New York Times business columnist Floyd Norris, a veteran and astute evaluator of business conditions, asks -- not unreasonably -- why so many commentators, economists, and public officials are so glum on the U.S. economic recovery?

According to Norris' analysis, the U.S. economy appears to be gaining strength, with companies starting to hire and consumer spending on an upward arc.

Word that Wall Street bailout bank total compensation (base and bonus) will likely be very high again this year, is almost certain to spark renewed righteous indignation among at least some U.S. investors/voters.

It's a valid complaint, given the mistakes -- and in some cases outright fraud -- by the nation's investment banks. But it's best to express the complaint, and move on. And the reason is obvious enough, as New York Times (NYSE: NYT) business journalist Floyd Norris reminds us.

A half-year ago, Norris incisively observed that, "Justice and success don't come together in the solution for the financial crisis."

Every once in awhile during a crisis or an event, you run across a quote or an observation that sort of summarizes events on the ground, in a nutshell.

New York Times (NYSE: NYT) business journalist Floyd Norris articulated one such observation during a roundtable discussion with other Times journalists on "The Charlie Rose Show" on PBS Monday night.

Regarding the bank bailout plan, Norris said, "This is a case where justice and success don't come together."

New York Times Chief Financial Correspondent and Columnist Floyd Norris, appearing on the "Charlie Rose" talk show Monday night on PBS, offered an insight that sort of summed up the financial crisis, the need for a rescue bill, and the reason a considerable portion of the American public doesn't like the rescue package.

Floyd Norris said: "At times it does appear that Wall Street is saying 'Bail us out or the U.S. economy is ruined.' And, if you're a citizen of the U.S., it's perfectly normal to be upset and angered by that. The problem is, what Wall Street is saying is true."

No time for perfection

The rescue bill, even the expected, revised rescue bill by Congress, will not be perfect. And yes, it will help some on Wall Street, including (unfairly) those who 'gamed' the system, or whose business mistakes, dubious securitization frameworks, or just plain greed helped create the crisis in the first place. But the nation does not have the luxury of taking six months to compose and pass a 'perfect' bill. The nation needs a rescue package, imperfect though it may be, to stabilize the financial system. And it needs it now.

Should you, the typical investor be upset about that? Sure, it's o.k. and it's a natural response to be upset, but don't let that emotion lead you to believe the nation or the financial system would be better off without a rescue bill; it won't be. And it's not possible to prevent Wall Street institutions from being involved in the solution -- at this time-pressured, critical juncture, they have to be. As The Times' Floyd Norris noted, Wall Street knows it, we know it, everyone knows it. So accept it, and move forward with the necessary work of getting a rescue plan in place.

New York Times op-editorialist Paul Krugman got one right today. And its Floyd Norris points out why the solution to the problem Krugman highlights could be SWFs (Sovereign Wealth Funds). Krugman does not know how much the financial industry's problems will cost and Norris suggests that SWFs -- government investment funds -- are worth between $2 trillion and $15 trillion.

Krugman's right that the Fed's four attempts to reboot the financial system have not worked because they dance around the most fundamental problem -- nobody knows the depth of the financial hole. If I was in charge, I would find out where all the toxic waste is buried and estimate the amount of capital needed to offset the cost of writing it down. In my view, it makes sense to mark the toxic waste to market and to raise capital at the same time.

Norris points out that SWFs could be part of the capital raising solution -- as they have been in the cases of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) and UBS AG (NYSE: UBS). He also suggests two pitfalls of SWFs as a source of capital. First, they are government controlled which could allow the SWFs to use the resulting power over our financial institutions to further their political ends. Second, whenever a new acronym such as SWF emerges in the financial world -- and there have been plenty including Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) and Structured Investment Vehicle (SIV) -- Wall Street will find a way to profit from it in the short-term while sticking the long-term costs on someone else.

Thanks to the blog of the brilliant Floyd Norris over at the New York Times for this fascinating tidbit.

The FBI set up a fake hedge fund to invest in crappy penny stocks with the intent of losing a ton of money. It also cut a deal with a shady stock promoter to receive a kickback for buying the shares -- a pretty clear case of market manipulation.

The investment declined in value from $91,580 to $12,800 -- and the promised kickback never came. Great work guys! As Norris writes, "taxpayer dollars at work."

I'm all for cracking down on stock fraud, but you really have to wonder about this -- did the FBI really need to blow nearly $80 thousand of our money to prove that microcap fraud is alive and well? And if the promoters involved are like a lot of other promoters I've read about, the money probably went right up his nose or offshore somewhere -- and no matter what any order to "disgorge ill-gotten gains" says, that money is probably gone.

But still: Another good reason to avoid heavily promoted penny stocks. If the FBI invests in them for the sole purpose of losing money, that's probably a bad sign.

Maybe that was the reason all those state pension funds bought subprime debt. If not, it should have been.