I found this interesting. Go here and review the BBC’s take on the US economy – in a glance. Pretty dire stuff, eh? And no hint of bias, right? Well, then again if you go here you might want to think twice about that.
A TALE OF TWO ECONOMIES.
Bookmark the permalink.
DV, I have just read both articles and fail to see the bias, the BBC article was written 2 months ago, the latter this month. The US economy has recovered which would explain the more positive message in the later article.
Please feel free to correct me, but for once I have to say that the BBC behaved exactly the same as the other broadcasters.
ARFA,
I guess my point is that the BBC narrative is that the US economy is in a mess and only the Obamessiah can save it. They used the same mantra in 2000 and 2004. I can accept that the US has tough challenges but so has Euroland and the BBC is decidely mute on that point.
Bush has done his best to keep the US economy going. Tax cuts and interest rates down.
In the UK we get?
Er a lot of infighting between the Scottish mafia running England.
David, thanks for responding to my comment, I agree 100% with your point, the constant drip drip of pro-Obama propaganda propagating the BBC airwaves is startling. It is clear that the world economy is going through a mini-recession yet the BBC feels that only Obama has the answers to fix it.
It’s about time the BBC update the page anyway. In June, a month before the BBC report, the OECD said the US economy would grow by 1.2% over 2007 this year. I suppose that might technically be ‘on the edge of a recession’, but is not quite true.
They have just revised the US growth figure upwards to 1.8%, whilst the Eurozone is down to 1.3% and of course we are forecast a recession of 0.3%. The story is ‘that we are IN recession’, whilst others are weathering the storm better including the US.
But Gordon says we are OK, and the BBC doesn’t question it – Darling is wrong, Bush is evil, Palin is the devil incarnate, and Obhama is a saviour.
David Vance | Homepage | 05.09.08 – 10:12 pm |
I think in reality the BBC has been working overtime to promote the problems in the US economy because they want to shift blame away from Mr. Brown. Even if this particular article isn’t about blame, it’s just another way to try to make their beloved Gordon look good by comparison. (Except Nick Robinson, who thinks his dear Labour Party must stay in power, and a new PM is the answer.)
Many commenters here have pointed out instances where the BBC points the finger at the US mortgage crisis and any other number of things which are supposed to have had far more effect on the economic situation in the UK than anything Gordon did as Chancellor for a decade.
The Obamessiah will redeem the US in many ways, according to the Beeboids. The economy isn’t one of them. They almost never mention any of his economic policies precisely because they know his neo-Marxist redistributionism won’t promote a strong economy.
They’re also, as usual, very short-sighted in their analysis in this article.
More shite from the BBC. Talking about the US defecit. They were in surplus before Bush came to power wanks Paul Mason.
Funny but so were we before the fat wanker with one eye from Scotland trashed the English economy.
No mention of that on Newsnight.
No mention of September 11th.
When you watch the BBC you could be forgiven for thinking they are on a differnt planet.
Oh and when the wankers asked for a soundbite, they got a Washington Post journalist. They are the Guardian readers of the USA except they don’th ave so many rent boys working for them.
Martin | 05.09.08 – 10:49 pm |
Also, no mention of Enron (unless it’s to bash Bush) or the bursting of the dot-com bubble, or the other multi-billion dollar corporations which crashed due to their own corruption. This removed a huge amount of paper from circulation (not actual money, mind, as it was all on paper and didn’t really exist), and contributed to the problems just as much as 9/11.
The strong economy which Bush inherited was based to a significant degree on this funny money. When it went away, everyone magically forgot that Bubba Clinton was minding the store while all that funny money took over the scene. It’s like giving a farmer a herd of sheep who are in the early stages of hoof-and-mouth, then, after he has to cull them all, blaming him for the rise in the price of mutton and wool.
DP: Now the BBC are having a go at Google. The BBC seems to despise ANY American company that achieves global dimination by providing WHAT people want.
Funny of course that day by day the BBC itself seeks to destroy competiton by expanding its own services. Then it doesn’t seem to care who it crushes.
Of course, unlike Tesco, Microsoft, Google, IBM etc the BBC is funded by a compulsory tax for which the penalty not to pay is prison.
http://adamsmith.org/blog/economics/unfair-competition-200809022005/
In life everyone has someone that they have to be careful about, even the top directors are beholden to someone if only at their AGM. Politicians are rebuked daily by just about everyone. Only the BBC elite have nobody looking over their shoulders. When they are amongst themselves they must say ‘Fuck you’ to one and all who protests about them, particularly David Vance and all in this web site. They are really like Kings. This is why the BBC must be disbanded
Lemar,
I hear the BBC motto is “L’Etat, c’est moi”
from the WSJ
The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been largely absorbed in a relatively small increase in the defense budget (to 4.1% of GDP in 2006 from 3.8% in 1995).
Obama makes regular reference to the cost of military operations in Iraq/Afghanistan. How much of that cost would have been expended if the US troops had remained based in Germany or whereever?
Anyone notices what word stands over the second article Mr Vance linked to?
And indeed, when one looks at the piece this was a rather good move by the editors.
What Obama seems to have failed to grasp that just because money might not have been spent in Iraq or Afghanistan DOESNT mean it will automagically get spent on schools and hospitals.
Mailman
The US economy didn’t go from flat to fluffy in the space of one month. All that happened is perceptions changed in the MSM.
The BBC’s grasp of market forces is and always has been wretched.
Fortunately, the crap is usually visible up front and not hard to sidestep.
To add to Mr Preiser’s views:
Gloomy economists and angry leftists, academics especially, will always be publicized in the press and exalted in White City. Pandering politicians will always promise endless sunny days in economic nirvana if they are elected. And media surrogates will always jump on any bandwagon that beats paying attention and thinking hard.
All day every day the BBC opts for easy copy and the safe story. One effect is anyone w/ an optimistic outlook who interrupts the ‘narrative’ (hate that word)is derided and dismissed.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, far from the elite consensus views, the seeds of a better economic future regerminate. Partly that’s about ‘creative destruction’ of the last boom/bubble — markets are self-correcting and will usually correct fastest if nanny keeps her hands off — but mainly it’s about the endless drive of the optimists.
The US has many optimists, but they are sadly thin on the ground in the UK and extinct at the BBC.
The results are predictable: the downward spiral will continue in Britain, but renewed prosperity in the US is less than two years away, the cycle bottom somewhat closer. In Britain the threat is existential, and Gordon and the BBC are the wrong tools for the job. The US will survive The One if it has to; the optimist in me believes it won’t be necessary.
That’s correct. Money spent is money spent. It goes into the economy via jobs and taxes paid by workers and companies.
gunnar | 06.09.08 – 12:00 am |
Anyone notices what word stands over the second article Mr Vance linked to?
And indeed, when one looks at the piece this was a rather good move by the editors.
The problem, gunnar, is that the same word should be at the top of the first article as well.
Really, David?
Loads of time series data that speaks for itself.
Agreed, it should be updated with the latest figures.
Ben & Jerrys Chocolate Fudge Brownie Ice Cream is pretty damn good but seeing Polly Toynbee calling for Gordon Brown to stand down is better:
Unseating Gordon Brown may be Labour’s last chance
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/06/gordonbrown.labour
Al Beeb is all about opinion. So I don’t see any problems with contrasting the marxist opinions with the WSJ opinions. Everyone on here knows what’s happening.
You should probably spend your time convincing muslims not to blow themselves up, Gunnar. Maybe they’re more sympathetic to your views.
gunnar | 06.09.08 – 1:02 am |
Loads of time series data that speaks for itself.
If one is in a high school economics class, yes.
Speaking of the BBC’s portrayal of the US economy, there’s a tiny little white lie in this article:
US jobless rate near 5-year high
Both candidates in November’s Presidential election are under pressure to come up with concrete proposals to help the growing number of people out of work and families battling against rising living costs.
No, BBC. Both candidates are under pressure to come up with concrete proposals to fix the economy and get everything in working order again.
However, the Obamessiah is on record as saying that he wants to forcibly take money from oil companies and redistribute it to the masses. No telling where that kind of activity will stop. In BBC Groupthink, that’s known as helping “the growing number of people out of work and families battling against rising living costs.” Amongst adults that’s known as “Socialism”, or even “Neo-Marxism”. In the land of the BBC, though, it’s “helping families”.
Hi David,
If one is in a high school economics class, yes.
David Preiser (USA) | Homepage | 06.09.08 – 3:32 am | #
Brilliant. How substantial. What about sharing the “better” data you seem to rely on.
I’d like to re-assure you, that there is no chance of “neo-marxism” taking hold in the US, but then, why shouldn’t I let you tremble of fear over the next years 😉
I believe Mark Twain said “There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics”
Jack:
– I believe Mark Twain said “There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics”
He was quoting Disraeli.
“…There are lies, bigger lies and then there’s bollocks pumped out by a fat one eyed jock from Scotland…”
I said that.
gunnar | 06.09.08 – 6:33 am |
Brilliant. How substantial. What about sharing the “better” data you seem to rely on.
No, gunnar, it’s not “better” data I’m talking about, but the realities of understanding the larger picture. Playing with basic numbers is lots of fun, but this a lot like the well-known cartoon of a bunch of blind men trying to describe an elephant. These little economic indicators are just that: temporal indicators. The US economy, contrary to what the BBC would have you believe, is not in the tank, is not in a horrible recession, and is not without hope of recovery.
The BBC “analysis” of the US economy is misleading, and they even throw in a little white lie at the bottom:
At the root of the problems in the US economy is the collapse of the housing market as foreclosed properties and unsold new build homes flood the market.
This is the child’s viewpoint. Grown-ups call this a “corrective”. Yes, bankers were panicked because they didn’t know where they were going to find the next source of paper to push around. Big corporate deals are based in large part on the buying and selling of debt, and when the debt is bad it’s no longer helpful in these deals.
The real problem is the way banks move debt around and the fee-based deal system wherein the guys pushing the paper to earn those fees don’t suffer the consequences of pushing bad paper around. At the root of this is willful ignorance by more than a couple of bosses at places like Citi, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, and HSBC.
This is essentially the dot-com and tech stock bubble all over again. Too many people relied on bad debt. It’s also temporary. Looking at a few numbers without discussing what they mean or where they’re going or any other influences besides the housing market is not the best way to understand the long term.
The Wall Street Journal article DV linked to was about the long term, although it was looking back rather than forward. It wasn’t relevant to the BBC article, though, which was really a scare tactic to deflect criticism from Mr. Brown.
Oil is going down, not up, and “inflationary pressures” are not as bad as people feared even a month ago. That’s just more lying from the BBC.
Of course, the US economy is poised for a recovery over the next 18 months. Even though I don’t like the way the Fed is going to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this will ultimately stabilize the paper being pushed around, and will be a far less drain on the taxpayer than what Mr. Brown did with Northern Rock.
What’s very amusing to me is that you fail to grasp why the BBC is trying to tell you this stuff in the first place: Mr. Brown is responsible for screwing up the UK economy, but you’re supposed to pass blame on to the US. So they show you a few scary numbers, are slightly dishonest about what they mean. Unemployment rises at the end of summer when all those summer jobs end. Further, the comparison between today and the early 1990s is not fair when one takes the massive immigration of the last decade into account. More unemployed and unemployable people coming in means the unemployment percentage is higher. But unless you know the intrinsic value of those numbers, you can be easily fooled by the BBC.
They also don’t tell you that the dollar is going to make a comeback, that there will be a small stimulus package, stocks are holding steady once again, or that inflation is probably not going to be much of a problem in the near future. Combine that with the price of oil coming down, the dollar going up, and a few European economies stagnating or retracting (where are the BBC reports on those, gunnar?), and it’s not the horror show the BBC wants you to think it is.
But go on, continue to believe that the US is in the tank, and that the fate of Britain’s economy is fully dependent on the US housing market. That’s what this article is trying to tell you, and it’s a lie.
I’d like to re-assure you, that there is no chance of “neo-marxism” taking hold in the US, but then, why shouldn’t I let you tremble of fear over the next years.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. The Obamessiah has already stated very, very clearly that he will engage in exactly the kind of neo-Marxist nonsense I’m worried about. He has stated outright that he will seize profits from oil companies and redistribute it to the masses. Maybe you were out of school the day they taught this, but it’s is a fundamentally Marxist action. So is Socialized Medicine, which is not the same thing as the NHS. What the Socialized Medicine crowd wants is to limit the earnings of doctors and medical companies. It’s much more than the happy land of providing free health care to the masses, which they supposedly deserve as a birthright. You don’t understand that either.
Your callous taunting is analogous to that of Hillhunt when he was laughing and pointing at those who were afraid that Sharia was going to be imposed – little by little – in Britain. As it turns out, he was wrong, because non-Muslims are being asked more and more to obey Muslim law (such as fasting during Ramadan), images of Piglet have been taken down from windows, etc.
You’re equally wrong that the Democrats won’t be able to slowly push a neo-Marxist agenda. They’ve already tried to do that unsuccessfully. The Democrats control Congress, and have done for a while now. With a Republican President, there is a little bit of check-and-balance, but that’s gone once the Obamessiah is elected. With the worst of the Democrat leadership in charge of both the Senate and the House, they can slowly bleed everyone dry. I realize this is difficult for you to understand, but you really need to learn about what the Democrats and their far-Left supporters want.
I realize that since you get your news from the BBC and don’t believe anything else that you won’t be aware of any of this. Harry Reid will probably become Senate majority leader, and he has hinted at similar actions. You ought to pay attention to what the Democrat politicians say. The BBC withholds that information from you, so I accept that you don’t know any of this.
I guess you can keep your head in the sand, though.
David Preiser (USA) | Homepage | 06.09.08 – 4:01 pm |
Four names to give you the creeps:
Obama
Biden
Pelosi
Reid
There should be a health and safety warning attached to them.
Let`s be fair you cant blame Gordon Brown for most of the problems in Britain. Most of our laws are made in Brussels and we shovel billions into that EU.