I suppose that he can't be much worse than Timothy Geithner, but that should be scant cause for cheer over the news that the president has nominated Jack Lew as Treasury secretary.
Why not Paul Krugman? He has a Nobel prize in Economics. He's proven his ability to communicate economic knowledge to the multitude. And he's a fierce opponent of cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits, and the austerity dogma more generally.
Please don't tell me that these reports in the business press touting Sallie Krawcheck as a front-runner for chairman of the SEC or even a possible candidate to be the next Treasury secretary are true.
If "pragmatic deal maker," as the Wall Street Journal describes Geithner, means someone who believes any deal with Republicans is better than no deal, and deficit reduction is more important than job creation, we could be in for a difficult December.
Selecting Jamie Dimon would be a gift to the powerful investment bank constituency plying their trade already in the all too comfortable niche of 'too big to fail.'
The European Union, a collection of 27 nations throughout Europe politically united to function as a single unified economic market, announced plans to officially disband as of January 1, 2013, and revert to the agrarian economy and lifestyle that defined the continent for centuries before the Industrial Revolution.
It's not just legal action that is important here either: the regulations being written right now under Dodd-Frank will go a long ways toward either helping or hurting our chances of getting back on the path to a strong economy.
Out of the ashes of the Second World War emerged a Utopia vision -- rather than solve problems through military means, we could maintain the peace by investing across borders and promoting human rights.
Morning in America already feels too much like a hangover. The house is still a wreck, the family is dysfunctional and there are enormous bills to pay that are not about to go away.
As Chinese Communist Chairman Mao stated in 1957, "let a thousand flowers bloom." This statement was issued as an alleged initiative to deliberately ...
We need to hold bank CEOs and other corporate officers personally liable for their misconduct. Simply fining companies does not work since they obviously see this as just another cost of doing business.
It's a good thing we have all decided not to care about the Libor scandal, or Tim Geithner might be looking kind of silly right now.
Obama should hold Romney accountable for his endemic lies during the campaign and debate, but he would be in a better position to do so if he fired Geithner and Holder, ended his administration's lies about the banksters, and reversed the unjust and destructive financial policies.
When the dust settles after November 6th, we'll return to the status quo ante where big finance and huge corporations continue to define what's possible in Washington.
Timothy Geithner has said that he'll step down as Treasury Secretary at the end of Obama's first term. Assuming that Mitt Romney keeps self-destructing and Obama wins a second term, who should succeed him? Just as Obama's choice in 2008 of an economic team led by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner told you a lot about what kind of president he'd be (and not be), Obama will signal a lot in his selection of Geithner's replacement. In an economic crisis, the treasury secretary (tied with the Fed chairman) becomes the most important domestic public official after the president.
Why is the Administration talking about replacing Treasury Secretary Geither with a wealthy banker who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, would lower taxes on his fellow rich people, and is trying to impose European-style job-destroying austerity on this country?