I seen a report where Sec. Paulsen is worth over $500 million. My questions are: Where does he have that money invested? and Do you think that he might have a little incentive to see this "bailout" happen?
Wouldn't it be better to have an economist (or economics professor) as Secretary of Treasury as opposed to a former CEO? Just more proof of corporate America intertwined with government.
JustTired,
You raise a good point about Paulsen's background. Both he and Robert Rubin (partial Clinton era Sec. of Treasury) have ties to Goldman Sachs and Rubin I believe is present head of Citigroup which this morning was announced they are buying up Wachovia Banking Operations. A few weeks ago I read that it's estimated when this all washes out, about 10 banks or less will control over 80% of the banking business in America. And all of this under anti-trust laws and regulation. Look who writes the regulations. As much as many want to think this, it's not a failure of the system, it's the direct affect of man's nature when he begins to consolidate and concentrate power. We don't consider that approach flawed to begin with just because of man's nature. But all that aside.
What is the purpose of the Secretary of the Treasury? Consider the 1792' Act that created the Dept. of Treasury and thus the position and what the duties of the Secretary were at the time.
Direct for the US Treasury Website:
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/history/act-congress.shtml
Now just a quick overview, seems like a pretty good accountant could for the most part do that job. Other than some mismanagement of funds, not much for someone looking to corner the market would have to work with. Also at the above link read carefully Sec. 8 in light of not only Paulsen's resume but also his actions.
Now compare that to today's Dept. of Treasury and it's mission:
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/duties/
Under Organization, read some of it's diverse functions today compared 1792'. Obviously a few more jobs but overall seems still within the basic framework.
Now let's look a the Sec. position itself and again from the US Treasury Dept, Website.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/duties/treas/sec-treasury.shtml
Pretty powerful authority and even on global scale. Not only lead dog of President's Economic Policy Council but consider these in light of global business concerns.
U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Your an American company wanting to expand globally and want to do so in a means least costly to the bottomline, which version of the Sec. of Treasury would you want, the 1792' model or the 2008' model? You are an American bank or investment firm who has taken part in terrible business practices leaving you holding a large amount of very bad investments. You need somewhere to park these bad investments in order to clear your balance sheets and continue bidness as usual. Which model of Sec. would you want to have in office?
Now does all this sound like it fits within the framework of the original intent of the Act that created the dept. and position? If you were wealthy and powerful and wanted to manipulate markets not for the betterment of the nation and people but rather for yourself or even groups of folks who share a similar ideal, which Sec. of the Treasury would you want in power?
Having this later version of the Sec. of Treasury, would you want truly free market capitialism where any person rich or poor, big or small could take an idea into the market place and make their mark? Would you want this latest version that allows you to bring a poor product to the market place and once those ill effects are discovered, hide with immunity under the cover of the protection of being a Corporation and thus a fiction that can be as easily erased as it was created or go back to the intent of the 1700's free market when there was no means to escape person liability, no hidden curtain to hide behind if you wronged the market place?
The first model with very limited authority or the 2nd one with vast authority who can shape economic policy that can break some and make other's winners of life's lottery as some like to say. In to many cases, it's not about how good the product or service is but rather how well it morph's into current public policy of the gov't itself.
Think About It!
Audit the Fed!
) giving us their version of the other side trying to find a chair before the music stops but the real root of the problem goes a bit deeper. As the good question above poses, the root origin can be found here 
They will do this again and story will repeat itself!
