Geithner is the pick for Treasury Sec

[Kelly the Dog]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...21/1685124.aspx

 

Also looks like Bill Richardson will be Commerce Secretary, and Clinton, of course, will be State.

 

I''m not sure about the Clinton idea. I like Richardson, but not sure he should be Commerce Sec. I thought Obama was going to choose Geithner, although I honestly don't know a lot about him. Looks like Wall Street liked the choice.

[Chef Jim]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...21/1685124.aspx

 

Also looks like Bill Richardson will be Commerce Secretary, and Clinton, of course, will be State.

 

I''m not sure about the Clinton idea. I like Richardson, but not sure he should be Commerce Sec. I thought Obama was going to choose Geithner, although I honestly don't know a lot about him. Looks like Wall Street liked the choice.

 

No, it was just their typical after lunch freak out. Whatever they're drinking at lunch I say they cut back.

[bills_fan]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...21/1685124.aspx

 

Also looks like Bill Richardson will be Commerce Secretary, and Clinton, of course, will be State.

 

I''m not sure about the Clinton idea. I like Richardson, but not sure he should be Commerce Sec. I thought Obama was going to choose Geithner, although I honestly don't know a lot about him. Looks like Wall Street liked the choice.

 

 

I like Geithner as the pick, but was hoping for Volcker. Geithner is a great choice, but now who runs the NY Fed, a position arguably as important as the Fed Chairman himself?

[HopsGuy]

No, it was just their typical after lunch freak out. Whatever they're drinking at lunch I say they cut back.

 

All of the guys that had to sell due to redemptions got it done on Wednesday and Thursday. so they stayed at the bar. The buyers went back in the afternoon.

 

Geithner is a good choice, but there's a void left in NY. Summers would have been fine, too.

 

Kelly - You're not sure Richardson could be Commerce Sec? Why? I'm puzzled as to why he'd take it. Maybe there's a handshake agreement for him to take over State later on? Of the Dems running, I felt he was the most capable of doing just about anything. I thought for sure he was gunning for Sec of State when he backed Obama over Hillary. Guess that didn't work out too good for him.

[GG]

Any of the three - Geithner, Volcker or even Summers would have received a positive response. A Paul Krugman selection would have tanked the markets lower. Timing was perfect too, as it overshadowed Waxy's move to head the House Commerce committee. Let's hope it's a quick 2-yr stint.

[Kelly the Dog]

Any of the three - Geithner, Volcker or even Summers would have received a positive response. A Paul Krugman selection would have tanked the markets lower. Timing was perfect too, as it overshadowed Waxy's move to head the House Commerce committee. Let's hope it's a quick 2-yr stint.

You don't like Geithner (or was the two year stint comment about Waxy)? I'm just curious, and who do you think he should have or could have chosen?

[Kelly the Dog]

Geithner is a good choice, but there's a void left in NY. Summers would have been fine, too.

 

Kelly - You're not sure Richardson could be Commerce Sec? Why? I'm puzzled as to why he'd take it. Maybe there's a handshake agreement for him to take over State later on? Of the Dems running, I felt he was the most capable of doing just about anything. I thought for sure he was gunning for Sec of State when he backed Obama over Hillary. Guess that didn't work out too good for him.

I like Richardson a lot as a politician, and I thought he would have made a good choice for State. But even though I know he knows a lot about a lot of stuff, I don't usually like putting politicians in those specific kinds of Cabinet posts, especially at a time like this, unless they are more specialists in that field. Perhaps Richardson has a great foundation and background in Commerce that I just don't know about. But I like people who are experts in the field for those positions. I think he took it because it was the best post he could get, once he couldn't get State, which I'm sure he wanted. He does have a bad rug though, which could have hurt him.

 

I know it's not always possible, and some people are good at positions of authority. Like, for example, I do like Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, even though her entire career has not been spent in that field. She's just good, and smart, and has a broad experience. That post, however, is new enough and broad enough that not many candidates would be obvious choices.

[GG]

You don't like Geithner (or was the two year stint comment about Waxy)? I'm just curious, and who do you think he should have or could have chosen?

 

The two year stint referred to the mustached one. Geithner was a good pick, as would Volcker have been. But since Volcker doesn't know how to use a computer, I see why he was bypassed.

[Boomer860]

The two year stint referred to the mustached one. Geithner was a good pick, as would Volcker have been. But since Volcker doesn't know how to use a computer, I see why he was bypassed.

These guys dont have to know how to use a computer . All they need to know is how to keep thier hands warm in someone elses pocket.

[Dwight Drane]

The two year stint referred to the mustached one. Geithner was a good pick, as would Volcker have been. But since Volcker doesn't know how to use a computer, I see why he was bypassed.

 

Geithner is so good with a computer, I think he may even be a computer programmer. His favorite buttons are 0, 1 and Enter.

 

 

$10,000,000,000

$100,000,000,000

$1,000,000,000,000

 

Woohoo! Citibank is solvent again!

[GG]

Geithner is so good with a computer, I think he may even be a computer programmer. His favorite buttons are 0, 1 and Enter.

 

 

$10,000,000,000

$100,000,000,000

$1,000,000,000,000

 

Woohoo! Citibank is solvent again!

 

Quite ironic coming from someone who's clueless about financial accounting. The whole crisis is developing because of the differences in how accounting treatments are applied to financial assets for different institutions. If AIG wasn't forced to use mark to market, they wouldn't be insolvent either. Nor would they be, if they elected a different legal standard for their CDS contracts. Amazing how these things work.

 

ps- it is amusing how the former saint Rubin wasn't even considered for the job Where are all the calls for the mastermind of the Clinton era surpluses?

[Dwight Drane]

Quite ironic coming from someone who's clueless about financial accounting. The whole crisis is developing because of the differences in how accounting treatments are applied to financial assets for different institutions. If AIG wasn't forced to use mark to market, they wouldn't be insolvent either. Nor would they be, if they elected a different legal standard for their CDS contracts. Amazing how these things work.

 

ps- it is amusing how the former saint Rubin wasn't even considered for the job Where are all the calls for the mastermind of the Clinton era surpluses?

 

It was a joke

 

I have a $100 to win $5000 ticket on the Bills to win the SuperBowl....what is that worth? $100? $5000? $15?

[GG]

It was a joke

 

I have a $100 to win $5000 ticket on the Bills to win the SuperBowl....what is that worth? $100? $5000? $15?

 

You can't even get the analogy right.

 

It's as if you have a ticket on the Bills, Lions or Cardinals to win the Superbowl any time in the next 30 years, but you are only allowed to price it on your books based on this year's record for the Bills.

[Dwight Drane]

You can't even get the analogy right.

 

It's as if you have a ticket on the Bills, Lions or Cardinals to win the Superbowl any time in the next 30 years, but you are only allowed to price it on your books based on this year's record for the Bills.

 

 

I bet you like to round up a lot when you send out your invoices.