The Argument For Saving Citibank Managment

Noam Scheiber:

Geithner's decision not to nationalize some subset of banks looks like the right move in retrospect. Citigroup and BofA are still struggling, of course, and it's hard to know when they'll recover (though much of that seems tied to the unemployment rate). But the rest of the country's biggest banks are chugging along reasonably well. The stress tests restored confidence and allowed them to raise capital privately rather than rely on the government.

Say what? So the fact that the government owns 42% of Citibank, has been the only source of equity capital for Citibank, that Citibank is struggling and "it is hard to know when they'll recover" is the evidence that not putting Citibank into receivership was the "right move?" Hell, I would love to see Scheiber's case for ever nationalizing Citibank. We can argue about a lot of things, but arguing that Geithner's handling of Citibank is evidence of what he's doing right is shocking to me. The federal government dumped hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars into Citibank and has got nothing to show for it (Citibank's new loan originations are anemic.) The only people who have benefitted from Geithner's actions on Citibank are Citi CEO Vikram Pandit and his band of merry Citi bankers. Hell, Geithner would have been better off throwing money onto the street as economic stimulus. As a defense for Geithner, Scheiber has convinced me that Geithenr should go.

Speaking for me only

< Understanding The Byrd Rule | Besides Iraq, Tax Cuts For The Rich And Corporate Pork, Howd'a You Like The Liberal Bush Presidency? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You needed Scheiber to convince you? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    This has been the pattern in Obama's Administration; start negotiations by telling your opponent everything you're willing to give up, and then leaving it up to them to show their fairness and bipartisanship.

    It's true , the counter parties to AIG's "mortgage backed securities" insurance demanded 100% payout, but they would have taken far less. What they objected to was reducing their take PRIOR TO the company filing bankruptcy. Obviously they knew that without the Governments handout AIG would go broke and they would have had to accept far less than 100% But bankruptcy was the proper forum to negotiate the amount.

    As long as they knew Timmie and Paulsen weren't going to let their buddies suffer the pain of their greed, and criminal incompetence, why should they voluntarily have taken less than 100%?

    I think you missed the poiint (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 03:51:34 PM EST
    of both my post and Scheiber's.

    Yeah, forgive a little poetic license.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    Schreiber's "point" is too convoluted and nonsensical to respond to....sheer fantasy, and I, of course, do agree with your take on Geithner's worthless actions.

    Your post just reminded me of Timmie's other worthless crap of a response regarding his "actions" vis-à-vis AIG.

    Please don't hurt me.


    Makes Madoff's... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 02:50:26 PM EST
    confidence scam look downright amateurish don't it?  

    No one cares about Citi's management. (none / 0) (#3)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 02:55:40 PM EST
    No on cares about BofA's management either, except that BofA can't can't recruit a new one....

    BTW, (none / 0) (#5)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    Vikram Pandit is paid $1/year.  Singling out Citi is hyperbolej at best, a waste of time at worst.  Plenty of ISSUES to be outraged about.  Citi mgmt comp, imo, isn't one of them.  

    Kept his stock options (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 03:31:33 PM EST
    and his job, expense account, etc.

    $900 billion over 10 years for HCR (none / 0) (#4)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    presents an issue that must be agonized over endlessly, for months on end, after a century's worth of calls for & failed attempts at reform.  Wall Street and the bankers, after failing in their own business and bringing down the whole world economy, have had over $23 trillion in direct grants or US government gauranties thrown at them over the period of a few months, maybe weeks.  Geithner, Paulson and co. have asked for precious little in return and they continue to fight any new, meaningful regulation of these wealthy welfare recipients.  Meanwhile, the taxpayes paying for it all face record unemployment and foreclsoure risk.  

    And then there are the trillions being spent on the wars . . .

    I honestly don't know how a political/economic system with these demonstrated priorities can manage to survive much longer.  And, most troubling of all, the Democratic Party has allowed itself to be cast in the role of Louis XVI. With modern Democrats having exposed themselves as co-consiprators in our present day oligarchical nightmare, who will folks turn to for justice? Gingrich? Cheney? Palin?  It was Napoleon ,after all, who asssumed power following the French Revolution.

    That Geithner ever got the job in a Democratic Administration after his well publicized performance last Fall at the NY Fed is unbelievable.  But so what if he goes?  I am reading the head of JP Morgan is on deck.

    At last night's war council, Office (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 03:07:58 PM EST
    of Mgt. of the Budget director was included for the first time.

    Pray, (none / 0) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    all ye G*d fearing people, and atheists alike. Should Jamie Dimon become Sec/Treas. The annihilation of the middle class, started so ably by Paulsen/Geithner will be finished in a sadistic finale that will leave you breathless. He is held up as a hero by fellow bank CEO's  for his ruthless contempt for struggling, middle class working folks.

    He was the leader in the TARP treachery, never giving "lending to small businesses" even a glancing thought. His first actions with the windfall was to buy up other banks, consolidating his power, and tripling the size of the collection teams at J.P. Taking their cue from "the boss," those clerks implementing the foreclosures acted with a brutality, and ruthlessness that is simply nauseating.

    In going after delinquent credit card debts, they seized bank accounts, including Social Security accounts. Illegal? I helped out an 82 year old, bedridden  friend to whom it happened, and in talking to the "representative" on the phone, when I told her it was illegal, she laughed and said, get a lawyer and "sue us." It took intervention from Congressman Hinchey's office to unfreeze the account.......6 weeks later.

    Scum doesn't begin to describe Dimon, and all his bankster acolytes.

    Perfect for President Obama!


    Yikes Shooter... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 03:49:09 PM EST
    I'm really really really glad I'm cash and carry after reading that...but I'm guessing if there is social security when I reach social security it will be via direct deposit only, to make it easier to seize back.

    We'll probably have debtors prisons back in business by then too...the future looks pretty bleak...live it up while you can folks, the times are changing back...fuedal system here we come!  The golden age of the working man was nice while it lasted.


    Well, the catch is (none / 0) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 05:31:50 PM EST
    "Co-mingled funds."  In order for your SS account to be the safe from creditors, it has to only have SS moneys in it. If you get twenty bucks as a gift from someone and deposit it into your SS account it becomes open season for the banks to swoop in and "freeze"  the account until you can "Prove" what moneys are what. If you're old and infirm this could takes months and months, and the point is to wear you down until you pay up.

    Of course the trick is you need to put in a minimal amount ($5/$10) to establish your SS account, and voila! You've violated the rules by having "co-mingled" funds in a SS account and the nightmare begins.


    f**king bond traders, please (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 05:36:54 PM EST

    No argument from me. (none / 0) (#15)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    But lets be aware of the whole picture.