Are we at the beginning of the end? Mortgage interests are now so low (the average rate on 30-year fixed mortgages was 4.87 percent Thursday, slightly higher than the 4.78 percent last week, but still the lowest level since 1971) that President Obama has begun urging Americans to refinance their homes so they can save money and start spending again. Presidential aide Larry Summers says the country is likely to see positive economic signs in the next few months. Wells Fargo Bank rallied stocks and surprised analysts Thursday when it predicted a strong $3 billion first-quarter profit, citing surging mortgage originations. And executives at the nation's biggest three banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citigroup -- say their operations were (at least by some measures) profitable in the first two months of this year, mainly because a resurgent debt market and equity trading lifted earnings in the investment banking divisions.

But we're not at the beginning of the end. I'm not even sure we're at the end of the beginning. All of these pieces of upbeat news are connected by one fact: the flood of money the Fed has been releasing into the economy. Of course mortage rates are declining, mortgage orginations are surging, and people and companies are borrowing more. So much money is sloshing around the economy that its price is bound to drop. And cheap money is bound to induce some borrowing. The real question is whether this means an economic turnaround. The answer is it doesn't.

Read more »

With the real economy continuing to shrink, and unemployment or underemployment now claiming almost one out of six American workers, the economy will almost surely be more than $1 trillion short of its capacity this year, and another $1 trillion short next year. That means the $787 billion stimulus package covering 2009 and 2010 won't nearly do the trick-- even if every federal dollar of it stimulates $1.5 dollars in private spending (about the most that can be expected). Don't count on the bank bailouts to stimulate much of anything except fat paychecks for bank executives and directors. Unless or until Americans get their jobs back and feel more secure about the future, they won't borrow.

Sinking or vanishing American incomes are also causing tax revenues to drop. That's not much of a problem for the federal government, which can run deficits. But most state governments are required by their state constitutions to balance their budgets. Even though the states will be getting some stimulus money, their revenues are falling even faster.

Read more »

Just because I lost a big chunk of my total retirement savings over the last year doesn't mean I should be upset that 25 hedge-fund managers reaped a total of $11.6 billion during the same interval, according to Institutional Investor's Alpha Magazine -- including $2.5 billion for James Simons of Renaissance Technologies and $2 billion for John Paulson. (To be included on the list, you had to take home more than $75 million.)

I do admit to being irked that some of what these guys earn is taxed at a 15 percent rate because the earnings are treated as capital gains, while I'm just about to be walloped by the Internal Revenue Service come April 15.

Read more »

Tim Geithner said on Sunday's Face the Nation that the Treasury might fire the heads of big banks that depend on financing from the federal government, just as it summarily deposed Rick Wagoner, the former CEO of General Motors -- and before Wagoner, the heads of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. "Where that requires a change in management and the board, then we will do that," said Geithner.

I suppose it's comforting to know our government stands ready to fire corporate executives and directors whenever taxpayer money is on the line. But I suspect Geithner's new tough line is mostly designed to reassure a public that's lost all faith in the wisdom of bailing out Wall Street.

Read more »