In retrospect, were Summers and Geithner a good idea?

First, did hiring these two help or hurt the administration overall?

Second, who would you have chosen knowing what you know now?


I was initially on board with Geithner, believing the reports of his charisma and crisis-management abilities. Now, after seeing the AIG bonus mess, and never really seeing Geithner do anything publicly except testify before congress, I believe he was a mistake.

I'd rather have Paul Krugman as the chief economic adviser in place of Summers (to represent academia), and perhaps the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (private sector) back to his old role. Krugman you're all familiar with. O'Neill was fired for telling Bush the hard truths (raising taxes to avoid the deficits with which we're now crippled), and he has a good idea concerning a bank fix which would restore some level of confidence in the banking sector.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/15/paul-oneill-fareed-zakari_n_175095.html

Anyhow, those are my ideas. Let's hear yours.

and anyone who claims to know is a pompous ass.

It's just an evaluation of the first two months, and whether they've done anything you particularly like or dislike since then. Summers turned out exactly as I thought; Geithner not so much.

that question with any sort of intelligence

We really need a number-cruncher, careful contract-reader with a good public policy sense and outside the Wall Street loop up near the top of our financial experts.

This broad brush thing is not working for me.

But I think we need to give those in place more time to see what they can bring to the mix, a mix which came pre-contaminated by Bush give-away policies.

So what makes them "Close"?

Working for Clinton and for the New York Fed Reserve does not "Close" to Wall Street Makes.

You are repeating a myth, and the bottomline is that it is uninformed.

Both are disciples of Robert Rubin.

and yet the degrees of separation is not used in that instant.

Give the constant cheerleading a rest already.

These folks have worked for the government.

I realize you would have preferred nominating professors and columnists,
but Obama chose otherwise; he wanted folks experienced with financial matters,
as well as having governmental experience. That's who he nominated.

You can call me names if that's what makes you feel correct
about your rationale, but in the end, it doesn't make you right.

some breathing room before taking to the streets calling for them to resign. Obama stood by Giether through thick and thin, so he must see in him a potential to deliver. I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

...solutions that the administration continues to ignore.

Being President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York doesn't make him close to Wall Street?
Instituting massive bailouts for banks doesn't make him close to Wall Street?

Overseeing corrupt institutions and enabling crooked corporations to take on massive amounts of risky "assets" certainly makes one "close" to Wall Street, and NOT in a good way. Of course, an unabashed cheerleader for neoliberal economic policy would WANT a Treasury Secretary who is "close" to Wall Street, but does "close" have to mean "in bed with"?

You're putting a negative connotation on "close". Wouldn't someone who wants to battle corporate corruption want someone "close" to Wall Street, someone who knows the game? :shrug: I've seen people bash Krugman for not being an "insider" or "armchair academic" but now all of a sudden apologists are trying to distance Geithner from Wall Street.

Spin baby spin!

People that close to Wall Street tend to be too timid in doing what needs to be done if it involves hurting Wall Street.

With that said, Im willing to give them to the end of this year to see if they have the guts to do what needs to be done, provided the economic crisis doesnt worsen due to their timidity.

didn't like his tax problems
didn't like his performance at the Fed

where the hell was the Fed while all of these problems were brewing?

Especially Geithner. With him, I'd almost think we were living under a Bush or McCain administration.

Get Paul Krugman in there NOW!

Representation (people whom Wall Street approves).

Knowing this, Sommers and Geitner are probably the best choices.
The actually believe in using the government for good.

My point is we could have gotten much worse.

Geithner looks ineffective, and Summers looks like an apologist for criminal corporate behavior.

Nobel prize winner and an honest progressive economist who foresaw the results of the last two decades of reckless policies.

Goldman Sachs has been the epicenter of Wall Street sliming for many years. Summers learned everything he knows from Robert Rubin one of the godfathers of Goldmans Sachs crime family. Summers in turn passed this wisdom on to Geithner. Not a good recommendation for any position involving the public trust.

...but HELL NO!

Summers is worse than Geithner IMO -- not least because of his statements about how women "can't do math", and also because he was one of those who pushed Brooksley Born aside when she tried to warn us about, and do something about, the very financial instruments that are now sweeping the globe in a tornado of financial destruction.

Geithner on the other hand is younger, but he is still imbued with the free market BS that he learned at the feet of his masters -- Summers, Greenspan Rubin et al. And he is connected to Goldman Sachs, who mysteriously continue to come up winners in the bailout sweepstakes.

I'm going to make a lot of people mad: but my estimation of President Obama is dwindling rapidly. While the original AIG bailout was not done on his watch, it is still true that he had the chance to do something about their ridiculous executive compensation before it became a firestorm. He seems to have put full trust in Summers and Geithner, when he needs to be a hands-on Executive during this great financial crisis. Furthermore, he has managed to look impotent, railing at AIG bonuses yesterday, while today we hear that, oh, well, actually, er em, turns out we can't actually "break their contracts" after all. Harrumph.

The President of the United States has a lot of clout, if he's not using it that's because he does not choose to use it. And in the meantime, the rabid right is quickly tapping into the populist outrage on this bullshit. Yes, they are being cynical. No, they are not really for the little guy. Yes, this is politics and the reports of their demise have been more than a bit premature.

Meanwhile Obama is maintaining his "cool".

Mr. President, I admire your style. But right now, we don't need "cool". We need white hot anger, laser-focused on Wall Street malefactors. Awaiting your next move with interest...