Tag Archives: business coverage

Psst! GM and Chrysler Are Peddling Eeeevil Light Trucks and SUVs to a Greater Extent Than Any Other Maker

Here's something about which the environmentalists and car czars planted inside the Obama administration can't be pleased: as a percentage of their U.S. sales, Multi-Government/General Motors and Chrysler are selling more “light trucks,” consisting of pickups, SUVS, and “crossover” vehicles than any other major manufacturer. Further, the companies are clearly emphasizing light trucks at the expense of their car models. I wonder how a government promise to accomplish this would have been received by the fossil-fuels-are-awful media at bankruptcy crunch time last year? You can pretty much count on this inconvenient product mix not getting a great deal of establishment press attention while it drools over the underpowered, heavily subsidized electric lemon known as the Chevy Volt and whatever toy disguised as a useful vehicle Chrysler/Fiat plans on foisting onto the market. The detail is at the Wall Street Journal's monthly report on vehicle sales (link will change in one month). Key items include these: read more

Go here to see the original:
Psst! GM and Chrysler Are Peddling Eeeevil Light Trucks and SUVs to a Greater Extent Than Any Other Maker

Searching for Christmas, and the Missing Layoff Stories

This is the sixth year I have looked into how the media treats these two topics:

Peter Schiff — Purveyor of Libertarian Principles … When Convenient

For the past several years, we’ve heard the doom-and-gloom prognostications coming from perma-bear Peter Schiff: The Federal Reserve is the root of all evil. Inflation will be the United States’ undoing. Invest in gold and overseas because the American stock market is toast. Perhaps that’s a legitimate view, but Schiff argues a more libertarian approach to prevent these supposed calamities. He argues for a different way of handling monetary policy , less spending by the federal government and a rethinking of how regulation is handled . Yet, when a political campaign is waged in the halls of Congress by a partisan member against one of his competitors , he turns a blind-eye to the abuses of government power. “You know, I have my own gold company and it bothers me what they’re going to do,” Schiff said to CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report” fill-in host Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on the Sept. 24 broadcast. “I think that companies like, you know, like Goldline, you know that are basically marking up their gold coins 67 percent or whatever – it’s outrageous. I mean, most companies mark-up 2 or 3 percent, which is what I do. These type of companies give the whole industry a bad name. What I’m afraid of is we’re going to have a lot of regulation.” Caruso-Cabrera asked Schiff in these circumstances if it was a case of buyer beware. However, Schiff suggested it was fraudulent for coin companies to charge these prices for what by any measure of the law would be a legal transaction if a consumer chose to purchase coins from such a company. “If there’s fraud, it’s not buyer beware,” he continued. “But what I’m afraid of is I don’t want government regulating the coin industry so that people like me have to raise our prices to cover all the extra cost of regulation.” But assuming Schiff’s assumption were correct, wouldn’t he has a competitor be able to move in on the market and offer the same product for a lower price? Isn’t that how the free market operates? Schiff conceded that point, but complained he was getting beat because he couldn’t afford the advertising. “I mean, I think the free market should ferret out these companies that are grossly overcharging people who don’t know any better. You know, that’s the problem. People haven’t bought gold in so long and see how well it’s doing and get conned by these commercials that are all over television. But most gold companies like mine, we can’t afford to run commercials because we’re not charging that much.” Schiff makes regular appearances on all the cable news networks, with his firm’s logo Euro Pacific Capital on the backdrop and raised more than $3 million for his failed effort to win the Connecticut Republican U.S. Senate nomination. So is it fair to complain about his firm’s inability to market its products, if indeed they’re at lower prices than the competition’s products.

See the original post here:
Peter Schiff — Purveyor of Libertarian Principles … When Convenient

UNION: MSNBC Calls for Fashion Industry ‘Norma Rae’

MSNBC is very upset about one “highly-unregulated industry” and its “questionable and even abusive” working conditions. What industry? Coal mining or perhaps sewage treatment? No. Keli Goff, an author and political analyst who has a “Daily Rant” on MSNBC’s “Dylan Ratigan Show,” was complaining about the working conditions of models. That’s right, models. The people paid to walk down runways in designer clothing and be photographed for magazines and advertisements that as Goff put it, essentially are “paid for being beautiful.” Every industry has its own problems and accidents, but is the modeling industry really a “human rights” issue as MSNBC would have its viewers believe? Goff detailed “disturbing” complaints from models and promoted regulation and unionization of the industry. She even called for a “home-grown supermodel” to become the “Norma Rae of the fashion industry.” “Union! As Norma Rae said,” Goff declared. Norma Rae was a movie starring Sallie Field about a minimum-wage cotton mill worker, based on the life of an actual textile worker who battled to unionize her mill. But some of the conditions Goff mentioned cannot compare to the tough working conditions of many other industries. She complained about the lack of health insurance and worker’s comp for a model that had been burned by a photographers’ bulb, but didn’t mention whether or not the model could afford her own health care. According to San Diego Model Management, in most markets models make an hourly rate of $150 and usually have minimum number of hours (3-4) for print modeling. In bigger markets like New York City ” it’s not unusual for a model to make 5 or 6 thousand a day ,” the company’s website states. True, there are agency fees but the models definitely aren’t exactly scraping by on minimum wage. But it was the obsession with too thin models that really upset Goff and prompted her call for regulation of the U.S. fashion industry. “After being discovered walking down the street, [Gerren] Taylor walked in her first fashion show at the age of 12 and was strutting for high profile designers like Tommy Hilfiger by age 13. Her career however was over by age 14, having been told she’d become ‘too obese’ for runways. Taylor’s measurements: Six feet tall and a size 4,” Goff said. Goff continued: “Taylor’s story reinforces a reason the fashion industry needs regulation. Fashion’s developed a sick obsession with looking sickly thin in recent years.” Certainly, many designers are obsessed with thin but that problem shouldn’t be solved by regulation. Designers are in a business, and they sell a product. So if their product, in this case clothing promoted by very thin women, won’t sell, then they’ll have to change or lose business. Despite Goff’s support for Madrid and London regulations about size and age of models, the U.S. government should not be in the business of telling designers what size models they can hire to show off their clothing lines. Additionally, Goff cited concern about the fact that many models work long before they turn 18, but she didn’t mention anything in her “rant” about parental responsibility or involvement. It wasn’t until Dylan Ratigan asked about parents in his final question that she said they have often “relinquished” [control] and there isn’t much oversight “in the field.” Perhaps, Goff should have complained about the lack of parental involvement and called on models’ parents to be in control of protection their children instead of asking for the government to step in as nanny.

Read the original post:
UNION: MSNBC Calls for Fashion Industry ‘Norma Rae’

With Tax Hikes Coming, Cable News Uses ‘Tax Cut’ Phrasing 13 Times as Much

The largest tax hikes in history get closer every day, and the focus of the news cycle is finally on taxes . Tax cuts , that is. After portraying Obama as a tax cutter when he took office, journalists have recently been talking about the Bush tax cuts, whose expiration will amount to a huge tax increase on Americans. But most stories have failed to explain that the pending expiration will raise taxes on many people, including investors, small business owners and families, during an economic slowdown. While cable primetime shows criticized conservatives for wanting to “cut taxes” for the wealthy, a morning appearance by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was one of the few that put the debate in perspective of tax hikes. McConnell appeared on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” Sept. 14 and said, “This [Bush tax cuts] has been tax policy for 10 years now. This is not about tax cuts, this is about raising taxes in the middle of a recession.” According to Americans for Tax Reform, many tax increases are on the way. On Jan. 1, 2011, personal income taxes will rise, the “marriage penalty” will return, the child tax credit will be chopped in half, the “death tax” will return and capital gains and dividend tax rates will jump. But that is the opposite of the way the mainstream media have been telling the story. Primetime cable shows on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News Channel have focused on the fight over “tax cuts” more than 13 times as often as they discussed it in terms of tax hikes. On weekday evenings between Sept. 6 and Sept. 13, 27 of those primetime cable shows framed the debate around tax cuts, compared to just two that spoke solely in terms of tax increases. An additional 12 shows presented both tax cut and tax increase phrasing. FNC was the most balanced with nine of its primetime programs using both terms to cover the story. But MSNBC coverage was full of liberal talking points and spin. Keith Olbermann distorted the facts entirely on “Countdown” Sept. 13, claiming that “the gripping detail is this: Democrats want to cut everyone’s taxes, Republicans want to cut taxes on every dollar earned above a quarter-million.” That misrepresented the position of Republicans including McConnell, who told MSNBC the next day that “We should not be raising taxes on anyone during a recession.” McConnell said he is unwilling to raise taxes on anyone, even the wealthy. Obama’s so-called compromise solution has met resistance even from some Democrats , who agree with Republicans that that raising taxes on anyone in a bad economy is a bad idea. Former White House budget director Peter Orszag wrote a column calling for his own kind of compromise: extend the cuts for two years, then scrap them all. But the president insists he does not want to extend the tax cuts for top income earners. Obama campaigned on repealing the Bush Tax cuts for the “rich” setting the bar for wealth at $250,000 for families, $200,000 for individuals. The White House has mentioned extending those tax cuts for people making less, but also wants to spend more money on ” clean energy ” and infrastructure.   According to Jeffrey Miron of Cato Institute, the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire worked because they made the market more efficient . Writing specifically of dividend and capital gains taxes, Miron noted, “These taxes appear to hit wealthy capitalists, but in reality they fall partly on consumers via higher prices, and on workers, via lower demands for their services when corporations shut down or move overseas. So low taxation of dividends and capital gains helps both low and high income taxpayers.” White House Given Face Time on Broadcast Morning Shows, Boehner Gets None MSNBC and CNN weren’t the only ones spinning the tax cut/hike debate from the left. Rep. John Boehner created a political controversy after he said on “Face the Nation,” “If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I’ll vote for it.” Boehner had said he would “fight” against raising taxes on anyone, but his apparent compromise was fodder for journalists (and cheap shots from MSNBC about his “trademark tan”). All three broadcast network morning shows highlighted Boehner’s remarks Sept. 13 as they discussed Obama’s “compromise” bill, and they all made sure to give the Obama administration time to plead their case, while failing to interview Boehner. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was interviewed live on “The Early Show,” “Today” and “Good Morning America” following segments about the political fight over taxes. The shows aired a snippet of Boehner’s “Face the Nation” interview, but didn’t bring him on to elaborate or defend himself against left-wing attacks. In contrast, Gibbs was given 10 minutes and 55 seconds that morning to present Obama’s views and attack Boehner. Gibbs told CBS the U.S. shouldn’t “borrow” $700 billion to extend tax cuts “for folks quite frankly, that weren’t asking for them and don’t particularly need them.” On Sept. 8, Obama had accused Republicans and Boehner specifically of holding tax cuts “hostage .” In the same speech he called for Republicans to stop blocking the Senate’s small business bill, which he supports. One reason for conservative opposition of the small business bill is disagreement over a $30 billion Treasury-run ” lending facility ” for small businesses. The Hill reported on Aug. 31, that Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council President Karen Kerrigan has said the bill will not address the problems such businesses are facing . “The concerns and needs of most business owners go much deeper, and this legislation does not address broader issues related to taxes, regulations and excessive spending which threaten to aggravate currently poor economic conditions,” Kerrigan said. “At the end of the day, proposed tax hikes along with legislation and regulatory initiatives in the pipeline will drive business costs higher and drain more private capital from our economy.” Kerrigan specifically cited the expiring Bush-era tax cuts which will increase taxes on small businesses as one of the reasons for “stalled” small business expansion. Cannot ‘Afford’ Top 2-3 Percent Cuts? Obama’s primary argument has been that the U.S. cannot “afford” to extend the tax cuts to the rich. Many in the news media have echoed that claim, and perpetuated the liberal argument that tax cuts are a “cost.” That argument is one of five common ways the media spin tax stories in a liberal direction. Calling tax cuts a “cost” assumes that all money belongs to the government, rather than to the taxpayers who have worked hard for it. Olbermann pushed that liberal theme Sept. 13 when he blasted Boehner saying: “[He] wants to increase that deficit by $700 billion over ten years by extending those Bush tax cuts on income over a quarter-million.” MSNBC’s Savannah Guthrie also promoted that viewpoint in her interview with McConnell Sept. 13. Guthrie pressed McConnell to admit that tax cuts would increase the deficit. “You don’t dispute that it would require more debt for these tax cuts? You don’t dispute that?” Guthrie asked the senator. CNN’s Ali Velshi claimed tax cuts aren’t “free” and that extending the Bush tax cuts to the top 3 percent of earners would cost ” between 650 and 700 billion dollars. Extending it for the rest of us is going to cost a lot more, possibly $3 trillion.” The media have long attacked the tax cuts claiming that they were responsible for the deficit, instead of criticizing government spending. Conservatives argue that government spending is the real problem in Washington. According to Stephen Moore’s book “The End of Prosperity,” the 2003 tax cuts generated a huge increase in federal tax receipts. A $785 billion increase between 2004 and 2007, Ryan Dwyer told The Washington Times. That was after Bush had slashed dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent in 2003. The economy also bounced back, according to Dwyer: “In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.” Similarly, under President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts federal revenues grew rapidly ( 33 percent cumulative growth ) according to a Congressional Economic Update from 1995. Instead of arguing that the U.S. can’t afford to cut taxes, Cato Institute Director of Tax Policy Chris Edwards argued that the U.S. can’t afford not to. He wrote that the average top tax rate for the top 30 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations has fallen by 5 percentage points since 2000. So if the top rate tax cuts are not extended the U.S. will have the tenth highest rate among the 30 countries jeopardizing the nation’s competitiveness. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

Read the original here:
With Tax Hikes Coming, Cable News Uses ‘Tax Cut’ Phrasing 13 Times as Much

Kudlow Calls Tea Parties Bullish for Economy: ‘Don’t Believe the Mainstream Media’

The Media Research Center isn’t the only ones out there telling folks to be wary of the media and its coverage of the Tea Party movement.  On his Sept. 15 broadcast , Larry Kudlow, host of CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report,” hit that point. Referring to “Tea Party” primary win in Delaware, New York and New Hampshire, Kudlow explained that this shift to the right was a net-positive for the economy. “Tonight, free-market capitalism on the comeback trail,” Kudlow said. “That is one of the messages of the Tea Party power. We saw a lot of that power last night in the primaries. I tell you what folks, that Tea Party power, that free-market capitalist power is so totally bullish for the stock market.” Kudlow advised his viewers to be skeptical of the media, which has covered the Tea Party movement and their candidates very critically, even sometimes disparagingly. He cited the “Contract FROM America,” a document put forth by various conservative organizations calling on elected leaders and political candidates to stand on a number of conservative principles. ” Don’t believe the mainstream media ,” he continued. “Don’t believe the pundits in either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. They don’t understand Tea Parties. I do. We’ve had them on this show time and time again as guests, including, including their referendum, the ‘Contract FROM America.'”  The CNBC host has his own 12-step program for the economy.  He maintains that, if successful, the limitations the Tea Party philosophy would put on government are the best way to get back to an economy rooted in free-market principles. “They are talking free markets – lower spending, lower taxing, lower regulations, even constitutional limits to government, and you heard me talk about this last week in my free market 12-step plan for prosperity,” Kudlow said. “The rise of the Tea Party people – they are going to win the vast majority of those Senate races and we are going it see a sea change in American policies back to freedom and entrepreneurship, and that is bullish.”

Go here to see the original:
Kudlow Calls Tea Parties Bullish for Economy: ‘Don’t Believe the Mainstream Media’

Former CNBC Reporter: GE CEO Immelt Meddled in Network’s Editorial Coverage

This could confirm what many suspected all along – the corporate heads at General Electric (NYSE: GE ) would try to use their media holdings to portray President Barack Obama and his administration in a positive light in order to gain a corporate advantage. That’s how former CNBC reporter and current Fox Business Network senior correspondent Charlie Gasparino explains it in his forthcoming book, “Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street.” According to Gasparino, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt had “helped his company feast off of the subsidies of Obamanomics,” including the green energy initiatives and health care reform. And although Immelt is a registered Republican, Gasparino detailed how Immelt would walk around his company’s headquarters saying “we’re all Democrats” now at the prospect of government checks going to GE. But later, Gasparino explained how Immelt would use his authority to manipulate the editorial coverage of on Obama for that reason: Immelt touted his status as a registered Republican when he stated publicly and infamously among his Republican friends his support of the president, saying, “We are all Democrats now.” His friends tell me that the reasons Immelt supported Obama came down to the fact that he liked the president on a personal level and believed he was the moderate that he sold himself as on the campaign trail. At CNBC, where I worked for several years, Immelt called a meeting of top talent to discuss coverage of Obama’s economic agenda and whether the heavy criticism by on-air commentators (like me) was fair to the president. Those sentiments are similar to ones Gasparino relayed to host Bill O’Reilly on the Aug. 10 broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” . “There was this issue where Jeff Immelt, chairman of GE, which used to own NBC Universal, called in some of the senior staff, and clearly was worried, according to the people I spoke to who were in that meeting, about the possibility that we were becoming too anti-administration,” Gasparino said. “This is when the Obama administration first took over … They will deny it, but from what I understand, people got called into this meeting and they were basically, not exactly read the riot act, but the question of whether they were being fair to the president was brought up.” However, Gasparino went on to say that Immelt regretted this pro-Obama stance by mid-2010. He complained abroad, calling Obama’s policies “overregulation” of the economy. And in the end the potential upside wasn’t enough. “Why the change of heart? GE may have benefited from a few government handouts, but with the economy weak, the conglomerate’s many businesses reflect the Obama-induced economic malaise caused by putting ideology, in the form of socializing health care and imposing higher taxes on entrepreneurs, before the economic well-being of the American people.” “Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street” will be available on Oct. 5.

Originally posted here:
Former CNBC Reporter: GE CEO Immelt Meddled in Network’s Editorial Coverage

NYT’s Deadpan Howler: ‘Lawmakers Were Apparently Unaware’ of New ObamaCare 1099 Requirements

New York Times reporter Robert Pear ought to consider moonlighting as a stand-up comic in the tradition of Steven Wright . Wright’s deadpan delivery is legendary. Pear’s deadpan lines in his article about the immense paperwork burden heading the economy’s way in the form of requiring IRS 1099 forms to be issued to each and every person paid $600 or more during the course of a calendar year for any and all goods provided or services rendered are remarkable. Of course, if Pear chooses to get on stage with his act he’ll have to come up with a more humorous topic. The nightmare that could be visited upon American business and really the American economy is pretty stunning — and don’t for a minute think that individuals with hobbies that break even or possibly lose money every year and don’t ordinarily bother to file tax returns for their activities (because they aren’t required to) aren’t going to be affected. What follows are a few of the choice one-liners found in Pear’s September 11 article (“Many Push for Repeal of Tax Provision in Health Law”) that appeared in the paper’s Sunday print edition on Page A25: The reporting requirement is expected to lead to a significant amount of revenue — $17 billion over 10 years — to help pay for the expansion of coverage and other health initiatives. I told you this guy Pear is a laugh riot. He actually expects readers to believe that businesses will spent untold millions on forms, postage, and handling of literally hundreds of millions and possibly billions of 1099 forms but will, even though these costs are fully deductible, still have to fork over $1.7 billion more every year in personal and corporate income taxes. In reality, where Pear, the Times, and Washington’s lawmakers clearly don’t live, the amount collected after considering the effect of the extra costs imposed will necessarily be much less, and could conceivably be a big fat zero. (the 1099 reporting provision) drew little attention at the time — it was one of more than 15 revenue-raising measures in the bill — and many lawmakers were apparently unaware of it when they voted for final passage of the legislation. Wow, is this guy a master of understatement or what? Surely a reporter of Mr. Pear’s pedigree will recall that Nancy Pelosi infamously said just weeks before the bill’s final passage that “… we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Robert Pear, New York Times reporter extraordinaire, know that “many lawmakers were apparently unaware of it when they voted for final passage” because they were directly unaware of anything in the bill. Why? Because they never read it, period. Pear had help with the final howler I’ll cite from Nina Olson, national taxpayer advocate at the IRS, whom the New York Times reporter should consider taking on as a standup sidekick: “The I.R.S. will face challenges making productive use of this new volume of information reports,” Ms. Olson said. “Challenges?” Shoot, they’ll have to rent hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space just to accommodate the tidal wave of incoming paper, find a server farm to store the data that comes in electronically, and employ and army of people to enter the data and sift through it. Seriously, the fact that Congress even has to engage in the exercise of repeal shows how derelict those who voted for ObamaCare sight unseen really were. That’s not funny, and that the topic deserved a more informative treatment by the Times should be, well ap-Pear-ent. A related post is at BizzyBlog.com .

Link:
NYT’s Deadpan Howler: ‘Lawmakers Were Apparently Unaware’ of New ObamaCare 1099 Requirements

AP to Bernanke: Save Us, Ben! (Barack, Nancy, and Harry Who?)

Sometimes you just have to chuckle at the transparent motivations of business writers in the establishment press. Two Associated Press reports from this afternoon, one from Stephen Bernard and another much lengthier piece from Jeannine Aversa, attempt to set the template for Friday morning’s reportage: Despite all the bad news, including a serious downward revision to second-quarter economic growth, it’s up to Big Ben Bernanke to calm everyone down, and magically return the economy to some kind of even keel. No pressure there, big guy. Aversa’s earlier report lays it on especially thick : Bernanke’s top tool now may be power of persuasion The economy appears to be stalling. Yet the Federal Reserve has run out of simple steps it can take to revive it. That’s the test facing Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke as he addresses a conference Friday in Jackson Hole, Wyo. Without any easy options left, Bernanke must try to prevent another recession by persuading people and businesses to feel confident enough about the future to spend more today. Weak consumer spending and a scarcity of jobs have put the economy at risk of lapsing into another downturn. Short-term interest rates near zero have yet to rejuvenate the economy. The benefits of federal stimulus programs are fading, and Congress has declined to pass any major new economic aid. That puts increasing weight on Bernanke’s words. The Fed chairman will speak at 10 a.m. EDT (8 a.m. local time), less than two hours after the government spells out just how fragile the economy is. The Commerce Department is expected to report the economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 1.4 percent from April to June. Growth in the current quarter is shaping up to be just as weak. Bernanke’s task isn’t confined to restoring public confidence. Equally vital, he must forge consensus within the fractious Fed itself. Some Fed officials have been reluctant to have the central bank invest more money than it already has to try to stimulate borrowing and spending. How can the Fed’s almost out-of-gas monetary policy and one speech by the guy who runs it save us, when it’s the people who are in charge of fiscal policy who have brought the economy to this awful juncture? Incredibly, the names of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid do not appear anywhere in Aversa’s report. It’s as if they’re just in the stands, no more or less important than the rest of us, waiting to see what kind of rabbit Big Ben might pull out of his hat. Aversa also writes: … at the heart of Bernanke’s challenge: How to persuade individuals and companies to feel good enough about their financial futures to buy homes and cars, expand payrolls and resuscitate the recovery? Beyond the rate-cutting and other actions Bernanke’s Fed already has taken, few strong ideas have emerged for what else the Fed should be doing. Again, why is this all being dumped on supposedly broad-shouldered Ben? He didn’t create the pervasive atmosphere of economic uncertainty that’s has sent businesspeople, entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers cautiously scurrying to the sidelines. Pelosi, Obama, and Reid did that, and continue to. Ben Bernanke hasn’t been a one-man wrecking crew attacking the employment market. On Wednesday, Michelle Malkin chronicled how Barack Obama has been that man . Ben Bernanke isn’t the guy who will be responsible for massive tax hikes that will kick in on January 1 unless Congress does something and the President signs off on it. That’s Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s problem. Ben Bernanke isn’t the guy spending money like crazy. Barack Obama’s government, with support of Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic Congress are doing that . The later report from the AP’s Bernard (“Stocks slip as caution about the economy returns”) covered another down day in the stock market, which in this case saw the Dow close below 10,000. The AP reporter covered all kinds of things influencing the market: home sales (actually the lack thereof for both new and existing homes), weekly initial unemployment claims (which did at least fall this week on a seasonally adjusted basis after going mostly the other way during previous weeks), and, of course Bernanke’s upcoming speech. Tomorrow’s GDP report? He didn’t even mention it, nor did he bring up the names of Obama, Pelosi, or Reid. Beside’s AP’s annualized +1.4% estimate above, here are some other predictions of what Friday morning’s GDP report might bring: At the Wall Street Journal — “Economists expect to see the initial estimate of 2.4% growth cut to a more modest 1.3% gain.” Reuters expects GDP to “be revised lower to an annual pace of 1.4 percent.” Zero Hedge cites sources who believe it’s going to be in the neighborhood of below 1% to maybe +1.2% . As noted by Jeff Poor at NewsBusters , Jumpin’ Jim Cramer is predicting +0.5% and a “mass panic” in the markets. At the UK Guardian, Katie Allen is also singing from the “It’s All Up to Ben” hymnal (“Ben Bernanke under pressure to prop up US economic recovery”). Again, it’s as if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, who are again not mentioned, don’t exist. Are they really going to try to pin the economic malaise on Ben Bernanke if he isn’t the second coming of Winston Churchill tomorrow? They can’t be serious, they’re certainly not credible, and although stranger things have happened, it’s hard to see how it can work. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read this article:
AP to Bernanke: Save Us, Ben! (Barack, Nancy, and Harry Who?)

Cramer: ‘Mass Panic’ in Markets Tomorrow After ‘Shocker’ GDP Released

It is a curious phenomenon – the way the media have handled the economy since President Barack Obama has taken office. Generally the coverage has been on the optimistic side over the last 18 months. But could this blind optimism come back to haunt people that trade on economic metrics? According to CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer, it will and in a big way on Aug. 27, when the new gross domestic product numbers are released. On CNBC’s Aug. 26 broadcast of “Street Signs,” Cramer predicted dismal numbers during his “Stop Trading” segment, which has been contrary to the way the market reacted. “Look, I’m going to give you my forecast right now – I think we’re going to get 0.5 percent GDP, OK?” Cramer said. “But, let’s say we get 0.5 percent GDP. Everyone’s going to say it’s horrible. We’re going to go track down economists, Nobel winners who think it’s a double dip. And it’ll be like shocker – 0.5 percent. And I’m telling you it’s going to be 0.5 percent. It’s like the housing number. On my show I said it’s going to be declined 50 percent. We get 30 percent. It was like shocker. Whoever is making these estimates is just so wrong because you know, you piece these pieces together on a daily basis like I do and come up with something between zero and 1 percent growth.” “So when it comes out as 0.5 percent – other people are – I don’t know who those people are,” he continued. “I don’t know who they’re listening to or talking to. But it’s very clear that we’re going to have no growth. Why is that shocking?” “Street Signs” fill-in host Amanda Drury asked Cramer if this was already baked into the market, to which Cramer said it wasn’t and predicted a panicked reaction in the market. “No, it’s not. Tomorrow I’m predicting mass panic tomorrow morning,” Cramer said. “[M]ass panic, market looking down 15 ticks. It will be that way because it will be like, ‘Oh, my.’ And how can it be ‘Oh, my?’ We’re on a national TV show right now, OK? We’re watched by everybody. I’m telling you it’s going to be 0.5. How when it comes out and 0.5 [percent] is that shocking to people? Are you not watching? What are you watching? ESPN? Are they talking about 0.8 percent on ESPN? Maybe that’s it. Maybe on the YES Channel they’re using 2 percent. I don’t know what they’re watching.” On Aug. 26, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed below the 10,000-point mark. And while there have calls by prominent economists that say a double-dip recession is more likely, Cramer still showed his astonishment over the rosy attitudes of some. “I don’t know what network they’re – you know, if you listen to everybody here, everyone’s looking for 0.5 percent. So when it comes out at 0.5, I want to know who is still surprised. What planet are they on?” Later in the segment, the “Mad Money” host revised call even lower – to 0.3 percent, then to 0.2 percent. But stuck with the call it would come in between zero growth and 0.5 percent growth.

See original here:
Cramer: ‘Mass Panic’ in Markets Tomorrow After ‘Shocker’ GDP Released