OccupyWallStreet: Why are the New York Times and Mayor Bloomberg Dissing OWS? In a Word: Fear.

All we have to fear is fear itself (none visible here).

[Sep 28, updated through Oct 2.] Let's begin with a paragraph from the front page of today's New York Times: "As Scorn for Vote Grows, Protests Surge around the Globe":

MADRID — Hundreds of thousands of disillusioned Indians cheer a rural activist on a hunger strike. Israel reels before the largest street demonstrations in its history. Enraged young people in Spain and Greece take over public squares across their countries.

It's gone global. New York Times front page .

OK, so it's happening, all of it triggered by the immolation last December of Mohammed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street fruit vendor whom history will one day remember as the Rosa Parks of the Arab Spring of 2011. As a fine CBS 60 Minutes segment showed last February, it was Bouazizi's death (and life) that triggered the Arab Spring. And now, the Arab Spring is a Global Spring, as Peter Coy foresaw in his BloombergBusinessweek cover story of last February. 


But. Wonder of wonders. Even as the Times covers the Arab Spring in its global aspect, it belittles the occurrence of this phenomenon in its own back yard. Times coverage to date has consisted of dismissive stories like this and this, "Gunning for Wall Street with Faulty Aim" (9/23), by Gina Bellafonte, whose interviews with a few occupiers convince her that the "cause [of the occupation] . . . in specific terms, was virtually impossible to decipher."

Wake Up, Paul Krugman!

In "Boiling the Frog," New York Times Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman today compares America to the proverbial frog that lacks the ability to hop out of a slowly heating pot. So what's making life hot for the American frog? Krugman says it's government gridlock on two critical issues: inaction on a second stimulus plan to prevent potentially crippling unemployment and inaction on climate change. This gridlock scares Mr. Krugman, who concludes:

So if we can’t get action to head off disaster now, what would it take? I don’t know the answer. And that’s why I keep thinking about boiling frogs.

Of course, many Americans vehemently disagree with the liberal Mr. Krugman on these vexed issues. Yet the solution to polarized disagreement and government gridlock obvious: it's a national decision-making process on these issues, available to all Americans. 

You call this civic media? Yeah, I do . . . sort of.

In a one-man-talking-to-himself sort of way. So far at least. Where a true civic media is dialogic, this site, so far, is pretty monologic. Too bad. I talk, but people aren't talking back - not yet. And where civic media sites are non-partisan and non-ideological, this one, maintained by a political independent who is relieved and often glad that Obama is our president, is marked by a deepening concern that his financial team of Bernanke, Summers and Geithner are so beholden to Wall Street that Obama is being shielded from the information he needs in order to help the U.S. and the world emerge from the global financial crisis. In the April 29 Press Conference held to mark his first 100 days in office, the President unblushingly conceded his ignorance of the coming crisis:

You know, when I first started this race [in December, 2007], Iraq was a central issue. But the economy appeared on the surface to still be relatively strong. There were underlying problems that I was seeing with health care for families and our education system and college affordability and so forth, but obviously, I didn't anticipate the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I find this admission galling. It's hard to accept from an editor of the Harvard Law Review and a U.S Senator, surrounded by brilliant people, who reads a lot and can actually think straight. It's as if the Ivy League, Wall Street and the D.C. beltway suddenly sealed themselves off what by December 2007 was obvious to a lot of people. In late 2007 I myself knew fellow Realtors and loan officers here in Glenview, north of Chicago - who knew something terrible was bound to hapen - we just couldn't tell when it would hit. We saw it coming in our business and in alarm signals that were being sounded loud and clear in the financial media: Yves Smith, Felix Salmon, goldbugs like Jim Willie and Martin Wolf and John Authers of the Financial Times, for Pete's sake!How on earth could Obama and advisors like Austin Goolsbie have missed what was staring us in the face?

Yves Smith is one of many finance bloggers who could have saved America and the world endless grief had the Obama team read her posts in 2007. So are Obama's people reading her today? They sure should - her website has 25,000 hits a day. Here she dissects the flaws of Obama's finance team in a painstaking analysis of the New York Times' surprisingly harsh April 26 story about Tim Geithner. Her analysis prompted one commenter to say

I cried when Obama made these appointments. Summers, Geithner and keeping Bernanke. I knew all was lost. And now I watch as the whole thing falls apart.

Larry Summers, the ringleader of the Obama economic team, strikes me as a brilliant careerist in the mold of Henry Kissinger: a first rate self-promoter and a second-rate "realpolitik" thinker. To me, he's in denial about what first-rate thinkers like Steve Waldman are saying about the need for economic models grounded in a new understanding of sustainable wealth and wealth creation - a topic I discuss here. Summers and Co. are all the kings men trying to put Humpty Dumpty (American hegemony) back together again. It just won't work. (The Times article suggests that Summers, a big man at the White House, may be lobbying to replace the unpopular Geithner with a loyal fresh face. In other words, nothing will change.)

In his recent "100 days" press conference, President Obama named the economists he follows (scroll to "Where the economists are coming from"). The central debate in his mind, he said, is between Wall Streeter Robert Rubin and realative main streeter Robert Reich, with attention to corporate globalism critic Joseph Stiglitz and inflation-breaking Paul Volcker. And he sums up his philosophy nicely: "The truth is," Obama says, "that what I’ve been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy." And: "The touchstone for economic policy is, does it allow the average American to find good employment and see their incomes rise." Sounds OK, but can Obama's "ruthless pragmatism" put America's financial system on a sound and durable footing? Pragmatists lack vision. Their ideas work short term, not long. The President needs pragmatisim and vision. Is he listening to people like these:

• Charles R. Morris, author of The Trillion Dollar Meltdown, argues in a brief but prescient column that "Merrill Makes the Case for Nationalization" (1/29).
  
• Henry Kaufman, for decades a leading Wall Street insider, argues here that "We should, therefore, fundamentally re-examine the role of the Fed and the supervision of our financial institutions." He discusses the rise of a "social milieu [of policy makers that] encouraged financial decision makers to cherry-pick the theories that supported excessive risk taking. It discouraged whistle-blowing, not just by risk-management officers in large financial institutions, but also by the economists whose scholarship provided intellectual justification for the financial institutions’ decisions. The consequence was that scholarship that warned of potential disaster was ignored. And the result was global economic calamity on a scale not seen for four generations. (Financial Times 4/28)
• Steve Waldman: "If you believe, as I do, that we need a root-and-branch reorganization of the financial system, which must necessarily involve the dismemberment and intrusive restraint of deeply entrenched institutions . . ." (4/27)
• Barry Eichengren of the U.C. Berkeley Dept. of Economics argues that "The Great Credit Crisis has cast into doubt much of what we thought we knew about economics". (National Interest 4/30)
• Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway says banks will use their “enormous political power” to prevent changes to the industry that would benefit society. (Bloomberg, 5/2)Univ. of Chicago Economist Anna Schwartz, a Friedman/Volcker pure monetarist, says the Bernanke Fed has misjudged the financial crisis (City Journal, Spring '09)
• Martin Wolf of the Financial Times says "The world economy cannot go back to where it was before the crisis, because that was demonstrably unsustainable. It is at the early stages of a long and painful deleveraging and restructuring. Fortunately, policymakers have eliminated the worst possible outcomes. But there is much more yet to be done before fragile shoots become healthy plants (4/21)
• Martin Wolf says that "Those who hope for a swift return to what they thought normal two years ago are deluded" (FT 4/28).
• Joseph Stiglitz (whom Obama follows) here calls for something Wall Street does NOT want: a new global reserve currency (3/26). The findings of the UN panel that Stiglitz chaired are described here (3/26). In this article in the South China Morning Post James Dorn (Cato Institute) challenges Stiglitz. Here the Wall Street Journal is defensively on China's call for a new global reserve currency. (American financial media largely overlooked or suppressed the Stiglitz story and are covering this issue poorly if at all. Shame on us.)
• Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini punch holes in the Obama administration's case for progress towards restoring banks to solvency (WSJ 5/5).
• In her post on "The Banks and Orwell," finance blogger Yves Smith isolates some of the doublespeak that Wall Street chieftains are using to resist real regulation. She says that "M. Rodgin Cohen [managing partner of Sullivan & Cromwell] is already leading the fightback [against hostile public opinion]. Yesterday, he even had the gall to say that the system as currently constituted was fundamentally sound. Yes, for him and a handful of Goldman partners, I'm sure that's true, but on planet earth, it's a bit of a different picture." (5/9)
  

Geithner Releases Public/Private Investment Partnership, Dow Soars 497

Feels like springtime in Obamaland today! Markets worldwide responded favorably to the Tim Geithner's Public/Private Investment Partnership to restore solvency in America's too-big-to-fail banks. But will his plan, in its author's words, get "our financial system back to the business of providing credit to working families and viable businesses, and help prevent future crises?" Here's a running list of responses PRO, CON and NEUTRAL

John Authers asks an underlieing question about bank solvency (3/23)

Bill Gross buys in (3/23 CNBC video)

Paul Krugman all but despairs over the Geithner plan (3/23)

Clive Crook asks Krugman to think twice (3/23)

Tim Geithner argues that his plan is "part of an overall strategy to resolve the crisis as quickly and effectively as possible at least cost to the taxpayer. " (3/23)

Yves Smith, riffing off a WSJ editorial, talks about Fed rescue plan exit strategies (3/23)

Mike Whitney protests the Geithner plan's 5%/95% public/private investor ratio (3/23)

Felix Salmon warns that the plan is yet another "thing-that-has-to-go right in order . . . to work." (3/23)

Wall Street Journal says the plan "isn't the worst idea the federal government has ever had" (3/24)

"NYT "Opinionator" quotes from five mainstream media takes on the plan (3/24)

NYT "Room For Debate" compares responses to the Geithner plan of Krugman, Simon Johnson, Brad DeLong, Mark Thoma (3/24)

Mike Hudson takes a broad 3,000 year view to today's financial crisis in this 10 minute video (2/20). Here's his indispensable 2006 Harper's cover story, "The New Road to Serfdom: an Illustrated Guide to the Coming Real Estate Collapse"

New York Times voices doubts about the Geithner plan (3/24)

Joseph Stiglitz says the plan robs the taxpayer (3/24)

Martin Wolf says an adequate rescue plan is still far away (3/24)

Czech President of the European Union calls the plan "A way to hell". Also, Financial Times (3/25)

Rick Santelli of CNBC asks protests "two years" of government neglect of Nouriel Roubini's warnings about dangers of government exacerbation/funding of the credit bubble. (Go to 7:30 of this 10 minute February Durable Goods Report (Alt. link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1072009974&play=1. s ) (3/25)

London Economist sits on the fence (3/25)

Nouriel Roubini, "Dr. Doom," sees POSITIVES in the plan! (3/25)

Lee Brodie, of CNBC's Fast Money crew, says Geithner may have rescued America (3/25)

New York Post reporter Mark DeCambre says Geithner plan lets City and B of A "buy back laundered loans at lower rates" (3/25)

Yves Smith, finance blogger, approves Willem Buiter of F.T. taking "Fed and Treasury to Task" (3/26)

Steve Waldman, finance writer, critique New Yorker finance writer James Surowiecki (scroll down to 3/25)

Investor's Business Daily, citing Friedrich Hayek, warns against government (bureaucrat) control of the economy (3/27)

Nouriel Roubini in this 20 min. Bloomberg TV interview says the plan "won't stop bank nationalizations" (3/28)

Newsweek article says Treasury Secretary Geithner is "hitting his stride" (3/28)

Newsweek Cover Story says the White House is ignoring Paul Krugman's criticisms of the Geithner plan (3/28)

Jeffrey Sachs, Yale economist, asks "Will Geithner and Summers Succeed in Raiding the FDIC and Fed?"

Mike Whitney, finance writer, citing DeCambre, Sachs and Stiglitz says "the country will undergo the greatest period of bank consolidation in its 230 year history."

New York Times charges Congress with "bipartisan resistance to a thorough investigation of what caused the collapse" (3/29)

Richard Posner, U.C. Law and jurist, says the Geithner plan "will simplify the banks' balance sheets by removing assets of uncertain value and replacing them with cash (3/29)

Gary Becker, U.C economist and Nobelist, says "it is a strange program indeed where banks get subsidized in proportion to how many 'bad' assets they hold." (3/31)

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobelist, says government overleveraging replicates the bank overleveraging that caused the meltdown.(4/1)

Jonathan Weil , Bloomberg, "Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters" (4/9)

Mike Whitney examines the recent report on the Geithner bank rescue plan released by the Congressional Oversight Committee chaired by Elizabeth Warren.(4/11)

Jeff Cox at CNBC.com says "Flood of US Debt Threatens To 'Crowd Out' Other Borrowers" (4/13)

Financial Times Tarp investigator seeks evidence of book fiddling (4/13)

Nouriel Roubini coming on strong for the first time in several weeks, says "Testing the Stress Test Scenarios: Actual Macro Data Are Already Worse than the More Adverse Scenario for 2009 in the Stress Tests. So the Stress Tests Fail the Basic Criterion of Reality Check Even Before They Are Concluded" (4/13)

Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Professor and Chair of the Congressional Oversight Committee, is interviewed by John Daley at Comedy Central (4/15)

Simon Johnson, MIT economist and former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, argues in the Atlantic Monthly that "the financial industry has effectively captured our government" and that "recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform" (5/09)

Geithner Testimony arguing for bank stability sparks Wall Street rally (4/21).

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross Redux

January 31, 2009 The "Death-and-Dying Lady" lives on. Financial correspondent Floyd Norris of the New York Times writes about a Columbia University researcher whose seven-stage theory about how industries recover from traumatic change derives from Elizabeth's five-stage theory about how terminally ill patients confront the prospect of death:

FROM SHOCK TO ACTION

Industries facing severe structural change go through a seven-step progression before they manage to deal with it, said Rita McGrath, an associate professor at Columbia Business School.

1. Shock.
2. Denial. “This can’t be happening to me.”
3. Sadness. “This is awful.”
4. Anger. “I don’t deserve this.”
5. Bargaining.
6. Acceptance.
7. Renegotiation. It is then that companies find ways to change their business model to survive.

Comments are invited to discuss where in this progression various industries are now, and what they should do. Possible industries for comment are banks, autos and newspapers.

MY COMMENT (embellished from the printed version): How shocked would former University of Chicago psychologist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross be, were she with us today, to see her five-phase model for process of grief in terminally-ill individuals plucked up from the realm of the human psyche, transported to the realm of human commerce and metamorphosed there into a seven-stage model for the recovery of cyclically-afflicted industries!

That said, the seven-step model is useful and invites comment on newspapers in particular. Most papers are hopelessly stuck in step one or two, shock and denial, and are sinking fast, unable to facilitate or even acknowledge the dominant trend of the digital age: the emergence of an increasingly articulate PUBLIC MIND of ALL citizens fueled by massive demand for interactive media experiences and, in politics, by the demand for interactive politics that led to the election of Barack Obama.

The New York Times, whose stock can now be bought for under $5 a share, remains beholden both to its traditional elite Tiffany/Rolex advertising base and to an editorial outlook that seems to want no part of the inclusiveness that marks this developing public mind. I'm no fan of Rupert Murdoch, but the Times' elitist outlook strikes me as arrogant.

In the future, profitable media (including newspapers) will find ways to mediate the disparate elements of this developing public mind, including ways of generating intelligent discourse between intellectuals and non-intellectuals. Economically speaking, they will mediate differences among of America's lower, middle and upper classes. In politics, this mediating media will make citizens and government responsive and accountable to each other in solving the nation’s problems and maximizing its opportunities.

In the last paragraph of his important Feb. 3 column, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times writes that "we are living on the cusp of history." Indeed we are, and in more ways than one. For first time in human history, human beings have the chance to use interactive media technologies to resolve a single critical problem – the collapse of the global financial system – not by military force but by human reason, as President Obama keeps telling us. In this new era, profitable media will find novel and compelling ways to tap the presently untapped Market of the Whole - in America, of all 300 million Americans - that constitutes this emerging, interactive public mind. Only when this public mind is communicating substantively with America's political leaders will America develop the informed consensus that will enable it - and the world (read Martin Wolf) - to survive the economic maelstrom in which all of us swirl today.

Storm Hits Agin!

Jan. 23, 2009. 6am. Dow futures are below 8,000 at the moment and even as the CNBC gang all but begs for an Obama honeymoon rally, I myself see the Dow heading south to test its November lows of 7,400.

This week America (and the world) celebrated the inauguration of a promising new president. But the economic news was not good, for the world was sliding into the second (economic) phase of the global economic contraction whose first (credit) phase hit with gale force last summer. This time, the dangers at home included rising unemployment, consumer spending declines and a still-weakening housing market (not to mention Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America). And abroad, they included the Chinese contraction and confirmed recessions in many countries.

Two news items for our times: The Bank of England's historic rate cut to 1.5%, lowest since its founding in 1694. And the Moody's cut of its rating of The York Times to junk status.

LESS SHOCKING

It's worth noting that Phase II, while painful, will if nothing else be less shocking than Phase I. Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, our heads are at long last out of the sand. The years of ostrich denial are done. "That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood." That was President Obama in his inauguration speech.

Well put. And important to be said. Yet not saying much! Where do we go from here? What are we learning that will help us down the road? As time permits, I'll post links to interesting responses and solutions to the crisis. Some (Wolf, Whitney, Roubini [register], Friedman) will be variations of the $800 billion Obama stimulus plan that's now taking shape in Congress. Others (Morris, Whitney) will be strategies for cleaning up the nation's broken banking system (New York Times "Room for Debate" ). And others (Farmer, The Economist) will focus on the global crisis. Still others will argue that the best course of action is no action. There are lots of good ideas out there, often in conflict, as ideas should be.

CONSCIOUSNESS. CONSENSUS. CITIZENSHIP.

Clearly the world is far from reaching anything like consensus on a way out of the crisis. And solutions pile up so fast that even keeping up with them is a full time job for several people. What's more, the solutions being implemented are coming from the small circle of experts and central planners who for the most part failed to see the crisis coming. Ordinary citizens are voiceless when it comes to generating solutions or weighing the pros and cons of solutions advanced by experts and political leaders. Yet President Obama keeps saying that America will not able to renew itself until Americans are fully engaged in the process of renewal. Here's where civic media comes in, and we are far from having an effective one at this point.

Meanwhile, the crisis seems to worsen faster than anyone can keep up with it. It has the feel of a black hole. Or of a maelstrom, the massive deep-sea whirlpool caused by tidal shifts described by Edgar Allen Poe in his Decent to the Maelstrom, a short story about a Nordic sailor who survives one by staying cool and observing, looking for way to escape. When his brother perishes by lashing himself to the mast of the sinking ship, he escapes and survives by grasping a rising empty barrel. The story was an inspiration to Marshall McCluhan - the Canadian media prophet who first spoke of a global village - and to his biographer, W. Terrence Gordon, who chose the perfect title for his book: Escape into Understanding.

Out of the Crisis, by the way, was the magnum opus of W. Edwards Deming, the American systems engineer whose philosophy of continuous improvement based on listening to and learning from employees is widely credited with bringing Japanese industry from the ruins of World War II to global preeminence in the 1990's.

Looking for an escape. Listening to employees. Listening to citizens. Listening to ourselves and others. Deming, like McLuhan, makes great good sense to me. And I'm no engineer. Once a TV interviewer asked him what one thing he would do to improve American education. "Abolish grades!" was his immediate, blunt response. His questioner about fell off her chair. "Why?" she asked, stunned. "Because grades destroy the two qualities most necessary for productive work: co-operation and creativity." He laid down the hammer. As an educator, I couldn't agree more. These qualities, along with competence, are what the world needs now.

OUT OF THE CRISIS: FROM AN ECONOMY OF QUANTITY TO AN ECONOMY OF QUANTITY AND QUALITY?

Some economists are now speaking of reinventing the economy. Will the day come the economy is no longer seen as a matter of rising or falling GDP, of material wealth-generating productivity affecting many citizens but excluding many others? Has this ingrown, ideologically-tainted notion not utterly and recently failed us? New data-gathering technologies and the dawning Obama era make it possible for economists to generate much more comprehensive ways of measuring the current and future health of the vast networks of human survival and enrichment activities that constitute the economy.

It will soon be possible to measure the health of the economy using both traditional metrics of material quantity and new metrics of non-material quality of life. Take the concept of consumer confidence , which measures how all citizens feel about spending money. As such, it is a qualitative measurement of a quantitative aspect of the economy and, as such, as a forerunner of more comprehensive ways of assessing economic health. Behavioral economists are on this track, and for my money it leads to an economics informed by measurements of citizen satisfaction with every aspect of work and life that really matters.

OK, so all this sounds like a pipedream - like John Lennon singing "Imagine". Yet I wonder if the world hasn't reached a point where it simply can't get by - "muddle on through" as folks used to say - with anything less. The storm that's hit us is NOT an act of God or an event of nature: it's entirely man-made. Is it a life-and-death maelstrom of the kind that Poe wrote about? If so, we - the human race - will survive it only by learning from it. Not just some of us, but all of us.