I started a reply to Dave2 on his comment on yesterday’s post but realized I was working so much on it, it can pass for it’s own post! See, I’m efficient like that.
If you didn’t see the post, go read the section on economy and then Dave2’s response. I shall pick up from there.
I’m absolutely no economist and I’m painfully aware that I don’t understand most of the stuff that runs the nation’s money. I can’t completely explain the stock market to my kids other than it’s a general indication of what the public faith is in a specific set of companies, and don’t even get me started on how little I know about housing starts.
And I feel like I’m one of the smarter, more educated citizens. So I have to believe that *if* I’m one of the smarter citizens, that means a lot of people in the country know less than I do.
If that’s true, then it’s all the more reason for our headlines to be as unbiased as possible. Hopefully we can agree on that. We don’t want a forever-rosy picture painted nor do we want doom and gloom all the time. The danger of either is the impact it has on people’s actions. Do we scare people into hoarding? Do we mislead them into blissful happiness so they’re not prepared? Do we pull the wool over their eyes? Do we get them to vote one way or the other?
So when I look at the mainstream media, I see bad news and doom-and-gloom everywhere. But when I do some of my own digging (and yes, listening to conservative talk radio some of the time) I find mention of facts that were conveniently left out of the doom-and-gloom headlines.
I mentioned GDP in my economic treatise, and how it’s traditionally been the measure of what a recession is, and then Dave2 let me know that sane and modern economists don’t use that measure any more. I was unaware of this. After all, I don’t read the economist, where they say we’ve been in a recession since last year because they’re going to choose to use GDP per head instead of GDP for the nation. Ok, they choose that metric instead; fair enough, I suppose.
If we can’t look at GDP, can we look at unemployment? I can spin with the best of them. What would this graph of our unemployment rates for the last 6 years make you think?
Maybe that unemployment is at near record lows right now for the last, what, 6 years? This is straight from the US Dept of Labor Bureau of Statistics. (I’m using http://www.tradingeconomics.com for the neat graphs.)
What about this graph depicting the job gains and losses per month?

This shows, in hundreds of thousands, how many new jobs (in yellow) per month there were in the US and now many less jobs (in red) per month there were. This is for an 8.5 year span, basically from a year before Bush took office until right now.
Some might look at this and say - holy crap, Bush took office in early 2001 and “look what he did” to the job market. That looks like more than a million jobs lost! Or maybe you could look at the graph as a whole and notice how much more the numbers are in the yellow and it’s only for the last 4 months that the job losses were negative, and they’re WAY less negative than in 2001-2003.
April 2008’s job losses were what, 20K? There were more than a million new jobs in 2007 alone. In fact, I don’t think we’ve had job loss since 2003. So we’ve had millions new people get jobs in each of the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, and we’re worried about a couple dozen thousand?
How come these “sane” economists aren’t giving us the full story? No, instead, they say “we’re in our fourth straight month of job loss” and they use the 80,000 number and the 20,000 number in the headline to SCARE people. Why didn’t they do a headline in November 2005 saying “359,000 more people found jobs last month“? Or in March 2007 saying “259,000 less people looking for jobs“. I’ll tell you why. Because it’s POSITIVE news. The news agencies hates positive news.
So maybe we should look at interest rates? Here’s the overnight, 2yr and 10yr interest rates over Bush’s term so far

I’ll be frank - I have absolutely no clue what this really means. All I know is that it was probably a really good idea to borrow money between end of 2001 and beginning of 2005, a bad idea to borrow money from 2005 to 2008, and now it’s a good idea to borrow money again. Is that about right?
What I *do* gather, is the following.
-
More people have jobs than ever before
-
Lots of people spend what they shouldn’t (the credit crunch)
-
Lots of people gambled on buying houses they shouldn’t (subprime debacle)
-
Those people who gambled on buying houses they shouldn’t (with “interest only” loans, no less), now faced with either losing their house or going deeper in debt buying more things they shouldn’t, ended up trying to get a bailout and complaining that they’re stuck in the mess they put themselves in.
-
The democratic nominees think that one way to fix this is to take away more money from successful Americans (raising taxes and a windfall profits tax)
Maybe we need some social networking site that allows people / bloggers to counter the headlines seen across the nation. When someone claims “20,000 jobs lost in April” in a headline, something like digg or reddit allows people to point to it and expose more of the data. Maybe it should be called perspect or wholestory.com or something, I don’t know. I just wish it were easier for people to get MORE data without it being condensied into the headline the masses depend on for their daily opinion.
As far as who owns the influential news sources, your claim is news to me (pardon the pun). I didn’t know CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS were owned by conservatives (you didn’t say that; I’m inferring it). I’ll have to check it out, but I can’t guarantee the timeline in which I do. My quick searches resulted in a left-leaning list so far and how the Jews own it all, whatever THAT means.