|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 15, 2007 17:09:58 GMT -6
Industrial production fell -0.5%, much worse than the +0.1% predicted by the markets. This information can be found at the Fed Reserve report on Industrial Production. This information had conveniently NOT been published in the tables by Briefing.com as of 5:30 PM EST, despite being released over 8 hours earlier at 9:15 AM by the Federal Reserve. (However, the decline is shown in their bar graph, as can be seen below.) Below is a copy of the table from the Federal Reserve showing the actual statistics for Industrial Production and industrial Capacity Utilization. Capacity Utilization also declined by -0.6%, from 81.8% in December to 81.2%. A decline in industrial capacity utilization suggests a decline in demand for industrial production. For the year of 2006, Industrial Production increased only 2.6%. As can be seen from the bar graph at the top, Industrial Production has declined every month since August, except for the month of December. Since August, U.S. Industrial Production has declined -0.6%. Also of note is that Briefing.com has not published today's numbers for the Philadelphia Fed Index, as of 6:20 PM EST. (The release was scheduled for release at 12 noon EST.) Again, this may be related to the fact that the numbers were much worse than predicted. The market prediction for the Philadelphia Fed Manufacturing Index was +5.0. The actual number was only +0.6%. Again, it's interesting that there is such a delay in publication of bad numbers, yet no delay when they are positive. Today's numbers provide even further evidence that we are in a manufacturing recession. Couple that with an obvious housing recession, and it is very hard to support the statement that "our economy is strong."
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 15, 2007 18:52:23 GMT -6
I think we can safely say that manufacturing is in depression. Except for a few minor blips here and there, manufacturing has been in a prolonged recession ever since the Bush recession started in 2001. That is the period in which we refer to as "when the faucet got shut off". Multinationals have used the Bush reign and the lax corporate oversight attitude of republican congress to completely gut US manufacturing and ship it offshore.
The third shoe dropped in automotive, Chrysler now announced major layoffs and plant closures. So much of the economy is driven by automotive, this sned a shock wave through all of manufacturing service support and supply.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 17, 2007 16:44:26 GMT -6
I think we can safely say that manufacturing is in depression. Yes indeed. And we're still losing manufacturing jobs, despite the huge loss that has already occurred. According to one source (which I posted elsewhere on this forum), 50% of the the industrial output of American-owned factories comes from facilities located in foreign countries. This clearly demonstrates the "benefits" Americans have received from the free flow of capital across international borders. (Which, again, completely invalidates the doctrine of Comparative Advantage.) This free flow of capital and the "flexibility" it provides has cost American workers jobs, depressed American wages, and increased the profit margins of American Multinational Corporations through the labor cost savings they've obtained. Once again, however, this cost savings is at the expense of lower aggregate wages for American workers and consumers. Given that American wages are the funding source of the American consumer market, this will ultimately hurt outsourcers by reducing the ability of Americans to buy their products. Corporate America, even in it's most disgustingly greedy moments, needs to remember that there are NO profits without sale of production. Without income, Americans can't buy any production. And with reduced income there is reduced sale of production. Reducing aggregate American wages reduces the size (in dollars) of the American consumer market. It reduces the demand for production. Demand for production is produced by the wants of consumers with the means to fulfill those wants. Consumers with no means to fulfill those wants create 0 demand. It's not the number of consumers that creates production demand. It's the aggregate buying power of those consumers with "wants" that creates production demand. Decreasing that buying power decreases demand. On a related issue, many are under the mistaken impression that increasing the number of workers available increases aggregate labor income. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It's only the number of employed workers that affects aggregate labor income. And the number of employed workers is determined by labor demand, not by the number of workers available. Increasing the supply of labor (without changing demand) reduces average wages. As a result, it reduces total (aggregate) wages as well. This, in turn, reduces aggregate consumer production demand. Ultimately this reduction in aggregate labor/consumer income causes still further declines in aggregate consumer buying power and production demand. The result of this is a self-perpetuating decline in wages, resulting in reduced buying power, production demand, and standard of living. The decline in wages feeds back on itself, causing still further declines in future wages due to a continual decline in consumer ability to purchase production. In turn, this causes further declines in the demand for labor to provide that production. This truly is a race to the bottom. The very decline in wages caused by outsourcing and illegal immigration causes further wage declines in the future. This would appear to be a Global Corporatist's dream, and definitely an American worker's nightmare. Eventually, however, Global Corporatists will be cutting their own throats, because they'll destroy the driving force that makes all of this work-- Consumer Spending and the Production Demand it creates. The most important component of free enterprise and capitalism is not capital. It's the consumer. Without consumers, capitalism wouldn't exist. Without consumers to purchase production, "capital" has little benefit, and capital investment has NO benefit. Simply increasing capital availability, without increasing consumer ability to purchase the products of that capital, is of no benefit whatsoever. Building a factory creates no wealth whatsoever, unless there are consumers to buy the factory's production. Nothing will be produced without consumer demand, or at least anticipated consumer demand. The constant shift of wealth away from labor/consumer income and into investment capital is a step in the wrong direction. This is especially true at present, given the gross excess of capital currently available. Few disagree that "the markets are glutted with capital" at present. Markets "glutted with capital" really means that the amount of available capital is in excess of (good) capital investment opportunities. (This is one reason long-term bond rates are so low. The returns on the bonds are still better than most capital investment opportunities.) There is only 1 factor that creates "investment opportunities": Demand for Production, either actual or anticipated. An investment opportunity is created when there is potential to profitably sell goods or services that capital investment will enhance. If the returns are less than the value of the investment itself, no investment takes place (at least, not over the long-term.) And what produces "returns." Sale of goods or services to consumers. Thus investment opportunities are created by consumer demand for the goods or services provided. And what puts the ultimate ceiling on consumer demand? Consumer income. Though demand can be temporarily increased through credit and borrowing, this increase can not be sustained over the long term. Thus, aggregate investment opportunities are directly related to aggregate consumer ability to purchase goods or services provided by investment. The point here is simple. The continued upward redistribution of wealth is creating an excess of capital in relation to capital investment opportunities. This redistribution increases the ability of producers to increase production, while reducing the ability of consumers to purchase production. This imbalance has been obscured by the ability of consumers to substitute credit-financed consumer spending for the decline in wage-financed spending. Once again, this is not a sustainable course. And it's a course leading us down the road to an Economic Armageddon.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Feb 18, 2007 0:52:02 GMT -6
Comsumers borrowing creates consumer spending the same as consumer income.
We have increased spending despite a negative savings rate because of consumers going deeper into debt. So if the Fed lowers rates and increases money supply, then the moronic consumers can increase the GDP with even more borrowing.
It does not have to be this way. Consumers can change their behavior by not borrowing and at the same time the consumers can start to save. It was not that long ago that the savings rate was 8%. When the Japanese government went to zero interest rates and expanded money supply as a rescue of their 1990 collapse, then the Japanese consumer did just that - they consumed less and saved more leading to deflation. The Japanese government was pushing on a string.
If the consumer is changing from spending, then this would be consistent with lower industrial production. On the other hand, production is shifting to overseas and lowers the cost of goods and service. Our unemployment rate is low and if more production was done here then labor push inflation would quickly follow. The economy has evolved into mostly a service economy with low unemployment. Yes this is a hollowed out economy. But the dirty pollution happens overseas. After all, it is better to fight wars overseas to avoid the devistation to the nation where the war happens. So it is true that it is better to avoid the devistation to our nation of heavy industries.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 18, 2007 8:55:13 GMT -6
You can't really be serious about this?
It is a complete non sequitur that being in Iraq for example makes us safer at home.
And industry is much less polluting than it was decades ago. Simply offshoring to avoid environmental regulation is not really a solution is it? Pollution in China has the same devastating effects to the world as a whole as it would here, and at least here because of regulation there was a push to cleaner technology - theres that increase in technology again - not a decrease as companies offshore.
Moving industry to previously un-industrialised areas simply increases environmental degradation.
And of course a strong industrial base is vital to national security - it is impossible to remain the "arsenal of democracy" if one can no longer build that arsenal - how do the neo-cons expect continue being the worlds policeman and their nation building misadventures without the means to do so in not only materiel but national treasure?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 18, 2007 14:20:43 GMT -6
Consumers borrowing creates consumer spending the same as consumer income. We have increased spending despite a negative savings rate because of consumers going deeper into debt. So if the Fed lowers rates and increases money supply, then the moronic consumers can increase the GDP with even more borrowing. Exactly. However, one can't put 100% of the blame on consumers. The Corporate-dominated media has done an outstanding job of convincing consumers to borrow money and spend it freely. Literally billions of dollars go into advertising to consumers, trying to get them to abandon common sense, and loosen up their purse strings. And that advertising has succeeded. Those billions of advertising dollars have gotten consumers to borrow money to buy goods, while improving the bottom line on Corporate America's balance sheets. On the other hand, production is shifting to overseas and lowers the cost of goods and service. Our unemployment rate is low and if more production was done here then labor push inflation would quickly follow. Outsourcing labor costs to foreign countries doesn't reduce inflation any, if the loss of wage-financed buying power is offset by increased credit-financed buying power. Demand-pull inflation created by consumers is just as large, regardless of whether it comes from borrowed money or wage income. By the same token, the inflationary effect of wage increases could be offset by decreasing credit-financed buying power. The Fed can control inflation by raising the Fed rate and by increasing the required reserves of banks. However, the Fed can do nothing to increase wages. The Fed's only tools to affect the economy are controlling credit creation and controlling the money supply. If an increase in wage-financed consumer spending was completely offset by a decrease in credit-financed consumer spending, there would be no net change in consumer spending power, and no net change in demand-pull inflation. But there would be an increase in the calculated "savings" rate. The net affect of substituting credit-financed spending for wage-financed spending is an upward transfer of wealth. Borrowing (and buying) power is initially increased among those items that can be purchased with borrowed money (Homes and stocks, for example.) As the value of such assets increases, money can be borrowed off these assets (such as home equity loans.) This borrowed money can be re-channeled back into other assets, causing increased demand for those assets, and causing the price to rise as well. As the price of these inflated assets continues to rise, still more money can be borrowed off them, and still more borrowed money can be pumped back into these (or other) inflated assets. The artificial wealth created in this manner goes disproportionately to those owning the inflated assets. And it goes disproportionately to those with the greatest borrowing ability. Those with the greatest borrowing ability tend to be those with the greatest wealth to begin with. Thus, increasing spending power from increased borrowing helps the affluent far more than the non-affluent. However, the inflation caused by this credit expansion affects everyone, the affluent and non-affluent alike. It reduces the buying power of wages. And though inflation reduces the value inflated assets, the current-dollar value increase is greater than inflation. The result is that affluent asset holders experience an increase in "real" wealth, as well as the larger, current-dollar value of that wealth. If asset prices increase more than inflation, and wages increase less than inflation, there is a transfer of wealth away from wage earners and toward asset owners. Wage earners lose real wealth through inflation. Asset owners gain real wealth, because their current-dollar gain is greater than inflation. When the Fed utilizes its credit/money creation ability to "grow" the economy, the economic "growth" is more among the affluent than the non-affluent. And if inflation is greater than wage increases, there is a transfer of wealth from the non-affluent wage earners to the affluent asset owners. The point here is that "inflation-reduction" is a poor reason to outsource jobs. Inflation has occurred despite outsourcing, due to credit expansion. Any demand-induced inflation caused by reduced outsourcing and increased American wages can be controlled by Fed policy. But the affluent asset holders don't want this, because it would reduce the upward transfer of wealth they're currently benefiting from.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Feb 18, 2007 16:41:44 GMT -6
Yes the current asset holders want their assets to appreciate. Whatelse would they want, not depreciation. Politics is key here. The voters as opposed to the general population are heavily vested by 66% owning homes, the highest rate in history. When the housing crash spreads from subprime to Alt-A and primes, then the Democrats will sweep into power and change policy. IMHO 2008 will see a dramatic shift to the left. Besides Democrats, the big winners will be the attorneys as lawsuits by all parties have begun to fly. The courts will make the bagholders be the deeppockets who will appeal the decisions for years thus keeping the attorneys heavily employed. By 2008 all parties will be desparate to win the political outcomes. The Fed has setup to avoid gridlock of the major Treasuries conduits. When either the Bank of New York or JP Morgan get devistated with lawsuits, then the NewBank will take over. www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Press/other/2005/20051215/The powers that be and the Fed are prepared for a collapse and to keep the government sales of Treasuries flowing. www.bondmarkets.com/story.asp?id=2306 I know I am straying from the thread- The most persuasive way to convince bank creditors that their bank is not too big to fail (TBTF) is for policymakers to reduce systemic risk and to communicate those steps to the public. This essay describes three such advances. First, it discusses a proposal from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp to improve its ability to limit taxpayer bailouts when a large bank fails. Second, it reports on the so-called NewBank reform to create a backup for certain banks that played a heretofore irreplaceable role in key financial markets. Finally, it comments on a private-sector initiative to better equip financial firms to understand and manage the risks posed by modern financial transactions. All three efforts lead to better management of systemic risk, reducing creditors' expectations of TBTF bailouts and thus making society better off. This digital document is an article from The Region, most recently published by ProQuest Information and Learning on June 30, 2006. The length of the article is 4462 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser. Citation Details Title: Managing Too Big To Fail by Reducing Systemic Risk: Some Recent Developments Author: Ron J Feldman Publication: The Region (Feature) Date: June 30, 2006 Publisher: ProQuest Information and Learning Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Page: 18-21,46-49 Face facts, there is no quick way for the US to go back to heavy industry without politics shunting aside the antipolution laws and activists. This looks very unlikely because IMHO the liberals and Democrats will sweep into power. We have become a services economy. High paying blue collar jobs have declined significantly and continue to decline.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 18, 2007 17:21:47 GMT -6
Yes the current asset holders want their assets to appreciate. Whatelse would they want, not depreciation. Politics is key here. The voters as opposed to the general population are heavily vested by 66% owning homes, the highest rate in history. When the housing crash spreads from subprime to Alt-A and primes, then the Democrats will sweep into power and change policy. Excellent. I'd certainly like to see the Democrats limit the growth of this credit-debt bubble. the big winners will be the attorneys as lawsuits by all parties have begun to fly. The courts will make the bagholders be the deeppockets who will appeal the decisions for years thus keeping the attorneys heavily employed. Yes, I can easily envision this happening. This just sounds like a government assisted bank bail-out to me. It sounds like the government coming to the rescue of banks and lending institutions that have made irresponsible loans and taken excessive risks. I know I am straying from the thread-... First, it discusses a proposal from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp to improve its ability to limit taxpayer bailouts when a large bank fails. That's an excellent idea. I certainly support that. However, I doubt any such proposal will ever be fully implemented. Second, it reports on the so-called NewBank reform to create a backup for certain banks that played a heretofore irreplaceable role in key financial markets. This sounds like a complete contradiction to the " first" point. First they're talking about limiting taxpayer bailouts. But then they want to establish a backup bank as a bail-out vehicle. Where will the money come for this bail-out mechanism? My guess is the taxpayer. So the proposal is to limit one type of taxpayer bailout, while substituting another taxpayer-funded bailout. My solution is to convincingly tell banks right now, today, that they are not going to be bailed out by Federal government. Period. See what happens to the creation of risky loans then. This credit explosion is largely a result of banks making excessively risky loans and transferring that risk to a 3rd party (or 4th, 5th, or 100th party.) Without being exposed to the risk they've created, banks can continue to loan money to anyone with a pulse, without worrying about defaults. This lack of concern for risk is largely the fault of the Federal Reserve and the government. Large banks know they'll be bailed out when they screw up, because it would cause a financial meltdown, born largely by the affluent, not the less affluent. And it is the affluent campaign donors that hold the most sway over the government, not the voters who elected the government.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Feb 19, 2007 12:29:08 GMT -6
No one holds a gun to the heads of the voters, certainly not campaign donors. We have the freedom to vote anyway we want. Just because the voters are unconcerned and easily persuaded does not mean voters do not choose.
Let me address the 'lack of concern for risk and the Fed'. The world's financial system now has 75% of its liquidity outside of the Fed's control in the form of derivatives. The complex and nontransparent instruments such a s CDOs and derivatives are owned vastly by non Americans and are outside of the control of the Fed.
The risk and volitility (VIX) are percieved as low because these complex financial instruments spread the fallout accross the world and among those best able to afford the losses. These complex financial instruments ofter act as 'insurance' to absorb losses.
The system is being tested again with the meltdown in the subprime derivatives as we speak. I believe that the loses will result in defaults of the 'insurance'. Will the spreading of the risk to the world's most deep pockets work out well - I doubt it. One particular deep pocket is very much standing up to set the example: JP Morgan Chase. In the US, it holds the most derivatives of any entity.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 19, 2007 16:39:34 GMT -6
No one holds a gun to the heads of the voters, certainly not campaign donors. We have the freedom to vote anyway we want. Just because the voters are unconcerned and easily persuaded does not mean voters do not choose. Yes, the voters certainly do "choose" during an election. But they have almost nothing to do with the initial choices. A potential candidate without tremendous financial resources, or without the backing of wealthy donors can't even get on the ballot. In this respect, the voters do not "choose." They simply "choose" among a limited number of big-money backed candidates. It is big-money interests that choose the candidates. Then voters are allowed to vote for their favorite candidate from this selection. Without financial backing, candidates can't even get on the ballot. It takes both money and signatures to get on a ballot. And if a non-affluent candidate does happen to get on the ballot, he won't even be known, nor will his views be widely known without the money necessary to advertise. Furthermore, a well-financed candidate can sway voters by simply overwhelming opponents with the total tonnage of air time such money buys. As Hitler once stated, "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it." By the same token, if you repeat illogical campaign rhetoric often enough, voters will start accepting it. That's especially true if there is little information publicized to counter that rhetoric. Money can buy canvassers, radio & TV time, and mailings. People begin to accept a candidates falsehoods when there is little media coverage of opposing views. Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of how media coverage can popularize a candidate. She's managed to take the early lead without having any clear position on any issue. Barack Obama has taken the runner-up position without taking any position at all on any issue. Both are the product of money, and the media hype it has bought them. Let me address the 'lack of concern for risk and the Fed'. The world's financial system now has 75% of its liquidity outside of the Fed's control in the form of derivatives. The complex and nontransparent instruments such a s CDOs and derivatives are owned vastly by non Americans and are outside of the control of the Fed. I would make 2 points about this. 1st, even if the Fed only controls 25% of the world's liquidity, clamping down on that 25% (or not having created it in the 1st place) would make a significant difference. 2nd, had government regulation forced more transparency, and had the government not created the belief it would bail out failing banks, this would have also made a significant difference. Obviously it's easier to make risky investments if you've transferred the risk to another party, and believe that the government will bail you out if you get in trouble. The risk and volitility (VIX) are percieved as low because these complex financial instruments spread the fallout accross the world and among those best able to afford the losses. These complex financial instruments ofter act as 'insurance' to absorb losses. I think "perceived" is the key word here. Many financial analysts freely admit that they don't know how great the risk is, they don't know exactly where the risk has been spread to, in addition to not knowing what the consequences of further defaults will be. The system is being tested again with the meltdown in the subprime derivatives as we speak. I believe that the loses will result in defaults of the 'insurance'. Will the spreading of the risk to the world's most deep pockets work out well - I doubt it. I doubt it too.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Feb 19, 2007 21:24:51 GMT -6
For better or worse, we have this form of government. I do not foresee a political revolution. During the coming depression, I do see voters moving to the left in great numbers. In the Great Depression 25% identified with the far left for that time. People do hold strong religious convictions to the extent that 80% of Americans believe in organized religions and god. Americans political views are pretty evenly divided between voters for Democrats and Republican for the moment. We are perfectly capable of strong convictions and if we wanted to change the mechanics of the political system we would change it. You may not like the influence money has on campaigns, but all efforts to change to public funding of campaigns have crashed and burned due to lack of strong conviction to change it.
The Fed does not even control 25% of the world's liquidity. The international central banks as a group are far more powerful than the Fed. Even the Euro all by itself has more money supply than the dollar. According to the Bank of International Settlement, money supply only accounts for 13% of the world's liquidity. The dollar is the reserve currency for now but I doubt it will be in 25 years. The Fed does not have the ability to force more transparency in the world's financial system. At a minimum, 33% of complex financial instruments are not even traded electronically.
Much of the evaluation of financial instruments is psychological and 'percieved'. Confidence or the lack of it in financial instruments establishes much of the motivation in setting prices. Shake the confidence and prices fall or vice a versa. There is a small crack in the derivatives market focused on the subprime market. The Wall Street media has played out a compartmentalization or isolation story that subprimes meltown has nothing to do with the rest of the financial system. The street is confident it has a public relations battle that the street is winning. Bloggers dispute the isolation story but it is the buyers and sellers of these complex financial instruments that agree that subprime devistation is limited. The fear has not spread and denial still reigns supreme.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 19, 2007 22:16:21 GMT -6
The Wall Street media has played out a compartmentalization or isolation story that subprimes meltown has nothing to do with the rest of the financial system. The street is confident it has a public relations battle that the street is winning. Bloggers dispute the isolation story but it is the buyers and sellers of these complex financial instruments that agree that subprime devistation is limited. The fear has not spread and denial still reigns supreme. Yes. That's exactly how it sounds to me. Wall Street commentators continue to claim this is a compartmentalized phenomenon, and will not affect the rest of the economy. They're saying the same thing about the declines in the auto industry and the housing industry. Eventually it'll be impossible for these allegedly "isolated" problems not to spread to the rest of the economy. But as you've stated, denial still reigns supreme.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Feb 19, 2007 22:55:12 GMT -6
The Liberal media wants the Democrats to sweep the 2008 elections. It will take at least 3 months of bad economic news for the main street media to get the attention of the voting public.
|
|
|
Post by ig on Feb 20, 2007 6:19:12 GMT -6
The Liberal media wants the Democrats to sweep the 2008 elections. It will take at least 3 months of bad economic news for the main street media to get the attention of the voting public. where is this mythic beast......this liberal media i here so much about. Is it the one owned by the largest military contractor in the world? Perhaps its those granola eating, pot smoking, tree hugging liberals in the boardrooms of CNN or MSNBC selling advertising to the librals that own BP, Walmart.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Feb 20, 2007 10:22:51 GMT -6
Liberal Media Evidence A new poll by the Pew Center proves that the media is as liberal as ever. When will "diversity" mean more conservatives? by Fred Barnes 05/28/2004 12:00:00 AM
THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.
Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1 or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute.
Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answers are, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for a moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered liberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush be getting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agree with that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostility if the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And I could go on.
|
|
|
Post by ig on Feb 20, 2007 13:26:00 GMT -6
Liberal Media Evidence A new poll by the Pew Center proves that the media is as liberal as ever. When will "diversity" mean more conservatives? by Fred Barnes 05/28/2004 12:00:00 AM THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative. Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1 or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute. Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answers are, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for a moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered liberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush be getting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agree with that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostility if the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And I could go on. the press is rarely if ever kind to any administration and they shouldnt be. Look at Johnson and Viet Nam, Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. was the conservative press going after a sitting pres for an affair? Oh My The press sells advertising. If a dead soldier or baby draws viewers, thats the story that will run. "If it bleeds it leads" What this administration did at a very conscious level, was tell the american public they were seeing the war through a "liberal" filter. Remember Bush's speech when things went badly? Dont hear much about the liberal filter anymore do you? and by the way Fred Barnes is an intellectual flatliner who works for who? The Weekly standard that is edited by who? Bill Kristol! Who is Bill Kristol? Chair of the project for a new american century. and who owns the weekly standard? Rupert Murdoch...owns what network....anyone!...Anyone! Buehler Buehler...FOX News! and that is a propaganda wing for the neoconistas.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 20, 2007 14:33:44 GMT -6
Liberal Media Evidence A new poll by the Pew Center proves that the media is as liberal as ever. When will "diversity" mean more conservatives? by Fred Barnes 05/28/2004 12:00:00 AM Fred Barnes is about as unreliable a source as any I can think of. Not only is he a "conservative," he's as biased as they come. He's not particularly good at what he does, and definitely not convincing in his commentary. His recent book on Bush, whose name I can't remember (because it's so un-memorable), talks about what a "maverick" and what a "radical" Bush is. He's given interviews about this book and his theme sounds completely idiotic. I don't know where he gets his poll information. Best guess is that he polled Fox pseudo-News listeners. If there truly was a "liberal" news bias, Bush would have never gotten re-elected in 2004. All of his economic and legal missteps would have come to light if we'd had even a "neutral" media, much less a liberal bias. It's Corporate and (extreme) Right-Wing interests that own and control the media, as well as pay for advertisements. There may have been a "liberal media bias" back in the 60's and early 70's. But that's certainly not the case today. The big networks bend over backwards to support Bush, and give equal time to the opinions of the shrinking minority of those that support him. There's been a virtual explosion of Right-Wing talk radio shows all over the country. Even in allegedly "liberal" Los Angeles, there is an over-abundance of Right-Wing radio talk shows. Barnes is just about as wrong about media dominance as he is in his latest "novel" about Bush. THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. This kind of half-witted, fact-free statement is exactly what would expected from a NeoCon-Artist like Barnes. A bold, false, unsupported statement, based on "surveys" that no one else has ever seen. Sort of like the "conclusive evidence" the Bush administration has found that the Iranian government is directly involved in supplying weapons to Shia militia groups (and even to their Sunni opponents.) It's time people started realizing that everything that comes out of NeoCon-Artists like Fred Barnes, and his friends at Fox News, is complete nonsense. Fox News should really be on the SciFi channel, since it's just about as realistic (and often less realistic). Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates. What's changed is that media ownership is now controlled by only 6 major entities, and all of them are Right-Wing, pro-Corporate leaning. And all of them have switched from reporting the actual news, to only reporting the news that suits their purposes. But their actual views haven't changed, the Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. Just how wrong can anyone get? With the exception of Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann, media commentary is almost exclusively from shills of the Bush plutocracy. That's why all anyone hears about the economy is how "strong" it is, when our economy is actually circling the drain. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute.... No, it's Barnes' own bias and stupidity that are "beyond dispute." Think for a moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered liberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush be getting kinder coverage? If we had "fair" coverage of Bush, he would likely have been impeached before the 2004 election. And if not, he would have lost the 2004 election by a landslide. And many of those involved with voter suppression and fraud, especially in Ohio, would have gone to jail. This did not happen, of course, because the Right-Wing Corporate media got their man Bush elected, and didn't want to do anything to jeopardize it. So we were bombarded with the media's own version of "WMDs"-- Weapons of Mass Deception, Distortion, & Distraction. (Did anyone really give a rat's ass about the presidential election in the Ukraine, especially when our own election had just ended?)
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Feb 20, 2007 15:26:08 GMT -6
Date: December 14, 2005 Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu ) Phone: 310-825-1046
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.
Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.
Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.
"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."
The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.
Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.
Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.
Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.
"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."
Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.
"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."
The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.
"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.
The results break new ground.
"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."
-UCLA-
MS580
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Feb 20, 2007 15:56:51 GMT -6
Date: December 14, 2005 Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu ) Phone: 310-825-1046 Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist Such old news, Newest headline: Poor research practices dont do you much good he says later ... i wrote this up back when that release was first published. One of the authors was associated with the area, to his credit it is hard to make a redneck look bad, but less hard to make UCLA look foolish. ................................................................................ www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdfTwo years and not published yet? Looks like 9 revisions so far. These are not good signs. The latest revision is filled with attempts to explain away their critics. (authors) Groseclose and Milyo Chris Lawrence Geoff Nunberg at July 5, 2004 Michael Dolny Franklin Foer I include the last, cited also by geoff, because it shows that that the conservatives think “everyone else is doing it”, and since Nixon we all know what that means. I see potential errors I did not see mentioned, one that keeps buging me is the mention of how they introduce a conservative bias to the scoring system in an attempt to keep certain numbers positive and easy to deal with. They say it does not matter, and if done right that would be true. But edge conditions in models are often disrespected such that numbers that fall close to zero or go slightly negative may not be handled correctly by the model. This comment comes from my bias as a programmer, I have learned to watch out for other people messing up the code at the edges as a way to quickly find why said code is barfing all over the floor this week. They could bias to the negative, run again, and verify the distances didn’t change AT ALL in a quick attempt to prove this is not a factor. Another problem I cant quite put my finger on but keeps bothering me is that they in no way showed the scale for the legislators is the same scale as for the media. They think they are scoring the same, but if a bias sneaks into the media score that will shift their scores up or down the same amount. But nor I do not know how to prove that 0 on the media score is 0 on the legislators score, and ditto for 100. Considering the more possible chance that having posted here the authors might even read this my suggestion is to pull the paper. You have gotten more than enough media exposure to get refunded I bet. This time design around the things the critics have said about the study and see what comes out. And for my last comment to them …. if they weren’t trying to be so partisan, then they would have noticed they did show what everyone has said over and over and over…. to a democrat the media is conservative, and to the republican it is liberal.
|
|