Consumer Confidence ignored by the left
 

Consumer confidence in the economy's prospects improved in early April even as gasoline prices and borrowing costs marched higher.

The RBC CASH (Consumer Attitudes and Spending by Household) Index, based on results from the international polling firm Ipsos, showed confidence at 89.4 in early April, up from March's 86.2. The new reading also was better than a year ago, when consumer confidence clocked in at 84.5.

"It's a positive sign," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group.

Overall, consumers are in a generally good frame of mind, economists said.

"I think we can take heart in the fact that even with all the worries _ about energy prices, higher interest rates and a slowing housing market _ confidence moved higher," said economist Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics.

Analysts track consumer confidence for clues about consumers' willingness to spend, an important force shaping the country's economic health.



AssociatedProgressives

Of course they want to avoid the positive news like the plague. It's things like this that is counter-productive to their cause. (futile at best)

I'm not sure that consumer confidence is being deliberately ignored by the left. Perhaps the left just doesn't see that consumer confidence is an excellent indicator of long term economic health, especially when accompanied by a negative personal savings rate.

Its kinda like the way the left (and many other rational conservatives) just doesn't see all the long term benefits of the current administration's massive deficit spending.

I don't know why the consumer confidence index is reported at all, good or bad.

edited for typo

not to worry mul, you're ignored by the left, center and all but the extreme right. :p

Nul, why do you rely on the Royal Bank of Canada's CASH index? Is this part of your Commie Socialist Agenda?

Anyway, since you do, thought you'd like to see the first page of the survey analytics. You can download the survey here:

http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/rbc-cash-index.html

see right column, Topline results. Anyway, here's the first page. Please tell us all what you think of these numbers:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1144948796.jpg

Why when Bush inherits Clinton's recession, it is Bush's recession, but when Bush's policies obviously turn around an economic disaster it is diminished and marginalized?

What happened to the Clinton years, when nothing but the economy mattered?...No crime or level of Presidential corruption was an issue, it was "the economy stupid."

Mul, you are closer to Tokyo Rose than a real patriot. I used to want to find you and pummel your sorry ass, now I just laugh at you. You are a sad person. :(

I think that the incessant economic negativity from the media is, by design, making people feel insecure about the economic future. However, the people are behaving like the economy is good and their actions are the real indicators of their confidence. The disconnect of actions from sentiments can only be explained by media bias and orchestrated intent to destroy consumer confidence.

No one of credibility would argue that the economy is smoking, however, if you consumed the news you would barely know it (FoxNews would give you a more accurate perception).

Whenever you would like to come out to La La Land...We have great Spanish speaking ICUs.

Don't be such a crybaby...

Many well regarded economists (including the Fed Chairman) warned of the "Irrational Exuberance" in equity markets during that time, and of the resulting slowdown in consumer spending that would occur should markets correct.

How did Bush's policies turn around an economic disaster?

Please post 5 news stories backing up your assertion that the media portrays the economy negatively.

But you've chosen to ignore the question Traitor. Read the question, then look at the response.

go back to China, you are not wanted here.

Economics 101...Something the left and their media presstitutes seem to forget and shove down the memory hole at every opportunity.

I thought the Right was about taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY???!!!

You are a master at the BLAME GAME!

Traitor.

could you be more specific? I don't think you know...

What policy of Bush's helped right the economic ship (other than lowering interest rates and hoping for the best)

Media Research Center (MRC) examined the year 2005, specifically how ABC, NBC and CBS covered employment news. In 2005, the economy created 2 million jobs. According to the MRC, however, more than 50 percent of the stories involved job losses rather than gains.

Professor John Lott, economist and resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, and Kevin A. Hassett, the Institute's director of economic policy studies, examined, among other things, newspapers' economic political bias as reflected by their headlines: "We found that newspaper headlines reporting economic news on unemployment, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales, and durable goods tended to be much more frequently negative when a Republican was in the White House. And this was true even after accounting for the economic numbers on which the stories were based and how those numbers were changing over time."



HumanEvents (cause you can't trust the left media)

I'll give you two hints: 1) The Democrats said that they were only for the "richest 1%", and 2) tried very very hard to stop them because they knew they would be effective.

Tax cuts stimulate the economy and increase government revenues.

You post 1 right wing apologist study from a right wing apologist web site and you think that's doing a good job at responding to my request?

Our expectations are not as low as yours Nul. Do your homework boy. Come back when you have 5 stories from CNN, etc. that portray the economy negatively.

It's all about personal responsibility. Look into that some time.

What a ridiculous request. Even with such a ridiculous request the right wing apologist website (infinitely more trustworthy than the falsely objective MSM) sites several examples of this bias.

All one needs do is open their eyes, or turn on the news, and the bias stinks like a freshly squashed skunk...Denying this reality only suggests an incapacity on your part to discern the obvious.

These links provide some examples of negative reporting, or reporting by omission, by the media.

http://www.freemarketproject.org/news/2006/news20060410.asp
http://newsbusters.org/node/4544
http://newsbusters.org/node/4812
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060410.asp#4

Didn't B1 refer to this as voodoo economics?

BTW, google +CNN+consumer+confidence and you'll get a mix of positive and negative reports. I'll bet it's similar with other sources.

Thanks GT. So I clicked on the second link, read the story, and immediately went to read the study noted. Given the study Nul posted, and the first page of which I did, you can see how I would need to look up sources given Nul's history of lying by omission, this thread being the best most recent example.

Going to the NACE website, I wanted to get the survey. Here's what I got:

Renew Your Membership Today! It's easy. Call Georgia Casey, membership services coordinator, ext. 133, 800/544-5272, to request an invoice or renew online today with your credit card.

Do you have a membership so we can all look at the entire study?

From there we can move on.

you know guys, facts are facts. Don't blame the media for facts reported you don't like.

Now, let's get that study.

How'd that work out for him?

it still hasn't worked out, not even for B2.

Lies are lies, media bias is media bias...I blame the media for the lies and distortions that drive down economic confidence via "talking down the economy."

and mul is mul, is, well, whatever... ;)

B41 learned the hard way that raising taxes ain't wise. He earned Clinton the Presidency with that unwise move.

yes, we "heard" you the first time. So let me repeat, embracing it hasn't worked out for B2.

You blame others for your inadequacies because you know nothing of personal responsibility.

Apparently you have been watching some variation of leftist media...They are lying to you.

I don't have a membership, but if you question the source, here's the Reuters story referencing the same study.

I cannot let this go....

John Lott..author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime"and "The Bias Against Guns". Thought by some tobe based on flawed data.

Member of American Enterprise Institute (right wing think tank)

http://timlambert.org/lott/

www.lewrockwell.com/lott-arch.html (list of Lott's writings, Lew is a Libertarian political commentator)

Then you gotta ask: www.whoismaryrosh.com/ This gets interesting. A fabricated name apparently used by Lott to hawk his book.

An interesting fellow.

B2 could be accused of talking down the economy when he began his run for Prez. I remember him saying in '99 that 'things aren't as rosey as they look'.

He was accused of "talking down the economy" by the political party that has been talking down just about everything he has done for the last 6 years, including the economy...no, I take that back, EVERYTHING he has done for the last 6 years....Classic projection or transference.

if you want to keep a complicated issue simple monitor GDP & overall job creation.

The only real uncertainty beyond a catastrophe is the policy of the new Fed Chairman concerning interest rate policy. Political bs affecting the economy hasn't been considered a drag.. yet.

The Fed Chairman said in his political posturing that the tax cuts add to and will continue to add stimulation to growth.. [hopefully the Reps don't screw up that policy]

Seriously adding to budget deficits will eventually be harmful to growth if it continues at the current Rep rate. Otherwise the historical best way to handle budget deficit is from a high growth rate, not tax increases or devaluation of the dollar, and responsible spending.

Having a dynamic economy means that everyone is never completely happy.

and don't forget the politics in election mode.

Here's another story that did not get a lot of media attention today:

WASHINGTON

A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month.

In its monthly accounting of the government's books, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that revenue for the month totaled $315.1 billion as Americans filed their tax returns by the April deadline. The gusher of tax revenue pushed total receipts up by 13.4 percent from April 2005.

It marked the largest one-month receipt total since the government collected $332 billion in revenue in April 2001, reflecting a boom in capital gains from stock investors lucky enough to cash out their investments before the bursting of the stock market bubble in early 2000.

Edit: Apparently this did not happen or it was a minor oversight by the networks. No mention of it on CNN, CBS, NBC or ABC. What a surprise.