One almost feels sorry for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
He’s a punchline in his own country because he oversees the IRS even though he conveniently forgot to declare $80,000 of income (and managed to get away with punishment that wouldn’t even qualify as a slap on the wrist).
Now he’s becoming a a bit of a joke in Europe. Earlier this month, a wide range of European policy makers basically told the Treasury Secretary to take a long walk off a short pier when he tried to offer advice on Europe’s fiscal crisis.
And the latest development is that the German Finance Minister basically said Geithner was “stupid” for a new bailout scheme. Here’s an excerpt from the UK-based Daily Telegraph.
Germany and America were on a collision course on Tuesday night over the handling of Europe’s debt crisis after Berlin savaged plans to boost the EU rescue fund as a “stupid idea” and told the White House to sort out its own mess before giving gratuitous advice to others.German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble said it would be a folly to boost the EU’s bail-out machinery (EFSF) beyond its €440bn lending limit by deploying leverage to up to €2 trillion, perhaps by raising funds from the European Central Bank.”I don’t understand how anyone in the European Commission can have such a stupid idea. The result would be to endanger the AAA sovereign debt ratings of other member states. It makes no sense,” he said.
All that’s missing in the story is Geithner channeling his inner Forrest Gump and responding that “Stupid is as stupid does.”

…at birth?

Separated…
This little spat reminds me of the old saying that there is no honor among thieves. Geithner wants to do the wrong thing. The German government wants to do the wrong thing. And every other European government wants to do the wrong thing. They’re merely squabbling over the best way of picking German pockets to subsidize the collapsing welfare states of Southern Europe.
But that’s actually not accurate. German politicians don’t really want to give money to the Greeks and Portuguese.
The real story of the bailouts is that politicians from rich nations are trying to indirectly protect their banks, which – as shown in this chart – are in financial trouble because they foolishly thought lending money to reckless welfare states was a risk-free exercise.
Europe’s political class claims that bailouts are necessary to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, but this is nonsense – much as American politicians were lying (or bamboozled) when they supported TARP.
It is a relatively simple matter for a government to put a bank in receivership, hold all depositors harmless, and then sell off the assets. Or to subsidize the takeover of an insolvent institution. This is what America did during the savings & loan bailouts 20 years ago. Heck, it’s also what happened with IndyMac and WaMu during the recent financial crisis. And it’s what the Swedish government basically did in the early 1990s when that nation had a financial crisis.
But politicians don’t like this “FDIC-resolution” approach because it means wiping out shareholders, bondholders, and senior management of institutions that made bad economic choices. And that would mean reducing moral hazard rather than increasing it. And it would mean stiff-arming campaign contributors and protecting the interests of taxpayers.
Heaven forbid those things happen. After all, as Bastiat told us, “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
[…] But I mostly think of him as being the Forrest Gump of international economics. […]
Seriously, how is this article even remotely fair to Forrest Gump? He did well as captain of his own shrimpin boat, and would also be more effective as treasury secretary. I demand an apology to Mr. Gump!
[…] Tim Geithner: The Forrest Gump of World Finance « International Liberty. Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookEmailPrintDiggStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]
[…] cold of winter? Though maybe we’ll give Treasury Secretary Geithner a riding lawnmower since he’s the Forrest Gump of this Administration. Even security has been put to the knife, at least a little. Junior ministers no longer get […]
[…] I’ve compared Tim Geithner to Forest Gump, I’m not going to argue with this […]
[…] easy money as an alternative to fiscal restraint. Especially when the United States is a source of laughably bad advice from the clowns in the Obama Administration. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
[…] fail. More specifically, they should be put into something akin to receivership (similar to what the U.S. did 20 years ago with the S&L crisis and a few years ago with WaMu and IndyMac, and also like what Sweden did in the early 1990s). This automatically prevents financial crisis […]
[…] to fail. More specifically, they should be put into something akin to receivership (similar to what the U.S. did 20 years ago with the S&L crisis and a few years ago with WaMu and IndyMac, and also like what Sweden did in the early 1990s). This automatically prevents financial crisis […]
[…] People choose careers in bureaucracy precisely because they know they would not do well by trading on their talent — like they would have to do if the private sector were their only option. But with the steady rise of bureaucracy (see graph), such a fate need not befall the less than brilliant. They are actually preferred for government employment since they generally lack the pesky habit of independent thought and will do what they’re told. These days, they can usually expect to earn a very good living despite the fact that they are largely untalented. […]
Seriously, how embarrassing the German Finance Minister is even seeing how stupid yet another useless bailout is. Run Geithner Run! Far far away PLEASE!!!
It is pathetic to witness the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy that the European Welfare mentality has gotten itself into.
Europeans believe in the Welfare State, i.e. production from productive people is haircut to support less productive people. So what’s wrong with productive German supporting less productive Greek ?
Resistance to redistribution is inconsistent with the very European philosophy espoused by a majority of people on the Old Continent.
As Europe integrates more and southern Europeans gain more pan-European voting rights, the hypocritical stance of Northern Europeans (who support social democracy inside their borders but refuse to apply same philospophy to an integrated Europe) will be democratically overruled. Southern indolent majorities will join forces with Northern indolent minorities to form a pan-European indolent redistribution majority. And because strong redistribution requires copious amounts of central planning, Europe is about to venture into new levels of redistribution and central planning. As it is, Europe is already on a trendline to economic extinction without the imminent further flattening of the effort/reward curve. I don’t know what miracle are Europeans hoping for to avert decline.
Sure, some Europeans are realizing — with ever increasing desperation — that further flattening of the effort/reward curve cements Europe’s path to economic marginalization on the world stage – but those Europeans have virtually no hope of ever attaining majoritarian status to roll back redistribution and central planning on the old continent. Even the most ambitious and electorally unrealistic plans for reforms in Europe will be simply too little too late. Three plus billion people in the developing world have finally awaken from their once mandatory collectivist hibernation. So how is the Western World reacting to the challenge? By adopting mandatory collectivism, of course! History will one day write about the suicidal wisdom of denial in a declining western world clinging to HopeNChange. Yes, prosperity parity with the developing world! That will be SOME “change” for sure. Let’s “hope” we don’t mind.
Forrest Gump was good guy! Certainly was not a liberal, leftist, socialist tax dodger with likely no military service.
Find another exemplar.
How did the citizenry manage to get the politicians of 20 years ago to address the savings and loan issue with the receivership solution? How can we do that today?
You usually do know what you will get from the Fed, reactionary policy that is usually too late or just simply wrong.
“The Fed’s like a box of chocolates…
You never know what you’re going to get.”