"Depression of 2008" is REALITY: President Bush Confused by Economy

I do know this much: if I were advising President George W. Bush, I would not be allowing him to answer questions about the economy. What is it about this leader of "the free world" that he doesn't get properly advised about the REAL economic situation facing the United States?

Following up on my recent blog about the Depression of 2008, I now have more evidence that shows I am likely one step closer to vindication on my words. Here are the headlines on Yahoo!'s news page which show a bit of conflict and confusion within the leaders of the United States: An Associated Press story titled "Freddie Mac posts $2.5B loss in 4Q"; another AP story titled "Economy skids to near halt"; yet another from AP (business section) which says "New day, new low for dollar"; as well as (AP) "Stocks fall on weak economic data"; AND, according to Reuters, "Weak growth, job claims fuel recession fears"........these ARE just HEADLINES. Not down the page several stories - but the top of the business news. This would lead any rational human to think there is a definite problem with the economy. Hence, I feel my urgent need to point out how close my "reality" is to becoming EVERYONE ELSE'S REALITY. Well, except for maybe a few persons here and there. (You can almost feel this next paragraph coming even without my first paragraph!)

In the meantime, President George W. Bush has had a press conference going on at the White House. A great time for advisers to shut him up on the economy, indeed! The Associated Press story reads:


Bush: US is not headed into recession
AP - WASHINGTON - President Bush said Thursday that the country is not headed into a recession and, despite expressing concern about slowing economic growth, rejected for now any additional stimulus efforts. "We've acted robustly," he said.

I don't know what to say about the President's advisers other than to ask them questions which sound completely like an outright attack - even when that is NOT my point at all. The main question would be: "Do you NOT ALLOW the President to see, read, and hear the truth about the economic climate?" There is also: "Since he is the President and also has plenty of money with which he could one day share with you, are you keeping him as a buddy so that when you have lost all your savings you can use his wealth and stature to prop up your lives?" Well - okay - that really DID sound like an attack, but it is also a justified question since they are, after all, paid to give the President FACTUAL INFORMATION. Or is it just an assumption that he is to be told the truth?


Whatever the case, there were other pieces of news that I gleaned from the business section of the 27 February 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch. By way of the NEW YORK TIMES, the Post-Dispatch put an article by Vikas Bajaj into the Business section of the Wednesday paper which states in the headline "Housing slide gets steeper as inflation fears rise". Then the article adds that "falling house prices and the rising costs of everything else - picked up speed in data reported Tuesday, putting Federal Reserve policymakers in an increasingly tough position." The article goes on to state that the data released on Tuesday shows fresh evidence of the housing market's PROLONGED slump. A leading index of house prices in 20 cities fell by 9.1 percent in December from the same month a year earlier. Bajaj writes: "Using a three-month moving average, the index, the Standard & Poor's Case-Shiller, is falling at an annual pace of more than 20 percent."
That is astounding.

More information from the article shows that the Labor Department reported that wholesale prices, which exclude taxes and distribution costs, rose ONE PERCENT in January 2008. And compared with January 2007, producer prices were up 7.4 percent!


Last week, the Labor Department said consumer prices were up 4.3 percent in January 2008.


The question: Have you received your 4.3 percent raises already this year?

When you read articles like this one, who needs more negativity in their life? Well, I'm NOT DONE with the final point of this article. Bajaj quotes Paul Ashworth, a senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics, who wrote in a note to clients, as saying "February may go down in history as the month that the previously indefatigable U.S. consumer finally threw in the towel, beaten by a combination of deteriorating labor market conditions, surging prices for food and energy, and collapsing house prices."

BANG! The GUNS to the heads of the "good economy" have gone off now.

My prediction: The "regular joe" (most who make less than $30,000 per year) will rise up to tell those who have been making six-figure incomes "Ha! It's about time YOU took a giant loss on things. We've been suffering at the expense of 'the man' for about 5 years." And they'd be correct.

I wonder who is MORE ready to take a bath in red ink[???]: the "average Joe or Jane" who can't pull down $30,000 a year and has been given false hope in the so-called PRIVILEGE of "credit cards", or "the money man" who has made three to one-thousand times that amount per year over the past decade and has tied-up a significant amount in stocks while hoping the economy doesn't do what it IS doing: sink into oblivion.

Perhaps now would be the time for the "average Joe or Jane" to FILE FOR PROTECTION - bankruptcy legislation may have allegedly made it more difficult to file for protection, but that legislation probably didn't count on the economy to FAIL miserably BEFORE the November elections. Also --- wasn't that legislation supposed to protect "us" from those people who made more than average and still couldn't figure out how to manage their excess money? What of Americans who haven't been able to "make enough money" to "manage our excess money" in the first place?

"Depression of 2008" --- it will not be my legacy simply because I reported it and claimed it existed before others. It's just what I see a few weeks into this year.

Smoking in Society - Missouri PLEASE catch up!

Over the course of my lifetime, I've had two grandparents die from smoking-related cancers, as well as one of their children - my uncle (dad's youngest brother), his wife (my grandparents' daughter-in-law), my grandparents' son-in-law (his wife is my aunt who quickly quit smoking once he was diagnosed - fortunately she has not yet had her life overly complicated by the smoking she did), and too many others with whom I have been acquainted have had similar things happen to them - cancer or even death. This has not addressed my one uncle who - we can collectively roll our eyes on this - while on oxygen for his many breathing-related difficulties - STILL SMOKES! Now, I love this uncle VERY MUCH and would not want to tell him to mind his business. He's in his 70s and has had a full life - he still sends me funny e-mails on a regular basis. He lives in Indiana, as do most of my cousins. Others are in Illinois, and one is in Ohio. A cousin in Ohio is now retired, has a nice house, but still smokes despite the fact that her father died from cancer some 18 years ago. That confuses and confounds me. Same goes for the two daughters of my deceased uncle and aunt. He died first, and she died just a few years later. One can imagine the pain that their daughters and grandchildren go through knowing that the end was neither easy nor pain-free for their patriarchal figure. Fortunately, their mom died a bit more peacefully - probably of a broken heart from missing her beloved man. But - their daughters continue to smoke...and they live in a state - now - where they have to be non-smokers in public places. This is where I start to point out that I want to see more of this across the U.S. - including my home state of Missouri.

So - here's my point - it's time to show some semblance of activism in the so-called Show Me State of Missouri. We need to step up and show the rest of the world that WE, TOO, UNDERSTAND THAT SMOKING KILLS EVEN THOSE WHO ARE EXPOSED TO SECOND-HAND SMOKE!!!

HELLO, MISSOURI LEGISLATURE: SOMEONE GET OFF THEIR ASS AND PUT THE TYPEWRITTEN WORD TO USE --- DRAFT AND ENACT LEGISLATION MAKING SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES ILLEGAL IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI. This would be ALL public places. NO EXCEPTIONS for bars and clubs and whatever else the "polite smokers" want. Polite smokers should realize that there is no safe way to smoke a tobacco product.

Repeating - THERE IS NO SAFE WAY TO SMOKE A TOBACCO PRODUCT.

THERE IS NO SAFE PLACE TO SMOKE A TOBACCO PRODUCT. Smoking will have an effect upon all parties.

By the way --- if I had my way, under this legislation, all meetings of private non-profit groups would be held in public places so there is absolutely no confusion that non-profit groups should be subjected to meeting only in public places and, therefore, smoking would not be allowed at these meetings. This is my way of saying to people with whom I am connected in a real and vital sense that I want them to realize that they will become not only the minority that they SHOULD BE, but that they will not be allowed to take away the clean air that I enjoy by moving these meetings into private residences just for the convenience of the smokers.

CLEARLY - SMOKERS SHOULD ALWAYS, in all ways, BE INCONVENIENCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's the thing that I want you to do if you agree with me - other than to sign up with a group which vocalizes the distaste for smoking --- take a page out of my personal playbook:

SETTING: RESTAURANT in Missouri - or any "smoking state".
CHARACTERS: Hostess of restaurant, YOU (ME) and guests in the party.

HOSTESS: Welcome to ____________. How many in your party?

ME: 4 (or however many).

HOSTESS: Would you like smoking or non-?

ME: Do you have ANTI-???!?!???

THE NEW DEPRESSION (of 2008...etc.)???

Where to start...where to go with all these thoughts. Money woes in the U.S. economy abound, and they have had an effect on all the areas in which I have ever had experience: radio, music, transportation, travel, and other areas in which I have had peripheral involvement.

I really couldn't be more aware of what has been happening in broadcast radio, or in the music industry - Inside Music Media (see links on the side to this important column) has been on a "spot on" run lately. So --- where I would LIKE to refrain from making too many "ditto" columns for awhile --- it has me reading, thinking, deciding for myself what is or is not going on. More about radio at the end of this column...but, remember that radio is top of mind, so it will remain in the theme.

The headline for this column/blog is about "THE ANNOUNCEMENT" THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has NOT made. The Treasury has not made this announcement - make your own conclusion as to why they have not disclosed the "real" economy we face. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has not made this announcement - he'd be hung out to dry and does not deserve this designation, for it is not his fault that this even needs to be said. All of the traders on Wall Street won't like this announcement, but unless someone at Edward Jones or AG Edwards/Wachovia reads this column, Wall Street will take a few months to come to terms with the factual evidence from mainstream America.

THE ECONOMY at the outset of 2008 is in a DEPRESSION. Actually, it may well have been in effect in the third or fourth quarter of 2007, but I didn't do my research on it then. In fact, I have NO EVIDENCE that the depression of 2008 is real --- yet. Unless you count the thousands of jobs which ceased to exist in the U.S. over the past several months, plus the debate over the economic stimulus package that has all sides claiming "this could have been better", or the continued discussion over the so-called mortgage "crisis".

Well, okay - THERE - I have made the announcement for the rest of them. Sure, I could be wrong. When 2015 rolls around, someone will come across this blog (assuming the internet and blogspot will still exist as we now know it) and realize that I made the announcement that all other parties did NOT want to make. The U.S. economy is in a DEPRESSION coming into 2008 - and it may continue well beyond the first quarter of this year.

As to why --- exploring the reasons will be slow to unfold, as economics is not my chosen field. Also, listening to Paul Harvey News and Comment today one would think that the economy was improving in the MINDS of Americans. So, IF I AM WRONG about the long-term effects of things...don't lose sleep over it...but I think the New Depression will last a year or two.

Having said that, here's the irony --- which you may somehow find ironic: I am a professional broadcaster announcing an economic condition while the National Association of Broadcasters is being led by a non-broadcaster (CEO/President David K. Rehr) who has an economics degree.

(Tongue in cheek, I continue:) I would rather things be reversed and the NAB were to hire me to lead the industry with which I am familiar and have him perhaps learn broadcasting by studying the economic conditions and appearing as a guest on the news and talk shows. But, perhaps, that would make too much sense.

Ahh...here's an idea (a bit more tongue in cheek, yet, maybe it would work) - David K. Rehr can move over to the RIAA and help them out with the problems that the recording industry is encountering with revenue. This "leader" has not done what many in the industry see as the inevitable - he has NOT explained to the largest of the group radio station owners - specifically the appropriately named consolidation leaders - that they should move quickly forward with THE LARGE SELL-OFF by pricing radio stations at levels which are consistent with the economy of 1979. In fact, they should start selling them at 1979 prices. Why? Because radio, as an industry, is depressed, too.

Now the radio industry consolidation groups (the ones who own too many to make a proper profit and operate fully-staffed stations) need to sell off those stations to stave off their own bankruptcies. Frankly, the new radio station owners - most of them small-business owners - would then (we would have to believe) listen to "broadcast professionals" who work for them in order for the "ship" to then right itself, slowly. But if they do, believe it or not, the economy will start to improve.

Am I claiming that radio operated properly will boost the economy? No. But if you are finally reading POSITIVE news across the country - that will not hurt the economy the way the news of the "downfall" of the (radio and other) industry has done so.
-------------------------------
Economic Wall Street reviewers (snake charmers) like Jim Cramer can always claim the nail is in the coffin in radio, but unless he or those like him are ACTUALLY IN RADIO (PLEASE...NOBODY but nobody can tell me his show was BEING IN RADIO --- I have known a lot of show hosts over the years who have SO LITTLE knowledge of the inner-workings of radio as an industry --- Jim Cramer was/is just another host and/or guest, not a broadcast professional) they should refrain from referring to "traditional radio" - because traditional radio OWNERS haven't existed for many years.

Note to Jim Cramer: RADIO is not finished as we know it.

Radio CONSOLIDATION is finished as we know it.

Maybe the economy of radio is not well...but...broadcast radio is not over.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WHY am I picking on JIM CRAMER? Well, apparently he must not admit that he thinks he's "big people". Clearly, at the end of this transcript and the podcast, he deems his unclear comments and his strong opinion as being 'important'.

(A transcript of Jim Cramer on the WallSt Radio Confidential Broadcast: Cramer Radio Podcast. We pick it up, not pulling out of context - read and/or listen to the rest of the podcast and you'll see that I'm showing the juiciest part...)



JIM CRAMER: ...radio is finished as we know it. But it doesn't seem to matter to the people who are in radio. They...have always talked a big game, and they'll continue to talk a big game. One of the things that's really interesting about business (is) you can always talk a big game, and it isn't like anybody---like, I have a show where I call out the big game callers, and it's phenomenally popular with "people"...but everybody else wishes it would just go away...because...w-we don't want that---i-it's like when ESPN-ESPN was incredible [Disney-reported] (NOTE:*he mumbles, soitmaynotbeexact). Like ESPN, the reason, one of the reasons why - besides the fact that it's live - that people like ESPN coverage, is that they call people "bums". Wooll (sic), I mean...ya know, that's not "done in business"...because business is supposed to be --- you're s'posed to report. There's not allowed to be any analysis."

REPORTER: "It's prestigious."

JIM CRAMER: "Right. And I-I look at the radio people and I say 'you know, guys, don't - please don't try and get away with this.' But they do. And they doin' a great job of getting away with it."

REPORTER: "I love it. And it says nothing stronger than ego, including common sense..." (gets drowned out by...)

JIM CRAMER: "The guys who run radio..." (over top reporter)

REPORTER: "...concerning real money."

JIM CRAMER: "...well, the guys who run radio are these big people, and they always regard themselves as 'big people'...UM...eh-and...eh, like some of the home builders regard themselves as 'big people'...and...I laugh, because they're big in their own minds...but they always manage to get the reporters to believe."

REPORTER: "And the industry's shrinking, for a fact. Thank you for..." (again drowned out by...)

JIM CRAMER: "Well, there's nothing there. (claps his hands together)"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I really would like to see a few comments now, especially on Jim Cramer...who probably lost money if (...IF?) he invested too highly in the 'big people' who run the consolidated radio companies. He is talking about radio owners - but he is simply not naming them. They are obvious names like Clear Channel and Citadel and Cumulus and - well, you know the list, just the mere fact that Jim Cramer doesn't want to say those names shows that he is not interested in the industry at all - just making himself the "profit prophet" who makes unjustified claims for AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY!

+++++
+++++
+++++
+++++
+++++


Okay - Jim Cramer - here's your (I penned this word just for you, Jimbo) "theorhetorical" problem. I point out that this isn't the 1970s and RADIO is not the STEEL industry. The decline is there for several reasons, but mostly because:

CONSOLIDATION OCCURRED DUE TO POOR LEGISLATION AND BECAUSE OF THE REACTION ON YOUR BELOVED WALL STREET (um, Jim - you work for Wall Street) - and CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF WHAT WALL STREET EXPECTED FROM AN INDUSTRY THAT IS NOT MODELED AFTER SOMETHING WALL STREET SHALL "EVER" UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim - other than announcing that radio is dead - do you have any SOLUTIONS?

Get back to us on that soon, Jim Cramer, or your credibility will be in limbo.

Me - I have no economic credibility. I don't have to answer to the CEO of a major company. Yet.

Where are your freakin' heads, radio industry "leaders"?

Many of us have come to the same conclusion lately, or so it would appear: RADIO, as an industry, needs a swift kick. Moreover, the industrial leaders - read the National Association of Broadcasters/NAB, owners like the Mays/Clear "Cheap" Channel, etc. - need to be kicked in the collective gonads and/or rear-end-brains. What's been wrong with you for the past 12 years? Do you REALLY BELIEVE your ways are the ways of the REAL radio world?

Now that my initial questions are given - no different than tens of thousands of people who have made a living as professional broadcasters and account executives of radio stations have made during this period of decline in creativity and "overall wellness" in radio - a few comments are warranted.

NAB - when you're hiring someone who has such a lack of knowledge of the inner-workings of an actual on-air radio station (a boss who has an economics degree but hasn't worked as a TV or RADIO general manager, programmer, host, etc.) you are showing your complete lack (repeating) of knowledge of the inner-workings of an actual on-air radio station --- or TV station for that matter of fact. Shame on you NAB officers. Those who place high-risk bets could win in Las Vegas if the bet was on the percentage of NAB employees who could operate a radio station in a small, medium, large, or major market for 4 consecutive years "in the black" - bookees would be hard pressed to find enough betting people under 30 who even care about radio enough to place such a bet. Just guess work here --- 20 to 25% at most??????

Sure...I am hitting low. But I'm probably betting too high --- it's another guess that likely about 10% of NAB employees could operate a station today.

Is it time to stop helping out these so-called leaders and give them the ultimatum "quit now or quit in 3 months"? Sure. Absolutely. They should just quit pretending to know what it is they claim to know. Radio, to the average 20-year-old, is too much about the bottom-line (27 minutes of commercials stuffed into three breaks)! C'mon...I grew up with commercials between every song - that was palatable if you played 12 songs per hour. But IF you can't get ten songs in 60 minutes, where do you think the listener is getting his/her music? Wager it is NOT on the radio stations between 92.1 and 107.9 or for SURE between 530 and 1710 AM. Remember, when I write about this...I am talking about MUSIC radio...the "strength" of radio to younger listeners. But, it's more than merely the music. It is PRESENTATION.

Have you not picked up on this at ALL over the past decade of decline?
We who KNOW it is VITAL to broadcast with a real PRESENTATION in mind have attempted to tell you with the moneybags/stocks/"control" over and over again that you're not seeing the big picture because the bottom line is not where the listener looks. And if you're not paying attention to what the listener DOES, you certainly aren't figuring out what the habits of said listener is to an end point --- they don't listen to your station(s) because they are truly compelled to TUNE OUT that boring, tired, self-serving, loathesome crap you're helping to procreate. That's right - I am telling you that you are the CAUSE of the CRAP on the radio, those reasons that people like this 39-year-old woman I can cite who listens to her freaking mp3 player and her CD player more than her radio. That's right - she's 39 --- someone who has GROWN UP WITH RADIO and SHE LISTENS TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN HER RADIO MORE OFTEN THAN SHE LISTENS TO HER RADIO!!!!!!! And you ask me "how do you know this to be true?" Answer is simply stated - I've been there with her many hours over the past 10 days - in her car, in her house, at MY house, on the phone when she's going to and from work or other locations. What is the reason behind this woman's listening habits? YOU BORE THE CRAP OUT OF HER - YOU PLAY TOO MANY COMMERCIALS - YOU TALK TOO MUCH BETWEEN SONGS - YOU AREN'T GIVING HER SOMETHING SHE WANTS MUSICALLY - YOU ALMOST NEVER TELL HER WHO THE ARTIST/BAND WAS BEFORE OR AFTER THE SONG PLAYED --- SHE FINDS RADIO MORE DISTASTEFUL THAN A FEW YEARS AGO. It is ALL of these reasons and then some! Are you listening to this? She's 39. She's PRIME 25-54 listener material. Yeah - you're ignoring this one woman and probably all potential listeners between the ages of 18 and 54. Go ahead and kill the radio industry.

YOU - NAB, Clear Channel, and a whole host of others - have caused me to do something that you cannot personally do to me because I won't work for you or with you until you have changed your ways: you have caused me, a 20+ year professional broadcaster, to have a girlfriend who listens to the radio primarily "only because you're on the air." How STUPID does that make YOU feel now, Mark Mays? That should absolutely embarrass you. In 1990, I wanted to work for Jacor Communications - would have moved to Tampa myself if I would have had the balls to put a tape into WFLZ as "The Power Pig". Having witnessed how they clearly dominated a market in ONE BOOK, I was impressed. Sure - Randy Michaels tried to get you to listen to his "beefed up" approach to coming into dominance. It appears that he found your way of doing business more important than the way he helped develop Jacor - for now he looks like he's more of a "bottom line" person than a "kick ass with personality" radio professional. Wow - you (Mays and the rest of you consolidating sons of...) caused good men and women to think they were correct in approaching radio by dismissing personnel and forcing lower commissions and telling the listeners and broadcast professionals that this is the only way to seriously make the station viable in the long run.

WHAT CRAP! And that's not how I truly feel. I feel much worse about this industry than I should. THANK GOD I work in a Christian radio station right now. Maybe, just maybe, they'll hold onto the license long enough for me to retire when I am 92 years old - a full fifty years from now.

But --- sure --- Mark Mays...et al --- you know radio better than I do, or I'd have owned a radio station when I was 30. Right?

Ha! Deny the existence of your stupidity. Take the livelihood of TRUE professional broadcasters away by laying off (firing without just cause) hundreds of them/us again this year.

Really we just want to work for someone who CARES what goes on at their station and what the listeners care about in their community. Those stations will succeed, prosper, grow, eventually become legendary to their region. Sorry to say, legend status doesn't grow much these days in medium, large, and major markets - and because so many of you "bottom line" owners bought well down into the small markets, there's little chance of creativity there, too, most of the time.

Okay - maybe I got a bit fired up. But, it's about time someone at the "lower level" shows up and says something with fire in their belly.

I'm not a manager, although I should be. I'm not programming a major market station or doing afternoon drive on a large market station - but I probably can do that better than most radio CEOs these days...in talk, music, variety. And there are people who can BLOW ME AWAY who cannot even get a job right now because of you....

...bottom line idiots.