FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
In a period of record-low productivity growth, Thomas Friedman tells us the robots are taking all the jobs. Hey, no one ever said you had to have a clue to write for the New York Times.
The New York Times said the Fed “express[ed] confidence that raising borrowing costs now won’t hurt growth”–though that is exactly why it is raising rates.
“When you’re telling people they should not eat so that a billionaire can have one more Ferrari or one more apartment in Manhattan, these people start to hide.”
The New York Times says it would defy “economic logic” for Italy to leave the euro–under which Italy has yet to recover from the crisis of 2008.
Several media outlets left out Barney Frank’s role as a bank board member while quoting him downplaying the magnitude of the Dodd/Frank rollback.
The Fed could raise rates even in the absence of higher inflation. In that case, the Fed as a matter of policy would be increasing our interest burden.
The question is not whether we are better off today than we were 60 years ago. It would be incredible if we were not better off. The question is by how much.
We hear people asserting that the massive inequality we are now seeing in the United States is the result of an unfettered market. This is a convenient view for those who are on the upside of things, but it also happens to be nonsense.
“Those are the people making the decisions, and they make them in their own interest, and the rest of us have to borrow money to send our kids to college.”
[mp3-jplayer tracks=”CounterSpin Richard Wolff Full Show @http://www.fair.org/audio/counterspin/CounterSpin180209.mp3″] MP3 Link This week on CounterSpin: Economic news is presented as facts and figures, but it’s also, maybe most importantly, a story, a narrative. But whether it’s an article about companies using their tax cut savings to give workers bonuses or one about how few of them are […]
Commercial media is, of course, a system for serving corporate advertisers the audience they want. And wealth and influence aren’t so much condiments as the main ingredient.
Different people have very different visions of the way forward for Puerto Rico—depending, to put it simply, on whether you think servicing debt matters more than human beings.
If we think that Trump is responsible for the rise in world oil prices, then he can reasonably be given credit for the uptick in investment that has occurred during his administration; otherwise, there is not much for him to boast about.
The “boom” following Reagan’s tax cuts was similar to the growth during the Ford/Carter years–which are not generally remembered as a time of great prosperity.
New York Times columnist Bret Stephens apparently knows literally nothing about the economy, and is so ignorant he doesn’t even know how little he knows.
“We look at the racial wealth divide as one of the most fundamental challenges to the American economy in the 21st century, not just a challenge of particular communities in our country.”
If we don’t intervene to turn the racial wealth gap around, we are driving the country toward what a new report describes in no uncertain times as a “racial and economic apartheid state.”
Heartwarming tales of perseverance in the face of impossible odds are ideological agitprop meant to obscure and decontextualize the harsh reality of dog-eat-dog capitalism.
Jonathan Chait’s argument is that the voters who switched from Obama to Trump had conservative social views—so if Democrats need to do anything to win in 2020, they should move to the right on race and immigration policy.
“Small businesses understand very well that workers are also consumers. If there’s not enough money in the wage base of the economy, of people that they are hoping will come in and buy their goods and services, they feel it every day. “
