OK, maybe not everyone's lying to you, but it sure does feel that way.

You don't have to go far to catch an earful of big-fish stories and half-baked forecasts coming out of Wall Street, Washington, and the boob tube.

Witness the Moody's (NYSE: MCO) spokesperson who said, "Moody's has strong policies in place to manage potential conflicts of interest." Yet court documents allege that "unbeknownst to investors at the time, the rating agencies' compensation was contingent upon the receipt of desired ratings ... and only in the event that the transaction closed with those ratings."

Everyone has some vested interest in coloring his or her version of the truth. Whether they're padding their pockets, protecting their reputations, or making headlines, everyone has a motive. The trick is to separate motives from facts. While aligning your interests with the truth doesn't guarantee success, it sure beats chasing down a pack of lies.

Here are three economic fibs you should disregard.

Lie No. 1: Consumer spending will solve our problems
While the National Retail Federation may love articles like Newsweek's "Stop Saving Now," such commentaries are reckless attempts to reinflate the consumer credit bubble and inflate readership. In this particular essay, the author even labels savers as "hoarders" and encourages businesses "to roll the dice."

On the contrary, consumers and businesses need to spend prudently, save frequently, and invest intelligently. Thankfully, Americans are consuming more intelligently, bending on brand, and seeking out Costco 's (NYSE: COST) Kirkland Signature and Target's (NYSE: TGT) Archer Farms private-label products.The move toward cheaper goods has left premium retailers such as Whole Foods (Nasdaq: WFMI) fighting to prove their bargain bona fides. In short, the overwhelming consumer trend looks down on spending and gives a thumbs-up to saving.

Based on data in a recent New York Timesarticle, consumers have even turned toward old-school home economics: Coupon redemptions climbed 23% in the first half of this year. Amazingly, the top coupon users are originating from households earning $70,000 or more. Little wonder that BJ's Wholesale (NYSE: BJ) accepts manufacturer coupons and reports a significant increase in coupon use among its members. Finally, it's hip to clip!

Lie No. 2: Housing will bounce back
Real estate doesn't bounce. Not only is appreciation dead for now, it may never have existed in the first place. Dennis Cauchon made that point in a USA TODAYreport, with data showing that "the average annual investment return [in real estate] from 1950-2000 was less than one-half of 1% per year, after adjusting for inflation."

Housing has two major purposes: a place to live and an investment. When you buy a home to live in, your goal is to acquire a dwelling that brings you pleasure, while carrying a cost of ownership that is competitive with what you would otherwise pay in rent.

If you buy for investment purposes, you need to perform a discounted cash flow analysis based on the estimated rental cash flows. Either way, appreciation should not be part of the equation.

With unemployment still on the rise, housing inventories still sky-high, and the pending defaults on "pay option" and interest-only loans looming, the business models of homebuilders such as Toll Brothers (NYSE: TOL) and Hovnanian Enterprises (NYSE: HOV) will likely remain impaired for the foreseeable future. Ironically, with rock-bottom interest rates, one-time tax credits, and falling prices, there's never been a better time to buy your first home.

Lie No. 3: (Insert name here) is too big to fail.
Don't believe the hype; no company is too big to fail. Even nations are not too big to fail, as demonstrated by the fall of Rome and the decline of the British Empire. Instead, these institutions are so globally intertwined that their failures would cause side effects unbearable to business leaders and elected officials alike. Thus, there's a difference between being too big to fail, and being too importantto fail.

Would Americans have accepted the loss of their life savings beyond the FDIC threshold? Could the country have stomached endless lines of irate customers demanding their deposits from their seemingly safe national bank of choice?

There's no doubt we could have survived it, but politicians tend to dislike civil unrest, and business owners aren't fond of riots. The "too big to fail" travesty seems like an avoidable consequence of bank centralization. Keep in mind that between 1984 and 2003, the size of our banking system declined by almost 48%, as 15,084 entities consolidated into 7,842. Continued...