Our financial system is crumbling this week.

[TimeForGuinness]

I think we should have done something a lot cooler with the 1.3 trillion we've spent so far bailing out the crooks.

We could have bought enough booze to drunkify the country until the recession blew over.

[Jocephus]

legalizin' da herb would chill everyone out AND bring a boost to the economy

[Leroy]

Freddie Mac Losses By The Calendar

Full Quarter: $24. billion
Each Day: $265 million
Each Hour: $11 million
Each Minute: $184,000
Each Second: $3000

Not picking on this article in particular, but people need to stop doing this. It's a [expletive]-load of money, I get it. If you can't comprehend that $24 billlion is a lot of money, I doubt breaking it down into smaller increments is going to help.

Why don't you just ban me already?

[Leroy]

What would it be in nanoseconds?

I don't know for sure, but it has something to do with pie.

[ghostrunner]

Freddie Mac Losses By The Calendar

Full Quarter: $24. billion
Each Day: $265 million
Each Hour: $11 million
Each Minute: $184,000
Each Second: $3000

Not picking on this article in particular, but people need to stop doing this. It's a [expletive]-load of money, I get it. If you can't comprehend that $24 billlion is a lot of money, I doubt breaking it down into smaller increments is going to help.

Why don't you just ban me already?

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

[Arthur Dent]

Freddie Mac Losses By The Calendar

Full Quarter: $24. billion
Each Day: $265 million
Each Hour: $11 million
Each Minute: $184,000
Each Second: $3000

Not picking on this article in particular, but people need to stop doing this. It's a [expletive]-load of money, I get it. If you can't comprehend that $24 billlion is a lot of money, I doubt breaking it down into smaller increments is going to help.

I sort of disagree. One of the big flaws in reporting on economic issues is the use of meaningless large numbers. If they had said that the losses were $240 billion or $2.4 billion, how many people would really know the difference? It just gets put in the category of incomprehensibly large number. To be meaningful, these numbers need to be compared to something else that people do understand. For example, you can say that Mars orbits 150 million miles from the Sun. What exactly does that mean? Not much. Say instead that Mars orbits 67% farther out than Earth, and you get some real understanding. In this case, breaking down the loss by seconds is pretty unhelpful, but they could give it as a percentage of assets or express the costs to taxpayers by giving the average cost per household. Writing $24 billion by itself is pretty useless.

[Leroy]

Freddie Mac Losses By The Calendar

Full Quarter: $24. billion
Each Day: $265 million
Each Hour: $11 million
Each Minute: $184,000
Each Second: $3000

Not picking on this article in particular, but people need to stop doing this. It's a [expletive]-load of money, I get it. If you can't comprehend that $24 billlion is a lot of money, I doubt breaking it down into smaller increments is going to help.

Why don't you just ban me already?

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Yeah, baby!

[KyCardinalFan]

The Real Problem with CNBC
Cenk Uygur
Posted March 11, 2009 | 03:02 AM (EST)

I know that Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer have been in a bit of a "fight" lately. Of course, it's not really a fight because Stewart isn't doing this to pick a fight with Cramer or because he doesn't like him. He's making fun of him -- because that's what he does.

Stewart also makes fun of Obama from time to time (check out him ripping Obama here). Does this mean he doesn't like Obama? No, it means he's a comedian. Over the last couple of days Cramer and Joe Scarborough have been using that word as a pejorative, but that's the guy's job -- to make people laugh. They are pissed because he's good at it.

But if they think there is a kernel of truth in what Stewart is saying -- which, of course, is why they're actually angry -- they're right. Stewart also wants to make you think about what the role of the media is. And when you think about that in regard to CNBC, Jim Cramer is the least of their problems.

In fact, I don't blame Cramer at all (disclaimer: he's been on our show and I had a friendly interaction with him personally once). Everybody knows what Cramer does -- he yells and screams about his stock predictions. That's his job. You'd have to be crazy to think Cramer knows everything and that you should invest all of your money purely based on what he says. And I think he would be the first to admit that.

That's not the problem with CNBC. The real problem is their reporting -- or lack thereof. The CNBC reporters and anchors make the Bush press corps look like draconian inquisitors. They are obsessed with access. This is a problem with all of the media, and something Jon Stewart points out all the time. But it is particularly acute at CNBC (and all other business news channels).

I have a close friend who works at a business news station -- and here is the worst kept secret in show business -- it's all about the access. If you piss off the CEOs or the companies, you're going to get a call from your boss. You have jeopardized our relationship with them!

That is very thinly disguised code words for -- don't ever say anything negative about a company we cover otherwise your job is in the trouble. The message is clear -- go along to get along. This isn't journalism. It's public relations by another name.

CNBC never did any exposés about the enormous risks these financial companies took. They never exposed the insanity of the derivatives market. And they never told their audience that the executives of these companies have been robbing their shareholders blind. Because they didn't see that as their job. They saw their job as doing whatever it took to keep Wall Street happy and playing ball with them.

They were part of the broken system. There was no journalism going on at CNBC. That is what our underlying complaint is. That is what CNBC continues to miss to this day as they try to defend themselves by saying their words were taken out of context. The problem was the context!

Will they straighten ship and start doing real investigative journalism uncovering the abuses of Wall Street now that they have been called out. I doubt it. That's not how they're structured. They don't view the average guy in their audience or the American public overall as their main constituency. They view Wall Street as their constituency. So, they will continue to serve them.

I don't say this because I have some sort of axe to grind with CNBC. They didn't lose me any money (that was the upside of having no money to lose before the crash). I don't even begrudge them what they do. I get it. They do fluff pieces on Wall Street. So, if you want to know what the companies are telling the public, check out CNBC. That's also a service. Buyer beware. If you want hard hitting business journalism, look elsewhere.

I don't have a problem with that. The question is, does CNBC? If they can make their peace with that, then they should carry on. If they want to change that image, then they have to change the reality. It's up to them. I'm wildly indifferent either way (as long as they don't pretend to be something they're not). It depends on what they think their role is. And that's for them to decide.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygu ... 73761.html

[ghostrunner]

Freddie Mac Losses By The Calendar

Full Quarter: $24. billion
Each Day: $265 million
Each Hour: $11 million
Each Minute: $184,000
Each Second: $3000

Not picking on this article in particular, but people need to stop doing this. It's a [expletive]-load of money, I get it. If you can't comprehend that $24 billlion is a lot of money, I doubt breaking it down into smaller increments is going to help.

I sort of disagree. One of the big flaws in reporting on economic issues is the use of meaningless large numbers. If they had said that the losses were $240 billion or $2.4 billion how many people would really know the difference? It just gets put in the category of incomprehensibly large number. To be meaningful, these numbers need to be compared to something else that people do understand. For example, you can say that Mars orbits 150 million miles from the Sun. What exactly does that mean? Not much. Say instead that Mars orbits 67% farther out than Earth, and you get some real understanding. In this case, breaking down the loss by seconds is pretty unhelpful, but they could give it as a percentage of assets or express the costs to taxpayers by giving the average cost per household. Writing $24 billion by itself is pretty useless.

What does average cost per household tell you, though? That means nothing useful to me. I can't tell if it's good or bad. At least with $24 billion, if I'm so inclined I can see how it relates to their overall budget, or past earnings or losses. And I can break down billions into smaller parts with a calculator.


They write this:

It means that every second, Freddie Mac lost more than two weeks worth of the average American's income.

but a lot of large businesses have lost lots of money before. What it means to them is more important than how it relates to my income.

I don't know. I forget the comic, but I remember a bit that went something like "let me put that put in perspective for you - if you stack that amount in $1 dollar bills, it's $24 billion dollars."

[GatewaySnayke]

The Dow is back over 7,000; thus the Obama presidency must be declared a success.