I’m not one to defend Geithner, but this article quickly descends into tinfoil hat territory, and the author seems to think that nationalization and government micromanagement of banks is a GOOD thing.
“...the author seems to think that nationalization and government micromanagement of banks is a GOOD thing.”
I noticed that too.
Next with regard to the math aspect of Geithner being 25 at his treasury hiring this is a response to that comment taken directly off my blog:
1. In the future, please post your comments about a story at the relevant story so that people can follow the comment trail.
2. For an article that was as pointed and political as the Geithner one; I was not going to use the Wiki reference of “Who's Who” (Wiki footnote 7). Who’s Who is a user submitted accomplishment book which solicits biographies from potential “included people.” The way who’s who makes money is that in order to see your biography (which you write) you have to buy the book. In high school inclusion notices were sent to nearly everyone I know, some of them are in the book based on what they submitted; hardly a credible source. Outside of that reference, at the time I wrote the piece, there was no better source regarding that information available that I was able to find. (outside of what was included see 2 below)
3. My article does not say he was 25, it says he was “potentially” 25 because, again, the only credible sources I had available at the time I was writing (Feb 10-15ish) said he was appointed to the treasury in 1988. This is echoed in your wiki reference however, again, at Wiki there is no source. The best I could find was available through the NY Fed website which states: “Mr. Geithner joined the Department of Treasury in 1988 and worked in three administrations for five Secretaries of the Treasury in a variety of positions. He served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs from 1999 to 2001 under Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.” The last statement does not make sense to me as it is not consistent with any of the other information that I had available. Hence, again, my use of the word potentially when saying 25 because I was not sure about when he was appointed and it could have been as early as 1988. My confusion on this only added to my idea that something strange exists surrounding Tim Geithner.
In saying all of that keep in mind that I did not spend months researching what I wrote, I did not review all relevant facts and information (though I tried to be as complete in gathering reasonable information that I felt was accurate; note comments above), and I created a theory based on some strange coincidences surrounding Mr. Geithner and the nationalization of our banks.
I am of the impression that using Wiki is only viable as a reference source if the references within wiki are credible. In this case for your argument, I do not think what has been included is useful. In addition to this when I wrote this article the Wiki bio did not look the way it does today and is constantly changing. If you look at the history of the Tim Geithner Wiki Bio it has been changed many times from Feb 10 through today. Sorry if you were confused on it, I did the best I could with the information that I had at the time. All in all Tim Geithner’s background is murky at best and there is a tremendous amount of conflicting information surrounding his past. Thanks for the thoughts, it does seem off if you take it at face value that he was specifically 25.
Lastly, with regard to the information on Tyler, admittedly, I did not go out and snopes the information. Nor did I pursue further validity as the source I got the comment from originally seemed valid. In the CNC post the original reference was broken somehow. At my blog see “History Repeats Itself” written in January. So for not digging deeper on that I am guilty. Irregardless the statements, I believe, are true regardless of historical context. Remember that I am writing material like this piece on a daily basis and that I do my best to keep it accurate and clean; all in all though it is just a blog.
The idea was to present a theory that I found compelling, if you enjoyed it read on, if not it's just a theory that will likely never be proven because of the deception within our government.