Monday, July 13, 2009

Paulson Or Geithner, What's The Difference?

12 comments:

Robin S. said...

Whoa. That was worth a listen. And it rocked me, what a self-righteous double-speak cock up that guy is. Not the questioner. The answerer.

Sarah Laurenson said...

Too tired to watch this crap tonight. Just got back from a Harry Potter special preview showing. Perk of the wife's crappy job.

Will have to try again when I have more ability to listen. Not like I'll want to, mind you.

pjd said...

There is not really any difference, of course.

But does the Treasury Secretary have the power or authority to say "no more bailouts" without Congress also saying it? I think in a way he is being responsible--he is not elected, so he can't get voted out of office. Yet if he says "no more bailouts," and then the President pushes through another bailout, who takes the heat? Not the President. He would simply say, "The Secretary does not have the authority to make such sweeping policy decisions, things have changed, yadda yadda."

What the Congressman was asking the Secretary to do was essentially the same as asking the punter on an NFL team to guarantee a Superbowl win.

Or so it seems to me. I'm not saying there should be any more bailouts. The Congressman is absolutely right--nothing will change as long as people buying and selling these things believe there's not any REAL risk. That's exactly why the whole f'ing thing collapsed in the first place--everyone figured houses would continue to increase in price for ever, so there was no real risk in allowing your mortgage to actually get LARGER with every payment you made.

I guess there is this silver lining: It is guaranteed that the private sector can't mess up, if everything is owned by the government.

Robin S. said...

I guess there is this silver lining: It is guaranteed that the private sector can't mess up, if everything is owned by the government.

Pete, my sweet, please tell me that you're teasin'! NO ONE fucks things up more than bureacrats being paid by taxpayer's money to do a bunch of squat.

pjd said...

Ha, ha, ha! Yes, Robin, I'm teasing. I am not at all a fan of communism. Certain things need to be somewhat socialized--emergency services, for example. I used to think education, but now I'm not so sure.

But if there is no private sector, then the private sector can't mess things up, right?

Scott from Oregon said...

Hey, Karl is gonna be on Max's tomorrow...

Robin S. said...

I'm right there with you on education, for so many reasons. And schools are too, too large, to boot. They suck the soul out of a child.

blogless troll said...

Pete, let me see if I'm following. You're saying the Treasury Secretary has no authority and is essentially a puppet of the President. Also, you agree that there is not really any difference between Paulson and Geithner, so therefore there is not really any difference between Bush and Obama, at least with respect to the way the Treasury Department is being handled. At last! We agree!

pjd said...

To the extent that I understand anything related to this, yes.

But I have very little confidence that I understand any of it. That is why I get the vast majority of my news from The Daily Show and Wait Wait Don't Tell Me. I don't HAVE to understand it. And I prefer news that makes me laugh, not news that makes me want to buy a gun and shoot my TV.

Robin S. said...

I'm right there with ya on the TV blam-o thing.

Scott from Oregon said...

http://watch.bnn.ca/squeezeplay/july-2009/squeezeplay-july-15-2009/#clip193973

Scott from Oregon said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSwWy4E6I04&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Faeleope%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded