and I mean HATED Bush with a passion.

 

Now, what about Obama's charlatan economic advisors, you know the ones who pushed for deregulation before they wanted more regulation and held directorships at Citi when they bought, illegally I might add, Travelers. No mention of this, how convenient. Why would ZH allow this trash on here? I thought data, intellect and truth meant something here. Look, I hate our choices for government, but a hit piece like this which one can easily rip apart is wrong, period. Yeah, I know, liberal Hollywood didn't give me an Oscar, somehow I will survive, but I get paid $500/hour by financial firms for my insight so I must be doing something right.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 14:40 | 2944564 demsco
demsco's picture

One more thing, Bush did create jobs but they were wiped out all in 2008 so to say "no jobs created" is, frankly, bullshit. No jobs created is Obama. If you add Obama neg job reports to positive reports you are at, basically, zero after $6T in spening, $2T more than Bush and Bush's deficits started to shrink until 2008 and you have to discount the $700B TARP bailout from the 2008 deficit since it was not planned for, but all of Obama's spending WAS planned for. Hey, if you wanna talk Clinton surpluses next, bring it on, but please go look at Social Security tax receipts first and the 1983 law that allows SS taxes to be placed in the general account. Oh, Clinton also got lucky cause higher taxes do not create jobs, the internet did though. BUT the internet bubble also collapsed, it was all fake.

Sun, 11/04/2012 - 10:45 | 2945957 1eyedman
1eyedman's picture

the problem some of these contributors run into, at its very base, is that the political parties are different.   had ferguson stuck with 'politicians' or political/economic elite...he'd have a better leg to stand on.    however the gop'ers do seem to bit more overt than the dems, who are mostly ignorant

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 14:48 | 2944574 Antifederalist
Antifederalist's picture

Thank you Charles Ferguson. Well done , sir.

Hubbard is an economic whore. He should be shunned, fired or worse.

Karma is a bitch Glen. Your day will come. The record is in writing.

RTBAAALD

Retribution
To
Be
Administered
At
A
Later
Date

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 14:53 | 2944580 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

I bet this guy is a cuckold

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 17:43 | 2944945 Forbes
Forbes's picture

Oscar winner means Hollywood liked the film. Aside from Hollywood itself, who cares what Hollywood thinks? Leftist, fictional propaganda is their forte, this guy is no different.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 17:43 | 2944946 Forbes
Forbes's picture

Oscar winner means Hollywood liked the film. Aside from Hollywood itself, who cares what Hollywood thinks? Leftist, fictional propaganda is their forte, this guy is no different.

Sat, 11/03/2012 - 20:21 | 2945253 honestann
honestann's picture

Name ONE individual in the republican or democrat campaigns (including candidates) who is not a blatant liar.  Every single one of them is essentially the same.

Sun, 11/04/2012 - 01:50 | 2945728 jonjon831983
jonjon831983's picture

OH yea THAT guy.  Recall watching that movie... what a douche bag.

Mon, 11/05/2012 - 12:55 | 2948919 Random_Robert
Random_Robert's picture

The truth is the enemy of the State...

 

You go, Glenn... your actions are creating "enemies" at every turn.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!