Asshole of the Century

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Lies the Wall Street Journal Told You

I’m not going to delve into all of the right wing ideology espoused on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, their free market blather and extensive apologia for President Bush, which not even a misguided war and a failing economy could discourage. It’s like arguing against the Detroit Lions. The abysmal judgment of the Journal’s editorial staff is there in black and white and doesn’t even need to be debated. But let me point out one thing: can you imagine the panic right now if the country had listened to these guys and privatized Social Security?

Actually, I’m not even here to rail against the Wall Street Journal, per se, but at the business media in general and in their seemingly uncanny ability to be wrong about almost everything. Here are a few generally unrefuted pearls of wisdom that have been floating around during the recent financial crisis, ideas that are at least misguided, if not outright lies:

1) The U.S. consumer matters: Once upon a time, the U.S. consumer was the engine that fueled world economic growth, but that is no longer the case. Over half the planet is rapidly growing, or at least it was until a couple of months ago, and the people in these countries have a voracious demand for all the good things that we take for granted. Demand growth is the mother’s milk of capitalism. The biggest problem with the current banking crisis is not what it has done to the U.S. consumer, or even how it has saddled the banking system with bad debt, it is how the crisis has cut off the spigot of financing that had been fueling rapid growth around a host of developing countries, from India to Russia to Brazil. The sooner these folks can resume expanding their economies, the sooner things will get better for the rest of us.

2) Giving the American people a rebate check is a good way to stimulate the economy: Does anyone remember what most folks did with last spring’s rebate checks? Sure, people saved some of it, which for some reason is supposed to be bad. But what they did with most of the money was a whole lot worse. Tens of millions of Americans went out to some big box retailer and spent their rebate checks on cheap plastic crap from China, hurting our balance of trade payments but doing almost nothing for our economy. This time around, the U.S. government might as well buy all of that plastic crap directly from the Chinese at wholesale and then open up warehouses to disperse it directly to the public, like we used to do with government cheese. I figure that the actual cost from the Chinese manufacturers must be pennies on the dollar, thereby saving our kids and grandkids, who will end up paying for this scheme, tens of billions.

3) Investing in infrastructure will not help us today: It takes awhile for new projects to get started, the theory goes, thus limiting the impact of infrastructure spending as a stimulus. But one of the first rules of trading is to “buy the rumor and sell the fact.” So the market tends to move in anticipation of an event, not from the event itself. The “smart money” will be looking forward to the long-term boost that infrastructure spending will bring, a slow burn that should, if nothing else, limit the pace of any market slide. Meanwhile, a host of businesses will begin looking to take advantage of all those freshly paved roads, the new mass transit, and the growing alternative energy industry.

4) U.S. heavy industry does not matter: All those expanding economies in the developing world are full of people looking to buy their first car, their first refrigerator. For most of the planet, what the U.S. media refers to as “old industry” is new to them. There are plenty of American companies that can step in to meet this new demand, and this should be a cornerstone of the coming economic rebound.

5) The U.S. computer industry has a bright future: We all have computers, and we all know how often they break down, ranging from program glitches and overheated batteries to the dreaded blue screen of death, but for some reason the computer industry gets a free ride in the media. The reality is that most American computer manufacturers make an undependable product, and most American software companies aren’t much better. It’s only a matter of time until the Japanese, the Koreans, or the Finns learn how to kick our ass at this, too.

6) Corporate consolidation is a good thing: Now that we’ve bailed out the major American financial institutions to the tune of $350 billion and counting, the talk is about how the financial industry is too diffuse and needs to “consolidate”. But the questions are: why is it too big, and who is going to do the consolidating? Because the corporations that are most likely to be in the buying mode, such as Citigroup, or Bank of America, or Goldman Sachs, were key players in the recent financial collapse, while many of the smaller regional banks kept their heads down and were just busy doing their job. In this context, “too big to fail” is a crazy concept. Rather than giving the large banks hundreds of billions to swallow up everyone else, the government should be breaking these banks into their constituent parts, returning the American banking system to the patchwork of regional banks concerned with servicing their local communities, which is the way things used to be before the banking deregulation of the 1980’s.

Oh, and BTW, Happy Thanksgiving.

Labels: , ,

10 Comments:

Blogger random anthony said...

Do you think the tarnishing, at least, of the corporate culture will have positive effects? I don't think white guys in suits can expect the same respect as they once did. That's cold comfort, and I agree with your points, but I have to admit that taking away the hegemonic power of those motherfuckers in the community is a good thing.

Nov 29, 2008, 7:28:00 PM  
Blogger hundeschlitten said...

Let the printing presses roll.

And to Tony, my big question is: So who are the adults in the room? The guys in charge of our money have screwed up, so who are you going to trust? The government? Give me a break. Academia? That's essentially what we did with Bernanke, putting an academic in charge of our money supply, and until recently, he pretty much fiddled while Rome burned.

The problem is that our race of educated monkeys invented complicated financial instruments that we really don't understand. It's the financial version of inventing the atom bomb.... we better start acting responsibly real fast.... or kaplooey.

On a brighter note, I think the odds of catastrophe are small. In the end, economics is about the distribution of the ability to realize desire, and there are too many smart people with too much skin in the game for things to fall apart.

While currencies may go up or down, energy units will become the new standard. Corn, gold, cars, a home, education, a haircut, it will all boil down to how many kilocalories they are worth, and currencies will move up or down based on how many energy units you can buy with them. It should prove more rational than the mess we inherited.

Nov 30, 2008, 6:12:00 PM  
Blogger Nicole said...

It's not global warming, it's climate change, it's not a bailout, it's a bank robbery...

Dec 1, 2008, 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger . said...

Fitting quote...

If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.
— Thomas Jefferson

Dec 2, 2008, 9:13:00 AM  
Blogger hundeschlitten said...

I can't believe that I'm going to be coming to the defense of the bankers, but they are just too easy a target. Almost all of us took advantage of this easy credit in one way or another:

Have you bought a home in the last 10 years? Did you put less than 20% down? Well then thank Greenspan's easy money for that?

Have you sold a house in the last 10 years? Again, thank the Fed for that bonanza.

Have you bought a new car in the last 10 years? Did you pay cash? If no, then thank the Fed for the easy credit terms.

Ever run short of money and use credit cards as a temporary bridge, rolling one low interest card to another until you could pay the money back? Again, thank the Fed.

How about your job? Anyone work for either a new start-up or a company that hired you as part of an expansion? Again, that was made possible by the Fed's policy of easy money.

One way or another, almost of us took advantage of this policy, and now we've all got to pay the price. And for those purists who are so far off the grid that this statement doesn't apply, well good for you. But you gotta hate 98% of the country and not just the bankers, because we all took the bit and ran with it.

Dec 2, 2008, 10:07:00 PM  
Blogger . said...

Have you bought a home in the last 10 years? Did you put less than 20% down?

-Nope, we rent.

Have you sold a house in the last 10 years?

-Nope.

Have you bought a new car in the last 10 years? Did you pay cash?

-Yes, it was $2.00 and has 130,000 miles on it...

Ever run short of money and use credit cards as a temporary bridge, rolling one low interest card to another until you could pay the money back?

-Nope. I have one credit card with a $500 limit that I have a balance of about $80 on. I keep it for emergencies like they were intended, not for filling the gap between what I have and what I think I should have.

How about your job? Anyone work for either a new start-up or a company that hired you as part of an expansion?

-Nope...


I guess I need a 2%'r patch for my biker vest...

Dec 3, 2008, 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger . said...

Also if I were you guys I would have bought a house in New Zealand and been out of the country a year ago.

Screw a vacation house I think we need to do a mass exodus.

Dec 3, 2008, 10:34:00 AM  
Blogger hundeschlitten said...

Interesting idea... but I don't think the Kiwis would have us.

Dec 3, 2008, 8:37:00 PM  
Blogger condonicus said...

Hundeschlitten!

Yes I think the 98% of us who willingly accepted the easy credit of the past decade or so are somehwat to blame, but it was the banks after all who created the sub-prime loans that started all this in the first place. People who were risks would want to get out of their cramped apartments for a shot at owning a house. The banks saw it as an opportunity to make more money for themsleves.

Also, what did the banks do with those assets? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they also sell them in mortgage swaps and other trades? They issued risky loans and then passed the virus around to other institutions and markets while the regulators snoozed at the switch.

And though I don't carry a mortgage or have car or other loan payments, I too feel the effects of this crisis (my 401k lost $7,000in the 3rd quarter and God knows it will be more in Q4). I don't think anyone is insulated from it. I just may feel its effects less than those who have more to lose.

Dec 9, 2008, 6:59:00 PM  
Blogger hundeschlitten said...

Condonicus,
I agree with most of what you're saying. But bankers/brokers/etc will go as far taking risks with other people's money as the regulators will let them. And Greenspan was a big fan of the re-packaging of mortgages. In fact, he encouraged them. Also, our last two Presidents, who've run this country a collective 16 years, encouraged government regulators to turn a blind eye to all these financial shenanigans as long as it increased homeownership and pumped up the economy.

Dec 9, 2008, 9:46:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home