Skip to main content

A World Bank head quits

 


The Trump appointed head of the World Bank, David Malpass, has resigned. 

For those who need a refresher: the head of the WB, a Bretton Woods institution, is appointed by the President of the United States because of a deal made at that 1944 conference. The head of its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, is under the same deal always a European (chosen by the IMF's own executive board.) 

Anyway: Malpass is leaving -- the reasons why are not obvious -- and his departure means that President Biden has an appointment opportunity he had not expected. 

On Malpass' way out the door, I want to make one point about his earlier career as a business executive and economist. Malpass was the Chief Economist at Bear Stearns for six years. Those happened also to be the last six years of the existence of Bear Stearns as an independent entity. The post of Chief Economist disappeared when Bear was purchased by JPMorgan Chase in March 2008, as the Subprime Crisis of 2007 was turning into the Global Financial Crisis. 

How much did JPMorgan pay for Bear? Only 6% of what the company's market capitalization had been 12 months before. I wrote about the demise of Bear in chapter five of my book, GAMBLING WITH BORROWED CHIPS.

Though in general, my book blames misguided monetary policy and other macro difficulties for the crises of those years, I have to say: Bear's death cannot be said to have covered its Chief Economist with glory. Contingency planning and risk management are the chief obligations of the Chef Economist of a major investment bank, and Bear seems to have been taken utterly by surprise. 

It is not, I think, a catastrophe for the world that Malpass is leaving the World Bank.    

Comments

  1. Nor, (we hope) was it a catastrophe that he was appointed in the first place.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak