Investors Business Daily vs. NYT on the Economy

[Adam's Apple]

Perfect example of how political bias rules the roost in reporting news at the NYT.

The Economy: The Good News Keeps Getting Worse
By Larry Elder for World Net Daily
March 23, 2006

In February, our economy created 243,000 new jobs. Yet one of our major newspapers tells us almost half of Americans consider the economy in a recession. American Research Group's latest monthly survey found 59 percent of Americans rate the economy as bad, very bad or terrible. Why are Americans so negative?

Compare the first few paragraphs of this particular story by Investors Business Daily to the way the New York Times reported the story.

Investors Business Daily, paragraph 1: "U.S. companies in nearly every sector increased hiring last month, lifting job growth to better than forecast levels and enticing more people into the labor market."

New York Times, paragraph 1: "American employers added 243,000 jobs in February and workers posted their highest salary gains in more than four years, the government reported yesterday, igniting concerns among many Wall Street economists that higher wages could fuel inflation and increase expectations that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates further." [Emphasis added.]

Note the New York Times felt compelled to add a "but" or a "cautionary note" to the economic expansion. Someone made a decision to add a cautionary note, not that the proviso is wrong or necessarily inappropriate, but it absolutely changes the tone of the story. But couldn't one also accuse Investors Business Daily of failing to provide balance by omitting this cautionary note?

No, for America's economy, by virtually any standard, remains an incredible economic powerhouse. From 2003 to now, the economy created 5 million jobs. Payrolls expanded for 30 straight months. Following Bush's 2003 tax cuts, federal tax revenues grew from $1.9 trillion in 2004 to $2.1 trillion in 2005. The monthly inflation rate for February 2006 stood at .20 percent. And 68.6 percent of Americans own their homes, a historical high.

for full article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49404

 

[William Joyce]

Good observation. IBD I know only a little about, but it does hit on stuff like immigration that other papers won't. It's taking the right view over the atrociously anti-American WSJ.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

No, for America's economy, by virtually any standard, remains an incredible economic powerhouse. From 2003 to now, the economy created 5 million jobs. Payrolls expanded for 30 straight months. Following Bush's 2003 tax cuts, federal tax revenues grew from $1.9 trillion in 2004 to $2.1 trillion in 2005. The monthly inflation rate for February 2006 stood at .20 percent. And 68.6 percent of Americans own their homes, a historical high.

* Something like 40% of those jobs were related to real estate. A good portion of the others were government jobs.

* Growing tax revenues and high home ownership are classic signs of an inflationary boom. The federal reserve has been running the printing presses red hot for the last several years. (Guess what happens when they slow down?) Cheap credit = lots of home buying.

* The inflation rate is laughably understated and basically fraudulent, a classic case of government cherry picking it's numbers. Housing costs aren't included, and neither are energy or food costs. Just minor things, ya know? And then they play games with "hedonics", where you can say that the price of a computer went down because the newer ones have more speed. The actual inflation rate is at least six percent.

And the things they do count, tend to be goods that are now produced in China. Yay, the costs of chinese shoes went up "only" 1% in the last year, thanks to free trade (which is good, don't get me wrong). What they don't tell you is, under a gold standard those shoes should have gone down in price. That is the way the standard of living goes up--goods get cheaper.

I like the Bush tax cuts, but they don't mean much if spending remains high and you just offset tax cuts with sneakier ways of draining money from the economy, such as borrowing or inflation.

 

[Adam's Apple]

This is a typical liberal viewpoint. No good news to report at all! Bush is a liar, and all that stuff, you know. Well, if Bush is a liar, he is no more so than your esteemed New York Times.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

This is a typical liberal viewpoint. No good news to report at all! Bush is a liar, and all that stuff, you know. Well, if Bush is a liar, he is no more so than your esteemed New York Times.

Wait, are you talking about me? Liberal? ahahahhaha

I don't read the NYT, that's the sort of publication that you line a birdcage with. All I'm saying is, spending is out of control under Lyndon Baines Bush, and that means it is soaking up money that could have stayed in the private sector. Naturally, governments of all persuasions are going to spin the data optimistically, that goes without saying...the misstating of inflation has been going on long before Bush took office (unemployment numbers too, IIRC). It happened during Clinton's term too of course--crank up the printing presses, and everyone feels rich. You get an investment bubble (dot-com stocks instead of housing, remember the "irrational exhuberance" speech from Greenspan?), the government is well-funded for a while, etc.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I agree with you that the political sections of the NYT are only good for lining bird cages. I, for one, would have more faith in the assessment of a business journal on the state of the economy than I would have in the assessment of the NYT.