Chris Hedges On the Power of the Modern Media and Fox News

“He who dictates and formulates the words and phrases we use, he who is master of the press and radio, is master of the mind. Repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity for communicating dissent and opposition. This is the formula for political conditioning of the masses.

The big lie and monotonously repeated nonsense have more emotional appeal in a cold war than logic and reason.

The continual intrusion into our minds of the hammering noises of arguments and propaganda can lead to two kinds of reactions. It may lead to apathy and indifference, the I-dont-care reaction, or to a more intensified desire to study and to understand. Unfortunately, the first reaction is the more popular one...Confusing a targeted audience is one of the necessary ingredients for effective mind control.

The eternal demagogue will arise anew. He will accuse others of conspiracy in order to prove his own importance. He will try to intimidate those who are neither so iron-fisted nor so hotheaded as he, and temporarily he will drag some people into the web of his delusions. Perhaps he will even wear a mantle of martyrdom to arouse the tears of the weak-hearted. With his emotionalism and suspicion, he will shatter the trust of citizens in one another."

Joost Meerloo M.D., The Rape of the Mind

Hedges specifically discusses Fox News, and deservedly so,  because it has set the tone for the modern news programs. There were never more ironic words than their slogan, 'fair and balanced.'  But he could have included a few other corporate copycat channels as well, including the financial channels which have become little more than infomercials for Wall Street and the one percent.

Most 'news shows' in the states have become extended op-ed's where paid professional hucksters and 'strategists' spout slogans and sound bytes at one another, with a fairly cavalier attitude towards an intelligent exposition of the facts. 

Emotions are more powerful than facts in the modern mass media. Frighten the people, anger them, give them an object for their fear and anger, and in their rage you can move them in whatever direction you wish.

And you can look to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, the weakening of the FCC, the proliferation of cable channels with hours of programming to fill, and the concentration of the media in the hands of a few corporations, or perhaps more correctly global conglomerates, for the cause of this terrible decline in what is lightly these days called journalism. And in the destruction of a literate news media, thereby lies the deterioration in public and political discourse.

This is not about right versus left.  It is about politicians, financiers, and intellectuals of a predator class who think they can strike a Faustian bargain, and unleash the will to power, and control it for their own ends.

But the madness serves none but itself.

CNBC's Heavy-Handed Advocacy For Wall Street Is Painfully Evident in This Neil Barofsky Interview

Heavy handed and amateurish performance by the 'journalists' was the name of the game in this interview which CNBC conducted with former TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky.

I think Barofsky was taken aback and kept off balance for much of the interview, and did not present some of the alternatives to TARP that could have been discussed in a more intelligent and less adversarial venue.  I would have thought a former federal prosecutor would have been tougher, but I think he came in expecting a rational discussion and not a tag team group takedown.

This performance represents the level of journalistic quality and objectivity of its parent NBC, which is one of the corporate arms of General Electric.   And such a disregard for any pretense to journalistic principles is no longer the exception.

Maybe I am missing something but it seems astonishing that a major financial network can feature a stock advisor who bragged on tape about how he used reporters for planting stories favorable to his market manipulation to cheat the public when he ran a hedge fund, and apparently sees nothing wrong with it, up to and including breaking the law.

How cynical can a people get? How blindly worshipful of 'success?'

This calls to mind the interview that CNBC had with the California Attorney General who had the presence of mind to just stop the interview and ask the 'journalist,' "Are you pimping for (State Street Bank) the defendant?"

There was a time indeed when the financial journalists were paid for pimping for Wall Street, as recounted in the Congressional testimony of A. Newton Plummer, who had kept a suitcase full of the canceled checks which he had delivered to almost every journalist on the Street. The pool operators of the 1920's paid financial journalists to run stories favorable to their market aims.

A. Newton Plummer subsequently wrote a book about it, and his testimony to the Congress, that had a very limited run. I picked up a copy during my research phase in the late 1990's.

So as you can see, the integrity of journalism in reporting financial news is not merely an idealistic and theoretical concern during periods of excess and subsequent change. It is one of the major elements of corruption and therefore of reform. And laws were put in place to ensure fairness and diversity in the news media. And they were much later knocked down during 'the great deregulation' when ideology and PR campaigns trumped experience once again.

Do people still go to journalism schools and subscribe to certain principles that we used to take for granted that would be put forward if not always upheld?

How are the mighty fallen.

Here is a link to the interview at the CNBC site in case there are problems with access to it here.

Note:  Business Insider also covered this interview.  Their story here includes some of the tweets which Barofsky sent after the show.

Bill Black Educates the Media On the Nature of Financial Fraud, With Little Apparent Effect

Although I linked to this last week, I thought I would like to feature it today.

In one of his rare appearances on the 'mainstream media' Bill Black educates the CNBC news anchor Maria Bartiromo and news contributor Bethany Maclean on the nature of financial fraud.

It is interesting to see the NBC news people acting as apologists for the financial powers, trotting out false arguments and talking over or rushing past the facts when they are presented. At least Bloomberg is more straightforward in their presentation of blatant hucksterism, making little pretense to journalism or presenting any other side of the Wall Street story. They are salespeople and spokesmodels for the financial industry and the monied interests.

Just putting a letter or two in front of a storied call sign, as in the case of MSNBC and CNBC, does not protect that brand from the tarnish of increasingly low standards and future scandal. All of the major media seems to be dancing to Rupert's pied piper's tune.

As storied NBC news anchor David Brinkley once said:

"Being an anchor is not just a matter of sitting in front of a camera and looking pretty."

"News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising." Lord Northcliffe

Chris Hedges On the Current State Of Journalism and Post-Literate Society - The Age of Spectacle

"In our age, the idea of intellectual liberty is under attack from two directions. On the one side are its theoretical enemies, the apologists of totalitarianism, and on the other its immediate, practical enemies, monopoly and bureaucracy. Any writer or journalist who wants to retain his integrity finds himself thwarted by the general drift of society rather than by active persecution. The sort of things that are working against him are the concentration of the press in the hands of a few rich men, the grip of monopoly on radio and the films, the unwillingness of the public to spend money on books...

Wherever there is an enforced orthodoxy — or even two orthodoxies, as often happens — good writing stops. This was well illustrated by the Spanish civil war. To many English intellectuals the war was a deeply moving experience, but not an experience about which they could write sincerely. There were only two things that you were allowed to say, and both of them were palpable lies: as a result, the war produced acres of print but almost nothing worth reading...

The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background...

The organized lying practiced by totalitarian states is not, as is sometimes claimed, a temporary expedient of the same nature as military deception. It is something integral to totalitarianism, something that would still continue even if concentration camps and secret police forces had ceased to be necessary...

Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable.

It can never permit either the truthful recording of facts or the emotional sincerity that literary creation demands. But to be corrupted by totalitarianism one does not have to live in a totalitarian country. The mere prevalence of certain ideas can spread a kind of poison that makes one subject after another impossible for literary purposes.

Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth. (cf. truthiness - Jesse)

Meanwhile, totalitarianism has not fully triumphed everywhere. Our own society is still, broadly speaking, liberal. To exercise your right of free speech you have to fight against economic pressure and against strong sections of public opinion, but not, as yet, against a secret police force. You can say or print almost anything so long as you are willing to do it in a hole-and-corner way.

But what is sinister, as I said at the beginning of this essay, is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favour of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves."

George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature, 1946

I feel compelled to say an explanatory word or two about Chris Hedges at this point, about what it is that I 'like' about him, and to answer a couple of inquiries about why some others prefer to ignore him, besides the usual suspects as they say.

As I have said previously, politically I am almost a perfect centrist, in the classical sense of the term. I say this after having taken yet another 'objective test' to place myself on the political spectrum. I do not hold this out as anything of significance other than to say, this is pretty much where I come out, where I am in my thinking at this stage in my life. It is a hard place to be, because one sees the world in shades of grays, in all its complexity, without the comfort of easy forms in black and white. It requires quite a bit more thought and effort than most can afford.

Hedges is a socialist, self-admittedly. And I am not. I am a believer in markets, but in sound regulation of them by an objective, publicly controlled organization, much like a referee or umpire, who transparently enforces the rules which are clear and fair to all. Why? Because people always and everywhere will cheat, some much more readily than others. The meme of naturally efficient markets is a classic 'big lie.'

I believe that widely dispersed, practical rules of organization and decision making within a greater context of general principles are far superior in their effectiveness in the distribution of resources that any sort of central planning, of the right or of the left. As Acton once said, 'no class is fit to govern.' So I like decision making that is broadly based, and subject to compromise. I think the rewards and punishments of the market are an effective stimulus to productive behaviour, provided that the rules do not become slanted by the power of an inequality propagated by cheating.

But I also see that rules alone cannot embody wisdom. There is a need for the conscious hand of humanity to guide the legendary 'invisible hand of the market.'

So I like Hedges, because what he says brings me back to center, even though he is further left. That is how bad things have become in this age of austerity, the willfully immature, and the false bravado of the destructively greedy and ideologically irrational. The western nations have moved and are still moving to the Right, as they did in the 1930's. As corruption enervates the old order, as empires once again crumble, we are re-entering the Age of Spectacle, the time of fire.

And if you stay in place, at the center, you have the false feeling of 'moving left,' relatively speaking. It has become noticeable especially when one compares the Right to their forbears of even ten years ago.

Hedges irritates some of the sacred orthodoxies of the Right without a doubt and to say the least since they are the epitome of intolerance. But he also disturbs the Left, who can be as inflexible and censorious as the Right which they hold in utter disdain for those very qualities. And he tweaks their nose on it, which is doubly irritating for those who are currently not in power.

Hedges has an absolutely wonderful description of this phenomenon of the unseeable center in describing the debates he had with both the new religious right, and the irreligious neo-atheists. The relativity of their extreme views distorts all of their perceptions, so that to both groups, Hedges the religious moderate becomes anathema, for similar reasons of intolerance and vanity.

I think that western society has gone off the tracks, in a loosely cyclical manner, by adopting an unsustainable set of priorities. Rather than forming policies to support the general good of the people, they have instead adopted the objective of the 'greatest good' where that implies the maximization of profit, but for a select few. That was a fateful decision, and I mark it somewhat loosely from 1987 for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the bailout of Wall Street by Alan Greenspan. It had its cultural resonance in the theaters.

"The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth.

I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it. You've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you."

Gordon Gekko, Wall Street, 1987

This situation, and history, has a lot to teach us indeed, and I think those lessons have only just begun in earnest.

This historically recurrent principle of the greatest greed rather than the greatest good is killing us. There should be no doubt that it will revert to the mean, a balanced society, once again, but that reversion may be painful, and bloody, if history is any guide. But this too shall pass.

I like to include historical quotes in these pieces, like the extended Orwell quote above, not only to illustrate the situation using powerfully resonant words from greater writers than myself, but also, in a Socratic way, to infuse the quiet understanding that every generation fights perhaps not the same, but similar, battles against ignorance, greed, intolerance, mean-spiritedness, carelessness, lawlessness, fear, hysteria, betrayal, hatred, and apathy.

And so there is hope, always.

We are not facing anything new, anything insurmountable,  but rather the same old enemy, the principalities and powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and the ancient spiritual wickedness in high places.  And that is the basic plot line of all human history.

And so we will write our own particular chapter in human history and the book of life, and thereby be remembered by our children and our grandchildren, and perhaps by those who interest themselves in all things human, for all time.





I have to note, most strongly, that the same principle of objectifying the other as a prelude to oppression and the language of violence is a tool of both the extreme right and the extreme left.  Their inflexibility and intolerance of differences in the individual virtually indistinguishable, and in every case is used to justify violence and murder.



I include this clip below in particular because he is describing 'the economic hitmen coming home to roost' which has been a forecast and an image I have used for quite a few years.  And it is happening now, predominantly in parts of Europe, but very much in the US and the UK.  The move on from victim to victim, their ravening hunger insatiable.



As they become more extreme, belief systems tend to resemble their putative opposites more closely, and the center becomes almost imperceptible, if noticed at all and not merely held in complete disdain.

Why Does the Economic News Seem To Be So Different From Your Reality?

There are numerous vested interests on Wall Street, in Washington, and in the corporate conglomerates who see nothing wrong in distorting information, 'spinning the news,' and sometimes even outright lying, when it comes to reporting on the economic situation. They are promoting a story, and often an agenda.

They hide behind the safe harbor provisions of the law, and the subjective aspects of economics. They use euphemisms such as 'talking your book' to describe calculated deception.

The financial media accepts it, condones it, and does it themselves. As one financial news anchor, said shortly after the tech stock bubble collapsed in 2002, 'Of course market strategists and analysts lie. Everyone knows that. But no one made people buy those stocks.'

Straight news reporting is less seen in the mainstream media these days, since solid investigative journalism is considered too costly to the corporate management. Much cheaper to allow paid shills to take scripted shots at one another, in the manner of professional wrestling. This is how the voters are informed, and how public policy is shaped. And when it comes to economics, the establishment is firmly in control of the message. The selection of guests is carefully scripted to support a point of view.

Even on the internet, the offers come. The planted stories, the spin, the rumours, ad hominem slanders, whispering campaigns, and cliquish peer pressure to uphold the 'party line.' The rewards are connections to the powerful, invitations to important places and venues, access to names and associations, privileged access, visibility, to be part of the in crowd. This plays on a natural human tendency to 'go along to get along' and them to rationalize it all away.

As someone recently said to me, "What is truth?" Pilate asked the same question, and turned and washed his hands of it. Truth is an elusive objective, given the fallibility of our reason. Less a destination now, and more a struggle, a way of life. But we know when we stray from the path.

Most refuse the temptation, but some take the bait. And so you must be aware of this, and filter what you consume through your own common sense. You need to tread carefully, using the palate which you have, and over time you will become more adept at spotting the establishments serving honest fare and those offering artificial substitutions and false skepticism, the wink and a nod to a deception.

Wall Street Shills

"Further complicating the outlook is a more traditional issue: pronouncements by some economists on Wall Street and financial reporters in the popular media, who act as shills for the needs of Wall Street and political Washington. While there are a number of fine and honest economists and financial reporters in their respective fields, there also are those — often very heavily publicized — who spew Pollyannaish nonsense aimed at affecting public sentiment and/or the financial markets during troubled economic times.

Let me recount two personal experiences. Back in late-1989, I contended that the U.S. economy was in or headed into a deep recession. CNBC had me in to discuss my views along with a senior economist for a large New York bank, who was looking for continued economic growth. Before the show, the bank economist and I shared our views in the Green Room. I outlined my case for a major recession, and, to my shock, his response was, 'I think that pretty much is the consensus.'

We got on the air, I gave my recession pitch, and he proclaimed a booming economy for the year ahead. He was a good economist and knew what was happening, but he had to put out the story mandated by his employer, or he would not have had a job.

More recently, following an interview on a major cable news network (not CNBC), I was advised off-air by the producer that they were operating under a corporate mandate to give the economic news a positive spin, irrespective of how bad it was."

John Williams, Shadow Government Statistics

"Do not conform youself to the common pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Romans 12:2

The Financial Oligarchy in the US

If you do nothing else this week, read the transcript or watch this video.

I have a serious difference of opinion with the speakers with regard to Robert Rubin and his role, but they make up for it with their description of Jamie Dimon as close to the White House and one of the most dangerous men in America today.

And I thought it was interesting that Simon Johnson would say openly that the ONLY Senator who is speaking the truth plainly is Ted Kaufman from Delaware.

Other than that they are substantially putting out a very sound and realistic view of the root of the problems that created the financial crisis, and what requires to be done to rebalance the system and create a sustainable recovery.

BILL MOYERS: And you say that these this oligarchy consists of six megabanks. What are the six banks?

JAMES KWAK: They are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo.

BILL MOYERS: And you write that they control 60 percent of our gross national product?

JAMES KWAK: They have assets equivalent to 60 percent of our gross national product. And to put this in perspective, in the mid-1990s, these six banks or their predecessors, since there have been a lot of mergers, had less than 20 percent. Their assets were less than 20 percent of the gross national product.

BILL MOYERS: And what's the threat from an oligarchy of this size and scale?

SIMON JOHNSON: They can distort the system, Bill. They can change the rules of the game to favor themselves. And unfortunately, the way it works in modern finance is when the rules favor you, you go out and you take a lot of risk. And you blow up from time to time, because it's not your problem. When it blows up, it's the taxpayer and it's the government that has to sort it out.

BILL MOYERS: So, you're not kidding when you say it's an oligarchy?

JAMES KWAK: Exactly. I think that in particular, we can see how the oligarchy has actually become more powerful in the last since the financial crisis. If we look at the way they've behaved in Washington. For example, they've been spending more than $1 million per day lobbying Congress and fighting financial reform. I think that's for some time, the financial sector got its way in Washington through the power of ideology, through the power of persuasion. And in the last year and a half, we've seen the gloves come off. They are fighting as hard as they can to stop reform.

The Financial Oligarcy in the US - Bill Moyer's Journal

"Goldman Sachs Are Scum:" Max Keiser on Goldman Sachs From July 2009

Here is a video interview on France 24 television with Max Keiser speaking on Goldman Sachs from almost one year ago.

By the way, NO ONE who is a serious player on Wall Street is legitimately surprised by this, and probably no one in regulatory bodies are either, unless they are just showing up to collect a paycheck and obtain free Internet access.

The antics of Goldman Sachs have been getting by on a 'wink and a nod' from the regulators and the market for some time. Why? Because they are powerful, and because like Lehman and their off balance sheet frauds, they are almost ALL doing it on Wall Street as part of the franchise. Goldman has just been a pig about it, and probably burned some insiders and powerful investors in their fraudulent Abacus trade.

The excuses being made for Goldman by some on Bloomberg Television and CNBC are setting new lows in journalism. It was just a simple failure to disclosure Paulson's involvement right? Almost a technicality. No one forced the customers to buy those fraudulently packaged and labeled assets or stocks (this was a favorite excuse from Joe Kernan during the Internet/tech bubble collapse). No involvement from the Ratings Agencies in the purposeful crafting of a fraudulent financial instrument. Guest Calls Cramer a 'PR Man for Goldman Sachs' and is ejected from the show by the resident money honey.

As you may recall, Mr. Cramer represents himself as highly experienced in manipulating stocks using CNBC reporters from his days as a hedge fund manager. So it might not be so outre to inquire if he is working the other side of that Wall Street scam these days.

Why, these derivatives were SO complex that the poor Goldman management barely understood them themselves. They were tricked by Paulson. Tourre is a rogue trader. Bernie Madoff ate their Series 7 cheatsheets. Compliance was seconded to the Riviera. Lloyd was busy doing missionary work in Bangkok. More regulation will just hurt the recovery.

Don't just regulate them. Break them up. And audit the Fed.



I am glad the professor is from HEC. I did my international business MBA sequence (an extended field trip for adults, but the refreshments were good) at the 'other' business school in Paris at La Defense, ESSEC.

Max Keiser

Fortune Editor Suggests That the US Treasury Will Have to Start Defaulting On Its Bonds

Disclosure: The title of this blog entry is almost as sensationalistically misleading as the headline of the Fortune news article below.

Social Security is broke and will need a bailout, "even as the bank bailout is winding down" according to a Fortune story by Allan Sloan. Notice how cleverly the correlation is made between bank entitlements because of speculative excess and what is essentially the paid for portion of a retirement annuity invested solely in Treasury debt.

And bank bailout winding down? That is an illusion. Wall Street has placed its vampiric mouth into the heart of the monetary system, and has institutionalized its feeding. The bank bailout will be over when quantitative easing it over, the Treasury stops placing the public purse in guarantee of toxic assets, and the Fed stops monetizing the Treasuries.

Social Security is broke IF the Treasury defaults on all the bonds issued to the Social Security Administration, not only in its interest payments, but also by confiscating the trillions of underlying principal for which it has issued bonds.

It is broke IF you expect Social Security to act as a cash cow to subsidize other government spending, in a period of exceptionally low interest rates due to quantitative easing to subsidize the banks, and diminished tax income receipts because of a collapsing bubble created by the financial sector.

It is broke IF there is no economic recovery. Ever.

We are not talking about future payments. We are talking about the confiscation of taxes already received, and of Treasury bonds. Granted those Bonds are not traded publicly, but the principle is the same. It is about the full faith and confidence of the US government.

I am absolutely shocked that an editor of a major US financial publication would so blithely presume to suggest that Treasury debt is no good, and that the US can default, albeit selectively, at will. At the same time they promote a 'strong dollar' as the world's reserve currency out of the other sides of their mouth. Do they think we are idiots? It appears so.

If the Treasury does not honor its obligations, if America can treat its own people, its fathers and mothers, so shamefully, what would make one think it would not dishonour its obligations to them, should the need and opportunity arise?

The flip answer might be, "It's gone, the government has stolen the Social Security Fund already. Too bad for the old folks, no matter to me." Well, if that is the case, my friend, what makes you think there is any more substance to those Treasuries you are holding in your account, and those dollars in your pocket? What is backing them? Are they not traveling down the same path of quiet confiscation ad insolvency? People have a remarkable ability to kid themselves that someone else's misfortune will not be their own, even when they are in similar circumstances.

The US has not quite reached this point yet I think. But it may be coming. First they come for the weak.

Is this merely a play to resurrect the Bush proposal to channel the Social Security Funds to Wall Street? It seems as though it might be. Or merely another facet of a propaganda campaign to set Social Security up for more reductions besides fraudulent COLA adjustments as the financial sector crowds out even more of the real economy through acts of accounting theft and seignorage.

Let us remember that if the Social Security Fund is diverted from government obligations, the Treasury will be compelled to issue even more debt into the private markets to try and finance the general government obligations. The only difference will be that Wall Street will be able to extract more fees from a greater share of the economy. That is what this is all about, pure and simple. Fees and subsidies for the FIRE sector.

It should be kept in mind that Social Security payments feed almost directly into consumption, which is a key factor to GDP in a balanced economy.

What next? Commercials depicting old people as rats scurrying through the national pantry, feeding on the precious stores of the nation? How about the mentally and physically disabled? Aren't they a drain on SS as well? Better deal with them. Some blogs and chat boards are calling for a population reduction, and the shedding of undesirables, as defined by them. This Wall Street propaganda feeds that sort of ugliness. "It can't happen here" is as deadly an assumption as "It's different this time."

If this is what passes for economic thought and reporting, sponsored by a major mainstream media outlet from one of its editors, God help the United States of America. It has lost its mind, termporarily, but will likely lose its soul if it does not honour its oaths, especially that to uphold the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic.


Fortune
Next in Line for a Bailout: Social Security
by Allan Sloan
Thursday, February 4, 2010

Don't look now. But even as the bank bailout is winding down, another huge bailout is starting, this time for the Social Security system.

A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.

Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

No one has officially announced that Social Security will be cash-negative this year. But you can figure it out for yourself, as I did, by comparing two numbers in the recent federal budget update that the nonpartisan CBO issued last week.

The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116).

This means that without the interest income, Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. (Lots of people and institutions are in trouble if you assume that the Treasury stops paying them interest income on the bonds which they have purchased, starting with the banks. And that income is already little enough because of the quantitative easing being conducted by the Fed to bail out the financial sector, which you represent at your magazine. - Jesse)

Why disregard the interest? Because as people like me have said repeatedly over the years, the interest, which consists of Treasury IOUs that the Social Security trust fund gets on its holdings of government securities, doesn't provide Social Security with any cash that it can use to pay its bills. The interest is merely an accounting entry with no economic significance. (You can say the same 'accounting entry' thing about any Treasury debt that is in excess of current tax receipts. And the Treasury doesn't provide any 'cash' to SS because it does not have to, it is probably the only major government program operating still at a surplus. Social Security payments do not go into the aether, they proceed almost directly into national consumption, which is GDP. - Jesse)

Social Security hasn't been cash-negative since the early 1980s, when it came so close to running out of money that it was making plans to stop sending out benefit checks. That led to the famous Greenspan Commission report, which recommended trimming benefits and raising taxes, which Congress did. Those actions produced hefty cash surpluses, which until this year have helped finance the rest of the government.

But even then, it was clear the surpluses would be temporary. Now, years earlier than projected, Social Security is adding to the government's borrowing needs, even though the program still shows a surplus on paper.

If you go to the aforementioned pages in the CBO update and consult the tables on them, you see that the budget office projects smaller cash deficits (about $19 billion annually) for fiscal 2011 and 2012. Then the program approaches break-even for a while before the deficits resume.

Social Security currently provides more than half the income for a majority of retirees. Given the declines in stock prices and home values that have whacked millions of people, the program seems likely to become more important in the future as a source of retirement income, rather than less important.

It would have been a lot simpler to fix the system years ago, when we could have used Social Security's cash surpluses to buy non-Treasury securities, such as government-backed mortgage bonds or high-grade corporates that would have helped cover future cash shortfalls. Now it's too late...

Read the rest here.

Propaganda, Western Style: Moscow Memories II

As regular readers know, Le Proprietaire was doing business in Russia, mostly in Moscow and St. Pete, in the 1990's as part of the overall international business portfolio during his past corporate life.

It was an exciting and somewhat nerve-wracking experience, but one that vividly drove home certain lessons about government, currency, and the resilience of the human spirit that have served well in the following decade. Moscow Memories of 1997

I have to admit I was not aware of this series about Russia by the Wall Street Journal, given a long term preference for The Economist and The Financial Times. Thanks to Zero Hedge for bringing this story about it from The Nation (which I would have never read, being a long time conservative) about the Journal and Steve Liesman to light.

As someone involved there I can say that anyone who did not perceive the growing crisis was living in a bubble, or carrying some particularly optimistic slant in their outlook.

The decline of the Russian economy was oppressive, palpable, almost on everyone's mind. Hard to miss, even at the occasional showy party in English thrown by western corporations for an audience largely made up of ex-pats. The move out of the rouble into just about anything else with substance was becomng a groundswell, later to become unstoppable default. Any presentation about a Russian venture in the 1990's had better contain some plans regarding currency risk.

But why bring this up now? Le Cafe has no particular squabble with the Liesman, and since we do not watch CNBC anymore, are largely immune to whatever it is he says that does not appear in a youtube excerpt, generally involving his getting owned by Rick Santelli.

We bring it up because this article below exposes the typical modus operandi of the Western press, now and over the past twenty years. Carry a party line until the situation explodes, cover it up and distract the public with phony debates and verbal circuses, and then back to give breaking coverage of Armageddon, with a twist of shared guilt. No one is to blame.

Can you remember the coverage of the tech bubble of 2000 by the media? Giddy excitement as the numbers climbed higher, with reassurance as they turned down that this was just a temporary setback.

And I will never forget, as the stocks collapsed and people were wiped out, the CNBC regular arrogantly saying "Well, no one FORCED them to buy those stocks."

Keep this in mind, because we are nearing that point again, with the western media reassuring its public that all is well, while the insiders sell, and the grifters and grafters are draining the nation of its wealth, while the propaganda puppets mouth the slogans of the day. And after it blows up, they will shift gears without an afterthought, keeping the public mind moving on, trusting to the collective amnesia of a distracted populace.

As they said on Bloomberg this morning regarding the crisis just passed, 'We are all to blame; the regulators, the government, the rating agencies, the banks, and the public who was apathetic, who failed to act."

And then they moved on to let us know that Ashley Dupre will be providing a weekly advice column in the NY Post. Romance with a financial twist?

The difference here, at least it seems to me, is that the American public is still a believer in what the government says. The Russian people, at least by that time, did not. So perhaps there are a few more good years left.

The Nation
The Journal's Russia Scandal
By Matt Taibbi & Mark Ames
October 4, 1999

Just before Christmas in 1997, as a tumultuous stock-market
crisis ravaged emerging markets in every corner of the globe, readers of the
Wall Street Journal were treated to some good news: Russia was going to emerge
from the mess unscathed. While conceding that "few debt markets outside
Southeast Asia were hit harder by recent financial turmoil than Russia's," the
Journal's Moscow bureau chief, Steve Liesman, added quickly that "many analysts
believe an equally strong rebound may be in the offing." Moreover, Liesman
wrote, investors were rapidly coming to the realization that "Russia's problems
are far different and, for the moment, less dire than those that undermined
Asian economies." The December 16 piece was headlined, "Russian Debt Markets Due
for Rebound."

A few weeks later, Liesman and the Journal used even
stronger language to trumpet Russia's economic merits. They chided investors who
were too busy "fretting over Asia's financial crisis" to notice what they called
"one of the decade's major economic events: the end of Russia's seven-year
recession."

The Journal's prediction was more than a little precipitate.
Instead of getting better, things in Russia got worse. A lot worse. Nine months
after Liesman declared that Russia's debt market was due for a rebound, and just
over seven months after proclaiming the end of the Russian recession, the
Journal--like most US newspapers--found itself having to explain the near-total
collapse of Russia's economy and capital markets...

Read the rest here: The Journal's Russia Scandal - Matt Taibbi, The Nation 1999

When the Financial Journalists Were Indeed 'Pimping' for Wall Street

Here is a interesting moment in US financial journalism on CNBC. It does not describe the basis of the lawsuit very well, and does become a bit surreal at times. There is a nearly priceless moment at the end when the frustrated Attorney General of California Jerry Brown asks Dennis Kneale and Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, "Are you pimping for (State Street Bank) the defendant?"

You can watch the video and assess things for yourselves.

This question of the role of financial journalism brings to mind a little remembered vignette from the 1930's. After the Crash and the slide into Depression, there were a number of government investigations conducted into the varieties of financial fraud, of which there were many, and became the basis for a number of laws, most of which were overturned just prior to our current series of crises starting in 2000.

There was a particularly colorful character named A. Newton Plummer. He was a culprit, a bagman I think they were called, but also had become a whistle blower, a witness, after having been apprehended.

And a right effective witness he proved to be, since he had kept a suitcaseful of cancelled checks that showed that a great many, if not most, of the financial journalists in the major eastern media were regularly 'on the take' from Wall Street, in promoting certain ideas, certain stocks, legislation, whatever was required. Apparently in those days of stock operators and pools, prior to the SEC, it was a common practice to deceive the small investor through the manipulation of price action and news. Can you imagine that. And in less-regulated, naturally efficient markets.

We do not hear much about A. Newton Plummer. But he did write a book about what he had done as the bagman, after his testimony was buried, deeply. Probably to help restore public confidence in the troubled financial markets of the Great Depression.

The Great American Swindle Incorporated
Plummer, A. Newton
A. Newton Plummer, 1932. 2,000 copies.

I have a copy of his privately published book. It is an interesting read. Everything he said was documented. It was a time when the news media was undoubtedly 'pimping for Wall Street.' And they helped to create a credit bubble, the bubble that broke the world, and blamed it on a spontaneous mass delusion, and financial innovations like consumer credit.

While CNBC has its journalistic standards, this does not seem to be their finest moment. Both Dennis and Michelle are seasoned journalists. But Jerry Brown is a consummate politician, and is to be baited carefully, and at your peril.

CNBC Interview with the California Attorney General

Things are much more sophisticated these days, and the times of 'yellow journalism' with moguls like W. Randoph Hearst starting wars and promoting causes using the power of their media conglomerates are a thing of the past.

But journalists who specialize in a specific sector all the time, whether it be finance or politicians, must be on their guard not to closely identify with the industry which they are supposed to be objectively covering. An emotional attachment can develop, a mindset can be imprinted, when you spend all day speaking with people who have a particular viewpoint of the world based on their own needs and objectives and biases.

And it still bothered me that I came away from this interview without understanding the nature of the lawsuit, and obtaining no real facts about it. Dennis Kneale seems to imply that the Pension funds were promised a specific price and it was delivered, and California was merely griping about the deal unjustifiably. And then Michelle engaged in what might be charitably called an ad hominem attack.

So here are the facts as reported by The New York Times:

Still, the lawsuit raises troubling questions about the bank’s practices and controls. It grew out of an inquiry by California state investigators who were looking into claims made against State Street by unidentified whistle-blowers that accused the bank of adding a secret and substantial markup to the price of their currency trades. The whistleblowers alleged that the scheme cost State Street clients about $400 million annually and dated back to 1998.

According to the California Attorney General, State Street executed about $35.2 billion in currency trades for Calpers, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, and Calstrs, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, from 2001 to this fall.

State Street tellingly referred to the state pension funds as “dumb” clients since they allowed the bank to handle foreign exchange transactions for them, according to a complaint filed by the whistleblowers. Smart clients, it said, traded directly with the bank and obtained better rates.

The lawsuit contends that State Street concealed fraudulent pricing practices by entering false exchange rates into electronic trading databases and reporting false prices in the account statements that it provided Calpers and Calstrs. The lawsuit also accuses State Street of deliberately failing to include time stamp data in its reports so that the pension funds could not verify the actual cost of the trade.

It sounds to me that State is being accused of conducting trades for a fee, but then padding the associated trades to skim a bit extra. This is not an unheard of practice, especially when a trading firm is dealing with what they consider to be a 'dumb client.' There is a mindset among some trading groups that says if you are dumb enough to do business with me, I am justified in ripping your face off, even if it is a little bit at a time. We will have to see how the court case proceeds to find out if the accusations are true.

Now, would it have been so hard for CNBC to find these facts out and ask about them rather than take such a stumbling and ill-prepared stance into the interview, and then insult the interviewee and disparage his motives?

They are capable of doing much better professional work than this.