You may think I throw around the word "liar" too promiscuously. Not true. Every time I use the word I back it up. For no entry is this more true than this one. Anderson Cooper has again exposed himself as a LIAR.
Wjat dp we lmpw about the agenda of CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media? Well, they want to get Barack "World" Obama elected President. But they had a leftist agenda long before that. One aspect of that agenda has been to consistently OVCERSTATE how bad our economy has been in the Bush Admiistration (an economy in a sustained BOOM from about the summer of 2002 until 2007, including a housing BOOM ("bubble" in fact). Now the housing "bubble" has burst, and the mainstream media want to portray this as some sort of unique economic disaster, instead of the fairly typical cyclical problem that it is. It is in aid of that agenda that Anderson Cooper LIED (not a matter of opinion, but one of the most blatant lies CNN has ever put out--which is saying a lot).
Anderson Cooper said (approximately): "You know, during my lifetime the stock market has done nothing but go up, but now we have big trouble."
Nope. Not true. False. An attempted "1984" type Big Lie. Regular readers of this blog (all two of you) know that, among my many talents, I am a stock market investor, and have been one from the time I had money to invest (albeit obviously on a small scale). During Anderson Cooper's lifetime, what has happened?
Well, Cooper was not an adult, but the early 1970's were a DISASTER in the stock market. For DECADES the Dow was unable to even make it above 1,000, and stay there. Then there were the even more disastrous Carter years (1976-1980). That was the time of STAGFLATIOIN--high inflation AND high interest rates. You say Anderson Cooper was not yet an adult? Okay, I will accept that. Cooper was 20 in 1987.
Yes, 1987 was the year of ANOTHER October stock market CRASH--WORSE than October 29, 1929 (in percentage terms) . 1987 remains the worst percentage the stock market has ever dropped in a single day (in the modern era).
Then there was 2000. You remember 2000. That was the year the dot. com "bubble" burst, and the Nasdaq went from 500 to WAY below 2000. Ultimately came close to 1000. The Dow and Standard and Poors 500 did not drop quite that dramatically, but dropped dramatically enough.
Further, the bursting of the sot.com "bubble" was followed, just as some market recovery seemed to be starting, with 9/11. That again knocked the market into a "crisis". The market--amazingly enough--began to recover from than, and then ENRON and WORDLCOM occurred. That produced a TERRIBLE stock market (worse than anything so far happening with the bursting of the housing "bubble". That terrible market lasted until at least March of 2002. Clinton had handed bush an economy already in the beginnings of a recession (dot.com "bubble" bursting and Nasdaq collapsing). This is what I call the CLINTON RECESSION, since it was happening even before 9/11. You could never blame it on President Bush, and no reputable economist has.
This was followed by the period of 2002-2007 when the stock market DID pretty much go straight up, and the economy was in a sustained BOOM. Let us call this the BUSH BOOM--sustained, rather than the false "bubble" of the end of the Clinton years, EXCEPT for the worm in the apple in the form of the housing "bubble" (bipartisan "bubble" as both parties wanted every American to have a house). Well, you know what happened then. The bursting of the housing "bubble has created a financial disaster (not our first since 1980 by any means--MORE banks went under in savings and loan "crisis", AND in the bursting of the oil price "bubble" which doomed essentially EVERY bank in Texas). Still, the declines in the stock market have been orderly, and not nearly the crash of 1987 or the disastrous market from 2000-2002 as the dot.com bubble burst, 9/11 happened AND the financial scandals, of which Enron is the poster company, occurred. Most of those financial scandals BEGAN in the go-go years of the Clinton Administration.
Okay, you say, Anderson Cooper is a liar. He obviously has conveniently forgotten the 1987 stock market CRASH (caused, to a large degree, by computer trading, and computers may well, on many levels, be responsible for Lehman Brothers and the present financial crisis). And he conveniently forgot Nasdaq 5000 and th bursting of the dot.com bubble. But Cooper was probably being a Democrat, and just remembering the Clinton years.
Still a LIAR. Remember, I was in the stock market then. I LOST MY SHIRT IN 1998. There was a STEEP stock market sell off that year--for a good part of the year in smaller stocks and expanding to the large cap stocks in August-September. Value Line called it a "bear market", short as it was.
In fact, EVERY year since 1994 the stock market has suffered a MAJOR decline somewhere during the August September period, sometimes beginning in mid to late July.
Nope. Anderson Cooper is a liar many times over. The stock market has NOT gone "straight up" during Anderson Cooper's lifetime. It has not done so at ANY time during his lifetime (although it did, of course--fueled by the dot.com "bubble", advance strongly ON AVERAGE during the Clinton years.
Now you might quibble with a few things I put in above. But the stock market information is NOT a matter of OPINION. It is of record. It is simply FALSE to say that the "market" has gone straight up. That is objectively FALSE. The Nasdaq has NEVER gotten back to 5000, and does not seem likely to any time soon That was the top in the CLITNON years. The 1987 stock market lost more than 20% of its value IN A SINGLE DAY.
Short term market gyrations mean little. And "bear markets" occur on a regular basis. The stock market NEVER goes straight up (although the period from 1945 to 1963 came as close as any, as our nation came out of World War II).
Further, there have been multiple RECESSIONS since 1945. We have not YET experienced a documented recession during this financial "crisis". Bush 41 had that recession (which we were coming out of) at the end of his Presidency. CLINTON had that recession at the very end of his Presidency (handing it over to Bush) . Bush 43 has not YET had ANY recession, although 9/11 and Enron certainly caused economic disruption and extended the effect of the Clinton recession.
Now was it really a "Clinton recession" or a "Bush boom", or even a Bush 41 recession? I don't think so. We give too much BLAME, and too much credit, to the President for these things. That is BAD, because weare now demanding that the President NEVER allow a recession, and that the President DO SOMETHING about the economy. Ultimately, if we go down that road it will destroy us--as Presidents destroy the economy trying to do the impossible.
However, none of this matters as to Anderson Cooper. He is exposed as a LIAR, and that statement of his about the stock market going "straight up" is a LIE. That means you should pay no attention to whatever else he, or CNN might say.
I have already exposed all of CNN, over the past two weeks, including two consecutive Flying Fickle Finger of Fate awards on the past two weekends. Anderson Cooper will not win a "threepeat" for CNN with this particular lie. It was still a LIE, and a lie (as in Orwell's "1984") for a specific agenda purpose.
P.S. CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, will OVERSTATE how bad the (not great and fragile) economy and the stock market are. Then they will turn around and say that one of the big problems is consumer (and/or business) CONFIDENCE. Now WHY would "confidence" go down. Rignt. The mainstream media is DRIVING IT DOWN for purposes of its own political agenda. Note that I manot saying that the media should fail to report on our real problems. But PERSPECTIVE, and lack of hysteria, is indicated if you don't want to panic people. DOES the manstream media want to panic people on the economy? I think so. I think they have tried for the entire Bush Presidency. That leads to the McCain question (altered to fit the subject): Would the meidia prefer to dESTROY our economy or to lose an election (being clearly "all in" for the Democrats in this electioin). I don't think there is any doubt as to the answer to that questioni.