Friday, July 29, 2005
The New York Times loses again
Less well-known is that the Times has also lost its shirt in the stock market. On April 16, during what proved to be an extremely ephemeral downdraft in the U.S. stock markets, the NYT ran a front page headline that blared "Stocks Plunge to Lowest Point Since Election." It was not clear at the time what the relationship was between the low level of the stock market in April and the election (since the market had bottomed some days before the election), but the Times purported to see one worthy of a front page headline.
Yesterday, the S&P and the Nasdaq hit their highest levels in the four years since the carefree days between the Clinton Administration and the onset of war on September 11. Imagine my surprise that this morning's New York Times not only does not mention this fact on the front page, but it is nowhere to be seen in all of Section A! It is almost as if the short-term performance of the financial markets has nothing to do with the Bush Administration.
6 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Fri Jul 29, 08:14:00 AM:
Those numbers are good news for investors, for employees, and for multinationals.
Funny we're not getting the Bush boom in the town of Brevard, NC where four manufacturing plants have closed in the last three years. Why? Big profits for the S&P companies.
Good stock market numbers don't necessarily translate into a healthy nation. Ask the Chinese.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Jul 29, 08:44:00 AM:
SH - what's your point? Many manufacturing facilities in the US are not competitive. Your 4 plants in Brevard...what do they do? And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
A healthy stock market is a clear signal of a healthy economy, which in turn signals a healthy country. Low unemployment and healthy per capita income lead to social stability.
And while China is still "unhealthy" in that it is not a free society, its people are better off today than they were under Mao, thanks to the economic liberalization that commenced under Deng.
Keep whining though. Herre comes the twin deficit whining...I can feel the response coming already.
Low rates and low taxes probably piss you off. Sorry. Once again, the empirical evidence proves out.
By 
, at
Fri Jul 29, 08:49:00 AM:
Tough to go from the macro to the micro... if we're losing jobs here, it's because, in spite of good economic news and assists to cashflow with low interest rates, people still want their goods for as low a price as they can find. Quality isn't as much a driver, since fashion and a short term view on things suggest it's worn out by the time the urge to use it wanes.
FWIW, I also live in NC, and have some intel on how lazy some of the manufacturing people have gotten. Slackers banging out on a WC claim, or some other faux work-related excuse to collect. I know it sounds like a broad brush, but people need to wise up - produce MORE for the buck, or lose the job to a place where people work more industriously, and for a ton less per hour. The cost of sales is Material, Labor and Overhead. When you accept that the O/H is a lot less elsewhere... you've got to figure how to compete via productivity. That, or tarriffs, which many don't want.
Who knows how long it'll be before our standard of living is brought down by exporting all of our jobs. Used to be only the manufacturing, but increasingly, it's taking our service sector jobs as well. Makes me think of Perot, and his "giant sucking sound" sound-byte.
By Counter Trey, at
Fri Jul 29, 10:51:00 AM:
SH
Blaming four plant closings in your town on big profits for the S&P companies is a non sequitur. Capital and labor flows to its most productive use. If your town's plants were productive, they would have profits, capital would pour in and their stock prices would rise. It’s better to ask how you can make your plants more profitable instead of blaming it on external factors.
The answer could very well be that these plants cannot be productive anymore. Then what do you do? You can subsidize them at the expense of the taxpaying consumer like Old Europe and suck the life out of the economy. Or, you can allow them to die so that capital and labor can move on to more productive enterprises. The US is the most robust economy in the world because we chose the latter a lot more often than the former.
As Cardinalpark pointed out, it is that freedom of movement of capital and labor that make an economy healthy. The Bush Administration has made a few bad choices w/r/t to that freedom with steel and sugar tariffs, but overall it has done an outstanding job and deserves the credit that the Gray Bitch has withheld.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Jul 30, 11:19:00 AM:
Many companies having record breaking profits are moving overseas anyway. Why? To make bigger profits. It's ridiculous to blame outsourcing on the "lazy American worker". What the hell is that?
The mills that closed were textiles, and they've gone to Mexico. They're not coming back.
I think that when corporations based in the U.S. primarily operated from the U.S., then a strong stock market was a sign of a healthy economy. But now it simply means that the companies have cut more costs and increased productivity...somewhere...
Blaming the American worker, though? Honestly.
By , at
Tue Oct 04, 11:50:00 AM:
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a extra income canada site. It pretty much covers ##KEYWORD## related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
