
David Brooks finds himself lost in an Aesop fable:
Some administrations are staffed by hedgehogs, who are guided by a few core principles. But this one is staffed by foxes, who respond flexibly to situations. In the administration’s first big test, that sort of pragmatism paid off.
Being lost in a fable is about the only place Mr. Brooks would be safe in praising Tim Geithner:
[T]he evidence of the past eight months suggests that Geithner was mostly right and his critics were mostly wrong. he financial sector is in much better shape than it was then. TARP money is being repaid, and the debate now is what to do with the billions that were never needed. It now seems clear that nationalization would have been an unnecessary mistake — potentially expensive and dangerously disruptive.
Boiled down, with the eye of newt and toe of frog on the side, Bobo is praising Geithner because he avoided cutting the power of those "too big to fail" banks. No mean feat, that, as it required spending hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars while negotiating nothing in exchange for them. Bobo takes pains to disagree with this earlier characterizations of Mr. Geithner, which I think still holds true:
Many people said he looked terrified as the Treasury secretary, like Bambi in the headlights. The New Republic ran an essay called “The Geithner Disaster.”…The Wall Street Journal asked 49 economists to grade Geithner. They gave him an F.
The last sentence is unintentionally funny in a way that is common for Bobo, in that that same Wall Street Journal rates itself and the banksters it covers as AAA. Bobo gives Tim Geithner a AAA rating, too:
Events…vindicate Geithner’s basic policy instincts. The criticism…was that Geithner was neither bold nor visionary. He was too cautious, too much the insider and bureaucrat….But this prudence was the key to his effectiveness.
I wonder if Ohio’s Attorney General will add Bobo to his list of rating agency defendants. Might be a wise move, because when David Brooks praises Mr. Obama’s Goldman Sachs financial team, he is foretelling that something new wicked this way comes.



8 Comments




In a segment on today’s “Morning Meeting”, (available online), Eliot Spitzer comments that he thinks that Geithner ‘still has a financialization view of the economy’.
I thought that was sane, wise, and probably astute.
I don’t think that Geithner is a bad person; I think he’s probably quite hard-working and earnest.
I think that he honestly believes that Big Superbanks are the economic keystone, and that’s why he pays them so much attention. I don’t think he ‘gets’ Main Street because his experiences are in government-central banking.
If he realizes that the Megabanks have captured the government, he doesn’t seem to be able to step back and realize that that economic framework is not sustainable.
I think it’s a case of someone who is probably a decent person, who has been so enculturated that he can’t see the people he admired are incredibly socially destructive and need to be completely reined in.
I read it all as a huge tragedy.
I agree in that Geithner has long been co-opted: he’s one of them, not a regulator of them.
My preference for government regulators lies much more along the Elizabeth Warren end of the spectrum than Geithner’s almost a lobbyist end. That choice is, of course, exactly what Mr. Obama wanted from Geithner, Summers and Rubin.
Geithner is like hiring the fox to guard the fox den, instead of the Hen House.
Obama has proved He’s on the side of the Foxes, not just with Geithner but His whole economic team, and His relience on the Congress to do everything.
I could so violate Godwin’s law with that. Geithner was sent out as the IMF’s point man in their policy which exacerbated the 1997 Asian banking crisis. This in turn caused countries like China to build up big reserves so that something like this would never happen to them again. Those big reserves helped fuel the binge of American borrowing that has put us so far in the hole. Geithner went on from there to the New York Fed where he had the best seat in the house to see the developing housing bubble, the overleveraging, the exotic instruments, the securitization craze, everything that has gone wrong with our financial system, and he cheered it on. As things began falling apart he made one sweetheart deal after another with the moral cripples and their firms who were responsible for all these disasters. As Treasury Secretary, it has all been more of the same. It was hilarious in a sick kind of a way to see Geithner go all righteous outrage in the face of Republican attacks on the Hill. He said that there was not a single economic indicator that hadn’t improved under his watch. The Republican, yes a wingnut, said tell that to all the millions of unemployed.
Geithner is not a nice guy. His decisions have created misery for millions. I could not even begin to tell you how many have died from his earnestness. Geithner, like Obama, is of and for the elites to which he belongs. The rest of us don’t even register with him. These same elites have failed completely from the wingnut right to the Democratic left. They are all leading us over the cliff, some at a run, others at jog. The only certainty is that, even while denying the existence of the cliff, they will make sure that we go over before they do.
As for Brooks, he has said he knows nothing about economics and he proves it everytime he writes on the subject.
Monster has been so overused during the
NixonBush presidency, it’s hard to think of a description that’s accurate and novel enough to capture such men as Geithner. I’ll try regulatory sociopath.Obama has a team of them, especially his financial gurus. He also has a sprinkling of proto-progressives who would like to adopt better policies, but won’t, because like Powell, they are on the outside, outvoted by those on the inside of Team Obama. Yet, like Powell, they stay because they are good soldiers, which is a slap at good soldiers. Geithner is also a gofer, in that he isn’t formulating financial policy as much as following the game plan written by Rubin, Summers and yes, Obama.
Obama’s attitude toward liberals and the rule of law is epitomized by his letting Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to head OLC drift in the stream, like bait for a few progressive supporters. He doesn’t make the prospect of an approved nomination realistic enough to get a bite.
Yes, Godwin’s Law notwithstanding, the banality of evil sure does come to mind when thinking of Geithner et al. In light of the revelations of John Perkins, Russ Baker and others, IMO, they look like a bunch of Perkinsian economic hit men. Obama included. He’s made a perfect stalking horse for the kleptocrats, so far, and I see no signs of him suddenly “going rogue” on them.
As a Kucinich supporter, I’ve been on about this since February ’08. I agree with the conclusion of Thomas Ferguson in this interview by Paul Jay of TheRealNews.com: Obama is not our man.
I don’t understand why more people, esp. on the Left, don’t analyze things in terms of economic hit jobs. It’s not like Perkins’s first book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is new. What’s up with that?
Anybody else here see this great episode of GRITtv?
The Secret Global Empire(s): Russ Baker & John Perkins
Or this video of John Pilger?
Obama and Empire
Who are today’s EHMs? Who gives them their marching orders? Is Goldman Sachs a front company for them?
(And why does the time stamp on the preview of this reply say “September 10th, 2007 at 10:32 am”? Am I doin’ the time warp again?)
(Damn that edit function! I swear I’ll never use it again.)
Yes, Godwin’s Law notwithstanding, the banality of evil sure does come to mind when thinking of Geithner et al. In light of the revelations of John Perkins, Russ Baker and others, IMO, they look like a bunch of Perkinsian economic hit men. Obama included. He’s made a perfect stalking horse for the kleptocrats, so far, and I see no signs of him suddenly “going rogue” on them.
As a Kucinich supporter, I’ve been on about this since February ’08. I agree with the conclusion of Thomas Ferguson in this interview by Paul Jay of TheRealNews.com: Obama is not our man.
I don’t understand why more people, esp. on the Left, don’t analyze things in terms of economic hit jobs. It’s not like Perkins’s first book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is new. What’s up with that?
Anybody else here see this great episode of GRITtv?
The Secret Global Empire(s): Russ Baker & John Perkins
Or this video of John Pilger?
Obama and Empire
Who are today’s EHMs? Who gives them their marching orders? Is Goldman Sachs a front company for them?
(And why does the time stamp on the preview of this reply say “September 10th, 2007 at 10:32 am”? Am I doin’ the time warp again?)
The edit function is still flawed. One work around is to complete your edit, save. It will show as a single paragraph. Click on the home site, EW, the Seminal, whatever, and click again on the article you just submitted an edited comment to. Scroll to your comment and it will have the correct format.