The politics of finance

By Felix Salmon
May 24, 2010
The Big Money running an excerpt from Jonathan Alter's new book, about Paul Volcker and Larry Summers, while John Heilemann has a big New York cover story on the relationship between Obama, Geithner, and Wall Street.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

It’s politics-of-finance day today, with The Big Money running an excerpt from Jonathan Alter’s new book, about Paul Volcker and Larry Summers, while John Heilemann has a big New York cover story on the relationship between Obama, Geithner, and Wall Street.

Alter is unsparing when it comes to Summers:

Inside the White House, David Axelrod was among the few representing the so‑called populist side of the argument, and a joshing debate broke out. Axelrod asked Summers, “So, what does your plutocrat constituency make of this, Larry?”

“It’s good to be hearing what Che thinks,” Summers replied.

But if Summers was more politically shrewd and more aware of the consequences of his outbursts becoming public, the old habits persisted. When Christie Romer was brought in to be the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Summers tried to exclude her from important meetings. Romer fought back, even suggesting to Summers that sexism might have played a role in her exclusion, a serious charge given that he was fired as president of Harvard for perceived sexism.

“Don’t you threaten me!” Summers yelled.

“Don’t you bully me!” Romer shouted.

Heilemann, meanwhile, reports that the current administration, which saved the banks from nationalization, is now held in such contempt that Lloyd Blankfein, a Democrat, “has taken to trashing Obama to his friends in unusually brutal personal terms”, and that at least one big Wall Street bank is likely to slash its Obama donations by more than 90% in 2012.

Both Alter and Heilemann trace the decision not to nationalize to a dinner at the White House in April 2009, attended by Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Alan Blinder, Ken Rogoff, and, at least according to Heilemann, Jeff Sachs as well. Krugman and Stiglitz were in favor of nationalization, but we open about the fact that it would be an expensive and fraught course of action; Obama, faced with an alternative, sensibly took it.

The overwhelming impression I get from reading both accounts, however, is that we’re still in the middle of the story and that no one has a clue what the ending is going to be. The fate of Wall Street is not remotely settled yet, and indeed it’s not at all obvious what the Obama administration wants the fate of Wall Street to be. But Wall Street, it’s clear, is not going to be satisfied with anything short of a complete return to the status quo ante. They’re going to have to get used to disappointment.

7 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Wasn’t there a contretemps recently when Andrew Sorkin was called a “liar” (the debate word of our era) by Krugman over Sorkin’s claim that Krugman wanted to nationalize the banks? I don’t understand why Krugman wanted to disown or qualify his position.

Posted by xyz70 | Report as abusive

“Axelrod asked Summers, “So, what does your plutocrat constituency make of this, Larry?”

“It’s good to be hearing what Che thinks,” Summers replied.”

I wonder if this highbrow conversation continued with:

“Kiss my a–!

“Pull your head out of it and I will!

I’d fit right in with this group.

Posted by DonthelibertDem | Report as abusive

One you’ve nationalized the bank’s debts, much like Harvard absorbing the hellish damage done to it by Larry Summers (of which sexism was the least quantifiable in dollars and cents… OK, never mind the cents) then it’s not very good manners to make the word ‘nationalization’ sound like such a bad idea.

It may not be lonely at the top but it does seem like the coagulation point for a lot of very rude, incompetent and intentionally forgetful people these days.

Posted by HBC | Report as abusive

Dang, they almost had a minyan there!

Posted by Mega | Report as abusive

Soon, some first world sovereign will default and CDSs will dredge up huge issues all over again.

Invariably, the CDS counterparties will be unable to pay and Wall Street will want to be paid anyway.

Posted by DanHess | Report as abusive

I don’t think there’s a single administration anywhere in the world that knows where it will end – but it must at least and in wholescale reform….or it will end, period.

There are days, in fact, when I’m not even sure Goldman Sachs knows what’s going to happen: Blankfein star Jim O’Neill keeps bulling the euro and china; I know he’s wrong, I just don’t know WHY he’s happy to be so publicly wrong.

But if the current folks at the top in Wall St hold the Democratic administration in that degree of contempt, Obama should take it as some kind of compliment. And you have to take your compliments wherever you can when you’re President.

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/

Posted by nbywardslog | Report as abusive

Barney Frank needs to raise the tax rate on Wall Street payouts to 60%. The UK is already at 50%

http://storyburn.com

Posted by STORYBURNcom2 | Report as abusive