Rolling US Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

Getting it "done" takes a massive effort, which requires a massive amount of conviction in the cause, and in this case, there's widespread disagreement not only on the concept but on the implementation. So if it's been wishy-washy then maybe the fish is rotting from the head down.

oh your right but i think and obv this is in hindsight that conviction was what was called for. its a neat trick of course - the situation is massively complex and requires flexible policy but at the same time the market needs some guarantee of future action - and pulling it off will continue to be difficult. my real complaint is that there have been times when the rhetoric hasnt matched the seeming intent so if you ARE going to nationalize, then admit it, and let the market internalize the situation and then go from there

tipsy i think your whole position is complete bs: geithner doesnt need defending, is the point. and save me the "implemented and structured poorly". how do you even know this?????

all anyone is doing is making educated gambles. and its way to early to tell now what bets are going to pay off.

oh come on. nobody (except you i guess) thinks geithner is doing a good job. he's TARP was implemented and structured poorly? who doesn't think that? are you defending paulson too while you're at it?

"bailouts" being necessary doesn't mean it was also necessary to make them as opaque and favorable as possible to the people running the banks (or, in aig's case, to the banks that are its creditors).

(sorry, strike that stray "he's")

Krugman's job in the Reagan administration was inconsequential compared to what he could be tapped for now.

I think the best defense of Geithner is what I gave--that he's very much hamstrung by a lack of underlings, an enormously complicated set of problems and constituents. He's better than Paulson? I'm not sure it's possible to even make that judgement at this point in the game. If Geithner goes out now, he's going to be seen as a total failure.

At least we have Obama going on the Tonight Show to make us all feel better.

i know, i just mean krugman's not constitutionally averse to public positions. but i can't hardly blame him for preferring to stay in his current roost.

tbh i thought you were talking post-TARP, which i associate w/paulson altho i guess geithner deserves to share blame for that

oh don made this post unnecessary. what he sd, pretty much.

Krugman's job in the Reagan administration was inconsequential compared to what he could be tapped for now.

exactly -- he was a staff economist at the Council of Economic Advisors when he worked in the Reagan administration. he's never run any bureaucracy (governmental, academic, or private) that i am aware of. and while krugman has knowledge about international finance, his real expertise seems to be in international trade. as much as i'd love to see some sort of role for krugman in the obama administration, i don't think that he would be the right person to take charge of Treasury if geithner is booted out.

xpost:

geithner has been part of tarp from the start, and he hasn't sufficiently separated himself from paulson's deference to the banks.

lets put my boy corzine up in that bitch

the new jersey govenor????

ya why not, hes doing a crappy job in nj

lets put my boy corzine up in that bitch

because he's doing such a wonderful job here in new jersey that he may need a new job in the near future?!?

xpost LOL

was he a fudge on the low or was that a different one?

i mean, b/w paulson and corzine i think that we CAN all agree on a ban of ex-goldman employees in ANY public office.

sayin tho if geithner really does get the boot--and tbh i think hes sort of weaselly but i dont know shit about shit so im willing to give him a couple more months--if geither really does get the boot, i guarantee corzine will be one of the names floated to replace!

yeah, that's just what I want -- a governor so inept and unpopular that he may end up turning the governor's seat in a blue state in a democratic-friendly time period over to the GOP.

we already had jim florio!

I can't hate Tim Geithner; Somehow, he reminds me of Lindsey Buckingham.

to complete my thought ... to take a governor so inept and unpopular that he may end up turning the governor's seat in a blue state in a democratic-friendly time period over to the GOP to even more high-profile politically sensitive government position. and that's not even factoring in the former goldman employee revulsion factor!!

also, jon corzine wouldn't be fit to lick the heels of jim florio's shoes after florio stepped in a pile of dog shit.

when you go insane (xp)

Haha. Just after law school.

well, tusk was only slightly less inpenetrable than TARP.

i'm curious what expectations people have. the dow dropped 6000 (?) points last year after the administration just two months past insisted for months we weren't even in a recession. is the current administration supposed to have all that fixed already? if not, then aren't calls for geithner's head somewhat premature?

Tim Geithner: Why don't you ask him if he's going to stay? Why don't you ask him if he's going away?

no, they're not supposed to have it all fixed already -- no-one except the most-doe eyed Obama groupie was expecting that. but some of us are disappointed that all that Geithner could ladle up was a further serving of TARP a la Paulson five months after Lehman Bros. went to shit (i.e., when they may have had more time to cook up something a little more appetizing).

Lovin' Tim isn't the right thing to do.

it's still sort of like the last administration took the nastiest dump ever and geithner, who went in to take a leak afterwards, is getting blamed for it (um, unappetizing, sorry). not here to defend geithner necessarily though -- more wondering how much of this remains bushco's mess, and whether the rush to condemn geither/obama is merited vs. lingering slapphappiness from the paulson/cheney crew

whether the rush to condemn geither/obama is merited

There's been a rush to condemn Obama? I've heard some criticisms, but nothing approaching a "rush."

Yeah, Geithner's getting the burden of it all. Perhaps deservedly but I admit I can't entirely get myself worked up about all this simply because my baseline reaction always seems to be a lack of actual surprise -- more like "They did that? Figures."

Cynic.

Thank god for that!

Geitner's behaved like a complete weasel so it's hard not to feel at least some of this isn't deserved. I do have sympathy to the fact that a) this is a uniquely fucked up situation and b) the Treasury is apparently understaffed.

i think Geithner's in TROUBLE

with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for POOL

i think Geithner's in TROUBLE

papa don't preach!

This actually interests me, since I suspect it signals a combination of debate in the Senate and weekend reflection (of some sort) will slow things down a bit. At least, in lieu of other possibilities for random demi-revelations.

I really don't care if they tax scumbag bankers at 90% or 190%.

Two interesting posts/articles: (a) James Kwak (of Baseline Scenario) on why AIG may not be 'too-big-to-fail' (the short answer: study AIG's transactions and then, on a single day, let AIG fail and bail-out those AIG counterparties who are owed money from AIG's credit default swaps and who really can't be allowed to fail (and let the other counterparties go without)) and (b) Kwak and Simon Johnson (also of Baseline Scenario), in a NYT editorial, on why it's better to clean house at AIG than to encourage AIG to 'retain its talent'.

also, mr. liar's poker's take on the AIG bonus kerfluffle.

90% tax rate = good move

& historically sane:
the top tax bracket peaked at 92% in the 50's, and has been steadily declining since the 60's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates

matt taibbi gives his take starting with aig and then recounts the whole mess, from sandy weill and joe cassano on: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print

ok that Taibbi article is fantastic. We are fucked. It's been fun while it lasted, guys.

90% tax rate = good move

& historically sane:
the top tax bracket peaked at 92% in the 50's, and has been steadily declining since the 60's

Historical yes, sane no.

No problem with taxing the rich, but the pre-Reagan administration rates were...punitive.

I'm totally okay with it being punitive for a while, even if hurts the economy

me too. whether we're fucked or not i wish there were more piss aimed at guys like joe cassano and christopher cox than people trying to fix the mess, who had nothing to do with starting it

One reason to aim ire at the guys trying to "fix the mess" is that those guys are wrapped up with the mess! They helped create it, and they're buddies with the people in charge at Wall Street. Here is a chance for Obama to prove his independence of this corruption...but who can he trust on what to do? Who is informed enough about how to get out of this mess that isn't implicated in this mess? Obama's style isn't to mess with the status quo very much. I guess we're in better hands with him than we would have been with Clinton (whose husband enabled this nonsense) or McCain.

But I can't help thinking that the chickens are coming to roost.

What "messing with the status quo" would you suggest?