Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
48. That was a terrible thing for Clinton to say, it is disgusting to pass off the valid outrage and
Thu May 8, 2014, 04:43 PM
May 2014

as if Geithner was ever going to do the right thing..which was what Americans wanted.



Why Does the Media Ignore Timothy Geithner’s Disastrous Leadership of the NY Fed?
Posted on November 18, 2013 by Devin Smith

By William K. Black
(Cross posted at Benzinga.com)

Remember nine months ago when Timothy Geithner assured us that it was “extremely unlikely” he would take a position on Wall Street?

The media meme when Geithner announced that he was stepping down as Treasury Secretary and taking a position as a “senior fellow” with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was what a superior human he was for not taking a job with Wall Street. The “extremely unlikely” (to no one’s surprise) was announced nine months later. The private equity firm Warburg Pincus has hired Geithner as its President.

“The unusually low-key announcement — made with little fanfare on a Saturday morning — is Mr. Geithner’s first foray into the private sector in 25 years, after serving in the Treasury Department, the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.”

The IMF and the NY Fed are far more private than public and they both exist primarily to serve banks. They NY Fed is owned by the private banks it supposedly examines and supervises and the banks elect bankers to act as the NY Fed’s directors (including until very recently the supposed “public interest” directors). They are not subject to U.S. government caps on pay, and in the case of the IMF the employees have their pay increased to compensate for the U.S. taxes they are supposed to pay (which Geithner did not pay for many years). Geithner’s disastrous “public service” at the NY Fed and the IMF made him a multi-millionaire at great cost to the public.

The NYT is typical in acting as if Geithner first held a leadership position in 2008 (he was made head of the NY Fed in 2003).

“As president of the New York Fed in 2008, Mr. Geithner helped lead the federal government’s response to the financial crisis, including the sale of Bear Stearns and the bailout of the American International Group.”

The NY Fed, of course, was supposed to be the leading examiner and supervisor of many of the Nation’s largest banks and bank holding companies. Geithner was the top regional supervisor during the key years of the three epidemics of control fraud that drove the financial crisis and the NY Fed drew special criticism for its total failure as a supervisor during the crisis. Naturally, President Obama responded to his failures by promoting him. The NYT whitewashes Geithner’s role as the Fed’s top regional supervisor out of history. The fact that Geithner used AIG to secretly bail out some of the world’s largest banks (at the direct expense of the U.S. government) also disappears from the paper’s account.

Geithner’s new employer, however, seeks to outdo the NYT by preventing any account of what it cost to change Geithner’s “extremely unlikely” into “where do I sign” from ever becoming public. Neither the firm nor Geithner want the public to learn how lucratively the bankers reward the anti-regulators.

“His new employer, Warburg Pincus, is a 47-year-old private equity firm that oversees $35 billion in assets. [T]he firm has remained privately held and has kept a low profile.”

Because Warburg Pincus (WP) is privately held we may never know Geithner’s compensation. Even the NYT concedes that Geithner is an example of how Wall Street ensures that the revolving door makes wealthy its supporters in high government positions once they resign and that Geithner proves that this has nothing to do with the former official’s merits or fitness for the private sector position.

“Since leaving the Treasury, Mr. Geithner has joined the Council on Foreign Relations as a fellow and has taken paid speaking engagements.

Mr. Geithner follows in the path of past Treasury secretaries who, after leaving government, have accepted lucrative Wall Street posts. After leaving the Clinton administration, Robert E. Rubin joined Citigroup. And John W. Snow, a Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration, joined the private equity firm Cerberus.

While Mr. Geithner has been given the lofty title of president, several private equity executives questioned whether he would be much more than a prominent name who would help Warburg Pincus open doors on the fund-raising side, especially with foreign investors like sovereign wealth funds.

Unlike past Treasury Secretaries Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Mr. Rubin (both alumni of Goldman Sachs), Mr. Geithner has been a public servant for most of his career. He has never worked at a bank, and he has no experience making private equity deals.”

Geithner is not a financial expert, but that was no bar to making him the head of the NY Fed or Treasury. The bankers and their political allies put the Geithners of the world in positions of increasing power not despite their weaknesses and failures but because of their willingness to aid the bankers even when doing so will betray their office. Geithner “has been a public servant” as long as one recalls that in this world this means being made a millionaire to lead a mostly private bank (the NY Fed), owned and run by and for the big banks, into its worst supervisory failures in its history at the (massive) expense of the public – which the bankers and the NYT term as being a “servant” of the “public.” Ryan Grim has a nice piece emphasizing that Geithner, as Treasury Secretary, issued the insipid regulation that was weakened to the point that it would please the private equity industry.

Geithner was a Republican who switched to an independent as a fig leaf to ease Obama’s appointment of him as Treasury Secretary, but firms like Warburg Pincus care little about party. They largely backed Obama in 2008 and largely backed Mitt Romney in 2012. What they want from Geithner, as even the NYT admits, is someone who excites wealthy foreign investors about the prospect of using his political connections on their behalf.

remainder: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/11/media-ignore-timothy-geithners-disastrous-leadership-ny-fed.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

My, that was helpful of him. Skidmore May 2014 #1
Clinton is right. Jackpine Radical May 2014 #2
You took the words right out of my mouth Aerows May 2014 #86
Wow. Hit parade! Jackpine Radical May 2014 #109
Isn't it worth a try? Demo_Chris May 2014 #3
Sort of a straw man hyperbolic distraction. How about just prosecuting the white collar criminals? nt GoneFishin May 2014 #4
I'll repeat that. AlbertCat May 2014 #55
Yep Aerows May 2014 #87
Make them work for minimum wage after taking all their money. SammyWinstonJack May 2014 #107
this, exactly ^^^^ magical thyme May 2014 #65
I couldn't care less if the parasites live or die, but I bet the people he and his ilk robbed redqueen May 2014 #5
Exactly. We don't want his blood: we want our money back dickthegrouch May 2014 #76
Third Way types think they are criticizing extremism... Bjorn Against May 2014 #6
+1. They also don't realize that they've defined it as a Them vs. Us situation, where winter is coming May 2014 #36
+1 RedCappedBandit May 2014 #111
We know which side the Clintons are on, they don't even try to hide it LittleBlue May 2014 #7
Her attitude was clear while Bill was still governor. ChairmanAgnostic May 2014 #9
Interesting Art_from_Ark May 2014 #92
You said that right, that money is an investment from the super rich. Whisp May 2014 #44
Yes LittleBlue May 2014 #51
"A vote for Hillary is a betrayal of every member of the 99% " FiveGoodMen May 2014 #50
It would be better to give them 20 years in a Supermax and strip them of every penny in assets hobbit709 May 2014 #8
"Strip them of their assets",I agree, but I would sentence them to work at a fast-food for min wage. rhett o rick May 2014 #28
AFTER the 20 years in a Supermax. hobbit709 May 2014 #29
And if minimum wage wasn't enough... KansDem May 2014 #62
Too much taxpayer money would be spent to keep them Bohunk68 May 2014 #101
What's the difference between Justice and Bloodlust? el_bryanto May 2014 #10
BS wryter2000 May 2014 #11
put 'em in jail, seize their assets and repay those they stole from rurallib May 2014 #63
Of course it wouldn't satisfy the "blood lust" because there justiceischeap May 2014 #12
Why am I reminded of the ten lawyers on the bottom of the ocean? tularetom May 2014 #13
Who said anything about a dark alley? . . . Journeyman May 2014 #14
I'd be much more satisfied with letting him live... tk2kewl May 2014 #15
WTF? Arugula Latte May 2014 #16
It would be a start. n/t Comrade Grumpy May 2014 #17
Still trying to justify alsame May 2014 #18
Yeah, but maybe prison for them would go a long way Ilsa May 2014 #19
What an insult. Lloyd Blankfein is a man, the problem is the system that supports him. arcane1 May 2014 #20
Boo hoo. Poor oppressed bankers. chrisa May 2014 #21
Hey Bill ... GeorgeGist May 2014 #22
Bills correct Slit throats in an alley won't do Exposethefrauds May 2014 #23
Call me old fashioned.... AnneD May 2014 #42
That is saved for those who allowed them to get away with it in Congress Exposethefrauds May 2014 #78
I was thinking noon, strapped to that fucking bull. nt Jeff Murdoch May 2014 #100
Is this the same Goldman Sachs that paid Hillary $400,000 to talk to them? Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #24
Rather an obscene amount for a couple of speeches flpoljunkie May 2014 #80
Nah! Politicians returning favors for money? Tsk. Tsk. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #88
I see it as flat out corruption. This wasnt a campaign contribution, the money increased Ms. rhett o rick May 2014 #105
Sometimes, holding people accountable for their bad policy making decisions Baitball Blogger May 2014 #25
hmm jollyreaper2112 May 2014 #26
Where can I cast my vote for you? Enthusiast May 2014 #95
my my, one troll fantasizes about killing people and it makes others (who probably boast about being dionysus May 2014 #98
The dumb is strong with you jollyreaper2112 May 2014 #103
i agree. i apologize for that post. dionysus May 2014 #110
my blood lust just went up a notch n/t Enrique May 2014 #27
Yeah.. sendero May 2014 #32
Why not just use the new way Oklahoma handles things. Lint Head May 2014 #30
Why is there bloodlust, why would there be such animosity toward the 1% Bill? Rex May 2014 #31
This Leith May 2014 #46
nothing ventured nothing gained. lets give a good try. piratefish08 May 2014 #33
It would be astart....... Guy Whitey Corngood May 2014 #34
That's dumb. moondust May 2014 #35
Blood lust? Surely not! Nye Bevan May 2014 #37
Stupid polls tend to get stupid results Bjorn Against May 2014 #41
Ever the tool whatchamacallit May 2014 #38
Well, I suppose we can trust them to do absolutely nothing about it then. Shandris May 2014 #39
Damn, mutherfocking right I wouldnt be satisfied with that mindwalker_i May 2014 #40
This is why I'm a Democrat. We have a party that is not afraid to stand up for the bankers!! Douglas Carpenter May 2014 #43
Can't wait to hear how Bill Clinton explains this sycophantic remark flpoljunkie May 2014 #45
Loved what Elizabeth Warren said about how Geither saw his role in her new book... flpoljunkie May 2014 #61
Bwah! I hadn't seen that. Nailed it, as usual. n/t winter is coming May 2014 #74
It's not bloodlust, it's anger. Iggo May 2014 #47
That was a terrible thing for Clinton to say, it is disgusting to pass off the valid outrage and Jefferson23 May 2014 #48
Yep, that sounds accurate. Impolitic, perhaps, but not wrong. Donald Ian Rankin May 2014 #49
I wonder whether Clinton has any family or friends who lost their business or their home thanks JDPriestly May 2014 #52
I think Bill's satisfied with the way things went down... raindaddy May 2014 #58
Au contraire! His son-in-law has his very own hedge fund & a$10.5 million "flat". Divernan May 2014 #89
What a pompous and idiotic thing to say. geardaddy May 2014 #53
That's a pretty trollish way for Bill to put it muriel_volestrangler May 2014 #54
what an asshole frylock May 2014 #56
What a stupid thing to say, Bill. Whisp May 2014 #57
No, NO! no blood intaglio May 2014 #59
So pleased to see a show of 100% unity - 2banon May 2014 #60
I am utterly sick of the "you can never make liberals happy" argument. Laelth May 2014 #64
Reading your comment about "you can never make liberals happy" gave me dejavu GoneFishin May 2014 #82
Or deja vu on every other thread in GD Capt. Obvious May 2014 #84
k&r for the responses to this OP. Laelth May 2014 #66
No, but it certainly would be a great start. hatrack May 2014 #67
"All people want is to play by the rules and have a fair shot." Boomerproud May 2014 #68
Lets not worry about onecaliberal May 2014 #69
I'm not saying Bill didn't say this, but remember, this is Geithner saying Bill said this... joeybee12 May 2014 #70
Am I the ONLY one that physically cringed at Clinton's statement? AAO May 2014 #71
No, you are not the only one. flpoljunkie May 2014 #77
I would not slit this throat DonCoquixote May 2014 #72
We know what side you Clinton's are on ...and it isn't our side! L0oniX May 2014 #73
What a Looni statement! Auntie Bush May 2014 #91
The Clintons chose sides many years ago. Ikonoklast May 2014 #75
Ah.... the battle royal talking point has been disclosed in order Ichingcarpenter May 2014 #79
let's try it and see 2pooped2pop May 2014 #81
"Just ignore them. They'll never be happy. Why even try?" GoneFishin May 2014 #83
It is NOT an issue of "blood lust"; but an issue of Justice that is paramount. laserhaas May 2014 #85
laserhaas, I share your view. President Clinton has confused a desire for ms.smiler May 2014 #93
Should be found in our courts laserhaas May 2014 #102
ahem RainDog May 2014 #90
We can't afford Hillary and an attitude like this. grahamhgreen May 2014 #94
This is all part of the depress the vote effort. Enthusiast May 2014 #96
How about just breaking up the banks and putting the fraudsters in jail? eridani May 2014 #97
Re: THANKS! Wealthy5015 May 2014 #99
Change the policies Bill or Guillotines are in our future. mmonk May 2014 #104
Ah, Bill. Always willing to offer the Third-Way perspective on the issues. marmar May 2014 #106
Of course it would only satisfy for a couple days, Bill. Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #108
Disgusting. myrna minx May 2014 #112
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Clinton: Even Killing Gol...»Reply #48