When I was working at Morgan Stanley, I had a colleague who is one of those guys who can explain what an idiot you are without ever uttering an epithet. He employs an economy of language that I envy and a deceptively simple approach to what is often covered in layers of jargon and shibboleth. Whenever a client would call up and ask him, say, why the market went down that particular day, he would answer “More sellers than buyers.”

The other day, The Paper of Record published a story on the economy that included this gem:

For every encouraging sign, there is an explanation. Consumer confidence is bouncing back from what were arguably some of its worst readings in years. Gasoline prices - the national average is now $2.15, according to the Energy Information Administration - have fallen because higher prices held down demand and Gulf Coast supplies have been slowly restored.

I know that the press considers itself to be the nun at the party, and I don’t think that this article is directed at the current administration. (If Mr. Clinton, or Ms Clinton for that matter, was president, The NYT would likely print much the same article. And partisans would be bitching about the unfairness of it all). It’s merely an illustration of the media mindset that requires it to play Cassandra at every possible opportunity.

However, the graf quoted also betrays a profound lack of understanding vis-a-vis market economies. Allow me to explain.

Prices go up, demand goes down. Demand goes down, prices go down. Prices go down, demand goes up. Demand goes up, prices go up. Prices go up…

Those uncomfortable with the law stated above should reflect on the wicked success of the world’s command economies.

Those unfamiliar with a basic law of economics shouldn’t be writing articles in The New York Times.