Got it. So the recession is an imaginary, media-created conspiracy designed for the purpose of selling more newspapers and increasing TV news viewership? I wonder how we'll explain that to the 2 million people that have become unemployed since the beginning of the recession? "Sorry, Mr. Worker, you weren't actually let go because your employer was struggling and/or your factory shut down. No, they're doing fine. It just made for more titillating news to help the Associated Press, Gannett Company, New York Times, News Corp, and other news/media organizations make millions of dollars." (Though oddly enough, it hasn't had this effect at all on their stock prices or profits. Bad plan these evil conglomerates hatched to make more money . . . . :devil:)

 

Please don't put conspiratorial words in my mouth. In case you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the oil thread I find such thoughts to be quite lacking in intellectual depth. The point I am attempting to make here is that the difference between perception and reality is that perception is stronger and often becomes reality quite readily. Their intent was not to create a recession, that was going to happen eventually no matter what. I am merely saying that their reporting that there was one a few months ago sped up the process.

The same goal as any company, to make more money and draw more profits. No news sells like bad news and it is really easy to get people interested in something that could eventually directly affect them. Even if by the very action of saying the economy is going downhill helps to speed it along.

 

Your argument is without basis. Your implication is that the media conglomerates profit from the supposed hysteria they are creating with their exaggerated claims of financial problems.

 

However, the financials do not support your claim:

 

GE down about 50% in one year

CBS down about 70%

Disney down about 25%

 

 

So your theory, in order to be true, would have the CEO and the board of directors knowingly have their own wealth as well as their stockholders' wealth decrease substantially JUST so they can exaggerate the health of the economy? Is that what you believe?

Stimulus spending is indeed a time-tested and proven way of moving the economy forward out of such tough times. It has been done for every single recession and agreed by just about every economist I've ever heard of as an appropriate and accepted practice. If not that, what would you suggest?

 

It's worked in the past when things got really bad.

 

The only other thing that has worked to stabilize the bad economy (of the time) was World War 2.

 

Which option appeals to you more, UKMustangFan?

I opt for stimulus spending!

Stimulus spending has never been done on the scale Barack Obama and the Democrats are talking about, at least not in my lifetime. $600 billion to $1 trillion in spending on top of all of the bailouts already done and those in the mill is going to make our economic situation worse in the long run.

 

Drastic corporate income tax cuts would do more to fix our economy than any government spending program. Instead, our government is piling on new taxes on businesses and individuals. The governor of New York even wants to levy a tax on non-diet sodas. Government should shrink during a recession and instead politicians are proposing expansion.

 

I'm not an Obama fan. Far from it. But it's a bit early to condemn him for actions he hasn't taken yet. Stimulus spending is absolutely critical to get this economy going again. You can debate what the appropriate amount should be, but until he's in office and makes some horrific blunder that further prolongs or deepens the recession, the criticism seems premature. And, let's be honest, the reason you haven't seen spending like this proposed in your lifetime is because you haven't seen firsthand a recession of this magnitude in your lifetime. Media exaggerated or not . . .

Edited December 17, 200817 yr by cooperstown
spelling

It's worked in the past when things got really bad.

 

The only other thing that has worked to stabilize the bad economy (of the time) was World War 2.

 

Which option appeals to you more, UKMustangFan?

I opt for stimulus spending!

 

Yes, World War III does not seem like such an appealing idea.

Please don't put conspiratorial words in my mouth. In case you didn't pay any attention to what I said in the oil thread I find such thoughts to be quite lacking in intellectual depth. The point I am attempting to make here is that the difference between perception and reality is that perception is stronger and often becomes reality quite readily. Their intent was not to create a recession, that was going to happen eventually no matter what. I am merely saying that their reporting that there was one a few months ago sped up the process.

 

Sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to take some post(s) you made in another thread into consideration. I thought your point was that the media has greatly exaggerated the dire state of the economy in order to benefit their financial situation and that a recession possibly doesn't even exist. Bad planning, I guess, as I'm sure you would agree that their reporting has had the exact opposite effect on their profits. I wonder why there was not some other story - any story - that they could fabricate/embellish that would help sell newspapers/air time? (BTW, did all the media giants get together at some secret meeting to corordinate this made-up and overblown "bad economy/recession" story? :sssh:) And actually, it was not the media's premature reporting that we were in a recession that hastened the process along. It is been determined that we officially entered into this recession in December 2007, so they were actually extremely delinquent in reporting this story.

Got it. So the recession is an imaginary, media-created conspiracy designed for the purpose of selling more newspapers and increasing TV news viewership? I wonder how we'll explain that to the 2 million people that have become unemployed since the beginning of the recession? "Sorry, Mr. Worker, you weren't actually let go because your employer was struggling and/or your factory shut down. No, they're doing fine. It just made for more titillating news to help the Associated Press, Gannett Company, New York Times, News Corp, and other news/media organizations make millions of dollars." (Though oddly enough, it hasn't had this effect at all on their stock prices or profits. Bad plan these evil conglomerates hatched to make more money . . . . :devil:)

As PepRock clarified, a recession was going to happen no matter what. However, in all business transactions, a large part of it depends on how both sides feel about the current state of the economy. If someone thinks that things are only going to get worse, then they will be hesitant to take a chance (and the same thing stands for the stock market).

I'm unclear. So which is the best way to help the economy recover from a recession - more government spending or less?

 

You cannot tax your way out of a recession. If you raise taxes, you cause people to further curtail spending, and deepen the recession. The bottom-line is that you have to get money flowing through the economy again and you do this through government spending (and, yes, eventually this has to be paid for down the road with higher taxes) and reducing interest rates to encourage less saving by the consumer and more borrowing by companies to grow their businesses.

I was unclear, thank you for bringing that up.

 

When I said more spending, I mean any of the three types- government spending, consumer spending, or investment spending.

 

This is where consumer confidence and the media's effect can come into play- if everyone thinks everything is worse than it has ever been, then there will be less consumer & investment spending. Personally, I think this is where government spending should come into play- to jump start everything. However, I personally think that Bush has gone and Obama will go much, much to far with gov't spending.

 

Your argument is without basis. Your implication is that the media conglomerates profit from the supposed hysteria they are creating with their exaggerated claims of financial problems.

 

However, the financials do not support your claim:

 

GE down about 50% in one year

CBS down about 70%

Disney down about 25%

 

 

So your theory, in order to be true, would have the CEO and the board of directors knowingly have their own wealth as well as their stockholders' wealth decrease substantially JUST so they can exaggerate the health of the economy? Is that what you believe?

There is no doubt that the economy is in a recession- with or without the mainstream media. However, there is much more incentive for the media to report the bad then the good- the same reason the media always reports murders instead of random acts of kindness. People want to hear the extreme.

 

Now, how much the media affects the economy is debatable. I find it substantial. Take a look at the stock market- people are holding onto their cash. Until investors believe that the stock market & economy in general are going to improve, they will continue to hold. Do you think that when you turn on the TV at all times, all you hear is "Are we going in a Depression?" that people are going to invest?

It's worked in the past when things got really bad.

 

The only other thing that has worked to stabilize the bad economy (of the time) was World War 2.

 

Which option appeals to you more, UKMustangFan?

I opt for stimulus spending!

If you are implying that, to get out a recession, only two things (war & government spending) can get you out. Then I disagree tremendously.

 

I'd be willing to bet that the Great Depression was extended because of the New Deal (government spending). And I (as well as many economists) really don't think that World War II ended the Great Depression.

There is no doubt that the economy is in a recession- with or without the mainstream media. However, there is much more incentive for the media to report the bad then the good- the same reason the media always reports murders instead of random acts of kindness. People want to hear the extreme.

 

Now, how much the media affects the economy is debatable. I find it substantial. Take a look at the stock market- people are holding onto their cash. Until investors believe that the stock market & economy in general are going to improve, they will continue to hold. Do you think that when you turn on the TV at all times, all you hear is "Are we going in a Depression?" that people are going to invest?

 

.

 

So we're in a recession, right? If so, how is the media's effect "substantial?"

 

Do you not believe that the media is asking what people are asking themselves or each other on a daily basis?

So we're in a recession, right? If so, how is the media's effect "substantial?"

 

Do you not believe that the media is asking what people are asking themselves or each other on a daily basis?

No one implied that the media caused a recession. However, I think that the media can elongate the effects of a recession. While I think that the free market is an effective way to organize and economy, I realize that it is reliant on the perceptions of people. And the media absolutely as an effect of people's perceptions.

 

I am not blaming the media for the economy's problems or burning down Palin's church. However, the questions that people are asking each other sometimes have to do with what they hear from the media, do they not?

No one implied that the media caused a recession. However, I think that the media can elongate the effects of a recession. While I think that the free market is an effective way to organize and economy, I realize that it is reliant on the perceptions of people. And the media absolutely as an effect of people's perceptions.

 

I am not blaming the media for the economy's problems or burning down Palin's church. However, the questions that people are asking each other sometimes have to do with what they hear from the media, do they not?

 

So, do you think the media CAUSES the conversations people are having or do you think the media REPORTS what the people are talking about?

No one implied that the media caused a recession. However, I think that the media can elongate the effects of a recession. While I think that the free market is an effective way to organize and economy, I realize that it is reliant on the perceptions of people. And the media absolutely as an effect of people's perceptions.

 

I am not blaming the media for the economy's problems or burning down Palin's church. However, the questions that people are asking each other sometimes have to do with what they hear from the media, do they not?

 

Aren't you doing just that? (at least to some degree).

No one implied that the media caused a recession. However, I think that the media can elongate the effects of a recession. While I think that the free market is an effective way to organize and economy, I realize that it is reliant on the perceptions of people. And the media absolutely as an effect of people's perceptions.

 

I am not blaming the media for the economy's problems or burning down Palin's church. However, the questions that people are asking each other sometimes have to do with what they hear from the media, do they not?

 

So, I'm curious - if you are assign some blame to the media for exacerbating the extent of the recession and bear stock market, do they also get credit for helping the Dow hit an all-time high of 14,000+ just over a year ago and corporate profits going through the roof these past few years?

 

I simply am not a believer that the media caused/hastened/deepened the recession or stock market plunge. They simply reported on it, as they also reported on it when things were so very rosy the past few years. Should they ignore this current story simply because it is negative? There is no financial incentive for them whatsoever to paint a more dire picture than what truly exists. Proof of this? Check out the stock market prices and profits (or lack of them) for some of the biggest media conglomerates.

 

In fact, the media didn't really report us as being in a "recession" until the past few months when, in fact, we officially entered into a recession as far back as December 2007. If there was some causual effect between the media's (false or exaggerated) reporting and us actually entering into a recession, why did the media stories not precede this December date?

I don't know many who have lost their jobs. Gas is cheaper. Sales at stores all over. My home business is booming. In my world, things have been pretty good.

 

As I've preached on here more than I can remember, right now it's been local on job loss but if things continue it won't be.

 

Here in Martinsville, VA we have been in or just under double digit unemployment since 1999. All the textiles and furniture have practically dried up in this area of VA and North Carolina. It was a substantial workforce that is trying retool or move away.

 

Gas is cheaper right now but it wasn't for nearly 2 years and climbed unbelievably so. Stores have sales because they can't get customers in unless they offer a perceived discount.

 

I too make more than I've ever made but our church has braced for a very tough 2009 where the dividend checks will be much smaller for our retirees, others may lose their jobs to join the ranks of the unemployed in our church as well.

 

 

Is it as bad as we are led to believe. Yes, I believe it is. I don't blame a person or just one policy but the collective ups and downs of economics coupled with some decisions made in the last 15 years or so.

As I've preached on here more than I can remember, right now it's been local on job loss but if things continue it won't be.

 

Here in Martinsville, VA we have been in or just under double digit unemployment since 1999. All the textiles and furniture have practically dried up in this area of VA and North Carolina. It was a substantial workforce that is trying retool or move away.

 

Gas is cheaper right now but it wasn't for nearly 2 years and climbed unbelievably so. Stores have sales because they can't get customers in unless they offer a perceived discount.

 

I too make more than I've ever made but our church has braced for a very tough 2009 where the dividend checks will be much smaller for our retirees, others may lose their jobs to join the ranks of the unemployed in our church as well.

 

Is it as bad as we are led to believe. Yes, I believe it is. I don't blame a person or just one policy but the collective ups and downs of economics coupled with some decisions made in the last 15 years or so.

 

1) Oil prices (caused in part by speculative and unregulated oil commodities traders)

2) Credit crunch

3) Highly questionable and speculative investment practices by banks/fund managers

4) Natural market forces - what goes up (economy/stock market) eventually comes back down. You just hope it doesn't come crashing down like it has.

1) Oil prices (caused in part by speculative and unregulated oil commodities traders)

2) Credit crunch

3) Highly questionable and speculative investment practices by banks/fund managers

4) Natural market forces - what goes up (economy/stock market) eventually comes back down. You just hope it doesn't come crashing down like it has.

 

I would add the "outsourcing" of a lot of our traditional manufacturing.