Doublespeak?

Two Reuter’s headlines caught my eye in the past two days. Yesterday one said that GM lost 4.1 billion dollars in ’09 but “hoped” to turn a profit in ’10 and “if so” would be able to return to “public ownership”. This makes me wonder what the current definition of ‘public’ is? If the Federal government now own’s a majority stock position in the company and this doesn’t qualify as ‘public’ then does this mean that returning the company to ‘private owners’ makes the ownership ‘public’? My brain is starting to hurt.

Then another headline today says “Fed officials warn on bubbles but Bernanke cautious”. Now usually I would assume that using the word ‘cautious’ means that one is being conservative and taking the less risky route. Not so in this article – as you read further you discover that those warning of the dangers to our country’s well being through artificially low interest levels are ‘dissenters’ and that Bernanke and his crew that advocate easy money are being “cautious”.

Please help me to understand what ‘public’ and ‘cautious’ really mean?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: