Google Zeitgeist has listed the most searched news terms in the United States for 2009. Among the top categories were economy, health care, the Senate, green energy and the bailout.
"Swine flu" led the headline news searches, followed by "inauguration" and "Limbaugh". Queries about the bailout led to acronyms: "AIG", "TARP", and "GM" were the top three searches.
"Kennedy" was the top search among those interested in the U.S. Senate, and "Obama" led the list for queries about health care reform, with "HR 3200," the House reform bill, and "universal health care" in the second and third slot.
When it came to the economy, the top search term was "crisis", followed by "cash for clunkers". "Iceland", "California", and "recession" rounded out the top 5.
Among the issues that led to a spike in interest, "Nayda Suleman," the woman who had eight babies, topped the list. "Somali pirates" came in fourth place and "balloon boy" floated in at fifth.
Big search spikes also followed real life disasters, from the earthquake in Italy to the fires in Los Angeles.
The full GZ list is here.
(found via Nieman Journalism Lab)
Showing posts with label bailout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bailout. Show all posts
Dec 1, 2009
Nov 25, 2008
Preservation*
The argument over whether to call hundreds of billions of dollars flowing out of government coffers and into private banks a "bailout package" or "rescue plan" seems short-sighted to me. Neither term does a sufficient job of capturing the consequences of what's being done, and both imply a positive outcome.
A better and more frightening term is "preservation plan." In trying to prevent a complete meltdown in the financial sector we are preserving a system that is not sustainable.
In some ways our response to the credit crisis reminds me of our decision to fight fires in once remote wilderness areas. Intervention becomes necessary because we have chosen to develop next to forestland. At the same time, intervention interrupts a natural process, making future fires burn hotter and more destructively. Logic says we should let the fires burn, but that means putting people's homes and lives at risk. Preserving homes and lives increases future risk and encourages more building next to forestland.
The risk of failure in resolving the short-term crisis seems to require that we ignore the long-term consequences. How does one undo a cycle of bad decision-making after the cycle has begun?
This financial crisis appears to be circling in the same vicious manner. Intervention becomes necessary because we have become dependent on consumer spending and rising home values to keep our economy moving, and avoid a massive recession, bank failures and job losses. Intervention means propping up a consumer economy that demands more and more injections of credit to survive, whether they come from the government or mortgages or credit cards. Logic says we should let the whole mess collapse on itself, but that puts people's homes and lives at risk. Preserving homes and lives increases future risk and encourages people to go on spending the way they had before.
After all, what will the solution look like but a return to what we now consider to be normal?
*UPDATE: Just how addicted are we to credit? Banks continue to hand out credit cards with limits that have no bearing in reality, despite a rising risk of defaults. An anonymous banker complains to the New York Times that until banks start checking to see if customers can afford to pay back their lines of credit, the cycle of failure will continue. Which means more fires to put out.
A better and more frightening term is "preservation plan." In trying to prevent a complete meltdown in the financial sector we are preserving a system that is not sustainable.
In some ways our response to the credit crisis reminds me of our decision to fight fires in once remote wilderness areas. Intervention becomes necessary because we have chosen to develop next to forestland. At the same time, intervention interrupts a natural process, making future fires burn hotter and more destructively. Logic says we should let the fires burn, but that means putting people's homes and lives at risk. Preserving homes and lives increases future risk and encourages more building next to forestland.
The risk of failure in resolving the short-term crisis seems to require that we ignore the long-term consequences. How does one undo a cycle of bad decision-making after the cycle has begun?
This financial crisis appears to be circling in the same vicious manner. Intervention becomes necessary because we have become dependent on consumer spending and rising home values to keep our economy moving, and avoid a massive recession, bank failures and job losses. Intervention means propping up a consumer economy that demands more and more injections of credit to survive, whether they come from the government or mortgages or credit cards. Logic says we should let the whole mess collapse on itself, but that puts people's homes and lives at risk. Preserving homes and lives increases future risk and encourages people to go on spending the way they had before.
After all, what will the solution look like but a return to what we now consider to be normal?
*UPDATE: Just how addicted are we to credit? Banks continue to hand out credit cards with limits that have no bearing in reality, despite a rising risk of defaults. An anonymous banker complains to the New York Times that until banks start checking to see if customers can afford to pay back their lines of credit, the cycle of failure will continue. Which means more fires to put out.
Sep 30, 2008
This street is my street, this street is your street
Bipartisanship in America is the practice of taking complex problems and turning them into sound bites - preferably ones that create false divisions.
Take, for instance, the bailout package being contemplated by Congress. After rendering the debate of all the fat of thought and nuance, Republicans and Democrats came together to boil the problem down into a simple concept: Main Street versus Wall Street.
As regular Americans spit bile at the thought of rewarding Wall Street Fat Cats with a $700-billion check for robbing their own banks, the Wall Street fat cats are suffering a massive panic attack over Main Street's woeful misunderstanding of the dangers overleveraging and undercapitalization will have on an ever-tightening credit market.
The thing is Wall Street and Main Street are two sides of the same street. Regular Americans are watching the crisis unfold on flat-screen TVs purchased with credit cards, in homes purchased by mortgages, with cars in the driveway purchased by loans. Wall Street force-fed our credit addiction through easy terms meant to fluff up household bottom lines as the trickle down failed to create real wealth. In the process, WS got addicted to its own supply of magical derivative-based flimflam. Now we're all jonesing some liquid credit.
I can't say whether the bailout package that went down yesterday is the right answer. And I do subscribe to the old adage that the rich are different - they do have more money. Way, WAY more money. That has to change. But in the meantime, enough of this fake suburban populism. It only makes our politicians believe what they're saying.
Take, for instance, the bailout package being contemplated by Congress. After rendering the debate of all the fat of thought and nuance, Republicans and Democrats came together to boil the problem down into a simple concept: Main Street versus Wall Street.
As regular Americans spit bile at the thought of rewarding Wall Street Fat Cats with a $700-billion check for robbing their own banks, the Wall Street fat cats are suffering a massive panic attack over Main Street's woeful misunderstanding of the dangers overleveraging and undercapitalization will have on an ever-tightening credit market.
The thing is Wall Street and Main Street are two sides of the same street. Regular Americans are watching the crisis unfold on flat-screen TVs purchased with credit cards, in homes purchased by mortgages, with cars in the driveway purchased by loans. Wall Street force-fed our credit addiction through easy terms meant to fluff up household bottom lines as the trickle down failed to create real wealth. In the process, WS got addicted to its own supply of magical derivative-based flimflam. Now we're all jonesing some liquid credit.
I can't say whether the bailout package that went down yesterday is the right answer. And I do subscribe to the old adage that the rich are different - they do have more money. Way, WAY more money. That has to change. But in the meantime, enough of this fake suburban populism. It only makes our politicians believe what they're saying.
Sep 29, 2008
Slip, sliding away*, **
The bailout plan appears to be going down in flames in the House of Representatives, although the vote has been kept open to do some heavy duty arm twisting and turn 11 recalcitrant lawmakers around.
The Dow plunged more than 700 points as traders saw the bailout wasn't passing and is now down about 460 points (although it could be up or down 100 by the time I hit the button to publish this).
Oh, and Wachovia and Washington Mutual have disappeared.
*11:08 a.m. PST: The bill has failed, at least for now... Dow down 620 points, but swinging wildly like a cornered and wounded animal.
**11:14 a.m. PST: The New York Times reports: House Rejects Bailout Plan, 228-205; Leadership Plans Second Attempt to Pass Bill. Stories in the Washington Post and NYT.
Also, a federal grand jury subpoenas documents from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
UPDATE: Read the roll call of today's vote here. Interestingly, given that Pelosi hails from the Bay Area, the bill would have passed had she been able to convince 13 of her fellow California Democrats to switch their votes from 'nay' to 'yea.'
In all, 15 California Democrats voted against the bailout package: Adam Schiff of Pasadena; Loretta Sanchez of Garden Grove; Linda Sanchez of Lakewood; Joe Baca of San Bernardino; Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles; Grace Napolitano of Santa Fe Springs; Lucille Roybal-Allard of East Los Angeles; Hilda Solis of El Monte; Brad Sherman of Sherman Oaks; Mike Thompson of Napa; Lynn Woolsey of Marin; Barbara Lee of Oakland; Diane Watson of Los Angeles; Pete Stark of Fremont; and, Bob Filner of San Diego.
That's nearly half of the 34 Democrats in the California delegation. On the other side, nine of the 19 California Republicans opposed the bill.
UPDATE II: As of the closing bell, the Dow had fallen 778 points, the worst single-day drop in two decades.
The Dow plunged more than 700 points as traders saw the bailout wasn't passing and is now down about 460 points (although it could be up or down 100 by the time I hit the button to publish this).
Oh, and Wachovia and Washington Mutual have disappeared.
*11:08 a.m. PST: The bill has failed, at least for now... Dow down 620 points, but swinging wildly like a cornered and wounded animal.
**11:14 a.m. PST: The New York Times reports: House Rejects Bailout Plan, 228-205; Leadership Plans Second Attempt to Pass Bill. Stories in the Washington Post and NYT.
Also, a federal grand jury subpoenas documents from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
UPDATE: Read the roll call of today's vote here. Interestingly, given that Pelosi hails from the Bay Area, the bill would have passed had she been able to convince 13 of her fellow California Democrats to switch their votes from 'nay' to 'yea.'
In all, 15 California Democrats voted against the bailout package: Adam Schiff of Pasadena; Loretta Sanchez of Garden Grove; Linda Sanchez of Lakewood; Joe Baca of San Bernardino; Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles; Grace Napolitano of Santa Fe Springs; Lucille Roybal-Allard of East Los Angeles; Hilda Solis of El Monte; Brad Sherman of Sherman Oaks; Mike Thompson of Napa; Lynn Woolsey of Marin; Barbara Lee of Oakland; Diane Watson of Los Angeles; Pete Stark of Fremont; and, Bob Filner of San Diego.
That's nearly half of the 34 Democrats in the California delegation. On the other side, nine of the 19 California Republicans opposed the bill.
UPDATE II: As of the closing bell, the Dow had fallen 778 points, the worst single-day drop in two decades.
Sep 28, 2008
Bailout breakthrough
Congress has reached a tentative deal on a bailout bill, which should be ready for a vote on Monday.
Sep 25, 2008
Bailing on the bailout
Much like a mirage, the Wall Street bailout deal that was said to be imminent this morning recedes on the horizon.
Oh, and so does Washington Mutual.
Oh, and so does Washington Mutual.
Sep 16, 2008
Fed bailing out AIG
The Federal Reserve's cherry-picking-rescue-plan approach to Wall Street (save Bear Stearns, let Lehman Brothers fail) continues with the Fed agreeing to loan the country's largest insurer, American International Group, $85 billion to save it from bankruptcy. In exchange, the Fed will get an 80 percent stake in the company.
This is an extraordinary turn of events. And a bizarre one - A quasi-public agency has decided to spend billions of dollars to buy a controlling stake in a company that no one in the private sector was willing to buy. There's no way of knowing the repercussions of this; although the Fed clearly decided the known consequences were more alarming than the unknown ones.
Time's Justin Fox tries to explain:
This is an extraordinary turn of events. And a bizarre one - A quasi-public agency has decided to spend billions of dollars to buy a controlling stake in a company that no one in the private sector was willing to buy. There's no way of knowing the repercussions of this; although the Fed clearly decided the known consequences were more alarming than the unknown ones.
Time's Justin Fox tries to explain:
Confused? You're not alone. The best case for the bailout seems to be that nobody has the faintest idea what the consequences for financial markets of AIG's failure would be, but they were afraid that it could lead to total chaos. The biggest fears had to do with the credit default swaps, which AIG appears to have sold in large quantities to practically every financial institution of significance on the planet. RBC Capital Markets analyst Hank Calenti estimated Tuesday that its failure would cost its swap counterparties $180 billion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
