Ben Bernanke gave a speech the other day, saying that… well… he said some thing or another, according to the papers.
The Wall Street Journal’s headline says the Bernank is gloomy:
Fed Sees Recovery Lagging
Bernanke Says Growth Slower Than Expected, Monetary Policy Isn’t ‘Panacea’
The Washington Post says Big Ben is optimistic:
Bernanke: Economy can withstand recent setbacks
Bloomberg News sides with the Journal, but emphasizes that the chairman thinks that the economy needs stimulus:
Bernanke Says Slow Recovery Needs Sustained Record Stimulus
But The New York Times came up with an altogether different take:
Fed Wants Priority Put On Deficit
As does the Financial Times:
Bernanke signals no new round of easing
My head’s spinning.
Let’s take these one by one.
The Journal plays Bernanke’s stance on the economy well, noting that he’s downbeat but not exactly suicidal:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke offered a relatively glum view of the U.S. economy, acknowledging that it is growing more slowly than the Fed had expected, but predicted improvement later this year.
But the WSJ misses by reporting that “inflation up,” and that that ties Bernanke’s hands, and that there’s not much risk of deflation anymore. It’s worth noting that while the overall consumer price index is up 3.1 percent from a year ago, core inflation (which excludes volatile food and gas prices) is up just 1.3 percent. That’s up from where it was last fall, but it’s still low. The Journal should have written something like “inflation is up somewhat, but still low.”
The NYT messes up by emphasizing that Bernanke pushed deficit reduction but waiting until the last sentence of the story to note that he said it would be bad to cut spending in the near term. The Post also decided to drop that in its kicker.
But that’s better than the Journal’s story, which doesn’t even bother to report that news. Nor does the FT’s. Bloomberg handles it best, quoting the relevant Bernanke passage in the middle of its piece and writing this:
Bernanke and Dudley both said lawmakers should rein in budget deficits to ensure long-term growth without cutting back so quickly as to choke off the recovery.
But Bloomberg’s headline gets it wrong on what Bernanke said, implying that he wants to continue the quantitative easing monetary stimulus. He doesn’t.
Finally, the Post is too sanguine about the Fed’s projection for the economy:
The recent slowdown in the U.S. economy is being driven by temporary factors, and growth is likely to accelerate later in the year, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Tuesday.
This isn’t wrong, but it leads readers to believe Bernanke is more bullish on the economy’s near-term prospects than he is.
When Alan Greenspan was Fed chairman, the press used to talk about his oracular pronouncements. While Bernanke is less apt to talk that mumbo jumbo, this coverage shows that the press can still interpret the same news differently.
And of course, that’s not limited to Bernanke talks.
It’s worth noting that while the overall consumer price index is up 3.1 percent from a year ago, core inflation (which excludes volatile food and gas prices) is up just 1.3 percent
Whewwww!!! That’s a relief. Thank goodness no one needs to eat, fuel their car, or heat their homes … there an app for all of that now right?
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 9 Jun 2011 at 04:19 PM
Mike's RIGHT!!! Not including the cost of gas and food hurts the consumer and makes some things seem better for who ever is in power in either branch. NYTimes sometimes does have a tendency to forget that most of us don't live on $100,000+. I don't have to worry about gas, but everyone else in my family does so I keep in touch. Food is a good business since it is a necessity for all no matter what the economic climate is. As long as they don't expect double-digit profits.
Another article yesterday in the Times talked about many businesses not receiving loans or grants simply because the investors would not make double digit returns. No one seems to realize that that is part of the problem in getting job openings for the unemployed worker. But they don't have to worry, they can use their money in Europe!! So helpful to the society they live in!!!
#2 Posted by Trish, CJR on Fri 10 Jun 2011 at 01:18 PM
This seems to ALWAYS need explaining to Mike whenever inflation (excuse the pun) comes up.
There are different kinds of inflation.
a) There are the kinds caused by rising wage pressure due to labor power which constricts supply. This does not devalue currency on the global market.
b) There are the kinds caused by government policy when the government prints more money, sells more bonds, to cover costs. This will devalue currency, but only if the money is circulating. It isn't right now.
c) There are the kinds that are caused by supply shocks. When you have a shock to an essential ingredient for a process, it increases the costs of that process and inflates the price.
We are experiencing supply shocks in oil and food because increased demand in developing countries and hampered supply due to unstable political and environmental conditions.
It is important we don't confuse b) with c). We can expect the government and the fed to do something about a devalued dollar. We can't expect them to do something about the weather.
Now will I have to copy and paste this in future for snarky Mike's benefit?
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 10 Jun 2011 at 08:30 PM
When you defend the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve, you do Wall Street a favor. They love monetary inflation because the new "money" gets to them first, so they don't have to care about the ensuing price-inflation the rest of us are hit with. So bravo, CJR. Keep encouraging journalists not to question the honesty or integrity of the policy makers. Ask "the right questions" and you will get "the right answers" and your readers will come to "the right conclusions." MSM in a nutshell.
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 11 Jun 2011 at 07:52 AM
What do you mean when you say "we can't expect the government to do something about the weather", Thimbles?
According to liberals (and specifically, you), every single weather phenomenon (record lows, record highs, record rains, record droughts, record snows, etc) is a direct result of the Global Warming that liberals insist can be thwarted through government intervention.
And what about Katrina?
Inflation is inflation, and if we can get these liberals out of power, cut spending, cut taxes, cut welfare, cut unemployment benefits, repeal Obamacare, remove stupid EPA regulations, and otherwise encourage the private sector to make some money... The recovery will happen quickly.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 11 Jun 2011 at 09:10 AM
Weather and climate are sep...
Oh what the hell am I doing. If you believe that a) the Obama administration is liberal
b) that the situation will improve if just repeat the same stupid conservative mistakes done over and over over the last 40 years
then you're an idiot.
"And what about Katrina?"
See? That statement alone is case study worthy idiot. Good day.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 11 Jun 2011 at 11:07 AM
So you expect the government to fix the climate without being able to do anything about the weather..
Gotcha, Thimbles.
Who could argue with this kind of ironclad logic?
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 11 Jun 2011 at 08:24 PM
Paddy, this isn't rocket science, but here you go anyways:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Take it from the rocket scientists.
And yes paddy, I don't expect the fed to do anything about price fluctuations caused by unstable weather in producer countries just as I don't expect the fed to do anything about price fluctuations caused by political instability in producer countries. If fluctuations are being engineered by speculators, then I expect the government to get involved in that, but not the departments charged with monitoring general inflation.
Supply and demand issues with selected goods does not equate to supply and demand issues with the money supply. Or as you would put this is R-E-A-L-I-T-Y man. ECON 101, FREE MARKETS! Unless you suggest the government institute some form of price controls on the select goods which are affected for reasons that have nothing to do with the government, there is nothing the Fed can nor should do.
Communist.
In other news, something worth reading:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6F0B5482-49B7-4406-9CCE-C591AA84AE4B
Yes, we can solve problems caused by 40 years of this garbage with more of this garbage. That's some ironclad logic for ya.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 11 Jun 2011 at 11:12 PM
"If fluctuations are being engineered by speculators, then I expect the government to get involved in that, but not the departments charged with monitoring general inflation."
And on that note:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/06/09/115551/key-regulator-speculators-swamping.htm
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Jun 2011 at 12:41 AM
Well I'm glad to hear that weather can't be used to analyze climate!...
Seems that this news needs to get out to the fruitcakes (no need to name names) that blame climate change for every blizzard, tornado, drought, or hurricane out there.
And since there hasn't been any scientifically significant global warming in the last 15 years (according to the lead scientist as Hadley, no less), it seems we have time spread the Word.
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Jun 2011 at 06:55 AM
"And on that note:"
Here comes Cantwell!
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/06/10/115603/cantwell-aims-to-fix-attention.html
"In a speech on the Senate floor last month, Cantwell urged the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use its emergency authority to rein in speculation that she said is shifting the oil futures market and driving up prices. She said that oil speculators on Wall Street are "profiting from Middle East turmoil" while the public pays the price.
Warren Aakervik, the owner of Ballard Oil Co. in Seattle, said it's good that Cantwell is spending so much time on the issue, adding that she has pinpointed a growing problem for his business. He said he's selling less fuel these days because his customers want less fuel.
Aakervik said that Wall Street speculators are being allowed to change energy markets too dramatically and too quickly. And he said that hurts his primary consumers in the commercial fishing industry.
"Just tell me what the hell happened in the last 24 hours that the guys today are paying seven cents a gallon more than they were yesterday," Aakervik said. "What happened? Was there an atom bomb? Did we start a war? No, it's some trader.""
Question. While a sitting supreme court justice (hi Clarence) has released details of ethical lapses in his office
http://www.truth-out.org/judicial-insider-trading-justice-clarence-thomas-and-wife-ginni/1307895791
and while Maria seems to be one of the few political office holders pushing for investigation of the ethical lapses of political donors, why are we focused on the boxer short saga?
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 13 Jun 2011 at 10:43 AM