Did You See It?
Kudlow's Money Politic$
When the weaker-than-expected preliminary GDP report was first published in late January, the New York Times featured this story on the first page of its Saturday morning business section. The author was left-of-center reporter Louis Uchitelle, who groused about soft business investment outside of computers and software as well as weak export sales to foreign countries.
A month later, however, the revision to GDP for the last three months of 2004 showed a much stronger economy. The initial estimate of 3.1% was revised up to 3.8%. Business investment was revised to 18% from 14.9%.
Private sector domestic output – what Economics 101 students would remember as consumption + investment, or C+I – was pegged at an outsized 5.5% growth. In fact, for the first time in a long while, the rise in non-high tech business investment outstripped the high tech investment by 15.2% to 13.7%, both measured at annual rates.
However, you would have had to look really hard in last Saturday’s New York Times to find the upbeat economic story. Rather than on the front page of business section, the optimistic report was buried on page B4. Instead of a senior reporter’s byline, the story relegated to page B4 was unsigned Reuter’s News Service copy.
At least this story accurately reported that GDP grew by 4.4% in 2004, ahead of a 3% rise in 2003, and the strongest gain for any year since 1999. Reuters also had the good sense to note the big gain in business capital investment and a much stronger performance for export sales.
I’m still wondering why the New York Times relegated the good news GDP story to the back pages of the business section instead of the front page. After all, the stock market on that Friday rallied smartly on the news of the stronger than expected economy.
But why am I wondering? A big economic gain in 2004 suggests nothing less than a Bush boom. Not only that, the boom was propelled in considerable part by Bush’s supply-side tax cuts put in place in mid-2003. Since that time, the economic recovery rate has roughly doubled. Unemployment has fallen. Stocks have risen. Inflation is tame. Interest rates are low. Family wealth is a record high.
Let me guess: the Bush-bashing New York Times just won’t get honest about America’s economic health? Even more, the Paul Krugman-influenced Times refuses to concede the economic growth power of lower marginal tax rate incentives?
Could it be that the so-called newspaper of record is not being entirely honest about the merits of Bush economic policy that have led to strong economic performance?
Or is the collective psyche of the so-called newspaper of record suffering from a large dose of angst at the thought that Bush may be just as right on the economy as he has been on the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East?
The mainstream media and their conventional thinking punditocracy allies are heavily invested in Mr. Bush's failure. Ohmigosh, what if he's right? |
