The NYT ran a short AP piece on Social Security and “why it matters.” The piece wrongly told readers that Social Security is “a main driver of the government’s long-term budget problems.” This is not true. Under the law, Social Security can only spend money that is in its trust fund. If the trust fund is depleted then full benefits cannot be paid. The law would have to be changed to allow Social Security to spend money other than the funds designated for the program and in that way contribute to the deficit.
The piece also plays the “really big number” game, telling readers:
“the program faces huge shortfalls that get bigger and bigger each year.In 2034, the program faces a $500 billion shortfall, according to the Social Security Administration. In just five years, the shortfalls add up to more than $3 trillion.
“Over the next 75 years, the shortfalls add up to a staggering $139 trillion. But why worry? When that number is adjusted for inflation, it comes to only $40 trillion in 2016 dollars — a little more than twice the national debt.”
Since this is talking about shortfalls projected to be incurred over a long period of time, it would be helpful to express the shortfall relative to the economy over this period of time, not debt at a point in time. This is not hard to do, since there is a table right in the Social Security trustees report that reports the projected shortfall as being equal to 0.95 percent of GDP over the 75-year forecasting horizon. By comparison, the costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan came to around 1.6 percent of GDP at their peaks in the last decade.
The piece also gets the reason for the projected shortfall wrong. It tells readers:
“In short, because Americans aren’t having as many babies as they used to. That leaves relatively fewer workers to pay into the system. Immigration has helped Social Security’s finances, but not enough to fix the long-term problems.
“In 1960, there were 5.1 workers for each person getting benefits. Today, there are about 2.8 workers for each beneficiary. That ratio will drop to 2.1 workers by 2040.”
Actually, the drop in the birth rate and the declining ratio of workers to beneficiaries had long been predicted. The reason that the program’s finances look worse than when the Greenspan commission put in place the last major changes in 1983 is the slowdown in wage growth and the upward redistribution of wage income so that a larger share of wage income now goes untaxed.
In 1983, only 10 percent of wage income was above the payroll tax cap. Today it is close to 18 percent. This upward redistribution explains more than 40 percent of projected shortfall over the next 75 years.
It is also worth noting that the loss in wage income for most workers to upward redistribution swamps the size of any tax increases that could be needed to maintain full funding for the program. While AP wants to get people very worried over possible tax increases in future years, it would rather they ignore the policies (e.g. trade, Fed policy, Wall Street policy, patent policy) that have taken money out of the pockets of ordinary workers and put it in the hands of the rich.
The NYT ran a short AP piece on Social Security and “why it matters.” The piece wrongly told readers that Social Security is “a main driver of the government’s long-term budget problems.” This is not true. Under the law, Social Security can only spend money that is in its trust fund. If the trust fund is depleted then full benefits cannot be paid. The law would have to be changed to allow Social Security to spend money other than the funds designated for the program and in that way contribute to the deficit.
The piece also plays the “really big number” game, telling readers:
“the program faces huge shortfalls that get bigger and bigger each year.In 2034, the program faces a $500 billion shortfall, according to the Social Security Administration. In just five years, the shortfalls add up to more than $3 trillion.
“Over the next 75 years, the shortfalls add up to a staggering $139 trillion. But why worry? When that number is adjusted for inflation, it comes to only $40 trillion in 2016 dollars — a little more than twice the national debt.”
Since this is talking about shortfalls projected to be incurred over a long period of time, it would be helpful to express the shortfall relative to the economy over this period of time, not debt at a point in time. This is not hard to do, since there is a table right in the Social Security trustees report that reports the projected shortfall as being equal to 0.95 percent of GDP over the 75-year forecasting horizon. By comparison, the costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan came to around 1.6 percent of GDP at their peaks in the last decade.
The piece also gets the reason for the projected shortfall wrong. It tells readers:
“In short, because Americans aren’t having as many babies as they used to. That leaves relatively fewer workers to pay into the system. Immigration has helped Social Security’s finances, but not enough to fix the long-term problems.
“In 1960, there were 5.1 workers for each person getting benefits. Today, there are about 2.8 workers for each beneficiary. That ratio will drop to 2.1 workers by 2040.”
Actually, the drop in the birth rate and the declining ratio of workers to beneficiaries had long been predicted. The reason that the program’s finances look worse than when the Greenspan commission put in place the last major changes in 1983 is the slowdown in wage growth and the upward redistribution of wage income so that a larger share of wage income now goes untaxed.
In 1983, only 10 percent of wage income was above the payroll tax cap. Today it is close to 18 percent. This upward redistribution explains more than 40 percent of projected shortfall over the next 75 years.
It is also worth noting that the loss in wage income for most workers to upward redistribution swamps the size of any tax increases that could be needed to maintain full funding for the program. While AP wants to get people very worried over possible tax increases in future years, it would rather they ignore the policies (e.g. trade, Fed policy, Wall Street policy, patent policy) that have taken money out of the pockets of ordinary workers and put it in the hands of the rich.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
You don’t remember casting that vote? Well, you didn’t actually cast it, but if you have a 401(k) someone like Blackrock CEO Larry Fink cast the vote for you.
Most middle-income people have 401(k)s for their retirement and most of this money is in mutual funds. These mutual funds have control over the proxy votes for the shares they hold. This means that funds like Blackrock, which has more than $5 trillion in assets, have enormous say over the distribution of income in this country. And, as Gretchen Morgenson points out in her NYT column this morning, these folks almost always endorse outlandish pay packages for CEOs. As they say in Wall Street circles, what’s a few million dollars between friends?
So, if you’re upset about an economy where the rich keep getting richer, just remember, you voted for it, sort of.
You don’t remember casting that vote? Well, you didn’t actually cast it, but if you have a 401(k) someone like Blackrock CEO Larry Fink cast the vote for you.
Most middle-income people have 401(k)s for their retirement and most of this money is in mutual funds. These mutual funds have control over the proxy votes for the shares they hold. This means that funds like Blackrock, which has more than $5 trillion in assets, have enormous say over the distribution of income in this country. And, as Gretchen Morgenson points out in her NYT column this morning, these folks almost always endorse outlandish pay packages for CEOs. As they say in Wall Street circles, what’s a few million dollars between friends?
So, if you’re upset about an economy where the rich keep getting richer, just remember, you voted for it, sort of.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
As is widely known the Washington Post never misses an opportunity to blame the victims of policy for bad outcomes, rather than rich and powerful folks who design policy. We are treated to yet another example of this charade with the Post running a major article that claims that video games are a major reason that fewer young men are working today than 15 years ago.
The basic story is that many young men, particularly those with less education, have dropped out of the labor force in the last 15 years. According to survey data, they appear to be spending much of their time playing video games. They also report to be relatively happy. See, all you people who thought it was a bad economy are mistaken, the problem is the video games are just too much fun.
Okay, that’s a great Trumpian level of analysis, but let’s get back to the real world. Less-educated young men are not the only group with declines in employment rates. In fact, the drop in employment rates among less educated women over the last 15 years has been even sharper. Furthermore there has been a decline in employment rates among all groups of prime-age workers (25–54), even those with college degrees.
This general drop in employment rates might suggest that the real problem is a lack of demand. In other words, young men are not working for the same reason young women are not working, the Washington Post and other advocates of austerity have been successful in reducing demand in the economy by reducing the government budget deficit. So the problem has little to do with video games, the problem is the policy, but hey, if the Post can use video games to distract attention from what its favored policies are doing to people — why not?
As is widely known the Washington Post never misses an opportunity to blame the victims of policy for bad outcomes, rather than rich and powerful folks who design policy. We are treated to yet another example of this charade with the Post running a major article that claims that video games are a major reason that fewer young men are working today than 15 years ago.
The basic story is that many young men, particularly those with less education, have dropped out of the labor force in the last 15 years. According to survey data, they appear to be spending much of their time playing video games. They also report to be relatively happy. See, all you people who thought it was a bad economy are mistaken, the problem is the video games are just too much fun.
Okay, that’s a great Trumpian level of analysis, but let’s get back to the real world. Less-educated young men are not the only group with declines in employment rates. In fact, the drop in employment rates among less educated women over the last 15 years has been even sharper. Furthermore there has been a decline in employment rates among all groups of prime-age workers (25–54), even those with college degrees.
This general drop in employment rates might suggest that the real problem is a lack of demand. In other words, young men are not working for the same reason young women are not working, the Washington Post and other advocates of austerity have been successful in reducing demand in the economy by reducing the government budget deficit. So the problem has little to do with video games, the problem is the policy, but hey, if the Post can use video games to distract attention from what its favored policies are doing to people — why not?
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Nashville’s public radio station complained that the construction companies simply can’t find workers. This is in spite of the fact that they pay $12 an hour to start and that the pay could go as high as $22 an hour for the most experienced workers.
It is interesting that the radio station has decided that this is the pay construction workers should get even though the market seems to be saying that the pay should be higher. This raises the question of whether the station would complain about a doctors shortage if no doctors answered the call at a $30 an hour pay rate. (Their actual pay averages more than $250,000 a year, although most put in far more than 40 hours a week.)
Just as a point of reference, if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth over the last fifty years it would be over $18 an hour now. So Nashville’s public radio station apparently believes that as a matter of principle (it’s not the market) construction workers should be earning less than a productivity adjusted minimum wage. It is also worth noting that these are jobs that typically carried some wage premium — as opposed to working at a fast food restaurant — both because they often require considerable skills and then tend to be physically demanding and dangerous.
Nashville’s public radio station complained that the construction companies simply can’t find workers. This is in spite of the fact that they pay $12 an hour to start and that the pay could go as high as $22 an hour for the most experienced workers.
It is interesting that the radio station has decided that this is the pay construction workers should get even though the market seems to be saying that the pay should be higher. This raises the question of whether the station would complain about a doctors shortage if no doctors answered the call at a $30 an hour pay rate. (Their actual pay averages more than $250,000 a year, although most put in far more than 40 hours a week.)
Just as a point of reference, if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth over the last fifty years it would be over $18 an hour now. So Nashville’s public radio station apparently believes that as a matter of principle (it’s not the market) construction workers should be earning less than a productivity adjusted minimum wage. It is also worth noting that these are jobs that typically carried some wage premium — as opposed to working at a fast food restaurant — both because they often require considerable skills and then tend to be physically demanding and dangerous.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Paul Krugman used his column to berate reporters for not highlighting when candidates are lying. The basic point is that reporters are in a position to know that a candidate is saying something that is outright false, whereas the typical reader/viewer likely doesn’t have the time to check the truth of a particular claim. Not doing this basic service encourages lying, since candidates will freely change positions and make claims that are not true if they know they will not pay a price for lying.
The immediate context is the presidential debate next Monday. Krugman notes in passing that reporters tend to pass on fact checking and instead engage in theater criticism:
“One all-too-common response to such attacks involves abdicating responsibility for fact-checking entirely, and replacing it with theater criticism: Never mind whether what the candidate said is true or false, how did it play? How did he or she ‘come across’? What were the ‘optics’?
“But theater criticism is the job of theater critics; news reporting should tell the public what really happened, not be devoted to speculation about how other people might react to what happened.”
This is a point I have often made in the past. I would carry the complaint even a step further than Krugman. Not only is theater criticism the job of theater critics, the amateur criticism in which highly paid reporters engage is the sort of thing we all do all the time. All of us engage in conversations with people over the course of our lives. In doing so, we are constantly assessing their confidence, whether they are acting defensive, whether they are forceful, and whether they appear sincere. Reporters have no comparative advantage in this area.
We will have roughly 100 million people watching the debate on Monday night. There is no reason to believe that the judgement of the reporters covering the debate on the relative confidence and outward sincerity of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will be any more accurate and insightful than the judgement of the typical viewer among the 100 million.
By contrast, most of the 100 million will not know if Trump has yet again changed his tax proposal, has made up new stories about the origins of birtherism, or is saying nothing coherent on trade policy. This is where reporters can add value. They should save the theater criticism for their family and friends.
Paul Krugman used his column to berate reporters for not highlighting when candidates are lying. The basic point is that reporters are in a position to know that a candidate is saying something that is outright false, whereas the typical reader/viewer likely doesn’t have the time to check the truth of a particular claim. Not doing this basic service encourages lying, since candidates will freely change positions and make claims that are not true if they know they will not pay a price for lying.
The immediate context is the presidential debate next Monday. Krugman notes in passing that reporters tend to pass on fact checking and instead engage in theater criticism:
“One all-too-common response to such attacks involves abdicating responsibility for fact-checking entirely, and replacing it with theater criticism: Never mind whether what the candidate said is true or false, how did it play? How did he or she ‘come across’? What were the ‘optics’?
“But theater criticism is the job of theater critics; news reporting should tell the public what really happened, not be devoted to speculation about how other people might react to what happened.”
This is a point I have often made in the past. I would carry the complaint even a step further than Krugman. Not only is theater criticism the job of theater critics, the amateur criticism in which highly paid reporters engage is the sort of thing we all do all the time. All of us engage in conversations with people over the course of our lives. In doing so, we are constantly assessing their confidence, whether they are acting defensive, whether they are forceful, and whether they appear sincere. Reporters have no comparative advantage in this area.
We will have roughly 100 million people watching the debate on Monday night. There is no reason to believe that the judgement of the reporters covering the debate on the relative confidence and outward sincerity of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will be any more accurate and insightful than the judgement of the typical viewer among the 100 million.
By contrast, most of the 100 million will not know if Trump has yet again changed his tax proposal, has made up new stories about the origins of birtherism, or is saying nothing coherent on trade policy. This is where reporters can add value. They should save the theater criticism for their family and friends.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Fareed Zakaria used his Washington Post column to tell readers that there are no simple solutions, it’s just too complicated. The point is that the gods have condemned us to suffer slow growth and rising inequality. In addition to making the absurd point that we should be worried because people are having fewer kids (just imagine, the robots will take all the jobs and we won’t have any workers) Zakaria tells us that nothing seems to work.
“Facing these forces [globalization, an aging workforce, and technology], leaders have no easy path to restore growth and revive their countries. Deep, radical reforms are unpopular and in this climate do not seem to lead to roaring growth. Ireland, Portugal and Mexico have all enacted broad market reforms, and yet, growth has not come booming back. Japan has spent hundreds of billions on stimulus plans and yet it is just muddling along. Thus, even the leaders who come to office with strong public approval and much promise find themselves trapped by the same forces. Very quickly their approval ratings begin to drop and new populist anger grows. Italy’s reformist prime minister, Matteo Renzi, has seen his numbers fall below 30 percent. The populist Greek leader, Alexis Tsipras, is down to 19 percent.”
Well, that seems to cover the bases, right? Except that there is a lot to show for the stimulus in Japan (which could be far more aggressive, since the country has negative long-term interest rates and is still facing near zero inflation). Since Abe took over at the end of 2012 the employment-to-population ratio in Japan has risen by 2.5 percentage points. This would be the equivalent of adding 6.2 million jobs in excess of the endogenous growth in the population in the United States. By contrast, the employment-to-population ratio has risen by just 1.1 percentage point in the United States over this period, in spite of the strong job growth of the last three years.
This might help to explain why Mr. Abe’s approval rating is at 60 percent, a marked contrast with the rating of other leaders on Zakaria’s list. One can debate whether or not Keynesian-style stimulus is simple, but the world looks much less complicated if we talk about the real world honestly and not ignore facts that contradict our message.
I will have much more to say countering the Zakaria/mainstream establishment line in my forthcoming book, Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer, coming soon to a website near you.
Fareed Zakaria used his Washington Post column to tell readers that there are no simple solutions, it’s just too complicated. The point is that the gods have condemned us to suffer slow growth and rising inequality. In addition to making the absurd point that we should be worried because people are having fewer kids (just imagine, the robots will take all the jobs and we won’t have any workers) Zakaria tells us that nothing seems to work.
“Facing these forces [globalization, an aging workforce, and technology], leaders have no easy path to restore growth and revive their countries. Deep, radical reforms are unpopular and in this climate do not seem to lead to roaring growth. Ireland, Portugal and Mexico have all enacted broad market reforms, and yet, growth has not come booming back. Japan has spent hundreds of billions on stimulus plans and yet it is just muddling along. Thus, even the leaders who come to office with strong public approval and much promise find themselves trapped by the same forces. Very quickly their approval ratings begin to drop and new populist anger grows. Italy’s reformist prime minister, Matteo Renzi, has seen his numbers fall below 30 percent. The populist Greek leader, Alexis Tsipras, is down to 19 percent.”
Well, that seems to cover the bases, right? Except that there is a lot to show for the stimulus in Japan (which could be far more aggressive, since the country has negative long-term interest rates and is still facing near zero inflation). Since Abe took over at the end of 2012 the employment-to-population ratio in Japan has risen by 2.5 percentage points. This would be the equivalent of adding 6.2 million jobs in excess of the endogenous growth in the population in the United States. By contrast, the employment-to-population ratio has risen by just 1.1 percentage point in the United States over this period, in spite of the strong job growth of the last three years.
This might help to explain why Mr. Abe’s approval rating is at 60 percent, a marked contrast with the rating of other leaders on Zakaria’s list. One can debate whether or not Keynesian-style stimulus is simple, but the world looks much less complicated if we talk about the real world honestly and not ignore facts that contradict our message.
I will have much more to say countering the Zakaria/mainstream establishment line in my forthcoming book, Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer, coming soon to a website near you.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT did what we should expect newspapers to do when reporting on presidential campaigns, it told readers that Donald Trump’s energy plans don’t make any sense. In the first paragraph of a piece on a speech Donald Trump gave in Pittsburgh, the NYT told readers that his promise to increase production of both coal and natural gas is “impossible.” This is of course true, since the fuels are substitutes. In fact, the main reason coal production has fallen sharply in the last five years has been the boom in low cost natural gas from fracking. If we increase the latter further, then it is almost inevitable that it will result in a further drop in coal production.
Mr. Trump may not know he is promising the impossible, but now NYT readers do.
The NYT did what we should expect newspapers to do when reporting on presidential campaigns, it told readers that Donald Trump’s energy plans don’t make any sense. In the first paragraph of a piece on a speech Donald Trump gave in Pittsburgh, the NYT told readers that his promise to increase production of both coal and natural gas is “impossible.” This is of course true, since the fuels are substitutes. In fact, the main reason coal production has fallen sharply in the last five years has been the boom in low cost natural gas from fracking. If we increase the latter further, then it is almost inevitable that it will result in a further drop in coal production.
Mr. Trump may not know he is promising the impossible, but now NYT readers do.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
I am waiting for the Washington Post to make this obvious point. (The same is probably true about wherever Post owner Jeff Bezos lives.) The reason we should expect this piece is that the paper ran a piece that effectively pronounced people who refuse to sell their houses to accommodate development as anti-social characters who are driving up housing costs for everyone else.
The claim is true. If people will make land available at a lower cost to developers then it will reduce the cost of building more housing units. While some of the gains from cheaper land will go into the developers’ pockets, some of it will undoubtedly be passed on in lower rents, as more units will put downward pressure on prices.
All of this is true, exactly as the Post piece says. However, the same argument applies to the land held by Bill Gates and other rich people. If they would make it available to developers at a low cost then it would mean that there could be more housing, which would put downward pressure on prices.
There is an argument that Gates and other rich people may be willing to make their land available at the market price, but this would be extremely expensive and therefore not help efforts to provide low cost housing. However, for someone who owns a home, it can be argued that the market price is the price at which they would be willing to sell it. (Markets are supposed to be about free exchange.) If they are not willing to sell the property at a low price, then the situation is not qualitatively different from Bill Gates being unwilling to sell his estate at a low price.
The issue here seems to be that Gates and other rich people are deemed to be entitled to their large plots of land, even if it makes housing less affordable, whereas the typical person is not. We are supposed to think that the non-affluent person insisting that their property rights be respected — even at the cost of raising housing costs for others — is a bad person. But because Bill Gates is rich, we don’t talk about his impact on housing prices.
I am waiting for the Washington Post to make this obvious point. (The same is probably true about wherever Post owner Jeff Bezos lives.) The reason we should expect this piece is that the paper ran a piece that effectively pronounced people who refuse to sell their houses to accommodate development as anti-social characters who are driving up housing costs for everyone else.
The claim is true. If people will make land available at a lower cost to developers then it will reduce the cost of building more housing units. While some of the gains from cheaper land will go into the developers’ pockets, some of it will undoubtedly be passed on in lower rents, as more units will put downward pressure on prices.
All of this is true, exactly as the Post piece says. However, the same argument applies to the land held by Bill Gates and other rich people. If they would make it available to developers at a low cost then it would mean that there could be more housing, which would put downward pressure on prices.
There is an argument that Gates and other rich people may be willing to make their land available at the market price, but this would be extremely expensive and therefore not help efforts to provide low cost housing. However, for someone who owns a home, it can be argued that the market price is the price at which they would be willing to sell it. (Markets are supposed to be about free exchange.) If they are not willing to sell the property at a low price, then the situation is not qualitatively different from Bill Gates being unwilling to sell his estate at a low price.
The issue here seems to be that Gates and other rich people are deemed to be entitled to their large plots of land, even if it makes housing less affordable, whereas the typical person is not. We are supposed to think that the non-affluent person insisting that their property rights be respected — even at the cost of raising housing costs for others — is a bad person. But because Bill Gates is rich, we don’t talk about his impact on housing prices.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Europe and the United States both shifted their fiscal policies from stimulus to austerity in 2011. Most economists see this as a major factor explaining the weak recovery from the 2008–2009 recession. Incredibly, in his latest Washington Post column assessing the weakness of the economy, Robert Samuelson never mentions the shift to austerity.
Actually, the column is more than a bit confused since it starts by making the case that the Fed actually should be raising interest rates since the economy is now at or near full employment. This is an argument that the economy is now strong and risks inflation due to too much demand.
But most of the piece then turns to the argument that central banks can’t boost the economy the way they had in the past. He tells readers:
“One explanation lies in the high and unsustainable debts that fueled the Great Recession. “Debt recoveries are not the same as ordinary business cycle recoveries,” Harvard economist Carmen Reinhart [yes, that is Reinhart of the famous Reinhart and Rogoff Excel spreadsheet error that helped launch worldwide austerity because they couldn’t be bothered to check their calculations] recently told a conference at the Peterson Institute. Consumers and companies cut debt loads and rebuild savings. Lenders are more restrained in their lending; borrowers are more restrained in their borrowing. All this curbs spending.
“A variant — one often made by this reporter — is that the recession’s severity, almost entirely unanticipated by economists, business leaders and government officials, has made households and enterprises more precautionary and protective. They save more and spend less to shield themselves against future slumps and unpredicted calamities.”
The problem with both variants of the “reluctant to spend” story is that neither households nor businesses were especially reluctant to spend, as those with access to Commerce Department data know. The figure below shows consumption as a share of GDP. As can be seen, it has been near post-war highs in the years since the recession, as the savings rate has been unusually low. The investment share of GDP has also been comparable to the pre-recession level. Housing construction has been depressed — for the mysterious reason that there was severe overbuilding in the bubble years.
In addition to the austerity which sharply reduced demand from the government the other factor depressing demand (which is not allowed to be mentioned in the pages of the Washington Post) is the trade deficit. The U.S. is still running a trade deficit of roughly $500 billion a year (@ 2.8 percent of GDP). This has the same impact on demand in the economy as if government spending were cut by an additional $500 billion. The demand generated by the housing bubble filled this demand gap, but in the absence of the bubble, there is nothing to fill the gap.
All of this is pretty simple and straightforward, but our elite types don’t like us talking about the trade deficit as a problem. So, we end up with folks like Robert Samuelson telling us it is all very mysterious.
Europe and the United States both shifted their fiscal policies from stimulus to austerity in 2011. Most economists see this as a major factor explaining the weak recovery from the 2008–2009 recession. Incredibly, in his latest Washington Post column assessing the weakness of the economy, Robert Samuelson never mentions the shift to austerity.
Actually, the column is more than a bit confused since it starts by making the case that the Fed actually should be raising interest rates since the economy is now at or near full employment. This is an argument that the economy is now strong and risks inflation due to too much demand.
But most of the piece then turns to the argument that central banks can’t boost the economy the way they had in the past. He tells readers:
“One explanation lies in the high and unsustainable debts that fueled the Great Recession. “Debt recoveries are not the same as ordinary business cycle recoveries,” Harvard economist Carmen Reinhart [yes, that is Reinhart of the famous Reinhart and Rogoff Excel spreadsheet error that helped launch worldwide austerity because they couldn’t be bothered to check their calculations] recently told a conference at the Peterson Institute. Consumers and companies cut debt loads and rebuild savings. Lenders are more restrained in their lending; borrowers are more restrained in their borrowing. All this curbs spending.
“A variant — one often made by this reporter — is that the recession’s severity, almost entirely unanticipated by economists, business leaders and government officials, has made households and enterprises more precautionary and protective. They save more and spend less to shield themselves against future slumps and unpredicted calamities.”
The problem with both variants of the “reluctant to spend” story is that neither households nor businesses were especially reluctant to spend, as those with access to Commerce Department data know. The figure below shows consumption as a share of GDP. As can be seen, it has been near post-war highs in the years since the recession, as the savings rate has been unusually low. The investment share of GDP has also been comparable to the pre-recession level. Housing construction has been depressed — for the mysterious reason that there was severe overbuilding in the bubble years.
In addition to the austerity which sharply reduced demand from the government the other factor depressing demand (which is not allowed to be mentioned in the pages of the Washington Post) is the trade deficit. The U.S. is still running a trade deficit of roughly $500 billion a year (@ 2.8 percent of GDP). This has the same impact on demand in the economy as if government spending were cut by an additional $500 billion. The demand generated by the housing bubble filled this demand gap, but in the absence of the bubble, there is nothing to fill the gap.
All of this is pretty simple and straightforward, but our elite types don’t like us talking about the trade deficit as a problem. So, we end up with folks like Robert Samuelson telling us it is all very mysterious.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
