An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

More Good Economic News That Isn’t

I’ve been an economics and financial writer for 30 years. I used to enjoy my work. I used to take pride in it. The markets were kinky, sure, but that made the writing more fun. And even though a slew of picaresque and flagrantly self-serving characters might for a time generate oddball quirks in markets and even the overall economy, even in the midst of the most extreme bouts of irrationality there were still always plenty of grounded reporters who consistently treated such foolishness in an appropriately disrespectful manner.

That’s not true anymore. Reportage about the economy and the markets — at least in most mainstream media — now largely consists of parroting press releases from experts of various stripes or government spokespeople. And the result is not just infuriating for a long-term professional in this field, but outright embarrassing.

A perfect example was yesterday’s “good news” supposedly showing that our economic masters were every bit as smart as they think they are. A few banks have repaid their TARP loans, part of the $4 trillion that government has sunk into our black hole banking system. The repaying banks have now sent back $70 billion they borrowed plus $4 billion in interest and dividends.

Is this really good news? Only if you don’t have a calculator, an awareness of where this money came from, and the most basic understanding of what government bailouts were purportedly designed to achieve.

The $74 billion the government has been repaid is less than two percent of the $4 trillion the government has borrowed or printed to keep incompetent lenders from going down. Less than two percent! Even this piddling sum was generated by a manipulated stock market rally that allowed banks shares to soar, bringing a lot of money into bank coffers, almost of of which they added to reserves before paying back a few billion to the government.

The young woman I watched on the evening new reporting this $74 billion payback was practically falling over herself with joy about the tidings she was bringing her viewers. The fact that this piddling payback freed bankers to once again pay themselves huge bonuses, and that the $4 trillion in total money the government has given these banks has done little or nothing to reanimate the overall economy, was not mentioned.

Is it any wonder that the vast majority of Americans who don’t dwell in Wall Street trough feeding land, in economist statistical entrails reading world, or in the Washington Beltway bubble, have become so cynical about the expert and official pronouncements they are receiving? The real wonder is that anyone but media masochists such as myself bothers monitoring the mainstream press at all for financial and economic insights.

http://www.wallstreetpoet.com

  • More bad economic news. The Fed is missing 9 trillion dollars? Yikes. Where's the media coverage? Where's the outrage?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO3GpzWfppo
  • mikkel
    Now that's not entirely accurate. The Fed made $9 trillion of guarantees, it didn't spend it. Thus far they haven't really lost much of that, but the point is they refuse to say what they have guaranteed and to whom. They have shown immense favoritism in deciding who a "systemic risk" is and who is not, and have allowed hundreds of billions of trash assets on their books. They have also given what amounts to a blank check in those guarantees, which is causing the banks et. al to have reckless behavior that is approaching the 2007 peak by several measures, and that is potentially racking up hundreds of billions of more losses.

    All in all I believe that in a worst case scenario the Fed would lose somewhere between a trillion and a trillion and a half*, which is still mind boggling especially as it'd go to the worst actors.

    * I should note that's based on expected loss rates in the US. There are many financial institutions (such as AIG) that were supporting global financial institutions and theoretically I guess that could swell to upwards of $6 trillion if for some reason the Fed was backstopping enough bad loans over there. Which I really doubt, but we dont' know.

    That still pales in comparison to the $15 trillion of expected losses in Europe and $4.5 trillion here.
  • Father_Time
    I think the government's annual income has been around 11 trillion dollars.

    I'm not worried. Besides if all goes to hell we'll see capitalists shot in the streets and wall street gutted and burned for their sins. What joy.

    Che` was right.
  • joeinhell
    Studied economics for a while. Actually worked as one. The Romans used to have "soothsayers" who would study the guts of a freshly killed animal. An economist is one rung down on the ladder from that for accuracy.

    The day economics can put an actual price tag on corruption, blackmarket deals, theft, nepotism, political animals in the private and government sector and simple ignorance, I might try it again. Until then it is just like philosophy or religion, no one in their right minds will believe in it.
  • ragzamuffin
    Every program espousing financial info should have a large sign crawling along the bottom reading "for entertainment only". The only exception is Bloomberg and I notice they are plugging in the fast reading " talking head" now and then.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC