Comments on: Where else could Kashkari have gone? A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: q_is_too_short Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:05:51 +0000 hmm, let’s say NK had decided to go and become a financial blogger.

By: Uncle_Billy Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:47:16 +0000 Not convincing, blarf. Kashkari is a topfeeder (and Paulson love them topfeeders). He is also now very connected. So getting a job in aerospace, or anywhere else he wants would likely be a cakewalk.

PIMCO and/or friends put him there and PIMCO is now nestling him. Clear as day.

What might be is that Felix wrote this to make it appear he’s taking the populist stance, but think about who owns/runs Reuters and their relationship to the biggies at Deutshe Bank.


Now, again, what’s all this about the “probation period”? Is this a PIMCO thing? Common to some other entity?

By: blarf Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:14:18 +0000 Interesting. The legitimate question you ask in your headline is answered in only a juvenile fashion, while you take several paragraphs to further malign Mr. Kashkari’s intentions. Forgive me, but it seems like you have an agenda/vendetta here.

“If you look at what going to Treasury did for Kashkari’s lifetime earnings and ability to easily find a high-paying job”

– Meh. He left an already high paying job to work for comparative peanuts for 3 years. And his portfolio at Treasury was originally far from high profile, as a general assistant and later developing a program to get banks to renegotiate mortgage terms. So there was risk to his “career” from the start.

TARP wasn’t just sitting there when he asked Paulson to come along to Treasury. But his work once there made Mr. Kashkari a good candidate to run TARP, since he understood the issues and had been working on them for some time prior.

“Now it’s entirely possible that Kashkari went to Treasury out of pure selflessness”

– Strawman.

“In doing so, he doubtless spent a great deal of time with very senior Pimco officials who were probably flattering him daily in an attempt to bring him round to their way of thinking on the matter.”

– Doubtless? Evidence please.

“So, where should someone like Kashkari work after serving in government? Well, …”

– It would be nice if you answered your own question in this paragraph. Regardless, appointees are fine for a policy shop like Treasury. The confirmation process is the problem you’re referring to here. I’d rather have appointees gone at the end of a term than burrowing into civil service positions.

“And if Kashkari wants to serve the public, there are lots of ways he can do so which don’t involve working directly in financial services.”

– He’s served the public for 3 years under an administration that wanted him there. Now that’s gone, and he is too. What if he wants to get away from public service for awhile, but still work in his chosen field?

“More realistically, he had a career as an aerospace engineer; he could go back to that, or to manufacturing and engineering more generally. There’s no shortage of jobs…”

– As I am a currently laid off aerospace engineer, I’m well aware that there actually *is* a shortage of jobs in manufacturing and engineering right now. Even still, he already chose to leave engineering behind for a career path in finance. You would have him forgo that simply because he worked in government? Seems awfully authoritarian of you.

“His decision to join Pimco right now means that no one will ever look at his decision to join Treasury quite the same way again.”

– Funny, I’m still looking at it in exactly the same way.

“As for the WaPo profile, you can be sure that it was written and photographed with the clear and express consent and permission of Neel Kashkari.”

– But you said: “I’m not sure why exactly Kashkari invited Blumenfeld to hang out with him in the mountains…” Your original statement implies Mr. Kashkari was seeking publicity and hence has suspect motivations.

Abstract this issue and you have a topic well worth discussing. Impugning the motives of Mr. Kashkari without having proper reason, and it doesn’t reflect well on your own motives.

By: Ed2010 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:59:03 +0000 Apologies – “entirely selfless reasons” isn’t actually a quote, it was supposed to refer to your “pure selflessness” comment.

By: Ed2010 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:57:29 +0000 Of course Kashkari didn’t go for “entirely selfless reasons” but can you think of anyone who joins a public body for entirely selfless reasons? I think you have far too much faith in career civil servants.

Besides, do you have any suggestions for how we stop or discourage the revolving door mechanism which would not adversely impact the quality and number of applicants to important positions in public office?

By: Uncle_Billy Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:54:19 +0000 What did the twitterer mean when he said that Kashkari was hired because he passed his two year probation? Sorry, too tired for a link, but I’m sure you caught that.

By: Simplification Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:26:02 +0000 Note: I don’t actually know of any wrong doing here. I just think it would be interesting to look into

By: Simplification Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:57:42 +0000 I don’t want to defend Neel Kashkari, but the reasoning you go through here seems very suspect to me… and you could be missing valid points.

Seriously? The guy lived through some of the most extreme economic events in the last half-century. I think it’s easy to see how he could still have a passion for the subject matter and wouldn’t want to go back to being an aerospace engineer or become poet. It’s also easy to come up with entirely ethical reasons why he would choose to work with Pimco. Regulators (particularly ones whose previous field as Information Technology Security) might not have a comprehensive expertise in the area that they are supposed to supervise. He may have been taught a lot by bright people at Pimco during this course of his time at the Treasury and decided that he wanted to work with them further.

If you really want to turn this into a serious critique, I think you need to show how he “treated Pimco with kid gloves.” [Hint: Wasn’t Pimco a big holder of Fannie Mae bonds? And under the treasury’s bailout plan, did the bondholders walk away whole, while the preferred shares got wiped? Would be interesting to see if anything could be found under the Freedom of Information Act]