The tension began (this having come from an hour's research)in early December when then Treasury Secretary-elect Timothy Geithner argued against her staying on as chairman of the FDIC. From a bloomberg.com article, quote: "Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has argued Bair isn’t a team player and is too focused on protecting her agency rather than the financial system as a whole, according to two congressional officials and a person familiar with his thinking." When one reads "two congressional officials and a person familiar with his thinking", one can assume they are all men. I don't consider myself a feminist but I do advocate civil equality, regardless of gender, race, age, religion, etc. Another article I read seemed to point out that the 'boys club' (government, banks, etc) wants to exclude her. Her short-term ambition with holding and continuing her tenure would be to promote a plan to break up Citigroup, which is sound economically. Though they are not in deep kimchee like some of the other shady financial institutions/banks (though they are the same group that made loans to Enron, some years ago), I believe that is within the taxpayer's - don't groan, guys - best interests to have these ginormous money lenders broken up like bread crumbs. That way, financial regulation could be best be enforced, because the broken up parts of those money lenders will be small, transparent, and born anew. But that's another story - a legal advantage of dividing up a mess.
Now, I'm just wondering how I missed all this important news. Maybe the media was more interested in other things. Or maybe I was working 13-hour work days. That sounds the most sensible. It wasn't Michael Jackson (RIP) because this started at the beginning of June. Regardless of whether or not Bair is the most capable person that can serve as FDIC chairman, I am still appalled that such discrimination is still around, or that it wasn't that Geithner didn't find a better person to replace her, just the fact that "she doesn't work well in groups." Hope that isn't true though. But then again, one can imagine that unconventional people have a hard time working with Washington's madmen/women. Or that Maureen Dowd isn't dogging the "phonies." Maybe the discrimination is just from a few people, a few traders, and one really important person. I don't know.
Anyway, the FDIC is going to borrow money from the banks now, since Bair has no intention of going to the Treasury for a fresh line of credit. The article seems to indicate that they want approximately a credit line of $100B. I still appreciate all Geithner's done this year, but all this kind of sounds like it's personal, not strictly business. Now here's some questions that I can't answer because I'm not officially an economist: What are the consequences of the FDIC performing the opposite of its natural function: borrowing money from banks as opposed to insuring them? Would it possibly hit the financial sector straight in the heart? Would it create another bubble? With new news to consider, is it still safe to trade/invest as we prepare for the Dow to hit 10000?
No comments:
Post a Comment