NPR Original Headline: 'Is Slow Growth Good for the Economy?'
So when is lackluster economic growth a good thing? When it happens in the first quarter of an election year in which an incumbent Democrat president is attempting to win re-election and when the organization reporting this bad, or "good," news as they laughably attempt to categorize it is National Public Radio.
Here is the NPR comedy act performance by Scott Neuman in which he attempts to spin the lousy economy as a good thing:
On Friday, the government reported that the economy grew at a 2.2 percent pace in the first quarter, down from the 3 percent rate at the end of 2011. The Federal Reserve this week said it expects growth to "remain moderate over coming quarters and then to pick up gradually."
Common sense says high growth rates are good and slower, more modest ones are not so good. But is that always the case? After all, the "irrational exuberance" of the early 2000s helped bring on the recession as people borrowed and spent their way to prosperity.
It's definitely not the case for Scott and NPR when the slow economic growth inconveniently occurs during an election year when a certain President Obama is forced to face the voters on the ballot in November. Of course, if a Republican incumbent had the same lousy economic record, NPR would be howling over the failure of his policies.
UPDATE: According to Rush Limbaugh and other sources, this NPR headline originally read "Is Slow Growth Good For The Economy?" before being changed to "Is Moderate Growth Good For The Economy?" Even NPR must have realized how ridiculous the original headline appeared.
- P.J. Gladnick's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Is Slow Growth Good For The Economy?
Submitted by tcm14 on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:20pm.
Yes, in the same way that getting voted out of office will be good for Obama.
Of course! This is just a
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:35pm.
Of course! This is just a "breather" which the economy needs.
Just like the jobs market took a "breather"
Hugo's Venezuela is a wonderful example....
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:41pm.
The truth about Venezuela video...
Hawaii has been pulling this crap for years, for example screw you rich boat owners.
Government is the only growth sector now.
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
You Didn't Build That.
Cant they just go to a
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 10:14pm.
Cant they just go to a private harbor?
For me that would require docking my boat on another island.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 1:33pm.
Ya know if I had a boat. Sure I could go on a waiting list for a slip ..... 30 year wait is the norm.
All harbors and docks are state run, except a few on Oahu. Here is a list of them... If you scroll down to Maui, you see one private facility, It has a bar however it has NO SLIPS.
The docks are in need of some serous repair, like Venezuela...
For 11 million ...There some private homes on Kauai that have private docks..
The reason this socialism works here is that as soon as someone goes broke here, there is someone in line right behind them to fill in the gap with dollars.
You Didn't Build That.
Really sad,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 10:58pm.
I know a few folks from Venezuela, I feel for them. 1 of em wont dare return home. BTW they are some of the most anti Obama folks you will ever meet. They lived it once, and are worried now.
Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 11:25pm.
My brother in law is from Venezuela..his mother just moved her on a resident visa to escape the troubles there...her other son is a lawyer helping a guy run against chavez and they are fearful for his safety. I dont think people understand how bad things are there
and I agree with you. They not only dont care for Obama but they dont think much of illegals since they all had such a difficult time getting here by following the rules.
People here should be afraid
From the people who tell us to Trust the Science
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:46pm.
Their reasoning -- if it can be properly called that -- is not unlike that of anthrogenic global warming (AGW). In other words, they insist that as manking puts millions of tons of carbon in the air, the temperature of the global atmosphere heats up. Yet, when the temperatures cool while we continue put millions of tons of carbon in the air, that's explainable, too. Manmade carbon is causing the Earth's atmosphere to warm AND cool, and they call it "Climate Change."
Similar, if the economy recovers fast, that's good. If it recovers slowly, that might even be better.
The irrational exuberance of the "early 2000's"
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:48pm.
I'm thinking that Scott Neuman, either needs a new calendar, or a new noggin:
After all, the "irrational exuberance" of the early 2000s helped bring on the recession as people borrowed and spent their way to prosperity
And, what about the irrational crash of 2000?
Perhaps he is referring to the infamous words of former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, from a 1996 speech.
Later, in March of 2000, Yale Economist, Robert Shiller (the one who noted the other day, to Reuters, that we never see a significant housing recovery in our lifetime) wrote a book titled, "Irrational Exuberance."
Interestingly, just after the book came out, the "irrational exuberance" of the Clinton dot.com (Enron) bubble collapsed. That was March of 2000.
Bush came into office following a year in which every leading economic indicator had turned for the basement just a the resultant recession was beginning.
Though the Bush administration got right to work pushing stimulus (mostly tax cuts) and the Democrat's 2001 tax rebates, the events of 9/11 added to the economic pain.
Indeed, the economic fallout from the collapse of the Clinton era, dot.com bubble, was the immediate main driver of the quick disappearance of the budget surpluses - and obviously, of all of the projected future surpluses (the infamous $5.6 trillion gimmick) - and the quick return to huge budget deficits.
The early 2000's were not marked by any sort of irrational exuberance, but rather, as the national media reminded us almost daily for 2 - 3 years, it was a slow rebound, with trailing employment gains sort of recovery.
Here: this might job Neuman's memory a bit. From Investor's Business Daily:
Well, at the time it was the greatest destruction of wealth - guess, it might come in 2nd presently.
(;~/ gary
Ah, yes, we have heard this
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:08pm.
Ah, yes, we have heard this before regarding sustainable development claiming growth rates of 1% are the norm. In fact libs have been ginning this crap up for years to excuse their paradigm of failure precisely because those at the top of the liberal superstructure, the elites, know that the implementation of their agenda has one predictable result - stagnation and decline.
For your reading pleasure I link this passage for you to fully understand what liberals are proposing in their own words. I must say it is refreshing when libs finally are honest about their intentions and the rationalization for them.
The Orwellian conclusion in their own words, as always read the whole thing:
"While I’m not going to say that decline is a good or even necessarily a neutral thing in all cases, I think it’s in many cases at least less of a bad thing than we think it is. Only by learning to recognize and selectively reject the myth of progress can we come to have a more human and compassion attitude toward those who are not progressing."
http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/11/28/modernity-and-the-myth-of-progress/
Now when you hear the mindless drones prattle the statement to the effect "we need to make sure we leave no one behind" and that Conservatives are practicing Darwinism, what they really mean is universal poverty. The Chinese rejected this agenda when they embraced Capitalism with the predictable result of lifting 100s of millions of their people out of abject poverty. The liberals response has been we CANNOT expect everyone to rise to the standard of living in the US otherwise all the world's resources would be consumed. Thus liberal elites have as an imperative to reduce the US standard of living to forestall universal comfort of the middle class as this is a direct threat to their rule. If everyone is of the middle class, i.e. not poor, then the elites have no rationale to tell anyone what to do and thus who needs them? Now you understand why Marx was against the bourgeois, the middle class. It was always about power and power is non existent IF no one needs to be told what to do.
IOW, it's the best we can
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:26pm.
IOW, it's the best we can expect; you might as well get used to it.
How about, "Is Rapid Decline
Submitted by mattm on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 1:25am.
How about, "Is Rapid Decline Bad for the Economy?"
Is this just more double-speak?
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 7:16am.
After all, the "irrational exuberance" of the early 2000s helped bring on the recession as people borrowed and spent their way to prosperity.
Funny, isn't it Obama who (attempted to) 'borrowed and spent his way to (false) prosperity'??