Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Newsweek: The Education of Timothy Geithner

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:51 PM
Original message
Newsweek: The Education of Timothy Geithner
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 04:43 PM by ProSense

The Education of Timothy Geithner

For weeks he's looked like a deer in the headlights, flubbing speeches and rattling markets. But the Treasury chief retains the support of his boss—and he's starting to hit his stride.

By Michael Hirsh | NEWSWEEK
Published Mar 28, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Apr 6, 2009

Tim Geithner can't stop smiling and laughing—he's actually relaxed, in fact. The new Treasury secretary has just come off the biggest week in his life, though when asked about it he adopts that sober, intense look the public knows so well, insisting he's not over any hump. "Sure, it's nice, but I know how fickle this stuff is. I'm going to be doing all sorts of unpopular things for a long time," he says, sitting in his office late last week under the stern eye of Alexander Hamilton's portrait.

<...>

Geithner started off badly in January—and things just seemed to get worse from there. The straitlaced civil servant was forced to admit within days of Obama's inauguration that he had failed to pay all his taxes. He won confirmation by a vote of 60–34, but it was the closest tally for any Treasury secretary since World War II. That put Geithner—who is publicity-shy even in normal times—at a moral disadvantage when he should have been a dominant voice dictating policy to Washington and Wall Street. "Because of the tax issue, he couldn't come off being too strong-voiced," says a former senior official at the New York Fed who knows Geithner well, but asked for anonymity when giving a personal assessment of him. "The problem was, by treading softly people said he didn't have the gravitas."

He was also plagued by what many critics say was a tendency to overpromise. In interviews, he invoked his experience in Tokyo as a Treasury attaché in the early '90s—pledging to avoid the timid response of Japan after its bubble burst, and to apply "overwhelming force," an economic Powell doctrine. The markets were underwhelmed when they didn't see a big, detailed plan right away. Geithner now argues that if you add up all Treasury's programs, along with the record $890 billion stimulus plan, he's used as much force as he could, and just about as fast as he could.

Geithner and his frazzled staff say they're amazed they've gotten as much done in 60 days as they have. "What is it? Six weeks? Eight weeks? It's eight weeks, OK," says Geithner, who is trim, fit and a little wired. "Just look at what we've done." Among other things, he cites the stimulus, as well as the huge amount of financing provided to the markets.

Out of view of the cameras, Geithner prides himself on proceeding methodically—the markets be damned. He's dismissive of critics who rail against the more controversial aspects of his plan for a public-private partnership creating government-backed "funds"—which by this summer are supposed to conduct an auction for bad assets. Among those critics is columnist Paul Krugman, who says the plan is another rich giveaway to Wall Street that won't make banks more solvent. Geithner scoffs at their proposed alternative, what he calls "preemptive nationalization of the big institutions," saying his critics have no idea what they're talking about. One big problem, Geithner says, is that the government doesn't have the resources to do more now, not with political outrage so high. And Washington cannot just take over banks that are not technically insolvent yet. "We would end up killing the institutions and having the government assume right away all those basic losses … There's no feasible way we could get in and out quickly."

Geithner says AIG, which the government effectively took over last fall, is a good example of how difficult nationalization is today. "The government took 80 percent of the thing as a condition for initial intervention. They replaced management, changed the composition of the board—they might call that nationalization. We did that because they couldn't operate. They were on the brink of default. Look at what's happened. They've had the (healthy aspects of their) business bleed away." At the same time, senior Treasury and Fed officials concede they may still have to make substantial investments in a couple of major banks when the "stress tests" are completed sometime in April. But that won't mean "nationalization." "You can't solve it that way," says Geithner.

more


From Meet The Press:

<...>

SEC'Y GEITHNER: Core thing is to make sure that the institutions at the center of our financial system are subject to much more conservative, much tougher requirements on capital and leverage that are applied more evenly and more effectively, frankly. We need to make sure that hedge funds and derivatives come within a framework of oversight so we protect the system from the risks they may present. And we need to make sure the government has the authority it needs to come in more quickly, to help contain the damage, restructure the system, so we can have a stronger system going forward.

MR. GREGORY: But is the government really capable of moving in on companies that may need it? Does the government have the level of expertise to unwind something like AIG's financial products division? You're having your own problems even staffing up the Treasury Department. Isn't that a lot to, to ask the American people to support?

SEC'Y GEITHNER: But, but there's no choice. I mean, how--what would you, what would you prefer, that we live with the kind of choices we saw in Lehman, AIG? Catastrophic damage, or the government putting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars at risk to help and contain that damage? We need a better model. What we're proposing to do is use a model that exists for small banks that was designed by the Congress in the wake of the S&L crisis, build on that model and give the government a capacity to act more quickly, more effectively to contain the damage at least risk to the taxpayer and the economy as a whole.

MR. GREGORY: Time magazine this week has its cover, and it's very interesting. I want to put it up on the screen for our viewers to see. "The End of Excess: Why the crisis is good for America." And there's a big red "reset" button. And everybody talks about reset. Obviously this is not a good crisis for America right now. But take a longer view. In the long run, is this crisis necessary for this economy?

SEC'Y GEITHNER: I think the adjustment to a period of excess is necessary. You never, you never want to have a crisis to remind people of the importance of living within your means, not borrowing too much or why regulation of the...(unintelligible)...is important. You never want to have a crisis that's damaging to make that point. But we're going to emerge stronger than this. When we get through this people are going to care less about what they make, more about what they do, what they achieve with what they make, and that will help make this country stronger.

MR. GREGORY: Will the economy be fundamentally different? Will people own fewer homes? I mean, home ownership, will that go down? Will consumption change? Will our lives change in a meaningful way?

SEC'Y GEITHNER: I think people will be living within their means more, which is helpful. We want to have, you know, a stronger, more sustainable recovery. Not a recovery based on a artificial boom that's not going to be sustained. We need to end this, this, this pattern of having booms and busts at the kind of frequency we've seen. That has to change. And that'll make the, that'll make this a better place to live and a more productive economy going forward.

MR. GREGORY: Before you go, it's been a fairly bumpy ride for you so far. You've had Republicans calling for you to resign. Some on Wall Street have questioned your effectiveness. Do you think at this stage you've been able to shore up your credibility as not only a steward for economic policy, but as a spokesman for the president's policies?

SEC'Y GEITHNER: David, when I came into this job I knew two things. One is I knew we were starting with a set of enormously complicated challenges and a deep sense of anger and frustration about the burden Americans were bearing because of a long period of excessive risk taking. And I knew we were going to face really tough choices. We were going to have to do things that are going to be deeply unpopular, hard to understand. We're not going to get it perfect everywhere. But this is a great privilege for me, a great honor to help this president do what it takes to help get this economy back on track. This job, it comes with a lot of heat by definition and there's nothing surprising in that. But we have a great moment of opportunity for this country and it is, again, a great privilege for me to be part of an effort to try to make sure we put in place a stronger economy, stronger financial system for the future.

MR. GREGORY: Secretary Geithner, good luck with your very important work.

SEC'Y GEITHNER: Thank you. Nice to see you.

MR. GREGORY: Appreciate you being here.

link




Edited to highlight text.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Metta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. You can watch him lie and smoke screen whenever he's on tv. He's transparent as rain and inherits
the harm he does. Happy karma, Tim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. No good choices, and everyone a critic without expertise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
firedupdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. I hope they get it all sorted out. I don't know enough about economics
to comment one way or another. I do trust that my President isn't an idiot and hopefully they are headed in the right direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Wonder if the comment highlighted (on edit) in the OP will elicit a response
from Geithner's critics.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kdillard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. They have to wait until Paul Krugman writes something then they will have the answer.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 05:31 PM by Kdillard
Personally I don't believe he is an idiot and he is doing the best that he can with a crappy hand. I do believe we need a mechanism to deal with big company failures and a way to wind them down without doing major damage. Geithner has made some interesting proposals so far and hopefully between him, the administration and Congress there will be a strong framework going forward for our financial institutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. The problem is
that despite the dire characterizations of the plan, the critics haven't been able to convince the administration that they're right. If the administration wasn't listening, it would be one thing, but it appears they've heard the criticisms and simply don't agree with them. Also, in recent days, some of those same critics have said the plan could work.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kdillard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yeah I find that interesting too. I want to scream so which is it
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 06:41 PM by Kdillard
an epic fail or something that could conceivably work? Also does it help the plan when you trash it or are you doing self sabotage with this wishy washy nonesense? Some of the criticisms I have heard have also been pretty nonesensical like it won't work due to public anger or they simply ignore what Geithner's plan want to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Not interested in debating facts,
just outrage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. He's lying about nationalization.
In every poll I've seen, the public overwhelmingly supports temporary takeovers. The government can afford to realize the loss for however long it would take to settle the contracts and force a loss to bondholders. What he is proposing is transferring the losses at close to face value onto the government's balance sheet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kdillard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I believe you are either twisting his words or not speaking about the same thing.
He believes what his critics are calling for is preemptive Nationalization of institutions that are not technically insolvent which he feels would do more harm than good. I don't believe he said nationalization was off the table but he won't do it prematurely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. But that's an inaccurate assessment of the situation.
Citi and (likely) Bank of America are insolvent. They can pretend they aren't by refusing to mark the toxic assets to market, but the reason we keep having to give them tens and hundreds of billions of dollars is that their debts far exceed their assets. Technically, that's called insolvency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. No, it's accurate.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 07:43 PM by ProSense
The government is conducting stress tests of banks to determine how much more capital each will need. Roubini said once those were completed it will be evident that some banks will need to be taken over and have their good and bad assets separated before being returned to the private sector.

link

Until they complete the stress test, no one will be able to determine the insolvency of these companies. Also, there are other consideration, which FDIC Chair Sheila Bair detailed (second item at link) before Congress.





Edited to add link.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. Put his face on the cover. Economic crisis solved.
Since we're to believe a single cover with evil Krugman's face and story in it can destroy a President.
This should have the canceling effect. The absolute power of the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC