Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
www.exiledonline.com
eXiled Alert! / June 1, 2009

geithner-chinese-assrape

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is in China today, doing whatever it takes–no matter how shameless and sordid– to make sure that the Chinese don’t pull out of American bonds, which are tanking in value thanks to Geithner’s multi-trillion-dollar gift to Wall Street. The Chinese are not happy, and since the Chinese loaned America all the money it’s now blowing, they call the shots.

The Tim Geithner lifting ass today in China sounds a lot different from the Tim Geithner who recently played the role of alpha Chinaman Dominator when he was trying to impress the wannabe macho men in Congress. The Treasury Secretary’s old self was captured perfectly in a NY Times article headlined “Geithner Hints At Harder Line on China Trade.”

January 23, 2009

Geithner Hints at Harder Line on China Trade

By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — Timothy F. Geithner, who moved closer to confirmation as Treasury secretary on Thursday, told senators that President Obama believed China was “manipulating” its currency, suggesting a more confrontational stance toward that country than under the Bush administration.

“Hard.” Uh-huh-huh. He said “hard.” Uh-huh-huh-huh.

Today, Geithner got his first chance to show off his new “harder line” in his trip to China, as reported in Bloomberg:

In his prepared remarks, Geithner repeated the U.S. desire for a more flexible yuan. He has avoided a showdown on the issue, declining to repeat comments he made in written remarks to lawmakers after his Senate confirmation hearing in January that China was “manipulating” its currency.

Oo baby, that’s gotta make the Chinese rock-hard, yeah baby.

It gets even sexier. Last decade, Geithner, working in the Treasury under Clinton, led the disastrous IMF bailouts of the Asian Crisis victims, forcing them to cut budget deficits by raising taxes and cutting social programs (in other words, doing what it took to take care of the Western banks that owned their debts).

Today, the Chinese are demanding–and Geithner is acquiescing–that we do for them what we made Thailand, Indonesia and the rest do for us:

“The Chinese public is worried about the safety of its foreign-exchange reserves,” said Yu Yongding, a senior researcher at the government-backed Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a former central bank adviser. “If America fails to adjust its economy by increasing its saving rate and reducing its current account deficit another financial crisis triggered by a dollar crisis could be inevitable,” Yu said in an e-mail.

Geithner said that China’s investments in U.S. financial assets are very safe, and that the U.S. is committed to a strong dollar.

“We are going to have to bring our fiscal deficit down to a level that is sustainable over the medium term,” Geithner said. “This will mean bringing the imbalance between our fiscal resources and our expenditures down to the point — roughly 3 percent of GDP — where the overall level of public debt to GDP is definitely on a downward path.”

The U.S. will need to phase out the tax cuts and bank rescue programs set up to help the economy recover from a deep recession, Geithner said. Spending cuts also will be needed, along with health care reform and new budget constraints like pay-as-you-go rules.

Geithner will meet tomorrow with Wen, who in March called for the U.S. to “guarantee the safety of China’s assets”–meaning our Treasury Secretary is going to have a hard time sitting on his flight back to America,  not to mention the bareback clips he’ll be carrying home as souvenirs. We’re getting rock-hard already just thinking about it.

Geithner’s eagerness to play bottomer, no-vaseline-style, shows the degree to which he represents the banking industry’s interests, even over those of his own country. This trip is all about deciding who picks up the tab for his mega-bailout to Wall Street: should it be Wall Street and their billionaire chiefs? No. Should it be the Chinese, who own so much debt? Guess not.  That leaves only one group left to pick up the tab: us. When Geithner comes back to America, he’s going to be in a very angry, violent mood, and you can bet that when he comes up with new schemes to protect China’s investments, it’ll be the most brutal ass-raping of local Americans since the Jamestown colonials set their eyes on Pocohantas.

Read more: , , , , , Team eXiled, eXiled Alert!

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline

21 Comments

Add your own

  • 1. Dago Red  |  June 1st, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    I can’t believe I’m the first person to make this observation, but here it goes: “The Chinaman is not the issue here, dude!”

  • 2. Paul Yarbles  |  June 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    The Chinese leadership knew their purchasing of dollar denominated investments wouldn’t pay off financially. TG opening up his bunghole (as pointed out a bunghole already deeply penetrated by huge bankers) is just gravy to the Chinese to keep things flowing a little longer.

    The real payoff for China is the propping up of their export market. Using their ‘comparative advantage’ (a fancy bullshit economics term meaning pay shit to your own people and pollute China like crazy) to get western multinationals to make them into a 21st century manufacturing powerhouse is what it’s all about. While it may all blow up in the faces of the Chinese leadership if they can’t keep their people happy or terrified enough, for now it seems to be working.

    The name of the game is to keep the system going for as long as possible. Each day the current system keeps going is another day when the good old U.S. of A. needs the Chinese to wipe its ass a bit more.

    In short what China is doing is loaning fat, decadent, lazy, and stupid America the money to buy good from American multinationals which are made in China. This allows China to actually produce what the rest of the world wants while America becomes like H.G. Wells’ Eloi.

    What was expected by the brain-dead economists: America will own, the rest of the world will work.

    What will happen (option 1): America will be decadent Eloi, the rest of the world will feed on them. Or (option 2) maybe the US, realizing it can’t win economically, will go all warlike and just steal what it can’t pay for or make. Time will tell.

  • 3. rick  |  June 1st, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    I hate literary studies professors, but I remember one accidentally caused me to realize the whole Pocahontas story was hilarious propaganda to get stupid rich Britishers to invest in colonialism. “The old Indians are fools, but the young, fertile mind-slut Native Americans can be seduced (raped).”

  • 4. Chinaman  |  June 1st, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    Chinese students laugh at Tim Geithner:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSPEK14475620090601

  • 5. Cap'n Kapo  |  June 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 am

    oic

  • 6. Realist  |  June 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 am

    You make your own running shoes, gwailo!

  • 7. Cap'n Kapo  |  June 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 am

    @chinaman as long as the chinese students did not throw shoes -_- we have bought ourselves a lilttle more time…

  • 8. Tam  |  June 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 am

    Here’s a good analysis of the various better, (but still not very good) and worse (downright chilling) ways this scenario might play out.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KF03Dj03.html

  • 9. Carlito  |  June 2nd, 2009 at 6:49 am

    Local Americans aren`t going to be picking up the tab for anything. With what are you going to pick up the tab? You don`t have any money, you are not producing anything. The only reason your greenbacks have any purchasing power is because the Chinese are foolishly shipping it to you.

    You haven`t picked up the tab for the last 20 years of your consumption and you think Obama can bail out Wallstreet off your backs? Think again.

    You are going to need more and more bailouts, running larger and larger deficits and sooner or later the Chinese are going to get fed up with financing them.

    Then you can have your class war or whatever, we certainly won`t be interested in reading about it as you`ll be a fucking backwater. Moldova with nukes. But with uglier women.

    At best we are going to send a few expat journalists so they can write about buying 20 dollar whores in Boise, Idaho. While we happily live under our new imperial masters the Chinese.

    It`s going to be a breeze of fresh air. To be finally free of all the fucking hypocrisy and propaganda. At least the Chinese have the decency to do their Imperialism old school. Low on all the CNN crap, high on an iron boot up your arse.

  • 10. stereo  |  June 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 am

    I actually want to fuck Americans too. But not all of them – maybe a couple of girls.

    And if Geithner is preparing a big orgy maybe the turmoil will give serfs like me a chance?

    I don’t really understand Ames’es pathos, don’t really see the benefits of fighting (even if i could) against the bankers conspiracy.

    Why should we hate the financiers?

    We, useless male slaves, are their natural ally against the industrial capital, military, businesswomen ‘Devil wears Prada’ dominatrixes and the like.

    Fuck America!
    Hail the bankers!

  • 11. Tony  |  June 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    Hey, you got the 2257 info on that rice porn there?

  • 12. Rob  |  June 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 am

    The point of the article being? That the US owes money to China? We already knew that. That “Team Exiled” obsesses over gay sex? We already knew that too.

  • 13. Rook Godzirra  |  June 3rd, 2009 at 9:29 am

    That’s not real. If you look closely it is photoshopped.

  • 14. Snarky  |  June 3rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    China has two options:

    Option 1: Fuck the US
    Option 2: Allow the US to fuck China

    Recently in Georgia, “NATO” (read US + crazy European conservative nuts) tried to offer the same choices to Russia. Guess which one Russia picked? I’ll give you guys a hint: The Russian Army wasn’t the one taking it in the ass, and then the pissed off Russians, (thank you western corporate media idiots) exposed all those fancy tactics and pointed out that US-trained armies are very defeatable when fighting actual armies, not tanks driving on a highway.

    Can’t the US learn to give better options? I thought Cheney’s not in office anymore. Oh, yeah – I’m going to place $1000000 on China picking Option 1. Anyone want to take that bet? As for nukes, US won’t use them first, because the nuked countries will send their nuclear missiles at those behind the strikes, the Cheneys, and the Cheneys care too much for their lives.

  • 15. Asehpe  |  June 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 pm

    What the heck? All of this just to say that the US owes money to China, and will go on owing more and more? And that the prospects are bad — the Chinese are getting more power over the US?

    No shit Sherlock. Really. So you do have eyes. Gee, if only you didn’t obsess about gay porn photoshopped with politicians’ heads…

    Tough times. So be it. Makes the future more interesting.

  • 16. ktrpf  |  June 4th, 2009 at 6:08 am

    First of all, I don’t see what’s so cool about obsessively using anal sex-imagery to describe economic questions. I don’t think it makes your stories more revealing, all I feel is a faint sense of disgust and puzzlement why someone feels compelled to repeat over and over “we’re rock hard” and so on.
    why don’t you cut that out? thanks.

    On the issue itself: I think there’s a good chance that you get this completely wrong. Who’s in danger with holding all those Treasuries and agency debt? China or the US?
    Well, actually, it’s quite possible that neither of them, but if someone’s in trouble it’s rather China, not the US.
    China became extremely export-dependent in the last 10 years, exports amounting to 40% of its GDP, but almost all of this is import-reexport stuff, meaning imported components coming in from other Asian countries, assembled in China, reexported to the US and Europe. China has lost control of a large part of its industrial base and technological development in the process. The bulk of its social and health system hs been dismantled, creating a 100-150 million strong migrnat proletariat, deprived of social services, insurance etc., relying on precarious employment in cities, now becoming unemployed by the millions.
    The countryside is in turmoil. Environemental destruction is severe, the Pearl River delta has probably become the most polluted area of the world. One could go on.
    The point is, China has enormous internal problems, and if the US devalues (i don’t think it will, but who knows), it’s China who’s gonna be screwed, not the US. in per capita terms the US is about ten times richer than China, and could (probably) easily rebuild (in an emergency) the industries that went abroad, however, China has smthng like 500-700 million peasants who still live in premodern conditions etc.

    (Check out this article on recent Chinese economic history: The Realities of China Today)

    So the premise of this article is probably completely wrong in the first place.
    IT IS TRUE however, that Geithner works for Wall Street, and has a ghastly record as an IMF-executioner of East Asia. On that we agree.

  • 17. coldequation  |  June 4th, 2009 at 7:03 am

    Geithner is lying his ass off. No way is Obama going to cut spending or raise taxes that much, not unless he absolutely has to, like California has to now. But what do you expect him to say? That these bonds are going to be worthless, but keep buying them anyway?

  • 18. interesting study on this  |  June 6th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    “Moreover, the structure of China’s trade has been undergoing significant change during the 2000s. In 2000, about one third of China’s exports went to Developing Asia, about 53% went to the US, Japan and the European Union and the remaining 14% went to ‘Other Countries’.
    However, by 2007, while the share of China’s exports to Developing Asia remained roughly the same, its share going to the US, Japan and the European Union dropped by 15 percentage points to about 38% while its share going to ‘Other Countries’ rose to almost 29%.
    The share of China’s exports shipped to the US declined from about 20% in 2000 to about 16% in 2007 (Asian Development Outlook 2009, Table A11). This being the case, the Chinese policy of pegging its renminbi to the dollar does not make a great deal of sense—nor does pumping reserves into US securities in order to abate depreciation of the dollar. China is bound to abandon such an increasingly ineffective and risky strategy, and appears already to have taken steps to do so.”

    Will Pinning the Blame on China Help Correct Global Imbalances?

  • 19. hydrogen bomb  |  June 7th, 2009 at 8:58 pm

    Does it make me gay if I find that photoshop job arousing?

  • 20. Dante  |  June 9th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    Paul Yarbles: This allows China to actually produce what the rest of the world wants while America becomes like H.G. Wells’ Eloi.

    But Western universities are too busy producing man-hating feminists in “Gender Studies,” and raising good little anti-Western preachers through a thousand different sociology classes, to have time for something so filthy as to learn how to produce goods! Obviously the Chinese haven’t realized how the focus on engineering, mathematics, physics and chemistry only hurts society. Don’t they want progress?

  • 21. ktrpf  |  June 10th, 2009 at 3:19 am

    Dante, you’re just repeating (empirically unfounded) silly trivialities you picked up on TV. The technological superiority of the US over China is still huge, and that gap will probably never close. The output of American industry is still larger than that of China, and way more complex. Most of China’s industrial output is assembling imported components with minimal value added.
    The US pumps out way more new patents, research, science publications etc. than China.

    Read this: The Chinese Reform Experience, A Critical Assessment


Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)

Required

Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed