Home » Articles, Featured, The Goal Is Freedom, The Goal Is Freedom \

The Goal Is Freedom

Of, By, and For the Elite

By Sheldon Richman
Published: 1 May 2009
Of, By, and For the Elite

The New York Times pulled back the curtain this week to give readers a rare glimpse at the workings of a political-economy essentially run by a ruling elite. Anyone who thinks representative democracy can’t coexist with rule by a political class is in for a surprise. The clique need not control everything. The pervasive money and banking industries are more than enough.

The story, titled “Geithner, Member and Overseer of Finance Club,” chronicles Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s close and repeated contacts with Wall Street moguls when he was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and on his way to becoming the “leading architect of [the financial] bailouts.” The Times story did not quite suggest corruption on Geithner’s part. Rather, its orientation is more systemic, the point being that whoever regulates banks, especially those on Wall Street, is bound to be caught up in a particular culture in which regulators and regulated tend to see things from the same perspective. It’s not that Geithner would knowingly put the interests of Wall Street ahead of those of the people in general. It’s that he would tend to equate those interests, even when they objectively diverge.

As the Times put it, “His actions, as a regulator and later a bailout king, often aligned with the industry’s interests and desires, according to interviews with financiers, regulators and analysts and a review of Federal Reserve records.”

In fact, as the New York Fed is structured, the line between regulator and regulated is quite fine. The bank, the Times notes, oversees “many of the nation’s most powerful financial institutions.” At the same time, “The New York Fed is, by custom and design, clubby and opaque. It is charged with curbing banks’ risky impulses, yet its president is selected by and reports to a board dominated by the chief executives of some of those same banks. . . . [T]op executives of global financial giants fill many seats on the board. In recent years, board members have included the chief executives of Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, as well as top officials of Lehman Brothers and industrial companies like General Electric” (emphasis added).

As to be expected, Geithner’s contact — personal and professional — with “bankers, hedge fund managers and others” was hardly infrequent. His meal and meeting partners were top people from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase. Some of these get-togethers were at the executives’ homes.

Geithner began his career with Kissinger and Associates, an international consulting firm founded by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a Rockefeller family confidant. Geithner worked in various capacities for Treasury beginning in 1988, spent some time at the Council on Foreign Relations, then moved to the International Monetary Fund. His mentor is Robert Rubin, who was Treasury secretary under President Clinton. Before that, Rubin had been a top executive at Goldman Sachs. After leaving Treasury he went to Citigroup, “the largest bank under his [Geithner’s] supervision” at the New York Fed.

Thus before he took over the New York Fed at age 42, he was a man with deep connections to the financial establishment. Rubin was on the search committee that recommended Geithner for the job. Sanford Weill, a major Goldman Sachs figure, was on the board of the bank. “He didn’t have a lot of experience in dealing with the industry,” Weill said of Geithner. Thanks to what Weill calls “his willingness to listen to people,” however, he apparently quickly learned the ropes from the people he was monitoring.

Financial Meltdown

When Wall Street’s mortgage-related problems, which Geithner did not foresee, began to surface, he worked behind the scenes for a plan favored by Citigroup and others to reduce their capital requirements. Around this time, late 2007, when the company was looking for a new CEO (after Rubin became chairman), Weill proposed Geithner for the job. (Of course, he didn’t take it.)

As the government-built financial house of cards began to tumble, Geithner was a key designer of the bailouts, along with then-treasury secretary Henry Paulson (another Goldman alumnus) and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. Geithner helped get JPMorgan Chase to assume control of Bear Stearns – with the aid of a $29 billion government check in exchange for Bear’s toxic paper.

When AIG (American International Group) started tottering, Geithner, again, was there. While looking for private money to save the insurance giant, he enlisted Goldman Sachs to assist in the rescue, even though AIG thought that would involve a conflict of interest. When the government took on the rescue itself, “A.I.G.’s trading partners, including Goldman, were compensated fully for money owed to them by A.I.G.”

As New York Fed chief, it was Geithner’s idea to have the FDIC guarantee the debt of banks and investment companies. “Mr. Geithner’s program was enacted and to date has guaranteed $340 billion in loans to banks,” the Times wrote. (The government has collected about $7 billion in fees from the banks.)

Finally, Geithner raised eyebrows by awarding three no-bid contracts, worth about $71 million, to the BlackRock financial company for help in managing the iffy assets bought by the Fed bank. “Mr. Geithner socialized with Ralph L. Schlosstein, who founded the company and remains a large shareholder, and has dined at his Manhattan home. Peter R. Fisher, who was a senior official at the New York Fed until 2001, is a managing director at BlackRock” reports the Times. Geithner says no other company had the expertise to handle the contracts.

Since becoming Treasury secretary in the Obama administration, Geithner has continued to devise ways to help struggling giant financial companies. For example, he launched a program to provide FDIC-backed loans to hedge funds for the purchase of consumer-debt-backed securities. Thanks to Geithner and others, the U.S government has committed the taxpayers to $12.8 trillion in various forms of assistance to the financial industry. That’s almost equal to the country’s GDP.

Geithner also advocates comprehensive new powers that would permit the government to take over (“rescue”) not only banks, but insurance and other financial companies, such as hedge funds, whose failure would allegedly pose a systemic risk.

The extent of Geithner’s connections are startling — but only until one understands the origins of the Federal Reserve System. Seen in that context, the Geithner saga seems more like business as usual. You’ll see why next week when we look at the Fed’s origins.

Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman and "In brief." He is a contributor to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.

15 Comments »

  1. Excellent article! Stay after them.

  2. Government regulation around the world is in fact intended to benefit the regulated in particular those who are already members of the club of whatever industry is being regulated. See Triumph of Conservatism by Kokol. Were it not so government would defer to the funcioning of the free market as the perfect democratic regulator, which (even with all the obstacles and road blocks imposed by governments on behalf of their clients, the ruling elites of each country) does a masterful job every day of balancing and supplying the demands of 6 billion people without edicts and without violent aggression.

  3. It\’s shameless self promotion, I know, but I wrote an article on a related subject: <a href=\"http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-dare-you-want-to-know-what-your.html\" title=\"How Dare You Want To Know What \"Your\" Government Is Doing!\">

  4. These link templates drive me nuts all over the internet!

    How Dare You Want To Know What “Your” Government Is Doing!
    http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-dare-you-want-to-know-what-your.html

  5. Mr. Richman,

    Your view of the problem of Geitner-in-charge is helpful to all who are frustrated with the unfairness of it all. However, I believe another lens on the situation is crucial in order to understand it.

    ‘Capitalists’ and ‘businessmen’ are not the same thing. There are businessmen of integrity who want to compete fairly, who love the free market and want to excel there. I liken them to honest pro athlete’s and team owners.

    On the other hand, there are devious businessmen who want to win at any cost, who will break any rules they can get away with, who think honest people are ’suckers’ to be taken advantage of.

    Let us not be like silent Muslims who tolerate Wahabism without open rebuke or criticism. These foul businessmen are destroying our system by buying politicians who throughout time have been weak and succeptible (sic?). Once we create a public stigma for CEOs and companies that lobby for government force to be used on their side, then we will have some chance of returning to a limited government role.

    Keep spreading the light.

  6. I’m not sure there’s an altogether bright line separating the “good” businessmen from the “bad” capitalists. I can think of a few main-street businessmen who will curse Wall Street corruption while finding it perfectly ethical to use local zoning and licensing regulations to quash competition. Statism is pervasive in our culture at all levels. We have a very, very large job to do.

  7. test

  8. From “Modern Liberalism at Wit’s End”:

    All this is not to say that [New Republic senior editor] Chait hasn’t taught us anything inadvertently. Recall how he spoke of an ideology that “resembles that of communism.” Indeed: a crafted mythology as official history; government growth as a declared inevitability; administration of the masses economically (professedly to benefit the lower classes, really to establish a political elite); the use of the term socialization to denote usurpation by the State of the institutions of society; the invocation of “wrecker” saboteurs (“reactionaries” and “conservatives”) to prove that statism never fails, but is only failed; militarism in the service of “pacification.” Corporate socialism and Communist socialism are of course not twin totalitarianisms, but they are kindred Orwellianisms: Fantasy is Reality — reality, fantasy.

    READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.

  9. There’s something especially perverse (not to mention Hamiltonian) about the idea of saddling taxpayers with interest-bearing debt, in order to buy up bad assets at inflated value, so they might use the resulting liquidity to lend the money back to the public at interest.

  10. A low, flat tax on personal, earned income and no deductions. Otherwise there will always be someone getting the government at some level to give an advantage over the other guy.

  11. Very well said Jacob!

    But for others, the name is Gabriel Kolko, also mentioned in this EXCELLENT essay by Roy Childs.

    Heres an excerpt and the link – good reading for all lovers of liberty and enemies of the unbridled booted and spurred Leviathan saddling and riding the taxpayer like a rented mule.

    from “Big Business and the Rise of American Statism” by Roy Childs

    As Gabriel Kolko demonstrates in his masterly The Triumph of Conservatism and in Railroads and Regulation, the dominant trend in the last three decades of the nineteenth century and the first two of the twentieth was not towards increasing centralization, but rather, despite the growing number of mergers and the growth in the overall size of many corporations, toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial leaders, and the merger movement was to a large extent a reflection of voluntary, unsuccessful business efforts to bring irresistible trends under control. … As new competitors sprang up, and as economic power was diffused throughout an expanding nation, it became apparent to many important businessmen that only the national government could [control and stabilize] the economy. … Ironically, contrary to the consensus of historians, it was not the existence of monopoly which caused the federal government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it.1

    While Kolko does not consider the causes and context of the economic crises which faced businessmen from the 1870s on, we can at least summarize some of the more relevant aspects here. The enormous role played by the state in American history has not yet been fully investigated by anyone. Those focusing on the role of the federal government in regulating the economy often neglect to mention the fact that America’s ostensive federalist system means that the historian concerned with the issue of regulation must look to the various state governments as well. What he will find already has been suggested by a growing number of historians: that nearly every federal program was pioneered by a number of state governments, including subsidies, land grants and regulations of the antitrust variety. Furthermore, often neglected in these accounts is the fact that the real process of centralization of the economy came not during the Progressive Era, but rather (initially) during the Civil War, with its immense alliance between the state and business (at least in the more industrialized North). Indeed, such key figures in the progressive Era as J. P. Morgan got their starts in alliances with the government of the North in the Civil War. The Civil War also saw the greatest inflationary expansion of the monetary supply and greatest land grants to the railroads in American history. These and other related facts mean that an enormous amount of economic malinvestment occurred during and immediately after the Civil War, and the result was that a process of liquidation of malinvestment took place: a depression in the 1870s.

    http://praxeology.net/RC-BRS.htm

    See also Murray Rothbards “Wallstreet, Banks and American Foreign Policy” – the education govt and its lackeys have purposely denied Americans – power’s 100 yr long CYA of disinformation, and a few others for good measure.

    Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html

    The Creature from Jelyll Island a Second Look at the Federal Reserve by Ed Griffin
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TAh1gy6rc&feature=related

    Still Don’t Believe In The New World Order?
    http://www.svpvril.com/nwo.html

    A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
    http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/chronologies/cuddy-nwo.htm

  12. “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” — John Galt

  13. What Would John Galt Do?

    We’re quite sure slavery, wealth redistribution, and endless wars are NOT on the list!

    And for the religious amongst us…

    What Would Jesus Do?

    We’re quite sure slavery, wealth redistribution, and endless wars are NOT on the list!

  14. Nor would Jesus torture…

    Guess all those “christians”…aren’t so “christian” after all…

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…

    Do you really desire to be a slave and to be tortured and murdered?

    Then why advocate it, or cower from voicing opposition to it, when you clearly don’t desire to be personally tortured, mutilated, and murdered…

  15. We neither live in a republic or a democracy. We live under a kleptocracy. Our entire political-military-industrial-corporate-banking system is hopelessly corrupt. Sooner or later, like the late USSR, it will collapse of its own weight. After the coming collapse, our task will be this: rebuild our lives within the framework of a stateless society. The word “government” would forever be considered “a nasty word.”

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>