If the sequester is so bad for the economy, why are stocks nearing record highs? And, will Marissa Mayer’s edict on work at home change corporate America? For more on this, and the top stories of the week ahead, tune into Time’s Rana Foroohar on WNYC’s Money Talking.
I'm annoyed by this too.
Today she blamed government spending (sequester ) for the largest contributor to the smaller than expected GDP.
This is a large factor but its not the largest contributor - that's her ( or somebody's) biased opinion and a poor one at that.
Maybe Time should leave the actual factual reality reporting of the economy to the Wall street journal. Businesses have NOT started spending more as many have had to budget for the looming Obamacare. The largest contributors were not just consumers but also farmers who recovered from a drought from last year.
The economy has also been hampered by the ever suppressing high gas prices, as Obama does not want to approve a pipeline that should ease supply constraints that are preventing growth. Public sector growth is NEVER a large contributor for long and never should be as it usually is a net LOSS for the economy a whole.
Maybe someone needs to put Rana through an econ. course rather than listen to the tripe her fellow "experts" are handing her.
Why is Rana Foroohar, who has only a Bachelor's in English Literature, writing a column about economics called 'The Curious Capitalist' in TIME? Is she doing any original research on her own or with a team to come up with conclusions about the economy? Does she sit down and crunch any numbers herself? It seems like she merely repackages data from studies by other people to draw conclusions that she, or someone else, wants to appear in TIME.
Dow does not appear to be reflecting the true state-of-the-health of US economy, countering the negative impact of imminent budget cut, growing unemployment rate and increasing debts. How do the listed companies make so much profit to keep pushing up the markets lately? Perplexing. (btt1943, vzc1943)