Is the economy this bad?

by Aaron Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:29 pm

I've thought the media has been part of the liberal campaign for a very long time. Take BO's trip to the Middle East for example. All 3 news anchors are accompanying him and will be reporting daily on this trip. He'll get more free advertising the McCain can afford to buy.

And why? Perhaps the answer appears in the article.

The Obama Recession?

Economics -- to most people as useful a course of study as ancient Bulgarian literature -- is really the study of human behavior. This kind of behavior is labeled “emergent” -- meaning it is a large-scale pattern that emerges spontaneously out of the interactions of numerous individuals each independently following a more local program. (In the case of the economy, this more-local program is the perceived self-interest of each of the millions of people within the economy.)

Because of the huge number of factors involved, and the constant feedback of one factor on another, predicting emergent effects is as difficult as predicting next year’s hurricanes. This is why economists follow so many indicators, do so much math, and often end up wrong anyway.

But there are times when the economy is not a purely emergent effect -- when the behavior of a significant number of individuals is effectively coordinated by an outside force. A prime example is the final ending of the Great Depression by World War Two. During the Depression, deflation and unemployment created an emergent cycle of fear and uncertainty that undermined investor and consumer confidence. The ensuing reductions in spending, investment, and risk-taking lead to further deflation and unemployment.Continued

The needs of national crisis and war brought this cycle to a sudden and non-spontaneous end. The unemployed were drafted or put to work in support of the troops. The hard break in psychology and behavior (aided by propaganda) then helped to prepare the way for the return of confidence and economic growth following the war.

This presidential election year may prove to be another example of economic tone and human behavior being determined by war and propaganda. The war in this case is the American equivalent of the modern civil war: a presidential election. The propaganda will be spontaneously offered up by the mainstream media in support of their favored party.

Highlighting economic (and other) bad news anytime it can be pinned on a Republican incumbent (or his successor) has been standard procedure in the left-leaning media for decades. They exaggerated the mild, brief recession of 1992 into “the worst economy in fifty years”. No one really believed that the economy was worse off then than it was, say, during the late 1970’s. However, facts mattered little and were only a starting place for much somber “reporting” in support of Bill Clinton’s gloomy talking points. “Talking down” the economy to bolster a Democrat challenger is nothing new.

And several factors could make this year’s talking-down much worse than usual.

Unlike 1992, this economy faces real and significant structural problems. Housing prices have crashed, lending has contracted, the dollar has been halved, oil prices have soared, and food prices have been biofueled up to recent highs.

All these issues have taken a huge toll on consumer confidence, pushing it -- and the stock market -- to the lowest levels in years. And consumer confidence is precisely what is targeted by exaggerated election-year doom-mongering from the mainstream media. Given the already anemic state that confidence is in, it may not take much hyperbole and rant to send it into a tailspin -- especially since the media will have much better ammunition to work with in such an already worrisome economic environment.

Another factor that could make this election into an economic disaster is the amazing amount of pent-up hate and disdain that much of the media has for George W. Bush. It doesn’t matter to them (or other Democrats) that he is not running for re-election and that John McCain is a very different man, with his own policies, and no great personal love for Bush. The left sees this election as a reactionary holy war -- a chance to “take back” the country from a hated, demonized (and plainly incompetent) figure. Self-restraint will likely not be in fashion for Democrat journalists between now and November -- especially when compounded by the third factor pointing toward a coming propaganda war against the American economy -- Obamamania.

Obama’s greatest support comes from two distinct groups. One is upper middle-class, college-educated white liberals -- or as I like to call them -- “journalism majors.” The other group is blacks -- the favorite victim class of journalism majors. It should be no surprise then that Obama is being hailed as something akin to a reincarnated hybrid-idol, Martin-Luther-John/Bobby-Kennedy-King. For the mainstream media, Obama will be the most instinctively protected presidential candidate in history. He will be above criticism, a sacred cause, and a personal mission for many journalists.

Together, these factors could combine to ensure that this year’s economy is no random and autonomous event. The economy will very likely be wounded deeply by the media, so that Obama can ride its limping form to the White House. Even if good economic news were to occur in the next few months, I can’t imagine that it will be reported by most outlets.

Most politicians have to actually get into office to cause a severe recession. Obama (and his supporters) may cause one as collateral campaign damage before a single vote is cast.

The future is never certain, but this may be one chapter in which the script has been written and the actors will deliver their lines predictably.source

by shermangeneral Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:04 am

A vast economic conspiracy?

by **ohio county** Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:07 am

No, it isn't vast. It's only about half vast.

Actually, the article was very good.

by Aaron Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:15 am

But it is there. I seem to recall it was about a year ago that the media suddenly started putting the economy as the number one item on the news, even though very few if any of the economic indicators pointed to a recession. It was right about the time the surge started taking hold and violence started decreasing in Iraq.

by shermangeneral Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:34 am

Aaron are you old enough to remember Spiro Agnew and his comment about "nattering nabobs" of negativism?

by Aaron Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:43 am

As a 7 year old, I paid no attention to politics. But I do know how ones outlook effects our economy. Negativism can be endless cycle. The great depression proves that.

And if you will recall, the liberal media has been 'talking' us into a recession for well over a year, even though technically we're not in one. At least not yet. But I'm sure they will keep talking until we are in one and then BO can come and save the day, just like Bill Clinton did in 93.

Rolling Eyes

by Randall Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:56 pm

I think the definitive study of the modern media's effect on the human psyche has yet to be done. But I do wonder if the human mind is not equipped to the daily bombardment of information that we receive nowadays. The constant stream of mostly negative news has to have some effect, at least on some people prone to anxiety. The media has heightened the feeling of impending doom by spinning every story, no matter what the topic, as a threat to you and your family. I wonder how different things would have been had our 2008 media been present during, say, the Depression, when a quarter of Americans were out of work, the entire worldwide economy had collapsed, tyrannical despots controlled Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union and were poised for war, the United States was experiencing the hottest temperatues ever recorded, and the entire midwest and east were engulfed by drought-induced dust storms. Can you imagine if all that were happening today? People would be utterly freaking out. We've lost our perspective, our ability to process.

Just my two cents.

by **Stephanie** Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:07 am

I think Randall is certainly on to something.

Times are tough and they will get tougher. I believe that. Will they be as bad as when my grandparents were young and starting out in life? I certainly doubt it, but it does seem to me we are heading into a storm.

What role does the media play? I say this....in another thread I mentioned my concern about a violent uprising. I think it is entirely possible and if it comes to pass it will be largely because we cannot escape the gloom and doom news. People didn't have round the clock access to instant news with "journalists" putting their own spin on every event large and small.

I see another huge difference between then and now. Then the government was violating key civil liberties of American citizens. Today they are and people are not only scared, they are angry and they are blaming the government. I think the politicians have largely earned the blame.

by shermangeneral Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:54 am

Good point Randall.

I remember back in the fifties when Underwood was Governor and how bad it was then.

Rampant unemployment, poverty, misery.

It was bad.

But even bad as it was I still remember my mother telling me as a child that those were not hard times compared to the Hoover days.

by Aaron Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:04 am

I wonder if BO will make the situation worse upon entering office in regard to our economy in the same manner FDR did in 33?

by ziggy Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:43 am

All these issues have taken a huge toll on consumer confidence, pushing it -- and the stock market -- to the lowest levels in years. And consumer confidence is precisely what is targeted by exaggerated election-year doom-mongering from the mainstream media. Given the already anemic state that confidence is in, it may not take much hyperbole and rant to send it into a tailspin -- especially since the media will have much better ammunition to work with in such an already worrisome economic environment.

If the managed economy can be tanked simply by a political campaign for President which points out the negative economic plights of certain people, then it must have been an artificially pumped up, over-hyped economy already.

What a fictional world we have bred- one in which economic over-confidence somehow leads to as "good" economy- but that honest critiques of the plight of certain disadvantaged people and groups of people somehow leads to an economic "tailspin".

Pogo syndrome, again.

by SFCraig Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:26 am

The terms "recession" or "depression" have no real meaning, imo. The fundamentals are horrible. Housing has collapsed and the financial sector (now more than 20% of our economy) is in complete disarray. Unemployment is up and the numbers don't really reveal how "underemployed" and underpaid we are. Wages are down and they've managed to drive a stake in the heart of American "wealth"; home ownership.

We don't make anything any more. We've embraced a philosophy that virtually guarantees any good job can be shipped overseas.

I'd say with nobody guarding the henhouse, the Wall Street plunderers have greatly weakened the economy. This is true whether or not we've had 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. Smile

by Aaron Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:39 pm

ziggy wrote:
All these issues have taken a huge toll on consumer confidence, pushing it -- and the stock market -- to the lowest levels in years. And consumer confidence is precisely what is targeted by exaggerated election-year doom-mongering from the mainstream media. Given the already anemic state that confidence is in, it may not take much hyperbole and rant to send it into a tailspin -- especially since the media will have much better ammunition to work with in such an already worrisome economic environment.

If the managed economy can be tanked simply by a political campaign for President which points out the negative economic plights of certain people, then it must have been an artificially pumped up, over-hyped economy already.

What a fictional world we have bred- one in which economic over-confidence somehow leads to as "good" economy- but that honest critiques of the plight of certain disadvantaged people and groups of people somehow leads to an economic "tailspin".

Pogo syndrome, again.

I've thought about this quite a bit Frank and here's the thing. I don't think the economy is in that bad of shape. Yes, fuel prices are high but that is due to overseas demand and speculators. If nothing else, it forced Americans to reduce our demand so it's not an overall bad thing. It also has Americans looking at alternatives to foreign oil, which is once again, not a bad thing.

Yes, housing is in the tank but it should be. Housing doubled much too fast and it had to correct itself. There was no way pricing could keep up with the growth.

Yes, some banks have failed. They should have. They made bad business decisions and that’s exactly what should have happened.

As bad as the housing market is though, those houses are not going to just up and disappear. In the end, someone or lots of someone’s are going to make a boat load of money off of all these houses that they are going to get cheap.

I believe our economy is fairly sound and is going through a much need correction. I worry about the dollar but I’m sure that will rebound as well.

What I think is happening is that the VERY liberal media is making Mt. Everest out of a mole hill because they WANT BO as the next president and this is there way of 'campaigning' for him. And they are counting on a very gullible, upset, angry bunch of voters to fall for this crap hook, line and sinker.

The sad thing is, there are those out there that are.

by **Stephanie** Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:11 pm

Aaron this economy is in pretty rough shape. It isn't just the price of oil and the banks and the housing market. It's the sharp increase in food, it's rising unemployment and the rising cost of all energy. It's our unwillingness or inability to deal with the causes of these difficulties and this includes the outsourcing of jobs, the national debt, the personal debt of Americans, our fiat currency, our foreign policy, entitlements that are swallowing up all of the budget and too much of our paychecks, and our insistance at allowing more and more people in....our population is growing too fast too quickly for the resources we have. It's that simple.

Some of these issues nobody wants to think about, much less do anything about them.

by ziggy Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:27 pm

Aaron wrote:I've thought about this quite a bit Frank and here's the thing. I don't think the economy is in that bad of shape. Yes, fuel prices are high but that is due to overseas demand and speculators. If nothing else, it forced Americans to reduce our demand so it's not an overall bad thing. It also has Americans looking at alternatives to foreign oil, which is once again, not a bad thing.

Yes, housing is in the tank but it should be. Housing doubled much too fast and it had to correct itself. There was no way pricing could keep up with the growth.

Yes, some banks have failed. They should have. They made bad business decisions and that’s exactly what should have happened.

As bad as the housing market is though, those houses are not going to just up and disappear. In the end, someone or lots of someone’s are going to make a boat load of money off of all these houses that they are going to get cheap.

I believe our economy is fairly sound and is going through a much need correction. I worry about the dollar but I’m sure that will rebound as well.

What I think is happening is that the VERY liberal media is making Mt. Everest out of a mole hill because they WANT BO as the next president and this is there way of 'campaigning' for him. And they are counting on a very gullible, upset, angry bunch of voters to fall for this crap hook, line and sinker.

The sad thing is, there are those out there that are.

So then is it that, while you think that the political campaign talk about the economy is not actually ruining the economy, but you do worry that political discussion about the economy might help to elect Barack Obama?

by Aaron Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:38 pm

Stephanie wrote:Aaron this economy is in pretty rough shape. It isn't just the price of oil and the banks and the housing market. It's the sharp increase in food,

this can be fixed fairly quickly by stopping mandatory use of ethonol.

Stephanie wrote:it's rising unemployment

unemployment jumped to 5.5% which considering 5% of the people are worthless, isn't bad.

Stephanie wrote:and the rising cost of all energy.

AEP wants to build 2 power plants along the OH. Issuing permits will not only start a reduction in energy cost, it will help unemployment as well. This can clearly be seen by driving by John Amos around 5 any day of the week. You should go by sometime.

Stephanie wrote:It's our unwillingness or inability to deal with the causes of these difficulties and this includes the outsourcing of jobs,

How is this a huge problem?

Stephanie wrote:the national debt,

A government shut down will solve that quick. But long term, we must reduce government spending. How soon would we be out of debt if we reduced spending by 5%? 10%? Accross the board, including military spending. Most people will assume that Republicans will scream the most while democrats would be for reducing military spending. That's not true. The Congressmen and Senators that are going to be against a reduction in spending are those that have defense contractors in their districts.

Stephanie wrote:the personal debt of Americans,

that's personal and each brings it upon themselves. The only way to stop it is to stop bailing out people who make stupid decisions. Yet here we are now, a few days away from doing just that in housing.

Stephanie wrote:our fiat currency,

That needs to be addressed but it's a fairly easily solution if the desire is there to solve it.

Stephanie wrote:our foreign policy,

We don't agree with the answers on this one so there's really no use going into it.

Stephanie wrote:entitlements that are swallowing up all of the budget and too much of our paychecks,

This is, imo, leading to the destruction of America.

Stephanie wrote:and our insistance at allowing more and more people in....our population is growing too fast too quickly for the resources we have. It's that simple.

We have to let people in because we don't work as a country anymore and someone has to do the menial jobs.

Stephanie wrote:Some of these issues nobody wants to think about, much less do anything about them.

I agree. Instead of discussing real issues we're too busy worrying about what someone's religion is or if homosexuals marry or not. We're in trouble as a country.

Our economy, however, is not near as bad as the media wants to make it out to be.

by Aaron Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:42 pm

I think all the negative talk is hurting consumer confidence which has an effect on the economy but I don't think it's ruining the economy. It will take a great deal more then talk to ruin the economy.

And no, I don't worry that it will help elect BO. I believe the liberal media is doing all they can to elect him.

I also believe there are those out there on the left that would rather see us lose tragically in Iraq and suffer a near depression to elect BO vs. a stable middle east and a resurgent economy.

by **Stephanie** Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:26 am

Aaron,

The only way to fix these problems is to elect conservative leaders. I'm not talking about electing John McCain, he is NOT conservative.

The problem is that too many people like what the liberals are telling them. They want more entitlement spending. They want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave.

How many manufacturing jobs has Ohio lost in the past decade? Did you know the Chinese have decimated the steel pipe industry in this country by flooding the US market with a product not only much cheaper because of their nonexistant labor & environmental laws, but subsidized by the Chinese government.

Congress doesn't have the desire to deal with fiat currency and they're not going to cut entitlement spending. It isn't going to happen. They aren't going to allow more drilling and even if they do the environmentalists in conjunction with the NIMBY crowed aren't going to allow more refineries. Environmentalists and the elite who don't want wind turbines obstructing the views they believe they own miles away won't hear of it.

Congress isn't going to stop manipulating markets. They aren't going to stop mandating ethanol because they don't care. They care about their own personal wealth and power. Neither Obama nor McCain is going to fix these problems because they don't care about the elderly people living on fixed incomes who can't afford to spend $25 on milk, bread, eggs and juice. They don't care that the folks working at Wendy's and Family Dollar aren't going to get a raise just because the price of gas has shot up and the price of heating their homes and feeding themselves is rising.

I agree that many of the solutions are easy enough. The trouble is neither party will nominate a candidate who will tackle these problems and even if by some miracle they did, Congress won't do what needs to be done.

You and I both know that.

This economy is in trouble.

by Aaron Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:40 am

I'll agree with most of that Stephanie. Not the part about Ohio losing manufacturing jobs though. That is due to the state of OH more then anything else. Jimmy posted a great post months back that address the Ohis issue. I'll see if I can find it. He says it much better then I could.

by **Stephanie** Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:20 am

I remember Jimmy's Ohio post. The man has a way with words to be sure.

The job losses aren't limited to Ohio. Across the country manufacturing jobs are being lost.

I was in Foodland the other day and an elderly woman was complaining about the price of groceries. I was sort of sympathizing with her and another woman said she worked at Wendy's and they recently raised their prices and the customers are complaining. Wendy's raised their prices but not their employees wages.

I don't think it's fair to say Americans are unwilling to perform menial jobs. Immigrants will work for less so businesses want them. Undocumented immigrants will work for less under worse conditions...they don't complain if the boss requires ot but won't pay for it...or if safety standards aren't met and some businesses desire them. I had failed to mention the immigration thing in my last post.

I need to get some shuteye. Yippe my husband who has been working two jobs has tomorrow off. It's the first day we'll get to spend together in nearly 3 weeks.

I'll reread Jimmy's post, if you find it, probably on Monday or Tuesday.

by TerryRC Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:19 am

this can be fixed fairly quickly by stopping mandatory use of ethonol.

Except I can't believe it will help food prices that much.

Most of the corn acres being used for EtOH were used for field corn. Stopping the mandatory EtOH might bring down beef, pork, poultry, eggs and milk a little bit but not so much as you would really feel relief.

This is partially due to the fact that many livestock producers have made a shift to soy as silage.

To bring down food prices, you would have to get rid of mandatory use of EtOH in gas AND teach those old farmers some new tricks.

AEP wants to build 2 power plants along the OH. Issuing permits will not only start a reduction in energy cost, it will help unemployment as well. This can clearly be seen by driving by John Amos around 5 any day of the week. You should go by sometime.

I'd hope they'd be a little better about their emissions that they are at JA, but alright.

I wish they would take up the fight and go nuclear.

Other than that, I agree with almost all of your 26 Jul, 10:38am post.

by SamCogar Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:53 am

Stephanie wrote:I was in Foodland the other day and an elderly woman was complaining about the price of groceries. I was sort of sympathizing with her and another woman said she worked at Wendy's and they recently raised their prices and the customers are complaining. Wendy's raised their prices but not their employees wages.

Did any of you women complain about Foodland raising their prices but not their employees wages?

.

by SamCogar Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:02 am

TerryRC wrote:this can be fixed fairly quickly by stopping mandatory use of ethonol.

Except I can't believe it will help food prices that much.

Most of the corn acres being used for EtOH were used for field corn. Stopping the mandatory EtOH might bring down beef, pork, poultry, eggs and milk a little bit but not so much as you would really feel relief.

.

by Aaron Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:17 am

I assume you're talking about the blue haze at Amos.

It's been reported twice.

I've seen it at least 4 times and I think it was out again yesterday as there were a couple of helicopters flying around all day. And yesterday's conditions were about right.

So what I wonder is if the state and environmentalist knew that by reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog, they would be enhancing the creation of sulfur trioxide, increasing the potential for sulfuric acid emissions, which is basically what the blue haze is.

by shermangeneral Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:49 am

Well I don't know if people are aware but there is apparently a lot going on "behind the scenes".

A major upgrade is underway at Amos.

And several new mines are opening around here.

They are hard pressed to find underground coal miners, believe it or not.

I know one experienced miner who was given a 5k sign on bonus and provided free housing for 6 months to relocate here at Ravenswood and work in the new mine at New Haven.

This could be a good opportunity for displaced wvians who want to return.

They are also trying to build new transmission lines to export "coal by wire" to the northeast.

by Sponsored content

Is the economy this bad?

Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?

Re: Is the economy this bad?