Old Media and This Week's Markets: Who Knows They're Up -- Quite a Bit?

Photo of Tom Blumer.
  • Bookmark and Share

The tone of this week's reporting on the US stock markets would lead you to believe that even though Wednesday and Thursday were pretty good days, the markets are down for the week.

That's completely wrong.

The Dow is up 279 points (2.3%):

Dow012408.jpg

How about the broader S&P 500? It's up almost 27 points (or 2.0%):

SandP012408.jpg

The NASDAQ, weighed down not by actual results, but by gloomy expectations from the likes of Apple and Ebay, is only up by a bit less than 21 points (0.9%):

NASDAQ012408.jpg

A quick review of business press coverage shows why most people probably don't know that the markets are, heading into Friday's opening, up for the week. It's because there may not be anyone who's actually reporting that fact.

Examples:

  • It's not here at the New York Times (Jan. 25 -- "With a Day of Steady Gains, U.S. Stocks Join in a Global Rebound").
  • It's not here at the Washington Post (Jan. 24 -- "Wall St. U-Turn Pulls U.S. Stocks Out of Nosedive"; the Dow and S&P were positive for the week at the close on Wednesday).
  • This pre-opening report today from the Associated Press ("U.S. Stocks Head for Strong Open") gets close as it describes the events of the week thus far in the second-last paragraph, but doesn't actually say that this week has been positive.

This seems to be a pretty obvious piece of missing information business readers should know. Why is it missing?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

that intereferes with their plans

The Democrat commentators made it pretty clear last night that the economy shall be the central issue from now on. No more Iraq. No more immigration. Just like them all claiming we've lost in Iraq, they're going to play up every bit of bad news they can find and keep repeatedly telling America we've lost the economy.

But what happens when the

But what happens when the economy still continues to grow.  I get tired of hearing these talking heads tell me that there is not a recession but it is going to "feel" like one?  Really? Here is the logic of the msm - The economy is fine but we want you to believe it is not so we can push democrat candidates with ideas that will actually harm the economy so we can be right in our predictions of a looming recession. 

That's debatable: Economy is

That's debatable:

Economy is growing if the GDP is growing, right? Our GDP is measured in dollars. Dollar is falling against other currencies at a rate higher than GDP is growing. Does it mean that the total value of US economy is still increasing? I have a hunch that the answer is "no" ( thought not for the reasons of GDP growth being lower than the dollar slide but rather because our numbers are seriously fudged to accomodate the most weird view of GDP counting).

What is undeniable is that economy did grow  until about the beginning of 2007. Its growth rate increased due to Bush tax cuts.

That is a bazar

That is a bazar explaination of economics.   Looking at your other posts, I certainly wouldn't be taking stock advice from you.  I prefer to make financial decisions based on cold hard facts, not the emotion of fear. http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2007/pdf/gdp307f.pdf

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

Now go back and look for how

Now go back and look for how the way we count GDP changed year over year.

Rule #1 of making money is not to be attached to a "view" of reality. It is neither emotion nor fear. It is just numbers and healthy skepticism.

MSM has been pushing for a recession for too long...

...to give up now. For the past 6 months (or more) they have been reporting that a recession 'was on the way.' When the market went down, they were thrilled!!

They can't let this little upturn spoil their plans.

It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong

Economy....Eshmonomy

Wait...I just bought 10K dollars worth of Gold Coins....???

Dang it.

Exactly Tom, I smells a

Exactly Tom, I smells a rat.  The entire episode has been a made for TV promo to change the tenor of the 2008 presidential race.  IMO, someone or some group manipulated the foreign market sell off.  The SEC needs to investigate, find out who made lots of money in short sales and you have a prime suspect in this financial and political fraud.  If this kind of behavior is allowed to go unpunished then the viability of the markets is threatened and it doesn't say much for Democracy either.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

one week?

first, market performance doesn't equal the health of the economy. and there are still quite a few issues that could be troublesome for the economy(ie: credit, muni bond insurer downgrade, further housing troubles...).

second, if you look outside the tiny window of a one week range you might realize the S&P is still down 7.3% YTD. (DOW down 6.3% and NASDAQ down 10.2%)

third, trading has been extremely volatile. so while end of day numbers look nice, the markets are swinging up and down wildly. that can be good if you're a day trader, but is also proof that the markets are far from settled.

This is actually a perfect

This is actually a perfect time to start orderly dumping the long positions or at least severely hedging them via puts. We have a classic bear market rally with locked up credit markets. Financial industry has another 300-500B to write off because their counter-parties won't be able to cover the hedges!

Pop quiz

If you had an index at X and it dropped 5%, what is the percentage the index would need to rise to be again valued at X?

Please, do not let those that are too lazy to learn algebra write "analysis" of media bias on economy. It makes conservatives look rather stupid. While liberal media is biased, this is not an example of it.

Analysis was correct

I believe the author’s assertion is that the MSM is saying the markets are down for the week and his analysis appears to show that is not true.  I agree that the markets are down overall for the year and there is more bad news to come.  However, at some point there has to be a critical examination of how the MSM’s constant drumbeat of negativity about the economy is building into a self-fulfilling prophecy of consumer fear.

Such a mystery?

Not really. Print/borrow & spend policies mean more dollars chasing the same number of things. Whether those things happen to be stocks or ounces of gold, guess what? The price goes UP, at least in terms of green paper! Color me not-surprised.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Wrong

The claim that print/borrow policies mean that more dollars chase the same number of things is a total rubbish as it is based on the assumption that a result of "processing" is worth exactly the same as the total value of inputs less cost of labor. Anyone who ever bought raw materials for any forms of manufacturing clearly knows that. 

So printing and borrowing doesn't lead to the inflation we see?

Wow. That's gonna be a tough one to sell. Did you even read the article??
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Reject the false premise

TM - total face value of "money" in all forms (notes and credits).

Z - total face value of goods/services that can be provided.

t1 - time1. t2 - time2. t2 = t1 + X 

At t1 TM(t1) is chasing Z(t1).

At t2 TM(t2) is chasing Z(t2).

Your claim is Zt1 == Zt2 while when TM(t2) > TM(t1). Which means: Z(t1) == Z(t1 + X) while TM(t1+x) > TM(t1). This is only possible if Z does not change with time. Since we have empirical evidence that Z changes with time (compare Z of pre-historic humans with Z of Roman Empire with Z of the United States ) the premise is wrong. QED.

Any claim that Z does not change while TM does with time is written by an economic understanding challenged individual. Anything that is based on such premise is wrong by defintion.

 

Your gobbledygook makes 0 sense at all.

I have no idea what you mean, and around here that always means I didn't say anything even-close to it, regardless of your allegation to the contrary. Let's make this simple: Do you say that Milton Friedman was wrong when he said inflation results from “too much money chasing too few goods.” or was Milton right? I say he's right, and above you say, well, I'm not sure what... But you're not able to hide the truth, because it's simple, not complex.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Sarcasmo, unfrotunately, you

Sarcasmo, unfrotunately, you are not Milton Friedman and that's why you aren't following the difference between what he said and what you are peddling - yours is goldbug/Ron Paul/La Rouche economic bullshit.

Nope, but this is typical

Your "argument" is now the usual (and lefty-style crude, to keep up the resemblance) name-calling.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

→ Right on Evil Cap

Although I have no clue whether you just dazzled me with brilliance or baffled me with bullsh!t.

♣ a seal

Maybe the no-clue

Is a clue?? Unless Prof. Friedman was wrong, that is. I just find it more than a little amusing that I used to have this exact same argument with Clinton's defenders, all of 'em lefties, on "Fight Censorship." The labels change, but statists' arguments stay the same...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Again, do not just read what

Again, do not just read what Friedman said out of context - read entire thing, understand it. His criticism of the Federal Reserve system has nothing to do with your claim that the total face value of goods does not go up with time.

Again, I never said that

But I did say what Friedman says.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Oh right - this was typed in

Oh right - this was typed in by someone else:

 "Not really. Print/borrow & spend policies mean more dollars chasing the same number of things. "

Which still means...

“too much money chasing too few goods.”

Nice try, but it's not working, still. Give it up.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

"Too much money chasing the

"Too much money chasing the same number of goods" is the same as "too much money chasing too few goods?" Amazing. Ron Paul would be proud.

Too much money chasing the

Too much money chasing the same number of goods" is the same as "too much money chasing too few goods?"

That's only in a zero sum world, where the economy doesn't expand because wealth isn't created! You know, the Liberal/Socialist view of the world.  The US economy didn't become $13 trillion plus because it always existed or because we robbed the rest of the world of their wealth! The Fed only releases printed money via the Banks as the economy expands.  NO expansion, NO money released, that's Fed policy in it's most simplist form w/o any nuances.  The Fed is not under any circumstances going to allow the amount of money poured into circulation as what happened to Germany after WW1.

EC, you have read John Keynes book have you not?  If you understood what he said you would realize the dollar bill is nothing more than a place holder, the infrastructure for financial transactions to occur upon. 

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

EC, you have read John

EC, you have read John Keynes book have you not? If you understood what he said you would realize the dollar bill is nothing more than a place holder, the infrastructure for financial transactions to occur upon.

Absolutely. That's why goldbugs hate this.

The quantity of goods

Does not change overnight nearly as fast as the quantity of dollars. I agree, that wealth tends to expand, but not at the rate of obese government. I stand by all my words, as usual. I said "inflation's comin'!" and it came, like it or not. Now I'm saying "I told you so," and people don't like it. Situation: Normal.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

This very simplistic view

This very simplistic view of inflation is based on Germany after WW1.  Inflation is caused by a number of things, not simply the over printing of money in relation to the GDP.  The fact that the US sells bonds should tell you our monetary policy is not about printing money, otherwise why sell bonds, just print the money to cover government expeditures.   You're thinking of 2nd and 3rd world countries who attempt to meet their expenses when they can't sell enough bonds or raise enough tax revenue.  Remember Latin American Debt crisis??

The amount of inflation in the US is based on three things:  1. On the innovative ability of a manufacturer to produce a product more cost effectively, whether through automation, labor, material, location, distribution or design. e.g. the cost of computers; 2. The number of competitors, i.e. lots of competitors forcing innovation or few competitors allowing the passing of cost increases (inflation psychology); 3. closely linked to #2, Demand vs. Supply of the product - the seller will always charge what the market will bear sometimes with no relation to the actual cost.  The sales price rises exponentially (not proportionally) the closer it gets to a shortage.  Inflation in this case is directly a result of too little product chased by too many buyers. 

Inflation can be both good and bad, good in that as a product's price rises, it draws more competitors to produce the product (or alternatives) and thus sets the stage to bring product availability in line with demand.  A good example of this is oil, at $100/barrel there greater insentive to innovate alternatives or the efficiency of use than at $50/barrel.  Oil at $3/gal meant little insentive.  Or inflation can be bad if inflation psychology sets in as when manufacturers just pass on the costs and so don't bother to compete.  Again oil is a good example of this.

Government policy can cause overall inflation by keeping interest rates too low thus causing the economy to expand too fast since companies then begin to compete for resources to expand thus causing a shortage. Hence the Fed constantly messing with the interest rate.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

I again stand by my words.

The economy has NOT expanded at NEARLY the rate obese government has expanded, ESPECIALLY under Bush, which is why you're likely to see a lot more of the "I told you so" files before this inflation's over. Get used to it.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

*plonk* Government expansion

*plonk*

Government expansion has nothing to do with inflation. You are starting to sound like John Edwards did when he debated Lord of Darkness(tm).

 

*Plonk* yourself.

Yes it does. See Roosevelt's New Deal and obese government expansion since...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

So there was no inflation

So there was no inflation before new deal?

Please stop spewing goldbug talking points without understanding consequences of those "truths".

You're hallucinating. Stick with what I say, instead.

Or go read the first line of this. "An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one
issue which unites statists of all persuasions."
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Oh the part where you

Oh the part where you claimed that

1) electronics industtry is hurting due to gold shortages?

2) the part where you claimed that the total value of the products and services in the economy does not increase over time?

3) the part where inflation is caused by increase in size of a government?

4) your implication that a fixed rate of increase in money supply advocated M.F. has something in common with goldbug claims? 

At least just add "Meals on wheels!" to your statements.

sigh. Still hallucinating

1. Where did I ever say that? Cite please, of a nonhallucination. Inflation is the heroin of the money world. IMO your arguments here increasingly resemble the arguments of heroin addicts for one more loan to get one more dose. Electronics consumers simply pay more when precious metals prices go up. Duh.

2. Again, I never said that. I've said it can't increase overNIGHT as fast as the number of fiat dollars, though, and you have YET to address that point honestly, preferring hallucinations instead.

3. Once again, you're battin' 0. It ALLOWS massive increases in the size of obese government, as we've seen, especially during wars. FDR went off the gold standard and Tricky closed the gold window for a reason, and the reason was to increase the size of an already too big government, in both cases, on the backs of future generations.

4. Doesn't even make enough grammatical sense to answer. You're a zero on this one. I told you so about inflation. You don't want to hear those 4 words, but the fact that I told you so remains a fact.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

1. Where did I ever say

1. Where did I ever say that? Cite please, of a nonhallucination

Lie. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2007/12/07/open-thread

search for word "laptop".

2. Again, I never said that. I've said it can't increase overNIGHT as fast as the number of fiat dollars, though, and you have YET to address that point honestly, preferring hallucinations instead

Lie again. This thread. At 10:42 by sarcasmo: "Not really. Print/borrow & spend policies mean more dollars chasing the same number of things. " Break down explained in my followup.

3. Once again, you're battin' 0. It ALLOWS massive increases in the size of obese government, as we've seen, especially during wars. FDR went off the gold standard and Tricky closed the gold window for a reason, and the reason was to increase the size of an already too big government, in both cases, on the backs of future generations.

Lie again. US government grew before FDR.

4. This thread - you claimed that MF was on your side. "January 25, 2008 at 11:25 by sarcasmo". 

 

Jibberish.  The two,

Jibberish.  The two, economic expansion and size of government are only loosely related.  If interest rates were high because government was competing against private enterprise for investment funds, then what you said would be true. Yes, the US government borrows lots of money (too much IMO) but investors have all they need as reflected by the interest rates otherwise they would be very high.  You are engaging in a false causality argument.  Correlation does not equate with causality. 

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

As I explained above

Inflation ALLOWS, not causes, a more obese government. The cause is spending, which inflation explicitly allows, no matter what the spending is for. Take a look at the growth of government since we had a Federal Reserve (1913) if you doubt me.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

That's an interesting line

That's an interesting line of argument there Sarc, but I'm going to say that as the economic expansion continues, the size of government is allowed or has room to expand as well.  I think we both agree that neither one of us is happy at the current size of government and that it needs to be pared back significantly.  I think we can also agree that just because government services can grow due to the larger economic base that could support it, economic expansion is not a legitimate reason or excuse for bigger government, in fact it should be just the opposite.  The larger the economy, the LESS need there should be for government services.

If the whole idea of government services were tied to actual need and not how many votes a politician can garner using envy and class warfare by handing out money then the size of government would decline drastically.  We are spending virtually a trillion dollars a year on social services, not including Social Security.  This is inexcusable when the point of social spending should be emergency type aid, a temporary hand UP not a continual hand OUT.  Had not the politicians stolen (embezzled) the money from SS trust fund to pay for these social services and then properly invested the excess funds like any well run pension plan, there would be no looming SS crisis.

The idea of redistribution of wealth is nothing more than stealing.  If it is against the law to steal, then redistribution of wealth schemes should be illegal as well.  At some point someone has to have enough guts to face down the Dems, tell it like it is and pass a law to stop it from happening anymore.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.