Talk:Robert Rubin/Archive 1

Be more precise, more accurate, replace nick-names with actual names if possible
The article say that Mr. Rubin worked in the risk arbitrage unit of Goldman Sachs in 1966 and perhaps after that. I would suggest changing "risk arbitrage" to "merger arbitrage", if there was a unit that had that name, otherwise i would change it to the actual name it had in the accounting or other official documents. My feeling is that risk arbitrage may be a popular name of any job within what is now called Trading and Principal Investments or Trading and Capital Markets, for example the Fixed Income, Currencies and Commodities (FICC),, Principal Strategies Group  or Global Special Situations Group (GSSG). Currently the merger arbitrage desk is in the Principal Strategies Group, and merger arbitrage is called "situation/event-driven strategies" on the website. If there was a Principal Strategies Group back in 1966 the best thing would be to write that he became an associate in the Principal Strategies Group, and more precisely the situation/event-driven strategies desk in 1966. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.212.98 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Clinton Record
Added citation needed - I believe, but don't have time at this moment to verify, that many of the claims made regarding the Clinton economic record are at the very least no longer correct, and perhaps even were overstated when written. Especially regarding record low unemployment - believe that record has been superseded. Hope to return to this later, but if anyone else wants to take a look of course... (Also added Citigroup board membership to bio - he's currently on the board of directors.) LAEsquire 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)LAEsquire

CitiGroup Record
Rubin has been named Chairman of Citigroup as their CEO Charles Prince resigned after writing down $11 billion in losses due to their exposure to subprime mortgages. His first job as chairman is to find a replacement for Prince as there is no clear successor. (Rueters article Mon Nov 5, 2007 5:34 AM GMT: Citigroup Chief Executive Quits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.236.242 (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Currency Crisis Management
Rubin was esp noteworthy for triggering near collapses in 5 separate international currencies by utter, bizare ineptitude for a US Secretary of the Treasury. The Rubin style -

1) have Wall street pals & and your firm viciously attack the currency to create 1st a faux, then a real crisis ,

2) then announce loudly & publically that there would be NO US Aid to suport the currency in crisis ,

3) then bail out resulting collapsing positions caused by Wall Street pals for huge profits by switcherooing to massive US Aid.

The Ruben psychotic management of global currency crises were esp in crises for the following: Thai Baht Detail of the "Rubin style" - to set up fake currency crises Indonesian rupiah/rupee/ruppee [http://www.nimbupani.com/blog/blog-entry/asian-financial-crisis-1997.html 1997 Crisis in Indonesian rupiah / rupee which fell 80% v. the US dollar ]

Argentian peso Argentine Peso Crisis of 2001

Mexican peso crisis called "$50 billion bailout for Goldman Sachs friends        & Mexican drug lords" see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_economic_crisis_in_Mexico 1994 Mexican Peso crisis] and see Managing Peso crisis by Prof DeLong

Russian ruble 1998 Russian ruble collapse

Of course as mentioned, instead of near or perfect insanity, the above Rubin sytle could be thought of as a "playbook" to make billions for your "former" firm on Wall Street - a Goldman Sachs playbook likely carefully studied by new nominee Henry Paulson.

And, or it could be viewed as a US policy targeting and even profiteering on weaker 3rd world countries, led by Secretary of US Treasury. BUT, the massive mushroom cloud of todays' US Debt rapidly increasing by Iraq war and out of control other spending (not even 100s of billions but trillions) makes this strip mining of very small $10s of billions from 3rd world, a sorry sad policy that torpedoes the lives of millions of the poor.

{64.12.116.6Market Pro64.12.116.6} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.6 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

These claims are ridiculous. Note that the Russian default crisis triggered the collapse of LTCM, which severely strained world financial markets. Contrary to your allegations that the "Rubin sytle could be thought of as a 'playbook' to make billions," Goldman actually suffered one of the worst quarters in its history as a result of the LTCM debacle. The idea that Rubin would have orchestrated a "fake crisis" that Wall Street could exploit is nonsensical.

What Rubin's policies did do was significantly reduce the fallout from the financial crises you mention. And yes, Wall Street did beneift from his policies. But what is wrong with that? Wall Street is a major driver of economic growth. Without investment banks, venture capitalists, private equity firms, etc. firms would find it nearly impossible to raise capital, for example. One of the key benefits of Rubin's economic program was that he maintained fiscal discipline, which kept interest rates low. Maybe Rubin saved you a few thousand dollars on your mortgage. Maybe he indirectly made you a few thousand dollars in the stock market, which performed remarkably well under his tenure at Treasury. You also forget that everybody, not just the rich, got richer during the 1990s, due in no small part to Rubin's attention to issues like education and the inner cities. Rubin expanded the EITC, for example, and unemployment fell from 5.6% when he was sworn in as Secretary of the Treasury to 4.2% when he resigned. Home ownership hit a record high during the Clinton years. So Wall Street was by no means the only beneficiary.

By the way, Rubin was supposed to have had a 5% stake in Goldman when he left for Washington. Were he still at Goldman today, that stake would be worth over $4 billion. But Rubin did not stay at Goldman--he put his money in a blind trust, went to Washington, and steered the U.S. economy through one of the strongest periods in its history.

Stochastic 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BS. He helped usher through the repeal of Glass Steagal (CFMA) which produced the current global crisis. Do you work for him, by chance? --206.40.229.27 (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

He's still at Citi, no?
Imagine Reason (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Credit default swaps
As the Wall Street Journal writes: ''We now know that we should not have feared huge losses in the multitrillion-dollar, unregulated market for esoteric instruments called credit default swaps. Transactions in this market have been orderly, and the losses have been modest. Instead of cheering this happy news and reassuring investors, Washington last week pilloried these swaps and set out to regulate or even ban them. Bankers know this puts at risk one of the few remaining smoothly functioning parts of the credit market.'' Based on this, I'll delete the mention of credit default swaps in the article's Economic record and the 2008 global financial crisis section. In any case, read the article for an understanding of credit default swaps. -- Iterator12n   Talk  22:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Rescue of Citi / Enron
The article says: The government’s rescue of Citi in 2008 provided a reminder of Rubin’s attempt earlier in the decade to prop up Enron, then a Citi client, by asking a Treasury official to lean on credit rating agencies to maintain a more positive rating than Enron deserved There is no direct linkage between these two events. The Citi event did not involve ratings agencies. The Enron event did not involve a bailout. The source given does not say that one event was reminiscent of the other. I will remove this shortly. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Does he have a daughter named Elizabeth?
Because his son's page (James Rubin) mentions that he (Jamie) has a sister Elizabeth. Bubble07 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Citi Lawsuit
Someone, please verify and update main article on Robert Rubin. Thanks. http://www.nypost.com/seven/12042008/business/ponzi_scheme_at_citi_142511.htm http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=65539 http://www.henrymakow.com/we_all_are_victims_of_a_giant.html http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-2601-0-24-24--.html http://moneynews.newsmax.com/financenews/citigroup_lawsuit/2008/12/03/157734.html http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/5/83015/4292/592/669605 http://wallstfolly.typepad.com/wallstfolly/robert_rubin/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.155.16 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Clinton Administration
In the discussion of the NEC, reference 3 leads to a reference about Citigroup, not the structure of the NEC. I didn't find a reference listed about the NEC in the reference section. The NEC official website offers an overview of the NEC structure that might be a good reference. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nec jkv (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this section.
"A critical factor in preparing the financial system for the pillage of the 'Great Recession' of 2008. Overexposure to credit derivatives of mortgage-backed securities was a key reason for the failure of US financial institutions Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, American International Group, and Washington Mutual in 2008. Mr. Rubin was coincidentally hired by Citigroup as a top Executive within days of the Glass-Steagall repeal."

The word "pillage" is not appropriate. The next sentence doesn't follow logically. Glass-Steagall involves the separation of investment banks and commercial banks, but several of those mentioned are investment banks that wouldn't have been affected if Glass-Steagall had been left in place. Furthermore it didn't regulate credit derivatives, which were not invented at the time it was written. Commercial banks could have dealt in credit derivatives without the Act's repeal. The third sentence is obviously "nudge nudge wink wink" that Rubin repealed the act because he wanted a job at Citigroup, which isn't appropriate either. And Glass-Steagall was repealed in pieces over many years, not all at once.

I'm going to put this:

"The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial banks to perform functions previously reserved for investment banks, which contributed to the financial crisis that began in 2008 by exposing them to more risk."

--Mujokan (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, and I also cleaned up some typos, put in a request for a citation, and clarified two paragraphs. Repeal of Glass-Steagall is a separate issue to the CTFC overseeing OTC derivatives. I split this into two paragraphs instead of having it all mixed up.

--Mujokan (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Policital Battle taking place
Mr. Rubin and career are being trumped up in order to provide political points in a partisan battle. This article is very short on facts, high in hyperbole and accusation.

The article should be locked, and reverted to "pre-battle" version. At present, this is nothing more than a hit-job page. 12.47.86.27 (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is mute without examples. 98.213.82.33 (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)chordophone

Financial Deregulation
Did Robert Rubin's work to deregulate the financial industry lead to Citi Groups trouble with predatory, lending sub prime mortgages, and junk securites that he was hired to solve ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J23 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - Citigroup would not even exist legally if it were not for Rubin's work in deregulation. Citigroup is a frankenbank - created out of Travelers Insurance, Salomon investment bank, Smith Barney brokerage, and retail banking giant Citibank. None of this would have been possible without Rubin and the repeal of Glass-Steagal.--206.40.229.27 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Rubin is a slug. --Squielewis (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Economist?
The intro says: Robert Edward Rubin is an American economist and banking executive.

Under education it says: Rubin graduated with an A.B. summa cum laude in economics from Harvard College. He then attended Harvard Law School for three days before leaving to see the world. He later attended the London School of Economics after graduation and received an LL.B. from Yale Law School in 1964.

MY QUESTION is, what does it take to be an economist? I'll grant that he's a banker (and he's a lawyer) -- he's had lots of banking experience (and began his career as an attorney).

But does an undergraduate degree (even summa cum laude from Harvard) qualify one as an economist? Does "later attended LSE" qualify one as an economist?

Rick.Wicks (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Rubinomics
There is an article about Rubinomics, but the term isn't in article at all. (or did I overread something?) I think the term should be in the beginning of the article. Sorry, for not doing it right away, but I havn't the time yet. (May be later, let's see, how the community is reacting?) --Ai24 (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Robert Rubin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081206071035/http://biz.yahoo.com:80/rb/081203/business_us_citigroup_lawsuit.html to http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081203/business_us_citigroup_lawsuit.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Rubin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516162737/http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/profiles/rubin/ to http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/profiles/rubin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Request to split Family, education, and early career into separate sections
Thanks for taking an interest in the page and making some constructive changes last week. Following your edits, I would like to revisit my suggestion of restructuring sections to make room for more information, and also to make it easier to find what is already here. In my first request, I had proposed separating the Family, education, and early career section into two sections: Early life and education and then Early career. I still think that makes the most sense for the article long term, so here is what I specifically have in mind, as well as my reasoning:


 * Rename Family, education, and early career to Early life and education, per changes to be made subsequently.
 * Move the second paragraph of the current Family, education, and early career section to a new section immediately following, under the heading Early career.
 * Why to do this: His "early" career spans approximately 30 years, and there is more than two sentences to be said about it, as I'll explain momentarily.
 * Use the second two paragraphs of the Early career section in my proposed draft to add new information to the newly created Early career section.
 * Why to do this: A problem with the current section (and previous version) is that it compresses his entire pre-federal career into just a couple of sentences. My version includes well-sourced information about his prior experience in national Democratic politics, which is relevant to how he became Treasury Secretary in the first place. I've also included a list of prominent board positions that also gives the reader context as to how he attained national prominence; it is possible that including them all based on a single source is a bit too much, but most of the organizations he served are Notable in their own right, and I could look for other sources, if that is an issue.
 * Finally, I would recommend returning the final two paragraphs of the current Family, education, and early career back to the end of the article and re-create the Personal life section.
 * Why to do this: While I recognize there is no guideline that governs where "recent" personal life information is included, in my experience this is most typical of longer biographies, especially in business and government, i.e. that early in the article there is information about how they grew up, and toward the end of the article what their life is like more recently.

For a semi-public figure where there is not much sourcing available, I could see collapsing all of this into one section. But this is not someone about whom there are scant details available, and in fact, I anticipate that these sections could be further built out over time. Separate sections for these topics could help encourage future editing activity.

For anyone else who may be reading this, I will not make any direct edits to this article, because I have a financial conflict of interest: I have been contracted by Mr. Rubin via TSD Communications to work on this biography of him. My goal is to find independent volunteer editors willing to review my proposed changes and, if they agree, to move my draft material into place. If a reviewing editor has any questions or suggested changes before this can happen, I'm happy to collaborate. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , for Wikiprojects cities, they have a project framework that guides how sections should be laid out. Is there one for biography? I'd much prefer editors directly edited on their own terms rather than you being in charge of the draft and waiting along until you come across one person who will do the final act of pushing the "publish" button so we don't end up with a biography page that's been curated by a public relations firm. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of latitude given to sections, or their order, in most articles and BLP's are no exception. If there is an apparent issue with layout someone will bring it up. As mentioned, I regret that I cannot offer to "push the button". Otr500 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of this article
Greetings page-watchers, I am here to propose a new, expanded version of this biographical article, which as of this writing contains redundant information scattered throughout, inaccuracies, and lacks important information for which Mr. Rubin is known.

To that end, I have posted in my userspace a draft that I've carefully researched and organized to present a measured overview of Mr. Rubin's career. You can find my proposed draft here: User:WWB_Too/Robert_Rubin

My intention has been to follow reliable, third-party sourcing closely, to write from a neutral point of view, and to provide enough details about Mr. Rubin's high-profile career without weighing it down in unnecessary details.

I will not make any direct edits to this article, because I have a financial conflict of interest: I have been contracted by Mr. Rubin via TSD Communications to work on this biography of him. I am hoping to find an independent volunteer editor willing to review my proposed changes and, if they agree, to move this draft into place. If a reviewing editor has any questions or suggested changes before this can happen, I'm happy to collaborate.

Because my draft includes significant shuffling of content, it might be easiest to start with something simple. The most straightforward change deals with Mr. Rubin's early career. I suggest moving the middle paragraph of Family, education, and early career into a new section I've called Early career. You can specifically see my proposed Early career section here: User:WWB_Too/Robert_Rubin

Again, I'm happy to discuss these proposed updates with editors should there be any questions or suggestions. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , do you believe "Journalist Robert Scheer claims that the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act was a key factor in the 2008 financial crisis" is warranted? I lean towards omitting this, because I don't believe he's a subject matter expert on finance; so his opinion is just as "some guy from the letter to the editor". While he's notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, I don't think his opinion matters outside of his expertise. Graywalls (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I am inclined to agree that Robert Scheer would not be the best source for such a statement. He's a political commentator more than an economic expert, so I am fine with cutting it. I realize that you did so, and then it was added back by another editor. I don't have a very strong opinion about it, but since you asked, my preference would be for its omittance. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not against any article being expanded with improvements. While I don't have an issue giving opinions I regret that my position on paid editing would preclude assisting in publishing the draft.
 * The lead is a swap from the larger Clinton era 2nd paragraph to the proposed "updated" (more current) 4th paragraph. "I think" the proposed 4th paragraph could be trimmed some to match the 2nd paragraph (WP:BALASP) which I am sure would be considered what laid the foundation for notability.
 * Currently the article states "As of 2020, he is active in several organizations and is a senior counselor at an investment banking advisory firm.". This is acutely more vague, while also allowing a more full explanation in the body. The proposed version goes into a lot of detail, possibly too much for a summary. I am a proponent that important content in the lead be a summary of sourced content in the body with only controversial content (that is or might be contested) needing citations. With that in mind I don't see a need for over-zealous lead sourcing.
 * I do not see any major issues with coverage of controversial content that might be expected when there is a COI editor involved. I don't currently have time to examine in detail but at a glance it does appear to be inline with WP:NPOV and the added sections would be appropriate for the more in-depth coverage.   Otr500 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I appreciate you weighing in here, and respect your caution about interacting with COI editors; I think it's prudent to use your own judgment, but I also hope my associations do not preclude any collaboration whatsoever. While I was optimistic my draft would be given a reading on the merits, it doesn't seem like there is interest from the community at that time, so I'm willing to seek other paths to improving the article's content. For example: did you see my discussion below of the current article's omission of the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act? While I do have specific language to offer as a suggestion, I am less interested in finding someone to just "push the button" and more interested in finding a volunteer willing to help address the current article's shortcomings. Is this something you'd be willing to work on? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 10:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

1993 Deficit Reduction Act
At present, this article contains no mention of Robert Rubin's role in passing the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, which was one of his major accomplishments while serving in the Clinton administration. Mr. Rubin is a client, so I will not edit this article directly. However, this is already covered in the Legislative history section of the Wikipedia article about the law, credited to the book The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House by John F. Harris. Other reliable sources confirm this:


 * "It was Rubin--via the 1993 deficit-reduction plan--who navigated the Clinton Administration into budgetary agreements that helped create the first surplus in 29 years." Cooper Ramo, Joshua (February 15, 1999). "The Three Marketeers". TIME
 * "Rubin's economic policies helped shape the Clinton administration from the beginning, when he pushed the president to set aside some spending priorities and push a controversial deficit-reduction package in 1993. Most economists believe the budget deal was critical. It convinced nervous bond traders that the new Democratic president was serious about the deficit, lowering long-term interest rates, spurring economic growth and, ultimately, helping to balance the budget." —"Rubin resigns post at Treasury", Baltimore Sun (via Lexis-Nexis)
 * "Mr. Rubin's departure drew mixed responses on Capitol Hill, where he is viewed as one of the chief architects of Mr. Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction act. The legislation helped create today's budget surplus and is credited with contributing to the long-running economic expansion." —Dodge, Robert (May 13, 1999). "Rubin resigns". The Dallas Morning News, (via Lexis-Nexis)

If a volunteer editor is willing to add something about this, I think it would be a clear improvement to the article. If one is willing to consider a version of this section which I put together based on these sources (and one other), it is available below.

Rubin has been credited with convincing Clinton to focus on deficit reduction. He is considered "one of the chief architects" of Clinton's 1993 Deficit Reduction Act plan. Supporters said the act helped create the late 1990s surplus and bolstered economic growth, while some opponents noted it raised taxes. Time said it was Rubin "who navigated the Clinton Administration into budgetary agreements that helped create the first surplus in 29 years". Rubin was also viewed as a consistent voice for progressive taxation in the Clinton administration; as officials deliberated the deficit reduction plan, Rubin advocated for tax increases on those in the upper-income tax bracket. The Baltimore Sun said that the budget deal "was critical" and "convinced nervous bond traders that the new Democratic president was serious about the deficit, lowering long-term interest rates, spurring economic growth and, ultimately, helping to balance the budget."

Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree this is an important piece of Rubin’s historical legacy and should be included. I therefore added much of the edit request, while toning it down a little to account for WP:DUE and WP:PUFFERY considerations. Clinton had a long pre-presidency track record on deficit reduction policy, so portraying Rubin as the source of that policy is not quite accurate. But again, he did play a key role and it’s now in the article. Other editors are invited to review and improve upon this edit. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the consideration, and I am fine with the section as you've amended it. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Unverifiable statement
As noted in the template atop this page, I have a financial COI with this topic. I have a very small request to make here: there is a one-sentence section called Recognition and its one claim cannot be verified. Specifically, it says there was an exhibit about Mr. Rubin at FIU's Jewish Museum of Florida. Could be true, but the source used doesn't verify this, nor do the 51 archived versions of the URL at the Internet Archive. And I have been unable to find any reliable sources mentioning it. I suggest the section be removed for now. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

✅ Graywalls (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Affiliation with Harvard
The current article is likely to confuse readers about Robert Rubin's affiliation with Harvard. In Post-government career, there is a short paragraph focused on Harvard that concludes: "He served as a member of the Harvard Corporation until June 2014." Six paragraphs later there is an otherwise unrelated paragraph which states that Rubin still serves on Harvard Corporation's finance committee. To clear up any potential confusion on Rubin's affiliation with Harvard, I suggest the later mention be trimmed, and the aforementioned sentence be revised to read "He served as a member of the Harvard Corporation board until June 2014 and continues to serve on its finance committee. " This would consolidate the three sources currently used at the end of the two existing sentences, although the Washington Post source is undated and unbylined, so I think it could be removed, as the other two sources seem sufficient. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Urve (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Secretary of the Treasury

 * I made the edit. I'm comfortable that I have seen a reliable source supporting the $70 billion surplus. While I remain convinced that more could be said about the interaction between the surplus and the debt, I'll leave that for another time. I had some concerns about the unbalanced praise, but you probably pointed out that other parts of the article put his legacy in context.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This article does not have a section specifically about Robert Rubin's tenure as Secretary of the Treasury, even though it is that role for which he is best known. Therefore I am proposing the addition of a Secretary of the Treasury subsection to go under Clinton administration. It can be placed immediately following the recently created 1993 Deficit Reduction Act subsection. I have written a suggested draft, which can be found here: User:WWB_Too/Robert_Rubin

This draft adds basic information now missing from the article: about how he was nominated and confirmed, and describes the economic growth that the U.S. enjoyed in the 1990s, which many reliable sources clearly credit to policies that Rubin promoted. This draft also seeks to incorporate some material that already exists in the article: praise from Chuck Hagel and President Clinton that is currently found in Economic record and the 2008 global financial crisis but feels like a more natural fit here.

So here is what I would suggest:

Secretary of the Treasury Clinton nominated Rubin as Treasury secretary in December 1994. On January 10, 1995, Rubin was sworn in as the 70th United States Secretary of the Treasury after the U.S. Senate confirmed him in a 99-0 vote. Rubin's tenure with the Clinton administration, especially as the head of Treasury, was marked by economic prosperity in the U.S. Rubin is credited as one of the main individuals behind U.S. economic growth, creating near full-employment and bullish stock markets while avoiding inflation. From the time he joined the White House until he announced his resignation from Treasury in 1999, U.S. unemployment fell from 6.9 percent to 4.3 percent; the U.S. budget went from a $255 billion deficit to a $70 billion surplus, and inflation fell. Rubin was succeeded in early July 1999 as Treasury secretary by his deputy, Lawrence Summers.

According to CNN Money, Rubin was "one of the architects of the Clinton administration's economic policy, and is often credited—along with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan—for the booming eight-year economic expansion, the second-longest in U.S. history".

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) called Rubin "an ideal public servant who put policy before politics." At the time of Rubin's resignation, Clinton called Rubin the "greatest secretary of the Treasury since Alexander Hamilton."

Per the full draft in my userspace, it is my thinking that, in the future, the Secretary of the Treasury heading could contain topics such as the 1990s international crises, balanced budget agreement, regulation of derivatives, repeal of Glass–Steagall Act, and urban policy which were all relevant to his legacy as Treasury secretary, but I'm happy to leave for consideration at a later point. As I've previously noted, I have a financial COI with this topic as I am working on Mr. Rubin's behalf, therefore will refrain from editing this page myself. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I looked at the proposed edit and most of it checks out. I have two concerns, one is substantively minor but a bit of a tar baby, and the other might be more serious. Before getting to those two issues, I did check each of the cited sources.
 * I did have trouble accessing with the fourth reference:
 * Weisman, Jonathan (May 13, 1999). "Rubin resigns post at Treasury". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved August 28, 2020.
 * It seems to be a Nexis link for which I do not have an account. I am fully aware that we do not prohibit sources that require a subscription, but one of my concerns relates to the 70 million budget surplus and that's the source used for it. The underlying article comes from the Baltimore Sun; I thought it would be straightforward to find a direct link to the article but I failed. If you can find a better link directly to the article that would be great, if not, that's acceptable but we will have to address the support for the 70 billion surplus.
 * The other source I could not access was the Wall Street Journal article for which I do not have a subscription. I am less troubled by this one, as the quote can also be found at this site:
 * treasury.gov
 * I'm not proposing that the alternative site be used as a reference, I think the Wall Street Journal is a better source for this statement, so I am comfortable leaving the Wall Street Journal as a source as I'm convinced that the quote is accurate.
 * My concern about the claim of a $70 billion surplus is complicated. My personal, admittedly vague recollection, is that it wasn't that simple. A budget surplus ought to mean that the debt is reduced by that amount, and I don't believe it's true that the debt ever went down. I can find some sites such as:
 * Political insider
 * Which claim that looking at the reported budget surplus alone ignores intragovernmental holdings. I will immediately confess I'm not fully conversant with how that works, but I do remember discussions at the time suggesting that the surplus wasn't all it was cracked up to be, and the aggregate debt increased during this time period. I do think it is fair to say that under Clinton and with credit to Rubin, the budget deficits were brought under control but I'm uncomfortable stating that the budget surplus was 70 billion without either a reference or context. I'm fully aware that the political insider may not qualify as a high quality source.
 * The CNN source you provided states:
 * "The $290 billion budget deficit is now just $70 billion. "
 * That's an infuriatingly imprecise statement. While it sounds like it's supportive of the $70 billion claim, the English parsing of the sentence is that the 70 billion is a reference to a deficit. You would not say "now just 70 billion" if you meant a surplus, so I'm not sure whether the writer is incompetent or what the situation is. I don't literally think it means the deficit was 70 billion, but I don't think it counts as support for a 70 billion surplus.
 * I'm struggling with how best to handle this. Part of me thinks it will be easy to find a quality reference supporting the budget surplus amount but I think that ought to be coupled with some comment that this doesn't mean that the debt was going down. Another part of me thinks it would be best to avoid specific numbers and talk about significant reductions in the budget deficit under Rubin, which would avoid the need to get into the weeds about intergovernmental transfers.
 * My more substantive concern is the use of the quote about being the best treasury secretary since Alexander Hamilton. As discussed above I am not questioning that the quote exists, but I am suggesting it needs some balance.
 * For example this Bloomberg article has different views. Sorry, this is a subscription article and I paid the fee to access it but you may or may not have access. There are a couple quotes from that article that paint a different picture:
 * “Nobody on this planet represents more vividly the scam of the banking industry,” says Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan. “He made $120 million from Citibank, which was technically insolvent. And now we, the taxpayers, are paying for it.”
 * Nassim Nicholas Taleb doesn’t know Rubin personally. He admits that his antipathy, like that of so many Rubin critics, is fueled by symbolism. “He represents everything that’s bad in America,” he says. “The evil in one person represented. When we write the history, he will be seen as the John Gotti of our era. He’s the Teflon Don of Wall Street.” Taleb wants systemic change to prevent what he terms the “Bob Rubin Problem”—the commingling of Wall Street interests and the public trust—“so people like him don’t exist.”
 * I'm not suggesting that either one of those quotes ought to be included. I think they sway the pendulum too far the other way, but I do think the over-the-top praise of Rubin requires some balance that points out other commentators have a more nuanced view of his tenure. I'm specifically thinking about mentioning his actions regarding derivatives which ended up being partially responsible for a major recession. I haven't crafted specific wording yet but wanted to get your feedback to see how you'd like to proceed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling with how best to handle this. Part of me thinks it will be easy to find a quality reference supporting the budget surplus amount but I think that ought to be coupled with some comment that this doesn't mean that the debt was going down. Another part of me thinks it would be best to avoid specific numbers and talk about significant reductions in the budget deficit under Rubin, which would avoid the need to get into the weeds about intergovernmental transfers.
 * My more substantive concern is the use of the quote about being the best treasury secretary since Alexander Hamilton. As discussed above I am not questioning that the quote exists, but I am suggesting it needs some balance.
 * For example this Bloomberg article has different views. Sorry, this is a subscription article and I paid the fee to access it but you may or may not have access. There are a couple quotes from that article that paint a different picture:
 * “Nobody on this planet represents more vividly the scam of the banking industry,” says Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan. “He made $120 million from Citibank, which was technically insolvent. And now we, the taxpayers, are paying for it.”
 * Nassim Nicholas Taleb doesn’t know Rubin personally. He admits that his antipathy, like that of so many Rubin critics, is fueled by symbolism. “He represents everything that’s bad in America,” he says. “The evil in one person represented. When we write the history, he will be seen as the John Gotti of our era. He’s the Teflon Don of Wall Street.” Taleb wants systemic change to prevent what he terms the “Bob Rubin Problem”—the commingling of Wall Street interests and the public trust—“so people like him don’t exist.”
 * I'm not suggesting that either one of those quotes ought to be included. I think they sway the pendulum too far the other way, but I do think the over-the-top praise of Rubin requires some balance that points out other commentators have a more nuanced view of his tenure. I'm specifically thinking about mentioning his actions regarding derivatives which ended up being partially responsible for a major recession. I haven't crafted specific wording yet but wanted to get your feedback to see how you'd like to proceed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * “Nobody on this planet represents more vividly the scam of the banking industry,” says Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan. “He made $120 million from Citibank, which was technically insolvent. And now we, the taxpayers, are paying for it.”
 * Nassim Nicholas Taleb doesn’t know Rubin personally. He admits that his antipathy, like that of so many Rubin critics, is fueled by symbolism. “He represents everything that’s bad in America,” he says. “The evil in one person represented. When we write the history, he will be seen as the John Gotti of our era. He’s the Teflon Don of Wall Street.” Taleb wants systemic change to prevent what he terms the “Bob Rubin Problem”—the commingling of Wall Street interests and the public trust—“so people like him don’t exist.”
 * I'm not suggesting that either one of those quotes ought to be included. I think they sway the pendulum too far the other way, but I do think the over-the-top praise of Rubin requires some balance that points out other commentators have a more nuanced view of his tenure. I'm specifically thinking about mentioning his actions regarding derivatives which ended up being partially responsible for a major recession. I haven't crafted specific wording yet but wanted to get your feedback to see how you'd like to proceed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nassim Nicholas Taleb doesn’t know Rubin personally. He admits that his antipathy, like that of so many Rubin critics, is fueled by symbolism. “He represents everything that’s bad in America,” he says. “The evil in one person represented. When we write the history, he will be seen as the John Gotti of our era. He’s the Teflon Don of Wall Street.” Taleb wants systemic change to prevent what he terms the “Bob Rubin Problem”—the commingling of Wall Street interests and the public trust—“so people like him don’t exist.”
 * I'm not suggesting that either one of those quotes ought to be included. I think they sway the pendulum too far the other way, but I do think the over-the-top praise of Rubin requires some balance that points out other commentators have a more nuanced view of his tenure. I'm specifically thinking about mentioning his actions regarding derivatives which ended up being partially responsible for a major recession. I haven't crafted specific wording yet but wanted to get your feedback to see how you'd like to proceed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that either one of those quotes ought to be included. I think they sway the pendulum too far the other way, but I do think the over-the-top praise of Rubin requires some balance that points out other commentators have a more nuanced view of his tenure. I'm specifically thinking about mentioning his actions regarding derivatives which ended up being partially responsible for a major recession. I haven't crafted specific wording yet but wanted to get your feedback to see how you'd like to proceed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that either one of those quotes ought to be included. I think they sway the pendulum too far the other way, but I do think the over-the-top praise of Rubin requires some balance that points out other commentators have a more nuanced view of his tenure. I'm specifically thinking about mentioning his actions regarding derivatives which ended up being partially responsible for a major recession. I haven't crafted specific wording yet but wanted to get your feedback to see how you'd like to proceed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that either one of those quotes ought to be included. I think they sway the pendulum too far the other way, but I do think the over-the-top praise of Rubin requires some balance that points out other commentators have a more nuanced view of his tenure. I'm specifically thinking about mentioning his actions regarding derivatives which ended up being partially responsible for a major recession. I haven't crafted specific wording yet but wanted to get your feedback to see how you'd like to proceed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Sphilbrick, we're in luck: I just found a publicly-accessible version of the Baltimore Sun article, see this paragraph especially: Wall Street executives and fiscal conservatives lauded his tenure at the department, during which the Dow skyrocketed 187 percent. Since Rubin accompanied Clinton to the White House, unemployment has dropped from 6.9 percent to 4.3 percent, a $255 billion budget deficit has turned into a $70 billion surplus, and inflation has virtually disappeared. As you'll see, my version actually tones it down a bit.


 * Here as well is a contemporaneous NYT article reporting on the $70 billion surplus, although it does not mention Rubin, nor the deficit. To your questions about how the surplus should be considered in light of the debt or deficit, I do not have an opinion at this time. I simply wrote from sources. Whatever caveats an economist might have, it was undoubtedly seen as an achievement then and later. Here's a New Republic article from 2010 discussing whether the Clinton administration or Republicans deserved more credit for it.


 * About the laudatory Clinton quote, this is actually in the article now—it's the first sentence of this section—but I think it works better here. After all, Rubin was highly praised in the late 1990s, before receiving criticism in the late 2000s. If you look in my draft, you'll see I have planned for several subsections under Secretary of the Treasury exploring different aspects of his time in office. Rubin's legacy comes across a bit better in some, a bit worse in others. Since you mention the criticism of his approach to derivatives, one of these subsections is titled Regulation of derivatives.


 * FWIW, Taleb is currently quoted in the existing article—in the final paragraph of the Criticism section—and it's a very similar quote to the one you found, but it's relevant to his role at Citibank, not Treasury. My proposed version omits Taleb's quote, but it does include the perspective he represents, once we get to that. Let me know if you have other questions, or if I've answered your concerns about the current request. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's too late for me to deal with this issue this evening but you responded wonderfully to my concerns. Let me look in the morning and respond in more detail. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sphilbrick! Only thing I'd suggest changing is to put the section heading into the standard equal signs, because it currently isn't showing up in the table of contents. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , That's embarrassing, should have seen that myself. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! This week I'll update the draft and propose another section for review. I'll put the edit request tag on and ping you again, in case you have the bandwidth. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

1990s international crises
This article contains a subsection called 1990s global financial crisis. The heading is misleading, as the section actually discusses more than one regional crisis; indeed, there is no commonly understood "1990s global financial crisis" like the one that occurred in 2007–2008. (List of economic crises#1990s is instructive here, if not dispositive.)

The subsection also contains two one-sentence paragraphs that are unrelated: one about an award Rubin received, the other about Rubin's successor. Neither are necessary here; Summers succeeding Rubin is noted elsewhere in the article, and the only source for the Jefferson Awards is the Jefferson Awards itself.

My draft changes the heading to 1990s international crises and I suggest it should become a subsection of Secretary of the Treasury. In the first paragraph, I made some copy edits, added specificity by wikilinking to the Mexican peso crisis article, and added a sentence following up on the loan. In the second paragraph, I made minor copy edits to eliminate redundancy, fix formatting errors, and improve readability. Here is what I suggest:

1990s international crises Upon being sworn into office as Treasury secretary in January 1995, Rubin was confronted with the Mexican peso crisis, which threatened to result in Mexico defaulting on its foreign obligations. President Bill Clinton, with the advice of Rubin and Greenspan, provided $20 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to the Mexican government through the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Mexico recovered and the U.S. Treasury made a $580 million profit as a result of the loan agreement.

In 1997 and 1998, Rubin, Greenspan, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers worked with the International Monetary Fund and others to promote U.S. policy in response to financial crises in Russian, Asian, and Latin American financial markets. On the cover of its February 15, 1999 edition, Time Magazine dubbed the three policymakers "The Committee to Save the World".

As I've previously noted, I have a financial COI with this topic as I am working on Mr. Rubin's behalf, therefore will refrain from editing this page myself. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Interesting distinction between "international" and "global"; one I had not considered before but it makes sense. I checked all the references to make sure they supported the claims. I agree that two sentences made statements that were not related to this section, and one of which is stated elsewhere. I'll leave it to someone else to see if they can find better support for the Jefferson award, but even if that happens this paragraph is probably not the right location for that information. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Balanced budget agreement
The current version of this article makes no mention of Robert Rubin's leadership in getting the GOP-held Congress to pass the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, even though CNN has called it the "capstone" of Rubin's time as Treasury secretary. I am proposing the addition of a Balanced budget agreement subsection for Secretary of the Treasury, directly under the recently-created 1990s international crises subsection. I have written a suggested draft, which can be found here: User:WWB_Too/Robert_Rubin

I think this draft is straightforward, discussing Rubin's role in the balanced budget act without unnecessary detail. This surely counts as one of the more favorable subsections I have planned for this section, but I have sought to keep the information limited and to-the-point. Here is what I suggest:

Balanced budget agreement Since the early days of the Clinton administration, Rubin touted a balanced budget and a strong dollar as a way for the Fed to lower interest rates. He also argued that a balanced federal budget's broad benefits to society outweighed concerns that one group could benefit more than others. Rubin was the Clinton administration's chief negotiator with a Republican-controlled Congress on the balanced-budget deal. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has been referred to as the "capstone" of Rubin's tenure as Treasury secretary.

As I've previously noted, I have a financial COI with this topic as I am working on Mr. Rubin's behalf, therefore will refrain from editing this page myself. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm looking at this. I have identified a few concerns which I will attempt to summarize and post. Unfortunately, I won't be able to do that until the morning — I've got a board meeting coming up soon and need to turn my attention to preparing for the meeting. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No rush, I appreciate the note and I'll be prepared to consider them once you're ready. I'll add that I am not dead set on exactly this wording or specific set of facts, but I do believe this was a significant event and should be represented on this page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking at this. I have identified a few concerns which I will attempt to summarize and post. Unfortunately, I won't be able to do that until the morning — I've got a board meeting coming up soon and need to turn my attention to preparing for the meeting.

I have two types of concerns, the first is technical, the second more substantive.

The technical concern is that three of the five references are behind a pay wall that I don't have access to. As we discussed before, this is acceptable in an article, but it handcuffs me when trying to verify that the text is supported by the references. The first third and fourth references are those behind the pay wall. one piece of good news is that the third one is one you had used earlier and you had tracked down a free access version so my intention would be to replace the reference with that one.

I'm not particularly concerned about the fourth reference, because the sentence to which it refers has two references, and I can access the third and I am comfortable it supports the sentence so I see the fourth reference as a bit of belt and suspenders. Absent the highly unlikely circumstance that it contradicts the claim, I don't need to see that reference.

That leaves the first one.

I did sign up for a newspapers.com account and can find the article.

It does contain the sentence "he argued that a balanced budget and a strong dollar would allow Greenspan to lower interest rates, and only that would get the economy moving again."

While that clearly supports the opening sentence of your text, that leads me to my second area of concern.

"Immediate 200-point plunge in news of Rubin's resignation"

No mention of dollar

CBSNews "Rubin is credited with pushing the 1993 budget deal to reduce deficit spending, resulting in lower interest rates." (no mention of strong dollar)

Support for weak dollar

HuffPost complicates the situation given this quote " A lower valued dollar was in fact supposed to be one of the main dividends of the deficit reduction policy that President Clinton pursued from the start of his presidency. The argument was that lower deficits would lead to lower interest rates in the United States. If interest rates in the United States fell, then foreign investors would buy up fewer US government bonds and other financial assets. This gave us the lower dollar and improved trade deficit."

Support for strong dollar

WaPo "Rubin, a staunch defender of a strong U.S. dollar and trade balance,"

Mixed support

NYT "Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, taking a little air out of the rapidly rising dollar, suggested today that the Administration had ended its two-year-long effort to drive up the dollar against the world's other major currencies.

Mr. Rubin has said repeatedly over that time that a strong dollar is in the interest of the United States. Today, in a subtly worded change of policy, he said at a meeting with reporters that while a strong dollar was still in America's interest, we have had a strong dollar for some time now, a phrase he used three more times."

"Unlike Mr. Bentsen, a lifelong politician with a populist tinge in favor of low interest rates and a competitive currency rate, Mr. Rubin made his mark on Wall Street, where he rose through the ranks of Goldman, Sachs as a highly successful trader. If his past actions are a reliable guide, his comments today were simply an attempt to sow uncertainty among global money managers, making them fearful of betting on a further rapid rise of the dollar."

NYT " When the Asian crisis hit in 1997, many people there protested the Rubin-Summers brew of high interest rates and major cuts in Government spending that were the prerequisite for American-backed aid from the International Monetary Fund. "

I do realize the reference to high interest rates refers to other countries but it does beg the question why Rubin would support high interest rates for other countries while pushing for low interest rates in the US. I'm sure this can be answered but it may be worth addressing.

My current view is that of the four sentences in the text, the last three are supported. while the first one is clearly supported by the source, looking at other high-quality sources seems to send a more complicated picture. I do note that one of the troublesome sources is Huffington Post and I don't place that in the same league as the other sources.

(Unfortunately, after agreeing to take a look at this text, I find myself with several assignments that need to be addressed in the next day or two including a meeting this afternoon spent a little less time on this than I had hoped. I wanted to share with you where I was and give you a chance to respond.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks again for the well-considered response. I did some additional research around Rubin's support for the strong dollar, and interestingly enough I found an entire section about it in this article and section: Strong_dollar_policy. This yields contemporaneous and more recent sources from UPI, New York Times, and VoxEU. Allowing that Rubin may have modified his views somewhat given later economic developments, I think the sentence is still accurate as he came into the position touting the strong dollar, which is all it aims to say. If you think it's more ambiguous, I'd be open to modifying the wording, depending on your view. As to the paywalled sources: since he was Treasury Secretary in the 1990s, a lot of these are going to be older sources and less reliably available online. I could in future requests include quotes from sources, if not replace them altogether with more recent ones. No worries about needing a few days, I'm not in a huge rush. Thanks again, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 22:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've mulled this over and think I'm overanalyzing it a bit. The complication is the loaded interpretation of the terms "strong dollar" and "weak dollar". The ordinary use of the terms might leave the impression that a "strong dollar" is an unalloyed good, and a "weak dollar" is an across-the-board bad situation.
 * As our own Wikipedia article Strong dollar policy points out, it is more complicated. While overall, strong may be better than weak, there are advantages and disadvantages to both positions, with the additional complications that when the country has a very strong dollar, the disadvantages may outweigh the advantages.
 * The Wikipedia article is frustrating in two ways. First it attempts to summarize the position of administrations for various periods of time starting at 1971. I haven't read them closely but there. To be well supported. The frustration is that the discussion ends at roughly 1993 when Rubin became Treasury Secretary, so it offers very little insight into Rubin's position during his tenure.
 * The second frustration is not the lead paragraph mentions Robert Rubin, tantalizingly hints that he was in support of a strong dollar, but notes that around this time the dollar "declined substantially" but the sentence has a citation needed template, so we don't know whether the statement is accurate, whether it can be supported in exactly what time frames are involved.
 * It is also plausible that a treasury secretary could believe that a strong dollar is worth pursuing given a certain set of economic economic circumstances, while other actions may be more important in other economic circumstances. This leads me to the observation that the proposed sentence leaves the impression that Rubin espouses broad support for a strong dollar at all times during his tenure as Treasury Secretary. Given some sources that question this at some points in time (and as just noted that would not necessarily be an inconsistent policy, but the application of the right measures given the circumstances), I think I would be satisfied if you could qualify the statement with some dates. My ideal unrealistic desire would be an in-depth discussion of strong versus weak dollar, when strong is better than weak, exactly what Rubin push for and when and how it worked out, but that desire is beyond the scope of what's reasonable to request, so I will be satisfied if we could have a clarification that makes it clear that Rubin was touting a strong dollar at some point in his tenure. Can I leave it to you to come up with suggested wording? If so, and with the obvious caveat that the proposed wording must be consistent with the source, I'll be happy. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The second frustration is not the lead paragraph mentions Robert Rubin, tantalizingly hints that he was in support of a strong dollar, but notes that around this time the dollar "declined substantially" but the sentence has a citation needed template, so we don't know whether the statement is accurate, whether it can be supported in exactly what time frames are involved.
 * It is also plausible that a treasury secretary could believe that a strong dollar is worth pursuing given a certain set of economic economic circumstances, while other actions may be more important in other economic circumstances. This leads me to the observation that the proposed sentence leaves the impression that Rubin espouses broad support for a strong dollar at all times during his tenure as Treasury Secretary. Given some sources that question this at some points in time (and as just noted that would not necessarily be an inconsistent policy, but the application of the right measures given the circumstances), I think I would be satisfied if you could qualify the statement with some dates. My ideal unrealistic desire would be an in-depth discussion of strong versus weak dollar, when strong is better than weak, exactly what Rubin push for and when and how it worked out, but that desire is beyond the scope of what's reasonable to request, so I will be satisfied if we could have a clarification that makes it clear that Rubin was touting a strong dollar at some point in his tenure. Can I leave it to you to come up with suggested wording? If so, and with the obvious caveat that the proposed wording must be consistent with the source, I'll be happy. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also plausible that a treasury secretary could believe that a strong dollar is worth pursuing given a certain set of economic economic circumstances, while other actions may be more important in other economic circumstances. This leads me to the observation that the proposed sentence leaves the impression that Rubin espouses broad support for a strong dollar at all times during his tenure as Treasury Secretary. Given some sources that question this at some points in time (and as just noted that would not necessarily be an inconsistent policy, but the application of the right measures given the circumstances), I think I would be satisfied if you could qualify the statement with some dates. My ideal unrealistic desire would be an in-depth discussion of strong versus weak dollar, when strong is better than weak, exactly what Rubin push for and when and how it worked out, but that desire is beyond the scope of what's reasonable to request, so I will be satisfied if we could have a clarification that makes it clear that Rubin was touting a strong dollar at some point in his tenure. Can I leave it to you to come up with suggested wording? If so, and with the obvious caveat that the proposed wording must be consistent with the source, I'll be happy. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also plausible that a treasury secretary could believe that a strong dollar is worth pursuing given a certain set of economic economic circumstances, while other actions may be more important in other economic circumstances. This leads me to the observation that the proposed sentence leaves the impression that Rubin espouses broad support for a strong dollar at all times during his tenure as Treasury Secretary. Given some sources that question this at some points in time (and as just noted that would not necessarily be an inconsistent policy, but the application of the right measures given the circumstances), I think I would be satisfied if you could qualify the statement with some dates. My ideal unrealistic desire would be an in-depth discussion of strong versus weak dollar, when strong is better than weak, exactly what Rubin push for and when and how it worked out, but that desire is beyond the scope of what's reasonable to request, so I will be satisfied if we could have a clarification that makes it clear that Rubin was touting a strong dollar at some point in his tenure. Can I leave it to you to come up with suggested wording? If so, and with the obvious caveat that the proposed wording must be consistent with the source, I'll be happy. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , how about changing the start of the first sentence from Since the early days of the Clinton administration to Early in the Clinton administration? This removes the possibility the reader might think Rubin's views on the strong dollar are immutable and immovable, still accurately characterizes his pro-strong dollar views at the time, and saves us from having to read the tea leaves about when some nuance may have started creeping into his public statements. What do you think? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , That works. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. ✅ S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, I notice a couple malformed edits in the references section. When I did in earlier edit, I noticed my edit created a couple problems but I thought I resolved them. do you know if these errors were introduced by me or someone else? For what it's worth, while your conflict of interest preclude you from directly editing the article, I interpret that as changing the content with the organization of the main text. In my opinion, fixing a malformed citation template to make it work shouldn't constitute a violation of COI. If you take a stronger position and don't even want to touch it, please let me know if you know what needs to be fixed and I'll fix it. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I see what's going on. The full citation for  is used three times and the parameters are swapped around in each instance, which is giving the "Cite error". The full citation for   is used twice; the parameters within the full citation are swapped around in both, which is giving the same warning in the reference list. For the easiest fix, I imagine we could just change two of the full citations of   to , and one full citation of   to  . While I don't like to put the burden on you to make such formatting issues, I'd rather not edit the live article directly because of my conflict of interest. And FWIW, the errors don't appear in my draft. I'm sorry for the trouble, I'll be sure to fix those issues in future requests. Thanks! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that did it! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 12:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Regulation of derivatives
The current article includes some information about Robert Rubin's stance on the regulation of derivatives during his time in the Clinton administration. However, it's not easily found, as it is currently spread across two sections: Economic record and the 2008 global financial crisis and Criticism. I propose this content be consolidated into one section called Regulation of derivatives, which should be a new subsection of Secretary of the Treasury immediately following Balanced budget agreement. I have prepared a draft, which can be found in the collapse box below:

Essentially what you see in my draft is carved out from the first, third, and fourth paragraphs of the existing Economic record and the 2008 global financial crisis section. I also borrowed and reworded the second sentence from Criticism about Rubin and other senior officials recommending Congress relieve the CFTC of regulatory authority over derivatives, which is worth including here. My draft does not include the first sentence from the existing Criticism section, as I believe the subject matter deserves a more measured explanation. In addition, this draft modifies or adds the following:
 * To clarify Mr. Rubin's opposition to CFTC oversight of derivatives was in 1998, not 1997, as the New York Times makes clear.
 * To clarify Mr. Rubin's role in relieving the CFTC of regulatory authority: Rubin and other senior officials recommended Congress relieve the CFTC of regulatory authority over derivatives in November 1999.
 * To clarify Mr. Rubin's position on regulation, I suggest adding: In 2008, The New York Times reported that the proposal in 1997 would not have improved oversight of derivatives. Rubin said the financial system "could benefit from better regulation of derivatives". However, "the politics would have made this impossible," he said. Rubin said he had been concerned about derivatives' potential to create systemic risk since his time at Goldman Sachs.
 * To clarify Clinton's comments to ABC: In an interview on ABC's This Week program in April 2010, former President Clinton said Rubin was wrong in the advice he gave him not to regulate derivatives, which was by then seen as one of the underlying causes of the 2007–08 financial crisis.
 * To clarify Doug Band's statement currently quoted in the article, based on a contemporaneous report: Clinton adviser Doug Band later said Clinton "inadvertently conflated an analysis he received on a specific derivatives proposal with then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's arguments against any regulation of derivatives".
 * I have made most of these edits, which consolidate two different sections addressing the same issues. I did not delete the “Criticisms” section as requested, because there remain criticisms separate from the issues addressed in the consolidation. Other interested editors are invited to evaluate these edits and make additional changes as appropriate. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Regulation of derivatives 

In 1998, Rubin and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan opposed giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversight of over-the-counter credit derivatives when this was proposed by Brooksley Born, then head of the CFTC. Rubin and other senior officials recommended Congress relieve the CFTC of regulatory authority over derivatives in November 1999. Over-the-counter credit derivatives were eventually excluded from regulation by the CFTC by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. According to a PBS Frontline report, derivatives played a key role in the 2008 financial crisis.

Arthur Levitt Jr., a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has said in explaining Rubin's strong opposition to the regulations proposed by Born that Greenspan and Rubin were "joined at the hip on this. They were certainly very fiercely opposed to this and persuaded me that this would cause chaos." However, in Rubin's autobiography, he notes that he believed derivatives could pose significant problems and that many people who used derivatives did not fully understand the risks they were taking. In 2008, The New York Times reported that the proposal in 1997 would not have improved oversight of derivatives. Rubin said the financial system "could benefit from better regulation of derivatives". However, "the politics would have made this impossible," he said. Rubin said he had been concerned about derivatives' potential to create systemic risk since his time at Goldman Sachs.

In an interview on ABC's This Week program in April 2010, former President Clinton said Rubin was wrong in the advice he gave him not to regulate derivatives, which was by then seen as one of the underlying causes of the 2007–08 financial crisis. Clinton adviser Doug Band later said Clinton "inadvertently conflated an analysis he received on a specific derivatives proposal with then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's arguments against any regulation of derivatives". He said Clinton still wished he had pursued legislation to regulate derivatives while confirming that he still believed he had received excellent advice on the economy and the financial system from Rubin and others during his presidency.

If this proposal is adopted, this would be a good time to remove the second occurrence of Clinton calling Rubin the "greatest secretary of the Treasury since Alexander Hamilton", because the rest of that paragraph at the start of Economic record and the 2008 global financial crisis will have been moved to Regulation of derivatives.

As I've previously noted, I have a financial COI with this topic as I am working on Mr. Rubin's behalf, therefore will refrain from editing this page myself. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the new section, ! Much appreciated. Meanwhile, there is one tiny change left and that is to replace the  Regulation of derivatives  header with  ===Regulation of derivatives===  as the section is currently not showing up in the TOC and cannot be linked to directly. Apologies for not mentioning it before; I fake the header on the talk page so it doesn't show up in the Talk page TOC. Other COIs might decide to make the change themselves, but I never, ever edit live articles from this account. Would you be willing to make this update? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Replacement infobox photo
Continuing my work on behalf of Mr. Rubin, I'd like to suggest replacing the photograph in the infobox, which is now more than 20 years old, with a more recent one. , which I uploaded to Commons and was confirmed by OTRS last week to be appropriately released under the CC-BY license. If another editor agrees this photograph would be an improvement over the existing one, I'd like to encourage them to make this update. Given my COI with this topic, I will not make any direct edits to the live article. Thanks in advance, 14:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and updated the photo.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 14:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeal of Glass–Steagall Act and Urban policy
Mr. Rubin's role leading up to the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act is not currently mentioned in the body of the article, even as it is referenced (albeit not by name) in the article's introduction. I believe this is subject matter worthy of being addressed, and so I have prepared a new subsection devoted to it, which can be found inside the collapse box. (Many thanks,, for updating the article structure recently; I was going to get around to asking about that eventually.)

I have also prepared a new subsection on Mr. Rubin's advocacy of urban policy in the Clinton administration, including his support of the Community Reinvestment Act, community development financial institutions (CDFI), empowerment and enterprise zones. These topics have not been previously addressed in the article, but I think the sourcing provided in my draft demonstrates that it was and is a matter of public interest. Here are both sections:

Repeal of Glass–Steagall Act

Rubin and his deputy Lawrence Summers loosened financial industry underwriting guidelines and "played a role in arranging the compromise that led to the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act". The Depression-era law separated investment banking from the retail side of banking, but in the 1990s, "commercial banks and investments moved closer together, eroding the Glass–Steagall Act legal restrictions enacted in the 1930s". Rubin supported the idea of repealing Glass–Steagall but had concerns that it could empower the Federal Reserve at the expense of the Treasury Department. Glass–Steagall was eventually repealed under his successor. Some critics claim that the repeal of the Glass–Steagall was a key factor in the 2008 financial crisis. In March 2010, Rubin told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that Glass–Steagall was ineffectual in practice. "By the time we rescinded it, there were no restrictions left in it at all except for the insurance underwriting, which had no relevance to anything that has happened since then," he testified.

Urban policy Rubin was a leading advocate for investment in distressed rural and urban communities in the Clinton administration, from his time with the NEC, leading the effort to expand the Community Reinvestment Act, to his time at Treasury, where he advocated for more community development financial institutions (CDFI) to invest in inner cities and increase the CDFI Fund. Addressing the needs of the urban poor was a top priority for Rubin during his tenure in the Clinton administration. Rubin also assisted with the Clinton administration's plan to increase empowerment and enterprise zones across the U.S. The initiative offered tax breaks for businesses investing in those zones.

I propose this content be added as consecutive subsections of the Clinton administration section, directly following Regulation of derivatives. , if you are interested to take up this request, please let me know.
 * I added the urban policy section, which seems reasonable and relevant to me. I don’t know enough about the other issue to weigh in on whether it should be included as you’ve written it. I know it is a controversial topic with important historical context, so I will leave it to other editors and experts to decide what should be added on this topic. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated ! Would you mind also un-faking the header and setting it to  ====  on either side of the header, like the other subsections under Clinton administration? At present, Urban policy isn't showing up in the table of contents. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 12:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

One thing to mention for whomever reviews this request: I fake the headers on the Talk page so they don't show up in the table of contents here. So if you move these drafted subsections into the live article, please replace the  Repeal of Glass–Steagall Act  header with  ====Repeal of Glass–Steagall Act====  and  Urban policy  with  ====Urban policy==== .

As I've previously noted, I have a financial COI with this topic as I am working on Mr. Rubin's behalf, therefore will refrain from editing this page myself. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 10:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Goldman Sachs.svg

Request to revert inaccurate IP edit
Over the weekend an unregistered IP with no prior history on Wikipedia added the following sentence to the second paragraph of the introduction: Robert Rubin, as well as Citi CEO Charles Prince, was referred for prosecution by the Financial Crises Inquiry Commission (FCIC) in September of 2010. (.)This isn't correct, and there isn't a citation, so it strikes me as a BLP concern. Pinging editors who have answered recent edit requests and, do you agree, and would one of you be willing to revert? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have accurately stated the BLP problem with this unsourced edit by a first-time, unregistered editor. If the unsourced claim is added back into the article without a citation, the matter should be brought to the BLP noticeboard for resolution. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Glass–Steagall timeline
Continuing my work on behalf of Mr. Rubin, I'd like to suggest replacing the final sentence of The Decline of the Glass-Steagall Act. As currently written, the sentence is vague and potentially implies ulterior motives by giving only the repeal a specific date of "November 1999" while Rubin's departure from the administration and joining Citigroup is merely listed as "shortly before" and therefore implied that they are nearly simultaneous. There is also no citation given for this sentence. Adding specifics would help clarify the timeline. I suggest editors replace the current final sentence of The Decline of the Glass-Steagall Act which reads:
 * Shortly before the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealing the Glass Steagall Act was signed in November 1999 by President Clinton, Robert Rubin left the administration and went to work for newly created Citigroup.

With the following three sentences:
 * Rubin resigned from the Clinton administration in July 1999. In October 1999, Rubin joined the leadership at Citigroup. Glass–Steagall was eventually repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act under Rubin's successor, Lawrence Summers, and was signed by Clinton in November 1999.

As I've previously noted, I have a financial COI with this topic as I am working on Mr. Rubin's behalf, therefore will refrain from editing this page myself. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , in the past you reviewed a request of mine to include information on the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. At the time, you refrained from adding my drafted material because you did not know enough about the issue. Since that time, another editor added a similar section, The Decline of the Glass-Steagall Act. I was wondering if you might take a look at this request to update the final sentence of that section, which is currently unsourced and somewhat vague? I think you'll find it helps clarify the timeline of Mr. Rubin's job changes at the end of his time in the Clinton administration and provides several high quality sources to back it up. Please let me know what you think when you get a chance. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that final sentence in that paragraph was not worded as well as it could have been. I made the change that was requested, including the citations to verify the information presented. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! I appreciate the timely response. I'll mark this one as complete. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed adjustments to Career headings
Hello, again! Continuing my work for Mr. Rubin, I'd like to propose a few small adjustments to the Career section's organization. I propose we divide Career into three separate top-level headings, with the headings being:
 * Early career, which would include all of Rubin's work experience prior to joining the Clinton administration
 * Clinton administration, encompassing that portion of Mr. Rubin's career
 * I would also suggest making the Secretary of the Treasury subsection a parent of: 1990s international crises, Balanced budget agreement, Regulation of derivatives, Urban policy, and The Decline of the Glass-Steagall Act, the significant events of which all occurred while he held this position
 * Post-government career, inclusive of Mr. Rubin's work following his departure from the Clinton administration

You can see what this would look like by looking at this proposed alternative draft of the article; I think this will be easier for readers to navigate than how it is currently organized. Not to mention, right now it looks like his career began during the Clinton administration, which is obviously not the case. What do others think?

As always, because of my COI I will refrain from editing the page myself. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you in advance for your consideration. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Spencer T• C 00:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . This is much easier for readers to navigate, and I appreciate you handling this. I'll be following up this request with one to update Post-government career shortly, in case you're available to review. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Creating a Citigroup subsection
Hello again, following up on the recent adjustments to the Career headings, I'd like to propose some new and modified content for the Post-government career section. To start, I'm proposing a subsection called Citigroup, which I've put in the collapsible box below.

My Citigroup subsection draft seeks to consolidate the Citigroup information scattered throughout the article into one place. It also seeks to give a more measured look at Mr. Rubin's time at Citigroup and the criticism he received. I also think it is more cohesive than the lengthy existing second paragraph of Post-government career, which can be difficult to follow, and this would seek to replace. In addition, this draft modifies or adds the following:
 * A clear explanation of Mr. Rubin's role at Citigroup, which the article is currently lacking
 * A clear explanation of Mr. Rubin's involvement with Enron, also merging information currently about the issue from Criticism. I see no reason to include this material in both places
 * A more measured look at the criticism Mr. Rubin received for his work at Citigroup. If editors accept this proposed draft, I would ask if editors could consider whether the paragraph about Nassim Nicholas Taleb's criticism in Criticism is still necessary
 * A clear explanation of an investor lawsuit during his time at Citigroup, including the outcome, which is currenly missing from the article
 * Mr. Rubin's description for the causes of the financial crisis
 * His resignation and commentary on his "great regret"
 * Streamlined material on his compensation while at Citigroup. My draft includes total compensation; in my opinion, there is not much encyclopedic value in breaking out compensation and stock options as of 2008

If editors agree that my Citigroup subsection is appropriate, I'd ask that it replace the first two paragraphs of the live Post-government career section. You'll notice this would remove a paragraph about Mr. Rubin's work with LISC. If all is approved, I would seek to reinstate that later with a proposed subsection outlining Mr. Rubin's other post-government work, but we can handle that later.

Rubin joined Citigroup in 1999 as chairman of its executive committee. Rubin briefly became chairman of Citigroup's board of directors from November 2007 to December 2007.

According to The New York Times, Rubin's role at Citigroup focused on meeting with clients, bringing in business, working to improve relations with government and business leaders, recruiting top Citigroup officials, and serving as a sounding board to bank leadership. Rubin said publicly at the time that he had "no interest in running the bank".

In 2001, Rubin contacted an acquaintance at the U.S. Treasury Department and asked if the department could convince bond-rating agencies not to downgrade the corporate debt of Enron, a debtor of Citigroup. The Treasury official refused. A subsequent investigation by the Senate Governmental Affairs committee found Rubin "did not act contrary to law". Rubin later maintained that he had acted both as a Citigroup executive protecting his company's position and as a former Treasury official concerned about the impact that Enron's failure might have on the larger economy. Rubin rejected criticisms of a possible conflict of interest and has said that if faced with the same choice, he would do it again.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, critics argued Rubin increased risk-taking at Citigroup, thereby exposing the bank to greater losses, and that economic policies he promoted as Treasury secretary exacerbated the situation. According to The Wall Street Journal, Rubin has stated that "he wasn't alone in failing to foresee the severity of the crisis that would emerge". Other industry observers criticized the lack of clarity about Rubin's role within the bank. Business writer William D. Cohan, who has covered Rubin extensively, wrote that "the federal government was forced to inject $45 billion of taxpayer money into the company and guarantee some $300 billion of illiquid assets," during Rubin's time at Citigroup.

In December 2008, investors filed a lawsuit contending that Citigroup executives, including Rubin, sold shares at inflated prices while concealing the firm's risks. Citigroup denied wrongdoing, and in 2012 the lawsuit was settled.

In a December 2009 Newsweek article, Rubin described the extraordinary combination of circumstances that led to the global financial crisis, including market and credit excesses, low interest rates, a massive increase in the use of complex derivatives, misguided AAA ratings, stagnant median real wages, abusive mortgage practices, and the over-leveraging of financial institutions, among many other factors. In the article, Rubin advocated for the reform of the financial system to better protect against systemic risk and devastating crises in the future. Rubin said "the market-based model must be combined with strong and effective government, nationally and transnationally, to deal with critical challenges that markets won't adequately address."

Rubin resigned from Citigroup in 2009, saying at the time that his "great regret" was not recognizing the "serious possibility of the extreme circumstances that the financial system faces today". Rubin received total compensation of $126 million from Citigroup between 1999 and 2009.

I think you will find the content proposed here helps to better organize the Citigroup-related content in the article while providing a more complete picture of that stage of Mr. Rubin's career, citing reliable sources. Pinging and, since you both helped with my latest requests. As with all of these requests, because of my COI I will not make the edits myself. Thank you in advance for your assistance. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think you have a lot of good changes here. First, I would prefer to keep the LISC information in the article until you have a proposed replacement at that time. Second, I think it would be helpful to incorporate some of the existing information in the article into the proposed changes. For example, the specific responsibilities that Rubin was engaged in at Citigroup is useful, but I think the added context of WSJ describing the "mix of oversight and management responsibilities 'murky'" provides useful context. Similarly, I think the proposed changes do not provide sufficient context for the Treasury conversation or lawsuit, which is provided in the current version of the page. I think an additional sentence in each paragraph would be useful. Lastly, I'm leaning against including the December 2009 Newsweek article-- it seems more of an opinion editorial, rather than changes or initiatives he led at Citigroup. If I'm mistaken, those should be more clearly described, but I don't think the inclusion of that info really adds to the article. If you're willing to make those additions and are okay with my proposed differences from your above text, then I can go ahead and add them to the article following the edits. Best,  Spencer T• C 22:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply, . Let me have a think on your feedback, and I'll come back with an updated version soonest. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I didn't expect it would take so long for me to come back, but I hope you're willing to have a look at this again. Based on your feedback from December, I have updated the proposed Post-government career subsection in my user space, focusing on a replacement for the first three paragraphs of the existing section. In this updated draft, I have done the following:
 * Kept the LISC information at the top of the section, with its own subheading
 * Included the WSJ's description of Mr. Rubin's responsibilities, as you suggested
 * Included additional information on Mr. Rubin's conversation with the Treasury regarding Enron, as you suggested
 * Included an additional sentence to provide more context on the investor lawsuit, as you suggested
 * Regarding the Newsweek article, that content previously existed in the live article, although it appears it has since been removed. I believe including part of this content is important, as it offers Mr. Rubin's response into the complex nature of the financial crisis. However, you'll see that I significantly reduced the amount of text given to that topic
 * As a result of taking a little more time to look over my draft, I made several other updates to the text to try to improve it. These include a few smaller copy edits, and a couple more substantive edits. For example, I replaced the sentence including writer William Cohan's description of the Citigroup bailout with a more precise summary of events based on new sources. Additionally, I decided not to break up Mr. Rubin's quote in the paragraph about his resignation, as I think it reads better.


 * Spencer, would you consider replacing the first three paragraphs of the existing Post-government career section with the following? (N.B. The remaining content in Post-government career could live under an Other work subheading, as you can see in my user space draft.):

Local Initiatives Support Corporation Upon leaving the Clinton administration, Rubin joined the board of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), the nation's leading community development support organization, as chairman. Reflecting on his decision to join an institution devoted to bringing economic activity to neglected areas of the country, the Chicago Tribune said Rubin favored using business investment as a way to fight poverty in urban and rural areas.

Citigroup Rubin joined Citigroup in 1999 as chairman of the executive committee of the board. Rubin briefly became chairman of Citigroup's board of directors from November 2007 to December 2007.

According to The New York Times, Rubin's role at Citigroup focused on meeting with clients and government and business leaders, bringing in business, and serving as a sounding board to bank leadership. As the Times reported in 2007, Rubin "has said publicly since he came to Citigroup in 1999 that he had no interest in running the bank". The Wall Street Journal reported Rubin joined Citigroup as a board member and as a participant "in strategic managerial and operational matters of the Company, but [...] no line responsibilities". The newspaper called this mix of oversight and management responsibilities "murky".

In 2001, with the troubled Enron, a major client of Citigroup, facing a credit ratings downgrade, Rubin called a ranking Treasury Department official, unsuccessfully seeking the Bush Administration's help in forestalling the downgrade. A subsequent staff investigation by the Senate Governmental Affairs committee cleared Rubin of having done anything illegal. Rubin later maintained that he had acted both as a Citigroup executive protecting his company's position and as a former Treasury official concerned about the impact that Enron's failure might have on the larger economy. Rubin rejected criticisms of a possible conflict of interest and has said that if faced with the same choice, he would do it again.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, critics argued Rubin increased risk-taking at Citigroup, thereby exposing the bank to greater losses, and that economic policies he promoted as Treasury secretary exacerbated the situation. According to The Wall Street Journal, Rubin has stated that "he wasn't alone in failing to foresee the severity of the crisis that would emerge". Other industry observers criticized the lack of clarity about Rubin's role within the bank. The federal government spent $45 billion to acquire a stake in Citigroup and bail out the bank in 2008 through the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Citigroup repaid $20 billion of the bailout money in December 2009 and the Treasury sold its remaining stake one year later, for a total net profit of $12 billion.

In December 2008, investors filed a lawsuit contending that Citigroup executives, including Rubin, sold shares at inflated prices while concealing the firm's risks. The lawsuit alleged that Citigroup and some executives concealed the risks of billions of dollars of financial instruments and artificially boosted the company's stock. The lawsuit was settled in 2012, with Citigroup denying any wrongdoing.

In a December 2009 Newsweek article, Rubin described the extraordinary combination of circumstances that led to the global financial crisis, including market excesses, low interest rates, a massive increase in the use of complex derivatives, misguided AAA ratings, stagnant median real wages, abusive mortgage practices, and the over-leveraging of financial institutions, among many other factors.

Rubin resigned from Citigroup in 2009, writing at the time that his "great regret is that I and so many of us who have been involved in this industry for so long did not recognize the serious possibility of the extreme circumstances that the financial system faces today". Rubin received total compensation of $126 million from Citigroup between 1999 and 2009.


 * Thank you for all your feedback and assistance so far. As always, let me know if you have any questions. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The change you recommend is quite large and would represent a major revision to an already lengthy article. Rubin is an important figure worthy of a detailed article, but I’m not confident such a big change is necessary given the context of the information you’ve provided. I believe it starts to sway into WP:Puffery territory. I won’t object if others disagree and want to make the changes.Go4thProsper (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, G4P. I hope you'd agree there is room for improvement, as the current Post-government career section is a gray wall of text. Could you identify specific material or wording that strikes you as too close to puffery? I'm receptive to feedback, but I'd need a little more information to contemplate a revision. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

In the end, I am withdrawing this request. I was overly optimistic about gaining consensus for what I recognize is a rather large change, however between differing views among editors, and too few editors taking interest, I think it's clear this one isn't going anywhere. Instead, better that I try making a series of smaller requests that will make each component much easier to evaluate. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Request to create subheads within Post-government career
The top-level section of the article titled Post-government career is the longest section in the article to not have any subheads. This makes it a challenge to navigate, especially since it covers so many different topics. I think readers would be well-served by creating sub-sections similar to those found in the Clinton administration section. I propose that there be three sub-headings added:


 * Local Initiatives Support Corporation, inclusive of the first existing paragraph only
 * Citigroup, inclusive of the (very long) second paragraph, and the (much shorter) third paragraph
 * Other work, for everything else to the bottom of the section

As with previous edit requests, due to my COI I will not edit the article myself. To whomever reviews this, thank you for your consideration. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  Spencer T• C 04:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Request to update information about Citigroup
At the suggestion of, I'm trying out a different format for proposing some changes to the Post-government career section. My focus for this request is the first three sentences of the Citigroup subsection, which I would seek to expand somewhat. My changes and rationale are explained in the table below. As always, I won't make any changes myself due to my COI. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thanks for this format; it makes the proposed changes easier to see and understand.  Spencer T• C 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Request to update information about Citigroup and the 2008 financial crisis
My previous edit request expanded information about Mr. Rubin's roles at Citigroup. Next in the article is a sentence that is about the 2008 financial crisis, though the current wording obscures this fact. So with this edit request I'd like to propose expanding this material to provide more context and detail, as shown and explained in the following table. As always, I won't make any changes myself due to my COI. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * , seemed fine to me. Chirota (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Request to update information about Citigroup and shareholder lawsuit
In the Citigroup section, I have a very small suggestion for the passage about the shareholder suit against Citigroup. Currently, there is a sentence which says: A Citigroup spokesman said the lawsuit was without merit. This is a decade out of date, as my suggested replacement makes clear: The lawsuit was settled in 2012, with Citigroup denying any wrongdoing. If another editor agrees this would be a benefit to readers, I hope you'll consider implementing the edit request. As always, I will not make any changes by myself, due to my COI. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I tweaked the proposed language, and included information about the monetary settlement as well.  Spencer T• C 18:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Your adjustment is entirely fine by me. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 00:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Request to update information about Citigroup and Enron
Continuing with the changes I am proposing for the Citigroup section, my next request is related to Citigroup's involvement in the Enron scandal. This subject matter is currently addressed out of order, omits the fact that Rubin was cleared in the subsequent Senate investigation, and is also a bit unwieldy. I believe my suggestion resolves these issues. As always, I am open to further discussion on the proposed text. Please let me know if you have any questions. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 05:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Agree that the prior version alludes to criticism but doesn't specifically say who and the suggested version is more neutral.  Spencer T• C 21:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm glad you agree. One remaining question is the placement of the Enron material within the section. Indeed, I had cited the interests of chronology for moving it up, although I didn't intend for it to be moved up quite this far. My thinking, which I realize I didn't explain, is that the section reads more clearly if it begins with a paragraph that identifies the titles he held at Citigroup and summarizes his role overall, then is followed by separate paragraphs focused on noteworthy controversies during his tenure.


 * The places Enron ahead of all but the first sentence, which splits that summary apart and presents the Enron topic ahead of useful context. The sentence stating that Mr. Rubin became chairman in 2007 is the only part of that summary which is non-chronological; everything from "According to The New York Times" to "and management responsibilities 'murky'" is applicable to his work beginning in 1999.


 * In the collapse box below, you'll find the material unchanged, but re-ordered as I think would work best:

Rubin joined Citigroup in 1999 as chairman of the executive committee of the board. Rubin briefly became chairman of Citigroup's board of directors from November 2007 to December 2007. According to The New York Times, Rubin's role at Citigroup focused on meeting with clients and government and business leaders, bringing in business, and serving as a sounding board to bank leadership. As the Times reported in 2007, Rubin "has said publicly since he came to Citigroup in 1999 that he had no interest in running the bank". The Wall Street Journal reported Rubin joined Citigroup as a board member and as a participant "in strategic managerial and operational matters of the Company, but [...] no line responsibilities". The newspaper called this mix of oversight and management responsibilities "murky".

In 2001, Enron, a major client of Citigroup, faced a credit ratings downgrade as a result of the Enron scandal. Rubin called a ranking Treasury Department official, unsuccessfully seeking the Bush Administration's help in forestalling the downgrade. A subsequent staff investigation by the Senate Governmental Affairs committee cleared Rubin of having done anything illegal. Rubin later maintained that he had acted both as a Citigroup executive protecting his company's position and as a former Treasury official concerned about the impact that Enron's failure might have on the larger economy. Rubin rejected criticisms of a possible conflict of interest and has said that if faced with the same choice, he would do it again.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, critics argued Rubin increased risk-taking at Citigroup, thereby exposing the bank to greater losses, and that economic policies he promoted as Treasury secretary exacerbated the situation. According to The Wall Street Journal, Rubin has stated that "he wasn't alone in failing to foresee the severity of the crisis that would emerge". Other industry observers criticized the lack of clarity about Rubin's role within the bank. The federal government spent $45 billion to acquire a stake in Citigroup in 2008 through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Citigroup repaid $20 billion of the bailout money in December 2009 and the Treasury sold its remaining stake one year later, for a total net profit of $12 billion.


 * It's not a hill I'm going to die on, but I do think this would aid reader comprehension. What do you think? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 10:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)