Media: Don't Know Much About The Economy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:21:46 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

d-day points us to this tripe from Howard Fineman on Tweety's show, proving yet again that the Media does not understand economics:

Fineman: it's not only depressing it's counterproductive because if the new mantra is that we have to live within our means then congress has to do it too and we all have to pitch in, there has to be some . . . real hard choices made. The president keeps saying we're going to have to make hard choices. Which choices are they and how is the congress making them?

(Emphasis supplied.) It is really amazing that these fools continue to expose their unwillingness to try and understand the most rudimentary economics. The United States and the world are in an economic spiral now because aggregate demand had dropped precipitously. Since interest rates are at the lower zero bound, the only way to raise aggregate demand now is by government spending. Indeed, we need massive government spending. And here these fools are obsessed with "earmarks" (obviously they learned economics from "Don't know much about economics" John McCain. It is a disgrace.

Speaking for me only

< Saturday Morning Open Thread | No Change From Obama on Indefinite Detention >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Media: Don't Know Much About The Economy | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Political Journalism vs Business Journalism (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by santarita on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:42:18 AM EST

The level of reporting on business and economic issues on tv and radio is superficial except at specialty stations like Bloomberg and CNBC and on PBS where there are programs dedicated to business and the economy. CNBC produces an occasional good documentary but as has been discussed does not do a very good job of investigative reporting or meaningful analysis. CNN does a slightly better job than MSNBC.

Part of the problem with most of the shows on MSNBC and the majority of the programming on CNN is that they are geared almost exclusively to political analysis. So their business and economic reporting is often on the political implications of an economic event. They can talk about earmarks with a high level of comfort but can't talk about the reinstatement of the uptick rule or the role of China and other countries in the economic recovery or financial system stabilization. So they just focus on what they are comfortable with and ignore the rest.

On NPR's Marketplace (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 12:34:28 PM EST

yesterday the gathered throng was discussing Stewart/Cramer deal. Some guy (can't remember his name--a guest economy blogger) sd.: better to listen to Marketplace and ignore CNBC.


: I Like NPR's Marketplace... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by santarita on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:21:24 PM EST

I try to arrange my schedule so that I can listen to it. Charlie Rose has also had some great interviews - most recently with Tim Geithner. And Bill Moyers and Frontline have been good.

So I suppose Fineman has paid (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 04:59:45 PM EST

cash for his houses and cars over the course of his lifetime. Shaking head.

And I guess if his house and his car were totaled by some natural disaster not covered by his insurance he'd live within his means and live in a tent and take the bus until he was able to save enough to buy new ones.

I am finding these deficit hawks very tiresome. Where were these people when we decided to pour a trillion or more dollars into Iraq?

Maybe they should listen to the WH (none / 0) (#1)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:44:10 AM EST

At least, as I posted yesterday, Larry Summers thinks all we need is more greed and less fear.

From Summers' text, "Responding to an Historic Economic Crisis: The Obama Program":
"An abundance of greed and an absence of fear on Wall Street led some to make purchases -- not based on the real value of assets, but on the faith that there would be another who would pay more for those assets. At the same time, the government turned a blind eye to these practices and their potential consequences for the economy as a whole. This is how a bubble is born. And in these moments, greed begets greed. The bubble grows.
"Eventually, however, this process stops - and reverses. Prices fall. People sell. Instead of an expectation of new buyers, there is an expectation of new sellers. Greed gives way to fear. And this fear begets fear. ...
"It is this transition from an excess of greed to an excess of fear that President Roosevelt had in mind when he famously observed that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. It is this transition that has happened in the United States today.
"What is the task of policy in such an environment?
"While greed is no virtue, entrepreneurship and the search for opportunity is what we need today. We need a program that breaks these vicious cycles. We need to instill the trust that allows opportunity to overcome fear and enables families and businesses to again imagine a brighter future. And we need to create this confidence without allowing it to lead to unstable complacency."

Want to explain how he's wrong? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 10:57:06 AM EST

It seems to me that he's describing the paradox of thrift.


OK. I'll take a shot at it. (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by cal1942 on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 12:20:11 PM EST

His statement is, IMO, confused, awkward and doesn't convey the right message. At the very least it's a poor choice of words.

It's not a matter of greed. Entrepreneurial greed got us to this point. What's needed is employment for the unemployed. Increasing employment enables people to spend money in the economy spuring economic growth that increases employment still further and so on. Increasing employment eliminates fear.

Emphasizing the demand side is not inspiring greed, it's enabling people to participate, to live a life in dignity. It would be interesting to know whether Summers thinks that consumption by average people constitutes greed. Is everyday consumption of goods and services by average people a selfish and excessive desire for more of something than is needed.

Investment (what he's probably referencing) won't occur without an increase in demand, a reasonable expectation of some return. That's why government has to initiate the spending to enable demand.

Trust Summers to view and express only the business side of the equation.


Well said (none / 0) (#9)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 12:22:25 PM EST

Maybe you should have his job.


I think you're making (none / 0) (#26)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:50:35 PM EST

entirely too much out of a play on words he couldn't resist making, though he probably should have since people like us are having a hissy fit about it.

It is also simply not right to say Summers's only interest is in the business side of the equation. He's not Hank Paulson or even Robert Rubin. He's spent basically his entire career in public service and liberal academia.

As somebody says above, he's a pretty crude guy who isn't very smart about understanding how his words are received either in private or in public. If he's going to speak in public, the White House needs to assign him a minder who can keep as tight a rein as possible on what comes out of his mouth.

All that said, his core point is entirely right. Fear is at the center of any recession/depression. It would be helpful to the whole economy if the people who have a little money and aren't in any danger of losing their jobs would relax and unleash just a bit of the acquisitiveness (ie, greed) so many overindulged in to get us into the current mess.


: If this was his point (none / 0) (#30)
by cal1942 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 01:08:53 AM EST

and it may have been:

Fear is at the center of any recession/depression. It would be helpful to the whole economy if the people who have a little money and aren't in any danger of losing their jobs would relax and unleash just a bit of the acquisitiveness (ie, greed) so many overindulged in to get us into the current mess.
Then he's not apt to get much action getting people to loosen up and start spending. FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself but also said he intended to put America back to work. Putting people back to work calms the fear. The fact is that as long as we continue to bleed jobs people aren't going to go on a spending spree even if they have the money. Inasmuch as acquisitiveness is concerned, I don't believe that acquiring the necessities of life or obtaining the 'things' that people consider standard equipment for modern life to be greed. The people who overindulged and got us into this mess weren't buying wide screen TVs, they were selling financial instruments to suck up a flush of capital and invented shoddy "products" to lure those bucks and commissions. Blind greed in the financial world got us here not consumer spending.
I do agree that Summers should have any utterance that may become public subject to intense scrutiny and rewrite.

Did I say it was wrong? (none / 0) (#3)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:11:32 AM EST

Although it is a bit crass talking about "needing more greed". I think someone with his education could have a little more finesse and more extensive vocabulary to explain things.


: Summers is well known to be (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:23:43 AM EST

a crude individual, lacking finesse. But his point is essentially right.

: Actually (none / 0) (#4)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:14:43 AM EST

Summers reminds me of Gordon Gecko
Greed is good, baby.

: I prefer greed to irrational exuberance (none / 0) (#6)
by Manuel on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:24:22 AM EST

According to Thomas Geoghegan (none / 0) (#25)
by hairspray on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 05:48:06 PM EST

writing in Harpers (April 2009, Infinite Debt) we need more than just a left turn on greed. We need some stunning leadership on pulling our capital out of the financial sector and into the manufacturing/good production sector soon. The causes according to the author were legalization of usury, union busting and with it the abandonment of contracts to workers brought to you by the new and improved bankruptcy laws and finally too many lawyers who can debase anything. An excellent read. And it puts to rest the argument that Clinton's signing of the glass Steagell Act ushered in the financial collapse.


Washington Post is axing its (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 12:41:04 PM EST

business section!

I find this to be an incredible decision. (none / 0) (#13)
by DFLer on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:36:56 PM EST

What's up with this?


Admitting they are clueless? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by oculus on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:40:22 PM EST

Or (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:48:33 PM EST

Realizing that Jon Stewart is correct and the MSM has liability.


Double heh (none / 0) (#16)
by DFLer on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:58:48 PM EST

I don't have access to hard copy WashPo.

Where do they publish the stat sheets, (stock prices, indexes, other stuff) My paper has it in its business section.

So where will the Post put that?


: Classifieds? (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 02:17:48 PM EST

Their thought (none / 0) (#17)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:59:49 PM EST

is that since the economy is so prevalent, they are merging the "business" section into the "A" section with the news.


Trying to Save $$$ is My Guess... (none / 0) (#18)
by santarita on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 02:00:18 PM EST

they are eliminating most of the individual daily stock prices and relying on charts instead.

The paper is combining it with the front section. Makes sense because much of the news that is on readers' minds is business-related.


Aren't the stock prices (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by jbindc on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:08:21 PM EST

Kind of irrelevant nowadays? Especially when you can turn on CNBC or Fox Business and see a ticker all day, or when you check prices on Yahoo almost up to the minute? Isn't it old news by the time it's in the paper the next day?


: I'd say so... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by santarita on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:48:58 PM EST

stock prices are just taking up print space.

BTD, (none / 0) (#20)
by shoulin4 on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 02:45:40 PM EST

this post really made me laugh. You made my day, and that's all I have to say :)

so how does rasmussen (none / 0) (#27)
by Jlvngstn on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:00:28 PM EST

pull out a poll that says 27% of americans favor a second stimulus and another 53% think that we are somewhat likely to enter a 1930's like depression within the next few years.

That is a nation of sacrificers or a nation of people who have no idea how hard it will be on the bottom 80% and especially hard on the bottom of the masses.

Ask anyone who lived through that as a child and they will tell you that you don't want to live through that type of tailspin.

We don't have enough of them left and I am afraid we really do not know what that means.

Back to my coop.

Is there any limit to the (none / 0) (#28)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 07:19:28 PM EST

gov't spending? How much taxpayer debt is too much? Don't think about it, someone's kids will pay for it.

Concern Troll? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:15:19 PM EST

Nary a peep about the children when your man Bush was eviscerating the surplus and building up heaps of debt. Why now all the concern?

Of course you are arguing for more of the same BushCo thinking.

You have no standing when it comes to solutions regarding the economy as a die hard Bush supporter.


I was hardly (none / 0) (#31)
by Wile ECoyote on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:16:53 AM EST

a supporter when it came to economics. I hated his approval of the farm bill, look it up it was leaden with pork. The same with the transportation bill.

If you would actually read postings, you would know I have been against pork no matter who it in charge. Bushco thinking is Obama thinking now.


Military Pork? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 02:59:38 PM EST

Seems to me that is where all the fat has gone. Three Trillion would be good to have right now, and a lot less dead people, and fat cat war profiteers.


: link (none / 0) (#33)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:00:18 PM EST

Here