I have only one question for those who speak of "green shoots":

What are you smoking?

Let's start with a really ugly report from The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government:

The trend in state and local tax collections has been clearly downward from 2005 growth that was unusually high, and 2006 growth rates that were more in line with historical averages. Figure 1 shows the four-quarter moving average of year-over-year growth in state tax collections and local tax collections, after adjusting for inflation. Year-over-year change in state taxes, adjusted for inflation, has averaged negative 1.1 percent over the last four quarters, down from the 1.4 percent average growth of a year ago and 3.4 percent of two years ago.

There are a number of graphs in that paper, one of which shows that right around January (the latest for which they have complete data) there is an uptick in Goods consumption. This is part of where the Kudlow "green shoot" brigade is getting their information from.

However, if you look at the graph, you will see that every year there is a similar tick upward in consumption, although the exact date of it does vary by a month or two.

Why?

It's called Christmas!

State Sales Tax Revenues tell the story. California is absolutely cratering, for example:

Sales taxes were $452 million lower (-50.9%) than last April, and personal income taxes were down $5.7 billion (-43.6%).

Fifty percent?! FIFTY?

California is responsible for thirteen percent of the total US GDP and if it were an independent nation it would be the tenth largest economy in the world.

The idea that we can have some sort of economic recovery while the sales tax receipts - which are a direct measurement of consumer activity - are down by half is pure insanity. Where is the economic activity that is going to create this "recovery"?

And let me remind everyone - sales tax receipts are not a lagging indicator, they tell you what is going on right now.

Now let's look at job losses in this recession compared to others. As written up in the NY Times:

A bottom? Where?

To be fair employment is a lagging indicator; there is no pickup in hiring for some time after the economy truly bottoms, usually about 6-9 months. The reason is that people are both slow to fire (they're nice) and slow to hire (they're not convinced the recovery will "take") and as such there is a lag in both the firings when things slow down and the hirings when things begin to recover.

Nonetheless, there is nothing to suggest that we're anywhere near the bottom of this cycle. Indeed, we've been setting records for the severity and duration of losses in the postwar era, surpassing the 81-83 duration and vastly surpassing all of the previous recessions in terms of depth.

Nor are the "programs" trotted out by Obama (and his predecessor, to be fair) doing anything. We recently learned that "Hope for Homeowners" made a grand total of..... wait for it..... 51 loans.

FIFTY ONE? No, that is not a misprint:

Senior federal housing officials say that of 51 loans made under the program, 50 were made by Melville, N.Y.-based Lend America, and those 50 loans are being held up pending ongoing federal investigations. The officials, who insisted on anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the matter, declined to offer specifics except to say anything from inadequate documentation to unethical practices could be the focus of the queries.

Remember, "Hope for Homeowners" was supposed to help four hundred thousand people stay in their homes.

The net closed loan count is fifty one over a period of six months.

Oh, and the reason for that article? The company responsible for 50 of the 51 loans is under investigation by The Department of Justice!

I would like to be optimistic on the economy and thus, the capital markets.

I refuse, however, to countenance and cheerlead for fraudulent "reporting" and false claims in the media in an attempt to prop up asset prices so that banks can issue stock into an overheated bubble market created through lies.

In my opinion, that is exactly what is going on here, and is an extension of the game-playing that occurred with the so-called "stress tests", as reported in the WSJ over the weekend:

The Federal Reserve significantly scaled back the size of the capital hole facing some of the nation's biggest banks shortly before concluding its stress tests, following two weeks of intense bargaining.

In addition, according to bank and government officials, the Fed used a different measurement of bank-capital levels than analysts and investors had been expecting, resulting in much smaller capital deficits.

....

The Fed's findings were less severe than some experts had been bracing for. A weeklong rally in bank stocks continued Friday, with the KBW Bank Stocks index surging 10%. Investors were especially relieved by the relatively small capital holes at regional banks. Shares of Fifth Third soared 59%, while Regions Financial Corp.'s $2.5 billion deficit led to a 25% leap in its stock.

Right.

The original numbers weren't what the banks wanted to hear, so they complained and got them changed. Investors were duped by this lack of disclosure of the exact nature and difference in the figures, and besides, the banks came up with the asset valuations anyway - there was apparently no independent verification.

Some of the changes were truly massive - Citibank, for example, managed to wheedle down $35 billion to $5.5, and Bank of America managed to wheedle down their $50 billion number to $33.9. Fifth Third's original number was $2.6 billion; the reported number $1.1.

Is it thus a "green shoot" that the results were "better" than investors expected? No. The results were in fact at least as bad as expected, and maybe worse. But when the banks didn't like the results they whined and managed to get the teacher to change the grade - ex-post-facto.

Finally, we have Bernanke. I have opined several times over the last couple of weeks that his "Quantitative Easing" is an abject failure. I said when it was announced that it would not work, and it hasn't worked.

Blackrock is prodding Ben to increase the buyback:

May 11 (Bloomberg) -- The world’s biggest investors are increasing bets that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will boost purchases of Treasuries as the steepest losses on government debt since 1994 send mortgage rates above 5 percent.

What I find disturbing is that through this entire crisis, as I have outlined repeatedly, neither The Fed or Treasury seems to understand the first damn thing about trading.

Simply put when you prop up prices beyond where they should be everyone who owns that thing will sell into you. The paradox is that this selling then causes prices to fall, not rise - that is, your intended move not only doesn't happen the reverse of the intended move does!

This happened with Fannie and Freddie (Paulson's infamous "Bazooka") and now it is happening in the credit market with Treasury Debt.

If Bernanke does not back off he will find himself in a tightening monetary flat spin. As he comes to own more and more of the public float of the long end the impact of each sale into his program by private holders is magnified in the market.

That is, if there is $1 trillion of something outstanding and you buy $100 billion of it (10% of the float) the impact is X. If there is now $900 billion outstanding (after the first operation) and you buy another $100 billion you have in fact sucked up about 11%. When you get to owning $500 billion another $100 billion sucks up 20% of the float. Each tender operation of the same size thus creates an ever-increasing impact on the underlying price, and since nobody in their right mind will continue to hold something they believe is overvalued, the spiral will tighten precipitously, forcing even more purchases until The Fed owns it all.

At or before that point the long end becomes unavailable to Treasury as a funding source. Forcing all the issue to the short end now starts to ramp short yields (supply and demand, remember - add massive supply and what happens to price?) and Bernanke will then be urged to buy down the time line.

This path leads to a singularity - and both monetary and political failure. The bad news is that the event horizon is far before Bernanke actually winds up owning the entire float, but nobody knows exactly where it is.

Yet once crossed, there is no escape from the outcome.

We best not go there, because if we go down that road too far Americans will be needing all those firearms that they've been buying since Obama was elected - not for a revolution, as some suppose, but rather for self-defense as our political, social and economic structures collapse.