I guess I’m about to join the Casey Mulligan fan club. Okay, not quite, but he was good enough to make a point that went against his general political view a couple of weeks ago, so I will take a moment to acknowledge a point that goes somewhat against how I generally see the world.
In his column today, Mulligan argues that policies like extending health care subsidies to people through health care exchanges and unemployment insurance must have some negative effect on employment at the margin. Mulligan acknowledges that many people may choose to work because they feel that is a way to contribute to and be a part of society, but still at the margin there must be some people who will opt not to work if we make that option more attractive, as these policies do.
Mulligan is 100 percent right on this point. The question is both the numbers involved and how we view the individuals who make the choice not to work.
I certainly would not dispute that both policies give people more incentive not to work. I am inclined to think that the impact is small both from personal experience and also based on evidence — including some that Mulligan himself has cited.
In terms of personal experience, I am continually impressed by the commitment that many low-paid workers have to working, as opposed to trying to get by on government benefits. As a relatively well-paid professional, I will certainly acknowledge that I don’t have that many personal encounters with people at the lower ends of the income spectrum, but when I have, I rarely find people looking to make a life on food stamps and disability.
More importantly, the evidence shows that people often work in situations where they gain very little over not working. Mulligan himself has written about how the marginal effective tax rate from losing benefits like food stamps and the earned income tax credit can be over 70 percent for relatively moderate income workers. Yet tens of millions of people still opt to work in situations where they would have almost as much money if they chose not to work.
The other key issue is how we view the people who make the decision not to work as a result of government benefits. We know that the availability of unemployment insurance will make unemployed workers more reluctant to take jobs that they consider bad. I see this as largely a positive for workers and society. If a worker has spent years developing skills as an engineer or medical technician, it is desirable that they have the opportunity to use these skills. If unemployment insurance allows them to spend an extra 2-3 months looking for work so that they can find a job that uses these skills, then I consider it a positive outcome from the program.
Similarly, if access to affordable insurance allows older workers in bad health to retire a few years earlier than would otherwise be the case, I also consider this a positive. We have Medicare at age 65 because we know that the private health care market did not provide affordable health care insurance to older people. Workers in poor health may face this situation before age 65. If the exchanges give them the option to get affordable care without working, that’s a good thing in my book.
In any case, we want to know the numbers involved. Most research suggests that they are relatively small. (Okay, we can fight over that adjective.) In the case of unemployment insurance, the main effect seems to be that it keeps people looking for work rather than dropping out of the labor market altogether. (Research shows that when their benefits expire, most workers just drop out of the labor force, they don’t find jobs.)
We’ll see the impact of the subsidies in the health care exchanges soon enough, but Mulligan is absolutely right that it will not be zero. The question is how many people will stop working and also how we feel about people making this decision.
One other point worth noting. In a context where we still have considerable unemployment, the decision of an older worker to drop out of the labor market is likely to open up a job for a younger worker. That is also a good thing in my book.
I guess I’m about to join the Casey Mulligan fan club. Okay, not quite, but he was good enough to make a point that went against his general political view a couple of weeks ago, so I will take a moment to acknowledge a point that goes somewhat against how I generally see the world.
In his column today, Mulligan argues that policies like extending health care subsidies to people through health care exchanges and unemployment insurance must have some negative effect on employment at the margin. Mulligan acknowledges that many people may choose to work because they feel that is a way to contribute to and be a part of society, but still at the margin there must be some people who will opt not to work if we make that option more attractive, as these policies do.
Mulligan is 100 percent right on this point. The question is both the numbers involved and how we view the individuals who make the choice not to work.
I certainly would not dispute that both policies give people more incentive not to work. I am inclined to think that the impact is small both from personal experience and also based on evidence — including some that Mulligan himself has cited.
In terms of personal experience, I am continually impressed by the commitment that many low-paid workers have to working, as opposed to trying to get by on government benefits. As a relatively well-paid professional, I will certainly acknowledge that I don’t have that many personal encounters with people at the lower ends of the income spectrum, but when I have, I rarely find people looking to make a life on food stamps and disability.
More importantly, the evidence shows that people often work in situations where they gain very little over not working. Mulligan himself has written about how the marginal effective tax rate from losing benefits like food stamps and the earned income tax credit can be over 70 percent for relatively moderate income workers. Yet tens of millions of people still opt to work in situations where they would have almost as much money if they chose not to work.
The other key issue is how we view the people who make the decision not to work as a result of government benefits. We know that the availability of unemployment insurance will make unemployed workers more reluctant to take jobs that they consider bad. I see this as largely a positive for workers and society. If a worker has spent years developing skills as an engineer or medical technician, it is desirable that they have the opportunity to use these skills. If unemployment insurance allows them to spend an extra 2-3 months looking for work so that they can find a job that uses these skills, then I consider it a positive outcome from the program.
Similarly, if access to affordable insurance allows older workers in bad health to retire a few years earlier than would otherwise be the case, I also consider this a positive. We have Medicare at age 65 because we know that the private health care market did not provide affordable health care insurance to older people. Workers in poor health may face this situation before age 65. If the exchanges give them the option to get affordable care without working, that’s a good thing in my book.
In any case, we want to know the numbers involved. Most research suggests that they are relatively small. (Okay, we can fight over that adjective.) In the case of unemployment insurance, the main effect seems to be that it keeps people looking for work rather than dropping out of the labor market altogether. (Research shows that when their benefits expire, most workers just drop out of the labor force, they don’t find jobs.)
We’ll see the impact of the subsidies in the health care exchanges soon enough, but Mulligan is absolutely right that it will not be zero. The question is how many people will stop working and also how we feel about people making this decision.
One other point worth noting. In a context where we still have considerable unemployment, the decision of an older worker to drop out of the labor market is likely to open up a job for a younger worker. That is also a good thing in my book.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Jim Tankersley has a post in Wonkblog asking whether there has been a divergence between pay and productivity over the last three decades. The post notes a study from James Sherk at Heritage which makes several valid points. First, part of the gap between average pay and productivity is explained by a growing share of compensation going to health care benefits. Second part of the gap is the result of the fact that productivity is measured in gross output, whereas only net output is available for consumption. Third, we use different deflators to measure output than consumption. The consumer price index, which is used to measure real wages, shows a higher rate of inflation than the implicit price deflator. If we use the same deflator to measure real wages and output, then this also eliminates much of the seeming gap between productivity and pay.
I had made these points myself a few years back. My conclusion was that we were really looking at a story of upward redistribution from middle and lower income workers to those at the top, doctors, lawyers, and especially Wall Street types and CEOs. Distribution from wages to profits was not a big part of the picture.
But that was back in 2007. The picture looks a bit different today. The graph below shows the labor share of net income in the corporate sector. This is a bit simpler than constructing productivity and pay data, but it should get at the same issue. I have pulled out depreciation and also indirect taxes, so the division is simply between labor income and capital income. I also show the share of labor compensation in after-tax income in the corporate sector.
In the data in the graph it certainly looks like we are seeing a redistribution from labor to capital at least in the years since the crash. For the last three years the labor share of before-tax income was lower than at any point hit in the 1980s and 1990s. The labor share of after-tax income is more than two percentage points lower than at any point in the 1980s and 1990s. That looks like a fairly serious redistribution.
We can throw in the usual qualifications about the data being erratic and cyclical, but it’s pretty hard to find a way to make this redistribution disappear. It may prove to be the case that if the unemployment rate falls back to more normal levels then workers will get increased bargaining power and will be able to recapture more of the gains from productivity growth, but that is not happening now.
Jim Tankersley has a post in Wonkblog asking whether there has been a divergence between pay and productivity over the last three decades. The post notes a study from James Sherk at Heritage which makes several valid points. First, part of the gap between average pay and productivity is explained by a growing share of compensation going to health care benefits. Second part of the gap is the result of the fact that productivity is measured in gross output, whereas only net output is available for consumption. Third, we use different deflators to measure output than consumption. The consumer price index, which is used to measure real wages, shows a higher rate of inflation than the implicit price deflator. If we use the same deflator to measure real wages and output, then this also eliminates much of the seeming gap between productivity and pay.
I had made these points myself a few years back. My conclusion was that we were really looking at a story of upward redistribution from middle and lower income workers to those at the top, doctors, lawyers, and especially Wall Street types and CEOs. Distribution from wages to profits was not a big part of the picture.
But that was back in 2007. The picture looks a bit different today. The graph below shows the labor share of net income in the corporate sector. This is a bit simpler than constructing productivity and pay data, but it should get at the same issue. I have pulled out depreciation and also indirect taxes, so the division is simply between labor income and capital income. I also show the share of labor compensation in after-tax income in the corporate sector.
In the data in the graph it certainly looks like we are seeing a redistribution from labor to capital at least in the years since the crash. For the last three years the labor share of before-tax income was lower than at any point hit in the 1980s and 1990s. The labor share of after-tax income is more than two percentage points lower than at any point in the 1980s and 1990s. That looks like a fairly serious redistribution.
We can throw in the usual qualifications about the data being erratic and cyclical, but it’s pretty hard to find a way to make this redistribution disappear. It may prove to be the case that if the unemployment rate falls back to more normal levels then workers will get increased bargaining power and will be able to recapture more of the gains from productivity growth, but that is not happening now.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Bruce Bartlett has a good piece on fears of inflation from the Great Depression. It’s worth reading if for no other reason to show that otherwise intelligent people are able to believe completely absurd propositions about the economy and the world. (Sorry, worrying about inflation in the 1930s was loony.)
Anyhow, the piece is useful for another reason; Bartlett has a chart showing the rate of deflation at the start of the depression. Prices fell by 2.3 percent in 1930, 9.0 percent in 1931, 9.9 percent in 1932, and 5.1 percent in 1933. These rates of a price decline are a serious problem. They hugely increase the real value of debt held by individuals and businesses.
They also create an environment in which investment is virtually pointless. Why would anyone borrow to expand a business when they will end up repaying the debt in money that is worth 25 percent more? It would make more sense to park the money under a mattress.
While this may be pretty obvious, it is worth contrasting the rates of deflation at the start of the Great Depression with the rates that we may have plausibly seen in the United States in 2009-2010, if things had gone more poorly. In a worst case scenario, we might have seen Japanese style deflation, which has been less in absolute value than -1.0 percent in all but one year. (In 2009 it was -1.3 percent).
This would have been unfortunate, since it would have implied higher real interest rates and some increase in the real burden of debts held by students and homeowners. However, this sort of deflation is bad in the same way that 0.5 percent inflation is worse than 1.5 percent inflation. In a time when the economy is operating well below full employment, higher inflation will encourage more spending than lower inflation, and lower inflation will encourage more spending than low rates of deflation.
However the deflation that we saw at the start of the Great Depression was a qualitatively different beast than the deflation that we might have plausibly seen at the start of the Great Recession. There was really no basis for fearing the sort of destructive inflation the economy saw at the start of the Great Depression. Wages and prices are too sticky today.
This point is important for both conceptual and political reasons. At the conceptual level, we should realize that there is no magic about the inflation rate turning negative. It is just an inflation rate that is too low. Politically, since moderate deflation is not a depression causing disaster (nor was it likely in the cards in any case), we probably should not be giving too much credit to the Bernanke-Geithner crew for heading it off. The fact that inflation stayed positive through the crisis was good news, but it really was not that big a deal. Bernanke will have to do something else to get the Nobel Prize in economics.
Note: The year 1930 was written “2030” in the original post. Thanks Tracer.
Bruce Bartlett has a good piece on fears of inflation from the Great Depression. It’s worth reading if for no other reason to show that otherwise intelligent people are able to believe completely absurd propositions about the economy and the world. (Sorry, worrying about inflation in the 1930s was loony.)
Anyhow, the piece is useful for another reason; Bartlett has a chart showing the rate of deflation at the start of the depression. Prices fell by 2.3 percent in 1930, 9.0 percent in 1931, 9.9 percent in 1932, and 5.1 percent in 1933. These rates of a price decline are a serious problem. They hugely increase the real value of debt held by individuals and businesses.
They also create an environment in which investment is virtually pointless. Why would anyone borrow to expand a business when they will end up repaying the debt in money that is worth 25 percent more? It would make more sense to park the money under a mattress.
While this may be pretty obvious, it is worth contrasting the rates of deflation at the start of the Great Depression with the rates that we may have plausibly seen in the United States in 2009-2010, if things had gone more poorly. In a worst case scenario, we might have seen Japanese style deflation, which has been less in absolute value than -1.0 percent in all but one year. (In 2009 it was -1.3 percent).
This would have been unfortunate, since it would have implied higher real interest rates and some increase in the real burden of debts held by students and homeowners. However, this sort of deflation is bad in the same way that 0.5 percent inflation is worse than 1.5 percent inflation. In a time when the economy is operating well below full employment, higher inflation will encourage more spending than lower inflation, and lower inflation will encourage more spending than low rates of deflation.
However the deflation that we saw at the start of the Great Depression was a qualitatively different beast than the deflation that we might have plausibly seen at the start of the Great Recession. There was really no basis for fearing the sort of destructive inflation the economy saw at the start of the Great Depression. Wages and prices are too sticky today.
This point is important for both conceptual and political reasons. At the conceptual level, we should realize that there is no magic about the inflation rate turning negative. It is just an inflation rate that is too low. Politically, since moderate deflation is not a depression causing disaster (nor was it likely in the cards in any case), we probably should not be giving too much credit to the Bernanke-Geithner crew for heading it off. The fact that inflation stayed positive through the crisis was good news, but it really was not that big a deal. Bernanke will have to do something else to get the Nobel Prize in economics.
Note: The year 1930 was written “2030” in the original post. Thanks Tracer.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Readers of the NYT must have been appalled to see that the only opinions presented in an article on a Brazilian plan to promote trade in physicians services were doctors who could expect to see lower pay as a result. This would be like reporting on a plan to reduce tariffs on imported textiles and only presenting the views of textile workers.
It would have been rather surprising if Brazil’s doctors did not oppose a plan that would reduce their wages so it is not clear why the NYT apparently considers this fact big news. Usually when expanded trade is an agenda item the NYT presents the views of economists who explain how liberalized trade benefits the economy as a whole. For some reason that was not the case in this article.
Readers of the NYT must have been appalled to see that the only opinions presented in an article on a Brazilian plan to promote trade in physicians services were doctors who could expect to see lower pay as a result. This would be like reporting on a plan to reduce tariffs on imported textiles and only presenting the views of textile workers.
It would have been rather surprising if Brazil’s doctors did not oppose a plan that would reduce their wages so it is not clear why the NYT apparently considers this fact big news. Usually when expanded trade is an agenda item the NYT presents the views of economists who explain how liberalized trade benefits the economy as a whole. For some reason that was not the case in this article.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
A lot of people are making their living these days telling us that we aren’t going to have any jobs because robots are going to do all the work. In this great country of ours, many are also making a very good living telling us that we are doomed by demographics, because we will not have enough children to support a growing population of retirees. And then we have those like Robert Samuelson who get paid to do both.
Here he is presenting the argument from Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, two M.I.T. professors who are the main promulgators of the robots will make us all unemployed story. He quotes from an M.I.T. journal:
“The MIT academics foresee dismal prospects for many types of jobs as these powerful new technologies are increasingly adopted not only in manufacturing, clerical and retail work but in professions such as law, financial services, education and medicine,”
He then tells us how this is playing itself out now:
“The digital revolution could stymie job growth.
“Unfortunately, the Great Recession abetted this protective psychology. This keeps unemployment up. Companies didn’t just fire workers; they also went on a hiring strike.”
Okay, we have an easy way of testing whether protective psychology is discouraging firms from hiring. Increasing hours and hiring more workers are alternative ways to meet labor demand. If psychology is discouraging firms from hiring workers in contexts where they otherwise would, then they must be increasing hours.
But they aren’t. The average workweek was 34.5 hours in June, a hair less than the pre-recession average. So much for the psychology.
Then we get this great line about how the economy is getting less dynamic with slower productivity growth.
“Haltiwanger [University of Maryland economist, John Haltiwanger] sees the economy becoming less dynamic. Young firms less than five years old create a huge number of new jobs, but the rate of business start-ups has declined — and with it, new jobs. In the late 1980s, start-ups’ share of net job creation was nearly half; now, it’s just below 40 percent. The causes of the slump in start-up firms are unclear. Some candidates: an aging society, government regulations, more risk-aversion.”
So there you have it, digital technologies are going to replace all the workers at the same time that an aging society will make the economy less dynamic. Now that is a serious set of problems.
A lot of people are making their living these days telling us that we aren’t going to have any jobs because robots are going to do all the work. In this great country of ours, many are also making a very good living telling us that we are doomed by demographics, because we will not have enough children to support a growing population of retirees. And then we have those like Robert Samuelson who get paid to do both.
Here he is presenting the argument from Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, two M.I.T. professors who are the main promulgators of the robots will make us all unemployed story. He quotes from an M.I.T. journal:
“The MIT academics foresee dismal prospects for many types of jobs as these powerful new technologies are increasingly adopted not only in manufacturing, clerical and retail work but in professions such as law, financial services, education and medicine,”
He then tells us how this is playing itself out now:
“The digital revolution could stymie job growth.
“Unfortunately, the Great Recession abetted this protective psychology. This keeps unemployment up. Companies didn’t just fire workers; they also went on a hiring strike.”
Okay, we have an easy way of testing whether protective psychology is discouraging firms from hiring. Increasing hours and hiring more workers are alternative ways to meet labor demand. If psychology is discouraging firms from hiring workers in contexts where they otherwise would, then they must be increasing hours.
But they aren’t. The average workweek was 34.5 hours in June, a hair less than the pre-recession average. So much for the psychology.
Then we get this great line about how the economy is getting less dynamic with slower productivity growth.
“Haltiwanger [University of Maryland economist, John Haltiwanger] sees the economy becoming less dynamic. Young firms less than five years old create a huge number of new jobs, but the rate of business start-ups has declined — and with it, new jobs. In the late 1980s, start-ups’ share of net job creation was nearly half; now, it’s just below 40 percent. The causes of the slump in start-up firms are unclear. Some candidates: an aging society, government regulations, more risk-aversion.”
So there you have it, digital technologies are going to replace all the workers at the same time that an aging society will make the economy less dynamic. Now that is a serious set of problems.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Very nice column from one of my favorite Nobel prize winning economists. Stiglitz explains some of the ways in which patent protection impedes growth and increases inequality.
It’s great to see Stiglitz raising alternatives to patents for financing research, but I would disagree with the prize for patent buyouts that he proposes as being the best alternative. I have always preferred a system of direct upfront funding, which could be done through private firms operating on long-term contracts. In response to a number of requests, here is the argument in brief. (Here‘s a little longer discussion.)
First, I doubt very much that the prizes will typically go to the right person. As we know, and Stiglitz writes in his piece, innovation is inevitably a cumulative process. If we allow people to get patents and then have them bought up for a prize and put in the public domain, I have little confidence that we will typically give our prize to the person or company that had the key innovation. There may well be a situation where a great innovation brought research 99 percent of the way to the final product, but the main innovator was blind to the last simple step. A patent buyout system is likely to reward the last simple step, not the innovation that got us 99 percent of the way there.
I am well aware of the ideology that says we have to be able to find the “best” innovator, but this is just an ideology. Years ago when I was teaching, we had a small prize that went to the best undergrad econ major. Half of the faculty had one student who they considered outstanding, the other half had another student. There was no one who had both students. For some reason the prize could not be shared.
I proposed flipping a coin. Everyone laughed assuming that this was a joke. When I insisted that I was serious and that we had no rational basis for resolving this through discussion, my friends on the faculty politely dismissed my suggestion implying that it was close to crazy. Eventually, the louder voices got their candidate the prize.
This was a simple case, but that is the way it works all the time in the real world. Do we really think that it’s important we hand large prizes (e.g. billions or tens of billions of dollars) to a person or company who we will credit with an innovation for which they may not deserve credit?
The other problem with a prize system is that it encourages secrecy in the research process before the prize is awarded. In order to have the best claim to getting a prize, researchers would not share their results until they have a patentable product. This could lead to much duplicative research and many pointless deadends. By contrast, if a condition of getting upfront funding is that all research results are made public as soon as practical then research should be able to advance far more quickly.
We could still have prizes in this system, but they would be secondary compensation like Professor Stiglitz’s Nobel Prize. While I’m sure Stiglitz was happy to pocket a million plus dollar prize, he had already been paid for his work. Even if the Nobel committee had overlooked his contributions to economics, he need not have worried about going home without a paycheck.
Similarly, in a system of publicly funded research there is no reason not to include funding for many Nobel-type prizes. If someone has a great breakthrough in the treatment of cancer, malaria, or some other major disease, why not give this person $5 million or $10 million? But the point would be that their paycheck would not hinge on having a patent that the prize committee would then decide was worth some vast sum.
Anyhow, that’s my two cents on the topic, but the key point is that we need to have the discussion. The abuses of the patent system are a daily occurrence. They cost lives, slow growth, and increase inequality. It’s great that Stiglitz has raised the topic and that the NYT has run his piece.
Very nice column from one of my favorite Nobel prize winning economists. Stiglitz explains some of the ways in which patent protection impedes growth and increases inequality.
It’s great to see Stiglitz raising alternatives to patents for financing research, but I would disagree with the prize for patent buyouts that he proposes as being the best alternative. I have always preferred a system of direct upfront funding, which could be done through private firms operating on long-term contracts. In response to a number of requests, here is the argument in brief. (Here‘s a little longer discussion.)
First, I doubt very much that the prizes will typically go to the right person. As we know, and Stiglitz writes in his piece, innovation is inevitably a cumulative process. If we allow people to get patents and then have them bought up for a prize and put in the public domain, I have little confidence that we will typically give our prize to the person or company that had the key innovation. There may well be a situation where a great innovation brought research 99 percent of the way to the final product, but the main innovator was blind to the last simple step. A patent buyout system is likely to reward the last simple step, not the innovation that got us 99 percent of the way there.
I am well aware of the ideology that says we have to be able to find the “best” innovator, but this is just an ideology. Years ago when I was teaching, we had a small prize that went to the best undergrad econ major. Half of the faculty had one student who they considered outstanding, the other half had another student. There was no one who had both students. For some reason the prize could not be shared.
I proposed flipping a coin. Everyone laughed assuming that this was a joke. When I insisted that I was serious and that we had no rational basis for resolving this through discussion, my friends on the faculty politely dismissed my suggestion implying that it was close to crazy. Eventually, the louder voices got their candidate the prize.
This was a simple case, but that is the way it works all the time in the real world. Do we really think that it’s important we hand large prizes (e.g. billions or tens of billions of dollars) to a person or company who we will credit with an innovation for which they may not deserve credit?
The other problem with a prize system is that it encourages secrecy in the research process before the prize is awarded. In order to have the best claim to getting a prize, researchers would not share their results until they have a patentable product. This could lead to much duplicative research and many pointless deadends. By contrast, if a condition of getting upfront funding is that all research results are made public as soon as practical then research should be able to advance far more quickly.
We could still have prizes in this system, but they would be secondary compensation like Professor Stiglitz’s Nobel Prize. While I’m sure Stiglitz was happy to pocket a million plus dollar prize, he had already been paid for his work. Even if the Nobel committee had overlooked his contributions to economics, he need not have worried about going home without a paycheck.
Similarly, in a system of publicly funded research there is no reason not to include funding for many Nobel-type prizes. If someone has a great breakthrough in the treatment of cancer, malaria, or some other major disease, why not give this person $5 million or $10 million? But the point would be that their paycheck would not hinge on having a patent that the prize committee would then decide was worth some vast sum.
Anyhow, that’s my two cents on the topic, but the key point is that we need to have the discussion. The abuses of the patent system are a daily occurrence. They cost lives, slow growth, and increase inequality. It’s great that Stiglitz has raised the topic and that the NYT has run his piece.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT ran an interesting piece on the problems of clinical testing. At the end of the piece it suggests a better alternative to patent financed clinical trials. The alternative involves the simultaneous testing of multiple drugs. These trials are being conducted by a consortium supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, among others. (If the takers didn’t call the shots, the drugs approved as a result of this process would all be available as generics. Needless to say, the drug companies probably have this arranged so that the government provides the service for free.)
The NYT ran an interesting piece on the problems of clinical testing. At the end of the piece it suggests a better alternative to patent financed clinical trials. The alternative involves the simultaneous testing of multiple drugs. These trials are being conducted by a consortium supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, among others. (If the takers didn’t call the shots, the drugs approved as a result of this process would all be available as generics. Needless to say, the drug companies probably have this arranged so that the government provides the service for free.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is what readers of this interview by Binyamin Appelbaum with Stephen King must be wondering. King’s main point is that growth is grinding to a halt and we are facing an era of prolonged stagnation. Okay, how does this fit with the story that we will see mass unemployment because robots will do all the work?
The answer is that it doesn’t fit at all. The weather person on channel 5 told just told us that it will 95 degrees and sunny, while the weather person on channel 9 told us to expect blizzards and sub-zero weather.
This is the state of economic debate in the United States. If either of these views are right, then the people arguing the other one are out of their gourds. Yet in this great country, both views are exposed side by side in elite circles, probably even by the same people.
This says everything anyone needs to know about the quality of economic debate. It is complete nonsense. Policy is designed of, by, and for the powerful, end of story. If we can’t do anything about policy, why don’t we just save a few bucks and fire all the damn economists. Let’s shut down the econ departments in universities, the Fed’s research department, the I.M.F., the OECD. Let’s get real, no one cares about economics, they are just going to pursue the policies they want to follow.
(Yes, I’m happy to go too. If we get rid of the rest of the bastards, I would gladly spend the rest of my days shoveling poop in dog shelters.)
That is what readers of this interview by Binyamin Appelbaum with Stephen King must be wondering. King’s main point is that growth is grinding to a halt and we are facing an era of prolonged stagnation. Okay, how does this fit with the story that we will see mass unemployment because robots will do all the work?
The answer is that it doesn’t fit at all. The weather person on channel 5 told just told us that it will 95 degrees and sunny, while the weather person on channel 9 told us to expect blizzards and sub-zero weather.
This is the state of economic debate in the United States. If either of these views are right, then the people arguing the other one are out of their gourds. Yet in this great country, both views are exposed side by side in elite circles, probably even by the same people.
This says everything anyone needs to know about the quality of economic debate. It is complete nonsense. Policy is designed of, by, and for the powerful, end of story. If we can’t do anything about policy, why don’t we just save a few bucks and fire all the damn economists. Let’s shut down the econ departments in universities, the Fed’s research department, the I.M.F., the OECD. Let’s get real, no one cares about economics, they are just going to pursue the policies they want to follow.
(Yes, I’m happy to go too. If we get rid of the rest of the bastards, I would gladly spend the rest of my days shoveling poop in dog shelters.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had an article about how French consumers are cutting back on their spending, hurting retailers and the economy. The piece notes that unemployment is rising and that the French economy is struggling to recover from its second recession since the 2008 collapse.
It would have been worth mentioning that this is a direct and predictable outcome of the government’s austerity policies. The government has cut spending and raised taxes. This directly reduces demand in the economy. Unless the government’s cutbacks somehow inspire consumers to spend more, businesses to invest more or foreigners to buy more French goods, they will lead to slower growth and higher unemployment.
As this article implies and research from the I.M.F. and others demonstrate, government austerity has not helped to boost the private sector. The article should have explained the role of government policy in the situation it describes. Presumably if there had been a surge in inflation following a big government spending spree the NYT would have made the connection rather than just noting higher prices in stores.
The NYT had an article about how French consumers are cutting back on their spending, hurting retailers and the economy. The piece notes that unemployment is rising and that the French economy is struggling to recover from its second recession since the 2008 collapse.
It would have been worth mentioning that this is a direct and predictable outcome of the government’s austerity policies. The government has cut spending and raised taxes. This directly reduces demand in the economy. Unless the government’s cutbacks somehow inspire consumers to spend more, businesses to invest more or foreigners to buy more French goods, they will lead to slower growth and higher unemployment.
As this article implies and research from the I.M.F. and others demonstrate, government austerity has not helped to boost the private sector. The article should have explained the role of government policy in the situation it describes. Presumably if there had been a surge in inflation following a big government spending spree the NYT would have made the connection rather than just noting higher prices in stores.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
