BREAKING NEWS: Huffington Post reports that on the very day the Senate passed Wall Street reform and created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner is urging President Obama NOT to appoint the most credible person as its leader: Elizabeth Warren.
A new national poll released Friday shows that Americans are feeling more optimistic about the economy than they were in January 2010. While this is good news, there is still work to be done.
Given the nearly-catastrophic downturn in the economy, most Americans would agree that regulation of the financial markets needs to change. Unfortunately, a quick scan of the weekend’s “talking heads” shows reveals that the same tired partisan bickering and gamesmanship may derail the proposed financial reform legislation that may be debated in the Senate this week. Neither party is blameless. Conservatives are criticizing the proposed $50 billion fund to “close out” failing banks, while liberals are being accused of pushing ahead with the bill without sufficient negotiation with the opposition.
The move by President Obama to follow the ideas of Pal Volcker seems to push directly into the face of heretofore financial advisor Larry Summers.
Summers was not in favor of ANY of the things Volcker has brought into view. He did not want to regulate the banks. He did not want all things happening in the open. And he certainly didn't want to put any size restrictions on banks that become "Too big to fail."
For years, Americans have been fulminating about China and its policy toward currency. While many of the debates are technical and laden with econo-speak, they boil down to the simple conviction that China is unfairly manipulating its currency to keep it undervalued against the dollar. The result is to give China unfair advantages in trade - flooding the US with cheap goods, hurting labor wages world-wide, and accumulating massive surpluses in the process. That view is again articulated by Paul Krugman in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/opinion/23krugman.html?ref=opinion) which ends with the firm statement: "Something must be done about China's currency."
The economic relationship between China and the United States is the defining issue of our day. While debates over health care are vital to American society, and while challenges ranging from Iran to Afghanistan to North Korea are real, nothing will determine the arc of the coming decades - or will shape domestic life and prosperity in the United States - more than the emergence of China as a global economic superpower unrivalled except by America.
The rise of China is hardly a secret, but because it is a complex economic that is constantly evolving, it gets less attention than hot-button issues. Absent a real crisis between the two, the relationship is more about the flow of capital and the nature of global business than it is about heated battles inside the Beltway or on Main Street. And while the rise of China and America's increased dependency on Chinese loans to fund its deficits certainly generates anxiety, it's mostly amorphous barring some specific issue to focus it.
How that relationship came to be is the subject of my new book, Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy and Why the World's Prosperity Depends On It. While this economic fusion has taken more than two decades to evolve, with the crisis of the past year, it has become both a tighter embrace and one more fraught with tension. It's to the credit of both governments - for now - that those tensions have not boiled over.
As the United States and China wrap up their two-day "Strategic and Economic Dialogue," it's more apparent than ever that the two find themselves in a marriage that neither can easily dissolve and that neither fully wants.
The speeches struck all the rights notes - "the United States and China share mutual interests," President Obama announced. "If we advance those interests through cooperation, our people will benefit, and the world will be better off - because our ability to partner with each other is a prerequisite for progress on many of the most pressing global challenges" Those sentiments were echoed by both Hillary Clinton and Timothy Geithner in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal. The Chinese delegation spoke of the two nations as traveling in the same ship, a ship which was wracked by the global financial storm of the past year. In general, the rhetoric could not have demonstrated more clearly that both see themselves as locked in a relationship of mutual dependence.
It's time to continue our look at the Cabinet in the upcoming Obama administration. Second - Secretary of the Treasury, perhaps the most important appointment President-elect Obama will make, given the current economic circumstances.
There are several excellent options - some who served in the Clinton Administration - some outsiders - and even some paradigm breaking choices. For convenience, I've taken the list from a betting site (yes, it is in the order of the oddsmakers' favorite).
There were Republicans on the list, and I've left out the "I don't believe it" names still on the betting lines such as Phil Gramm and Bob Zoellick. There's also some chatter about keeping Paulson on, temporarily to administer the bailout. So as distasteful as it seems, I kept his name on the list.
Perhaps one key criteria (which you're free to throw to the side of the road) is whether the candidate would inspire confidence in the markets.
(X posted at MyDD - will X post at DK, as soon as the clock allows me to post another diary there)
STATE BLOGS
