We've come to expect intellectual dishonesty from the media elite, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times, never disappoints.
Krugman, in a Nov. 11 post on his NYTimes.com blog titled "The agony of Fox Business," made it clear he was a subscriber to the left-wing fairy tale that Fox News, and by extension the Fox Business Channel, are not pro-business. Instead - they're "pro-Republican."
"Clearly, the Fox Business crew is having a very hard time," Krugman wrote. "They bill themselves as being truly pro-business - not like those leftists at CNBC. But they aren't really pro-business; they're pro-Republican. They'd like you to believe that it's the same thing; but there's this awkward fact that markets have, you know, gone up under Obama."
Krugman uses a "clever gadget," also known as a Web site, which is able to calculate S&P 500 returns over periods of time. He defines those periods of time by presidential administrations and determines that based on the liberal myth that Fox is a part of the GOP, the network is bad for business because the stock market doesn't do well under Republican administrations:
And this isn't just a phenomenon of the last few months. Look back at stock returns under recent presidents, which is easy using a clever gadget at Political Calculations. Taking real, dividend-inclusive annual returns on the S&P 500, I get:
Reagan: 10.08%
Bush I: 10.16%
Clinton: 14.35%
Bush II: minus 5.81%
But this sort of "economic shorthand" could be applied to anything to make a partisan case, which Krugman is trying to do. Based on his same criteria, you could make the case that the S&P 500 has done much better when the U.S. House of Representatives has been controlled by a Republican versus a Democrat over the same time frame:
Tip O'Neill (D) (Jan. 1981-Jan. 1987): 12.61%
Jim Wright (D) (Jan. 1987-June 1989): 7.33%
Tom Foley (D) (June 1989-Jan. 1995): 6.31%
Newt Gingrich (R) (Jan. 1995-Jan. 1999): 27.62%
Dennis Hastert (R) (Jan. 1999-Jan. 2007): 0.57%
Nancy Pelosi (D) (Jan. 2007-present): minus 11.05%
Although it's a bogus statistic, the S&P 500 has fared much better with a Republican controlling the House, which based on Krugman's logic makes Fox Business Channel, as he alleges is an extension of the Republican Party, the better channel.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Stocks have gone up?
November 12, 2009 - 11:54 ET by bre1227If I recall (and my monthly statements still support) everytime Obama, Geithner or any other admin got on TV (every day by the way) the market plunged the first three months.
Stocks have gone up?
November 12, 2009 - 12:37 ET by GeneralAlThan explain to me Comissar Krugman, why I've lost $300,000 in investment in the lat year? Oh, of course! Its all Bush's fault! Hogwash! Its your Communist buddies, Numbskull Nancy and Dirty Dinggy Ding Bat Harry who caused this problem! Thank you all you brainless voters out there who have been given the right to vote1 What a waste!
GENERAL AL...
November 12, 2009 - 12:52 ET by danybhoyLook, Paul Krugman supports capitalism the way the hard left understands it. They are CRONY CAPITALISTS, they believe in the game as long as it's rigged. They know when to buy or sell assets because they have the info that will help/hurt that "investment". Another thing is promoting legislation that will benifit buisiness ventures that they are involved in, like Maxine Waters or Diane Fienstien.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
B of A
November 12, 2009 - 12:54 ET by StarAZYes--this reminds me, B of A can't seem to lose Mom's money fast enough--and when I call the Trust Dept, they say, "Oh, I KNOW, my retirement is like this, too." Some answer.
Congress controls the economy
November 12, 2009 - 12:10 ET by ArcherBI don't know if using this "gadget" to determine market returns is all that flawed. It seems to go hand in hand when you compare it to the GDP of the same time periods. The GDP ALWAYS does better when congress controlls congress.
Also, it pisses me off to hear how everyone blames Bush for the economy. First, like I said, CONGRESS CONTROLS THE ECONOMY (read the Constitution, it's in there), but next, remember the last time the economy was booming? That's right, it was under Bush. Of course, Greenspan got the credit, but it was the Republican controlled congress that was responsible. Within a year of Democratic control, the economy tanked. Same type of boom happened under Clinton, but HE took the credit and Newt was ignored.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Where are the jobs?
November 12, 2009 - 12:12 ET by sevenIf Krugman is so smart, why hasn't the world taken his advice and the economy improved and jobs issues corrected.
Oh, he will tell you how smart he is
November 12, 2009 - 12:31 ET by StarAZKrugman knows it all--just read the NYT. Just the sight of him makes me glaze over these days. Yes, we get it, you think BO is a genius, the smartest ever, of course a Republican can't be smart, everyone knows that, all business is slanted toward Republicans, although the WH is sucking up to Wall Street, and they aren't Republicans, but one is a Nobel guy, like me, so that's cool...WHATEVER. I can't stomach this know-it-all anymore. I guess a degree from The Elliott School in DC is toilet paper--I am a stupid clinger, I give up, Paul--can't wait for your next contribution to my re-education. You are trying to make me a better person.
→ Witnesses say
November 12, 2009 - 12:15 ET by Cool ArrowWitnesses say Krugman, after excreting the products of his imagination, ran running from the room shouting:
"Obama Salami Akhbar"
Hmmm...
November 12, 2009 - 12:19 ET by CCsteelcityThat's funny... up until 2006 (when the dems took over) seems the Dow, S & P, NASDAQ were all up at the highest points they have ever been.
As we have seen with BO and Al Gore, it doesn't take someone with any intelligence or to actually do something to get a NPP, so why does this knucklehead think that we should believe a word he says... just because he says it?
Ahhh, the magic pencil can do wonders with numbers. Guess he configured this whole calculation up... the liberal way!
"The bottom line is that the idea that government bureaucrats have enough knowledge to manage an economy well is the height of conceit." - Friedrich Hayek
“They'd like you to
November 12, 2009 - 12:20 ET by ninerdog“They'd like you to believe that it's the same thing; but there's this awkward fact that markets have, you know, gone up under Obama."
Let’s clarify this statement. After BO had GM and Citigroup removed from the DOW and replaced them with strong business the DOW shot up. Without this change the DOW would be around 8000. This is dishonest reporting to a tee. The market has not recovered. In fact it is weaker now than it was 2 years ago and this guy knows it. He is a liberal playing RAH RAH for BO.
Gone up under
November 12, 2009 - 12:37 ET by CCsteelcityBut what the real issue is, is the ONLY reason there is somewhat of a high level of the market is because the dollar sucks. As the dollar drops markets (overseas) buys up... therefore picking up the stocks.
Why BO and his turds keep telling everyone that the economy is picking up and jobs are being created and life as we know it is getting better is a flat out joke! This is rediculous!
"The bottom line is that the idea that government bureaucrats have enough knowledge to manage an economy well is the height of conceit." - Friedrich Hayek
Yea Sure Paul, business is up...up in flames.
November 12, 2009 - 12:33 ET by upcountrywaterThe last time the negative inflation rate was this high was in 1949
Of course with negative numbers the Misery Index looks just fine
Deflation baby..
Deflation, not inflation, is now the greatest concern for the
world economy. Over the past year, producer prices have fallen throughout
the advanced world; consumer prices have been falling for the last 6 months
in France and Germany; in Japan wages have actually fallen 4 percent over
the past year.
Pot, meet Kettle. Krugman
November 12, 2009 - 12:34 ET by mattmPot, meet Kettle.
Krugman has alot of nerve accusing someone else of having a political bias. Typical blind libtard.
mattm
November 12, 2009 - 13:38 ET by Gary HallYep! Here, try this....
Mattm and Gary rip Paul Krugman for being pro-Democrat, well - pro socialist and beyond.
..and 90% + of the MSM as being pro-Democrat.
Yikes - thank goodness that there is a tiny little corner of the media that reports the rest of the news.
(;~/ gary
Well, it won't be too
November 12, 2009 - 12:36 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonWell, it won't be too difficult to labe krugmoan as ANTI HONEST would it?
How about ANTI AMERICAN? That fits too.
ANTI FREE MARKET? Still a krugmoan position.
http://gjresult.com
Fox Business is the first
November 12, 2009 - 12:44 ET by jdhawkFox Business is the first real challenge to CNBC to come along in a long time. Unfortunately, they have made a couple of wrong turns in my opinion. Firstly, the "tape" that they present doesn't cut it (this is at the bottom of the screen in pre, regular and post stock market seesions). Next, having Imus on during the pre-session of the stock market is insane. He doesn't know anything about business and no one interested in what the stock market is going to do that day is going to tune into Fox Business during that time.
Be that as it may, what Krugman is referring to is a well known area of technical analysis of the stock market known as cycles. Specifically, the presidential election cycle. This cycle, generally, says the stock market is weakest during the first year of a presidential term and improves until the next presidential term (put forth by Yale Hirsch - Stock Trader's Alamanac). Unfortunately, it has as much predictability as to which way the stock market will move as going to a graveyard and swinging a dead cat over your ahead while dancing on someone's grave. In other words, Krugman is full of crap - as usual.
What moves markets is the monopoly that the Federal Reserve (by the way, it is not "federal" and it has no "reserves") has on the low end of interest rates. When they push them to zero (like they have done since late last year) and shove money into the economy (open market operations) the stock market is going up. When they raise interest rates (the fed funds rate, for example) and take money out of the economy (open market operations) then the stock market will go down. For a history of how and why this happens go to You Tube and view a 22 part series entitled, "The Money Masters" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXb-LrVkuwM.
So, to recap, regardless of what year the presidential term may be in or which party is holding the office, if the Federal Reserve started raising interest rates and pulling money out of the economy today, the stock market would reverse directions. It doesn't happen over night, but it always happens - always.
" Next, having Imus on
November 12, 2009 - 22:37 ET by ckc1227" Next, having Imus on during the pre-session of the stock market is
insane. He doesn't know anything about business and no one interested
in what the stock market is going to do that day is going to tune into
Fox Business during that time."
Yeah, I really didn't understand that move.
Hey Krugman.
November 12, 2009 - 13:36 ET by NO.BAMAOther numbers that have gone up under Obama:
Unemployment, the debt, the deficit, casualties in Afghanistan, my blood pressure.
ACORN sues US
November 12, 2009 - 14:08 ET by WolfremJust caught this one on the FOX News website, ACORN sues US Gov't.
Isn't it ironic that NOW they refer to the Constitution. So typical.
(My apologies for going off topic.)
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." - Padme, Star Wars 3
Acutally the Dow...
November 12, 2009 - 14:08 ET by Robert17the DOW was at 9400 the day Obama was elected...and sits about 10000 now. Scorching!!
The reality is that cheap money is chasing the U.S. stock market. Karl Denninger has been all over this.
http://market-ticker...
Krugman: "Given an economy
November 12, 2009 - 14:17 ET by HockeyKidKrugman: "Given an economy that has only two products--guns and butter--we can clearly conclude that more people can afford cars when the weather is abnormally cold."
Keep up the good work there, Paul.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Nobel Prize Winning????!!!
November 12, 2009 - 15:10 ET by saintknowitallWhy would anyone want to be introduced anymore as a Nobel Prize Winning "anything". After "the One" won one after little more than a week on the job. The bar is obviously not very high.
Stock Returns
November 12, 2009 - 15:13 ET by saintknowitallSure markets have gone up, they couldn't have gone much lower.
This argument is like saying "when I took office, the tide was low, but now it is high".
Compare stocks to non dollar index for Gold. . . Oops! No gain?
November 12, 2009 - 15:15 ET by meesterTry kitco.com to see how they quote gold prices. They show that sometimes gold moves - in dollars - while an index based on a non-US dollar basket of currencies shows different action. Much of the recent "gain" in the market has to do with printing more dollars. Noting the move in gold for the same time period shows that much of the stock gains are illusory RELATIVE to the rest of the world. And; we all know that the Rest of The World is The Most Important Thing.
My Econ professor likes this
November 12, 2009 - 15:47 ET by rbosqueMy Econ professor likes this guy. I think he's nothing more than a hack.
Insignificant Data
November 12, 2009 - 18:02 ET by slickwillie2001Four Presidents is an insignificant sample size. To improve on it you might look at it on a year-by-year basis, and if you did it would first of all level the numbers, and perhaps show something more significant. As is, President George W. Bush's numbers have been hit by both 9/11 and the financial meltdown. In between, there were some pretty good years. Clinton started in a recession, so his numbers look good. I suppose the Bamster's numbers will look good because like Clinton he began his Presidency in a recession.
" he began his
November 12, 2009 - 18:56 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnson"
he began his Presidency in a recession."
As a member of the preceding congress, and the FACT that both houses were overwhelmingly controlled by liberal democrats, Anything obama 'inherited, he inherited it from his liberal policies pushed through congress by corrupt democrat politicians.
Congress pushed the first 'TARP' bill and all the bailout bills that obama was only too eager to sign.
Yeah, he started a recession so he could claim credit for the economic destruction of this country.
http://gjresult.com
Misfit
November 12, 2009 - 19:59 ET by AcoustechWhat a strange little bizarre misfit this geek is.
I bet he's living in his moms basement.