A Recession is defined as ...... what again?

[_JS]

*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.

[BT]

A recession is when i don't have a job.

A boom is when i do.

[Plane]

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.

[sirs]

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 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.

[Brassmask]

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.,

[Amianthus]

Once again, the right believes in incompetent over nefarious natures.,

How many perfect humans do you know?

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.