The Post had a somewhat confused editorial about the imposition of tariffs on solar panels made in China. The argument for the tariffs is that China subsidizes its panels leading to unfair competition. As the editorial correctly notes, the determination of whether the panels are subsidized is not easy. (Panels sell for less than average cost, but well above marginal cost.)
However the editorial notes a counter-tariff imposed on a key material input imposed by China and then tells readers:
“Tariffs on both sides, meanwhile, promise to push up the price of solar equipment in the United States.”
Of course raising the price of solar equipment in the United States was the goal of the U.S. tariff, not an unexpected outcome as the Post seems to imply. The real questions on the tariff is what the long-run picture for the industry will look like if China continues its current policy unchecked. (Do we think they will get a near-monopoly and then jack up prices?) And second, are protective measures worth the cost of slowing the spread of solar energy, even if it might lead to a somewhat stronger domestic industry? These basic issues do not appear in the Post’s editorial.
The Post had a somewhat confused editorial about the imposition of tariffs on solar panels made in China. The argument for the tariffs is that China subsidizes its panels leading to unfair competition. As the editorial correctly notes, the determination of whether the panels are subsidized is not easy. (Panels sell for less than average cost, but well above marginal cost.)
However the editorial notes a counter-tariff imposed on a key material input imposed by China and then tells readers:
“Tariffs on both sides, meanwhile, promise to push up the price of solar equipment in the United States.”
Of course raising the price of solar equipment in the United States was the goal of the U.S. tariff, not an unexpected outcome as the Post seems to imply. The real questions on the tariff is what the long-run picture for the industry will look like if China continues its current policy unchecked. (Do we think they will get a near-monopoly and then jack up prices?) And second, are protective measures worth the cost of slowing the spread of solar energy, even if it might lead to a somewhat stronger domestic industry? These basic issues do not appear in the Post’s editorial.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Post has a lengthy piece reporting on how the austerity policies being imposed on Spain by the European Central Bank are ruining the lives of its people.
The Post has a lengthy piece reporting on how the austerity policies being imposed on Spain by the European Central Bank are ruining the lives of its people.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
An Associated Press article in the NYT told readers about Japan’s “sluggish” growth in the second quarter. The article told readers that Japan’s economy grew at a 2.6 percent annual rate in the quarter.
The problem is that the media generally touted the 1.7 percent annual growth in the U.S. in the second quarter as a being positive news. It’s difficult to see how a 2.6 percent growth rate in Japan can be seen as sluggish while a 1.7 percent growth rate in the United States is healthy, especially since Japan has a declining population and labor force, while ours is growing at roughly a 0.7 percent annual rate.
An Associated Press article in the NYT told readers about Japan’s “sluggish” growth in the second quarter. The article told readers that Japan’s economy grew at a 2.6 percent annual rate in the quarter.
The problem is that the media generally touted the 1.7 percent annual growth in the U.S. in the second quarter as a being positive news. It’s difficult to see how a 2.6 percent growth rate in Japan can be seen as sluggish while a 1.7 percent growth rate in the United States is healthy, especially since Japan has a declining population and labor force, while ours is growing at roughly a 0.7 percent annual rate.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had an excellent piece on how a variety of arcane restrictions make it difficult for even well-trained foreign physicians to practice medicine in the United States. These restrictions are kept in place at the insistence of the doctors’ lobbies since they allow them to sustain their high wages. This is a great example of how Washington is dominated by protectionists who are intent on using trade barriers to protect special interests even though it poses enormous costs on patients and the economy.
It is worth noting that one of the issues raised in the piece, the potential drain of educated workers from the developing world, could be easily remedied. Since doctors must be licensed to practice, it would be a simple matter to impose a modest tax on the income of foreign trained physicians (e.g. 10 percent). This tax could then be repatriated to the home country so that it could train two or three physicians for everyone that came to the United States. This one is so simple that even an economist could figure it out. In this way, the sending country would benefit as well from the decision of their doctors to immigrate to the United States.
The NYT had an excellent piece on how a variety of arcane restrictions make it difficult for even well-trained foreign physicians to practice medicine in the United States. These restrictions are kept in place at the insistence of the doctors’ lobbies since they allow them to sustain their high wages. This is a great example of how Washington is dominated by protectionists who are intent on using trade barriers to protect special interests even though it poses enormous costs on patients and the economy.
It is worth noting that one of the issues raised in the piece, the potential drain of educated workers from the developing world, could be easily remedied. Since doctors must be licensed to practice, it would be a simple matter to impose a modest tax on the income of foreign trained physicians (e.g. 10 percent). This tax could then be repatriated to the home country so that it could train two or three physicians for everyone that came to the United States. This one is so simple that even an economist could figure it out. In this way, the sending country would benefit as well from the decision of their doctors to immigrate to the United States.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Sorry folks, I usually restrict this blog to economic issues, but I am going to stray a little bit here to beat up the NYT over its Room for Debate on Lyme disease. (My wife has Lyme disease.)
Three of the participants in the debate assert that the research shows long-term antibiotic treatment is ineffective for treating people who supposedly suffer from chronic Lyme. The argument is that Lyme is an acute illness that can be effectively treated with 2-3 weeks of antibiotics. In this view, people who continue to experience symptoms after treatment either suffer from some other ailment or are hypochondriacs.
However the claim that the research shows long-term treatment is ineffective is not accurate. Allison DeLong, a statistician at Brown University, reviewed the three most often cited studies that claim to find long-term antibiotic treatment is ineffective. Her analysis showed that one of the studies had insufficient power to reach any conclusion about the effectiveness of treatment.
A second study showed that, while they were being treated, patients were significantly healthier than patients in the control group. This result has been ignored because the study also found that patients relapsed after the end of treatment. In other words, the study concluded that because 3 months of treatment did not cure patients (some of whom had already had years of antibiotic treatment), that treatment was ineffective.
The third study in fact did find that treatment led to a statistically significant improvement in patients’ health according to the main measure the researchers had chosen (a measure of fatigue). However they opted to ignore this finding because the measure was subjective. The researchers also were confused about their own findings, wrongly believing that the double-blind nature of the study had been compromised even though the treatment and control group gave nearly identical answers when asked whether they thought they were being treated.
Given the importance of DeLong’s findings to the Lyme debate it would have been appropriate to include her views in this exchange or to at least find an expert who was familiar with her research. It is a serious disservice to have an exchange on Lyme that does not include any mention of the latest research on the topic.
Sorry folks, I usually restrict this blog to economic issues, but I am going to stray a little bit here to beat up the NYT over its Room for Debate on Lyme disease. (My wife has Lyme disease.)
Three of the participants in the debate assert that the research shows long-term antibiotic treatment is ineffective for treating people who supposedly suffer from chronic Lyme. The argument is that Lyme is an acute illness that can be effectively treated with 2-3 weeks of antibiotics. In this view, people who continue to experience symptoms after treatment either suffer from some other ailment or are hypochondriacs.
However the claim that the research shows long-term treatment is ineffective is not accurate. Allison DeLong, a statistician at Brown University, reviewed the three most often cited studies that claim to find long-term antibiotic treatment is ineffective. Her analysis showed that one of the studies had insufficient power to reach any conclusion about the effectiveness of treatment.
A second study showed that, while they were being treated, patients were significantly healthier than patients in the control group. This result has been ignored because the study also found that patients relapsed after the end of treatment. In other words, the study concluded that because 3 months of treatment did not cure patients (some of whom had already had years of antibiotic treatment), that treatment was ineffective.
The third study in fact did find that treatment led to a statistically significant improvement in patients’ health according to the main measure the researchers had chosen (a measure of fatigue). However they opted to ignore this finding because the measure was subjective. The researchers also were confused about their own findings, wrongly believing that the double-blind nature of the study had been compromised even though the treatment and control group gave nearly identical answers when asked whether they thought they were being treated.
Given the importance of DeLong’s findings to the Lyme debate it would have been appropriate to include her views in this exchange or to at least find an expert who was familiar with her research. It is a serious disservice to have an exchange on Lyme that does not include any mention of the latest research on the topic.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
This is a nice piece on a non-traditional organizing effort among immigrant construction workers in Texas.
This is a nice piece on a non-traditional organizing effort among immigrant construction workers in Texas.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Gail Collins took up the Post Office and its large annual losses in her column yesterday. While she does make the point that the Postal Service has been hamstrung by Congress in its efforts to take advantage of its assets to move into new lines of business, this point deserves greater emphasis.
Congress mandated that the Postal Service should be self-sustaining in the same way as a private for-profit company. However it has repeatedly blocked the Postal Service from taking advantage of its enormous assets to move into new lines of business, primarily because it would mean increased competition for other businesses. In addition, as Collins notes, it has imposed a set of prefunding and accounting rules for its pension and retiree health benefits that are far more stringent than those used by any private business in the country.
Faced with the combination of restrictions on efforts to expand into new areas, a dwindling market for first class mail (the bread and butter for the Postal Service), and an impossibly stringent set of accounting rules, it is hardly surprising that the system would face large losses.
Gail Collins took up the Post Office and its large annual losses in her column yesterday. While she does make the point that the Postal Service has been hamstrung by Congress in its efforts to take advantage of its assets to move into new lines of business, this point deserves greater emphasis.
Congress mandated that the Postal Service should be self-sustaining in the same way as a private for-profit company. However it has repeatedly blocked the Postal Service from taking advantage of its enormous assets to move into new lines of business, primarily because it would mean increased competition for other businesses. In addition, as Collins notes, it has imposed a set of prefunding and accounting rules for its pension and retiree health benefits that are far more stringent than those used by any private business in the country.
Faced with the combination of restrictions on efforts to expand into new areas, a dwindling market for first class mail (the bread and butter for the Postal Service), and an impossibly stringent set of accounting rules, it is hardly surprising that the system would face large losses.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Floyd Norris has a piece in NYT this morning reporting on the upward revision in profits in the GDP data released last month. It also notes some of the other major revisions. Good to see this being picked up.
Floyd Norris has a piece in NYT this morning reporting on the upward revision in profits in the GDP data released last month. It also notes some of the other major revisions. Good to see this being picked up.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
