Mark Zandi

AP's Crutsinger: 3rd Quarter Economy Was 'Subpar,' But Future 'Outlook Brightens'
By Tom Blumer | October 28, 2015 | 8:31 PM EDT

Preparing the battlespace for tomorrow's report from the government on third-quarter Gross Domestic Product growth, the Associated Press's Martin Crutsinger early this afternoon told readers that we're likely to see "a subpar pace by any standard."

But we shouldn't worry, because the AP reporter contends that tomorrow's news will just be a temporary trough in this year's "dizzying roller coaster ride," and that the fourth quarter will once again bring the economy up to acceptable heights. To make his claim, Crutsinger naturally ignored myriad warning signs that a serious slowdown may be on the horizon. A decade ago, he was hyping other far less serious factors as evidence that the economy would be lucky to avoid a recession.

AP Fantasy: U.S. Economic Growth Has Been 'Really Durable'
By Tom Blumer | March 27, 2015 | 11:27 PM EDT

The latest wet kiss from the business press thrown the Obama administration's way came from Martin Crutsinger at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, late this afternoon.

Crutsinger, continuing to richly earn the "Worst Economics Writer" tag he received from National Review's Kevin Williamson two years ago, absurdly characterized the mediocre, pathetic economic peformance of the past 5-1/2 years — the worst post-World War II "recovery" on record, by miles — as "sluggish," but "one of the most durable." As traditionally and objectively measured, that statement is absolutely false, and he should know it.

Mark Zandi and Others Wrong on Jobs Data
By Sean Long | February 7, 2014 | 3:51 PM EST

For the second month in a row, the jobs report was a major disappointment. The January jobs report, released Feb. 7 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), showed only 113,000 jobs added, falling far short of the more than 180,000 expected. The unemployment rate dropped to 6.6 percent.

The miniscule revision of 1,000 jobs to the December report compounded the shock. Many had dismissed the December report of 74,000 jobs added claiming it would be revised upwards with this report. (video after break)

CNN Email: Market's Tiny Wed. Losses Due to 'Looming U.S. Default,' Not Poor ADP Jobs Report
By Tom Blumer | October 2, 2013 | 5:07 PM EDT

NASDAQ.com says that the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 58.56 points today. The S&P 500 lost 1.13 points, while the NASDAQ lost 2.96 points. In percentage terms, those losses were 0.39%, 0.07%, and 0.08%, respectively.

Even though there's usually a large element of speculation relating to why the broad markets go up or down on any given day, the pretend know-it-alls at CNNMoney.com seem to have had a pretty obvious preset agenda in their post-close email, as will be seen after the jump:

AP's Wiseman Tries to Explain Away Clear Trend Towards Part-Time Employment as Merely 'Volatile'
By Tom Blumer | September 7, 2013 | 7:06 PM EDT

In a Saturday afternoon dispatch, the Associated Press marred a mostly decent presentation of the August employment situation reported by the government yesterday in three ways.

The first is the story's misleading headline: "The Job Market Fed Faces: Healing But Still Ailing." Whether there's genuine healing going on is highly debatable, given that the labor force participation rate fell to 63.2 percent, its lowest level since 1978, and the clear trend towards part-time work. AP Economics Writer Paul Wiseman's treatment of that trend and another related one represent the report's other three weaknesses, as seen in the following three paragraphs (bolds are mine):

Santelli on Market Rally after Jobs Report: ‘What Are We, A Banana Republic?’
By Mike Ciandella | September 6, 2013 | 10:16 AM EDT

The August Jobs Report showed 169,000 jobs were added, less than many had predicted and revisions from previous months even included a drop of 74,000 jobs. So the jobs total for the month was really just 95,000.

The stock market continued to rally, but CNBC’s Rick Santelli, who covers the Chicago Board of Trade, said that such a contrast was upsetting. “What are we, a banana republic?” Santelli asked. “I just think it’s absolutely horrible that we’re in a marketplace where we get a lousy report. 35 years since we’ve seen these participation rates, and listen: you can’t hide the spread of four to four-and-a-half percent between the advertised unemployment rate and what it would be if you would go back a few years on that participation rate,” he explained.

(video after break)

IBD's Jed Graham Flags Four Sectors of Economy Where ObamaCare Is Particularly Hurting Workers
By Tom Blumer | August 15, 2013 | 4:46 PM EDT

It's fair to say that about the only holdouts against the idea that part-time work is up and that employee hours are being reduced around the economy are the Obama White House and a few Obama White House alumni. It's also fair to say that there are very few holdouts against the idea that the cause for this is Obamacare's 30-hours-per-week definition of a full-time employee, which is causing far more businesses than usual to cut existing workers' hours and to limit their hiring to part-timers. Even Obama-sympathetic NBC did a report on Obamacare's impact earlier this week. The White House dismissed what NBC found as "merely anecdotal."

All along, everyone — yes, this includes yours truly — has been concentrating on overall changes in the average work week, which have been very minimal. But Jed Graham at Investor's Business Daily, doing work which apparently no one else in the business press has been willing or discerning enough to do for all these months as the issue has raged, identified four industry sectors where average weekly hours have dropped significantly, and where it's hard to claim that anything except Obamacare could be the culprit.

WashPost Front-Pager on Collapsing Net Worth Missing One Word: 'Obama'
By Matt Vespa | June 12, 2012 | 6:07 PM EDT

A new economic report from the Federal Reserve doesn't offer much hope. On the front page of The Washington Post,  Ylan Q. Mui underlined "the Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans roughly on par with where they were in 1992."   

Furthermore, "the data represent[s] one of the most detailed looks at how the economic downturn altered the landscape of family finance. Over a span of three years, Americans watched progress that took almost a generation to accumulate evaporate. The promise of retirement built on the inevitable rise of the stock market proved illusory for most. Homeownership, once heralded as a pathway to wealth, became an albatross."  What's more interesting is that Mui's article doesn't mention Obama once  -- in a front page piece during an election year -- right after he told reporters the private sector is "doing fine."

March Hiring Far Below Expectations, CNBC Guest Still Seeks 'Silver Lining'
By Julia A. Seymour | April 6, 2012 | 11:55 AM EDT

Each month before the jobs report is released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hosts and guests of CNBC make predictions about the payroll employment number and unemployment rate.

On April 6, when the March data was released Steve Liesman was the high end predictor, with 290,000, and former Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee was low, with 180,000. But everyone turned out to be wrong, when the BLS report showed gains of only 120,000 jobs. The unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.2 percent.

D'oh! Maddow Guest Economist Undermines Her Gloom About GOP Spending Cuts
By Jack Coleman | March 2, 2011 | 6:05 PM EST

Don't look now, that tidal wave might be a drop in the bucket instead.

On her MSNBC show Monday, Rachel Maddow cited a trio of reports warning of massive job losses if $61 billion in Republican-pushed spending cuts take effect.

The Economic Policy Institute, which Maddow described as a "liberal group," predicts the GOP budget plan "would likely result in job losses of just over 800,000. A confidential new report" from Goldman Sachs says spending cuts passed in the House "would be a drag on the economy, cutting growth by about two percent of GDP, according to Jonathan Karl at ABC News, the source cited by Maddow. The third warning along these lines came from McCain '08 campaign adviser Mark Zandi, writing at Moody's Analytics, that the Republicans' proposal "would mean some 400,000 fewer jobs created by the end of 2011 ... and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012."

'Keep Spending Like Mad or Else' Chorus Grows; Stanford's Taylor Responds; Expect Press to Ignore
By Tom Blumer | February 28, 2011 | 3:11 PM EST

Late last week (covered at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), a Goldman Sachs economist issued a dire warning cutting current-year federal spending by a measly $61 billion, or about 1.75% of the administration's full-year projected spending total, would significantly reduce economic growth in the coming quarters. If this were so, the economy would booming beyond belief right now, given that the Obama administration ran a $800-plus billion so-called stimulus plan during the past two years, and is on track to run up over $4 trillion in reported budget deficits in a three-year period by the end of the current fiscal year. Readers will note that the economy is not booming beyond belief.

The Associated Press chimed in on Friday after the latest report on the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Expert, presumably including some geniuses at Goldman, thought it would be revised up from an annualized 3.2% to 3.3%. Oops; it came in at 2.8%. Befuddled AP reporters claimed incorrectly that reductions in state and local government spending seriously held back reported growth during the final quarter of 2010. Zheesh; the impact was only -0.29 points. The real problem is that private investment is seriously lagging, and has really never stopped lagging since the recession began in 2008.

The "Keep spending like mad or else" chorus got more help today from chief economist Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics. This morning, the Washington Post's Lori Montgomery dutifully relayed the pile-on (bolds are mine):

GOP spending plan would cost 700,000 jobs, new report says

CNBC Panel Warns Drop to 9.4 Percent Unemployment is 'Anomaly'
By Julia A. Seymour | January 7, 2011 | 11:46 AM EST

A sharp drop in the unemployment rate from 9.8 percent to 9.4 percent "surprised" analysts on Jan. 7, but Mesirow Financial's chief economist Diane Swonk warned CNBC viewers that it was an "anomaly."

The drop in unemployment rate confused some because in the same report the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported only 103,000 overall nonfarm payroll gains in December 2010.

CNBC's "Squawk Box" panel reacted to the falling unemployment rate by calling it "sort of a fluke," an "anomaly" and predicting it would rise again. CNBC's Rick Santelli suggested the rate dropped "because people are disenchanted' and dropping out of the labor force."