Contributor Rick Moran catches the Los Angeles Times forsaking balanced reporting for sheer propaganda aimed at convincing the public that today's economy is somehow like the Carter economy.

I found this article on the economy in the LA Times interesting for two reasons. First, it mentions 'stagflation,' perhaps the first time that word has been seen in print in any context except an historical one in a quarter century. Second, one of the economists using the term is a moonbat:

A separate Fed survey of regional economic conditions released Wednesday showed that the economy was slowing, led by declines in home sales and manufacturing, and that inflation was on the rise.

Other recent data — including retail sales, employment and wage data from April and May — suggest that the Fed's previous rate hikes are slowing the economy. Economists said more increases by the Fed would run the risk of inducing a recession — and wouldn't have much effect on inflation anyway because it was largely driven by the global demand for oil.

'The economy could be facing a bout with stagflation,' said Peter Morici, a University of Maryland business school professor. 'My feeling is we're headed for a tragedy here.'

Dean Baker, co—director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said he also viewed stagflation as a possibility as credit tightening further damps the housing market and puts a crimp on the spending of homeowners.

'The May price data provides grounds for concern on several fronts,' he said.

'I think we're in for some tough times.'

Rick correctly notes the absurdity of terming 5% plus growth and under—5% inflation as stagflation. He also correctly calls it wishful thinking and castigates the LAT for quoting only lefty economists.

While the LAT is being punished by readers deserting it, the Tribune Company, its owner, is reportedly considering retsructuring, a euphemism for selling off assets. Apparently, nobody has considered the option of turning the LAT back toward actual journalism instead of PR flackery for anti—Bush ideologues. Perhaps the organization is so dominated by partisans that such a course is hopeless.

Thomas Lifson  6 16 06