The headline "The Economy Sucks" might be something you'd expect to see in Rolling Stone or on Slate.com, but certainly not in a reputable news magazine, right?
Yet, the January 21 issue of Newsweek defied expectations by using that for part of a headline for a one-sided, pro-Bill Clinton view of the economy. The article recalled the 1992 "It's the economy, stupid!" campaign as it tore down the current economy.
So, why does the economy "suck" according to Newsweek? It isn't that there's a depression looming or that we're in recessionary times, we're just "perilously close to sliding into a recession."
"Today, the nation is perilously close to sliding into a recession; in '92, the economy had already started growing, though a jobless recovery doomed George H.W. Bush's re-election bid anyway," Gross wrote. "The lesson? Voters' perceptions matter more than whether the economy is technically expanding or contracting."
It isn't as cut and dried as Gross has portrayed it however. There are "recession skeptics" out there the Newsweek report didn't include.
Recent reports from The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg indicated a majority of economists they surveyed think the economy will be spared of a recession. The Wall Street Journal indicated economists they surveyed thought there was only a 42 percent chance the economy would experience a recession and the Bloomberg survey indicated economists thought the likelihood of a recession was only 40 percent.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"The lesson? Voters'
January 16, 2008 - 09:49 ET by rimsky"The lesson? Voters' perceptions matter more than whether the economy is technically expanding or contracting."
Right, and Newsweek, Time, the NYT, and many other biased media outlets are all to happy to provide that perception.
I seem to recall that there
January 16, 2008 - 09:56 ET by Pete WilsonI seem to recall that there is an actual economic definition of "recession", which includes a drop in GDP for 2 or 3 consecutive quarters. I may be mistaken.
Of course, the MSM uses that definition when Dems are in power to dismiss economic strength of the country, but only the possibility of recession when discussing Republicans in order to create that "perception". Or so it seems to me.
You're Absolutely Right
January 16, 2008 - 10:16 ET by BourbeauBut here's something else the MSMs won't admit. There's no question there's a building consensus, among the experts, regarding the impending recession. However, recessions are normal parts of the economic cycle. No one enjoys experiencing them, but they are unavoidable especially when you're on the tail end of seven years of cxpansion since the 9/11 debacle. Leave it to the MSMs and the Dems to turn it into economic doom. Another clear example of their confidence in the free market and it's ability to weather economic storms.
That is a very good point.
January 16, 2008 - 10:33 ET by SmartypantsThat is a very good point. The MSM has everyone convinced that any recession can be blamed on specific decisions or policies. Economic slowdowns, including recessions, are inevitable. They cannot be avoided and, in fact, it can do more harm when the federal government tries to take action to "avoid" them. This is the part of Ron Paul's message that actually makes a lot of sense.
I heard 3 quarters but some
January 16, 2008 - 10:40 ET by FishFace222I heard 3 quarters but some are changing to 9 months because it's a little harder to define when an actual recession starts when going by quarters. If the third month of the quarter wipes out any gains in the first 2 months, do you include the whole quarter?
lies
January 16, 2008 - 09:57 ET by dronetekThey are simply following the lead of the MSM and repeating something
enough that it becomes true. Like everyone is saying, perception is reality and
the MSM/Dems know that.
Well from the subscription
January 16, 2008 - 10:01 ET by taterWell from the subscription reports...these particular rags have been going into a recession.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Ya got that right.
January 16, 2008 - 10:13 ET by pbanks7Remember how "the worst economy in 50 years" went uncontested the entire election cycle? Shame on them (but not in their own opinion). Shameless Bass-Tards.
They're doing it again - "Romney needed a win in Michigan to stay alive, he's the comeback kid" when he was already the delegate leader!
MSM - shaping all the info you need to believe.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
So why was it, when George
January 16, 2008 - 10:50 ET by motherbeltSo why was it, when George Bush dared to mention some less-than-rosy financial news during election season he was accused of "talking the economy down" but now the Dems are prescient?
BTW, this NW cover is
January 16, 2008 - 09:54 ET by rimskyBTW, this NW cover is really over the top! What's with that pose? Is she trying to look like an Evita or something? And she found her own voice.. swell.. and what is she saying now?
Reminds me of all those ads
January 16, 2008 - 10:54 ET by motherbeltReminds me of all those ads for Doctors and Lawyers....all that's missing is the arms folded across her chest.
They should have used a different photo...the airbushing can take away the lines etc, but look into her eyes and she looks just plain tired.
...and then the flip...
January 16, 2008 - 10:02 ET by planetrepublicanOf course if Hillary and/or Obama get it, then it's "...the bold leadership of the new Democrat team is starting to bring the Bush depression into the Hillary/Obama boom, blah, blah, yada, yada...". SOP, so what else is new? The masses have fed into this crap and the economy will, indeed, suffer. If these pinheads do get in there and raise taxes to the roof we really WILL be in a recession and/or depression and they will blame Bush.
PR, Forget recession talk
January 16, 2008 - 10:07 ET by LeonPR,
Forget recession talk for a moment, I'm concerned about two things with regard to our economy.
1) We are borrowing money from countries so that we can pay to defend them. What???
2) The dollar has no value
Why aren't people concerned about this? Why aren't conservatives up in arms? I really don't get it.
Is love of Bush and hatred of Liberals really more important than a sound economic environment in our country?
Your answers, Leon
January 16, 2008 - 10:18 ET by timotheI need you to be more specific about the first question, sir. Which countries are lending us money so we can defend them.
In regards to your second question...why is a weak dollar so bad? It lowers the trade deficit and allows the USA to pay its debts to other countries at a lower cost.
Conservatives believe in a free market economy, which means allowing the markets to determine prices. The government should not intervene by raising or cutting rates or funding banks because they bought bad loans. We do this is as a knee jerk reaction to pressure by the business media. We'd be better off without government intervention.
Timothe, Which
January 16, 2008 - 18:36 ET by LeonTimothe,
Which countries?
Just a handful, you know, like all of Europe.
Off Point, again
January 16, 2008 - 10:24 ET by mattmIt's not hatred of Libs and love of Bush. It's the libs who hate. You seem to be accusing conservatives of an irrational thought process which is common to those on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Conservatives are concerned about these issues. In fact, it is the conservatives who are seeking answers, whereas Liberals see economic disaster as an opportunity to usurp more power for the centralized government as controlled by them.
But that's not the point of criticism with regard to this particular story. It's about how the media talk the economy up or down depending upon the political effect it will have. That's all it's about...which I'm sure you know.
2) The dollar has no
January 16, 2008 - 10:30 ET by pbanks72) The dollar has no value
I don't know anything about how much they're printing, but I believe the low interest rates to "stimulate the economy" reduce investment in dollars, and contributed to the housing "crisis."
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
The dollar only has so much
January 16, 2008 - 10:50 ET by Pete WilsonThe dollar only has so much value as to what it will purchase. The dollar is lower in comparison to which other currencies it will acquire.
The dollar has had no intrinsic value since it was de-linked to gold and/or silver.
Life in a Vacuum.
January 16, 2008 - 10:40 ET by CrashBy Newsleak.
Perhaps it's no so much that the economy "sucks", but that there are so many suckers buying into the fatalistic line.
What "sucks" is the fact that we get taxed so harshly that it follows us beyond the grave. What's that quote, "The only sure things are death taxes?" What "sucks" is that the government is like an inoperable tumor, growing at an alarming rate as it saps its victim of energy until it kills the host. What "sucks" is that Newsweek gets quoted ... and here I thought they were out of print.
→ Don't care
January 16, 2008 - 10:40 ET by Cool ArrowAll I can control is my spending vs income
I ♣ My Seal
Oh, how I wish that was true
January 16, 2008 - 10:52 ET by Pete WilsonOh, how I wish that was true at the government level!
But, alas it is not. The Politicians on both sides are buying our votes with our money!
→ True Pete
January 16, 2008 - 10:56 ET by Cool ArrowI'm not seeing a lot of hope at the Government level either.
Looks to me like Hillary and Obama have got this one in the bag.
I ♣ My Seal
Right Out of the Socialist Playbook
January 16, 2008 - 10:40 ET by reasonsjesterTwo thoughts. (1) The Left is trying to manufacture the perception of an economic crisis in order to suppress demand, halt consumer spending, and drag us into a recession. Economic crises are always ideal times to push socialist agendas. (2) By tarnishing the economic record of George Bush, the Left hopes to create the perception of a need for economic change that could be spearheaded by Hillary, whose namesake Clinton is often covariated with economic prosperity (and sometimes wrongly causally linked by the Left).
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
→ Jester
January 16, 2008 - 10:44 ET by Cool ArrowDoes this mean I can't improve my position by saving while all around me are consuming? And on plastic credit, no less?
I must be missing something here
I ♣ My Seal
Anyone who says they
January 16, 2008 - 10:50 ET by kathleenirishAnyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
I was going to write something very rude about Hillary on the cover of yet another fading weekly magazine in yet another kiss-arse, fawning propaganda piece but I don't want to sink to the level of those I criticise regularly, like Maher, Huffington and Olbermann. Oh, well. *&^%^$#, them, those m*fntraitor scum. Can't control it.
The media is nearly peeing themselves over the recession-cheerleading. Whatever happened to the Iraqi civil war and $5 a gallon gas they were so confident of for the last three years? The MSM is beyond a joke. Pathetic losers.
"I've found my OWN voice" Yeah- it sounds like a commie's to me, so what else is new, Witchy-Poo?
As bad as Newsweek and the
January 16, 2008 - 14:17 ET by Chris NormanAs bad as Newsweek and the rest of the dyno-media is, Glenn Beck has been pushing the idea of complete and total economic collapse. After listening to him, I'm ready to off myself. He's really going over the top with his predictions of world wide economic calamity.
If one buys low someone else takes it on the chin ... right?
January 17, 2008 - 08:30 ET by CrashSome of the "sucking" economic reports were based on a "weaker than expected holiday spending." Now, are these geniuses aware that gift cards are NOT counted as "spending" until they are cashed in? Also worth noting, Walmart had a computer glitch which prevented people from using their gift cards until several days after Christmas.