Lying about the economy
Much of what is written in the “elite” media is simply lies.
This is certainly true about matters concerning politically correct subjects,
but it is also true of economic “reporting” as well.
Here is an example.
BY JUSTIN LAHART AND BEN CASSELMAN
Wall Street Journal, 2011-10-03 (Monday)
(This also appeared on page 2 of the Washington print edition.)
...
The nation's unemployment snapshot, due out Friday, is likely to show that
the biggest cause of joblessness is simply the weak economy.
Consumers aren't buying as many televisions or eating as many meals out,
so factories and restaurants don't need as many workers.
[But televisions are no longer made in the United States.
So even if Americans bought more televisions,
it would only increase employment in non-American (primarily Asian) factories,
not American ones.
Can't you lying jerks at the Wall Street Journal be trained in honesty?
Note that this deceit also avoids giving attention to
the adverse consequences on American workers
of the free-trade regime the Journal pushes so relentlessly.]
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post Op-Ed, 2013-06-17
["Lying about the economy" seems really too harsh for what I am about to point out.
Probably Mr. Dionne just didn't know better.
And in any case, it really is tangential to the main points he makes in his column.
Nonetheless, he does amplify a common misconception,
a misconception which supports certain political agendas while it discredits others.
So it is well worth pointing out the error.
Here is what Mr. Dionne wrote:]
[Alan] Krueger points out that
the three decades or so after World War II —
when the United States firmly established itself as the global economic leader —
were a time of greater economic equality than we enjoy today.
[I do not want to argue about when economic equality was greater or lesser,
but I do want to contradict the assertion about when the U.S. became the global economic leader.
Please see Tables 6 and 18 (merged), Relative Share of World Manufacturing Output, 1750‒1938
from Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
for a more accurate description.
This is certainly true about matters concerning politically correct subjects,
but it is also true of economic “reporting” as well.
Here is an example.
2011-10-03-WSJ-Lahart-Cassalman-televisions-and-employment
Seeking to Match Skills and JobsBY JUSTIN LAHART AND BEN CASSELMAN
Wall Street Journal, 2011-10-03 (Monday)
(This also appeared on page 2 of the Washington print edition.)
...
The nation's unemployment snapshot, due out Friday, is likely to show that
the biggest cause of joblessness is simply the weak economy.
Consumers aren't buying as many televisions or eating as many meals out,
so factories and restaurants don't need as many workers.
[But televisions are no longer made in the United States.
So even if Americans bought more televisions,
it would only increase employment in non-American (primarily Asian) factories,
not American ones.
Can't you lying jerks at the Wall Street Journal be trained in honesty?
Note that this deceit also avoids giving attention to
the adverse consequences on American workers
of the free-trade regime the Journal pushes so relentlessly.]
2013
2013-06-17-Dionne-Great-Gatsby-economy
Great Gatsby economics are no party for the middle classBy E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post Op-Ed, 2013-06-17
["Lying about the economy" seems really too harsh for what I am about to point out.
Probably Mr. Dionne just didn't know better.
And in any case, it really is tangential to the main points he makes in his column.
Nonetheless, he does amplify a common misconception,
a misconception which supports certain political agendas while it discredits others.
So it is well worth pointing out the error.
Here is what Mr. Dionne wrote:]
[Alan] Krueger points out that
the three decades or so after World War II —
when the United States firmly established itself as the global economic leader —
were a time of greater economic equality than we enjoy today.
[I do not want to argue about when economic equality was greater or lesser,
but I do want to contradict the assertion about when the U.S. became the global economic leader.
Please see Tables 6 and 18 (merged), Relative Share of World Manufacturing Output, 1750‒1938
from Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
for a more accurate description.
posted by KHarbaugh at 19:55
<< Home