The Case for $350 Billion – New York Times Style

Here’s a very interesting “News Analysis” from the NY Times that reads more like a big government propaganda piece than an actual analysis.  It makes the case for giving banks more money, and how the TARP plan so far has pretty much done it’s job.

I started reading it, and a couple of paragraphs really got me going.  Here’s the first one:

The most glaring example that the banking system needs even more help is Citigroup. Though it already has received $45 billion from the Treasury, it is in such dire straits that it is breaking itself into parts

Huh?  That’s why the banking system needs to get fixed?  So what if it is breaking itself up?  It got into this mess by comingling their investment banking and commercial banking.  If they have to break up, then at least they can separate their good units from the ones that are strapped with bad debt and underperforming assets.  That’s a good thing!

Here’s another gem:

Even some of the bailout program’s harshest critics acknowledge that things most likely would be even worse without it, and that the bailout had accomplished its most important goal, which was to prevent a complete collapse of the financial system.

However, they don’t name any names or quote anyone here.  It’s just what these “news analysts” want to say.  You can’t definitively say that we’re better off after the bailout.  Maybe the banks are better, but you and me?  We’re still screwed.  The financial collapse didn’t happen overnight like it would have without a bailout.  Instead, we’re making it happen over months, and dragging the process out, leading to more hardship for all of us.

And here’s some pure comedy:

Regulators require banks to keep a healthy cushion of capital. But this time around, the banks are struggling to plug their deepening holes. Private investors are scarce. For all but a small group of healthy banks, bankers and analysts say, the government may be the only investor left.

Obviously, the authors of the article have no idea of how the US banking system works at all.  The first line is a dead give away.  Healthy cushion of capital?  You mean that 10% of all the money they loan out?  Fractional reserve banking does not require that much of a cushion.

This is an article full of stuff, but little substance.  It reads like an article trying to dumb down things enough to sway people to the views of the author, and it is not very persuasive.  The more I read the NY Times, the more I realize how their “analysis” is really written with a pro big government stance.  Please go out and educate yourself and read other sources of news and learn about our consumer based economy and our sham of a banking system.  Then you won’t be swayed by propaganda from news agencies like the New York Times.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “The Case for $350 Billion – New York Times Style”

  1. smellytourist Says:

    You’re absolutely right. I’m linking to your blog, because it’s good.
    from
    http://www.smellytourist.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: