Two Big Stories: Financial Rescue Gridlock? & Big Newspapers Cry for Help

1) Financial Rescue Gridlock? Obama vs.Bush
The eye opening business article today is actually a political article in the Wall Street Journal by Jonathan Weisman and Deborah Solomon who report the current administration and incoming administration are at something of a stalemate on the financial rescue/recovery. Here's the operable sentence from their report which you need to read, "Treasury officials believe Obama aides are being short-sighted in their refusal to offer more policy and lobbying assistance, while the transition team sees an administration looking to be rescued from its own miscues."

Here's why you care: What they are talking about is not just a stimulus package, but also whether to green light the FDIC proposal to help mortgage holders underwater refinance. Why You Care doesn't take political sides, instead would like to make an objective observation. The longer it takes to implement all of the recovery tools, the longer the recovery itself gets postponed. In real terms that means anything that can be done to shorten the durations means less jobs lost, less businesses folding/shrinking, and fewer homes in foreclosure.

Meanwhile, speaking of the Obama economic team, the LA Times' Ralph Vartabedian has a well written piece looking at former Federal Reserve head Paul Volcker's rescue suggestions.

Here's why you care: You care because he's advising Obama. Give this story a quick read when you have a moment because it points the way the Obama team may take in the months ahead. Remember, President-elect Obama noted this weekend there would be more pain ahead, this report on Volcker tracks that sentiment.

2) Big Newspapers Cry for Help in the Business Pages
The LA Times' James Rainey reports that the paper's parent, the Tribune Co. which also own the Chicago Tribune, has filed for bankruptcy. And if that were not enough to catch your eye, the NY Times' Richard Perez-Pena reports that the NY Times Co. is going to borrow $225 million against its NYC headquarters. In other words, the NY Times is taking out a mortgage to make ends meet.

Here's why you care: As many Why You Care readers know we are convinced that if you could just read the business pages with a better base knowledge then you'd see the coming economic waves on the horizon and be able to adjust accordingly. Much of what is happening today was warned some time ago in the business pages. The problem is that you didn't know you cared about credit default swaps way back when. Thus, if newspapers continue to shrink staffs - or in the case of community newspapers go under - then the crucial economic reporting will disappear. Blogs are helpful to gather links, and some have interesting opinions, but real reporting on a daily basis comes from full time journalists. Loose that then what have you got?

Why You Care continues to suggest alternative business models to those who will listen. You know where to find us.

Here's why you care one more time: We can understand why the NY Times is turning to its real estate. It is popular for most businesses to say that their employees are their greatest asset. If that's true, then a business' real estate is its greatest resource. You might say, well our business doesn't own but rather leases. We'd then say, well that still might be a resource.