The findings suggest the economy cannot sustain the galloping 5.7% annual growth rate the government reported for the fourth quarter of 2009.
“Don’t put your party hats on yet,” says Edward Leamer, the UCLA economic forecaster who helped create the index. “We were hoping our index would be stronger, symptomatic of an economy powerful enough to start putting Americans back to work.”
The Journal also found the index worth a look, though with modest play:
The report comes at a time where most economists agree the economy is recovering, albeit without much vigor and with no job gains. Most also believe that, after inventory-related factors powered decent gains in the nation’s gross domestic product over the final months of 2009, growth will moderate, although they do expect job losses to soon give way to modest increases.
These days, as Leonhardt and Wolf make clear, what we really need is economic reporting that goes deeper than the headline numbers—ideally with shoe-leather reporting&mdash and reminds us that, while some big numbers might be good for the moment,and some long-term lines might even be headed north, the economy still has a ways to go, and, really, the current pace isn’t getting us there.
what we really need is economic reporting that goes deeper than the headline numbers—ideally with shoe-leather reporting--and reminds us that, while some big numbers might be good for the moment,and some long-term lines might even be headed north, the economy still has a ways to go, and, really, the current pace isn’t getting us there.
Don't you really mean that:
what we really need is economic reporting that goes deeper than the headline numbers—ideally with shoe-leather reporting--and tries to make sense of what the numbers really say, whatever that is, rather than trying to validate somebody's ideological bias or prior belief about which the way the economy is actually headed?
#1 Posted by A Cassel, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 02:08 PM
Ryan,
I think the following is a central question, I have no idea of the answer, maybe you know ...
The second chart here
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html
convincingly shows sizable undersaving and sizable overborrowing by us the people during the last two-plus decades. Reversal of each surely figures to make sense, and is likely commenced ... LESS personal consumption results, with less related employment. Other economic activity RISES, with more related employment.
QUESTION: Is there a clear expectation for the NET effect on employment? (I'm thinking 'final' effect, rather than transitional.)
#2 Posted by Ed, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 03:21 PM
Thanks, A. Cassel and Ed.
I work with Holly (she's the author, btw, new to the site; http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/holly_yeager_is_cjrs_first_pet.php).
I take Cassel's point that reporting should not be about validating reporters' individual biases or guesswork about where the economy is going. That said, If Leonhardt's figures are correct -- 10 million jobs needed, requiring 300,000 new jobs a month -- it doesn't strike me as much of a stretch to say that we've got a ways to go and the current pace is too slow.
Ed, I may be misunderstanding, but wouldn't any jobs projection want to project a net number, taking into account higher savings, lower consumption, and any number of other factors?
#3 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 04:36 PM
It seems a bit odd to call two articles a meme change, after all there were plenty of stories that questioned the case for war in Iraq. But the "meme" was slam dunk.
And if "Reuters, for instance, did a better job of keeping it real with the NFIB survey" by quoting the press release that accompanied the results of the survey why didn't they just print the press release? seriously we would all be better informed if we read the press releases which are carefully crafted to avoid outright falsehoods than we are by reading ill informed analysis of such. Though in this case Reuters accurately conveyed the meaning of the press release, in many cases journalist are simply not expert enough at the subject matter to be able to do so.
Nice use of hyperlinks in this post. It is rare to see, and it would have been nice if the aforementioned Reuters piece had some.
#4 Posted by timothywmurray, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 02:31 PM