On a day when most analysts were touting the 195,000 new jobs reported for June as better than expected, the Washington Post warned that things are about to take a sharp turn for the worse. It told readers:
“In addition, an index compiled by Gallup showed that job creation the past two months has been at the highest level since April 2008.”
Of course April 2008 was after the recession had already begun and the economy was losing jobs. The Labor Department reported a loss of 215,000 jobs in April and a loss of 649,000 for the three months from February to May of 2008. While the Post piece writes up the comparison to April of 2008 as positive, in fact it is a pretty awful story.
Hopefully this is just another case of folks getting their numbers seriously messed up (a pretty common occurrence in economic analysis), not an actual survey suggesting the economy is heading into another recession.
Note: It appears the Washington Post has taken down the original article. I guess that means we do not have to fear the survey results it initially reported.
On a day when most analysts were touting the 195,000 new jobs reported for June as better than expected, the Washington Post warned that things are about to take a sharp turn for the worse. It told readers:
“In addition, an index compiled by Gallup showed that job creation the past two months has been at the highest level since April 2008.”
Of course April 2008 was after the recession had already begun and the economy was losing jobs. The Labor Department reported a loss of 215,000 jobs in April and a loss of 649,000 for the three months from February to May of 2008. While the Post piece writes up the comparison to April of 2008 as positive, in fact it is a pretty awful story.
Hopefully this is just another case of folks getting their numbers seriously messed up (a pretty common occurrence in economic analysis), not an actual survey suggesting the economy is heading into another recession.
Note: It appears the Washington Post has taken down the original article. I guess that means we do not have to fear the survey results it initially reported.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had a blogpost discussing the possible impact of immigration reform on Social Security. While the post did include statements from a couple of economists saying the impact would be small, its use of dollar amounts without any context might have misled many readers. The post told readers:
“The Center for American Progress, a supporter of immigration reform, says if 70 percent of illegal immigrants are eligible for legal status under the bill, they will contribute $500 billion on net in 36 years — the period that the baby boomers will put a strain on the system.”
It is unlikely that many readers have much idea of how large the economy is projected to be over this period or how much Social Security is projected to spend. According to the most recent trustees report, Social Security will spend roughly $100 trillion over between now and 2050. This makes the estimated $500 billion net contribution as a result of immigration reform equal to roughly 0.5 percent of projected spending over this period.
This would have roughly the same impact on the program’s finances as an increase in the payroll tax of 0.07 percentage points. By comparison the tax went up by 2.0 percentage points at the start of 2013 as a result of the end of the payroll tax cut.
If workers get a proportionate share of productivity growth, inflation-adjusted compensation per hour will rise by more than 70 percent over the next 36 years, 1000 times as large as the estimated impact of immigration reform on the finances of the Social Security system.
The NYT had a blogpost discussing the possible impact of immigration reform on Social Security. While the post did include statements from a couple of economists saying the impact would be small, its use of dollar amounts without any context might have misled many readers. The post told readers:
“The Center for American Progress, a supporter of immigration reform, says if 70 percent of illegal immigrants are eligible for legal status under the bill, they will contribute $500 billion on net in 36 years — the period that the baby boomers will put a strain on the system.”
It is unlikely that many readers have much idea of how large the economy is projected to be over this period or how much Social Security is projected to spend. According to the most recent trustees report, Social Security will spend roughly $100 trillion over between now and 2050. This makes the estimated $500 billion net contribution as a result of immigration reform equal to roughly 0.5 percent of projected spending over this period.
This would have roughly the same impact on the program’s finances as an increase in the payroll tax of 0.07 percentage points. By comparison the tax went up by 2.0 percentage points at the start of 2013 as a result of the end of the payroll tax cut.
If workers get a proportionate share of productivity growth, inflation-adjusted compensation per hour will rise by more than 70 percent over the next 36 years, 1000 times as large as the estimated impact of immigration reform on the finances of the Social Security system.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s what they would expect if they ever took their own arguments seriously. The claim that the bill was a job-killer hinged on the notion that the penalties applied to firms with more than 50 workers who did not provide insurance would discourage hiring. The penalties also supposedly encouraged firms to reduce hours since they only applied to workers who worked more than 30 hours a week.
The economy should have already been seeing the negative impact of these requirements (contrary to what is implied in this NYT article) since the penalty provision was supposed to take effect in 2014 based on employment in 2013. This means that if the penalties actually were affecting hiring, then we should soon see a hiring boom as firms need no longer fear being over the 50 worker threshold in 2013. (They need not worry about this year’s hiring pushing them over the cutoff for next year. Roughly 3 percent of the workforce leaves their job every month (roughly half voluntarily and half involuntarily), so if hires in 2013 pushed employers above the threshold, they would have little difficulty getting back under the 50 worker threshold in 2014.
This means that the delay of the imposition of the penalty provides a great test of the extent to which the Affordable Care Act really is a job killer. Anyone taking bets on the size of the hiring surge in the second half of 2013?
That’s what they would expect if they ever took their own arguments seriously. The claim that the bill was a job-killer hinged on the notion that the penalties applied to firms with more than 50 workers who did not provide insurance would discourage hiring. The penalties also supposedly encouraged firms to reduce hours since they only applied to workers who worked more than 30 hours a week.
The economy should have already been seeing the negative impact of these requirements (contrary to what is implied in this NYT article) since the penalty provision was supposed to take effect in 2014 based on employment in 2013. This means that if the penalties actually were affecting hiring, then we should soon see a hiring boom as firms need no longer fear being over the 50 worker threshold in 2013. (They need not worry about this year’s hiring pushing them over the cutoff for next year. Roughly 3 percent of the workforce leaves their job every month (roughly half voluntarily and half involuntarily), so if hires in 2013 pushed employers above the threshold, they would have little difficulty getting back under the 50 worker threshold in 2014.
This means that the delay of the imposition of the penalty provides a great test of the extent to which the Affordable Care Act really is a job killer. Anyone taking bets on the size of the hiring surge in the second half of 2013?
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The WSJ told readers that people in the United States are much better off today because of increased North American oil production, which it claims has led to more stability in world oil prices. It contrasts the current situation to the instability of 8 years ago:
“The group, made up of business executives, former diplomats and retired military leaders, hosted “Oil ShockWave” simulations, inviting former senior policy makers to role-play responses to hypothetical oil-market disruptions. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin played the part of the president’s national-security adviser in a 2007 simulation in which unrest closed a pipeline linking the Caspian and Mediterranean seas while Venezuela and Iran cut output to protest sanctions on Iran, sending global oil prices soaring.”
In 2007 the world price of oil averaged around $65 a barrel in current dollars. It is currently over $90. If we had been willing to push oil prices 40 percent higher back in 2007, there would have been much less risk of price spike due to an interruption of supply. It’s unlikely that many people would consider the higher prices of today a good trade-off for greater price stability, even if in fact the market is more stable going forward, as the article asserts.
The WSJ told readers that people in the United States are much better off today because of increased North American oil production, which it claims has led to more stability in world oil prices. It contrasts the current situation to the instability of 8 years ago:
“The group, made up of business executives, former diplomats and retired military leaders, hosted “Oil ShockWave” simulations, inviting former senior policy makers to role-play responses to hypothetical oil-market disruptions. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin played the part of the president’s national-security adviser in a 2007 simulation in which unrest closed a pipeline linking the Caspian and Mediterranean seas while Venezuela and Iran cut output to protest sanctions on Iran, sending global oil prices soaring.”
In 2007 the world price of oil averaged around $65 a barrel in current dollars. It is currently over $90. If we had been willing to push oil prices 40 percent higher back in 2007, there would have been much less risk of price spike due to an interruption of supply. It’s unlikely that many people would consider the higher prices of today a good trade-off for greater price stability, even if in fact the market is more stable going forward, as the article asserts.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
This is one of the great mysteries of news reporting. No, the NYT didn’t literally call a trade agreement “good” in a news story, but it did call it “free” which amounts to pretty much the same thing.
A piece discussing European anger over evidence that Edward Snowden released of U.S. spying on European governments noted that several officials had raised the possibility of breaking off discussions on a “free trade” agreement with the United States. The question is what information does the NYT think it is conveying by including the word “free” in the article.
While there will be some reductions in tariffs and quotas in this deal, the bulk of it will involve setting regulatory rules that have nothing directly to do with “free trade” as it is traditionally defined. For example, the agreement may restrict national and local governments’ abilities to impose safety and environmental restrictions on industries operating in their jurisdictions or on the goods and services being sold. It is simply wrong to describe these restrictions as “free trade.”
It is also possible, if not likely, that the deal will lead to stronger patent and copyright protections. These are forms of government created monopolies that are the direct opposite of free trade.
Reporters usually complain about lack of space to get out all the information they would like. So why does the NYT feel the need to waste space to include a word that makes the article at least misleading, if not actually wrong.
This is one of the great mysteries of news reporting. No, the NYT didn’t literally call a trade agreement “good” in a news story, but it did call it “free” which amounts to pretty much the same thing.
A piece discussing European anger over evidence that Edward Snowden released of U.S. spying on European governments noted that several officials had raised the possibility of breaking off discussions on a “free trade” agreement with the United States. The question is what information does the NYT think it is conveying by including the word “free” in the article.
While there will be some reductions in tariffs and quotas in this deal, the bulk of it will involve setting regulatory rules that have nothing directly to do with “free trade” as it is traditionally defined. For example, the agreement may restrict national and local governments’ abilities to impose safety and environmental restrictions on industries operating in their jurisdictions or on the goods and services being sold. It is simply wrong to describe these restrictions as “free trade.”
It is also possible, if not likely, that the deal will lead to stronger patent and copyright protections. These are forms of government created monopolies that are the direct opposite of free trade.
Reporters usually complain about lack of space to get out all the information they would like. So why does the NYT feel the need to waste space to include a word that makes the article at least misleading, if not actually wrong.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post had a piece noting the rapid growth of automobile production in Mexico that raised the possibility that it would come at the expense of production in the United States. The piece points out that the auto companies now hire new workers in the United States at wages between $14 and $18 an hour.
It is worth noting that if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth over the last 45 years it would be almost $17.00 an hour today. This means that newly hired workers would in many cases be working for less than a productivity indexed minimum wage. The minimum wage had largely tracked productivity growth in the three decades from 1938 to 1968. (The unemployment rate in the last 1960s was less than 4.0 percent.)
The Washington Post had a piece noting the rapid growth of automobile production in Mexico that raised the possibility that it would come at the expense of production in the United States. The piece points out that the auto companies now hire new workers in the United States at wages between $14 and $18 an hour.
It is worth noting that if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth over the last 45 years it would be almost $17.00 an hour today. This means that newly hired workers would in many cases be working for less than a productivity indexed minimum wage. The minimum wage had largely tracked productivity growth in the three decades from 1938 to 1968. (The unemployment rate in the last 1960s was less than 4.0 percent.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Rattner shows how a small drug company, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, is making a fortune by charging as much as $60,000 a year for a drug it purchased which is a treatment for narcolepsy. As Rattner outlines, government-granted patent monopolies, by allowing companies to charge prices that can be several hundred or thousand times the free market price, provide an enormous incentive for corrupt practices.
Rattner shows how a small drug company, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, is making a fortune by charging as much as $60,000 a year for a drug it purchased which is a treatment for narcolepsy. As Rattner outlines, government-granted patent monopolies, by allowing companies to charge prices that can be several hundred or thousand times the free market price, provide an enormous incentive for corrupt practices.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s what readers of its editorial on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac learned today. This is quite literally what the paper said in its partial endorsement of a complex hybrid proposal for a new system of guarantees for mortgage backed securities proposed by Senators Mark Warner and Bob Corker, describing the plan as “an obvious bow to political reality.”
It’s touching that the Post feels the need to bow to the financial industry’s power rather than pushing for more economically efficient systems of mortgage finance. We know that the government can efficiently create a secondary mortgage market as it did with the original Fannie Mae. This was a government owned company that bought and held mortgages.
There were no mortgage backed securities, just mortgages. Why add complexity to the system? If the government is guaranteeing the mortgage it is already on the line for the credit risk involved. Packaging the mortgages into securities allows the government to pass off interest rate risk, but if there is any entity in the world that can bear interest rate risk (i.e. that higher interest rates will reduce the market price of mortgages) it is the federal government, which has no problem holding mortgages until maturity.
But if this route, or simply keeping Fannie and Freddie in their current form as essentially government-owned companies, is off limits, why not just leave it to the private sector. The WAPO warns of less liquidity in the mortgage market and the precarious existence of the 30-year mortgage.
In reference to the first complaint, so what? Why is it an important public policy goal to make it possible for banks to be able to quickly sell 30-year mortgages? If the mortgage market was somewhat less liquid, then that would raise their price somewhat.
This brings us to the second point, that 30-year mortgages have long survived in markets without government support, specifically the jumbo mortgage market. These mortgages are too large to be purchased by Fannie or Freddie. They have typically carried interest rates that are 0.25-0.75 percentage points higher than on the conforming mortgages that Fannie and Freddie can purchase. As an alternative to creating a whole new financial network to lower mortgage rates modestly (by comparison, they have risen by more than a full percentage point in the last three months), why not just make the mortgage deduction more generous for moderate and middle income homeowners?
There also is the other isssue of what’s so great about 30-year mortgages? Presumably the goal of housing policy is make homeownership more affordable, not to promote 30-year mortgages. As Alan Greenspan famously advertised back in 2003, when interest rates on 30-year fixed rate mortgages were near a then 50-year low (thereby helping to foster the boom in exotic adjustable rate mortgages), most homebuyers end up as losers by getting 30-year fixed rate mortgages. They would be better off getting adjustable rate mortgages. This is especially true of people who stay in their home for shorter periods of time, who are likely to be more moderate income homeowners.
So in other words, the Post wants us to bow to political reality to create a whole new system of mortgage guarantees with the idea that we will make it easier for millions of moderate and middle income home-buyers to take out 30-year mortgages that will end up being a waste of money. Apparently it is much easier for a major national newspaper to beat up tens of millions of seniors and current workers and call for cuts to Social Security and Medicare than to throw a little common sense in the face of the financial industry.
That’s what readers of its editorial on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac learned today. This is quite literally what the paper said in its partial endorsement of a complex hybrid proposal for a new system of guarantees for mortgage backed securities proposed by Senators Mark Warner and Bob Corker, describing the plan as “an obvious bow to political reality.”
It’s touching that the Post feels the need to bow to the financial industry’s power rather than pushing for more economically efficient systems of mortgage finance. We know that the government can efficiently create a secondary mortgage market as it did with the original Fannie Mae. This was a government owned company that bought and held mortgages.
There were no mortgage backed securities, just mortgages. Why add complexity to the system? If the government is guaranteeing the mortgage it is already on the line for the credit risk involved. Packaging the mortgages into securities allows the government to pass off interest rate risk, but if there is any entity in the world that can bear interest rate risk (i.e. that higher interest rates will reduce the market price of mortgages) it is the federal government, which has no problem holding mortgages until maturity.
But if this route, or simply keeping Fannie and Freddie in their current form as essentially government-owned companies, is off limits, why not just leave it to the private sector. The WAPO warns of less liquidity in the mortgage market and the precarious existence of the 30-year mortgage.
In reference to the first complaint, so what? Why is it an important public policy goal to make it possible for banks to be able to quickly sell 30-year mortgages? If the mortgage market was somewhat less liquid, then that would raise their price somewhat.
This brings us to the second point, that 30-year mortgages have long survived in markets without government support, specifically the jumbo mortgage market. These mortgages are too large to be purchased by Fannie or Freddie. They have typically carried interest rates that are 0.25-0.75 percentage points higher than on the conforming mortgages that Fannie and Freddie can purchase. As an alternative to creating a whole new financial network to lower mortgage rates modestly (by comparison, they have risen by more than a full percentage point in the last three months), why not just make the mortgage deduction more generous for moderate and middle income homeowners?
There also is the other isssue of what’s so great about 30-year mortgages? Presumably the goal of housing policy is make homeownership more affordable, not to promote 30-year mortgages. As Alan Greenspan famously advertised back in 2003, when interest rates on 30-year fixed rate mortgages were near a then 50-year low (thereby helping to foster the boom in exotic adjustable rate mortgages), most homebuyers end up as losers by getting 30-year fixed rate mortgages. They would be better off getting adjustable rate mortgages. This is especially true of people who stay in their home for shorter periods of time, who are likely to be more moderate income homeowners.
So in other words, the Post wants us to bow to political reality to create a whole new system of mortgage guarantees with the idea that we will make it easier for millions of moderate and middle income home-buyers to take out 30-year mortgages that will end up being a waste of money. Apparently it is much easier for a major national newspaper to beat up tens of millions of seniors and current workers and call for cuts to Social Security and Medicare than to throw a little common sense in the face of the financial industry.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
A NYT story on the rise in the euro zone unemployment rate to 12.1 percent noted the sharp differences in unemployment rates across the euro zone and told readers:
“The divergence makes it difficult for the E.C.B. to craft a monetary policy that is appropriate for all members.”
Actually this is not true. The euro zone needs expansion everywhere. It also needs re-balancing with the peripheral countries (e.g. Spain, Greece, and Portugal) becoming more competitive relative to the core countries (e.g. Germany and Austria).
If the ECB pursued more expansionary policy it would directly reduce the unemployment rate in the peripheral countries. It would also lead to somewhat higher inflation in the core countries, making the peripheral countries more competitive. This is exactly the results that we should want to see.
As a political matter this may be difficult because Germans have superstitions about inflation, but that is a political issue. There is no economic reason not to pursue more expansionary policy.
A NYT story on the rise in the euro zone unemployment rate to 12.1 percent noted the sharp differences in unemployment rates across the euro zone and told readers:
“The divergence makes it difficult for the E.C.B. to craft a monetary policy that is appropriate for all members.”
Actually this is not true. The euro zone needs expansion everywhere. It also needs re-balancing with the peripheral countries (e.g. Spain, Greece, and Portugal) becoming more competitive relative to the core countries (e.g. Germany and Austria).
If the ECB pursued more expansionary policy it would directly reduce the unemployment rate in the peripheral countries. It would also lead to somewhat higher inflation in the core countries, making the peripheral countries more competitive. This is exactly the results that we should want to see.
As a political matter this may be difficult because Germans have superstitions about inflation, but that is a political issue. There is no economic reason not to pursue more expansionary policy.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
According to the New York Times drug companies are confused about how requirements for getting drugs approved affect the profitability of their investment decisions. In an article about efforts to increase disclosure of test results it told readers that European Union requirements for full disclosure of test results could discourage drug companies from investing in Europe.
“Others warned that such a policy could discourage drug companies from investing in Europe. ‘If you, on the other hand, say, “You guys are bad actors, we want to cut your prices, we want to take your confidential data and share it with any one of your competitors,” you don’t get the same feeling of encouragement.'”
The European Union rules would apply to drugs that are licensed in the EU regardless of where the research was done. Similarly, if research was done in Europe, but the drugs developed were not licensed there, then there would be no requirement that the drug companies disclose their test results.
The linking of investment location decisions to a requirement to disclose test results only makes sense as political blackmail. It has nothing to do with maximizing the companies’ profitability. The NYT should have made this point more clearly to its readers.
According to the New York Times drug companies are confused about how requirements for getting drugs approved affect the profitability of their investment decisions. In an article about efforts to increase disclosure of test results it told readers that European Union requirements for full disclosure of test results could discourage drug companies from investing in Europe.
“Others warned that such a policy could discourage drug companies from investing in Europe. ‘If you, on the other hand, say, “You guys are bad actors, we want to cut your prices, we want to take your confidential data and share it with any one of your competitors,” you don’t get the same feeling of encouragement.'”
The European Union rules would apply to drugs that are licensed in the EU regardless of where the research was done. Similarly, if research was done in Europe, but the drugs developed were not licensed there, then there would be no requirement that the drug companies disclose their test results.
The linking of investment location decisions to a requirement to disclose test results only makes sense as political blackmail. It has nothing to do with maximizing the companies’ profitability. The NYT should have made this point more clearly to its readers.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
