Vague and Curious, Geithner's Explanation of Bank Plan Resembles Post-modernity

The Geithner Treasury plan for rescuing the banking system (more here) is getting panned on both sides of the aisle for being excessively vague.

Megan McArdle:

Tim Geithner reveals that the Treasury has a plan to fix the problems in our broken capital markets by . . . er . . . fixing them.

...

The Wall Street Journal adds that "critical details of the plan remained unanswered, despite the weeks of planning leading up to Tuesday's announcement." Plan? That's not a plan, it's a fervent wish.

Paul Krugman:

An old joke from my younger days: What do you get when you cross a Godfather with a deconstructionist? Someone who makes you an offer you can't understand.

I found myself remembering that joke when trying to make sense of the Geithner financial rescue plan. It's really not clear what the plan means; there's an interpretation that makes it not too bad, but it's not clear if that's the right interpretation.

The whole thing reminds me of a quip from Luc Ferry and Alain Renault who said that, "the greatest achievement of the thinkers of the Sixties was to convince their audience that incomprehensibility was the sign of greatness." (I think it was from La Pensee 68, but someone correct me if I am wrong.)

If you are a post-modern literarture professor, deliberate obscurity might be asset, but this man is the Secretary of the Treasury for Heaven's sake! One would think that someone of political acumen in the Obama administration might have informed Geithner that the public wants explicit details. After 8 years of the Bush administration saying, "We've got it under control," when they manifestly didn't, we want you to explain in minute detail what you intend to do.

One also hopes that this plan isn't based on the vain hope that private organizations will buy bad securities from the goodness of their hearts.

This sort of vague allusion isn't going to cut it, and I hope they rectify it sooner rather than later.

Hat-tip: Marginal Revolution

Tags

More like this

The reason the AIG bonuses are upsetting isn't the amount of the bonuses--although the bonuses are larger than the entire National Endowment for the Arts budget--it's the complete impotence of and cooptation of the government by the financial sector (yes, we need banks and a financial sector, but…
Paul Krugman is disturbingly convincing about the merits of Obama bank bailout plan: But it's immediately obvious, if you think about it, that these funds will have skewed incentives. In effect, Treasury will be creating -- deliberately! -- the functional equivalent of Texas S&Ls in the 1980s…
In the past, I've referred to Peter Pan Conservatives--those who think that winning wars is largely about will (and not logistics, supply, or local political conditions). Well, Treasury Secretary Geithner is now practicing Peter Pan economics: ...top officials in the Obama administration and at…
This is just for Kara. A really common textbook for introductory economics classes is Greg Mankiw's. In the first chapter, he lists 10 principles of economics. This guy has translated them into terms lay people can understand. Heads up: people are stupid. Just so you know what to expect... (…

heh. i'm reminded of a quote from the 2001 B Movie spoof The Lost Skeleton of Cadavara. Dr. Paul Armstrong reassures his hysterical companions by saying:

"Don't worry, I'm a scientist, who does science." :)

By superflunky (not verified) on 13 Feb 2009 #permalink

"Bank failures are caused by depositors who don't deposit enough money to cover losses due to mismanagement."--Dan Quayle, 1988

By william e emba (not verified) on 15 Feb 2009 #permalink