9 banks fail - evening news? Underwater Pumpkin Carving.

Well, it was on Reuters. . .

But I agree, if the media appears to be in full on "puff and fluff" mode on the economy. Of course their advertisers will demand that. The Christmas scene is upon us and there's going to be a lot of companies that fold this season if consumer confidence isn't all whipped up.

This forthcoming second "dip" is going to be an interesting one.

It's pretty difficult to find another example where there's been such an unbelievable disconnect between facts and reality as how many if not most view our current economic "crisis." The pure fact that our "event" we're undergoing is termed "a recession" and that we're looking for a "recovery" is core to the issue. This isn't a recession, this is a collapse of the western dollar backed credit system. It hasn't been fixed. In fact it's a lot worse than it was a year ago.

Ah, but "truth can be bent a long ways without breaking by the gentle pressure of wishing. . " can't it.

Chooks, I've been noticing the increase in fluff news lately. The other night on one of the local news channels they "reported" on what a great place Las Vegas is to visit. A commercial thinly disguised as news if I ever saw one. Then they cut to a commercial break and the commercial was...you guessed it, a Hawaiian Airlines ad telling us how wonderful it is for Hawaii folks to fly to Vegas to gamble. Geez, ya think big business has any influence on the media?

Fwiw, PBS aired Bill Moyers' interview with David Galbraith (son or grandson? of liberal economist Kenneth Galbraith). Suffice it to say that David has a progressive liberal view of the world. DG says our economy's at the bottom right now, but we're not going "up" anytime soon. He went on to say that the biggest problem with the current administration's approach is that they are trying to reset the economy to where it was 5 or 6 years ago, a mistake since we'll just repeat the errors of our past. His take is that the bottom is going to be a long plateau, and that we should be looking 20-30 years into the future rather than 5-6 years in the past, learn to live with what we have which means chucking the illusion of "unlimited prosperity". (Can't argue with that point.) His big assumption however, is that "the government is very, very powerful", and therefore has the ability to turn things around with long-term policies that focus on clean energy, global warming, education, etc.

Conspicuously missing from the discussion was information on who's going to pay for all this--and still allow us to pay back the Chinese as we sink deeper in the red and the interest piles up. Ya think the U.S. government can declare bankruptcy and just not pay 'em back? Or perhaps appeal to their altruism? David G. is much smarter than I am, so maybe I missed something...

There's still no mention of the failed banks in the printed newspaper today.  Business news is amazingly sparse in the paper, actually.  They have the stocks printed but that's it for the entire subject of economics.

Generally they try to gloss over the lack of news and make it seem there's something of substance there, but all their "news" is fluff and air and it's becoming more obvious.  How can folks make informed and proper decisions if they have no valid data?  This problem is huge and will need everyone making reasonable decisions to improve things, at least, that's what I'd think, but apparently those in charge of the news think otherwise.

Just for the folks on the board, though, are you prepared for a bank holiday?  Got enough stuff to see you through several months without needing to go to town?

News "sources" are businesses, after all, and their primary role is to deliver a product for views, profits for shareholders, and traffic for advertisers. It's hardly surprising that it would be any other way. We have a society where it has become acceptable to consider oneself informed with only the most cursory understanding of an issue. In fact, it's considered tasteless to ask intelligent questions. If intelligent questions are asked, it's appropriate to reply with snark. Very comfortable for some, I guess. As for people making informed decisions, they don't feel obligated to be informed. Being informed at this point is "I've done a 5 minute google search on the issue and I've got it down."  And, unfortunately, that 5 minute google search is often all the expertise it requires to be head and shoulders about the rest.

Coupled with such an attitude is the absolute ease where by information on near any issue is readily accessible. For those interested in the data, it exists, at least on the vast majority of issues.

What can we say but we've got a society that prides itself on being entitled and stupid--in fact entitled to be stupid. Not sustainable, I suggest.

I guess I hang out in the wrong places.  There are quite a few areas where exact expertise is required and intelligent questions are the only ones allowed.  Find some engineers, dedicated hobbyists, craftspeople, etc., and ask them about their areas of work or interest.  There will be some precise answers which are determined from hands on personal viewpoints.  Google will still be a part of that, but it is Google information heavily filtered through a screen of real world knowledge.  There are a few finance folks I can make inquiries of, but most of them aren't at the high end of banking which is where they'd be privy to the banks failing data.

So why do we as a society have this aversion to not finding true information?  Wouldn't folks able to sift through the admittedly horrendous amount of data available to find the true data streams end up able to make better decisions which one would believe would increase their health, wealth and well being?

In this particular instance - banks failing - if folks aren't aware of the situation and the banks go on a "bank holiday", the unaware and unprepared (being aware doesn't make you prepared) end up in a world of hurt.

A friend on Oahu said he finally saw some mention of the nine banks failing late on Saturday so I guess the news is finally filtering down to the general media.  Hmm, he didn't specify where he saw it, though, and he's the kinda guy who listens to data shows/news as opposed to sitcoms.

I agree about "expertise." The problem I believe is that people who have expertise in one narrow field of study seem to be unaware of the fact that while they have may possess some expertise in "x" they may well not know jack about other things. There are few expert "generalists" and this is the sort of expertise that is required to understand the current state of affairs.

Heavens yes!  Ask a double doc anything requiring common sense and you will get a show.  A friend of mine who's doctorates are in chemistry and math was famous for being hauled in by the coast guard generally with things like a broken mast or shredded sails.  His explanation would usually involve some sort of clash between real world items and the way they should have mathematically behaved.

The generalists don't have enough indepth understanding to make valid choices in a specific area and the specialists don't have enough general knowledge to make a properly informed decision either.  I guess that is why we have the role of consultants.

So does this explain why newscasters ask actors political questions?  Just to show they don't know jack or what?

Years ago as the Director of the Chico Peace and Justice Center, just prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, I proposed a coordinated closure of personal bank accounts, and total default on all crediit cards, rather than ineffective marches. The group was aghast: what will happen, what will they do?
The fear of the government (under W mind you) was palpable.
But, you want change, yes?
Not if we can't tell what they might do, martial law, economic collapse...

Well, it happened anyway, but at their hands, not ours.
I no longer put any more than a couple of hundred in my bank, use cash the rest. Keeps a lid on spending, and allows more freedom to move, to negotiate (Cash will be King again, my mom used to say, a Depression-era child), and to keep the banks from closing down on us or the G-men from confiscating...

Aww, but the marching is so much more fun, you get to make signs and there's giant puppets. . .

Welcome to the group, you'll enjoy it here!

Of course you can add CIT to the list, 6th largest bankruptcy in history. Yawn.

Recovery! Christmas!

Green shoots!  Oh, wait, that's just guinea grass.  Darn. 

What sort of tangibles should we be putting money into these days, does anyone have any ideas?  Garden equipment?

Chooks,

My opinion, ...

Invest your effort and time in the land and invest your money in tools and skills that improve your personal productivity.  Make your land productive.  Pay off all debt. Invest in land sensibly (for what it can produce, if worked properly).

Remember, at some point in the future, Americans will spend a larger percentage of their [reduced] income on necessities (food, water, health, security and clothes) and economies will likely be more local (transportation will be more expensive and imported goods will be hugely expensive).  Communities will become tighter.

More Americans will work in factories or skilled crafts and vocations: farming and related enterprises will be back/more in vogue.  A liberal arts education will be a luxury.  There should be a place for professionals (and professional based educations), but a less complicated world will likely shift the demand (away from lawyering and some business activities).  Be weary of investing in too much [narrow] education.

I hope credit use is less prevalent.  Investing in paper assets will be different. People will have less cash.  Debt slavery will be less lucrative for the rich and powerful.

Invest in less work, more free time, and more personal and community happiness.

Worry less about investing money/profit.

Sam

This is sort of part of the "worry less about investing money for profit", it is more about "buy what now before it gets too expensive to own?"  We have a lease on some farm land but lack the proper tools to get it productive, let alone profitable.  I keep thinking I need a new scythe although I've already got one but a scythe isn't big enough to deal with the amount of mowing I need to do.  I need to till the soil and plant a lot more seeds but part time one person, this very small farm is more than enough to keep me busy.  I need equipment to amplify the work.  Tractors are nice although they need fuel.  Wonder if a diesel tractor can be run on Jay's rocket fuel? 

On the homefront, a new table saw might be a nice thing since the bearings are going out on my existing one. 

Still, these aren't exactly tangible assets, the idea is to conserve whatever "wealth" we have (which isn't much) in the upcoming devaluation of the dollar.  Perhaps buying renminbi and yuan would be the thing to do?  Although, I'm not sure how one would do that.  I think there are exchanges for Japanese yen but the exchange rate right now favors the yen.

Oh well, on a more day-to-day basis, the big annual turkey sale just started today, so I'll go to town and stock up on the year's supply of turkey.  For the carnivores out there, buy turkeys now and put them in the freezer since this is the only time of the year they are affordable!