Beat the Press is Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting. Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

Follow on Twitter Like on Facebook Subscribe by E-mail RSS Feed

Morning Edition had an interview (sorry, not posted yet) with Republican Senator Ben Sasse talk about the need for honest leadership. He was critical of Donald Trump's claims that he would help manufacturing workers. While the criticism is justified, Sasse condemned the idea of turning to protectionism.

Of course, the United States would not have to turn to protectionism: it has been practicing selective protectionism for decades. We have maintained the barriers that largely protect our doctors, dentists, and other highly paid professionals from foreign competition. This allows doctors and dentists to earn twice as much as their counterparts in Canada and Western Europe.

We also have been pushing longer and stronger patent and copyright protection in both trade deals and domestic law. This is the reason that we pay $440 billion (2.3 percent of GDP) a year for prescription drugs rather than their free market price, which would likely be in the range of $40 billion to $80 billion. 

The protection for highly paid professionals and patent and copyrights are a major part of the upward redistribution of the last four decades. Unfortunately, Senator Sasse was not prepared to talk about this protectionism honestly even if he could condemn Donald Trump's flirtation with protectionism for manufacturing workers as being dishonest.

Add a comment

Trade denialism seems to be a fast-growing sector of the economy these days. Robert Samuelson, the Washington Post columnist, is one of the leading practitioners. In today's column, he has a new study by Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Zhiyao “Lucy” Lu from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which tells us both that the job loss from imports was not a really big deal and also that we have gained hugely from trade.

The gist of the job loss exercise is to take the period from 2001 to 2016, measure the growth in imports, and then calculate the job loss over this fifteen year period. As Samuelson tells us:

"...the Peterson study estimates that from 2001 to 2016, imports displaced 312,500 jobs per year . Even this overstates the impact, because it ignores exports. In the same years, they boosted jobs by 156,250 annually, offsetting half the job loss."

He then tells us this is no big deal in an economy with 160 million workers that adds 200,000 jobs a month.

Some folks may beg to differ. First, the growth in exports doesn't really offset the gross job loss due to increased imports. The exports are generally in different industries and almost certainly in different factories. In other words, the jobs lost due to imports is the figure we should focus on in terms of the people who are seeing their lives disrupted.

It is also worth noting that the trade-related job loss was heavily concentrated over a narrow period of time, the explosion in the trade deficit from 2001 to 2007. While this took place during the George W. Bush presidency, the main cause was the run-up in the value of the dollar from the Clinton years, so we can make the blame bipartisan.

Anyhow, using the study's methodology, we get that the economy lost an average of 620,000 jobs a year due to imports in these six years, with almost 400,000 of the yearly job loss occurring in manufacturing. This means that almost 15 percent of the people employed in manufacturing may have seen their jobs disappear due to imports in this six-year time period. That doesn't seem like a minor issue.

Add a comment

The Washington Post ran a column by

"Canadian authorities do not inspect every shipment of products headed for the U.S. marketplace to ensure that packages don’t contain adulterated, counterfeit or illegal drugs. Canada does not have the resources to undertake such comprehensive searches, and the Canadian and U.S. governments are not currently set up to  facilitate such a program. Canada’s health-inspection regime is designed to ensure the safety of medications for Canadians, not for other countries."

While this is undoubtedly true, there is a little secret that fans of economics and logic have long known. With additional money, Canada could expand the size of its regulatory agency so it would have the resources to undertake such comprehensive searches.

And, where might Canada get the additional money? It can tax the drugs being sold to people in the United States. With the price of drugs in the United States often two or three times the price of drugs in Canada, there is plenty of room to impose a tax to cover the additional inspection costs and still leave massive savings for people in the United States.

The entire Food and Drug Administration budget for medical product safety last year was $2.7 billion. We will spend over $440 billion on prescription drugs in 2017. A small tax on whatever passes through Canada should easily cover the cost of inspections and, in fact, could cover the cost for Canada as well. This is a classic win-win through trade under which everyone can benefit.

Of course, Ms. Aglukkaq is correct that this is not a good solution to the problem of making drugs affordable in the U.S. We should be looking for alternatives to supporting research through government granted patent monopolies, as Senator Sanders has been doing. Along with Sherrod Brown and 15 other Democratic senators, Sanders has proposed money for a prize fund which would buy up the patents for approved drugs and put them in the public domain so that they could be sold at their free market price.

The bill also proposes that the government pay for the clinical testing of new drugs. The test results would be in the public domain, which would enormously benefit researchers and doctors when deciding which drugs to prescribe. And, the approved drug would also be available at free market prices.

The big problem is that, while drugs are cheap, patent monopolies make them expensive. Unfortunately, the Washington Post doesn't like people pointing things like this out on its opinion page. (It is probably worth mentioning that the Post gets large amounts of advertising revenue from drug companies.)

Add a comment

Bloomberg reports that Esther George, perhaps the Fed's biggest inflation hawk, has a new argument for raising interest rates: she claims that inflation is a big tax on the poor. This is peculiar for two reasons.

First, the people who are denied work as a result of higher interest rates will be disproportionately those at the bottom of the ladder: African Americans, Hispanics, and workers with less education. Furthermore, higher unemployment rates mean that the workers who have jobs will have less bargaining power and be less able to push up their wages. It's hard to see how people who lose jobs and get lower pay increases will benefit from a slightly lower inflation rate.

The other reason why the argument doesn't quite work is that even the modest inflation we have seen in recent years is driven almost entirely by rising rents.

Core Inflation Rate: Excluding Rent
core inf no shelter

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Higher interest rates could actually make rental inflation worse. An immediate effect of higher interest rates is lower construction. This will reduce the supply of housing in cities with rapidly rising rents, making the shortage of housing units worse. This will compound the negative effect of reduced labor market opportunities.

That hardly seems like a winning policy option for the poor.

Add a comment

Gretchen Morgenson had a good piece this weekend on fees paid by public pension funds. These fees are large and have grown rapidly in recent decades. The fees go to some of the richest people in the country, such as private equity and hedge fund managers (think of Peter Peterson or Mitt Romney).

The fees often do not correspond to any benefits to the pension funds in the form of higher returns. In other words, these fees are the equivalent of a massive welfare program under which the taxpayers are putting money in the pockets of some of the richest people in the country — for doing nothing.

A simple way to combat this taxpayer handout to the very wealthy is strong transparency requirements. If pension funds were required to public post the full terms of all contracts with pension fund advisers, private equity companies, and others involved in managing their money, along with the returns on the assets, it would likely cut down on the heist.

It's simple, but probably too big of a lift in the corrupt political environment of the U.S. today. 

Add a comment

The Washington Post had a very useful front page piece on the poor quality of dental care received by large segments of the population. It noted the high price of dental care, but never examines why it costs so much in the United States.

A big part of the story is that dentists earn on average $200,000 a year, roughly twice the average of their counterparts in Western Europe and Canada. This is in large part because our dentists benefit from protectionism. We prohibit qualified foreign dentists from practicing in the United States unless they graduate from a U.S. dental school (or in recent years, a Canadian school).

The price of dental equipment is also inflated due to the fact that it enjoys government-granted patent monopolies. In most cases, this equipment would be relatively cheap if it were sold in a free market. (Yes, we need to pay for the research that supports technological innovation, but there are alternative mechanisms. This issue and protection for dentists is discussed in Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer [it's free].)

Anyhow, this is yet another example of how the religiously pro-free trade Washington Post happily turns a blind eye to protectionism when it is the wealthy who benefit.

Add a comment

This is more of the "which way is up" problem in economics. Right now, we have lots of economists debating how best to reform the tax code. Most of them see increasing the incentive to save (which means not spending money) as an important goal.

Of course, more saving is not a good idea if we think the economy doesn't have enough demand to fully employ the workforce. I put myself in the group of economists who hold this view, but we are the minority these days. Most economists think that the economy is pretty close to full employment. That is why the Fed is raising interest rates. Presumably, this is also why people are worried about budget deficits, at least insofar as their concern about budget deficits has any real world rationale.

Anyhow, in this context the NYT is completely off the mark when it tells readers:

"Homeowners are moving less, creating a drag on the economy, fewer commissions for real estate brokers and a brutally competitive market for first-time home shoppers who cannot find much for sale and are likely to be disappointed by real estate’s spring selling season."

If people are spending less on real estate commissions and other costs associated with buying and selling homes, then they are saving more. Which, according to the economists trying to restructure the tax code, is a good thing. It will leave more resources for investment, leading to more rapid increases in productivity. (Again, I don't buy this. I think investment is being held back by a lack of demand, but that's just my fringe position.) 

The rest of the claim also doesn't make much sense. If more people sold their homes and then turned around and bought new homes, this would increase the number of homes for sale, but it would also increase the number of buyers on the market by roughly the same amount. There is only a net improvement for buyers if some of the sellers opt to rent, but the piece is not talking about people switching from owning to renting.

The data also don't support the claim that people are moving less frequently, as can be seen in one of the charts included with the article. It shows that the most recent rate of sales of existing homes, at 5.7 million annually, is somewhat above the level at the start of the last decade. It is even further above the mid-1990s pre-housing bubble rate. In other words, the rate of sales of existing homes is pretty much back to, or possibly even above, the rate we saw in more normal times — even if it is below the frenzy levels of the bubble years.

Add a comment

Binyamin Appelbaum had a good piece in the NYT presenting how mainstream economists assess the prospects for boosting growth with the sort of tax cuts proposed by the Trump administration. While the piece accurately conveys the range of views among the mainstream of the profession about the extent to which it is possible to boost GDP growth, it is worth noting that the mainstream of the profession has an absolutely horrible track record in this area. 

The piece tells us that the Federal Reserve Board puts the economy's potential growth rate at just 1.8 percent a year. It then presents views of several economists suggesting that a well-designed tax reform could raise this by 0.3 to 0.5 percentage points.

As recently as 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the economy could grow at a 2.5 percent annual rate for the period between 2018 and 2022 (see Summary Table 2). CBO's projections are usually near the center of the economic mainstream, so in the not distant past, many economists believed that the economy could sustain a 2.5 percent annual rate of growth.

It is also worth noting that there is enormous uncertainty about how low the unemployment rate can go without sparking inflation. CBO put the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) in the 5.2–5.4 percent range five years ago. In the most recent month, the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent. There is no evidence in the data of any acceleration in the rate of inflation.

This is important background. While it is probably true that the sort of tax reform proposed by Trump (i.e. giving rich people more money and creating more opportunities to game the tax code) will not provide much boost to growth, economists really don't have much basis for confidence in their own projections of the economy's potential. They have repeatedly been wrong by huge amounts in the past, so unless they suddenly learned a great deal of economics, we should view current projections with considerable skepticism.

Add a comment

I've had people ask me, so I went back to refresh my memory. Yes, it was very bad news as the Watergate scandal unfolded and Nixon was eventually forced to resign. The economy slipped into a recession beginning in November of 1973, with the unemployment rate rising from a low of 4.6 percent in October of 1973 to an eventual peak of 9.0 percent in May of 1975.

Unemployment Rate: 1970 to 1980
Unemploy 70s

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Having put these numbers on the table, I'm not sure how much of this can be attributed to Watergate and the crisis of the Nixon presidency. The proximate cause was the Arab oil embargo which quadrupled the price of oil at a time when the U.S. was far more dependent on oil than is currently the case. Nixon also removed the wage and controls which were intended to keep inflation under control through the 1972 election. Throw in a wheat deal with the Soviet Union that sent wheat prices soaring and you have a serious inflation problem.

The Fed responded by slamming on the brakes which gave us at the time what was considered to be a pretty awful recession. Would Nixon have done anything to save the economy if he wasn't struggling to save his presidency? It's hard to say to say what he could or would have done, but the story as it played out was not pretty.

Add a comment

The betting still seems to be that the Fed will raise rates in June, but it doesn't seem like the inflation data could be the reason. The numbers were again quite tame in April, with the overall CPI increasing by 0.2 percent in the month and the core by 0.1 percent. The year over year increase in the overall CPI is 2.2 percent, and 1.9 percent in the core. This puts inflation well below the 2.0 percent average rate (for the PCE deflator) being targeted by the Fed.

However, the weakness of inflation is even more striking if we look at a core CPI that excludes shelter. There is a logic to this, since shelter does not follow the same dynamic as other components in the CPI. Furthermore, the Fed is not going to reduce shelter costs by raising interest rates. In fact, by slowing construction and thereby reducing supply, it could well be raising shelter costs.

Here's the picture.

Core CPI Inflation, Excluding Shelter Costs
core inf no shelter
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The rate of inflation in this non-shelter core is 0.8 percent over the last year. Perhaps even more importantly, it is falling, not rising. This means that the extremely weak evidence of any acceleration in core inflation was completely due to rising rents. If we pull out housing, the rate of inflation in everything else is declining. 

So why does the Fed feel it has to raise rates?

Add a comment

In his presidential campaign, Donald Trump made a big point of beating up on China for its "currency manipulation." He said that China was ripping off the United States because of its large trade surplus with the U.S., which had cost us millions of manufacturing jobs.

Trump said the trade deficit was due to the fact that our "stupid" trade negotiators allowed China to get away with depressing the value of the yuan against the dollar. This makes Chinese goods relatively cheaper in world markets, giving them a competitive advantage. Trump promised to put an end to this currency manipulation. 

Last month, Trump met with China's President Xi Jinping. According to his own account, the topic of currency values did not come up. Trump said that he got along very well with President Xi and looked forward to his assistance in dealing with North Korea. He didn't want to spoil the relationship by bringing up currency.

The Washington Post today reported on a trade deal the Trump administration worked out with China. The piece says that the deal will open the door for beef exports to China. It also will remove obstacles that prevented U.S. financial services companies (e.g. Goldman Sachs) from operating in China. This agreement is undoubtedly good news for beef exporters, even if the impact is exaggerated (it might trivially raise the price of U.S. beef) and it surely is good news for the financial industry, but it doesn't do anything for the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Add a comment

As I like to point out, debates on economic policy suffer badly from the "which way is up problem." At the same time we are constantly hearing concerns about aging baby boomers and large budget deficits (too little supply and too much demand) we also hear stories about robots displacing workers and creating mass unemployment (too much supply and too little demand).

Either of these stories could, in principle, be true, but they can't possibly both be true at the same time. It speaks volumes for the confusion perpetuated in public debates that we do simultaneously hear both concerns raises. (I was once on a radio show where the other person was warning about robots taking all the jobs. He then said things will get even worse when the baby boomers retire and we have to pay for Social Security. Just think, we first have no jobs and then have no workers.)

Anyhow, the NYT had a story about a state-of-the-art auto factory in China which relies largely on robots to put together cars. This is interesting because there have been numerous stories about how China is going to meet some terrible fate as a result of its one child policy, which sharply curtailed population growth. Its labor force is projected to shrink over the next two decades.

In fact, there is basically zero reason for China to be worried about its shrinking labor force. China still has tens of millions of people employed in extremely low productivity agricultural work. It also has many older factories with outmoded technologies. These can be readily replaced with new factories, like the one highlighted here, which will have much higher productivity.

In short, there is pretty much nothing to the China labor shortage story. But on the plus side, many economists can be employed talking about it.

Add a comment

The people who run the economy have really screwed it up over the last four decades from the standpoint of ordinary workers. This is a bipartisan issue, so it's not a blame Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Trump story. Clinton and Obama were also willing to support a bloated financial sector and trade policies that redistributed upward by subjecting ordinary workers to low-wage competition while protecting doctors, dentists, and other highly paid professionals. This policy was made worse by the high dollar policy pushed by President Clinton which led to the massive expansion of the trade deficit in the years from 1997 to 2005.

They also supported longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies, policies that allow for hundreds of billions to be sucked away from the rest of us to pay the small group in a position to benefit from these rents. And both Democratic presidents (especially Clinton) were just fine with monetary policy that keeps millions of people (disproportionately African American and Hispanic) from having jobs and depresses the pay of tens of millions of workers who have jobs.

Anyhow, the key to ensuring that the bulk of the population benefits from future growth depends on reversing these policies. (Yes, this is the topic of my [free] book Rigged.) Naturally many of us would like public policy debates to focus on reversing the structural barriers that prevent most people in sharing the gains from growth.

However the beneficiaries of these gains don't really want public discussions of the policies that gave them all the money, hence we get a NYT column from Thomas Friedman with the title, "Owning your own future."

Add a comment

We hear endless stories in the media about how the robots are taking all the jobs. There was a new rush of such stories after the release of a study by Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo, which found that robots were responsible for a substantial share of the job loss in manufacturing in the last decade. (For example, this Bloomberg piece by Mira Rojanasakul and Peter Coy.)

However, there remains a very basic problem in the robot story, it is not showing up in the productivity data. To step back a minute, robots are supposed to replace human labor. This means that for the same number of hours of human work, we should see much higher output of goods and services, since the robots are now adding to total output. This is what productivity growth means.

So if robots are having a large impact on jobs, then we should see productivity growth going through the roof. Instead, it is falling through the floor. It has averaged less than 1.0 percent annually in the last decade. This compares to an average growth rate of 3.0 percent in the decade from 1995 to 2005 and also in the long Golden Age from 1947 to 1973.

Strikingly, productivity growth has been especially bad in manufacturing, the place where we see the greatest use of robots. Here's the picture since 1988, the period for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has a consistent series.

Productivity Growth in Manufacturing: Year over Year Change
Manu prod

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Over the last four years productivity growth in manufacturing averaged less than 0.2 percent annually. This compares to rates that often exceeded 4.0 percent in prior decades. This slowdown is especially striking since the rate of installation has increased sharply in recent years. According to data cited in the Bloomberg piece, we've added an average of 22,000 robots a year in the last three years. This compares to a peak of around 16,000 in the years before the Great Recession.

If robots are leading to massive job loss, then we should be seeing some serious gains in productivity. Instead the opposite has occurred. It's awful to let a good story be ruined by evidence, but it just doesn't seem that the use of robots will go far towards explaining the weakness of wage and job growth in the recovery.

Add a comment

Last week, Representative Peter DeFazio reintroduced his financial transactions tax (FTT) proposal. The bill would impose a tax 0.03 percent on trades of stock, bonds, options, and other derivative instruments. (That's 3 cents on $100 of trades.) This can be thought of as the equivalent of a sales tax imposed on financial transactions, which are now largely untaxed.

According to the Joint Tax Committee, this tax would raise roughly $400 billion over a 10-year budget horizon. This translates into 0.2 percent of GDP. That would cover about 60 percent of the annual food stamp budget.

The tax would also dampen speculative trading on Wall Street. Many trades that involve flipping assets in a matter of minutes or even seconds would become unprofitable with even this small tax. This could make financial markets more stable.

But the really neat aspect of this tax is that it all comes out of the hide of Wall Street, rather than ordinary investors. Considerable research shows that trading volume declines roughly in proportion to the increase in trading costs.

This means that if the DeFazio proposal would raise trading costs by one-third, then trading volume would fall by roughly one-third. Investors will pay one third more on each trade, but they will carry out one-third fewer trades. This means their total cost of trading with the tax will be no larger than it was without the tax. (The Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brooking Institution actually assumed that trading volume fall by 25 percent more than the percentage increase in trading costs, meaning that total trading costs would fall as a result of the tax.)

Add a comment

The NYT had a piece discussing some of the potential economic ramifications of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The article points out that the health care sector has been a major source of job growth in recent decades. If we cut back spending on health care, then presumable employment growth in the sector would slow.

There are few points to be made here. First, job growth in health care is only desirable insofar as it is improving people's health. More people who directly provide care, doctors, nurses, physical therapists, fit this bill. People working in providers' office dealing with insurance forms do not. So if the repeal were to lead to more of the former and less of the latter (unlikely) that would be a positive development.

But beyond providing health care, the sector has been an important source of jobs, as the piece notes. Suppose that the job growth in the sector slows due to less money going to pay for people's health care. The question is then what happens to the money saved?

Most immediately, the money saved will go the country's richest people in the form of tax cuts. The question is then whether they will save or spend it? One of the economy's major economic problems, at least since the collapse of the housing bubble, has been not enough spending. If we give Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos another hundred million a year or so, do we think they will increase their consumption? My guess is no, which means we are reducing demand in the economy.

Add a comment

The Washington Post has long pushed the view that a dollar (or euro) that is in the pocket of a middle-class person is a dollar that should be in the pockets of the rich. (They are okay with crumbs for the poor.) In keeping with this position, in its lead editorial today the Post complained about the "sclerotic statism" of the French economy. It then called for increasing employment, "through reforms of the labor code, not by protectionism or restriction of immigration."

It is worth bringing a little bit of data to the fact free zone of the Washington Post opinion pages. France actually has consistently had a higher employment rate for its prime-age workers (ages 25 to 54) than the United States.

Book2 16029 image001

Source: OECD.

As can be seen, the employment rate for prime-age workers in France was roughly 2 percentage points higher in 2003. The gap expanded to almost 7 percentage points following the downturn, but it has in more recent years narrowed again to just under 2 percentage points.

France does have much lower employment rates among younger and older workers than the United States, but this is due to policy choices. College is largely free in France and students get stipends from the government. Therefore, many fewer young people work. France also makes it much easier for people to retire in their early sixties than in the United States, with largely free health care and earlier pensions. The merits of these policies can be debated, but they are not evidence of a sclerotic economy.

It is also not clear that the Washington Post's desire to weaken protections for workers (euphemistically described as "reforms of the labor code") will have a significant effect in reducing unemployment or raising employment. Extensive research has shown there is little relationship between worker protections and employment. It is also worth noting that the Post denounced protectionism in this editorial, but it is fine with protectionism in the form of ever longer and stronger copyright and patent protection, which benefit people it likes.

The most obvious reason that France's employment rates have not returned to pre-recession levels is the austerity demanded by Germany, which it is able to impose on France through its control of the euro. There is little reason to believe that if France were able to spend another 1–2 percent of its GDP on infrastructure, training, and other forms of public investment, its economy and employment would not expand.

The Post is of course a big fan of austerity. Rather than acknowledging that a lack of demand is the main factor keeping workers from being employed, it would rather blame the workers for lacking the right skills.

Add a comment

The Washington Post featured a short explainer on trade deficits by Martin Feldstein, a Harvard Professor and head of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, and George Schultz, a former Secretary of Labor, Treasury, and State.

The piece told readers that we have trade deficits because the United States as a country consumes more than it produces. It added that the only way to reduce the trade deficit is by increasing domestic savings, for example by reducing the federal budget deficit.

As every economist knows, we can also increase savings by increasing output, unless the economy is already producing at its potential level of output. This means that if we reduced the trade deficit, for example, by lowering the value of the dollar, which makes U.S.-produced goods and services more competitive internationally, we can increase output and thereby also increase savings. (Savings rise in step with income.)

While the identity between savings and trade deficit referenced by Feldstein and Schultz always holds, unless the economy is producing at its potential level of output, we can increase output and employment by reducing the trade deficit.

Simple, isn’t it? Now why would these distinguished economists try to mislead people?

Add a comment

Susan Dynarksi had a very good piece in the NYT Upshot section on several measures from the Trump administration which will allow the financial industry to collect larger fees from student loans. However, the piece errs in describing the changes as being "deregulation." Rather these changes are ways in which the government is deliberately choosing not to enforce contracts in ways that increase corporate profits at the expense of student borrowers.

Suppose that the government announced that it was going to stop making efforts to verify income among people applying for food stamps. In fact, suppose it decided to no longer even verify the number of children an applicant was claiming. Would anyone consider this move "deregulation?"

This is comparable to what the government is doing in reference to the firms involved in the student loan repayment process. The purpose of the loans is make it easier for kids from low- and middle-income families to attend college. The government is supposed to design contracts that fill this purpose at the lowest cost to both the government and the students.

The measures being taken by the Trump administration are not likely to lower costs for the government and are almost certainly going to raise them for students. In effect, it is making the contracts more advantageous to the financial industry by subjecting students to higher fees.

Calling this "deregulation" might lead readers to believe there is some principle at stake here. There isn't. As with most of the actions of the Trump administration, the only principle is giving more money to the rich and powerful.

Add a comment

Actually, the article told people that he wanted to spend 50 billion euros. Is that big for the French economy? Would it matter if it were over one year or ten years?

Apparently, the NYT doesn't think so, since the article never tells people how long a period is covered by the proposal. For those who might care about such trivia, the proposal is for a five-year period, putting it at roughly 10 billion euros a year. Since France's GDP is projected to average roughly 2.5 trillion euros annually over this period, the proposal would cost approximately 0.4 percent of GDP.

Is this really that hard?

Is there some reason that a reporter covering the French presidential elections can't tell us the number of years involved in a spending program? It does make a difference.

How about some information, like the share of GDP, that would put the measure in a context that would be meaningful to NYT readers. I know the paper has a well-educated readership, but I am willing to bet that fewer than one in ten could tell you France's GDP within a 25 percent margin of error.

None of this should be controversial. When she was the NYT's Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan wrote a very nice column on exactly this point. She got then Washington editor David Leonhardt to strongly agree with her.

What's the problem here? The newspaper is supposed to be providing its readers with information. Providing a large number without any context is not providing information.

Add a comment

Theresa Brown is far too generous to the U.S. health care system in her NYT column. She tells readers:

"Health care in the United States is more expensive because, unlike the systems in other countries, ours rests on the idea that profits and quality health care go hand in hand."

It is far too generous to say that any idea is behind the structure of the U.S. health care system. When the drug companies push for longer and stronger patent protection or doctors are trying to restrict competition, they aren't pursuing ideas, they are trying to increase their incomes. No one should pretend there is some general principle at stake here.

Add a comment