When ‘reporting’ is replaced by opinions

Time magazine contributors Andy Serwer and Allan Sloan give us an article in the latest issue meant to explain what is going own with the current financial crisis (better explained here).    Serwer and Sloan, for all their “combined 65 years of writing about business” can’t seem to produce any coherent or unbiased reporting on this crisis and the reasons for it.  They just fall back lazily on an argument that has been circulating the last few days, placing the blame at the doorsteps of the free market and deregulation (neither of which is the true culprit).  As a matter of fact, they begin a supposed explanatory portion of the article entitled “The Roots of the Problems,” then proceed to NOT giving us ‘the roots of the problem.’

The Roots of the Problem
How did this happen, and why over the past 14 months have we suddenly seen so much to fear? Think of it as payback. Fear is so pervasive today because for years the financial markets — and many borrowers — showed no fear at all. Wall Streeters didn’t have to worry about regulation, which was in disrepute, and they didn’t worry about risk, which had supposedly been magically whisked away by all sorts of spiffy nouveau products — derivatives like credit-default swaps. (More on those later.) This lack of fear became a hothouse of greed and ignorance on Wall Street — and on Main Street as well. When greed exceeds fear, trouble follows. Wall Street has always been a greedy place and every decade or so it suffers a blow resulting in a bout of hand-wringing and regret, which always seems to be quickly forgotten.

In this uninformative missive they expound with misinformation claiming that the culprit is–AHA, YOU GUESSED IT!–evil evil ‘deregulation’ and fat cat greed.  Although I do not doubt there is an ample degree of greed involved, stupidity and arrogance should also be given a fair shake as equal partners in this mess.  However, as my colleagues John Berlau (and here and audio here) and Hans Bader point out, there are other more culpable factors to blame as well (and also why a bail out won’t work).  As for the free market and deregulation–those nasty little devils–no such free-wheeling environment existed to justify them getting the blame for this one (sorry EU).

Serwer and Sloan offer us nothing more than an opinion piece presented as reporting the facts, and they cannot seem to even mask there disgust of those lousy Wall Streeters long enough to get through an entire article.

This latest go-round featured hedge-fund operators, leveraged-buyout boys (who took to calling themselves “private-equity firms”) and whiz-kid quants who devised and plugged in those new financial instruments, creating a financial Frankenstein the likes of which we had never seen. Great new fortunes were made, and with them came great new hubris. The newly minted masters of the universe even had the nerve to defend their ridiculous income tax break — much of the private-equity managers’ piece of their investors’ profits is taxed at the 15% capital-gains rate rather than at the normal top federal income tax rate of 35% — as being good for society. (”Hey, we’re creating wealth — cut us some slack.”)

On the topic of ‘tax breaks’ for those ‘dastardly’ private equity managers, they just lie–managers do not get a tax break, their income results from investment dividends which are taxed at 15% just like everyone else’s dividends are who invest in the market. This includes your pension, your mutual fund you have sacked away for retirement, etc.   It is also quite ironic that the least regulated of the financial industry, hedge funds and private equity, are doing fine despite the mess (and some were even wise enough to see it coming).

The financial collapse of highly-regulated financial entities (also here) is being used as a wedge to pry off the bits of free enterprise that still exists in this country.  Free-market capitalism’s good name has been tarnished by George W. Bush and most of the Republicans in Congress, who spout the rhetoric, but legislate in the exact opposite fashion.  (But all this is, of course, opinion–which I am at least not attempting to pass off as journalistic reporting).

Will this bail out be the harbinger of America’s slouch toward socialism?  Who knows?!  It won’t be good though, whoever takes the White House.  One guy will just get us there quicker than the other.

-GH

Person John Berlau
Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts


This Post has 5 Responses


Comments

  1. Topcat says:

    Gary,

    You say the root of the problem is 'better explained' by the WSJ article that ran today, and reject the Times piece as a mere opinion piece. Both pieces are opinion, with neither providing much in the way of facts to support their position. You just prefer the WSJ piece, because it is consistent with your worldview.

    But the WSJ article does make one assertion utterly refuted by the facts. Calomiris and Wallison claim that 'without government encouragement, banks would never have offered such dodgy loans.' The implication is clear: “Only non-economic, political considerations would lead to such irrational decision-making.” So what, then, accounts for the emergence - and collapse - of the derivatives market, and AIGs implosion? These players were under no such pressure to create these instruments, or step up and expose themselve to the risks of the 'dodgy loans' the banks were 'forced' to make. But they did. Kinda ruins the argument that Wall Street was strong-armed into taking these risks…

  2. ghoward says:

    Topcat,
    If you were to actually read what I posted, I state that -yes- the WSJ piece explains things better by actually giving an explanation, as opposed to not giving any explanation whatsoever. The Time piece offers no proof, no process, no reasoning for the actions of these institutions except “they are greedy and evil.” And I point out that the Time piece also just gets it wrong on blaming deregulation, which is patently false. Any reporter of worth could have simply googled federal banking regulation and found that the industry is highly regulated and has not been subject to any recent de-regulatory frenzy as is claimed by the Time 'reporters.' So, if by pointing out the fact that this report contained no facts about the reason for the crisis, and pointing to a piece with at least a basis in fact bristles your sensibilities, tough luck. And to make it clear, I do not simply imply that “non-economic, political considerations” led to this mess, I wholeheartedly support that as a fact along with the other reasons I mention: greed, stupidity, and arrogance–which were all amplified by political intervention.
    Also, it is interesting you pose the question about AIG, proving you have not fully read my post where I link to an article on the AIG mess as well. And in that article (by greedy greedy WSJ writers who obviously don't care about poor people) they explain and give reasons for AIG's failure. Please read up, and get back to me when a real debate can take place. -GH

  3. ghoward says:

    Also, let's be clear, the Time piece is being passed of as journalism–its a cover story. Whereas the WSJ piece is actually in the 'Opinion' section of the paper, and it is a clearer analysis than the other (in my opinion).
    Last I checked, Time has an official 'Commentary' section which delineates opinion writing from journalistic reporting. That is where this story should have gone.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] - Too Cranky Today To Formulate Coherent Thoughts. saved by rocknroll2008-11-16 - When ‘reporting’ is replaced by opinions saved by fredlee2008-11-15 - From The Archive: August 2006 The New Magazines saved by [...]

  • Popular
  • Most Comments
  • Most Emails