The Treasury Plan

| Tue Feb. 17, 2009 8:13 AM PST
THE TREASURY PLAN....The Washington Post has a brief tick-tock today explaining why Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan, announced last week, was so anemic and lacking in detail.  And I have to say that it didn't leave me brimming with confidence in my economic betters.  The basic problem, they say, was that at the last minute the Obama economic team decided that their plans were unworkable:

Senior economic officials had several approaches in mind, according to officials involved in the discussions. One would be to create an "aggregator bank," or bad bank, that would take government capital and use it to buy up the risky assets on banks' books. Another approach would be to offer banks a government guarantee against extreme losses on their assets, an approach already used to bolster Bank of America.

As the first week of February progressed, however, the problems with both approaches were becoming clearer to Geithner, said people involved in the talks. For one thing, the government would likely have to put trillions of dollars in taxpayer money at risk, a sum so huge it would anger members of Congress. Officials were also concerned that the program would be criticized as a pure giveaway to bank shareholders. And, finally, there continued to be the problem that had bedeviled the Bush administration's efforts to tackle toxic assets: There was little reason to believe government officials would be able to price these assets in a way that gave taxpayers a good deal.

Say what?  After nearly two years of crisis and weeks of work, they suddenly discovered that buying up toxic assets from banks was problematic because the assets were expensive, hard to value, and risky for taxpayers?  That's not exactly rocket science.  Hell, someone who had only casually browsed through the blogosphere over the past year would know that.  And not even the financial blogosphere.  Just ordinary lay blogs like this one.

I really don't know what to think of this.  Maybe the Post has it wrong.  (Though their account matches others I've read.)  Maybe the problems were actually more subtle than the Post lets on.  But it sure sounds as if the Treasury team spent months discovering little more than that the world is round.  WTF?

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Not so surprising. In the

Not so surprising. In the financial services industry, a lot of people believed in the fiscal alchemy of derivatives and MBS and lots of this crap all the way through the crisis. It might have taken them a long week of reality checks with the blood-stained spreadsheets to realize their error.

Bank

The 'assets' of the banks have lost so much value even a couple of trillion dollars are not enough to wipe them off of the economy's balance sheet, which means someone has to suffer for these losses. The government cannot wave a magic wand and make the banks' horrible business practices disappear without significant pain. That pain should of course be borne by the banks and their shareholders, but all the president's horses' asses cannot put the financial egg bubble back together again except by transferring that misery to the minimum and median wage earning classes with public debt.

Too many insiders

This report shows why Geithner and Summers were lousy choices. They identify too much with the existing system and players, and that has slowed the resolution of a problem that is arguably as important as the stimulus bill. Some insiders are needed to navigate the current system, but they should not be making the final decisions when it is clear those insiders have failed in one way or another (Summers by helping to create this mess and Geithner by being part of the original TARP decision-making).

Piper called, wants cash.

One hard lesson to learn from this mess is that we simply cannot allow these firms to become "too big to fail." Something has to give here, and I think that a bunch of bankers and shareholders are going to have to bite the bullet and suffer the consequences of mismanagement. I'm no "free market" freak, but in this case, a little taste of the free market medicine will go a long way to curing this illness. Perhaps it will prevent future outbreaks as well. This will probably mean that some rather large banks will go down in flames. It might be a good time to break some of them up in the process. None of the options bode well for a speedy recovery...

Or perhaps challenges actually worked on rather than talked....

Are harder than mere generalist commentators believe. You should rather be happy that rather than acting like Chicken Littles and rushing hither and thither with Plans and Actions, your new man is looking hard at assumptions. Quite easy to pronounce from afar, rather harder to actually do. I for one have substantial sympathy for them, insofar as whatever the easy pronouncements of commentators, actually working tools in the face of a financial crisis is not at all evident.

Just a hunch

Well, I have hunch that what is going on with Geithner and the boys at Treasury may not be that strange to understand. It sounds a lot like the 'birth pangs' (to abuse a quote from a member of the previous crew) of the realization that may be slowly dawning on them, namely that all attempts to avoid the least bad option, i.e. to have the government take over failed banks, are coming to nothing. In other words what we might be looking at may simply be the manifestations of a difficult psychological struggle to accept that what is needed is a paradigm change.

there is no painless action Treasury can make

The problem the Treasury's horses and men have is the realization there is no action they can take that will not create terrible pain to some or many segments of the economy because the finance industry's losses are so fantastic. Treasury would like to limit the pain of the wealthy and political classes, but the consequences to the rest of the economy could mean electoral defeat for the incumbent. Limiting the pain of the lower classes means too much of a loss of wealth and power to the ruling classes, which must always expand, according to the unwritten code of return on investment for the wealthy. Geithner cannot choose a course that will not be extremely painful for someone, which means it will probably be most painful for those least able to withstand it.

Toxic assets too big to fail?

It shouldn't be entirely surprising that it has been difficult for Geithner to come up with a plan. The 'toxic assets' problem is huge and very complicated. It was apparently designed to be a tangled web of disaster. I'd like to say you just do a, b and c and it's done. But, ome things just take time.

The Post has it wrong.

The Post has it wrong. Summers doesn't do tick-tock, Geithner doesn't do tick-tock--none of the top Obama people ever have. The Post interviewed a number of people very far down the chain, and put together this tick-tock based on their impressions. What's obviously happening is the kabuki you initially suspected. Geithner, Summers know they're going to have to take over some of these banks, they're just not sure which, so they need access to the books and the closest they can get to an honest valuation of what their assets are worth. And they're also hoping to get some private money to invest alongside public funds. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there was a "breaking through the denial" that happened with Geithner, as well as with a lot of other people. They really, really don't want to take over banks. But really, it's much better for them to be in a position where the investors/market/banks are not sure what Obama will do, and Lindsey Graham is saying "they have to acknowledge reality and be open to nationalizing" than in a position where the market is tanking because investors are pulling out of financials, and Republicans are screaming bloody murder about socialism.

After the Bush years, I

After the Bush years, I appreciate someone admitting the path they are headed down might be the wrong one and to stop and switch course. Having said that, I share your concerns. But I think the issue lies in Geithner, et al, looking for something, anything, but what they know needs to happen--nationalization or FDIC receivership.

Thorough investigation

This sounds like some science projects I've been involved in. Very smart people have an idea they get excited about. They invest time and money. They talk a hapless student into doing the grunt work. Initially things don't pan out, so they modify the plan and try again. And again. And again. A sense of failure creeps in, but the team keeps grasping at new and less likely approaches... until there aren't any approaches left to try. There's disappointment at end of the road, but also relief because everyone can move on to something that looks more promising. The initial "bright idea" was one everyone knew went against conventional wisdom. They pushed the limits because they know they're smart, and they think they can do what other people haven't. Once in a while one of these ideas works, and the world changes. I don't see Geithner being stupid if he tried to make a plan work even if the world says it won't. He may have been too clever. And as SRW1 said, he's probably working against his own ideological biases as well as pressure from others in the administration, Congress and the banking industry. Grinding through every possibility on paper before throwing money at the problem is the responsible way to work through this. If he discovers that we need to go in a direction that he's pressured not to go, he has a much better argument if he's found that nothing else would work. It's a good way to bring everyone along with a plan they might not otherwise accept.

It's strange to keep reading

It's strange to keep reading that people that have been in their jobs less than a month should seem to know exactly what to do. That's one point. It's also worth pointing out that Geithner doesn't have his staff in place or even nominated yet. Without being any sort of wonk on the subject, it's pretty easy to imagine that everyone is overwhelmed to begin with and taking some time to realize that the best path is one that nearly everyone in government says they don't want to take. If Geithner in his quiet moments believes now that something like nationalizing really big banks is in store for the future (pure speculation), it's pretty apparent that he's not going to announce a press conference and come right out and say so. It may be the right thing to do (maybe not), but he has to get Obama on board before he can say it. Yeah, it's all critical and needs to be solved RIGHT NOW and was made worse by the former president being either asleep or checked out for the last few months of his presidency. These are human beings after all. Human things are going to happen. SRW1 had it right with the phrase 'least bad option'. Especially since things may well be too far gone to fix easily and the political equation of the Republican's waiting off to the side to oppose whatever they do. Lindsay Graham may murmur the word 'nationalization' on the Sunday news shows but I'm having a hard time imagining that he'll do anything in the Senate other than to oppose any bill the administration comes up with and then trot around to the various TV shows saying how screwed we are and how it's somehow a Democratic failing. Multiply that times 39.

They have to take over the

They have to take over the banks, but they can't come out and say so because the markets will then do the mother of all swan dives. I wouldn't be surprised if the broad strokes of nationalization are already worked out -- but they're still trying to figure out how to announce/slow walk it without causing a massive market meltdown.

Nationalization need not be

tagged as: 
Nationalization need not be forever. Why not nationalize one or more banks, get a little credit flowing, then re-privatize it? Is it better to just shovel billions of dollars at the bank, then wait a few months, realize the money went to future takeover targets and office redecorations, then shovel more billions into the bank, then wait another few months? If there's one thing most people in the country can agree on, it's that the banks as they currently exist won't be providing much credit anytime soon.

None of us has the answer.

That's why we hired these guys. Who really knows what exactly happened & when? Would you rather have John McCain calling the shots? We all want to see action on these overwhelmingly scary problems. Me, too. We are in a scary situation; but it is much less scary now than it was 3 months ago, when George Bush was still in office & we still had the possibility of 4 more years of a Republican White House. I would much rather see careful, thoughtful progress toward a well thought out decision than for them to be doing something just for the sake of doing something. It just might make the difference between ending up in a shitty situation we can still climb back from or finding ourselves in an absolute catastrophe. I've seen a lot of comments saying "Thank God the grownups are back in charge." I think it's time to let the grownups do what needs to be done.

Economic kabuki

What this shows is that the healing will not start until decision making is put in the hands of a different set of people from those who caused the problem in the first place. We need the decisions made by people who have no stake in the dying financial system or in reputations for their roles in that system. And part of why this is not so blazingly obvious to the entire nation yet is that the media that enabled the disease also have a stake in continuing to obscure what happened and is happening. I think we are going through financial kabuki while Obama gives a chance to everything the media and especially the DC and financial insiders consider respectable and when all of that has been disgraced as an utter failure, then we will get to the real thing: temporary nationalization of the financial sector and massive government investment in physical infrastructure and human infrastructure (training and education). Making all the investments the finance-centered economy of the past decades neglected. And as long as I am wishing, how about a global New Deal that allows rising economies like China and India to develop without the current pattern of overinvestment, underconsumption, and resulting dependence on exports. We can't all hold down wages (and therefore consumption) and export the overproduction. The only accomplishment of the dying financial system was that it did keep that circle squared for decades.

Money

The root problem, it is not possible to turn bullshit into wealth. Requires some transcendental meditation. How does a government of spendthrifts who have amassed 10 trillion dollars in debt (10 thousand billion dollars) and 65 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities (65 thousand billiion dollars) provide multi-trillions of rescue money to banks while at the same time indulging Nancy Pelosi's fantasies of spending trillions more like a drunken sailor to release the pressure of Dem spending that has been dammed up behind Republican profligacy priorities?

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.