Does the Washington Post agree with former Sen. Phil Gramm's recent assessment that "We have sort of become a nation of whiners" when it comes to the economy?
After all, the Post published an op-ed Saturday by economic historian Amity Shlaes entitled "Phil Gramm is Right."
Although readers are strongly encouraged to review the entire marvelous piece, the following are some of the highlights (emphasis added throughout, photo courtesy NYT):
Gramm was right about the recession and stood by his recession comments on Thursday. A recession is two consecutive quarters in which the economy shrinks, and last quarter it grew. But no matter. Voters feel they are in a recession, and so they are, at least according to Campaign Econ.
Campaign Econ. I like that:
Campaign Econ is certainly understandable. Gas prices are ruining vacation plans and killing businesses. Many Americans have lost or are about to lose their homes to foreclosure or in distress sales. The federal government may not be talking about it much yet, but inflation plagues the country. The weak dollar is altering our everyday calculations. For many, this is not a happy summer.
Still, to liken the current moment to the Great Depression, or even the early 1980s, as Campaign Economists have, is to whine, just as Gramm said. During the Depression, people lost their homes even though they had borrowed only 10 percent of the purchase price. People losing their homes today frequently have borrowed 90 percent or more. The country approached double-digit unemployment in the early 1980s. This week, even as McCain was trying to talk his campaign past Gramm's comments, joblessness stood at a historically modest 5.5 percent.
And Campaign Econ has costs. The first is that talk of a downturn -- or "mental recession," as Gramm put -- can itself generate a downturn. Keynesian economists say this is so because consumer spending slows when people are afraid. But there's also a non-Keynesian dynamic. Grumbling leads to costly government rescues that scare markets and slow growth. [...]
In short, to fix it all, we need a frank conversation about the economy. McCain, in fact, inaugurated one back in 2006 when he gave a speech that was downright Gramm-like at the Economic Club of New York.
In that speech, McCain said that on entitlements, hard choices were necessary. He concluded: "Any politician who tells you otherwise, Democrat or Republican, is lying."
This was McCain at his best. Many voters knew it, too.
The way to strengthen the economy right now is to elect leaders who dare to talk about problems in precise and even technical terms -- and then act on them. McCain has that capacity, but only if he can transcend Campaign Econ.
Hear, hear!
As a sidebar, clearly the Post doesn't agree with every op-ed it publishes. I just find it interesting the Post's opinion editor would publish this one that goes so counter to leftwing economic dogma.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Is WaPo in the twilight zone?
July 12, 2008 - 13:11 ET by goldenthroat"The way to strengthen the economy right now is to elect leaders who dare to talk about problems in precise and even technical terms - and then act upon them."
And it's NOT going to happen with Pelosi-led Congress whose approval rating is in the sub-basement at 9%!
But will America listen? The jury is out.
Wait a minute - we can blame all the whining on global warming, right? No - that would make it global whining, wouldn't it? Or is global whining causing global warming?
Whatever...
"How can you be in two places at once when not anywhere at all? - Firesign Theatre
Jeez, does anyone remember
July 12, 2008 - 13:11 ET by motherbeltJeez, does anyone remember the Democrats howling a few years ago, saying the Bush was "talking down the economy"?
Was that in a parallel universe?
And who was the reporter not long ago, who asked the President during a press conference (paraphrasing) The majority of the American people think we are in a recession. What will it take to make you say those words?
They want their recession, if it will help them.
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
Strategy
July 12, 2008 - 13:16 ET by KC MulvilleStrategy is when you decide what you're going to do, based on what you calculate other people are going to do. The problem with economic strategy is that your perception of what everyone else is going to do (these days) comes from the media, and the media isn't interested in fact. It's interested in what sells, or what advances a political agenda. And since it's easier for each news outlet to simply repeat what other outlets are reporting, one politically motivated news outlet (i.e., the New York Times) can start a wildfire.
If Paul Krugman declares that we're headed for a recession, the next reporter in the chain reports as if we're already in a recession. The next reporter in the chain will report that "economists say" that we're in a recession. By the time the report gets two or three steps further, you have your local TV hack declaring that an overwhelming consensus of economists are so sure it's a recession that only a fool would doubt it.
Now if you're a prudent investor, you're faced with a strategic choice. You know that we're not in a recession technically, but the media is telling you that everyone else believes we are. You can't make decisions based on what reality is, you have to follow what you calculate others think reality is. Whether they're wrong or not is secondary -- what matters is how they're going to behave. And so you're forced to calculate that others will behave as if we are in a recession, forcing you to respond accordingly. That's how predictiions of a recession become self-fulfilling prophecies. Look at the firestorm over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae yesterday: that was a firestorm that everyone in the chain knew was based on nothing substantial. It was just a few rumors that ran away with themselves, and in the process, the whole thing became a firestorm.
That's why fighting liberal bias isn't just an ideological hobby. The liberal media is dangerous, and they do destroy things for politics' sake.
One way to start a conversation on economics, would be..
July 12, 2008 - 13:33 ET by Gary HallOne way to start a conversation on economics, would be.. to lay out a few ground rules. First, everyone needs to understand that during economic bubbles or periods of growth, good things generally occur. Then, following that popping sound of the bubble ending, bad things usually follow. As with the stock market bubble and the Dot.com period of growth, all seemed to enjoy the ride. More recently, we enjoyed (well, not the MSM) the rise in home values and we enjoyed low gas prices. Now, more or less, like before - there is change in the wind; it should be reported in the same fashion.
I find that there is much partisan rancor on both sides of the isle always blaming the other side for whatever did or did not occur; but in the end, we find that our media's presentation of what is going on is not balanced. For the past 6-8 years, the MSM has led it's gulible followers into believing that everything was just hunky dory until Bush became president, and then.. well, what the heck - who better to tell the story than a true leftist economist. One that the MSM loves to quote in recent years in their effort to create this downturn in consumer confidence; one, who's view on the last downturn, even from his perspective, adds a bit of balance to the conversation. All MSM journalists should be spoon fed this little education (my bold):
In other words, next time you folks have Bill Clinon, or Hillary, or some Democratic pundit on, and they say, "well, we all know that we left G. W. Bush a vibrant economy, low employment and surpluses as far as the eye could see," your answer needs to be:
"Oh, stop the crap. There is no truth in that. Clinton had a great little run, but he left econmic turmoil for Bush." "Your next point?"
Now we can have a conversation - is the MSM interested?
(;~> gary
McCain
July 12, 2008 - 14:26 ET by dmntd1I think McCain stepped in stinky when he denounced Gramm's comments this week. I think more and more people are going to start saying it, and the right is going to embrace it in even larger numbers.
I've been telling my friends this same thing for quite some time, and even THEY are starting to see it.... and some of them are heavily in the mortgage business!
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
Barron's: Phil Gramm DOESN"T KNOW beans
July 12, 2008 - 16:52 ET by VonuBarron's takes Gramm to task and throws out this gem:
Things are going from bad to worse and not apt to get better any time soon. In other words - sell!
and this:
But his cockeyed perception of what's happening is another instance of our standing beef about the enormous disconnect between Washington and the cheerleading crowd on Wall Street, on the one hand, and the real world and the real people who live in it, on the other.
Strange bed fellows indeed. Speak not of recession until the panic is over.
Vonu
July 12, 2008 - 18:45 ET by Noel SheppardVonu,
How long have you been reading Barron's? I've been reading it since I was working on the Stock Exchange in 1980 -- and they're ALWAYS bearish! ns
they're ALWAYS bearish!
July 12, 2008 - 19:26 ET by VonuLike the WaPo is always liberal? What's your point?
I've read Barron's since it started falling on my driveway for free about a month ago. Another sign that we are at a top.
Since you have worked at the stock exchange, perhaps you know, are they planning a party at Dow 10,000; like they had the first time?
Vonu
July 12, 2008 - 21:47 ET by Noel SheppardVonu,
My point is that I've been reading Barron's for 28 years, and I believe that they are always bearish. You, on the other hand, have been reading this publication for a month. Do you think your 30 day experience with this publication trumps my 28 years? That's pretty arrogant, don't you think?
When I started reading Barron's in July 1980, when the Dow was at about 900 if I recall correctly, they were bearish. Now we're at 11,000, and they're still bearish.
Color me unsurprised. ns
I think this goes well
July 12, 2008 - 16:54 ET by Chris NormanI think this goes well beyond just the economy. Encouraged by the media, we have become a nation of whiners - and "victims".
McNotObama '08
PLEDGE TIME IS NOW!
July 13, 2008 - 18:10 ET by reelman46A Wish for Presidential Transparency by Paul Jacob
July 7, 2008
The
blogger Alaskan Librarian has a list of things he’d like done by the
next president. I share at least one of his wishes, “to see policy
formulated in the open.”
Specifically, he wants candidates to sign
the Reason Foundation’s “Oath of Presidential Transparency.” The pledge
has two parts. The first endorses “effective management,
accountability, transparency, and disclosure” of federal spending. The
second is a commitment to enforce the Federal Funding and
Accountability Act, passed by Congress in 2006.
This legislation was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn. . .and so on….. let’s open this can…
CRAWFISH NOTE:
Why is it the voters or voter groups are so hesitant to present the
presidential candidates with a pledge to sign? I mean since the GOP
“Contract With America” have you heard of any? They need to be
approached with great publicity to SIGN the following:
01. A written pledge not to raise any federal tax by any means their first term.
02. A written pledge to veto all pork (earmarks is the PC term now).
03. A written pledge to complete the border fence and withdraw federal funds from “sanctuary cities” year one.
04. A written pledge to veto all huge “bundled or omnibus” bills (these are designed to hoodwink voters).
05. A written pledge to begin “baseline budgeting” year one (to replace the automatic 4-12% increases yearly).
06. A written pledge to reduce the capital gains tax.
07. A written pledge to actively promote a vote on “The Fair Tax”.
08. A written pledge to actively promote the deportation of all criminal illegals.
09. A written pledge to form another “Grace Commission” of businessmen to reform federal spending.
10. A written pledge to reform Social Security without any new tax on the voters.
Okay,
I stopped at ten and you have already thought of 5 more…but, hey, tell
me truthfully…wouldn’t just half of these signed pledges excite you
about this campaign instead of all the traditional fog, spin and pure
cowardice? Now, can anyone with a large national group get access to
the media and run with this? Half of these? A few of these? (I know
commitment terrifies the spineless modern politician like nothing else…
but, if not now, when?) Why do they call themselves “public servants”
if this approach is deemed impossible? Think about it.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)