Here's what it has to say:
Assuming he is nominated Mr Geithner brings two crucial qualities. First, he represents continuity. From the first days of the crisis last year, he has worked hand in glove with Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, and Mr Paulson. He can continue to do so while awaiting confirmation. If Citigroup, for example, needs federal help, Mr Geithner will be involved. An unknown when he joined the New York Fed in 2003, he is now a familiar face to the most senior executives on Wall Street and to central bankers and finance ministers overseas.
Second, he represents competence. He has spent more time on financial crises, from Mexico and Thailand to Brazil and Argentina, than probably any other policymaker in office today. Mr Geithner understands better than almost anyone that in crises you throw out the forecast and focus on avoiding low probability events with catastrophic consequences. Such judgments are excruciating: do too little, and you undermine confidence and generate a bigger crisis that needs even bigger policy action. Do too much, and you look panicked and invite blowback from Wall Street, Congress and the press. At times during the crisis Mr Geithner would counsel Mr Bernanke on the importance of the right “ratio of drama to effectiveness”.
Ah, glorious, glorious competence. How we've missed you.
20 comments:
Glad I voted for the guy....
Just not real sure why he would want the job....its going to take at least eight years to clean up this mess and return to any level of economic potential.
Even if he achieves greatness on the level of FDR there will still be 20% of Americans who will never appreciate his accomplishments.
First, he represents continuity.
Wait, I though Obama was all for that "change" thing. Continuity certainly is not that.
Actually, in this case, I'd prefer the change rather than the continuation of the Bush/Obama bailout schemes.
Continuity in the sense of this guys impressive efforts over the years cleaning up after the current administration.
Change for essentially the same reason. He isn't more of the same by any stretch.
Cheers!
Tao,
Yes. Agreed. History attests to the fact that there were those in our country who thought Lincoln was a demon. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that will be full of discontent and hatred.
Patrick,
Competence IS change. Or haven't you paid attention over the last 8 years. Putting competent people in charge of cabinet posts and other administrative position is change. We've had 8 years of hacks and political operatives.
Arthurstone says it best.
Obama is not more of the same--he is change.
Of course I've paid attention for the past 8 years, as Bush has drifted from what I expected from a conservative to mini-socialism. A change would be to go back toward conservatism. That ain't Obama.
And the retreads keep on coming.
It's pretty funny after eight years of the worst presidency in my lifetime to watch 'Conservatives' distance themselves from the debacle.
Eight years of uncritical support of a regime bent on foreign adventurism, domestic spying, torture, environmental and economic deregulation, attacks on women's rights to a scale hard to fathom. Eight years with nary a peep from 'conservatives' until the debacle waiting to happen occurred.
Then it turns out poor, simple, saved George wasn't 'conservative' enough. He was a 'mini-socialist'. In fact he is an ardent fundamentalist Christian free marketer with his conservative bona fides very much intact.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Uncritical?
I can't necessarily speak for anybody but myself, but the conservatives I've known have been getting increasingly critical, and myself most of all.
I am wondering if our roles will be reversed in four years and you'll be screaming that Obama wasn't liberal enough. Somehow, I doubt it.
I'm okay with Obama's cabinet choices, yes, even with Gates staying on as Defense Secretary.
Obama's getting high marks from Dems and Repubs for his choices.
That's real change. Calling it "retreads" is cynicism and negativism--and it seems as though you're angry that Obama is doing so well and is being seen as competent, and bringing together the best and brightest the country has.
I still believe Obama will win over Patrick in the long run.
How can you not like a guy who has shown such maturity and ability to do the right thing for this country.
I don't agree with everything he has done, nor probably will do, but I know he'll do what he believes is the smartest thing for the country and will be advised by many different points of view.
He won't live in a protective bubble with yes men all around him.
And Arthurstone is correct. Where were the Republicans when Bush was breaking all the rules of conservatism? I didn't see anyone on the conservative side speaking up against what he did.
Only us DFHs were doing the complaining.
Patrick-
Please go back and show us conservative opposition to Iraq, The Patriot Act, Guantanamo, domestic surveillance, etc. etc. Show me some conservative opposition to GWB's unprecedented expansion of the executive over the past eight hears.
But save yourself.
There wasn't any until this very year when voters (including a great many 'conservatives')repudiated the worst president we likely will ever see.
I'm just beginning to read 'Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency' and promise to keep you posted.
I'm running Halloween long this year.
Shaw: I still believe Obama will win over Patrick in the long run.
Good one. I'm making plans based on Obama to cash in, but it won't win points with me politically.
However, when he gets it right, I will give him credit. And on his cabinet, I can say we could have worse. But change it is not, and that's what I thought you all elected him for. Or was it just because you hate Bush and want to see Republicans all defeated?
Arthur: Please go back and show us conservative opposition to Iraq, The Patriot Act, Guantanamo, domestic surveillance, etc.
There were questions raised from time to time on some of these, but generally we supported these.
As for the expansion, the protestations have slowly increased over the years. And the last two we have been the loudest. In that, we need improvement.
...the worst president we likely will ever see.
Not likely. Or have you forgotten about Jimmy Carter?
Patrick,
I thought I answered you question on change.
The change Obama has brought, or will bring to his presidency, is competency. Just because you see some people from the Clinton era doesn't mean that isn't change.
He's tapping the best and the brightest from everywhere.
It would do this country no good for Obama to appoint neophytes to his cabinet--especially during one of our worst financial crises since the Depression.
Obama's CHANGE means putting competence back in government.
And that's change we can believe in.
Yeah, whatever. Bush is an idiot, Palin is an idiot. Obama is wisdom.
It's the same old narrative.
As for competence, we don't know whether he is yet, until he makes a few mistakes.
And so far, I really haven't heard anything that sounds like a competent solution to the financial mess. Sounds like more of the same, really.
I do remember Jimmy Carter (you probably do not) and GWB is by far the worst president I've lived under.
Why do think he's made such an effort to insure his papers will be unavailable to future scholars? Incompetence such as his needs to remain undocumented to save GWB from future embarassment if not criminal prosecution.
One other factor speaking to Carter's character; you won't see GWB pounding nails for Habitat for Humanity during his retirement.
Them 'coffers' need filling.
Arhurstone. Maybe there was no "peep" because most of what was in that list never happened.
"There wasn't any until this very year when voters (including a great many 'conservatives')repudiated the worst president we likely will ever see."
The worst President we will likely ever see was term-limited out in the beginning of 2001.
"One other factor speaking to Carter's character; you won't see GWB pounding nails for Habitat for Humanity during his retirement."
I don't think you will see GWB going all antisemitic like Jimmy Carter has in recent years such as when Carter ranted about Jews controlling the media.
Shaw: He's made some pretty good cabinet choices so far.
Jimmy Carter is not an anti-Semite.
And you know it. Why repeat such obvious lies?
Whether or not Carter is an antisemite, he talks like one. I take it from your response that you are not aware of Carter's comments about the "Jewish controlled media". I suggest you become more informed about these kind of things before you issue knee-jerk denials. Perhaps your knowledge of Jimmy Carter as an ex-President does not extend into the current millennium.
From Deborah Lipstadt in the Washington Post -
"Perhaps unused to being criticized, Carter reflexively fell back on this kind of innuendo about Jewish control of the media and government. Even if unconscious, such stereotyping from a man of his stature is noteworthy. When David Duke spouts it, I yawn. When Jimmy Carter does, I shudder"
I've read Deborah Lipstadt and her characterization of Carter's views is absurd.
Carter's criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank and his insistence Arab Palestinians be included in solving this seemingly intractable problem light up Zionists like her.
You'll have to do better than Lipstadt. She isn't credible.
Anyone can (and does) write an Op-Ed piece.
Zionist bashing. Hmmm. That is most often used as a code word.
Lipstadt's observations of Carter's antisemitic comments have been made by so many. She is just one source. "Criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank and his insistence Arab Palestinians be included" is a different matter from his implications that Jews have some sort of undue influence in the media.
Carter had a great record as an ex-President during the 1980s and 1990s. But that is no reason to defend when he does the indefensible.
As for competence, we don't know whether he is yet, until he makes a few mistakes.--Patrick
He's appointed a number of excellent people whom even the Republicans admire as competent. He isn't giving jobs to political cronies and hacks.
That's competence we can believe in.
You still won't see what is in front of your face, will you.
Oh well.
Michael Savage. Mona Charen. Allen Dirshowitz.
Same old crowd. Criticize Israeli policies and those who support them and one is labeled 'anti-Semitic'.
Nope.
Post a Comment