If exaggerated reports of global economic distress act to further dampen consumer confidence and actually worsen the situation, can press outlets be held legally liable?
Such was espoused by a corporate lawyer Thursday in response to a poll that found 77 percent of Americans "think the financial press is making the economic crisis worse by projecting fear into people's minds."
As reported by Breitbart New Years day (h/t Hot Air headlines):
The survey question: "Do you think the financial press is making the economic crisis worse by projecting fear into people's minds?" While the overall response indicated that 77% of Americans answered YES, here are highlights of note: Household Incomes: $25k - $35k -- 79% answered YES $35k - $50k -- 88% answered YES $50k - $75k -- 76% answered YES $75k - more -- 78% answered YES Demographics: 85% of young adults (18-24 yrs old) answered YES 77% of males and females alike answered YES 65% of blacks answered YES
Richard L. Scheff, a national expert on corporate liability and white collar crime issues, warns media that they could potentially be exposed to liability despite apparent constitutional protections:
"Although statements by the media are protected by the First Amendment, the survey results demonstrate that the public believes that the press bears some responsibility for the lack of confidence in the economy. One would hope that the media would act less out of self-interest in these times of national crisis," said Mr. Scheff, vice chairman and partner with Philadelphia-based law firm Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads.
Fascinating.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
NO
January 1, 2009 - 23:06 ET by DelsaThey are the FREE PRESS
Free to write and print anything they darn well please.
Heck, they don't even have to give up sources and methiods.
The Networks? That may be a seperate issue.
Schumer aka "Little Chucky" Schumer caused a run on a bank and ?????
Where should we push for change?
January 2, 2009 - 02:55 ET by KC MulvilleI argue "caveat emptor." Let the consumer beware.
It isn't the press that we have to regulate. It's the viewing and reading and listening public that needs to be warned, constantly, that those who disseminate "news" have mixed motives. You cannot impose a restriction on the media without eventually censoring speech. Fine, that's life. It's a free country. But we have to consistently and continually remind our fellow Americans that the opinion market is filled with Madoffs. You think the financial or auto industry is filled with crooks? They don't hold a candle to the opinion industry.
Buyer beware.
there is no question
January 1, 2009 - 23:15 ET by Delsathe press have made it worse to the point where it is almost self fulfilling prophecy!
They caused Congress to jump feet first into it which has inturn spooked the banks.
Everyone is waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What will the new rules be?
Until the congress butts out or spells out the new rules, I see no hope in the near future.
A real shame for all of us.
Why should they get a pass....?
January 1, 2009 - 23:17 ET by superconNo other industry could perform their job in such a negligent manner and not be held responsible.
Who do they think they are?
Congressmen...?
Oh my heavens yes yes yes.
January 1, 2009 - 23:19 ET by JWFThey got their coup by making the financial crisis sound worse than it was. They got their man in. But the beast has been unleased and it is hard to get a chain on him.
Make no mistake though. We need a President that will stand up and say we are going to get through this. One that can instill confidence.
What we have so far is Jimmy Carter II. Put on a sweater and get ready for a long cold winter because our best days are behind us. We are being told to turn down our thermostats, get rid of our SUV's, stop eating food we like, and that we are the problem on this planet.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Finance
January 1, 2009 - 23:40 ET by merlin61Yes, JWF and all the while proclaiming what we
should do, Obama vacations in luxury in Hawaii.
Another case of don't do as I do, do as I say!!!
While awaiting
January 2, 2009 - 09:22 ET by ahusserthe Inauguration the Obamas will be ensconsed in the Hay-Adams hotel just across from the WH. So reported one of the local channels (in a gushing manner). They outlined all the luxuries the hotel had to offer and they were some doozies. I am sure do as I say not as I do (or live) socialism will be foisted on us from digs such as those but hey they are the elite now aren't they?
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
Give up already
January 2, 2009 - 08:24 ET by AJBIt was said the difference between a liberal and conservative is the libreral sees the big house and says 'nobody should live like that' and the conservative says 'everyone should live like that'.
Comrade Supreme Glorious Leader Obama is of the former ilk... those who have a dark, depressed and morbid view of the future. Nothing can get better. Our best days are behind. You have to give up your lifestyle. You are greedy and don't deserve to live as well as you do. The best days of America are over.
Gene Roddenberry and others have a view of the future that is upbeat, hopeful and uplifiting. Man can conquer his troubles. The best is yet to come. We can use our intellect to make the world a better place for everyone. We are destined for greatness.
Now, which view sells more newspapers and tampon ads? Who wants to watch upbeat news? Who wants to see who won the spelling bee? We ALL want to know what our neighbors are doing in private and to watch them on Cops.
Although I hate the
January 1, 2009 - 23:28 ET by BlazerAlthough I hate the majority of the media with the burning passion and hatred of a thousand suns, bordering on the criminal, as well as having very lucid recurring, haunting dreams of hunting most of the last vestiges of them down with a large calibre revolver, while they run naked in a desert wastland, I do not think they should be held liable or be sued for their aggressions against true democracy and being traitor's against the American people.
Very shortly, seeing these arrogant, bourgeois, privleged sycophantic fools bloodying and climbing all over each other for the last dumpster morsel behind the local 7-11 and fighting with dog's and cat's over scraps from a boxcar hobos stolen lunch will more than make up for it.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Media hype and depression...
January 1, 2009 - 23:33 ET by ScrapironThe Lame Stream Media should be held responsible for the crisis and the depression they spread by the hype. I cna't help by see a minute or two of CNN when visiting other homes (it's never on in mine) and I tell everyone that watching the slime on CNN is leading to deep depression and suicides. We only hear of the suicides by the 'elitest' and not the average folks and there is hundreds of them. Time for families to start filing lawsuits (which I hate) against the media when a family member who watches the slime and believes it does themselves in. I think people like anti-american Blitzer on CNN should be sentenced to death for the slime they put out to scare the viewers.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
It would be a mistake to
January 2, 2009 - 00:38 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIt would be a mistake to litigate media outlets for this kind of stuff.
#1. We still have to choice to not listen to them.
#2. People that believe everything the media tells them without researching on their own are already setting themselves up for failure.
#3. Filing lawsuits will lead to even more frivolous lawsuits...our legal system is already overflowing with backlogged lawsuits that should have never been filed in the first place.
People need to man up and take responsibility for themselves and their families.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
"The cake is a lie."
January 2, 2009 - 00:40 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"The cake is a lie."
Portal fan? Great game, I was thinking about playing it again this weekend.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
Yep. great game, and
January 2, 2009 - 00:45 ET by BlazerYep. great game, and doesn't "the cake" pretty much sum up our present state of afairs?
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Very true! "An armed
January 2, 2009 - 00:52 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveVery true!
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
Don't forget treason. The
January 1, 2009 - 23:31 ET by rbosqueDon't forget treason. The NYT especially. No one is held accountable when they let terrorists know our methods and intentions. Ans it's not like they accidentally give something away, they actively try to demoralize our troops and purposefully give the enemy a cheering section. Who knows how many of our troops died because of them. Those people should be hung by the neck.
Leave the press alone,
January 1, 2009 - 23:56 ET by SlicksterLeave the press alone, they will either learn to be factual or they will fail. No need to government meddling. The GOP though should not sit around with their heads in their collective assess let the liberals make outrageous statements as they have been allowed to in the past.
did ya, huh? did ya?
January 2, 2009 - 08:26 ET by AJBSaw a report on Drudge where newspapers are looking for a bailout. They HAVE failed. They HAVE NOT listened and are sufferening the consequences. Their response? Clean up their act? Nah... much easier to hold out your hand and have the gub'ment save you.
It will never happen.
January 2, 2009 - 00:16 ET by R D HelmThe MSM will just line up and hide behind the 1st Amendment, just like always.
Besides, the MSM is dying a slow, painful death as it is. Better to just let them fade away, as any government interference will only serve to give them a shot in the arm when they rally the troops and circle the wagons.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon.
Them that ain’t get out of the way.”
Media pessimism on the economy will soon end
January 2, 2009 - 00:33 ET by Jack ColemanAround January 20 or shortly thereafter
Jack... You
January 2, 2009 - 00:45 ET by bigtimerJack...
You betcha'!
Everything will be sunshine and lollipops....why we have the O-Man-Child, another 'D' to save the day, plus he walks on water to-boot.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Maybe...with the caveat
January 2, 2009 - 10:34 ET by fitzfongMaybe...with the caveat that if it does not end in the next four years (or eight years, for that matter), it won't be Obama's fault. As with all the other troubles in the world, it's "Bush's fault".
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
The NYT will be chapter 11 by year's end.
January 2, 2009 - 00:44 ET by riff_raffThe big papers like the New York Times and LA times are burning through cash at a pretty fast pace. According to public records, the NY Times company lost over $40M the past 12 mos. and they've only got about $45M cash left. The papers rely on advertising for revenue, and 2009 will be worse than 2008 as far as advertising spending goes. So I expect they'll be selling off every asset they have just to stay afloat in 2009.
If you're going to seek civil damages against the NY Times, you're probably going to be out of luck. You can't get blood out of a turnip.
"Don't blame me.....I voted for Palin"
r_r
January 2, 2009 - 00:58 ET by Noel Sheppardr_r,
Someone will buy NYT, maybe even Rupert. It's a great property, with a long history. I don't think papers like NYT, WaPo, LAT, or Chicago Trib will ever completely go away. Frankly, I hope they don't -- I just wish they'd improve their content.
Even with the Internet, America still needs newspapers. I realize that might seem like a strange position for a conservative, but I know my dear friend Matt agrees. ns
The only thing that makes
January 2, 2009 - 01:07 ET by BlazerThe only thing that makes it a great property Noel, is it's ownership of the the R-Sox, the only profitable part of the whole thing. If Rupert were to buy it, I hope that would shortly include a shutdown of it's traitorious services along with an apology to the American people.
Oh well, one can dream.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
I Hope They Don't Go Away, Either. . .
January 2, 2009 - 01:08 ET by Asian ConWhat will I have to line my birdcage with? The NYT is in "junk" status, right now. What exactly does that mean? Not knowing too much about the stock market, the NYT is ripe for the picking.
Even better than the print media failing, is to have it bought out by a conservative. Can you imagine what a thumb in the eye that would be to liberals?
"For The First Time In My Life, I Am No Longer Proud Of My Country Because It Seems Like, Socialism Has Made A Comeback"
Conservative?
January 2, 2009 - 02:47 ET by nofateMurdoch may not be a liberal, but he is certainly no conservative either. Except in the minds of liberals.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
I agree Noel. I would
January 2, 2009 - 01:11 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI agree Noel. I would imagine that a major cost in print newspapers is the distribution of the papers to subscribers and news stands. I'm not sure what the best solution would be to help papers become more profitable (besides printing news rather than commentary), but maybe having a paid online service for daily news and a weekly paper for more in-depth issues. Apparently the print papers are not trying to be innovative, they keep doing the same thing that worked in the past. They need to figure out the right adaptations to adopt to stay in the game.
It's the same with any other business, people complain about Wal-Mart putting "Mom and Pop" stores out of business. The "Mom and Pop" stores put themselves out of business when they fail to offer their customers the unique goods and services that Wal-Mart can't offer.
It's called CHANGE...where have I heard "change" recently? And I think I recall that "change" is supposed to be a good thing... </*scratches head*>
Anyway, how hard is it for these executives to figure out how to do their job? I don't even have a college degree and I can see that...furthermore, my job isn't even on the line! You would think these guys would do more to secure their jobs and livelihood.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
Isn't There An Old Saying That Goes. . .
January 2, 2009 - 01:20 ET by Asian Conif you put your hand over a stove and you get burned, you learn not to do it again. Meaning, the "old" media is not the only boys in town anymore. People are turning elsewhere for the "truth". You either adapt to "change" or you become extinct.
On a related note, Noel or anyone else that knows. Isn't giving away troop movements or printing the names of covert CIA or FBI agents considered a treasonous act? The NYT has certainly been guilty of that.
"For The First Time In My Life, I Am No Longer Proud Of My Country Because It Seems Like, Socialism Has Made A Comeback"
Apparently "treason" is a
January 2, 2009 - 01:31 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveApparently "treason" is a nuanced thing like everything else to the left is. It's complicated. Just like "patriotism" is. Nothing is black and white...it's all kind of gray.
The Rosenburgs could tell you what treason is...oh wait, they can't traitors used to be tried as such and executed when found guilty.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
Dr. Love... Hear,
January 2, 2009 - 01:38 ET by bigtimerDr. Love...
Hear, hear!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
don't forget...
January 2, 2009 - 08:29 ET by AJBHanoi Jane's actions weren't very 'nuanced'... they were outright treason. And they're getting ready to honor her. Oh how soon people forget and forgive.
Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my handgun. They're also going to make him a saint just because he's evaded his upcommenance for 40 years.
Nope
January 2, 2009 - 03:04 ET by nofate" Isn't giving away troop movements or printing the names of covert CIA or FBI agents considered a treasonous act?"
Not if you are the mainstream media: "When the media obtains especially sensitive information, we are willing to tell the authorities what we have learned and what we plan to report. And while reserving the right to make the final decision ourselves, we are anxious to listen to arguments about why information should not be aired." (my emphasis)
Guess who said that? Katherine Graham. Aside from participating willingly in bringing down a U.S. president, she also admitted to the following (here I go again): WashPost Publisher Admitted Media Leak To Blame for Marine Barracks Bombing
Subversive bastards.
The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Anything in the name of
January 2, 2009 - 05:35 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAnything in the name of getting the story first. Three examples come readily to mind:
It's all about them being first, it's not about the story or even the people behind the story. The media will put people's lives in danger or compromise a criminal investigation to get their story.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
Oh yea, i forgot Noel.
January 2, 2009 - 01:19 ET by BlazerOh yea, i forgot Noel. They may call themselves the free-press, but I will gladly pay them to go away.......forever.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Absolutely!
January 2, 2009 - 01:56 ET by NorthCoasterIt's the same as creating panic when shouting fire in a building. What's even worse is that the Press and Politicians created a psychological crisis through constant negative commentary on financial issues. There has been a constant drumbeat of negativity against Republicans that continues to affect opinion in the country. I'm totally amazed at the belief of friends and acquaintences that lay the causes of the "poor economy" only at the feet of George Bush and the Republicans.
well
January 2, 2009 - 08:32 ET by AJBI tried yelling MOVIE in a Firehouse. Didn't have the same effect.
Making it worse?
January 2, 2009 - 02:47 ET by sevenseasI'm still not convinced that the media did not create the whole thing. I wonder how long before they approach Congress for a bail out?
yeah
January 2, 2009 - 08:32 ET by AJBAlready happening. See http://www.reuters.c...
I'd sure hope people would be fearful
January 2, 2009 - 07:13 ET by VonuReading this post one might conclude that 100 per cent of Americans polled are familiar with "the financial press". I hold the mainstream financial press in distain as well but for a different reason. Having been mindless parrots for Wall and K Sts for so long they have lost anchors to reality. Seems to me the time some fear would have done folks good was 6-9 mos. ago. The very time NB was nixing the idea of recession, just something being stirred up in the press. Just like today. Chilling quote from a touted "national epert":
"One would hope that the media would act less out of self-interest in these times of national crisis,"
And just in whose interest should the media act? Our Great Leader's? Apparently. The begs the question of how the media advances it's self-interest by hoping their customers go broke.
Or perphaps this poll is just an expression of the publics ire and need to lash out and transfer lack personal responsibility to others.
Stock charts are only a projection of mass pyschology. Price movements of long periods of time are not affected by media exageration so much as the ebb and flow of emotions, primarily fear and greed. We have heard so much lately about how toxic greed is. Greed's antidote is fear, now we are hearing that too much fear may put you in front of a judge. What's a poor boy to do? dlog yub
The Media cannot cause or worsen a depression
January 2, 2009 - 08:25 ET by PopularTechOnly government has this power. The media can create a lot of hysteria but that will only effect some short term buying trends with the public but nothing major. The public is going to buy regardless of the what the media says if they have the money and successful businessmen are going to invest based on real numbers not hype (those that do lose money). The problem is the financial crisis is serious and was created by government intervention in the economy not the media. The media has no such power to cause or worsen a depression. Now don't get me wrong there is no question that they wanted it to get bad and are biased but they certainly did not cause it, make it worse or will make it worse - the government on the other hand did all three.
Understanding the financial crisis (Video) (8min)
Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure (Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
By intervention, do you
January 2, 2009 - 08:36 ET by billbBy intervention, do you mean, Schumer/Indybank or Harry Reid/Hartford Insurance?
I mean the Federal Reserve and Socialist Housing Policies
January 2, 2009 - 09:12 ET by PopularTechGreenspan - Federal Reserve
Evidence that the Fed Caused the Housing Boom (Robert Murphy, Ph.D. Economics)
The Housing Bubble in 4 Easy Steps (Mark Thornton, Ph.D. Economics)
Guilty as Charged (George A. Selgin, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Greenspan says ARMs might be better deal (USA Today)
Clinton
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (The New York Times)
Bush
Bush 'No Money Down' - Tax Payers Will Pay (Video) (6min)
Bush: Expanding Home Ownership (The White House, December 16, 2003)
Bush: Increasing Affordable Housing and Expanding Homeownership (The White House, September 2, 2004)
Bush touts affordable housing (USA Today, April 18, 2000)
Mortgage giants get Bush support (USA Today, July 16, 2002)
Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership (USA Today, January 20, 2004)
Bush ties his economic policies to home ownership (USA Today, March 26, 2004)
Owning tops Bush housing agenda (USA Today, November 19, 2004)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
You forgot probably the biggest one...
January 2, 2009 - 09:27 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThe Community Reinvestment Act which was "intended to encourage depository institutions to help
meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate." Rather than make creditees meet the requirements to qualify for loans they could afford.
CATO Institute .pdf on the subject.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
No the biggest problem was the Fed not the CRA
January 2, 2009 - 09:33 ET by PopularTechIf the CRA was the real problem why did it take 25 years to happen? Because it is not.
The Housing bubble only happened during the Bush administration because the Fed dropped interest rates to effective negative levels in 2002 to try and prevent a recession after the dot.com bubble and 911. These rate cuts fueled Bush's administrative push for low income housing. Combine this with previous socialist housing regulations and institutions and you have what happened.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
It took 25 (actually 31)
January 2, 2009 - 09:47 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIt took 25 (actually 31) years because it was energetically and aggressively "enforced" under Clinton and Janet Reno, and then the "regulations" were further expanded by Congress (in 1994, 1995, 1999, and 2005) to make it even easier for a deadbeat to get a loan they couldn't afford to pay off. Combined with the laundry list of stuff you posted, the CRA had a lot to do with the inflation and bursting of the bubble.
Clinton and Reno's enforcement (more like shakedown) created a false image of wild prosperity while putting poor and lower-middle class Americans into worse financial positions than they were already in. Sure they had a great roof over their head, but couldn't afford to put food on the table.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
The CRA cannot cause inflation
January 2, 2009 - 10:32 ET by PopularTechThat doesn't even make any sense, the only thing that can cause an inflationary increase of money and credit is the federal reserve. Without the federal reserve there would have been no bubble.
What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. What burst the bubble was the Fed raising rates again which caused the ARM rates to adjust up, people couldn't pay and then defaulted. Since investment banks were so highly leveraged with bogus "AAA" rated MBS which bundle junk mortgages it was enough to cause the whole ponzi scheme to collapse.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I'm not saying you're
January 2, 2009 - 13:18 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI'm not saying you're wrong...in fact I agree with your assessment, I'm just saying that the CRA was also a very important contributing factor.
The CRA was a major mechanism that facilitated another rationale for policy and decision makers to increase the money supply and manipulate the interest rates in order to maintain the appearance of prosperity.
You even said it yourself, "What burst the bubble was the Fed raising rates again which caused the ARM rates to adjust up, people couldn't pay and then defaulted. Since investment banks were so highly leveraged with bogus "AAA" rated MBS which bundle junk mortgages it was enough to cause the whole ponzi scheme to collapse."
The CRA got people mortgages that wouldn't have qualified for them without that legislation.
Most of the people that defaulted were extended lines of credit far beyond what they could have normally afforded in large part because of the CRA and especially with the Clinton/Reno handling of it. The wheels were set in motion during the Carter administration and it went into overdrive during the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration was stupid enough to try to keep the momentum barreling along at a break-neck pace.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942
Electing the arsonists!!!
January 3, 2009 - 19:30 ET by needleRight!
And how many people who get their information from the MSM understand any of this?!?
I hold the MSM guilty of deliberately hiding this information from the masses as much as possible so as to protect their favorite Democratic criminals/politicians from embarrassment. As a result of the MSM not informing the public of the truth and making an issue of it, many people who are angry at how our economy – and indeed the world economy – has been destroyed have been gulled into electing the arsonists!!!
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
→ Rent-to-Own
January 3, 2009 - 20:07 ET by Cool ArrowThe CRA and the administrations that catered to it, set up a Rent-to-Own just like the gyp-joint that rips off young homeowners for furniture and wheels/rims over on Main Street.
There's another side to the agreement though. When all you've got invested in all that sh*t is rent, it's really pretty easy to walk away from it.
Nothing was put down as collateral in these deals other than the property itself. Most of these idiots were not really homeowners, they were renters. Renters who walked out on a lease.
The CRA was a minor factor (6%)
January 3, 2009 - 21:32 ET by PopularTechYes subprime lending was a problem but the CRA was not the major driver.
Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA (The Wall Street Journal)
- Only 6% of subprime loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ The CRA
January 3, 2009 - 21:43 ET by Cool ArrowIt's my opinion that low interest loan, without collateral, were the problem.
It began as a tool to allow new buyers a chance at the American dream and mushroomed into a nationwide "Flip This House" hysteria.
Everybody wanted in on the cheap money available to house buyers, believing a yearly 10% rise in value was a certainty.
I wonder if much of what we're seeing in the Auto industry is due to all the Zero Percent financing that's been used to artificially keep car prices up.
I disagree. Yes, the media
January 2, 2009 - 09:18 ET by thebutlerdiditI disagree. Yes, the media is not able to cause the problem, alone, but they are definately capable of making it much worse, and causing a fear that is very real, even if it isn't. As for people shopping regardless of what the media says, if they have the money, that is not neccessarily true. A large number of people just won't. I think the media is to a degree responsible for causing people to panic, look at whatshisname, Jim, on CNN who scared the hell out of everyone right after the market dropped. Also the constant "bring downess" 24/7 on the news will definately work on people's psyche. It is a piling on. The banks, the auto industry, the war, blah, blah, blah. Worst economy since________________.
The media cannot make the problem much worse
January 2, 2009 - 09:28 ET by PopularTechPeople reduced spending ONLY when the stock market started to tank. The media didn't cause this, government did by inflating the bubble to begin with.
People are not spending because they don't have the money, they have no savings, others lost all the equity in their homes, others had their investments wiped out ect... Sure some people will change their spending habits and start saving but that is actually a good thing and what everyone should be doing anyway. It doesn't mean abandoning spending 100% but instead spending responsibly.
People who listen to idiots like Jim Cramer deserve to lose their money. Plenty of these same types of people got wiped out in the dot.com bubble.
Jim Cramer: "Bear Stearns is Fine!" (Video) (2min)
Jim Cramer: "So Subprime Blows Up? So What?" (Video) (4min)
Our economic situation is very serious and the problem is the government not the media. If we start blaming imaginary things we will be unable to fix the problem. The government needs to drastically reduce spending, cut taxes and regulations not more worthless inflationary economic stimulus packages.
There's No Pain-Free Cure for Recession (Peter Schiff, The Wall Street Journal)
Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure (Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
There is a small contingent
January 2, 2009 - 09:50 ET by ahusserof folks who use the front pages of magazines among other things to start buying and selling assets. They are called contrarians and I thought they might just be extinct since the market and other assets behaved themselves for the last 28 years with only in hindsight only minor blips here and there.
There has been a lot of water under the bridge since then we had a short lived meltdown of the market in 1987, 1989, 1991 the LBO's, Dot.com bubble, S&L meltdown, World Com/Enron,
Japan and Asian meltdown, etc but not a major recession. Maybe long overdue. We always seem to come out of these things stronger than ever but the caveat here is the major government intervention is throwing variables into the mix which can definitely cloud the outcome. I would even be in favor of a constitutional amendment basically saying tax funds cannot be used to bail out private corporations.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
Small but NOT insignificant
January 2, 2009 - 09:19 ET by Retired GeekA common language is essential for communications within the 'Information age' yet modern day educators say that a common language is NOT necessary or warranted.
I watched a video debate not long ago between several technical writers and their take on the relevance of printed media in technology.
The consensus of these writers was that it is impossible for printed media - magazines, newspapers etc. - to compete with the internet on quick and detailed information.
The same is true with newspapers. Add in the bias factor and we are witnessing the 'death rattle' of the printed media. Most Americans do not want detailed unbiased information and the rest want more detailed and unbiased information.
Faster, better and cheaper is changing the world and that includes the printed media.
Areas like San Francisco are already caught in the 'Common Language Crises' and will probably be the first to lose a large newspaper.
→ Media Liability
January 2, 2009 - 09:58 ET by Cool ArrowSuppose FOX News is the only Network reporting Congress' efforts today to increase the gasoline tax by $.10 per gallon?
Suppose it's no big deal until the bill is passed?
We get unreported crap added to the tax rolls all the time.
I think Media drops the ball a lot by posting their own agenda rather than ours.
As I've been saying...
January 2, 2009 - 10:13 ET by c5thenThe MSM has been talking the economy and consumer confidence down for years. When their efforts finally started to yield results, they hyped it up even more. The so called "financial crisis" was manufactured and fomented partially as a result of this process. In my opinion, not only are the media liable, they are almost the sole cause.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
C5-My tin foil hat is in the on position
January 2, 2009 - 10:36 ET by ahusserI think there was some active shananigans and manipulations in certain stocks which led the rest down during that two or three week period prior to the election.
It seemed to be a little too coincidental with the polls showing McCain/Palin with a slight lead. After the 'Panic' the polls went down for McCain/Palin and never recovered. PS the same with gasoline prices but thats another conspiracy theory.
Lest we forget George Soros made his billions short selling
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
What I am basically trying
January 3, 2009 - 06:52 ET by thebutlerdiditWhat I am basically trying to say in regard to media culpability is that if you report negative news regarding the economy 24/7, saying this is the worst recession every, how people are going broke, how they are losing their houses, jobs, savings, retirement acounts, that stores are doing no business, and then show after show on how you go on from here it will have a equal negative effect on the public. People believe everything they hear, so they start panicking. Then they spend the rest of the time talking about how you can mmake it through this crisis, and how so many people are now trying to live the G. Depression mentalty. I does cause people to slow down their spending. So they do make it worse.
As for how all the banking stuff got started, I do think it's a strong possibility that it was engineered by Schumer and others to cause a panic in a market that as tetering on the edge.I think that if I'm right, that it has gone further than they thought it would, and now they are responsible for a great deal of those whose lives have been permanently damaged.
thebutlerdidit
January 3, 2009 - 09:19 ET by NorthCoasterMy opinion is that they thought that they were getting the fix in place for Obama this past year. There has been this ongoing constant drumbeat of negativity aimed at conservatives for years. The negativism, glee, mirth and finger pointing from pundits and commentators allowed Schumer and Reid to make their comments and have them amplified. The whole situation went viral and expanded to trigger the current financial crisis. Certainly the potential for the current crisis existed but it has been pushed. Think of the constant drumbeat about a recession occuring over the last year. Now the financial board has rejiggered the definition of recession to say yes, wew were in a recession. It all goes hand in hand to effect the markets and individual perceptions.
I'm afraid that we are right
January 3, 2009 - 09:51 ET by thebutlerdiditI'm afraid that we are right about this, but I truly think they thought that they would be able to pull it back a little quicker than they have, or maybe not. Maybe this just is the excuse they needed to say, see? Free markets don't work! Now we will have the perfect opening platform to implement the crazy policies we want, and most of the Am. people will go along with it now. They are in such fear of us having another "G. Depression" that they will accept whatever the libs roll out. As Rahmbo says, they don't want to let this crisis go to waste! So, yeah, it does require suspending disbelief to say they didn't have anything to do with making this happen. Aided by the media. Hope I am wrong here, this is truly nightmare stuff.
first 100 days,
January 3, 2009 - 10:11 ET by AgnosticIn the laundry list of items the Congress put out as their goals in 2006 there was only one item they would actually accomplish and that was the increase in minimum wage. After all the screaming done by Conservatives that it would hurt the poor and young people needing summer jobs Congress passed the bill anyway and the first signs of a recession were the decrease in summer jobs available - anybody shocked? I wonder if all those low paying jobs would have been important to people on the edge financially, perhaps those people of restricted financial means that all the Fannie and Freddie Mac programs were aimed to help to begin with.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections