Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
All NYT readers know that protectionism is stupid and self-defeating. It hurts everyone involved. So where were all the economic experts to give the usual lines on protectionism in response to efforts to change the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
The NYT reported on these efforts without ever once mentioning the economic costs that would be implied by making listeners pay more money for music and the cost that intermediaries like YouTube would have to incur to comply with stronger copyright protection. The failure to mention these costs is remarkable given how space the NYT and other media outlets have devoted to denouncing proposals from Donald Trump to impose higher tariffs and plans by Bernie Sanders to chart a different course for trade policy.
Economics works the same regardless of whether the item in question is a car, a ton of steel, or a song. Imposing barriers that raise the price imposes costs on consumers and the economy. The biggest difference is that in proportionate terms the barriers involved with copyright protection are likely to be far larger than any trade barriers that Trump or anyone else might impose on imported manufactured goods. While the latter are unlikely to exceed 50 percent of the sale price, and would almost certainly be far less, copyright protection can make music that would otherwise be available for free very costly.
To get an idea of how costly such protections can be, New Zealand’s government estimated that increasing the length of copyright protection from 50 to 75 years, as required by the Trans-Pacific Partnership, would cost it 0.24 percent of annual GDP, the equivalent of $4.3 billion in the U.S. economy in 2016. It would have been helpful to include some estimates of the costs associated with the stronger protections being discussed in this piece.
It is also worth noting that only a very small portion of the costs associated with this protection is likely to end up in the pockets of the performers. Much of it is simply deadweight loss — the lost benefit that consumers would have had from being able to listen to music at its marginal cost which they will forego now that it is selling at its higher protected price. A large portion will go to costs associated with enforcement, including new locks that would be put in place. And, much would go to intermediaries in the process, including the lawyers and lobbyists working on changing the law.
It is likely that performers will get less than ten cents for every dollar of lost benefits to consumers and their take may well end up being less than one cent per dollar. Unfortunately, the NYT never mentioned these losses at all, ignoring the well-known benefits of free trade.
Yes, musicians and singers need to be paid for their work, but there are more modern and efficient mechanisms for this task.
All NYT readers know that protectionism is stupid and self-defeating. It hurts everyone involved. So where were all the economic experts to give the usual lines on protectionism in response to efforts to change the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
The NYT reported on these efforts without ever once mentioning the economic costs that would be implied by making listeners pay more money for music and the cost that intermediaries like YouTube would have to incur to comply with stronger copyright protection. The failure to mention these costs is remarkable given how space the NYT and other media outlets have devoted to denouncing proposals from Donald Trump to impose higher tariffs and plans by Bernie Sanders to chart a different course for trade policy.
Economics works the same regardless of whether the item in question is a car, a ton of steel, or a song. Imposing barriers that raise the price imposes costs on consumers and the economy. The biggest difference is that in proportionate terms the barriers involved with copyright protection are likely to be far larger than any trade barriers that Trump or anyone else might impose on imported manufactured goods. While the latter are unlikely to exceed 50 percent of the sale price, and would almost certainly be far less, copyright protection can make music that would otherwise be available for free very costly.
To get an idea of how costly such protections can be, New Zealand’s government estimated that increasing the length of copyright protection from 50 to 75 years, as required by the Trans-Pacific Partnership, would cost it 0.24 percent of annual GDP, the equivalent of $4.3 billion in the U.S. economy in 2016. It would have been helpful to include some estimates of the costs associated with the stronger protections being discussed in this piece.
It is also worth noting that only a very small portion of the costs associated with this protection is likely to end up in the pockets of the performers. Much of it is simply deadweight loss — the lost benefit that consumers would have had from being able to listen to music at its marginal cost which they will forego now that it is selling at its higher protected price. A large portion will go to costs associated with enforcement, including new locks that would be put in place. And, much would go to intermediaries in the process, including the lawyers and lobbyists working on changing the law.
It is likely that performers will get less than ten cents for every dollar of lost benefits to consumers and their take may well end up being less than one cent per dollar. Unfortunately, the NYT never mentioned these losses at all, ignoring the well-known benefits of free trade.
Yes, musicians and singers need to be paid for their work, but there are more modern and efficient mechanisms for this task.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) must be in deep trouble. The NYT has apparently abandoned any pretext of objectivity in covering the trade deal. The second paragraph of a news article on the political obstacles confronting the TPP equated the deal with “the cause of free and open trade.” While that may be effective rhetoric for a pro-TPP politician, it has nothing to do with the reality of the deal.
The TPP actually does very little to advance free and open trade, primarily because the trade barriers between the countries in the pact are already low. This is why the International Trade Commission (ITC) found that removal of these barriers would add just over 0.01 percentage point to annual growth over the next 16 years.
In fact, because it increases barriers in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protection, the TPP may on net actually increase protectionism among the countries in the pact. (The ITC did not factor in the impact of higher prices for prescription drugs and other protected products in its analysis.)
In addition to these protectionist measures, the TPP may also restrict labor mobility through its clause on industrial secrets. This could require states to enforce non-compete agreements that prevent workers from moving from one company to another or starting their own business.
The TPP also effectively brings in through the backdoor, the far right-wing legal doctrine of regulatory takings. Under the rules in the TPP, foreign investors would have to be compensated for any regulatory action that reduced their profits. This is a major issue for many opponents of the deal.
However, the NYT article ignores the long set of issues around the TPP. It completely equates the TPP with the cause of free trade, using the term “pro-trade” at five different points in the article to describe supporters of the TPP.
The piece also refers to the alleged loss of $300 million in export markets due to a trade deal between Japan and Australia. (It implies this market would be regained with the TPP.) According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, this is equal to a bit less than 0.4 percent of current production in the United States.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) must be in deep trouble. The NYT has apparently abandoned any pretext of objectivity in covering the trade deal. The second paragraph of a news article on the political obstacles confronting the TPP equated the deal with “the cause of free and open trade.” While that may be effective rhetoric for a pro-TPP politician, it has nothing to do with the reality of the deal.
The TPP actually does very little to advance free and open trade, primarily because the trade barriers between the countries in the pact are already low. This is why the International Trade Commission (ITC) found that removal of these barriers would add just over 0.01 percentage point to annual growth over the next 16 years.
In fact, because it increases barriers in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protection, the TPP may on net actually increase protectionism among the countries in the pact. (The ITC did not factor in the impact of higher prices for prescription drugs and other protected products in its analysis.)
In addition to these protectionist measures, the TPP may also restrict labor mobility through its clause on industrial secrets. This could require states to enforce non-compete agreements that prevent workers from moving from one company to another or starting their own business.
The TPP also effectively brings in through the backdoor, the far right-wing legal doctrine of regulatory takings. Under the rules in the TPP, foreign investors would have to be compensated for any regulatory action that reduced their profits. This is a major issue for many opponents of the deal.
However, the NYT article ignores the long set of issues around the TPP. It completely equates the TPP with the cause of free trade, using the term “pro-trade” at five different points in the article to describe supporters of the TPP.
The piece also refers to the alleged loss of $300 million in export markets due to a trade deal between Japan and Australia. (It implies this market would be regained with the TPP.) According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, this is equal to a bit less than 0.4 percent of current production in the United States.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Before the West Virginia primary, former Secretary of States Hillary Clinton made a comment about how environmental regulations would lead to a loss of jobs in coal mining. The comment was in the context of a commitment to retraining miners and providing aid to hard-hit communities, but her critics have seized on it to say that she wants to get rid of coal mining jobs.
Emma Roller picked up on this theme in a NYT column on how the presidential election will affect candidates lower down on the ticket. Roller quotes Andrea Bozek, the communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee:
“‘Her [Clinton’s] comments on coal are going to really hurt Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania and Ted Strickland in Ohio,’ she said. ‘That’s a huge issue for voters in those states, and I think you’re going to see a lot of TV ads this summer and fall tying Hillary Clinton’s comments — not only on coal, but on her national security record, economic record — to these candidates as well.'”
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ohio has a labor force of just under 5.6 million. It has 11,600 jobs in the category logging and mining. This means that just over 0.2 percent of Ohio’s workforce would be employed in coal mining if all of the jobs in this category were coal mining. Since the state probably has some jobs in logging and in other types of mining, coal mining would have to be a smaller share of the total workforce.
Pennsylvania has 6,000 people employed in coal mining with a total workforce of 5.9 million. This means that the coal industry accounts for just over 0.1 percent of total employment in Pennsylvania.
It seems questionable that comments relating to an industry that employees between 0.1–0.2 percent of a state’s workforce are likely to have much impact on the outcome of an election.
Before the West Virginia primary, former Secretary of States Hillary Clinton made a comment about how environmental regulations would lead to a loss of jobs in coal mining. The comment was in the context of a commitment to retraining miners and providing aid to hard-hit communities, but her critics have seized on it to say that she wants to get rid of coal mining jobs.
Emma Roller picked up on this theme in a NYT column on how the presidential election will affect candidates lower down on the ticket. Roller quotes Andrea Bozek, the communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee:
“‘Her [Clinton’s] comments on coal are going to really hurt Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania and Ted Strickland in Ohio,’ she said. ‘That’s a huge issue for voters in those states, and I think you’re going to see a lot of TV ads this summer and fall tying Hillary Clinton’s comments — not only on coal, but on her national security record, economic record — to these candidates as well.'”
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ohio has a labor force of just under 5.6 million. It has 11,600 jobs in the category logging and mining. This means that just over 0.2 percent of Ohio’s workforce would be employed in coal mining if all of the jobs in this category were coal mining. Since the state probably has some jobs in logging and in other types of mining, coal mining would have to be a smaller share of the total workforce.
Pennsylvania has 6,000 people employed in coal mining with a total workforce of 5.9 million. This means that the coal industry accounts for just over 0.1 percent of total employment in Pennsylvania.
It seems questionable that comments relating to an industry that employees between 0.1–0.2 percent of a state’s workforce are likely to have much impact on the outcome of an election.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The pressure for a Fed rate hike is building as consumer spending in April came in somewhat higher than expected. Other data remain mixed, with investment notably weak.
The Washington Post ran an article that seemed to support the rate hike agenda. It told readers that the Fed’s key measure of inflation, the core personal consumption expenditure deflator, had ticked up in recent months. This is not true.
If we take the measure as being the year over year change, this was just 1.6 percent from April of 2015 to April of 2016. It was 1.7 percent for both January and February.
The pressure for a Fed rate hike is building as consumer spending in April came in somewhat higher than expected. Other data remain mixed, with investment notably weak.
The Washington Post ran an article that seemed to support the rate hike agenda. It told readers that the Fed’s key measure of inflation, the core personal consumption expenditure deflator, had ticked up in recent months. This is not true.
If we take the measure as being the year over year change, this was just 1.6 percent from April of 2015 to April of 2016. It was 1.7 percent for both January and February.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Robert Samuelson says it does, using his column, “Good News for the Middle Class,” to highlight the findings of the Fed’s Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015. For Samuelson, the big news is that 69?percent of households said they were “living comfortably” or “doing okay,” up from 62 percent in 2013.
Okay, that one is clearly going in the right direction, although this is not terribly surprising given that we are two years further along in a recovery, which now has a respectable rate of job growth. But this aside, it is hard to view much of the other information in the report as being very positive.
For example, the report finds that:
“Twenty-two percent of employed adults indicate that they are either working multiple jobs, doing informal work for pay in addition to their main job, or both.”
“Thirty-one percent of non-retired respondents report that they have no retirement savings or pension at all, including 27 percent of non-retired respondents age 60 or older.”
“Forty-six percent of adults say they either could not cover an emergency expense costing $400, or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money.”
None of these findings look like good news to me. Samuelson does note the last one on the ability to cover emergency expenses, but strangely tells readers:
“…almost 30 percent of respondents said they’d have trouble covering an unanticipated expense of $400.”
The 46 percent figure is in the executive summary.
Some other items that folks may find interesting:
“Just 16 percent of young adults (ages 25 to 34) whose parents both have only a high-school degree or less completed a bachelor’s degree, whereas 65 percent of young adults with a parent who completed a bachelor’s degree have completed one themselves.”
This is certainly not a very good story on mobility.
And finally one about the future:
“Twenty-three percent of respondents expect their income to be higher in the year after the survey, down from 29 percent who expected income growth in the year after the 2014 survey.”
That one doesn’t look great. People’s ability to see the economy’s future tends not to be very good (probably because they mostly get information from reading what economists say), but this certainly does not suggest optimism about their economic prospects. On net, I don’t know if the picture here is good news, but I suppose we can say that it could be worse.
Robert Samuelson says it does, using his column, “Good News for the Middle Class,” to highlight the findings of the Fed’s Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015. For Samuelson, the big news is that 69?percent of households said they were “living comfortably” or “doing okay,” up from 62 percent in 2013.
Okay, that one is clearly going in the right direction, although this is not terribly surprising given that we are two years further along in a recovery, which now has a respectable rate of job growth. But this aside, it is hard to view much of the other information in the report as being very positive.
For example, the report finds that:
“Twenty-two percent of employed adults indicate that they are either working multiple jobs, doing informal work for pay in addition to their main job, or both.”
“Thirty-one percent of non-retired respondents report that they have no retirement savings or pension at all, including 27 percent of non-retired respondents age 60 or older.”
“Forty-six percent of adults say they either could not cover an emergency expense costing $400, or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money.”
None of these findings look like good news to me. Samuelson does note the last one on the ability to cover emergency expenses, but strangely tells readers:
“…almost 30 percent of respondents said they’d have trouble covering an unanticipated expense of $400.”
The 46 percent figure is in the executive summary.
Some other items that folks may find interesting:
“Just 16 percent of young adults (ages 25 to 34) whose parents both have only a high-school degree or less completed a bachelor’s degree, whereas 65 percent of young adults with a parent who completed a bachelor’s degree have completed one themselves.”
This is certainly not a very good story on mobility.
And finally one about the future:
“Twenty-three percent of respondents expect their income to be higher in the year after the survey, down from 29 percent who expected income growth in the year after the 2014 survey.”
That one doesn’t look great. People’s ability to see the economy’s future tends not to be very good (probably because they mostly get information from reading what economists say), but this certainly does not suggest optimism about their economic prospects. On net, I don’t know if the picture here is good news, but I suppose we can say that it could be worse.
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
The NYT had an interesting column on how we can reduce the length of the security lines at airports. (Start with your shoes.) However, the piece left out one obvious factor lengthening security lines: carry on baggage.
Security lines would move much quicker if more people checked their luggage rather than carry it on board. Of course, there is a good reason that people want to carry their bags on board, most airlines charge them $25 per checked bag. (Southwest is a notable exception, allowing two free checked bags per passenger.) So we have airlines carrying through a policy that is making everyone’s life miserable to squeeze a few extra dollars out of their passengers.
We can counter the airlines bad behavior. Suppose that TSA charged a $10 fee for each bag that goes through security. That would give people more incentive to check their bags, thereby reducing the length of the security lines. If that is too radical, we can change an absurdity in current law under which airline tickets are subject to a 7.5 percent tax used to fund airport operations, but fees like those for checking bags are not. If there is a planet where this makes sense, I haven’t seen it.
Anyhow, trying to get more people to check their bags is a really simple way to reduce the length of the security lines. Southwest is a highly profitable airline, maybe they could provide some management training to their competitors.
Irrelevant sidebar — here’s the reference for my title.
The NYT had an interesting column on how we can reduce the length of the security lines at airports. (Start with your shoes.) However, the piece left out one obvious factor lengthening security lines: carry on baggage.
Security lines would move much quicker if more people checked their luggage rather than carry it on board. Of course, there is a good reason that people want to carry their bags on board, most airlines charge them $25 per checked bag. (Southwest is a notable exception, allowing two free checked bags per passenger.) So we have airlines carrying through a policy that is making everyone’s life miserable to squeeze a few extra dollars out of their passengers.
We can counter the airlines bad behavior. Suppose that TSA charged a $10 fee for each bag that goes through security. That would give people more incentive to check their bags, thereby reducing the length of the security lines. If that is too radical, we can change an absurdity in current law under which airline tickets are subject to a 7.5 percent tax used to fund airport operations, but fees like those for checking bags are not. If there is a planet where this makes sense, I haven’t seen it.
Anyhow, trying to get more people to check their bags is a really simple way to reduce the length of the security lines. Southwest is a highly profitable airline, maybe they could provide some management training to their competitors.
Irrelevant sidebar — here’s the reference for my title.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post has an article telling readers that a former McDonald’s CEO is warning that a $15 minimum wage will lead to widespread use of robots at fast food restaurants. The piece goes on to warn about the danger that robots pose to jobs more generally:
“Robotics and artificial intelligence are hot areas in the technology sector, and the World Economic Forum estimated earlier this year that their rise would cause a net loss of 5.1 million jobs over the next five years.
“Some experts are so concerned about looming unemployment that they are calling for a basic income, a regular stipend to be paid to citizens who are likely to lose their jobs and cannot be retrained.”
When robots replace workers it is known as “productivity growth.” Productivity growth has actually been incredibly slow in the last decade and has even been negative the last two years.
It is not clear who the “some experts” are (names please), but actual experts know that the economy’s problem is too little productivity growth, not too much. Productivity growth allows for higher living standards. With more rapid productivity growth we can either have more goods or services or work fewer hours to have the same amount of goods and services.
Of course this depends on their being enough demand in the economy. Lack of demand can lead to unemployment. It is not hard to create demand. For example, we could have the government spend money. That is not hard in principle, but deficit cultists, like the Washington Post editorial board and much of the leadership in Congress (in both parties) start yelling and screaming about budget deficits.
We could try to get the trade deficit down, for example by lowering the value of the dollar against other currencies, which makes our goods and services more competitive. People in policy positions generally don’t like to discuss this policy, which would hurt manufacturers like GE which have relocated much of their production overseas and major retailers like Walmart, which has profited by establishing low-cost supply chains.
We can also take steps to reduce average work time, for example by promoting work-sharing as an alternative to layoffs. We can also push for paid family leave, sick days, and vacations, like they have in other wealthy countries.
And, we could discourage the Fed from raising interest rates to choke off demand. Higher interest rates are a policy explicitly designed to keep people from getting jobs.
In short, there are many ways to ensure that the economy has enough demand to employ workers, but the Washington Post would rather yell about robots.
The Washington Post has an article telling readers that a former McDonald’s CEO is warning that a $15 minimum wage will lead to widespread use of robots at fast food restaurants. The piece goes on to warn about the danger that robots pose to jobs more generally:
“Robotics and artificial intelligence are hot areas in the technology sector, and the World Economic Forum estimated earlier this year that their rise would cause a net loss of 5.1 million jobs over the next five years.
“Some experts are so concerned about looming unemployment that they are calling for a basic income, a regular stipend to be paid to citizens who are likely to lose their jobs and cannot be retrained.”
When robots replace workers it is known as “productivity growth.” Productivity growth has actually been incredibly slow in the last decade and has even been negative the last two years.
It is not clear who the “some experts” are (names please), but actual experts know that the economy’s problem is too little productivity growth, not too much. Productivity growth allows for higher living standards. With more rapid productivity growth we can either have more goods or services or work fewer hours to have the same amount of goods and services.
Of course this depends on their being enough demand in the economy. Lack of demand can lead to unemployment. It is not hard to create demand. For example, we could have the government spend money. That is not hard in principle, but deficit cultists, like the Washington Post editorial board and much of the leadership in Congress (in both parties) start yelling and screaming about budget deficits.
We could try to get the trade deficit down, for example by lowering the value of the dollar against other currencies, which makes our goods and services more competitive. People in policy positions generally don’t like to discuss this policy, which would hurt manufacturers like GE which have relocated much of their production overseas and major retailers like Walmart, which has profited by establishing low-cost supply chains.
We can also take steps to reduce average work time, for example by promoting work-sharing as an alternative to layoffs. We can also push for paid family leave, sick days, and vacations, like they have in other wealthy countries.
And, we could discourage the Fed from raising interest rates to choke off demand. Higher interest rates are a policy explicitly designed to keep people from getting jobs.
In short, there are many ways to ensure that the economy has enough demand to employ workers, but the Washington Post would rather yell about robots.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
