Beat the Press

Beat the press por Dean Baker

Beat the Press is Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting. He is a Senior Economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). To never miss a post, subscribe to a weekly email roundup of Beat the Press. Please also consider supporting the blog on Patreon.

In the wake of the Great Recession there was a spate of news articles warning of the menace of deflation. The story was that something really bad would happen if the rate of inflation went from a modest positive rate to a modest negative rate. This means something really bad would happen if the rate of inflation was -0.5 percent, as opposed to 0.5 percent. This made zero sense then and it also makes zero sense now.
In the wake of the Great Recession there was a spate of news articles warning of the menace of deflation. The story was that something really bad would happen if the rate of inflation went from a modest positive rate to a modest negative rate. This means something really bad would happen if the rate of inflation was -0.5 percent, as opposed to 0.5 percent. This made zero sense then and it also makes zero sense now.
I just saw a piece touting the tax on share buybacks as the basis of the investment boom we are seeing in factory construction. I’m a bit skeptical on that one, I think the incentives provided by the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are a far bigger deal, but if taxing buybacks gave a little extra kick, I’m fine with that.
I just saw a piece touting the tax on share buybacks as the basis of the investment boom we are seeing in factory construction. I’m a bit skeptical on that one, I think the incentives provided by the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are a far bigger deal, but if taxing buybacks gave a little extra kick, I’m fine with that.
It would be hard to imagine a much better jobs report than what we got Friday. The economy generated 187,000 jobs for the month, somewhat fewer than the consensus. The jobs numbers for the prior two months were also revised down by 90,000. At the same time, the unemployment rate edged down to 3.5 percent, just 0.1 percentage point above the half-century low reached in April. We have now have had below 4.0 percent unemployment for the last 18 months. The last time we had a streak this long was in
It would be hard to imagine a much better jobs report than what we got Friday. The economy generated 187,000 jobs for the month, somewhat fewer than the consensus. The jobs numbers for the prior two months were also revised down by 90,000. At the same time, the unemployment rate edged down to 3.5 percent, just 0.1 percentage point above the half-century low reached in April. We have now have had below 4.0 percent unemployment for the last 18 months. The last time we had a streak this long was in
The first decade of this century was pretty awful for manufacturing workers. In December of 1999, we had 17.3 million manufacturing jobs. This number had fallen to 11.5 million by December of 2009. This amounted to a loss of 5.8 million jobs, or one-third of all the manufacturing jobs that had existed at the start of the decade. That looks like a pretty big deal.
The first decade of this century was pretty awful for manufacturing workers. In December of 1999, we had 17.3 million manufacturing jobs. This number had fallen to 11.5 million by December of 2009. This amounted to a loss of 5.8 million jobs, or one-third of all the manufacturing jobs that had existed at the start of the decade. That looks like a pretty big deal.
GDP growth in the United States is always reported as an annual rate. This means that if the economy grew 0.5 percent from the first quarter to the second quarter, it would be universally reported as 2.0 percent growth, with reporters always giving the annual rate. This is basically four times the quarterly rate. (It's actually the first quarter's growth rate taken to the fourth power, but this will be the same for small numbers.)
GDP growth in the United States is always reported as an annual rate. This means that if the economy grew 0.5 percent from the first quarter to the second quarter, it would be universally reported as 2.0 percent growth, with reporters always giving the annual rate. This is basically four times the quarterly rate. (It's actually the first quarter's growth rate taken to the fourth power, but this will be the same for small numbers.)
The full title of this book is The Myth that Made Us, How False Beliefs About Racism and Meritocracy Broke Our Economy and How to Fix It. The book is a direct attack on how economists, and probably most people, are inclined to see the economy and society, arguing against the idea that outcomes reflect merit and effort.
The full title of this book is The Myth that Made Us, How False Beliefs About Racism and Meritocracy Broke Our Economy and How to Fix It. The book is a direct attack on how economists, and probably most people, are inclined to see the economy and society, arguing against the idea that outcomes reflect merit and effort.
Along with everyone else (okay, not Republicans), I have been celebrating the great economic news we’ve been getting the last few weeks. Inflation is clearly slowing, the unemployment rate remains low, real wages are rising, investment is growing rapidly, and the green conversion is going faster than any of us could have imagined, even if it’s nowhere near fast enough.
Along with everyone else (okay, not Republicans), I have been celebrating the great economic news we’ve been getting the last few weeks. Inflation is clearly slowing, the unemployment rate remains low, real wages are rising, investment is growing rapidly, and the green conversion is going faster than any of us could have imagined, even if it’s nowhere near fast enough.
Mark Paul has done a useful public service in etching out the goals of progressive economic policy. Many of us get bogged down in debate over things like whether the Average Hourly Earnings series is more accurate than the Employment Cost Index, or whether Section 230 protection is giving Facebook, Twitter and other Internet giants a subsidy compared to competitors in print and broadcast media.
Mark Paul has done a useful public service in etching out the goals of progressive economic policy. Many of us get bogged down in debate over things like whether the Average Hourly Earnings series is more accurate than the Employment Cost Index, or whether Section 230 protection is giving Facebook, Twitter and other Internet giants a subsidy compared to competitors in print and broadcast media.
The New York Times ran a piece this morning claiming that Gilead delayed the introduction of a new drug for treating HIV because it wanted to take full advantage of the patent life for its drug Truvada, which was a huge blockbuster for the company. The new drug has a patent life that runs to 2031. Truvada’s patent expired in 2017.
The New York Times ran a piece this morning claiming that Gilead delayed the introduction of a new drug for treating HIV because it wanted to take full advantage of the patent life for its drug Truvada, which was a huge blockbuster for the company. The new drug has a patent life that runs to 2031. Truvada’s patent expired in 2017.

I’m serious, you just have to carry through with a little bit of logic. (I know Governor DeSantis is opposed to logic, but this is for the rest of the country.)

Governor DeSantis is on the warpath against whatever he decides is “woke.” DeSantis decided that it was woke when Anheuser-Busch signed a contract with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer, to promote Bud Light, one of the beers it markets. DeSantis joined with other right-wingers to push a boycott of Bud Light.

The boycott was effective in that it had a measurable impact on the sales of Bud Light. Now, DeSantis is calling for the Florida State Board of Administration to sue Anheuser-Busch because its decision to contract with a transgender influencer lowered its stock price and thereby hurt Florida’s public employee pension fund. (Never mind that Governor DeSantis played a big role in pushing the boycott that hurt sales.)

DeSantis’ basis for the lawsuit is the claim that by concerning itself with something other than profits, the management of Anheuser-Busch hurt its stockholders. He says that companies should only be concerned about maximizing profit, not doing “woke” things like making deals with transgender influencers.

Okay, we’ll ignore the fact that Anheuser-Busch’s management may actually have thought they were maximizing profits when they signed the deal with Mulvaney. After all, there are a significant number of people who are transgender, have friends or family members who are transgender, or just think that transgender people should be able to be accepted as normal, and think it’s cool that Anheuser-Busch agrees.

Maybe it’s not fair to blame Anheuser-Busch’s management for not recognizing the fact that an ambitious Florida governor thinks that his path to the presidency depends on convincing Republican primary voters that he is more right-wing than Donald Trump. But, we’ll leave that issue aside.

DeSantis made it clear that he thinks companies should only maximize profit and be subject to shareholder lawsuits if they do anything other than maximizing profits. So how does this get us to suing Gilead?

According to a New York Times article today, Gilead may have delayed bringing an HIV drug onto the market, because it didn’t want to jeopardize the sales of its blockbuster HIV drug Truvada. It wanted to delay bringing the new drug on the market because it wanted Truvada to get the full benefit of its patent monopoly and to only introduce the new drug as Truvada’s patent was about to expire. This would then allow it to benefit from the full length of patent protection for its new drug.

The newer drug would have been safer for patients, since it posed less risk of kidney and bone damage. Gilead is now being sued, based on this allegation, by patients who were harmed by Truvada.

Gilead denies it was motivated by profit considerations in the timing of its introduction of the Truvada replacement. The article tells readers:

“Gilead’s top lawyer, Deborah Telman said in a statement that the company’s ‘research and development decisions have always been, and continue to be, guided by our focus on delivering safe and effective medicines for the people who prescribe and use them.’”

Okay, so now we have Gilead’s top lawyer asserting that the company is not being run to maximize profit, but rather is “guided by our focus on delivering safe and effective medicines for the people who prescribe and use them.”

That sounds dangerously woke. Seems like Gilead is crying out for a lawsuit from Mr. DeSantis. Their top lawyer is openly claiming that the company might be jeopardizing profits, and thereby giving lower returns to shareholders, because it is concerned with people’s health.

Presumably, Mr. DeSantis will be pushing his lawsuit against Gilead any day now.

I’m serious, you just have to carry through with a little bit of logic. (I know Governor DeSantis is opposed to logic, but this is for the rest of the country.)

Governor DeSantis is on the warpath against whatever he decides is “woke.” DeSantis decided that it was woke when Anheuser-Busch signed a contract with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer, to promote Bud Light, one of the beers it markets. DeSantis joined with other right-wingers to push a boycott of Bud Light.

The boycott was effective in that it had a measurable impact on the sales of Bud Light. Now, DeSantis is calling for the Florida State Board of Administration to sue Anheuser-Busch because its decision to contract with a transgender influencer lowered its stock price and thereby hurt Florida’s public employee pension fund. (Never mind that Governor DeSantis played a big role in pushing the boycott that hurt sales.)

DeSantis’ basis for the lawsuit is the claim that by concerning itself with something other than profits, the management of Anheuser-Busch hurt its stockholders. He says that companies should only be concerned about maximizing profit, not doing “woke” things like making deals with transgender influencers.

Okay, we’ll ignore the fact that Anheuser-Busch’s management may actually have thought they were maximizing profits when they signed the deal with Mulvaney. After all, there are a significant number of people who are transgender, have friends or family members who are transgender, or just think that transgender people should be able to be accepted as normal, and think it’s cool that Anheuser-Busch agrees.

Maybe it’s not fair to blame Anheuser-Busch’s management for not recognizing the fact that an ambitious Florida governor thinks that his path to the presidency depends on convincing Republican primary voters that he is more right-wing than Donald Trump. But, we’ll leave that issue aside.

DeSantis made it clear that he thinks companies should only maximize profit and be subject to shareholder lawsuits if they do anything other than maximizing profits. So how does this get us to suing Gilead?

According to a New York Times article today, Gilead may have delayed bringing an HIV drug onto the market, because it didn’t want to jeopardize the sales of its blockbuster HIV drug Truvada. It wanted to delay bringing the new drug on the market because it wanted Truvada to get the full benefit of its patent monopoly and to only introduce the new drug as Truvada’s patent was about to expire. This would then allow it to benefit from the full length of patent protection for its new drug.

The newer drug would have been safer for patients, since it posed less risk of kidney and bone damage. Gilead is now being sued, based on this allegation, by patients who were harmed by Truvada.

Gilead denies it was motivated by profit considerations in the timing of its introduction of the Truvada replacement. The article tells readers:

“Gilead’s top lawyer, Deborah Telman said in a statement that the company’s ‘research and development decisions have always been, and continue to be, guided by our focus on delivering safe and effective medicines for the people who prescribe and use them.’”

Okay, so now we have Gilead’s top lawyer asserting that the company is not being run to maximize profit, but rather is “guided by our focus on delivering safe and effective medicines for the people who prescribe and use them.”

That sounds dangerously woke. Seems like Gilead is crying out for a lawsuit from Mr. DeSantis. Their top lawyer is openly claiming that the company might be jeopardizing profits, and thereby giving lower returns to shareholders, because it is concerned with people’s health.

Presumably, Mr. DeSantis will be pushing his lawsuit against Gilead any day now.

Want to search in the archives?

¿Quieres buscar en los archivos?

Click Here Haga clic aquí