Should Tim Geithner step down ?

[halik]

Him and his coworkers do share some of the blame. Its really simple, either they were asleep at the wheel or they weren't. Which is it?

How about some real world proof? The mobsters who got us into this mess seem to be making record profits while the rank and file are footing the bill. Agree or disagree? I mean, us normal folk are hard up for jobs, still underwater on our retirements, pensions, houses (just about all of their assets), the banks that the very same people bailed out are kind enough to jack their GOOD customers credit cards up to 29%.... but yeah, its all peachy, hell of a job their Geithner, mister Treasury Secretary (head of the Obama administrations economic team, supposedly for EVERYONE and not just the mobsters that ripped us off)

The mobsters seem to be making record profits, huge bonuses and golden parachutes. I got no problem with capitalism and people getting paid whatever the market will bear but thats not what this is, is it?

When was he appointed again?

 

[werepossum]

Have you checked out Japan's debt/gdp lately? Or the fact they are *STILL* in the grips of a deflationary spiral. Or the fact they've yet to pull out of the early 90s recession? Or the fact that many Japanese banks are still fucked?

Let's talk about Germany. The country that has huge amounts of unions, thus, they can barely lay off people. Their debt/GDP isn't great either. Although they didn't go INTO this situation as bad, so, naturally, they'll come out better.

I honestly had no idea Japan's debt ratio was that bad; I suppose they buying jobs too. Still, with 5.3% unemployment, they should be able to work their way back, although their biggest problem is their aging population and low birthrate. That's going to be hard to work through.

Germany's debt ratio is about the same as ours, and with 3/4 the unemployment. I'd take that trade, I think, especially considering that as a socialist country with high overhead costs and limited means of releasing employees, Germany's unemployment rate is generally high than ours.

I think our biggest problem right now is uncertainty about Obama and Congress. A recession is a great time for companies with cash banked to expand at the expense of competitors, but right now too many companies are afraid of what health care reform, higher taxes, and cap-and-trade expenses will do to their overhead to invest even if they have cash. When all this is determined, at least the winners in Congress' lottery will be able to hire and make investments without so much fear new legislation will kill the company.

 

[lothar]

Why exactly should he have been fired?

I love how the poster above said he's an "industry insider". Sorry, but the guy hasn't ever even worked for an i-bank. He's been in government service for the last 20 years, since he was 27.

He's been an academic and bureaucrat his whole life, hardly an "insider". The only bank relevant experience he has is the FRBNY, which is a political appointment.

Isn't he a Goldman alumnus?
I could have sworn he had some kind of relation or connection to Goldman.

 

[LegendKiller]

Isn't he a Goldman alumnus?
I could have sworn he had some kind of relation or connection to Goldman.

Nope.

I do love the monday-morning quarterbacking going on though.


People who do that are the same ones who always shirk responsibility or authority because they cannot stand the idea that they could be wrong at any point in time. Or, if they are wrong, they deflect the blame.

I know plenty of people like that, they are usually the ones who make the least amount of money or have the least amount of respect.

I have found, in my experience, that even if you make the wrong decision some of the time, the fact that you even MADE a decision, you stuck by it, and you dealt with the consequences effectively, AND you are generally more right than wrong, counts for far more than if you are paralyzed by fear of being wrong.

Instead of bashing people for being wrong on small points, or points they could not really change, people should take a far more wide-ranging view of the situation.

Pros
1. Geithner, as FRBNY Director, faced one of history's largest crisis. He tried to prevent the largest amount of damage and he did so effectively.

2. He has attempted to maintain a strategic outlook on the situation. Sure, there have been several false-starts, but after announcing a plan and then proceeding down that path, if you don't change the path if the decision, as you get closer to effecting it, is wrong, you're a moron. He found that after further review and near implementation, some ideas wouldn't work. He pivoted and chose the next best option. That isn't flip-flopping, it's dealing effectively with the situation.


Cons - Note - you guys don't even hit the BIGGEST con of Geithner. Why? Because you're so concentrated on spewing bullshit you don't even research the facts. That's how pathetic you are.

The single biggest Con? In May 2007, as the crisis was beginning to unfold, he worked to *REDUCE* the amount of capital required for bank operations. Now, to me, this is a fucking massive problem.

Did one of you mention that? Nope. You just sat around spewing BS. Do you research next time.

 

[sandorski]

Vidoe pertaining to the Discussion

Krugman discusses a number of issues regarding the Economy, Banks, Regulation, Future. Vids from earlier this month.

A few points:

1) Nations with Trade Surpluses will recover quicker...Germany is one such Nation

2) The US is kinda fracked because there hasn't been sufficient Stimulus and Trade Surpluses are not going to happen anytime soon

3) Without some kind of Employment Program it could be 2020 before Full Employment(5% Unemployment) is reached again

4) Probably Politically too late for any significant Bank/Financial Reform

 

[Medellon]

Why are these liberals even trying to post here? Their ideas are crap, their leader is dumb as a brick, and their social progressive ideas have or will fail. It is time to marginalize these liberal posters.

 

[Medellon]

Krugman is a partisan hack. Anyone who believes more government spending is the answer is mentally challenged.

 

[Darwin333]

When was he appointed again?

What was his previous job again?

 

[sandorski]

Krugman is a partisan hack. Anyone who believes more government spending is the answer is mentally challenged.

Thanks for playing, but you really should listen to what he has to say. There are very few Economists who has the knowledge he has. Especially regarding the Depression and other Recessions.

 

[Medellon]

I have found, in my experience, that even if you make the wrong decision some of the time, the fact that you even MADE a decision, you stuck by it, and you dealt with the consequences effectively, AND you are generally more right than wrong, counts for far more than if you are paralyzed by fear of being wrong.

So are you ready to give Bush his due when he stuck by his unpopular decision on Iraq? He made a decision and stuck by it and dealt with the consequences.

 

[Medellon]

Oh that's right he won a Noble Peace Prize, yeah those really mean a lot these days. I can't stand to listen to his drivel. This guy folds like a lawn chair whenever he tries to debate someone. Want someone who is exponentially smarter and more knowledgeable than Krugman? Try Thomas Sowell.

 

[sandorski]

Oh that's right he won a Noble Peace Prize, yeah those really mean a lot these days. I can't stand to listen to his drivel. This guy folds like a lawn chair whenever he tries to debate someone. Want someone who is exponentially smarter and more knowledgeable than Krugman? Try Thomas Sowell.

Your loss.

 

[Medellon]

I find it laughable that Krugman says that the stimulus kept apocalypse from happening as if we could have any way of proving that. Just like Obama saying that the stimulus brought us away from the brink, brought us back from the edge of the cliff. This guy has no credibility, the stimulus failed, increased government spending has been proven again and again not to be the answer.

 

[sandorski]

I find it laughable that Krugman says that the stimulus kept apocalypse from happening as if we could have any way of proving that. Just like Obama saying that the stimulus brought us away from the brink, brought us back from the edge of the cliff. This guy has no credibility, the stimulus failed, increased government spending has been proven again and again not to be the answer.

Funny you have no way to Prove that....although Krugman would somewhat agree with that statement. Simply because it wasn't large enough.

 

[Medellon]

I could read any high school text book to get the information and analysis this guy is spewing. Of course we have the obligatory Palin slam, what a joke. No knocks on Obama and his policies. You think we can keep us this massive spending, the printing of money, and suffer no repercussions from it? His answer about cap and trade is also nonsensical. He is not a damn scientist and has no clue what he is talking about. You go ahead and keep listening to your liberal, partisan Ideaologues. I don't need to listen to some idiot with a grade school vocabulary and grade school analysis.

 

[sandorski]

I could read any high school text book to get the information and analysis this guy is spewing. Of course we have the obligatory Palin slam, what a joke. No knocks on Obama and his policies. You think we can keep us this massive spending, the printing of money, and suffer no repercussions from it? His answer about cap and trade is also nonsensical. He is not a damn scientist and has no clue what he is talking about. You go ahead and keep listening to your liberal, partisan Ideaologues. I don't need to listen to some idiot with a grade school vocabulary and grade school analysis.

He doesn't claim to be and the only thing he offered was the probable Cost/Economic affects.

Your Loss man.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Trying to torpedo the Treasury Secretary is the latest GOP attempt at obstruction.

What I find interesting: Less than one week after Congress launches serious financial-reform efforts (including provisions to break-up "too big to fail" institutions) the NeanderCons go into Attack Mode and proclaim 'Zero support for Senate financial reform'.

'Let them go bankrupt' is not financial reform and regulation of exotic financial instruments.

Just as interesting: The folks previously screaming for more control over the Federal Reserve now oppose efforts to significantly transfer powers from the Federal Reserve, FDIC and Treasury to a non-political regulatory agency.

The Big Kicker: The people whining about executive compensation and taxpayer/consumer rip-offs now oppose protections and executive compensation provisions that focus on shareholder rights and votes on financial packages, clawbacks and other restrictions.


You guys need to make up your minds.

-
-
-

 

[LegendKiller]

So are you ready to give Bush his due when he stuck by his unpopular decision on Iraq? He made a decision and stuck by it and dealt with the consequences.

"Sticking to it" doesn't infer keeping on the same course just because you don't want to admit the old one was wrong. I meant it in the sense of owning your decision, admitting it was wrong, and deciding how to make the best out of the situation. None of which Bush ever did.

When it comes down to it, Iraq was a boondoggle with a plethora of poor decisions. Rummy and Cheney forgot, or never learned, some of the main tenets of war. I think one of their worst decisions was to go to Baghdad rather than attacking the core of the Fadayeen, which later became the core of the insurgency. They fell into the problem of focusing on political objectives than practical and tactical ones that achieve strategic goals. They wanted a "big bang". Same thing with ignoring advisers and going in with 1/2 the troops they should have.

They compounded on those mistakes by dismissing the Iraqi army, thus keeping on the path of treating the Iraqis with contempt rather than adversarial respect, co-opting an enemy into a friend. Finally, the iced the cake of insult by giving private contractors carte blanche control, and direct relations with, the Iraqi citizenry, allowing them to goad the public without repercussions.

Basically, they ignored not just one basic premise of war strategy, but ALL of them. To me that's not owning one's poor decisions, it's fumbling from one poor decision to the next without actually fixing the problem, afraid to make hard decisions lest public support turn against you.

I see it all of the time in NYC. So many people take such a piss-poor position in relations with clients. Then they think by not making a hard decision they can muddle through to a resolution.


From the Geithner perspective, he made some hard decisions and has stuck by them thus far. He's telling people "Yeah, things sucked, I did what I could to plug the holes in the wall, and thus far the wall hasn't broken, now shut the fuck up".

 

[wwswimming]

when they need a talking head to tell the Chinese the dollar is strong & get laughed at, Geithner is as good for that job as anybody.

if they start investigating & indicting for credit derivatives & other forms of financial fraud associated with the 2007-2009 banking sector hiccup, then Geithner will need to choose sides - witness or defendant.

 

[cubeless]

snip

From the Geithner perspective, he made some hard decisions and has stuck by them thus far. He's telling people "Yeah, things sucked, I did what I could to plug the holes in the wall, and thus far the wall hasn't broken, now shut the fuck up".

he just needs to remember to put the money he spends putting a hit on barney into ttax as a business expense and not a charitable contribution...

at the end of the day how many people are lining up to replace him? bo ain't going to get embarrassed (again? more?) asking someone and getting turned down or having them fail vetting... he's as good a bcrat as you tend to get...

 

[Darwin333]

From the Geithner perspective, he made some hard decisions and has stuck by them thus far. He's telling people "Yeah, things sucked, I did what I could to plug the holes in the wall, and thus far the wall hasn't broken, now shut the fuck up".

He plugged the holes with some play dough and duct tape though. He, and the Admin, have done virtually nothing to fix the underlying problems that they told us they would with our money. Toxic assets? Still on the banks books at or near full value. Our government is in a real pickle of a situation with our external debt being almost entirely short term during historically low "interest rates, when, not if, those rates start going up we are going to feel it to the tune of 100's of billions in additional interest payments almost immediately (not sure if this one is on Geithner but it is his problem now). He severely overpaid for a crapton of assets with OUR money to benefit a few mobsters on wall street.

I do agree with part of your previous post about changing bad decisions as you go instead of sticking with them. Thats why I haven't brought up the spectacle he made during the Congressional hearings (It was almost guaranteed money back then to short the market anytime he was going to speak in front of a camera).

And yes he was involved in getting leverage limits removed but I put that one more on Paulson but Geithner shoulders some of that responsibility as well. How much better would we be right now if the banks still had 12-1 limits? He was also instrumental in preventing oversight into the CDS market. Oh yeah, did I mention that he is heading the IRS and is himself a tax cheat?

At the end of the day it all boils down to this: He has made his mobster friends even wealthier and thats about it... Wall Street is just about the only place in the country that thinks we are seeing any kind of economic recovery but given the numerous bailouts, including the backdoor bailouts, and the "free money" policy of the Fed it would be hard for them not to.

IIRC, you are a banker, correct? It would definitely explain why you are defending him. He spends just about 100% of his time trying to make you guys even more money at the expense of everyone else (an easy example is government sponsored predatory lending solely to help the mobsters not the people).

 

[bamacre]

IIRC, you are a banker, correct? It would definitely explain why you are defending him.

Yup. And no one here should ever forget that. He's not on our team, folks.

 

[LegendKiller]

Yup. And no one here should ever forget that. He's not on our team, folks.

LOL. Only you and the dipshit above would take what I said and twist it that way. I've merely stuck to what you can blame him for, not what you can't.

As far as me personally, I take a far more pragmatic approach to the markets, which you despise. I've spoken out against banks, their abuses, and for better regulation. Just because I don't want to be a pig farmer and nail maker, like you want to be, doesn't mean I shouldn't be listened to. Only somebody who wars against experience, knowledge, and intelligence, would discredit somebody merely for those factors.

What's really concerning, yet ironic, about you and Darwin is that the world is full of shades of gray, yet you only see black and white, which is why you interpret all of my posts the way you do. Why is that scary? Because you attempt to gather support for your extremist agenda and there are 5% of the people out there that agree with you.

Why is it ironic? Because for all of your attempted knowledge and supposed "rightness", you exclude all viewpoints but your own, which is the antithesis of having superior knowledge.

 

[bamacre]

:biggrin: I really got your panties in a wad with that one.

Because for all of your attempted knowledge and supposed "rightness", you exclude all viewpoints but your own, which is the antithesis of having superior knowledge.

To the contrary, I would propose "our" viewpoints are the result of thorough study of all those previous.

 

[First]

^ Do you really think people who read your posts think "Gee, now there's a studied, well researched and refreshingly new outlook on finance and economics"? You're just the dope everyone points and laughs at. Your nonsense is and has been entirely debunked, and your propaganda was all sourced from exactly the same sources only up until recently when you were called out on it. You're not fooling anyone with Lew Rockwell and Peter Schiff references kiddo, especially references that blatantly support racial discrimination.