Even though I am not one of Tim Geithner’s toughest critics and even though I was one of very few progressive bloggers to support his handling of TARP, I called on Geithner to resign over a year ago. It’s not that he’s incompetent. It’s not that he’s done anything unethical. He’s just not that great at dealing with Congress or conveying a positive message to the public. And he’s tarnished from dealing with so much toxic shitpile.
A lot of people on the left hated Geithner before they even got to know him for the simple reason that he was the Fed chairman in New York during the housing bubble. I mean, that’s fair enough, but it’s not like he was working at JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs. I don’t think progressives have really come at the Treasury position with realistic expectations. I mean, I see people suggest that Paul Krugman would be a good Treasury Secretary. Maybe he would, but if you look at the background of every Treasury Secretary in history, I don’t think you’ll find any college professors. They are usually the CEO’s of major corporations. That puts Geithner in a different light, I think. So, while I’m eager to see him go and not really happy to see the White House begging him to stay, I am aware that his possible replacements are probably worse.
The prospects of being drawn into an election-year confirmation brawl could deter some who might be considered as Mr. Geithner’s successor. Among those named by people familiar with administration thinking are Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman of General Electric and of Mr. Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness; Roger Altman, a deputy Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration; and Erskine Bowles, a former White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and co-chairman of Mr. Obama’s fiscal commission in 2010.
Some Democrats say Mr. Bowles might be one of the few people who could surmount the opposition of Senate Republicans, given his good relations with some of them after his work on the bipartisan fiscal commission. “In rational times, absolutely” Mr. Bowles would be confirmed, Mr. Warner said. “But I’m not sure we’re in rational times.”
You know, Jamie Dimon is a nice guy and a very smart businessman, but it’s crazy to even float the name of a major banker for Treasury. His name should not even be mentioned because it’s just appalling to contemplate. Most people think people like Dimon should be in prison, not put in charge of the henhouse. That’s nuts. Altman and Bowles are both uninspiring choices. And it would be nice if Jimmy Immelt’s company would pay a dime in taxes.
This list is really a demonstration of who rules our universe. Basically, this list could hardly suck harder. If the Republicans didn’t exist the list would probably be somewhat better, but not that much, because that’s how things work. The Treasury Department is never going to be an antagonist to Wall Street.
And, in some senses, it shouldn’t be. They shouldn’t be at war each other. But, you know, given reality, it would be laughable to suggest ‘Elizabeth Warren for Treasury!!’
The Treasury is understaffed and has been since 1/2009.
We have gotten $6 billion profit out of the the TARP so far.
I don’t understand the dislike for Geithner.
We have a tanked economy.
He’s done okay, but a general has to fire some colonels if three years go by and unemployment is still over 9%.
I mean, you have to take some care for optics even if there’s not much more he could have done.
And HAMP has been a disaster. He could be axed for that alone.
Do they still have any stakes in GM and AIG left?
Even talk about Dimon is crazy.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news/economy/jamie_dimon_bernanke_dodd_frank/
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ONE/1346048312x0x458384/6832cb35-0cdb-47fe-8ae4-1183aeceb7fa/
2010_JPMC_AR_letter_.pdf
This is the kind of thing that drives people to terrorism, because they see no viable way of changing things and their lives are shit.
Hamp was a disaster. It was awful in design and the under staffing did have something to do with it.
Unemployment is high for a lot of reasons and it is so scary.
I read about Geithner during the Bear Sterns drama when it was bought by JP Morgan Chase. He was threatened with collapsing the US economy if Bear went down. The execs at Bear, when working for JP Morgan left because they couldn’t play cowboy.
The Republicans in the House are blocking any changes that would benefit us poor and middle class.
We need to start talking about how to get out of this, like Alice climbing up out of the rabbit hole.
I am a bit overwhelmed right now about how bad things have become.
Two words, Simon Johnson.
I’ve seen this phrase a few times lately and don’t trust it at all:
The source isn’t familiar with the administration, it’s familiar with administration “thinking.” Honestly, it sounds like a gussied-up way of including the views of someone who says, “They’ve proven themselves to be a bunch of capitulating dipshits over and over again, so probably it’ll be Immelt or Dimon or one of those other CEO dumbasses they pal around with.”
When talking about Immelt and GE, it is important to remember that the reason GE didn’t pay any taxes isn’t because of some sneakky illegal types of dealings. GE didn’t pay any taxes because of the way the tax system is set-up. In fact, by law, GE is required to utilize every tax loophole there is out there.
The key here is changing the corporate tax code so that the loopholes disappear. Many major corporations are in favor of a lower corporate tax with most of the special loopholes and favors dispensed with. The etxra they might have to pay in tax is actually worth it in terms of better PR and lower operating costs. Those accountants and attorneys charged with seeing how to avoid taxes cost money.
i submit that Jamie Dimon is neither a nice person nor a good businessman.
his bank helped crash the economy.
They also saved it. JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs were all that were left standing.
“They also saved it. JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs were all that were left standing.”
That’s the problem–“they” “saved” “it”– that, and the fact that you don’t even get that this is the problem.
So, two “problems”.
yes they did. they preserved the banking system as is, including too big to fail.
Quite an accomplishment, protecting one’s interests at the taxpayers’ expense, and then using our bailout funds to award bonuses to the very CEOs who drove us into the ditch. Say, did that Main Street bailout ever come along? Oh that’s right, it didn’t. And now it won’t, thanks to the extended Bush/Obama tax cuts and the president’s austerity plan.
The fact that you see preserving our deeply corrupt banking system as a good thing says volumes.
JP Morgan has that nasty little mortgage problem to clear up.
So people were wrong about “Turbo Tax” Timmy working for the Vampire Squid. BFD!! He was still a bad choice then, and even worse once his tax issues came to light. It was terrible PR at the very least.
would create the impression that the WH is starting to panic in the face of a double dip.
The GOP would take it as proof that there was blood in the water.
He was a HORRIBLE choice, but Obama is stuck with him until next November.
Either Immelt or Dimon would be a disasterous choice.
Unforunately the minority rule are making confirmations of any of Obama’s appointments a doomed concept.
It would be difficult enough to replace Geithner with a Jared Bernstein type. It would truly be tone-deaf to replace him with a banker like Dimon. Obama chose Geithner in part to send a message that he wasn’t going to shake things up in the banking sector.
Might as well try to keep him on. Yeah, he’s not one of us but he hasn’t come off terribly, either.
“I mean, that’s fair enough, but it’s not like he was working at JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs.”
Wrong– Eventhough he wasn’t actually working there, yes, it is exactly “like he was working there.”
vein if they are not a baby of wall street. That is who Geihtner was when he was appointed and is now – a technocrat. It served him well with TARP. It doesn’t serve him as well when communicating to the public.
On the flip side left bloggers who advocate people like Krugman, a professor who has never had any experience managing an agency or dealing with banks, as Sec treasurer are not reality based at all. Someone with practical experience is who you want in that agency.
“It served him well” ? It didn’t serve us well—remember us? the public? We’re the people who got stuck with the fallout from decades of the most amazing Wall Street greed, corruption and self-serving depravity.
Geihtner’s “technocrat” tendencies led him to fail to take any effective and stern disciplinary action against those incredible frauds and their systemic fraudulent practices. Have you read up on the details of the housing bubble and its structured investment scams–the C.D.O.s, (collateralized debt obligations), the CDSs (credit default swaps), the worthless bonds that ratings agencies gave Aaa ratings? Are you aware of the facts behind the scandals?–how the losses were courted, the truly incredible irresponsibility of Fortune 500 company CEOs?
You know these facts? Really– I don’t think you do, I can’t believe you do. If you did, you wouldn’t have been able to write that utter nonsense above.
Try reading Michael Lewis’s book, Panic! A History of Modern Financial Insanity
http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141042312,00.html
Which is why I said specifically it served him and, let me add, us well with the administration of TARP. He turned what was predicted to be a huge loss into one that is smaller in % of GDP than the S&L bail-out.
By the way I have read Michael Lewis’ book so your assumptions about what I know and don’t know are just that assumptions and faulty ones at that.
What do you count in TARP? That’s just the problem. It was left wide open to interpretation.