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
CBS News had a piece warning its audience about the problems of large government debt. It noted projections of rising US government debt, commenting:
“The only countries with a higher debt load than the US are Portugal, Italy, Greece and Japan. The first three have become synonymous with profligate spending and economic woes post-Great Recession, while Japan’s lost decade of economic stagnation is a mainstay of economic textbooks.”
The first three countries are all in the euro zone. They do not have their own currency, but rather must adhere to rules set by the European Central Bank and the European Commission. Their situation is comparable to that of a state in the United States. No one disputes that it would be a big problem for Utah or California to run up very large debts.
Japan is the country most comparable, but the textbooks CBS refers to seem not to be very reliable. According to the IMF, Japan’s per capita GDP has increased by an average rate of 0.9 percent annually between 1990 and 2018, while this is somewhat less than the 1.5 percent rate in the United States, it is hardly a disaster. In addition, average hours per worker fell 15.8 percent in Japan over this period, compared to a decline of just 2.9 percent in the United States.
In spite of having a debt-to-GDP ratio that is more than twice as large as the United States, the country does not provide evidence to support the warnings CBS gives about large deficits. Its long-term interest rates are near zero, meaning the debt is not crowding out investment. Its interest payments on its debt are roughly 0.5 percent of GDP ($100 billion in the United States), indicating that they are not crowding out other spending priorities. And, its inflation rate is just over 1.0 percent, indicating that profligate spending has not led to a problem with inflation.
CBS News had a piece warning its audience about the problems of large government debt. It noted projections of rising US government debt, commenting:
“The only countries with a higher debt load than the US are Portugal, Italy, Greece and Japan. The first three have become synonymous with profligate spending and economic woes post-Great Recession, while Japan’s lost decade of economic stagnation is a mainstay of economic textbooks.”
The first three countries are all in the euro zone. They do not have their own currency, but rather must adhere to rules set by the European Central Bank and the European Commission. Their situation is comparable to that of a state in the United States. No one disputes that it would be a big problem for Utah or California to run up very large debts.
Japan is the country most comparable, but the textbooks CBS refers to seem not to be very reliable. According to the IMF, Japan’s per capita GDP has increased by an average rate of 0.9 percent annually between 1990 and 2018, while this is somewhat less than the 1.5 percent rate in the United States, it is hardly a disaster. In addition, average hours per worker fell 15.8 percent in Japan over this period, compared to a decline of just 2.9 percent in the United States.
In spite of having a debt-to-GDP ratio that is more than twice as large as the United States, the country does not provide evidence to support the warnings CBS gives about large deficits. Its long-term interest rates are near zero, meaning the debt is not crowding out investment. Its interest payments on its debt are roughly 0.5 percent of GDP ($100 billion in the United States), indicating that they are not crowding out other spending priorities. And, its inflation rate is just over 1.0 percent, indicating that profligate spending has not led to a problem with inflation.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Of course, he wouldn’t do that. Steven Rattner isn’t concerned about the hundreds of billions (perhaps more than $1 trillion) that the government redistributes upward each year in the form of patent and copyright rents. These rents, which come to close to $400 billion annually for prescription drugs alone, are a direct and intended result of the monopolies that the government gives companies and individuals as a way of paying for innovation and creative work.
But Steven Rattner isn’t concerned about this enormous burden on our children, which makes folks like Bill Gates incredibly rich. Instead, he is worried about the much smaller burden of the interest on the debt, which currently nets out (after deducting money rebated by the Federal Reserve Board) to around $200 billion a year or 1.0 percent of GDP. He also is not concerned about the fact that the income of our children may be $1 trillion a year less, which has the same effect on living standards as paying another $1 trillion a year in higher taxes ($3,000 per person), because of the austerity that people like him demanded in the years following the Great Recession.
For some reason, no matter how much damage these people cause and how little sense their arguments make, we are still supposed to take their views seriously. Any ideas why?
Of course, he wouldn’t do that. Steven Rattner isn’t concerned about the hundreds of billions (perhaps more than $1 trillion) that the government redistributes upward each year in the form of patent and copyright rents. These rents, which come to close to $400 billion annually for prescription drugs alone, are a direct and intended result of the monopolies that the government gives companies and individuals as a way of paying for innovation and creative work.
But Steven Rattner isn’t concerned about this enormous burden on our children, which makes folks like Bill Gates incredibly rich. Instead, he is worried about the much smaller burden of the interest on the debt, which currently nets out (after deducting money rebated by the Federal Reserve Board) to around $200 billion a year or 1.0 percent of GDP. He also is not concerned about the fact that the income of our children may be $1 trillion a year less, which has the same effect on living standards as paying another $1 trillion a year in higher taxes ($3,000 per person), because of the austerity that people like him demanded in the years following the Great Recession.
For some reason, no matter how much damage these people cause and how little sense their arguments make, we are still supposed to take their views seriously. Any ideas why?
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Catherine Rampell noted in her column today the sharp slowing in health care cost growth in the last decade. This is an important point, which has received remarkably little attention. The Medicare projections and the budget projections more generally look far better than would otherwise be the case because of lower than projected health care cost growth. (It is hard to understand why the Obama administration did not try to take more credit for the slower cost growth.)
Anyhow, there is an important point to add to this picture. There has been a similar slowing in most other wealthy countries. According to data from the OECD, between 1990 and 2008, per person spending rose at a 6.7 percent annual rate. It slowed to a 4.8 percent rate in the years from 2008 to 2017. In Spain, spending growth declined from 6.9 percent to 2.2 percent. In the Netherlands the decline was from 5.9 percent to 3.4 percent. And in France the decline was from 5.5 percent to 3.2 percent.
While the slower growth in the United States is good news (it’s actually associated with better health among the elderly population where the slowing was sharpest), it seems that the driving force goes beyond policy changes in the United States. Some of the slowing in European countries was undoubtedly the result of austerity imposed by deficit-obsessed governments. But it is striking that the slowdown occurs in most wealthy countries at roughly the same time. And, this is in spite of an aging population that requires more health care.
Catherine Rampell noted in her column today the sharp slowing in health care cost growth in the last decade. This is an important point, which has received remarkably little attention. The Medicare projections and the budget projections more generally look far better than would otherwise be the case because of lower than projected health care cost growth. (It is hard to understand why the Obama administration did not try to take more credit for the slower cost growth.)
Anyhow, there is an important point to add to this picture. There has been a similar slowing in most other wealthy countries. According to data from the OECD, between 1990 and 2008, per person spending rose at a 6.7 percent annual rate. It slowed to a 4.8 percent rate in the years from 2008 to 2017. In Spain, spending growth declined from 6.9 percent to 2.2 percent. In the Netherlands the decline was from 5.9 percent to 3.4 percent. And in France the decline was from 5.5 percent to 3.2 percent.
While the slower growth in the United States is good news (it’s actually associated with better health among the elderly population where the slowing was sharpest), it seems that the driving force goes beyond policy changes in the United States. Some of the slowing in European countries was undoubtedly the result of austerity imposed by deficit-obsessed governments. But it is striking that the slowdown occurs in most wealthy countries at roughly the same time. And, this is in spite of an aging population that requires more health care.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo tells us that he likes to “explore maximalist policy visions” in his columns. He falls well short of this goal in a piece calling for abolishing billionaires, which actually helps legitimate their existence.
The piece repeatedly tells us that their wealth is driven by technology, a point that first appears in the subhead which refers to “tech-driven inequality.” The problem with Manjoo’s piece is that the inequality is not in fact driven by technology, it is driven by our policy on technology, specifically patent and copyright monopolies. These forms of protection do not stem from the technology, they are policies created by a Congress which is disproportionately controlled by billionaires.
If the importance of these government-granted monopolies is not clear, ask yourself how rich Bill Gates would be if any start-up computer manufacturer could produce millions of computers with Windows and other Microsoft software and not send the company a penny. The same story holds true with most other types of technology. The billionaires get rich from it, not because of the technology but because the government will arrest people who use it without the patent or copyright holder’s permission.
This point is central to the debate on the value of billionaires. If we could get the same or better technological progress without making some people ridiculously rich, then we certainly don’t need billionaires (I discuss alternatives in chapter 5 of my book Rigged [it’s free].) But in any discussion of the merits of billionaires, it is important to understand that they got their wealth because we wrote rules that allowed it. Their immense wealth was not a natural result of the development of technology.
It is unfortunate that this idea is apparently too radical for Manjoo.
New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo tells us that he likes to “explore maximalist policy visions” in his columns. He falls well short of this goal in a piece calling for abolishing billionaires, which actually helps legitimate their existence.
The piece repeatedly tells us that their wealth is driven by technology, a point that first appears in the subhead which refers to “tech-driven inequality.” The problem with Manjoo’s piece is that the inequality is not in fact driven by technology, it is driven by our policy on technology, specifically patent and copyright monopolies. These forms of protection do not stem from the technology, they are policies created by a Congress which is disproportionately controlled by billionaires.
If the importance of these government-granted monopolies is not clear, ask yourself how rich Bill Gates would be if any start-up computer manufacturer could produce millions of computers with Windows and other Microsoft software and not send the company a penny. The same story holds true with most other types of technology. The billionaires get rich from it, not because of the technology but because the government will arrest people who use it without the patent or copyright holder’s permission.
This point is central to the debate on the value of billionaires. If we could get the same or better technological progress without making some people ridiculously rich, then we certainly don’t need billionaires (I discuss alternatives in chapter 5 of my book Rigged [it’s free].) But in any discussion of the merits of billionaires, it is important to understand that they got their wealth because we wrote rules that allowed it. Their immense wealth was not a natural result of the development of technology.
It is unfortunate that this idea is apparently too radical for Manjoo.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It really gets annoying when reporting in our nation’s leading newspaper has a make it up as you go along character. A piece on a new infrastructure program to boost Russia’s economy begins by telling readers:
“Russia has become a world-class saver. So much gold has piled up in its central bank that Russia surpassed China last year to become the world’s fifth-largest holder of gold.
“The International Monetary Fund often has to badger developing nations to bulk up foreign currency reserves. Russia has $472 billion in reserves, more than the country’s combined public and foreign debt of $453 billion and nearly three times what the IMF recommends.”
Okay, so Russia’s $472 billion in reserves are “nearly three times what the IMF recommends.” Then how about the $3,073 billion in reserves held by China? China’s economy is a bit more than eight times as large, but when we add in the more than $1.5 trillion value of China’s sovereign wealth funds, its reserves would be almost ten times the size of Russia’s.
The reason this matters is some of us have argued that China’s currency continues to be undervalued and that this is a matter of government policy. If it cut back its reserve holds to a level that the IMF apparently thinks is appropriate for Russia, it would drive down the value of the dollar against the Chinese yuan, making US goods and services more competitive. If we had a president who was concerned about the US trade deficit with China, they would make raising the value of the Chinese currency the main focus.
Unfortunately, news outlets like The New York Times have insisted that China’s currency is no longer undervalued. While it felt the need to tell readers that Russia’s reserves are excessive for an economy of its size, it claims the opposite about China’s even larger level of reserves relative to the size of its economy. This is not a good way for a news outlet to maintain its credibility.
It really gets annoying when reporting in our nation’s leading newspaper has a make it up as you go along character. A piece on a new infrastructure program to boost Russia’s economy begins by telling readers:
“Russia has become a world-class saver. So much gold has piled up in its central bank that Russia surpassed China last year to become the world’s fifth-largest holder of gold.
“The International Monetary Fund often has to badger developing nations to bulk up foreign currency reserves. Russia has $472 billion in reserves, more than the country’s combined public and foreign debt of $453 billion and nearly three times what the IMF recommends.”
Okay, so Russia’s $472 billion in reserves are “nearly three times what the IMF recommends.” Then how about the $3,073 billion in reserves held by China? China’s economy is a bit more than eight times as large, but when we add in the more than $1.5 trillion value of China’s sovereign wealth funds, its reserves would be almost ten times the size of Russia’s.
The reason this matters is some of us have argued that China’s currency continues to be undervalued and that this is a matter of government policy. If it cut back its reserve holds to a level that the IMF apparently thinks is appropriate for Russia, it would drive down the value of the dollar against the Chinese yuan, making US goods and services more competitive. If we had a president who was concerned about the US trade deficit with China, they would make raising the value of the Chinese currency the main focus.
Unfortunately, news outlets like The New York Times have insisted that China’s currency is no longer undervalued. While it felt the need to tell readers that Russia’s reserves are excessive for an economy of its size, it claims the opposite about China’s even larger level of reserves relative to the size of its economy. This is not a good way for a news outlet to maintain its credibility.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión