Obama’s pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, made a less-than-bold move today, says Felix Salmon. Feinberg requested that former Bank of America (BAC) CEO and Chairman Ken Lewis not receive his $1.5 million salary for 2009. Lewis will, however, still walk out with $125 million—$53 million in pension and $72 million in accrued and deferred stock compensation. Salmon calls the move to snatch the cherry from Lewis’ sundae “largely symbolic.” He writes, “Since Feinberg had no real jurisdiction over the big lump sum due Lewis, he just decided to bring the sum he could control down to zero.”

Paul Krugman gets a nod from Financial Times columnist Samuel Brittan. But it’s not one that he agrees with. After discussing the global imbalances between U.S. and Western European deficits and the surpluses in China, Germany, Japan, and oil-exporting countries, Brittan suggests making Krugman the “Comptroller of the US Currency,” to better regulate greedy commercial banks. Brittan continued by referring to Krugman as a “radical Keynesian economist” (and that’s the part that bugged Krugman). While Krugman is, admittedly, a Keynesian, he doesn't view himself as radical. He writes, "I’m just a Keynesian, willing to follow the logic of my analysis." What gets called “radical economics,’ Krugman says, is “just being intellectually honest.” Whereas what is often called “sound economics” is “economic analysis trimmed and softened to fit political realities/prejudices.” Sore spot, maybe?

Barry Ritholtz doesn’t care about the Dow 10,000. As many take the Dow’s climb as a positive sign, Ritholtz calls it a “meaningless number, without any impact technically or quantitatively.” And he cites the fact that the rally didn’t last as evidence of its lack of substance. He may be right, but the rise above 10,000 has more of a psychological effect as investor confidence slowly returns after bottoming out earlier this year. 

Brad “Bueller” DeLong took another day off from econoblogging.