The Observation Deck

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/ ... index.html

"3 quarters think U.S. in recession"

Definition: A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nationa ... dp407p.htm

Interesting that so many people must not know what the word means.

Our media sure knows how to get the public all worked up.

BTW - it is really interesting that an economic piece is written by Paul Steinhauser, the deputy political director and managing editor for politics.

Are the CNN sportswriters going to start writing about the weather??

Well Ryan - Reporting results of a poll does not require anyone to be a business analyst.

Actually, that might be an advantage. It's just great to go by the economists definitions of "what a depression" is. Frankly, the real world, the one where people actually struggle to put food on the table, is much different than a desk with a plethora of studies and empty rhetoric such as the garbage that has been spewing out of the mainstream media for the last couple of years.

Look around you, people are losing their homes, their jobs and everything they own. People have been living on lies and dreams and hopes that were not based in any kind of real-time reality.

The Great Depression was precipitated by banks making loans to farmers that they were absolutely not able to repay. Because the banks couldn't get the money for the bad loans, the banks failed.

The investors lost their shirts because they were buying on spec (sound like credit to you?) and there was nothing behind the money. FAILURE.

Flash to today. The banks and mortgage companies made loans to people who had neither the resources or income to make those payments. The market sold holdings that didn't exist and investors are losing their shirts. Banks are failing, the Feds are falling all over themselves trying to bail them out. Hunger pantries are out of food.

Sounds like a depression to me.

That's funny, because 3 out of 4 people that I asked said "the economy sucks."

Definition: to suck means to draw or be drawn by or as if by suction.

I guess they were wrong, and we're all doing just fine.

Ryan Salo wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/poll.national/index.html

"3 quarters think U.S. in recession"

Definition: A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nationa ... dp407p.htm

Interesting that so many people must not know what the word means.

Our media sure knows how to get the public all worked up.

It's a fair point to assert. It raises two questions for me. Polling data can be easily tainted depending on how the questions - and what questions were asked. For one thing, the actual questions are almost always conspicuously absent from these kinds of reports.

"The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted by telephone from Friday to Sunday, with 1, 019 Americans questioned. The survey has a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points."

So my first question is about the questions. I've not answered my phone without screening for well over 10 years. So if I were the type to answer an unsolicited phone poll, what does that say about my answers? If for instance the question is "do you think we are in an economic recession?" one could argue that the question itself telegraphs to the responder that the answer is yes, otherwise why would they be asking? Responders notoriously want to show that they are informed and intelligent.

Yet to Ryan's point, how many people are qualified to really answer in an informed way. Very few of the 1000 respondents were likely to be economists. So 750 of them decided to sound informed based on news they here from media like CNN. The media is in an enviable position to create news and then validate that it was understood through polling. Who hasn't heard of the sub-prime lending fiasco brought on by idiot bankers and slack risk policy? To many in the public, problems with banks equals recession, which is not the issue.

This leads to the second question of why poll? If one acknowledges that the Public may not be as valid as polling say, 200 economists, geo-political strategists or historians, then it does suggest some other agenda, like politics. The answer is of course to manufacture controversy or "news."

The economy by 2-1 over Iraq? That's a far cry from a year ago, pre-surge strategy. Now we hear very little about Iraq, because there has been progress and the people there are starting to like the prospect of having their own economy (ironically at a great cost to our own, but freedom isn't free). Maybe we can get cheap oil from them during the years that will be needed to wean off of petroleum.

So if asked "are we making progress in Iraq?" the honest respondent would say, "how should I know?" Unless they have military family or friends that they communicate with directly, they would depend on the media. If CNN chose to only report the bad things (which I think is a distinct and dependable trend), then a poll could validate that indeed, everything is lost over there. Thanks to blogs and other alternate media, some of that imbalance is starting to shift.

.

These are definitely strange times

Well Ryan - Reporting results of a poll does not require anyone to be a business analyst.

Yeah Ryan.... negative polls only count when the left wing media does them...

A poll only tests the perceptions of those being polled. To that end, the opinions expressed are pretty much irrelevant as a measure of reality.

But, by the same token, if 75% asked believe a certain thing to be real, then isn't it (or doesn't it) become reality?

In other words, just because we THINK that eroding real estate prices, sky high gas and a dropping stock market gives justification for feeling dismal about the economy doesn't mean it's really bad. In order to come to that conclusion we need a PhD economist to tell us it's okay to think the economy sucks.

Or something like that......

Jeff

what were the choices in the poll? Sure a lot of people think the economy kind of sucks. But how many think it is Totally Awesome? A Little Bit Awesome?

The Great Depression could have been alleviated by increasing the money supply after the wall street guys and florida land swindlers had gone out of business: Wall Street was a much smaller portion of the economy back then. And most people lived much more modestly back then. but there was still a lot going on. Will Rogers said it best, "America is the only place where you drive to the poor house". For the most part we don't even have poor houses these days: Soup Kitchens and small buildings where people sleep on cots. We have a few safety nets where a caseworker with a specific degree will get you enrolled in a program that will maybe find you a house or apartment and pay for you to live there. But there is a waiting list! We have churches and other buildings that are mostly empty most of the week, that have free meals once or twice a week.

Today people have to afford a lot more to know they are prospering. Nearly every adult member of a household has to have a car full of computerized parts. there are fewer people per households, so much more houses the economy has to pay for. The furniture is a lot bigger, so you need a bigger house to put it in. The cost of healthcare and higher education is a much larger portion of median yearly earnings, and these things are also much more required. So increasing the money supply would not be so simple a solution this time.

We are in the exact spot we were heading for when our economy was "Strong" during those long stretches of the 80s, 90s, and 200s. When security and land appreciate in value fast the economy is growing, and not inflating. When many commodities increase in cost fast we are in a recession or inflation.

Jeff Endress wrote:A poll only tests the perceptions of those being polled. To that end, the opinions expressed are pretty much irrelevant as a measure of reality.

But, by the same token, if 75% asked believe a certain thing to be real, then isn't it (or doesn't it) become reality?

Yes, I think it does take the given perception and props it up as reality.

In other words, just because we THINK that eroding real estate prices, sky high gas and a dropping stock market gives justification for feeling dismal about the economy doesn't mean it's really bad. In order to come to that conclusion we need a PhD economist to tell us it's okay to think the economy sucks.

Or something like that......

Touché. I hate being an optimist. When there is a fire, I should be looking for kerosene not water! It simply doesn't pay to look for the positive and I am coming around - finally.

I actually hope the economy collapses, so that the government can become my nanny. I'd like "free" health care please, a guaranteed job and wages, "affordable" housing, huge taxes for the rich (they deserve to pay over 40% of their income to pay for all of this- especially if they stay in the U.S.)
and, oh yes cheap gas, from our undoubtedly improved relations with Chavez and other dictators in the future. The government is already the largest employer in the U.S. Picture it 10-20 times that size. Can't wait!

Detroit and most of Michigan would house the department of Transportation, with one remaining car company called GMuawRD. Cleveland would merge with Buffalo to become Clevefalo and would house the Department of Water Resources, A.K.A the Great Lakes. A giant public works effort would employ thousands of displaced workers. Painting the worlds largest contiguous target over most of the East coast with the bulls eye of course in Manhattan, NYC.

Yep, I'm getting too old to contribute to this economy, I'd rather just take from it. I can't wait for another New Deal! Only this time do it correctly and get rid of all semblance of free enterprise. Hail government!

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters
discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
---Alexander Tyler

.