Go George, Go

[Tiassa]

Passing the links along to y'all

Do pass us a link. I would be interested to read the article you mentioned.

Bowser

I have to admit, a single AP capsule is quite difficult to find. In lieu of that one KIRO (local TV/radio station) News Fax AP clipping, might I then present a range of sentiments which lend toward the point. I hope these links serve as a better testament to the point than a 150-word AP capsule.

The Time covers were the same in Europe and the US, apparently. And I'm not the only one who noticed the Time story--think what you will of the Suck.com, for instance; but it's worth pointing out that I'm not the only one who noticed.

But we see economists before, during, and after claiming that there is no recession; we've got notes in there on the psychological factors of recession; we've got a president crying recession and touting recovery. I have and still will refuse to acknowledge as legitimate an economic conspiracy toward war. But we all know that the GOP cries havoc, gets involved in a critical national struggle, and comes out on the other side with a reasonable economy. It woulld look just the same by coincidence of circumstances if it wasn't for the fact that the only havoc in the economy was Dubya's need to bring it down. Why bring the economy down? Because then it's easier to get reelected. Shout recession, don't actually have one, and get reelected on minimal growth or even a lack thereof; hey, it's a recession, the guy must be brilliant to help us break even and give us a shot at growth, right? So goes the psychology.

I do hope the citations provided below are enough to at least demonstrate what I'm referring to. As to your company, Bowser, might I share two notes for comparison:

• I am presently looking at this PDF from Whizkidtech.net concerning the recession, noting that it is responsible for the Enron crisis:

Many a business vanished in an instant. The airline industry took the largest hit inits history. The stock market fell even furthur. For example, Enron was selling for $90.56 in August 2000, while its share value dropped to a mere 61¢ on the day of this report (November 28, 2001). One of its employees mentioned on NBC news that he was starting from zero again.

• My own company was apparently a victim of the recession. I've hashed that one a couple of times. But in 1997, an insurance company bought another one; in an attempt to keep the customers, my company (the acquiring company) left the premiums on the newly-acquired policies at their original rate, and lost money on them. They were willing to lose money over a period in an effort to secure market-share. Having mismanaged themselves into an incredible 3-year stock slide, we on the inside heard about all the troubles we were having, the problems of reconciling the policy books, the problems of losing customers to the inevitable rate hike (which was sudden for the customers, and not gradually introduced). In the end, we heard about those problems until the Bush administration. Even as layoffs were announced (a 10%+ workforce reduction), we heard about the problems the company had brought on itself. This was up until about December, 2000. When the first wave of layoffs were announced to the public, natural disasters and the recession were the primary factors offered in justification of the layoffs.

It does, I suppose, depend on the company. But Recession sounds better to nervous investors than, We're just idiots over here, and the word can be used to justify all sorts of tragedies--such as Enron.

Time Europe, 1.8.2001

Time Magazine, 1.8.2001

Aah, the beauty of Time. The first link, to Time Europe, is an article; the second link, to Time US is the cover; they were the same. Strangely, I have to pay to get the American story, but the European site has the text. It's not the worst article in the world, and even worth noting that they do, in their early paragraphs, point out that they aren't using the "dreaded R word". They're telling us, however, in the next sentence, that the "plight" is more complicated. The effect was like wildfire. The word recession was accepted by the American public. To that end, where were the cries of "recession" coming from? The executive. I reiterate my point:

So where I run into trouble is the idea that the economy is on the rebound. I'm not sure it ever should have been that far off-track. I would, in fact, accuse the President of deliberately sabotaging the economy with his rhetoric, creating a false-alarm, and thus costing many people their jobs, savings, or retirements, in order to secure power for the GOP. It used to be that when a president needed information, he asked experts. Every day of the Economic Bush War seems to be a case of the executive telling the experts what reality was.

To start with the links ... : Suck.com, a site that I am hitherto unfamiliar with. The long diatribe about the economy is at once interesting, questionable, and relevant. The author points out:

• In the interest of avoiding further gastro-intestinal discomfort, analysts have not been afraid to acknowledge the possibility that the Great Recession has begun, and acknowledge it often. Dow Jones Interactive, the most comprehensive database of financial and business news, records over 7,800 articles which at least made reference to a recession in America between January 1 and March 1. This is up dramatically from just over 4,000 during the last two months of 2,000, and fewer than 2,500 during the January-March period of one year ago

But even with so much being written on the subject, it is difficult to find many articles which claim outright that the U.S. is heading for a recession. Overwhelmingly, the format has been to lead with news of some economic indicator taking a turn for the worse and then follow with a barrage of analysts insisting that we are not in a recession. Never before has not being in a recession garnered so much attention. Of course, this is a game that spin doctors and other marketing gurus have played for years; publicly denying something is not very different from publicly acknowledging it. When Alan Greenspan says that we are not in a recession, the very fact that he has acknowledged the issue leads many people to the conclusion that we must be in a recession . . . .

• For the financial media — always dependent on meeting demand without supplying an actual product — the current situation precisely mirrors the situation a few years ago, when the boom allowed for an infinite number of "Ten Hottest Stocks for Right Now" thumbsuckers. Certain stories still have to be intoned with utmost regularity, maximum throat-clearing and very little variety; but now they're tales of sorrow instead of joy. A regular watcher of CNBC has picked up the following points over the last few weeks: The market won't rebound until Spring, 2002, unless it rebounds sooner or later than that. Tech stocks have bottomed out, unless they haven't. And best of all, you shouldn't believe everything you hear. And for the truly dumb there are ample stories in the general interest media, such as a cover story in Time magazine explaining "How To Survive the Slump." (Hint: If you're getting your financial planning tips from Time, you ain't gonna make it.)

Even a couple of weeks after the Time story, economists still pitched against the recession, as this Honolulu Advertiser article shows:

• Three consecutive declines in the index traditionally is seen by analysts as a signal that the U.S. economy is headed into recession.

But Conference Board economist Ken Goldstein said in a statement accompanying the report that "the cumulative decline is ... still below the threshold of what would be considered a recessionary signal."

He added: "The overall signal remains one of moderation in the pace of economic activity, but no recession looming on the horizon."

• David Orr, chief economist at First Union Corp. in Charlotte, N.C., noted that the market tends to discount the report on leading indicators because the components' performance is known before the index itself is calculated. This, he said, "misses its influence on the perceptions of the general public and politicians."

He added: "The public is now hearing loud and clear that economic growth has stalled and that the risks of serious trouble are rising. No doubt, such negative news, in turn, affects consumer confidence, which then can affect consumer spending."

That spending accounts for about two-thirds of the U.S. economy.

ABC news even tried to help stave off the depression.

• The latest effort came from Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond President Alfred Broaddus, who today said that while the U.S. economy had clearly slowed, there were few signs "of a sharp, across-the-board decline in economic activity.

• And the recession fears are not just limited to those who study numbers for a living.

According to a Reuters/Zogby poll released today, more than half of those interviewed — 51 percent — believed the U.S. economy was on the edge of a recession, while 39 percent thought the current prosperity would continue and 10 percent were unsure.

• While they listen closely to what Fed officials say for clues on the direction of monetary policy, economists say U.S. central bankers will never present a doom-and-gloom scenario, no matter what the situation.

Fed officials "basically have to put a positive spin on the economy," said Sung Son Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo Bank in Minneapolis. "No Fed official will ever say, 'the economy is in deep trouble, we are about to fall off the cliff.' That is simply unacceptable."

"We always try to read in between lines and try to expect the worst," he said. "That's how the market operates."
• In the meantime, a slew of Fed officials have been coming out of the woodwork to try to calm things down a bit.

On Thursday, St. Louis Fed President William Poole said U.S. economic conditions do not qualify as recessionary, noting that in order to rate as a true recession, an economic downturn must meet the test of the three D's — duration, depth and dispersion.

"Duration, it must be more than a blip on the economic horizon; depth, it must be deep; and dispersion, it must be across a wide range of industries," Poole said after a speech in Memphis, Tenn., to the Risk Management Association.

"The economy doesn't meet the three-D test," he said.

From the Cincinnati Enquirer, 1.17.2001 comes an article which I'll let economists fight over; the US Chamber of Commerce chief sees no recession, but aside from the headline, the conclusion is only inferred from the article. As we see into August, 2001, the recessionhas not arrived, per this St Petersburg Times article:

The U.S. economy grew more slowly in the second quarter than at any time in eight years, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday. Still, the new numbers suggested to many economists that if consumers continued to spend, the nation could avoid a recession.

So, only days before WTC-9/11, were we amid a recession, coming out of a recession, or trying not to sink into the same one we've been hearing about since the election?

A January 9, 2001 article from Dispatch Online

Another boost to the economy could come from the tax cuts that have been promised by President-elect George W Bush. But there traditionally is a long time lag before tax-law changes have an economic impact.

A potential drag on any recovery are the continuing high prices for oil and natural gas, which have drained money from consumers' pockets while significantly raising the costs of fuel-dependent industries.

So far in the slowdown, heavy industry has been hardest hit. In fact, Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, says "much of manufacturing is on the verge of recession". In the worst shape, he said, are factories that make basic products such as paper and steel.

With regard to the banking sector, a recent report by Lehman Brothers brokerage said that, of the 54 banks it tracks, 13 are expected to report earnings above analysts' expectations, 26 in line with expectations and 15 below target.

How about the the National Association of Home Builders, via AP, 2.27.2001

The National Association of Home Builders does not expect a general economic recession, and is activity statistics do not indicate one, which puts it at odds with contrary evidence now circulating among stock market and other forecasters.

Believe it or not, I think that's it for the time being. I hope I passed the audition

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[goofyfish]

George W. Bush: A person whose thoughts range from meringue around coffee ice cream to flashing goofy expressions at reporters at a funeral service, while attempting to pass himself off as the president.

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/03/04/bruni/index.html

The portrait of Bush that emerges once you peel away all the schmaltz is endearing if not quite reassuring. Bruni catalogs Bush's numerous off-camera antics: hanging a hot airplane towel on his head and playing "peek-a-boo" with Bruni during an interview, flashing goofy expressions to reporters while at a funeral for victims of a church shooting. Ditto Bush's most bizarrely inappropriate comments, as when he barks "Hey Tree Man, get up here!" to a Forest Service official during a press conference on forest fires.

Perhaps more disturbing, Bruni also paints a man who is astonishingly shallow and unreflective. Riffing after the election about his upcoming presidency, Bush can't get beyond his genuine fascination with the White House mess hall: "The dessert menu is unbelievable ... [y]esterday at the Blair House we had this, I'm not even sure, coffee ice cream surrounded by this unbelievable meringue, beautiful meringue." And Bruni informs us that well into his first year in office Bush is "still raving about ... [the] little red button in the private dining room off the Oval Office that he could use to summon the butler." It's Bush as the Tom Hanks character in "Big."

Peace.