Tim Geithner's Sentences Resemble Securitized Assets

The New York Times today has a fantastic profile of Tim Geithner and his thinking. It underlines, through a complex portrait, how urgent it is to replace Geithner with someone whose ideology was not fundamentally created by the institutions he is supposed to be regulating.

But two additional things struck me about the profile. The first is that he comes across as profoundly naïve. At one point he insists that he "would never put [him]self in a position where [his] actions were influenced by a personal relationship," but he has lived most of his life in Washington and New York, in communities where everyone around him has been attempting to use personal relationships to influence his actions. He doesn't show a basic awareness of his position. For such a sentence to be plausible, he would have to demonstrate a canny, rigorous array of defenses against influence. Instead, he sounds like a boy at the beach with some friends.

The second thing is something that has nagged at me about him since his arrival at Treasury, and I'm only beginning to put my finger on it. It's something about the way he talks. These sentences (from today's article) run on like an endless string of pop off beads:

"we are going to be doing things which ultimately -- in order to get the credit flowing again -- are going to benefit the institutions that are at the core of the problem."

Or

"requires we balance how to achieve the most benefits in terms of improving confidence and the flow of credit at the least risk to taxpayers."

At first it sounds good and stable: each idea is connected to the next, his tone is fluid, he communicates mastery. But after a while, the sentences continue too long, and resting place seems arbitrary. There is mastery, perhaps, but of what? After listening to him for a while, you get the impression he isn't actually talking about objects in the world.

His thoughts resemble securitized assets--they refer to something, but the risk is not apparent on the surface of the nouns and verbs assembled, and the exact reference seems unclear. From last week's testimony:

"At the conclusion of this process that the Fed is undertaking to assess the potential capital needs of banks going forward, where there is a need for additional capital, total capital and common capital, those banks will have a suite of options of how they meet that need. They will work out with their...supervisors what's the best mix of those options."

Even where he doesn't technically "run on," he skirts the edge of a run-on sentence in almost every thought. In the same way that Sarah Palin's language told us a great deal about how she makes policy, Geithner's language tells us that he lives in a world with very few concrete objects in it. While Sheilah Bair might talk about taxpayers "holding the bag," you can listen to Geithner for a long time without the sense that he ever does things like "hold" "bags." He doesn't use words with clear referents, like "chairs," "cars," "tables"; instead he prefers "the economy," "institutions," and "actions."

On bad days, he sounds most like a freshman lit crit student, delighted by the new set of words available to her. "I realize I am vulnerable to a different narrative in that context," he says in today's article.

We all have run-on thoughts, we all use too many abstract words. But the man driving our economy right now seems to use nothing but run-on sentences, and seems to occupy a world where everything important is abstract. As my friend, the journalist Kelly Nuxoll, wrote about Palin last fall:

"Make no mistake. Language is political, and if one's sentences lack transparency, accountability, and inclination to acknowledge the consequences of one's actions, then one's policies and governance are likely to be characterized by the same."

Geithner's language lacks a beginning, an ending, and a referent. So too, do his policies. "I do believe it's valuable and this is at the core of the objectives of this process that we worked out with the Fed..."

People are losing jobs, afraid of losing jobs, losing homes and apartments, losing health care, and trying to educate their children in weak schools. People are experiencing poverty, unhappiness, and pain. There's a hole in our economy, and it hurts; and what Geithner is doing to fix it is just making the hole bigger.

I end up feeling conflicted about Geithner personally. Obama should clearly replace him, but I don't end up thinking "throw the bum out!" (the way I do with Summers, say). Instead, I want a different rallying cry, something gentler, like:

can't someone get the man a classic edition of Robert Penn Warren, and a decent job in a retail store in New Mexico, and give him a chance to learn something about human nature....

And bags.

Comments (20)

1. Geithner has gone very far as a clever BS artist. His Wall St peers ditto. Little people, untermenschen, who don't have their BS skills & money cannot be taken seriously, except for the safe assumption that you can always, always outsmart them, because you are an inherently superior human being. You are entitled to more, they deserve less.

   Posted by sloper at 04/27/2009 @ 10:48am

2. Geithner talks like a man who's panicked, running, and trying not to be caught.

   Posted by knuxoll at 04/27/2009 @ 11:11am

3. I like Hoenig, too.

   Posted by zephyrteachout at 04/27/2009 @ 11:31am

4. Our financial system has been compromised on a scale unprecidented in modern times. Crafty minds have held sway over the controls without 'everyone's' best interests in mind... and universal 'reliance' on market forces under such circumstances would be foolhardy.

   The gradual yet systematic removal of regulations... yes, the very regulations that were deemed --ABSOLUTELY-- necessary after the "Great Depression"... has rendered a corrupt version of market forces that is not only unsustainable as a nationwide economic model, but it 'trickles up' capital while leaving nothing resembling 'the means of production' in its place.

   Geithner can be depended on to protect the interests of the financial sector... and I think we can all agree that our financial sector is fundimentally important to our day to day lives.

   This being said... the American People are being left out of the equation of National recovery... and I think that we can all agree that this stinks...

   Reprioitization of our National value system... no matter how necessary and expedient in the long run... should not be scattering asunder the hard earned personal legitimacy that so many of us have put everything we've got into... mincing lives and parsing esteems... and squandering social stability...

   ...without swift and effective solutions to our very real, and current, National Emergency... an emergency that has become personal for hundereds of millions of Americans... the gifted heirs to the American dream.

   Our national economic discourse needs immediate attention at the grassroot level... and there is no amount of financial sector bailout that can change this obvious fact.

   We are the people we're still waiting for...;^)

   Posted by ttr at 04/27/2009 @ 12:17pm

5. The Market's Verdict is in – There are indeed winners and losers Warren, ole buddy, you need to take it like a man.

   For the purposes of this discussion my poster boy is Warren Buffet. Let's pretend that Warren has a net worth of $10 billion. Let's presume that Warren's balance sheet says he's got $1 trillion in Assets and he's got $990 billion in Liabilities. Why hasn't Warren Buffet's money been wiped out? The market's verdict is in -- he should be.

   Yes … yes … there's that little rub called leverage. Funny thing about leverage though … it runs down hill just like other stuff. In other words, the way to dismantle a pyramid scheme is from the top down. We seem to be going bottom up.

   If the FEDury (Federal Reserve Bank, Treasury Department) is going to pick winners and losers for the greater good then isn't the greater good that we enforce moral hazard and let Warren be one of the losers?

   Were Warren to be forced out with a gaping hole in his pocket that doesn't mean that his assets don't continue in existence. The way to close down a bank is how the FDIC does it. You wipe out those who did not make good decisions and try to protect the innocent.

   In the case of widows and orphans and their pension funds, the widows and orphans do need society's self taxation. The pension fund managers, you know those guys walking around like they are the owners, need to recognize their loss first so the rest of us working stiffs can go about cleaning up the mess.

   The market picked the losers. The market – you and I – needs to enforce the market's decision and exact payment.

   Nothing against you Warren.

   Why Warren? Warren Buffet is one of the top five largest recipients of TARP money. Warren shouldn't get TARP money.

   Geithner is making sure Warren does

   Posted by ArkansasAngie at 04/27/2009 @ 12:30pm

6. I vote for the Fed Reserve Bank Pres/CEO of Omaha, Thomas Hoenig.

   Posted by snowball666 at 04/27/2009 @ 11:30am

   not a bad choice.

   unfortunately, your vote means nothing.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 1:33pm

7. a big part of the problem is having a private central bank.

   that's nuts.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 1:34pm

8. goldman suchs america dry!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 1:35pm

9. But I thought if we put industry insiders in place regulating industry everything would be fine?

   What could go wrong?

   We could vote for change.

   Posted by crabwalk at 04/27/2009 @ 1:36pm

10. Geithner is Obama's achilles heel. He needs to get rid of this insider and promote someone like Elizabeth Warren for the job. Bankers and Wall streeters need to be independently and thoroughly investigated and jailed for their criminal acts.

    Posted by NewEra at 04/27/2009 @ 2:18pm

11. prime minister obama really has no say.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 2:27pm

12. untermenschen, Posted by sloper at 04/27/2009 @ 10:48am | ignore this person | warn this person

    I don't think this word should be bandied about. tens of millions have died after being labeled in such a way.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/27/2009 @ 2:35pm

13. posted by ZEPHYR TEACHOUT on 04/27/2009 @ 09:59am

    Certainly the title of your writing today reflects my sentiment about Geithner as well, a corrupt Wall Street insider and living proof of why the banking system should not be allowed to completely regulate itself.

    Posted by syfriendly at 04/27/2009 @ 2:46pm

14. Geithner is a product of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is a banking cartel designed to protect member banks from risk by channeling risk onto the backs of the American Taxpayer.

    This is how our unconstitutional monetary system is designed. And it is working perfectly.

    If you simply accept that the goal is a breakdown of the US dollar and an erosion of US autonomy, all to create a gloabl currency and form of collectivised, centralized world government, everything uttered by Geithner makes perfect sense.

    I am confused why anyone on the left has a problem with this.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 04/27/2009 @ 2:50pm

15. I am confused why anyone on the left has a problem with this.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 04/27/2009 @ 2:50pm

    Because you don't know much about "the left"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/27/2009 @ 4:52pm

16. Hi Crab, thanks, that is probably pretty true.

    Do you have a problem with the Federal Reserve system (FDIC, Govn't bailouts)? Do you have a problem seeing US troops commanded by the UN? Do you have a problem with the law of the sea treaty? Do you have a problem with the Kyoto protocol? Do you have a problem with the IMF overseeing the use of any US tax dollars internationally?

    If you do, then you are the only person on the "left" I've ever known who does...

    But, as you contend, I must not know much about "the left".

    Posted by freiheit1 at 04/27/2009 @ 5:47pm

17. Do you have a problem with the Federal Reserve system (FDIC, Govn't bailouts)?

    •••• damn right! we've got carney, another g.s. alum proceeding with quantitative easing. por favor.....

    Do you have a problem seeing US troops commanded by the UN?

    •••• i have a problem with troops, period. stupid humans.

    Do you have a problem with the law of the sea treaty?

    •••• do you have a problem with seamen?

    Do you have a problem with the Kyoto protocol?

    •••• yeah, it's quite insufficient.

    Do you have a problem with the IMF overseeing the use of any US tax dollars internationally?

    •••• the u.s. has no tax dollars, only debt.

    If you do, then you are the only person on the "left" I've ever known who does...

    •••• all generalizations are stupid.

    But, as you contend, I must not know much about "the left".

    •••• pink elephants all about.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 04/27/2009 @ 5:47pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 8:13pm

18. "You haven't spent a long meeting playing buzzword bingo while the businessmen drone on Zeph? They ALL love to hear themselves talk like Timmy."

    If I were designing a buzzword bingo card, I'd put the phrase "going forward" in the central square. The phrase "wealth creation" is another good one.

    The Law of the Sea is LONG overdue. Our common practice today is to overcatch one species of fish after another, and every time one species becomes too scarce to catch profitably, we simply move on to another one, leaving widening areas in the ocean in which jellyfish are the top predator. Do you like to eat jellyfish? Maybe you'd better learn to like it, because if we continue to fail to regulate international waters, jellyfish will likely become the marine protein of the future.

    This has to stop. Fish are an important source of protein for human beings. Keeping the oceanic fish harvest sustainable is a survival issue for our species. You can overfish your own pond if you want to, but the rest of us have a right to guard the world's oceans against the tragedy of the commons.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/27/2009 @ 9:39pm

19. Capitalist USA -- Big enriching itself upon misery of small

    A capitalist government is one that allows a big farm to get discounts buying big, to drive small farms out of business by selling at below cost, and then to so inflate the cost of food that the laboring class must cut back on health care, education and other essentials, and the poor suffer hunger.

    In Selma for three generation K-Mart and Wal-Mart were about equal in size and each had 150 employees. Then these two marketing giants decided to not compete against each other, and to build super stores a town apart from one another. The result for Selma was a loss of 100 jobs, Mal-Mart the only department store in town, and a dozen small stores forced into bankruptcy.

    Our capitalist President for example has given big bailouts to big banks so they can buy medium size banks, and at a time when a record number of small banks are going bankrupt. Big GM for example is given funds sufficient to make it, while Chrysler is ordered to merge or be broken up. And instead of given auto parts factories the 17 billion they asked for, only 5 billion is given forcing the weaker-smaller ones to merge or close down. Why for all we know those in power want high unemployment so multinationals can have cheap labor.

    A better way, breakup the biggest banks, the very ones who created and now hold most of the toxic assets, and give their share of the market to the smallest banks.

    For allowing foreign car giants like Toyota and Honda to come in here and drive our beloved Pontiac out of business, surely this is allowing multinationals to enrich themselves upon the misery of our economy.

    Germany had a social democracy most excellent, then Hitler destroyed the unions, sold to the rich all state owned things like el

    Posted by Alabama.John at 04/28/2009 @ 2:32pm

20. Thanks a bunch for telling it like it is. For awhile I though I was the lone ranger in questioning the administration's definition of "smart." Condetector

    Posted by lodar at 04/29/2009 @ 09:43am