When I saw this I was initially disappointed becasue I was hoping he'd help me understand just exactly what the end game is more specifically. More of the same, I guess.
I have a friend who can be pretty insightful and he generally will acknowlege that the Government in Place has successfully mounted a coup across finance, foreign policy and domestic security but nevertheless that because he is an American, solidly among the 53%, he will somehow maintain some of his perquisites from the continuation and expansion of global military and financial hegemony.
Either way I'm not altogether sure of that but the question that I continue to ask myself is whether there is some longer term strategic vision that the empire is driving toward or is it really mostly about plunder until it is sucked dry and then fly away to somewhere in private jets.
But yeah, there really couldn't be any other conclusion to be drawn from the Summers talk other than that the intent is to get someone who will do whatever it takes to keep the NY/DC/London financial axis on top, one leg of the triad that also includes locking down the homeland and taking an aggressive posture in foreign/military affairs.
I didn't have any particular illusions about Obama to begin with and suspicions were growing that he was 100% in the game and nearly confirmed when he took the gift of "Osama" to kick off his re-election campaign. Summers is just icing.
And actually while I don't have a strong argument as to why Obama isn't a Kenyan born Manchurian candidate, don't see where Hillary, McCain or Mitt would have been any different, or no more different than Glenn Hubbard at the Fed rather than Summers.
Actually, in giving credit where it is due, it is in retrospect interesting that George II appointed Bernanke. I think it was not so long ago, at all, when there was enough innocence to believe that an academic with a body of work on the Great Depression might have been able to make a difference. And actually he did, in a very narrow context.
