This story will be forgotten by tomorrow, though I’m sure it will be subject of much ranting on anti-immigration blogs.
I, however, will likely bring it up later in the week, when prosecutors are due to announce a plea agreement with Bernie Madoff. He faces 20 years in jail. She got two and a half. He stole about $50 billion. She stole “tens of thousands of dollars” and is forced to make what appears to be full restitution.
Let’s see how justice plays out.
Now you have MarketWatch.com – a Dow Jones web site, for God’s sake – saying CNBC deserves the ripping they’re getting. This was posted at 7:30 and already has 200 comments chiming in.
The network’s mistaken priorities have made it an easy target for the incisive [comedian Jon] Stewart. CNBC can look like a television outfit that values the presentation of news mainly as entertainment. CNBC appears to use ESPN’s "SportsCenter" show as a model for its own "Squawk Box," in which people sit around the shoot the bull on the headlines of the day.
CNBC loses sight of the idea that the public takes investing, and the economy, much more seriously than sports fans debate baseball or football headlines. A recession can make investors snap to attention real fast, you see.
…CNBC’s priorities are clearly out of whack.
As Dan Mitchell wrote on Slate’s …"The Big Money" site: "The overall vibe of CNBC — with its ‘money honeys,’ Jim Cramer’s inane frothing, and the lunkheaded frat boys on ‘Fast Money’ treating economic news like a football game — is stupid."
CNBC has much to answer for and be embarrassed about. The network has gone overboard in its effort to dumb down business news for the masses.
CNBC should know better by now and have a keener understanding of what its audience needs. After so many once-hot technology stocks crashed and burned a decade ago, CNBC’s personalities were castigated for having acted as cheerleaders for the shooting stars of the equities market.
The New York Times is shedding (a little) light on CNBC with a pertinent question:
The network’s journalists have been encouraged to speak their minds, making the line between reporter and commentator almost indistinguishable at times.
“When they are all sitting around the table it’s hard to tell a business pundit versus a reporter,” said Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Readers of this blog know I think CNBC, the financial news network is a sham, a collection of right-wing apologists for Wall St. and an attack dog against labor unions.
It’s nice to have mainstream columnists getting on board.
Wall Street conservatives — well-represented on the financial cable shows and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page — are arguing that the stock market is collapsing because Obama wants to institute a relatively modest set of tax increases on the wealthy, starting in 2011.
But these voices supported lower taxes on the rich when the economy was bad, when the economy was good and when the economy was so-so. They have no credibility.
Also, there weren’t too many progressive bloggers expressing disappointment in Obama’s address to Congress last month. I thought the president fell short in explaining our economic problems to the public. Mr. Dionne also seem to agree.
Obama and his speechwriters need to seek inspiration, again, from FDR’s fireside chats — and explain what’s happening to a petrified nation and world. His aides promise more of this, and they need to get moving.
CNBC is important because it speaks to an influential audience. We need to hold them accountable. And Obama needs to better explain his plans and how they will help.
Maybe it’s time we consider letting a few heads roll, literally. Given what havoc Wall St. mavens have brought upon the American people, who now must work years, if not decades longer, to make up for funds lost through capitalists recklessness and disregard, perhaps those responsible should be sentenced to punishment commensurate with the crime: the death penalty. For not only have fortunes been lost, lives have, too. There have been reports of suicides among those who’ve lost millions if not billions. These deaths were caused by Wall St. miscreants.
And as the New York Times reported this morning, the deception continues. Apparently, Merrill Lynch, while it was giving its top executives huge bonuses late last year – a year in which the firm lost billions – and while the firms was being bought by Bank of America, hid even greater losses.
Bank of America’s shareholders did not learn of that gaping hole until after they approved the merger of the two companies on Dec. 5. Nor was the extent of the loss fully known when Merrill paid out $3.6 billion in bonuses, which were based on estimates of the firm’s performance as of Dec. 8. When the problems became clear, Bank of America was forced to seek a second, multibillion-dollar rescue from Washington.
But no worries, mate. You were there to help them out.
When the discrepancy came to light a few weeks ago, Bank of America dispatched risk-management executives to investigate. David Gu, the bank’s chief of interest rates and currencies, who does not directly oversee [rogue trader Alexis Stenfors whose $121 million trading loss was kept off the books until after the merger], initially dismissed Bank of America’s concerns, according to a person briefed on the conversations. Mr. Gu argued that the taxpayer dollars that Bank of America had received more than filled the hole, according to this person. [emphasis added]
Off with their heads!
The conventional wisdom of last November’s election was that Obama’s victory, historic though it may have been in several ways, was not transformative. Wewere mostly disillusioned with the current brand of Repugnantism, but we were still a “center-right” nation. Clearly, Obama himself does not share that interpretation, and there may be some proof to his analysis in today’s Fox News poll 3-5-09 .
A couple of progressive blogs have pointed out the news from the poll that people today prefer the policies of Obama over those of Ronald Reagan. Not surprising as most young people know little of Reagan’s policies in the first place. But a look at some of the answers challenges the notion that we are "center-right."
On most questions, the Democrats praise Obama and the Repugs denigrate him. That’s to be expected. But let’s focus on the independents.
Even taken together, this portrait of independents doesn’t mean we’ll soon replace the stars and stripes with the hammer and sickle. But neither does it paint a portrait of a “center-right” country.
An added note: I wonder how long it will take before we hear some GOPer point out that “more people feel Obama is “falling below expectations” than “exceeding expectations,” conveniently omitting that a majority – more than the combination of the other two categories – feel he is “meeting expectations.” Of course, that’s a double edged sword. If you figured he’d fail, he’s meeting your expectations. But I’m sure some wag will use the argument to prove he’s failing. Believe me, GOPers have twisted evidence to greater degrees.
Another note: Between one-fifth and a quarter of all Dems, Repugs and independents agree that “government has its own money” while about two-thirds think the “government is funded by taxpayers.” Even a fifth is frightening.
President Obama was criticized for proposing too many tax cuts up front in his stimulus package. Critics say he should have offered few, if any, tax cuts and then appear to compromise with GOPers by letting some modest cuts in the proposal.
Now Matt Yglesias is arguing the administration may have done the same with his budget proposal and its tax hikes on the rich.
I can see why they did it. The key administration players—Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, Jason Furman, etc.—are nothing if not reasonable, moderate people. But the key legislative players aren’t reasonable, moderate people they’re “reasonable” “Senate moderates.” A “Senate moderate” is someone who takes his party’s proposals, objects to them, waters them down a bit, and then congratulates himself on a job well done. Which is great if his party’s proposals are unduly immoderate. But it’s big-time trouble if his party puts a reasonable, moderate agenda on the table.
After all, you don’t maintain the painstakingly achieved Nelson/Bayh “Senate moderate” brand by clapping politely. You need to bitch and moan and be quoted in inside-baseball only media outlets that none of your constituents pay attention to, and hold conferences and have meetings at the White House where people hold your hands. You need to be praised by the opposition party, and extract your pound of flesh from the proposal. Then when it looks like it might go down to defeat, you can vote for the somewhat-watered-down version and be the hero who saved the day and nobody will mention that you saved the day from yourself.
But I think that means that proposals need to deliberately overshoot the mark. Say Obama had proposed a top marginal tax rate of 43 percent. Well Evan Bayh couldn’t stand for that! He might propose some reasonable alternative like letting the Bush tax cuts expire so that post-recession rates will be back where they were in the 1990s. How reasonable! How moderate! How judicious!
Well said.
The gap in trust and popularity is mirrored, prominent Republicans fret, by a vast gap between the parties’ infrastructure. Republicans also fear that they are outmatched by a Democratic publicity and fundraising [emphasis added] machine honed in opposition, and on display this week in a successful effort to associate the GOP with radio host Rush Limbaugh. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is trying to fashion a role as the intellectual driving force of the GOP-in-exile, but he hasn’t held office since the 1990s.
Add in a politically popular and groundbreaking Democratic president in Obama, and even the Republicans’ most practiced brawlers feel the party is flat-footed.
“The Left has put together the most powerful political coalition I’ve ever witnessed,” [emphasis added] said former House majority leader Tom DeLay, whose 1994 GOP coalition once might have vied for that honor. “Obama improved upon it in the presidential campaign, but the Republicans are still in denial.”
Oh, don’t make us blush!
We are all learning that smaller is, if not beautiful to behold, a necessary downsizing of our lifestyles, aspirations and commitments. This is not economic fatalism, but just a return to rationalism. We can’t live on borrowed money forever. Eventually, someone pays, likely our children.
Throughout this economic crisis, we’ve heard that the reason we had to bail out so many financial institutions is that they became “too big to fail.” Yet there is little talk about how we downsize financial entities so it doesn’t happen again. Instead, and I must lay some of the blame on Tim Geitner Geithner, we’re making them bigger.
David Ignatius has a great column this morning in The Washington Post about how instead of looking to FDR for inspiration, Obama needs to ask, “What would TR do?”
A case study for today’s regulators is President Theodore Roosevelt’s response to the financial shenanigans of 1902, when the railroad barons tried to combine the Great Northern and Northern Pacific lines into a huge holding company called Northern Securities Co. Roosevelt wanted to file an antitrust suit to stop the deal. The financiers threatened that the lawsuit would cause a panic on Wall Street, to which TR’s attorney general, Philander G. Knox, memorably replied: "There is no stock ticker at the Department of Justice."
When Roosevelt ignored the threats and moved to file the trustbusting suit, he received a hasty visit from J. Pierpont Morgan, the reigning financial titan. "If we have done anything wrong, send your man to my man and they can fix it up," offered Morgan. TR responded unflinchingly, "That can’t be done."
He also points to the previous administration (while Geitner was the NY Fed president) ignored the warnings.
Even AIG knows it’s too big. "AIG’s conglomerate structure is too complicated, unwieldy and opaque," said Edward Liddy, the company’s new chief executive, who came in last fall to try to clean up the wreckage. The tragedy is that this was clear a few years ago, and nobody did anything about it. A former regulator remembers that AIG’s transactions were so tangled and incomprehensible that it couldn’t close its books on time — yet nobody thought to call a halt.
Treasury and Federal Reserve officials have continued to operate on the assumption that in finance, bigger is better — and safer. The argument for these huge, diversified financial institutions has been that in pooling different kinds of risks, they would increase the portfolios’ overall stability. That rationale helped create the monstrosity called Citigroup. It was like the argument for securitization of subprime mortgages — put enough of them together and the danger of default would be less. That didn’t work out too well.
And yet the authorities have continued to act as if greater size will provide greater stability. That was the rationale for pushing a healthy Bank of America to acquire a sick Merrill Lynch last fall. A better response to Merrill’s sickness would have been to leach out the toxic assets and then encourage an orderly breakup of the brokerage firm; it was too big already.
Meanwhile, apropos of my earlier post today, Robert Reich takes on CNBC and its ilk for trying to blame the stock market’s slide since the first of the year on Obama.
Alas, my lot (voluntary I might add) is that I have CNBC on in the background in my office all day. Though I’ve been taught to ignore 99% of what is said there, I can’t help but catch much of its ill-advised chatter throughout the day. It is not only often wrong analysis, it is right-wing ranting at its worst. This morning, for example, as Larry Kudlow was accusing the administration of “waging war on capital,” one of the station’s bimbo’s, Trish Regan, chimed in and accused the administration of authoritarianism and compared it to that of Chile’s Pinochet!
Though I’ve said before that its reporting is not much more than cheerleading for Wall St. executives, John Stewart said it with much humor last night. The entire show, including an interview with the New York Times’ business columnist Joe Nocera, who also commentates on NPR’s Weekend Edition, is right on point. (Thanks to my little brother for bringing it to my attention.)