´óÏó´«Ã½

America's top banker says the country's biggest economic problem is confidence. But is he doing enough to inspire it? Ben Bernanke's analysis is that after what he calls the "eruption of the Panic of 2008" (his capital letter), the world rose to the challenge and by the end of last year, economies were growing and international trade was expanding.

But now he says it is clear that "economic recovery and repair is far from complete". His summary of what has not been going so well makes gloomy reading at the end of a week of fairly dreadful statistics.

America's top banker says "growth... has been too slow", labour market figures "have remained disappointing" with private-sector jobs growing "only sluggishly" and he was "surprised by the sharp deterioration" of the balance of trade, concluding that "the economy remains vulnerable".

His essential analysis is that "the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed somewhat in recent months, in part because of slower-than-expected growth in consumer spending". The worry over jobs is central.

"The prospect of high unemployment for a long period of time remains a central concern of policy. Not only does high unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, impose heavy costs on the unemployed and their families and on society, but it also poses risks to the sustainability of the recovery itself through its effects on households' incomes and confidence."

To me, this comprehensively depressing outlook seemed to be the top line of the story, so I was surprised to see the headline in the respected online newspaper The Hill.

It's true he certainly said it, and The Hill is not alone. The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post has a toned-down version of it.

Perhaps it is just a question of gloomy Brits versus ever-optimistic Yanks, but the Economist is that when you look at how the Fed might support recovery, Bernanke rules out three of the four options he puts forward and suggests that the fourth will only be needed if things get much worse, and then it has some downsides.

I am not qualified to comment on his economic analysis but it seems odd to me that the speech is oddly unspun. The media have been allowed to pick and choose whatever interpretation they choose. There is no juicy soundbite, because the whole thing was "off camera". He doesn't appear to have given any interviews afterwards. No other member of the administration has felt moved on this Friday afternoon to come forward to offer his or her gloss.

So if you feel more confident as a result of the speech, fine. But no-one is prepared to guide you that way (except some journalists). Good economics? I don't know. But it's bad politics.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?