{"id":179085,"date":"2010-01-13T21:26:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-14T02:26:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/rising-unemployment-and-obamas-hard-turn-to-the-left-should-freak-out-owners-of-bank-stocks-2010-1"},"modified":"2010-01-13T21:26:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-14T02:26:00","slug":"rising-unemployment-and-obamas-hard-turn-to-the-left-should-freak-out-owners-of-bank-stocks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/179085","title":{"rendered":"Rising Unemployment And Obama’s Hard Turn To The Left Should Freak Out Owners Of Bank Stocks"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here’s another reason not to own financials: if Obama responds to the collapse of his poll numbers by taking a left turn towards radical populism, the proposed $120 billion “fee” on the banks may be the thin end of the wedge. By now the White House must have figured out that it’s stuck with 20%+ permanent unemployment, in which case the Democrats are toast in 2010 and Obama is out on his ear in 2012.<\/p>\n

The left (including such luminaries as Paul Krugman at the New York Times) demanded the nationalization of the banks earlier this year. That was a non-starter in March, largely because the credit of the U.S. sovereign would have been impacted. But it can’t be ruled out. The banks, as I’ve noted earlier, are effectively captive subsidiaries of the Treasury in any case, vacuuming up fed funds at 0.25% and lending it back to the government.<\/p>\n

Read the rest of the post at Inner Working — ><\/strong><\/a><\/h3>\n

Join the conversation about this story »<\/a><\/p>\n

See Also:<\/b><\/p>\n