'Recession' Is a Media Myth

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
The 'Recession' Is a Media Myth
Tuesday , April 01, 2008

By John R. Lott, Jr.

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn?t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine.

But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing.

Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession.

A Nexis search on news stories during the three-month period from July 2000 through September 2000 using the keywords ?economy recession US? produces 1,388. By contrast, the same search over just the last month finds 3,166. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal 4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 2,475 news stories.

Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking.
A little perspective on the economy would be helpful. The average unemployment rate during President Clinton was 5.2 percent. The average under President George W. Bush is just slightly below 5.2. The current unemployment rate is4.8 percent, almost half a percentage point lower than these averages.

The average inflation rate under Clinton was 2.6 percent, under Bush it is 2.7 percent. Indeed, one has to go back to the Kennedy administration to find a lower average rate. True the inflation rate over the last year has gone up to 4 percent, but that is still lower than the average inflation rate under all the presidents from Nixon through Bush?s father.

Gas prices are indeed up 33 percent over the last year, but to get an average of 4 percent means that lots of other prices must have stayed the same or gone down. On other fronts, seasonally adjusted civilian employment is 650,000 people greater than it was a year ago. Personal income grew at a strong half of one percent in just February.

Despite all that, this last week, Barack Obama proclaimed ?As most experts know, our economy is in a recession.? Hillary Clinton made similar staements last fall. Yet, as any economist knows, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven?t even had one single quarter of negative growth reported. The economy slowed down significantly during the end of last year, but that was after a sizzling annual GDP growth rate of 4.9 percent in the third quarter.

Housing has obviously been a big drag on the economy, but many other sectors of the economy, such as exports, have been doing well, some extremely well. For example, aerospace exports increased by over 13 percent last year.

The media?s focus on the negative side of everything surely helps explain people?s pessimism. In a recent interview Fox?s Neil Cavuto claimed this bias ?is all part of the media?s plan to get a Democrat in the White House.?

Indeed, research has indicated that media bias is real. Kevin Hassett and I looked at 12,620 newspaper and wire service headlines from 1985 through 2004 for stories on the release of official government releasing numbers on the unemployment rate, number of people employed, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales, and durable goods.

Even after accounting for how well the economy was doing (e.g., what the unemployment rate was and whether it was going up or down), there was still a big difference in how positive or negative the headlines were. Democratic presidents got about 15 percent more positive headlines than Republicans for the same economic news.

Yet, the hysteria created by this coverage can have another cost. It creates pressure for government to ?do something,? even if that rush to do something actually ends up hurting the economy. For example, Obama's promises last week ?to amend our bankruptcy laws so families aren't forced to stick to the terms of a home loan? will only further drive down the value of mortgage-backed securities, making any unstable financial institutions that hold them even more likely to fail. In the long term, who is going to want to loan money when the contract can be rewritten at a later date?

The news media have generated a lot of fear. Ben Stein has a point when he says ?The actual economic conditions are not that bad. I think if we have a recession, if we have a serious recession, a great deal will lie at the media?s feet.? Hopefully a little perspective will enter the picture before even more harm is done.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
This article is a hard sell for.He must be republican.
Inflation is being felt all over,and gas is driving everthing else up.

Im in construction ,and yes its hurting ,however the big problem is IMO the banks that gave out these outrageous mortgages,not only did they outsmart working americans,they outsmarted themselves.

The war,yes war is another factor thats just killing us.As much as I support fighting terror(and yes Iraq falls in that catagory,wish there was a end game to at least downsizeing and stabilizing,a north korea so to speak.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
So, the two economies are rated virtually the same, is what you are saying? So to use your analysis, either both the two economies were/are in a recession, or neither were/are. Right?

I know you always play this fine line game with the two - I have always allowed that the economy was slowing during the later years of the Clinton administration. But you staunchly refuse to allow for the same under Bush - and then post something like this under the guise of liberal bias?

Keep on trucking, man. I'm seeing a lot of these types of posts from you of late, as pointed out in the national debt/Iraq war discussions.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
The 'Recession' Is a Media Myth
Tuesday , April 01, 2008

By John R. Lott, Jr.

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn?t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine.

But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing.

Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession.

A Nexis search on news stories during the three-month period from July 2000 through September 2000 using the keywords ?economy recession US? produces 1,388. By contrast, the same search over just the last month finds 3,166. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal 4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 2,475 news stories.

Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking.
A little perspective on the economy would be helpful. The average unemployment rate during President Clinton was 5.2 percent. The average under President George W. Bush is just slightly below 5.2. The current unemployment rate is4.8 percent, almost half a percentage point lower than these averages.

The average inflation rate under Clinton was 2.6 percent, under Bush it is 2.7 percent. Indeed, one has to go back to the Kennedy administration to find a lower average rate. True the inflation rate over the last year has gone up to 4 percent, but that is still lower than the average inflation rate under all the presidents from Nixon through Bush?s father.

Gas prices are indeed up 33 percent over the last year, but to get an average of 4 percent means that lots of other prices must have stayed the same or gone down. On other fronts, seasonally adjusted civilian employment is 650,000 people greater than it was a year ago. Personal income grew at a strong half of one percent in just February.

Despite all that, this last week, Barack Obama proclaimed ?As most experts know, our economy is in a recession.? Hillary Clinton made similar staements last fall. Yet, as any economist knows, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven?t even had one single quarter of negative growth reported. The economy slowed down significantly during the end of last year, but that was after a sizzling annual GDP growth rate of 4.9 percent in the third quarter.

Housing has obviously been a big drag on the economy, but many other sectors of the economy, such as exports, have been doing well, some extremely well. For example, aerospace exports increased by over 13 percent last year.

The media?s focus on the negative side of everything surely helps explain people?s pessimism. In a recent interview Fox?s Neil Cavuto claimed this bias ?is all part of the media?s plan to get a Democrat in the White House.?

Indeed, research has indicated that media bias is real. Kevin Hassett and I looked at 12,620 newspaper and wire service headlines from 1985 through 2004 for stories on the release of official government releasing numbers on the unemployment rate, number of people employed, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales, and durable goods.

Even after accounting for how well the economy was doing (e.g., what the unemployment rate was and whether it was going up or down), there was still a big difference in how positive or negative the headlines were. Democratic presidents got about 15 percent more positive headlines than Republicans for the same economic news.

Yet, the hysteria created by this coverage can have another cost. It creates pressure for government to ?do something,? even if that rush to do something actually ends up hurting the economy. For example, Obama's promises last week ?to amend our bankruptcy laws so families aren't forced to stick to the terms of a home loan? will only further drive down the value of mortgage-backed securities, making any unstable financial institutions that hold them even more likely to fail. In the long term, who is going to want to loan money when the contract can be rewritten at a later date?

The news media have generated a lot of fear. Ben Stein has a point when he says ?The actual economic conditions are not that bad. I think if we have a recession, if we have a serious recession, a great deal will lie at the media?s feet.? Hopefully a little perspective will enter the picture before even more harm is done.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

Yes, right now it's a myth, but will it continue ? The price of everything keeps going up . How long can people in business keep rasing the price to cover the cost ? We have less jobs, less income, less credit, where is the money coming from.
 
Last edited:

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
So, the two economies are rated virtually the same, is what you are saying? So to use your analysis, either both the two economies were/are in a recession, or neither were/are. Right?

I know you always play this fine line game with the two - I have always allowed that the economy was slowing during the later years of the Clinton administration. But you staunchly refuse to allow for the same under Bush - and then post something like this under the guise of liberal bias?

Keep on trucking, man. I'm seeing a lot of these types of posts from you of late, as pointed out in the national debt/Iraq war discussions.

You can't have a national debt discussion with out the war. I don't see how it can be disputed that the war is bad for the US economy.
 

buddy

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 21, 2000
10,897
85
0
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Natural gas companies raise rates

Tuesday, April 01, 2008
By Elwin Green, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Responding to six months of increases in wholesale natural gas prices, Pittsburgh's three natural gas utilities are raising their rates, effective today.

The companies filed their quarterly rate notices with the state Public Utility Commission yesterday, and all three are raising their "gas cost recovery" rates, or the rates they charge consumers to pass on their costs for natural gas.

Dominion Peoples is raising its gas cost rate to $12.44 per thousand cubic feet (mcf), up from $9.53, a 31 percent increase. Because the gas cost rate is only one of several charges that make up the typical gas bill, the average residential customer, using 8 mcf per month, will see a 21 percent increase in her bill, to $129.93 from $106.77.

Columbia is raising its recovery rate to $14.38 per mcf, up from $12.76. A customer with average usage of 7.2 mcf will have a monthly bill of $114.27, compared with $102.72 last quarter.

After holding the line at $11.81 for the past two quarters, Equitable is increasing its rate to $13.97. The average customer's monthly bill will be $154.32, up from $134.40 last quarter.

The increases reflect a dramatic rise in the wholesale price of natural gas. Last summer, natural gas contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange for less than $6 per million British thermal units (mmBtu); yesterday, the May contract closed at $10.10.

Dominion Peoples spokesman Mr. Gregorini said the "main culprit" behind the rise in natural gas was crude oil, whose meteoric rise to more than $100 a barrel has created increased demand for other fuels, including natural gas.

The quarterly filing with the PUC is designed to ensure the utilities comply with state law, which requires that they neither make nor lose money on the sale of natural gas, but pass on their cost for gas dollar for dollar. The changes do not apply to consumers who have long-term contracts with suppliers, nor do they immediately affect budget plan payments, which have their own schedule for adjustments.

With all three utilities raising their rates, some customers may have difficulty paying their heating bills until spring settles in for good. Those customers can seek assistance from the Dollar Energy fund. Information on the fund is available from the gas companies.
Elwin Green can be reached at egreen@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1969.
First published on April 1, 2008 at 12:00 am
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
This article is a hard sell for.He must be republican.
Inflation is being felt all over,and gas is driving everthing else up.

Im in construction ,and yes its hurting ,however the big problem is IMO the banks that gave out these outrageous mortgages,not only did they outsmart working americans,they outsmarted themselves.

The war,yes war is another factor thats just killing us.As much as I support fighting terror(and yes Iraq falls in that catagory,wish there was a end game to at least downsizeing and stabilizing,a north korea so to speak.

Rusty I'd say you would be in occupation with a legitamate bitch. Has certainly effected housing industry--

--and Bryanz--per your
"Yes, right know it's a myth, but will it continue ? "
you are absolutely correct--coming inflation and employment #'s will be the key--and movement so far has been negative---

I think key to article is the crying wolf--before the fact
Cae in point media gave no credit and Pelosi was screaming worst economy since great depression when economy was firing on all cylinders.

Main reason why when polled- most said they were doing fine but thought country was doing poorly.

Glad to see some paying the piper over it--

CBS Cuts At Local Stations And National News; Includes Online

"CBS (NYSE: CBS), reeling from disappointing earning in the last quarter has done some layoffs, at the corporate level, and separate from that, at some local O&O stations. On corporate level, TVNewser reports that CBS News has made cuts in to editorial, technical operations and the bureaus. The total cuts amount to 1 percent of the staff, the post says.

On CBS local O&O stations, the cuts were deep: 30 staffers at WBZ Boston, 17 at WBBM Chicago and 14 at KPIX San Francisco, and includes cuts online as well, reports B&C. Also hit were KCNC Denver and KOVR Sacramento, Calif., and ohers. CBS owns 29 stations, including 16 CBS affiliates and nine CW outlets.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Twisting the Truth

The liberal British newspaper The Independent ran a front-page story yesterday with the heading, "United States of America 2008: The Great Depression." The problem is, the article is about food stamp usage and never mentions a depression. It says 28 million people in the U.S. will be using government food stamps to buy essential groceries, the highest level since the program was introduced in the 1960's.

But critics suggest that number is misleading since 28 million people would be just 9.2 percent of all Americans. Back in the Clinton years, food stamp distribution reached at an all-time high of almost 10.5 percent in 1993 and 1994 and 10 percent in 1995.

Oh, and the the front-page photo showing people standing on a relief line turns out to be three years old and has nothing to do with food stamps. The picture was taken back in 2005 and shows people lining up in New York for an annual free coat giveaway.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Let's see, gas is up and home prices are down. In DTB's world that's a wash! Stupid, American hating, neocon loving, article.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Let's see, gas is up and home prices are down. In DTB's world that's a wash! Stupid, American hating, neocon loving, article.

You check out food Stevie? Freaking eggs are over 2 dollars a dozen. Milk around 4 or more. Just wait another couple of months when the Walmarts of the world start seeing the hit. Those type of companies have a voice unlike us. Good thing Obama isn't in there cause then they would jack up the interest rates like they did to Carter to really screw us. The great uniter is doing his best to unite the poor and the middle Class. I remember one time Trump was on CNN and said how much he didn't like the tax increase of Clinton but said he had to admit that he was making way more money under the Clinton years. Watch how testy he becomes cause i would think going to those casino's would be my first thing to cut out of my budjet if i was one of those type of gamblers.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Did you miss my post, Wayne?

Didn't miss it Chad---
Didn't see anything that was in disagreement:shrug:

I have certainly not questioned economy is slowing.

point is as noted in thread heading--media treats economy completely diff depending on whose in office.

Have stated more than once I don't think party politics has much to do with recessions--other than taxes-corp inparticular.

Bill was certainly not responsible for dot com boom nor bust. GW was not responible for 911-Katrina-or subprime issue.

Now I do believe that politics come into play much more on bounce back from recessions.

Also I might make exception on Carter politics on several issues however major one -oil prices and fuel shortage were beyond his control.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Well, evidently all this "bias" has Bush's boy Bernanke believing it - nearly admitting it today, but skirting it with semantics. All the while using all the Fed monies he can control to prop up institutions and cutting rates in the face of plenty of detractors - many from the financial world...I guess since the economy is so strong, it's prevented him from making any really STRONG moves, eh?

:mj07:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Saw something else of interest a few minutes ago on congressional report--is costing $38,000 a day each for secret service for Obama and H on campaign trail-

cost for McCain "0"

Why--he didn't request any-- drum roll please!
:SIB
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Saw something else of interest a few minutes ago on congressional report--is costing $38,000 a day each for secret service for Obama and H on campaign trail-

cost for McCain "0"

Why--he didn't request any-- drum roll please!
:SIB

Because he is having affairs with Lobbiests?:shrug:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
--more interesting data
--of course I'm sure John would take all he can get-

BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors
Goldman Sachs $523,478
University of California $339,168
UBS AG $327,302
JPMorgan Chase & Co $317,142
Lehman Brothers $302,697
Citigroup Inc $301,146
National Amusements Inc $293,022
Sidley Austin LLP $271,857
Harvard University $268,491
Google Inc $259,010
Skadden, Arps et al $248,743
Exelon Corp $227,661
Morgan Stanley $225,976
Time Warner $221,878
Jones Day $212,525
Wilmerhale Llp $194,688
Latham & Watkins $187,208
University of Chicago $183,147
Kirkland & Ellis $182,176
Citadel Investment Group $175,900

JOHN MCCAIN (R)
Top Contributors
Blank Rome LLP $221,250
Merrill Lynch $209,050
Citigroup Inc $187,884
Greenberg Traurig LLP $161,937
Goldman Sachs $115,600
AT&T Inc $111,600
JPMorgan Chase & Co $101,650
Credit Suisse Group $96,700
Univision Communications $86,600
Lehman Brothers $85,250
IDT Corp $84,850
Bank of New York Mellon $82,350
Morgan Stanley $80,651
Wachovia Corp $76,750
MGM Mirage $71,500
Bridgewater Assoc $69,900
Blackstone Group $69,250
Bear Stearns $66,800
Irvine Co Apartment Community $66,100
Hess Corp $65,700
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
However Obama is getting those giveing less then 100 bucks over everyone else. In fact he's killng them all.
Recession they use to say is two months in a row of down. Believe we just ended three. And if jobs drop three in a row. And of course that is also is
true. You got problems. They just dont get it at W H. Pricew on two many items are way out of the box.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
While I got you here DJV let me give you a couple other FACTS-on Obama's deceptions on contibutions--

Per your small donators--

The claim: Obama said his campaign has "raised more than 90% of our donations from small donors ? $25, $50."

The facts: Slightly more than 50% of the $138 million Obama has raised came from donors who gave $1,000 or more, according to the Federal Election Commission. Obama got 34% of his money from donors who gave $200 or less, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.


Heres are few more of his-
Changes We Can Believe--smoke he's blowing up your ass.

He said he don't receive money from PAC's

Obama does not accept PAC contributions or donations from federally registered lobbyists, though he does accept contributions from business partners of lobbyists and from employees of the interests they represent. Both got more than $400,000 from employees of Wall Street brokerage firm Goldman Sachs, for example, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Three of Clinton's top five sources of campaign money and four of Obama's top five are Wall Street banks or brokerages, the center says.

list from above--
BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors
Goldman Sachs $523,478
University of California $339,168
UBS AG $327,302
JPMorgan Chase & Co $317,142
Lehman Brothers $302,697
Citigroup Inc $301,146
National Amusements Inc $293,022
Sidley Austin LLP $271,857
Harvard University $268,491
Google Inc $259,010
Skadden, Arps et al $248,743
Exelon Corp $227,661
Morgan Stanley $225,976
Time Warner $221,878
Jones Day $212,525
Wilmerhale Llp $194,688
Latham & Watkins $187,208
University of Chicago $183,147
Kirkland & Ellis $182,176
Citadel Investment Group $175,900
_________________________________

Oil companies


Obama: "I don?t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won?t let them block change anymore."

It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Recession is no myth.
Obama has rasied more then others with small amounts is true.
Has he got bigger amounts. He has.
Do companies give they do. They do to all parties.
Some times even if not asked and you know thats true.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top