DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 25, 2007, 03:44:14 AM
-
But there's no left leaning bias in the vast majority of MSM ::)
Why so many Americans believe we're in a recession
Are we in a recession?
Posted: October 25, 2007
Half of Americans think so, at least according to the new CNN opinion poll. The poll helpfully described the recession as "marked by a significant decline in economic activity." But what the CNN article describing the poll doesn't tell is that our economy is nowhere near a recession.
The government uses the National Bureau of Economic Research to define when recessions begin and end. This nonprofit Cambridge organization defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP (Gross Domestic Product), real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales." Most economists consider a recession two or more consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.
So, are we in a recession?
In September 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said 110,000 new jobs were created. For each of the last three months, our economy has created an average of 97,000 new jobs. Since August 2003, the economy has created more than 8.1 million new jobs in 49 consecutive months of job growth.
The national unemployment rate is at 4.7 percent ? low by historical standards.
Since President Bush took office, real after-tax per capita personal income has increased more than 12.5 percent ? an average of $3,750 per person. More than 30 percent of the country's net worth has been added since the president's 2003 tax cuts.
Real wages have increased 2.2 percent during the 12 months ending in August 2007. This is much higher than the average growth rate during the '90s, and translates into an extra $1,266 for a two wage-earner family.
Exports have increased over 14.8 percent during the 12 months ending in July 2007, and the trade deficit has been reduced by $8.3 billion.
Real GDP grew at a strong 3.8 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 2007. The U.S. economy is in its sixth year of sustained economic growth, averaging 2.7 percent a year since the turnaround in 2001.
This year tax revenues grew by $161 billion to reach $2.568 trillion, the highest level ever recorded, and an increase of 6.7 percent. And that follows the 14.5 percent and 11.8 percent increase in revenues during the two prior years.
The federal deficit declined by $250 billion in the last three years. In February, the budget deficit for 2007 was projected to be $244 billion. But by September, the deficit was just $163 billion, or 1.3 percent of the economy. As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now lower than the average of the last 40 years.
What, then, accounts for the pessimism? Well, take a look at the mainstream media.
Two professors, John Lott, economist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Kevin A. Hassett, the Institute's director of economic policy studies, looked at newspaper articles on the economy. They wrote, "We found that newspaper headlines reporting economic news on unemployment, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales and durable goods tended to be much more frequently negative when a Republican was in the White House. And this was true even after accounting for the economic numbers on which the stories were based and how those numbers were changing over time."
So bad economic news becomes less bad economic news with a Democrat sitting in the White House. With a Republican in the White House, however, good economic news becomes less good, and bad becomes even worse.
The Pew Center for Excellence in Journalism surveys journalists annually. Their report, "The State of the News Media 2007," found more than one-third (34 percent) of national journalists identified themselves as liberal, as compared to one-fifth (20 percent) of the general public. Only 7 percent of the national press self-identified as conservative, compared with 33 percent of the general public. The press and the public are widely divided on social issues and values, as well. For example, while 58 percent of Americans think belief in God is necessary to be moral, only 6 percent of national journalists agree.
The Pew Center report only covers what journalists admit about themselves. And while 59 percent of this pool of national reporters couldn't think of a single news organization that was liberal, a whopping 82 percent said they could think of conservative news coverage. Even so, 64 percent of national journalists admit that criticism about the blurring of reporting and commentary is valid.
Here's a typical example of how the media shapes moods. Support for the Iraq war increased from 22 to 30 percent ? a 36 percent increase ? right before Iraq operations commander Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress. MSNBC described this as an "uptick." Meanwhile, a major paper described a 36 percent increase in home foreclosures as a "surge."
Court TV founder and media watchdog Steven Brill once said, "When it comes to arrogance, power and lack of accountability, journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers look good."
6th year of sustained economic growth (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58333)
-
The fact is that statistics are bullcrap.
People think there is a recession because THEY are in one.
Productivity goes up every years and raises do not come close to keeping up.
There is major inflation in fuel and housing, and the assholes keep wishing that prices of houses would go UP, so the banks won't have to suffer for tricking people who could not pay into ARMs that rise to 14%.
-
There is major inflation in fuel and housing, and the assholes keep wishing that prices of houses would go UP, so the banks won't have to suffer for tricking people who could not pay into ARMs that rise to 14%.
How does a bank "trick" someone into signing a loan document that clearly lays out the interest rate caps?
-
I hate to add to anyone's conspiracy theory, but some of the statistics listed in the above article are blatantly false or to give the benefit of the doubt, misleading.
For example, let's take a look at the Real Earnings of Non-supervisory workers according to the BLS:
Link (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t01.htm)
We can see that the real earnings for these workers have fallen as often as they have risen. In April and May of 2007 there were two consecutive significant decreases.
You need to look at these and ask questions Sirs, whether you are on the left, right, center, or off the charts.
In September 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said 110,000 new jobs were created.
What sector? Permanent or temporary? Is this seasonally adjusted?
Real wages have increased 2.2 percent during the 12 months ending in August 2007.
According to whom? Compared to what: last year? 1997? 2001? Predictions?
translates into an extra $1,266 for a two wage-earner family
That is not what it means at all and a lot of two wage-earning families will tell you so. No real economist would make such a claim either.
Exports have increased over 14.8 percent during the 12 months ending in July 2007, and the trade deficit has been reduced by $8.3 billion.
What does that mean for Americans? Do you think the dollar achieving parity with the Canadian dollar has something to do with this?
This year tax revenues grew by $161 billion to reach $2.568 trillion, the highest level ever recorded, and an increase of 6.7 percent.
Notice that now we've gone from real to nominal terms in one paragraph.
The federal deficit declined by $250 billion in the last three years.
According to whom? In real terms? Which deficit, the U.S. Government carries many debt loads.
What, then, accounts for the pessimism?
Always be careful of using macroeconomics then asking a micoeconomics question.
This, Sirs, is why critical thinking is so important. The above could have just as easily been written by a leftist editorial writer about a Democratic President. In fact, there probably were such articles. The author is throwing stats that are out of context and mostly meaningless to the average reader (but they sound impressive) and then asking a question that has little to do with the stats to make a conclusion he's already drawn a long time ago.
-
How does a bank "trick" someone into signing a loan document that clearly lays out the interest rate caps?
====================================================================
I bet they have tricked you. They trick everyone.
What is the maximum interest you have "agreed" to pay on your credit card?
I bet you have never closed on a house.
It is true people are stupid, but banks take advantage of this. At any house closing, the people that know the least about it are the buyers.
When I closed on my house, the previous owner tried to trick me into paying her for an overpayment on the taxes.
She had paid them once with a check, and they were paid again by the escrow. I knew I'd never see the money again, since I had not made the mistake and the money was not paid by me.
I told them I wasn't signing, and walked out and sat on the sidewalk for 30 minutes until she gave in. In the meantime, her lawyer, MY lawyer (worthless flakoid!) and my wife told me to go ahead and pay. I refused.
Eventually they gave in. But I bet most people wouldn't have done this.
When surrounded by people who tell you to sign a document written in 2 point type and gibberish, most people give in.
-
I hate to add to anyone's conspiracy theory, but some of the statistics listed in the above article are blatantly false or to give the benefit of the doubt, misleading.
For example, let's take a look at the Real Earnings of Non-supervisory workers according to the BLS:
How do these figures and sorces of figures compare to the data that was used to congradulate President Clinton for the state of the economy during his tenure?
-
I bet they have tricked you. They trick everyone.
Nope.
What is the maximum interest you have "agreed" to pay on your credit card?
Doesn't matter what the advertised or charged interest rate is; I rarely pay it.
I bet you have never closed on a house.
3 so far. If I decide to stay in NC, it will be 4. And every time, I read the set of documents in their entirety at closing. Docs in Maryland took the longest, Minnesota's were the shortest (only like a dozen pages). And every closing I had changes made because I always found something wrong.
-
I hate to add to anyone's conspiracy theory, but some of the statistics listed in the above article are blatantly false or to give the benefit of the doubt, misleading.
For example, let's take a look at the Real Earnings of Non-supervisory workers according to the BLS:
How do these figures and sorces of figures compare to the data that was used to congradulate President Clinton for the state of the economy during his tenure?
I'm not exactly sure. Some of the data above is not sourced and is somewhat suspect. I could probably draw up a comparison of apples to apples, and it would all have to use the same dollars (for whatever reason 1982 dollars is popular with the BLS nowadays).
I suspect that you're going to find that there are good and bad figures in both president's tenures. Yet, the sad fact is that these statistics never paint a complete picture. But your question is interesting...I might look into it if I have some time.
-
The fact that you had to insist on changes indicates that they TRIED to trick you, doesn't it?
If you tell a realtor that you can afford a $X00,000 house, they insist on you telling them your income. If you do, they will insis that there are no houses in your price range, and they can get you a loan for half again or twice as much from some bank they know. That bank weas selected, not because they are honest of fast, or respect you, but because they give the Realtor a kickback.
If you have avoided getting ripped off, good for you. But you are an exception.
I find it very silly that when prices are too high for any normal person to afford, then they tell you you just have to live with it.
When prices start to fall, they wail, piss and moan about a housing "crisis", when all that is happening is that they are just trying to sell houses for more than the market will bear, and prices are falling to meet the amount available to buy them.
Real estate is far from being a good investment.
-
The more I look at this, the more difficult it really becomes.
Let's look at President Bush and the Real Gross Domestic Product just from 2003 to 2006. There are many factors involved in the GDP, some economic sectors will show great strength while others can fall. Just simply saying the GDP increased X% is truly meaningless.
For example, Private Domestic Investment (PDI) growth has decreased in real terms every year for the past three years. That is significant to a lot of people. Nonresidential PDI one component of that, has done rather well though. In fact in 2006 it grew by 7.4% in real terms! Nothing to sneeze at. On the other hand, Residential PDI went from 9.9% real growth in 2004, to 8.6% real growth in 2006, to a (4.2%) decrease in 2006! That's not good at all.
Similarly, exports and imports is an interesting component of the GDP. As many may know the dollar recently achieved parity with the Canadian Dollar (it has actually closed above the U.S. dollar recently...somewhere around $1.038). The loonie has not done so in nearly thirty-one years. Naturally, such a weak dollar is wonderful for exporting. It means that Canadians and Europeans can purchase more American goods and services for less money. The double-edged sword (or trade-off as econ folks say) is that it kills importers. This is seen in the GDP stats.
There has been real-term growth in Government spending at the Federal, State, and local level every year in this selection. There is debate as to what the entire effect of that is and of course, detail on the investments would have to be known to further that debate.
I know that some don't like complexities, but the truth is that with economics, that is exactly what you get. And still, none of this answers the question of how the various Americans are affected in different personal financial situations.
It does probably mean that Tee can enjopy an American vacation for a lot less money than usual.
-
The fact that you had to insist on changes indicates that they TRIED to trick you, doesn't it?
Yeah, because we know that there is no such thing as misunderstanding or simple human error.
-
I hate to add to anyone's conspiracy theory, but some of the statistics listed in the above article are blatantly false or to give the benefit of the doubt, misleading. For example, let's take a look at the Real Earnings of Non-supervisory workers according to the BLS
How do these figures and sorces of figures compare to the data that was used to congradulate President Clinton for the state of the economy during his tenure?
I'm not exactly sure. ...I suspect that you're going to find that there are good and bad figures in both president's tenures. Yet, the sad fact is that these statistics never paint a complete picture. But your question is interesting...I might look into it if I have some time.
See, the thing here Js, is of course in every administration there will be postive and negative occurences within the economy. The point being that when you take all these "complexities" and add them up, you can come to a reasonable conclusion on if the economy was working well under said President, or not. Currently, in its totality the economy is running good, and largely has been for the last 6+yrs. Arguably fantastic following the events of 911. Yet, with all the +'s, polls demonstrate a perception that not only are things dire, but that we're actually in a recession, despite the FACTS to the contrary. Point being how do so many come to that perception? In this case, it's not that complex. It's actually repetative in its insidious pervasiveness, and not nearly as subtle as it once was
-
YOu seem to fail to comprehend that even if the economy overall is better, the fact is that since the wealthy are chomping off an increasingly larger share of it, the middle classes and people below them are getting actually LESS, which would be the case if the entire economy were going downhill.
The rich are getting richer, and the middle class and the poor are getting poorer. Juniorbush has done all he can to encourage this (with his tax cuts on the inheritance tax, for example), and has done zilch to stop it.
-
See, the thing here Js, is of course in every administration there will be postive and negative occurences within the economy. The point being that when you take all these "complexities" and add them up, you can come to a reasonable conclusion on if the economy was working well under said President, or not. Currently, in its totality the economy is running good, and largely has been for the last 6+yrs. Arguably fantastic following the events of 911. Yet, with all the +'s, polls demonstrate a perception that not only are things dire, but that we're actually in a recession, despite the FACTS to the contrary. Point being how do so many come to that perception? In this case, it's not that complex. It's actually repetative in its insidious pervasiveness, and not nearly as subtle as it once was
No, the problem Sirs is that you are using national statistics and then asking "why are you pessimistic?" to reach a conclusion you've already drawn.
OK. Let's look at some comparisons.
The first four years of President Clinton's administration were 1993-1997. The first four years of Bush's Administration were 2001 to 2004. Now, let's look at how the median income of families (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/income_expenditures_wealth/) in constant U.S. dollars (2004) compared.
Real Median Family Incomes 1993 to 1997
Increase 9.37%
Real Median Family Incomes 2001 to 2004
Decrease -1.17%
Married Couple, Wife Working Real Median Income 1993 to 1997
Increase 8.02%
Married Couple, Wife Working Real Median Income 2001 to 2004
Increase 1.62%
Married Couple, Wife not Working Real Median Income 1993 to 1997
Increase 8.70%
Married Couple, Wife not Working Real Median Income 2001 to 2004
Decrease -2.98%
Female householder, no husband present Real Median Income 1993 to 1997
Increase 9.88%
Female householder, no husband present Real Median Income 2001 to 2004
Decrease -1.85%
And you wonder why people are pessimistic? Occam's Razor, you don't need any grand theory of "insidious" conspiracy. Now, one can certainly argue that Bush nor Clinton deserve the credit or blame for the economy under their tenure in office. Yet, you need to look deeper than GDP or trade deficits to see what is really happening. Most Americans are not exporters ;) .
-
And you wonder why people are pessimistic? Occam's Razor, you don't need any grand theory of "insidious" conspiracy. Now, one can certainly argue that Bush nor Clinton deserve the credit or blame for the economy under their tenure in office. Yet, you need to look deeper than GDP or trade deficits to see what is really happening. Most Americans are not exporters ;) .
[/quote]
Many Americans are exporters , Agriculture and entertainment products are our one and two exports and how many people are involved in Agriculture and entertainment?
The subject of the article was not accuracy but comparison of Major Media coverage.
Simular numbers got congradulations for Clinton as get condemnations or silence for Bush.
The Media is a Leftist partizen .
-
*sigh*
You aren't seriously suggesting that Agriculture and Arts & Entertainment are sizable sectors of the U.S. Economy are you? I'm not saying they aren't important, but they are very small. The data can easily be found in the Census, which breaks down the economy by sector. I think you'll find that both are small, and if you take out Agriculture for non-domestic use, you'll find it to be very small.
The subject of the article is exactly my point. It is ridiculous. It uses broad national statistics to ask a question that cannot be answered with such broad statistics. It would be like me asking you how much has your income increased in the last twelve years, and you pointing to a chart that shows the amount of Georgia's GDP growth since 1995.
Does that answer the question? Of course not. Does it come close? No, not really.
Can you draw a broad conclusion about the media from that? No, you really cannot.
I think that if you look at the data I produced above (and feel free to double check my math, I provided the link) you can see a much more clear explanation as to why people are pessimistic. Yet, even there I, personally, would not go as far as to say this is why people are pessimistic about the economy.
For that you'd need a good scientific survey with well-crafted non-leading questions. It could easily be done and you'd likely need some good political scientists and sociologists to analyze the results.
The analysis above is useless rubbish.
-
A recession is when i don't have a job.
A boom is when i do.
-
The subject of the article is exactly my point. It is ridiculous. It uses broad national statistics to ask a question that cannot be answered with such broad statistics. It would be like me asking you how much has your income increased in the last twelve years, and you pointing to a chart that shows the amount of Georgia's GDP growth since 1995.
So how is the press excused for being lauditory for Clinton and condemming for Bush on the strength of just such data?
\\\btw there are no sectors of the economy larger than Agriculture.
-
See, the thing here Js, is of course in every administration there will be postive and negative occurences within the economy. The point being that when you take all these "complexities" and add them up, you can come to a reasonable conclusion on if the economy was working well under said President, or not. Currently, in its totality the economy is running good, and largely has been for the last 6+yrs. Arguably fantastic following the events of 911. Yet, with all the +'s, polls demonstrate a perception that not only are things dire, but that we're actually in a recession, despite the FACTS to the contrary. Point being how do so many come to that perception? In this case, it's not that complex. It's actually repetative in its insidious pervasiveness, and not nearly as subtle as it once was
No, the problem Sirs is that you are using national statistics and then asking "why are you pessimistic?" to reach a conclusion you've already drawn. OK. Let's look at some comparisons. The first four years of President Clinton's administration were 1993-1997. The first four years of Bush's Administration were 2001 to 2004. Now, let's look at how the median income of families (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/income_expenditures_wealth/) in constant U.S. dollars (2004) compared.
Fascinating. You go off at every turn attempting to debunk clear cut deductions, on a plethora of issues, with people's inabilities to grasp the complexities of an issue (which of course, you being the smarter fella, can). Yet, what do you do here?...you take 1...ONE...aspect of the economy, that of median family income, and even though that doesn't demonstrate a unimous position either, you use it to portray how......life suposedly isn't that rosy under Bush? News flash Js, no one said everyone was great under Bush, or terrible under Clinton. The point remains three fold
1) That in its economic totality, the economy is no where near this dire precipace of disaster that the left and MSM would want us to believe
2) Negative news under a Democrat President is no where near as noteworthy of mentioning adnauseum, than when it's occuring under a Republican President.
3) Postive economic news under a Dem president is hearalded, while postive news under a Republican, is token mention, if that. And generally with a negative footnote applied.
-
The fact that you had to insist on changes indicates that they TRIED to trick you, doesn't it?
Yeah, because we know that there is no such thing as misunderstanding or simple human error.
Once again, the right believes in incompetent over nefarious natures.,
-
Once again, the right believes in incompetent over nefarious natures.,
How many perfect humans do you know?
-
Many Americans are exporters , Agriculture and entertainment products are our one and two exports and how many people are involved in Agriculture and entertainment?
===================================================
Cargill, ADM, Sony and Viacom are the exporters. The people who make the product are NOT exporters, since they do not get to negotiate how much they are paid.
The subject of the article was not accuracy but comparison of Major Media coverage.
Simular numbers got congradulations for Clinton as get condemnations or silence for Bush.
========================================================
The president does not control the direction the economy takes all the time. But when Juniorbush revoked the inheritance tax, he helped the rich get richer. When he fights a war on credit, he helps the poor get poorer. They are the ones who canot protect themselves against inflation.
=========================
The Media is a Leftist partizen .
The "Media" is a huge assortment of companies and they have many differing opinions. Fair and balanced coverage you won't get from Fox News, for example.
You are still worshipping at the Altar of Dittoheads.
-
You aren't seriously suggesting that Agriculture and Arts & Entertainment are sizable sectors of the U.S. Economy are you? I'm not saying they aren't important, but they are very small.
I found a bunch of sites that agree with you, and a few that agree wih me.
I guess a lot depends on how you count.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Emphases/Rural/
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/economy-in-brief/page3.html
Production of goods accounted for 19.8 percent of GDP: manufacturing?such as computers, autos, aircraft, machinery?12.1 percent; construction, 4.9 percent; oil and gas drilling and other mining, 1.9 percent; agriculture, less than 1 percent.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/RCAT/rcat102/Rcat102d.pdf
California illustrates the classification dilemma. It is the leading producer of many commodities,
has many successful commercial farms, and has a strong base of farm-supporting
industries. As a result, California has the largest number of workers who owe their
jobs to agriculture?2.7 million. The size of its FFS workforce makes it the leading State in
the national food and fiber system. But California is not an agriculturally dependent State.
With a total labor force of 16 million, agriculture accounts for a smaller share of the
State?s economy (16.9 percent of civilian workforce) than its national share (17.8 percent
of civilian workforce).
In contrast, consider the Dakotas. Their FFS employment is between 89,000 and 97,000,
half of it farmers and farm workers, and FFS jobs account for more than 25 percent of all
jobs in each State. FFS jobs are very important in the Dakotas, although the combined
total FFS employment in these States accounts for less than 1 percent of U.S. employment
in the food and fiber system.
How do you tell how important agriculture is to your State? .......We concluded that the importance measure depends upon what
you are looking for.
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/pubs/agtech.html
We don't talk or hear as much about farming and ranching as we used to because its employment base has declined so much over time. But that decline is a sign of its success rather than its failure. Fewer and fewer people are producing more and more because of astounding gains in productivity. With just under 3 percent of the total workforce, American farmers and ranchers are feeding our country and much of the rest of the world.
.....
In 1994, the output of the agricultural sector was equal to about 1.5 percent of GDP. When all economic activities from the farm to the consumer are counted, however, the food and fiber system directly and indirectly affects 17.1 percent of the total domestic economy, according to USDA estimates. This figure encompasses a wide range of activities?such as machinery repair and fertilizer production, food processing and manufacturing, transportation, wholesale and retail distribution of food and apparel products, and eating establishments.
-
This entire issue stems from Sirs' maintaining that since the overall Gross Domestic Product is growing, there is no one that has any business complaining, because everyone just has to be equally receiving the benefits of this growth.
Since ExxonMobil has improved its profit margin, we are all benefitting from their inflated profits.
And that position is utterly bogus.