You have to love Robert Samuelson. He writes a column noting that baby boomers are leaving the workforce, and some are dying off, leaving the country to our children and grandchildren. He concludes the piece with a comment on the national debt.
“To boot, there’s also a massive federal debt. Good luck.”
Given the enormous damage that we have done to the environment, our children and grandchildren would be enormously forgiving if all they blamed us for is the national debt. Of course, since we (baby boomers) will all be dead at some point, we will also be passing on the bonds that constitute the national debt to our children and grandchildren.
Most kids will not be inheriting bonds, due to the inequality of wealth, but at some future point, the debt will be held by the children and grandchildren of Bill Gates and his ilk, making the debt an issue of intra-generational inequality, not inter-generational inequality. But even beyond this logical point, the burden of the debt is also relatively low these days, around 1.0 percent of GDP, as opposed to 3.0 percent of GDP in the early 1990s. So it’s hard to see what the big deal is.
Also, Samuelson consistently ignores (like all deficit hawks) the implicit debt that the government creates by granting patent and copyright monopolies. These government-granted monopolies raise the price of items like prescription drugs, medical equipment, software, and other products by many hundred billion dollars annually above the free market price. Yet, the deficit hawks want us to pay no attention to this burden. If I were more cynical I would think they were getting money from the interest groups that benefit from these monopolies.
Anyhow, if the only thing our kids think we did was wrong was run up large government debt, then we failed big-time in giving them a decent education.
You have to love Robert Samuelson. He writes a column noting that baby boomers are leaving the workforce, and some are dying off, leaving the country to our children and grandchildren. He concludes the piece with a comment on the national debt.
“To boot, there’s also a massive federal debt. Good luck.”
Given the enormous damage that we have done to the environment, our children and grandchildren would be enormously forgiving if all they blamed us for is the national debt. Of course, since we (baby boomers) will all be dead at some point, we will also be passing on the bonds that constitute the national debt to our children and grandchildren.
Most kids will not be inheriting bonds, due to the inequality of wealth, but at some future point, the debt will be held by the children and grandchildren of Bill Gates and his ilk, making the debt an issue of intra-generational inequality, not inter-generational inequality. But even beyond this logical point, the burden of the debt is also relatively low these days, around 1.0 percent of GDP, as opposed to 3.0 percent of GDP in the early 1990s. So it’s hard to see what the big deal is.
Also, Samuelson consistently ignores (like all deficit hawks) the implicit debt that the government creates by granting patent and copyright monopolies. These government-granted monopolies raise the price of items like prescription drugs, medical equipment, software, and other products by many hundred billion dollars annually above the free market price. Yet, the deficit hawks want us to pay no attention to this burden. If I were more cynical I would think they were getting money from the interest groups that benefit from these monopolies.
Anyhow, if the only thing our kids think we did was wrong was run up large government debt, then we failed big-time in giving them a decent education.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The New York Times had an article on the Middle East peace plan being developed by Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. The piece tells readers:
“The idea is to secure financial commitments from wealthy Persian Gulf states as well as donors in Europe and Asia to induce the Palestinians and their allies to make political concessions to resolve the decades-old conflict with Israel. The White House has indicated that it is seeking tens of billions of dollars but would not identify a precise figure; diplomats and lawmakers have been told the goal is about $68 billion for the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.”
This is obviously quite vague, but it might be helpful to readers to put this $68 billion figure in context. First, it is a bit more than half of the estimated fortune of Jeff Bezos.
More importantly, if we take the total population of the four groups listed, it comes to roughly 120 million. This means that the sum that Trump and Kushner hope to raise to induce a commitment to their peace plan comes to $560 per person. This seems to be a one-time figure rather than any ongoing commitment of aid.
The New York Times had an article on the Middle East peace plan being developed by Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. The piece tells readers:
“The idea is to secure financial commitments from wealthy Persian Gulf states as well as donors in Europe and Asia to induce the Palestinians and their allies to make political concessions to resolve the decades-old conflict with Israel. The White House has indicated that it is seeking tens of billions of dollars but would not identify a precise figure; diplomats and lawmakers have been told the goal is about $68 billion for the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.”
This is obviously quite vague, but it might be helpful to readers to put this $68 billion figure in context. First, it is a bit more than half of the estimated fortune of Jeff Bezos.
More importantly, if we take the total population of the four groups listed, it comes to roughly 120 million. This means that the sum that Trump and Kushner hope to raise to induce a commitment to their peace plan comes to $560 per person. This seems to be a one-time figure rather than any ongoing commitment of aid.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That apparently is the assumption of the paper’s editors. An article that discussed the impact of the debate on global warming on this weekend’s election told readers of a study pushed by proponents of inaction which:
“estimated that the 45 percent reduction in carbon emissions proposed by the opposition Labor Party would cost the economy 167,000 jobs and 264 billion Australian dollars, or $181 million.”
In case readers did not know how important 167,000 jobs are to Australia, it is equal to a bit less than 1.3 percent of its current workforce. (The calculation of job loss in these models is typically associated with a reduction in pay due to carbon taxes, which means fewer people will decide to work.) The loss of GDP is equal to 0.8 percent of projected GDP, according to the model.
Since it is likely that most NYT readers have no idea how large Australia’s workforce is, or the size of its economy, it might have been useful to include context that would make these numbers meaningful.
That apparently is the assumption of the paper’s editors. An article that discussed the impact of the debate on global warming on this weekend’s election told readers of a study pushed by proponents of inaction which:
“estimated that the 45 percent reduction in carbon emissions proposed by the opposition Labor Party would cost the economy 167,000 jobs and 264 billion Australian dollars, or $181 million.”
In case readers did not know how important 167,000 jobs are to Australia, it is equal to a bit less than 1.3 percent of its current workforce. (The calculation of job loss in these models is typically associated with a reduction in pay due to carbon taxes, which means fewer people will decide to work.) The loss of GDP is equal to 0.8 percent of projected GDP, according to the model.
Since it is likely that most NYT readers have no idea how large Australia’s workforce is, or the size of its economy, it might have been useful to include context that would make these numbers meaningful.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is the logic of a major article on the idea of a Green New Deal which equates measures to stem global warming with big government and socialism. If we recognize the emission of greenhouse gases as an externality that is doing serious harm to others, then it is equivalent to massive dumping of sewage on other people’s lawns.
Most of us would not think that government action to prevent this sort of massive sewage dump was “big government” or socialism. It is government that is taking the action necessary to protect people’s rights.
This is effectively the story that we are looking at with a Green New Deal. It is understandable that opponents of actions to stop global warming would describe a Green New Deal as big government, but it is not clear why the Post would choose to do so.
That is the logic of a major article on the idea of a Green New Deal which equates measures to stem global warming with big government and socialism. If we recognize the emission of greenhouse gases as an externality that is doing serious harm to others, then it is equivalent to massive dumping of sewage on other people’s lawns.
Most of us would not think that government action to prevent this sort of massive sewage dump was “big government” or socialism. It is government that is taking the action necessary to protect people’s rights.
This is effectively the story that we are looking at with a Green New Deal. It is understandable that opponents of actions to stop global warming would describe a Green New Deal as big government, but it is not clear why the Post would choose to do so.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s what Sarah Jeong says in a New York Times column. The piece argues that if Uber drivers got a living wage then Uber would just turn to using driverless cars.
It is an interesting possibility. The argument is that higher pay is a major driver of productivity growth, as it forces companies to use workers more efficiently and to invest in labor saving equipment. Many progressive economists have long made this argument, although it is rejected within the mainstream of the economics profession.
It is possible that we are seeing some evidence of this story in recent productivity data, which show productivity had risen 2.4 percent over the last year. While this is still far below the 3.0 percent growth rate of the long Golden Age from 1947 to 1973 (and again from 1995 to 2005), it is a big improvement over the 1.3 percent rate from 2005 to 2017.
If this increase proves to be real (productivity data are highly erratic) it will primarily be a story of employers being forced to use workers more efficiently in a tight labor market with 3.6 percent unemployment. Investment was not especially strong in 2018, so there was no mass displacement of workers by capital. Anyhow, if we can continue to pursue high employment policies and use higher minimum wages and other measures to sustain wage growth, we may see a more rapid pace of productivity growth going forward, with workers reaping benefits in the form of more rapidly rising wages.
That’s what Sarah Jeong says in a New York Times column. The piece argues that if Uber drivers got a living wage then Uber would just turn to using driverless cars.
It is an interesting possibility. The argument is that higher pay is a major driver of productivity growth, as it forces companies to use workers more efficiently and to invest in labor saving equipment. Many progressive economists have long made this argument, although it is rejected within the mainstream of the economics profession.
It is possible that we are seeing some evidence of this story in recent productivity data, which show productivity had risen 2.4 percent over the last year. While this is still far below the 3.0 percent growth rate of the long Golden Age from 1947 to 1973 (and again from 1995 to 2005), it is a big improvement over the 1.3 percent rate from 2005 to 2017.
If this increase proves to be real (productivity data are highly erratic) it will primarily be a story of employers being forced to use workers more efficiently in a tight labor market with 3.6 percent unemployment. Investment was not especially strong in 2018, so there was no mass displacement of workers by capital. Anyhow, if we can continue to pursue high employment policies and use higher minimum wages and other measures to sustain wage growth, we may see a more rapid pace of productivity growth going forward, with workers reaping benefits in the form of more rapidly rising wages.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
I’m not kidding. The first sentence of an article on the Trump administration’s plans to impose a 17.5 percent tariff on Mexican tomatoes told readers:
“The United States will impose a 17.5 percent tariff on Mexican tomato imports starting Tuesday, and economists say that could lead to shortages and price increases of up to 85 percent as soon as this winter.”
The idea that more than 400 percent of a tariff could be passed on to U.S. consumers should strike readers as a bit bizarre. After all, if the full 17.5 percent tariff was passed on to U.S. consumers in higher prices, then Mexican producers are getting just as much money on each pound of tomatoes they sell as before the tariff was in place. This means that they have as much incentive to grow and sell tomatoes in the U.S. market as they did previously.
It is undoubtedly possible to construct a model with unusual supply assumptions that could lead to the sort of soaring prices described in the first sentence of the piece, but these would almost certainly be implausible. The Post piece tells us that the 85 percent price rise came from “analysis by economists at Arizona State University conducted in April.”
The Post article neglected to tell readers that the study, which does not appear to be available on the web, was commissioned by the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas.
While it is likely that this tariff will lead to a substantial increase in the price of tomatoes in the United States, and is probably a bad idea for many reasons, the Post should not be in the business in disguising industry propaganda and passing it along uncritically to readers. It seems this is acceptable in discussions of trade policy (unless the issue is protecting items like prescription drugs or doctors), but it is not good journalism.
I’m not kidding. The first sentence of an article on the Trump administration’s plans to impose a 17.5 percent tariff on Mexican tomatoes told readers:
“The United States will impose a 17.5 percent tariff on Mexican tomato imports starting Tuesday, and economists say that could lead to shortages and price increases of up to 85 percent as soon as this winter.”
The idea that more than 400 percent of a tariff could be passed on to U.S. consumers should strike readers as a bit bizarre. After all, if the full 17.5 percent tariff was passed on to U.S. consumers in higher prices, then Mexican producers are getting just as much money on each pound of tomatoes they sell as before the tariff was in place. This means that they have as much incentive to grow and sell tomatoes in the U.S. market as they did previously.
It is undoubtedly possible to construct a model with unusual supply assumptions that could lead to the sort of soaring prices described in the first sentence of the piece, but these would almost certainly be implausible. The Post piece tells us that the 85 percent price rise came from “analysis by economists at Arizona State University conducted in April.”
The Post article neglected to tell readers that the study, which does not appear to be available on the web, was commissioned by the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas.
While it is likely that this tariff will lead to a substantial increase in the price of tomatoes in the United States, and is probably a bad idea for many reasons, the Post should not be in the business in disguising industry propaganda and passing it along uncritically to readers. It seems this is acceptable in discussions of trade policy (unless the issue is protecting items like prescription drugs or doctors), but it is not good journalism.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had a piece today on the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of Uber and other recent start-ups. It notes that this generation of tech start-ups has waited much longer than the start-ups of the dot-com era to go public. The piece tells readers that this longer period gives:
“start-ups have had more runway to figure out sustainable business models while avoiding the public eye.”
The problem with this assertion is that start-ups like Uber and Lyft don’t seem to have developed a sustainable business model. In Uber’s case it is losing billions of dollars a year, even as it is likely to face higher costs going forward due to efforts at various governmental levels requiring it to obey labor laws. It seems investors are still prepared to pay billions for these companies, but that seems to have little connection to whether they have a sustainable business model.
The NYT had a piece today on the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of Uber and other recent start-ups. It notes that this generation of tech start-ups has waited much longer than the start-ups of the dot-com era to go public. The piece tells readers that this longer period gives:
“start-ups have had more runway to figure out sustainable business models while avoiding the public eye.”
The problem with this assertion is that start-ups like Uber and Lyft don’t seem to have developed a sustainable business model. In Uber’s case it is losing billions of dollars a year, even as it is likely to face higher costs going forward due to efforts at various governmental levels requiring it to obey labor laws. It seems investors are still prepared to pay billions for these companies, but that seems to have little connection to whether they have a sustainable business model.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
