A NYT piece on the growth in the percentage of young people getting college degrees included the assertion from Jamie P. Merisotis, the chief executive of the Lumina Foundation:
“There are worrisome signs that the demand for high-skilled talent is increasing more rapidly than we’re actually educating people … We can’t expect our citizens to meet the demands of the 21st-century economy and society without a 21st-century education.”
It is not clear what this evidence would be. The unemployment rate for college graduates, although down from its peak in 2010, is still close to twice its pre-recession level. In addition, wages for college graduates without advance degrees were stagnant even before the recession. These facts suggest that the economy is not suffering from a shortage of highly educated worker, although there may be some narrow occupations and locations in which shortages appear.
A NYT piece on the growth in the percentage of young people getting college degrees included the assertion from Jamie P. Merisotis, the chief executive of the Lumina Foundation:
“There are worrisome signs that the demand for high-skilled talent is increasing more rapidly than we’re actually educating people … We can’t expect our citizens to meet the demands of the 21st-century economy and society without a 21st-century education.”
It is not clear what this evidence would be. The unemployment rate for college graduates, although down from its peak in 2010, is still close to twice its pre-recession level. In addition, wages for college graduates without advance degrees were stagnant even before the recession. These facts suggest that the economy is not suffering from a shortage of highly educated worker, although there may be some narrow occupations and locations in which shortages appear.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The government gives direct student loans. This saves money by eliminating the financial intermediaries. Is there some reason that it can’t do the same with mortgages, that is a reason other than banks need to rip off the public with the government’s assistance?
Jesse Eisinger has a good piece pointing out that the most politically likely paths for reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are likely to mean big profits for banks and incorporate few of the lessons from the housing bubble.
The government gives direct student loans. This saves money by eliminating the financial intermediaries. Is there some reason that it can’t do the same with mortgages, that is a reason other than banks need to rip off the public with the government’s assistance?
Jesse Eisinger has a good piece pointing out that the most politically likely paths for reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are likely to mean big profits for banks and incorporate few of the lessons from the housing bubble.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT implied that politicians in the United States and Europe are pushing a trade deal because they want to boost growth in a prolonged period of stagnation. This is not plausible.
Even optimistic projections of the impact of a trade deal show that it would only increase GDP by around 1.0 percent. This increase would only be felt after the changes in the agreement are fully phased in which will almost certainly be more than a decade. The implication is that the impact on annual growth will almost certainly be less than 0.1 percentage point, and even this would be an optimistic scenario.
The more obvious explanation is that powerful corporate interests could benefit from a trade agreement that would over-ride national or local health, safety, and environmental regulations. The most obvious news in this piece is that political leaders are misrepresenting their motives, trying to claim that a trade deal is about economic growth, which could provide benefits to most of the population, as opposed to special interest rules that are intended to benefit a narrow group of corporations.
The NYT implied that politicians in the United States and Europe are pushing a trade deal because they want to boost growth in a prolonged period of stagnation. This is not plausible.
Even optimistic projections of the impact of a trade deal show that it would only increase GDP by around 1.0 percent. This increase would only be felt after the changes in the agreement are fully phased in which will almost certainly be more than a decade. The implication is that the impact on annual growth will almost certainly be less than 0.1 percentage point, and even this would be an optimistic scenario.
The more obvious explanation is that powerful corporate interests could benefit from a trade agreement that would over-ride national or local health, safety, and environmental regulations. The most obvious news in this piece is that political leaders are misrepresenting their motives, trying to claim that a trade deal is about economic growth, which could provide benefits to most of the population, as opposed to special interest rules that are intended to benefit a narrow group of corporations.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT ran a column that discussed the massive corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and using a water pistol to rein it in. The basic story is straightforward. As a result of government provided patent monopolies (i.e. not the free market), drug companies can sell drugs for hundreds or even thousands of dollars per prescription. In most cases these drugs would sell for a few dollars in a free market.
According to textbook economics, the enormous gap between the price and marginal cost of these drugs gives their manufacturers an enormous incentive to lie, cheat, and steal and find other ways to get more people to buy their drugs. This is the point of the column, the industry is spending a fortune trying to mislead doctors about the safety and effectiveness of their drugs so they will prescribe them more widely.
In a normal world we would be talking about alternative mechanisms for financing prescription drugs. If research was not supported by patent monopolies then drug companies would not spend tens of billions of dollars each year trying to mislead doctors about the quality of their drugs. But it is too great a leap to talk about changing the structure of incentives so instead we get the water pistol:
“The pharmaceutical industry figured that out decades ago, deploying tens of thousands of sales representatives, or “detailers,” to promote their products directly to doctors in their offices. For years, my colleagues and I have been using a similar approach through the nonprofit Independent Drug Information Service, now financed by the governments of Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Our “academic detailing” program assesses the medical literature in a non-product-driven way and then deploys a “docent service” of pharmacists and nurses to visit doctors in their own offices and guide them through the resulting therapy recommendations.”
Yeah, somehow I don’t think this crew will be up to the task.
The NYT ran a column that discussed the massive corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and using a water pistol to rein it in. The basic story is straightforward. As a result of government provided patent monopolies (i.e. not the free market), drug companies can sell drugs for hundreds or even thousands of dollars per prescription. In most cases these drugs would sell for a few dollars in a free market.
According to textbook economics, the enormous gap between the price and marginal cost of these drugs gives their manufacturers an enormous incentive to lie, cheat, and steal and find other ways to get more people to buy their drugs. This is the point of the column, the industry is spending a fortune trying to mislead doctors about the safety and effectiveness of their drugs so they will prescribe them more widely.
In a normal world we would be talking about alternative mechanisms for financing prescription drugs. If research was not supported by patent monopolies then drug companies would not spend tens of billions of dollars each year trying to mislead doctors about the quality of their drugs. But it is too great a leap to talk about changing the structure of incentives so instead we get the water pistol:
“The pharmaceutical industry figured that out decades ago, deploying tens of thousands of sales representatives, or “detailers,” to promote their products directly to doctors in their offices. For years, my colleagues and I have been using a similar approach through the nonprofit Independent Drug Information Service, now financed by the governments of Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Our “academic detailing” program assesses the medical literature in a non-product-driven way and then deploys a “docent service” of pharmacists and nurses to visit doctors in their own offices and guide them through the resulting therapy recommendations.”
Yeah, somehow I don’t think this crew will be up to the task.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
A NYT blog post on the impact of the rise in interest rates on the economy commented:
“Many real estate analysts say that homes are so affordable that even a considerable rise in interest rates would not do much to undermine the housing recovery, especially if the economy is growing at a healthy rate.”
Actually homes are not especially affordable. Inflation adjusted house prices nationwide are more than 15 percent higher than their long-term trend. They are still down considerably from their bubble peaks, but that hardly means that prices are low. Of course even with the recent rise in mortgage interest rates, mortgage rates are still at extraordinarily low levels.
A NYT blog post on the impact of the rise in interest rates on the economy commented:
“Many real estate analysts say that homes are so affordable that even a considerable rise in interest rates would not do much to undermine the housing recovery, especially if the economy is growing at a healthy rate.”
Actually homes are not especially affordable. Inflation adjusted house prices nationwide are more than 15 percent higher than their long-term trend. They are still down considerably from their bubble peaks, but that hardly means that prices are low. Of course even with the recent rise in mortgage interest rates, mortgage rates are still at extraordinarily low levels.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In an article on the recent pick up of growth in Japan the Post told readers that Japan’s government plans a sales tax increase next year:
“The tax increases are needed to cope with a growing public debt that already is more than twice the size of Japan’s economy.”
In spite of having a very high debt-to-GDP ratio, Japan’s interest payments are less than 1.0 percent of GDP. This is due to the fact that interest rates are extraordinarily low. If there is some importance to having a lower debt to GDP ratio, then Japan can simply repurchase long-term bonds at sharp discounts when interest rates rise, as is generally projected. That would be a costless way to reduce the debt to GDP ratio.
In an article on the recent pick up of growth in Japan the Post told readers that Japan’s government plans a sales tax increase next year:
“The tax increases are needed to cope with a growing public debt that already is more than twice the size of Japan’s economy.”
In spite of having a very high debt-to-GDP ratio, Japan’s interest payments are less than 1.0 percent of GDP. This is due to the fact that interest rates are extraordinarily low. If there is some importance to having a lower debt to GDP ratio, then Japan can simply repurchase long-term bonds at sharp discounts when interest rates rise, as is generally projected. That would be a costless way to reduce the debt to GDP ratio.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Not all readers would necessarily have this fact in their head when they see the Post telling them:
“China remains the largest contributor of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, with about a quarter of global emissions.”
On a per person basis, the United States swamps China in terms of emissions. If there is any country that people concerned about global warming should be angry at, the United States would top the list by a long shot.
Not all readers would necessarily have this fact in their head when they see the Post telling them:
“China remains the largest contributor of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, with about a quarter of global emissions.”
On a per person basis, the United States swamps China in terms of emissions. If there is any country that people concerned about global warming should be angry at, the United States would top the list by a long shot.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
What other possible interpretation could anyone give to S&P’s downgrade of U.S. government debt two years ago? The question that S&P is supposed to answer with its rating is whether bonds will be paid off as scheduled. The United States issues debt denominated in dollars, which it has the ability to print in whatever number it desires. Therefore the downgrade can only have been taken to mean an increased probability that the country would forget how to print dollars.
It would be good to point this fact out in news articles that report on the rating agencies’ plans to reverse this downgrade. Otherwise readers might be led to believe that S&P assessments are actually based on the risk that the United States will default on its debt.
What other possible interpretation could anyone give to S&P’s downgrade of U.S. government debt two years ago? The question that S&P is supposed to answer with its rating is whether bonds will be paid off as scheduled. The United States issues debt denominated in dollars, which it has the ability to print in whatever number it desires. Therefore the downgrade can only have been taken to mean an increased probability that the country would forget how to print dollars.
It would be good to point this fact out in news articles that report on the rating agencies’ plans to reverse this downgrade. Otherwise readers might be led to believe that S&P assessments are actually based on the risk that the United States will default on its debt.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Bruce Bartlett has a nice column showing both the explosion in the size of the financial sector and the evidence that it has become both a major drag on economic growth and generator of inequality over the last three decades. That would seem to be a pretty good argument for a financial transactions tax like the one they have had on stock trades in the UK for the last three centuries. Of course this sort of tax on the sector faces an uphill battle in Washington because, in addition to being a major drag on economic growth and generator of inequality, the financial sector is also a major source of campaign contributions.
Bruce Bartlett has a nice column showing both the explosion in the size of the financial sector and the evidence that it has become both a major drag on economic growth and generator of inequality over the last three decades. That would seem to be a pretty good argument for a financial transactions tax like the one they have had on stock trades in the UK for the last three centuries. Of course this sort of tax on the sector faces an uphill battle in Washington because, in addition to being a major drag on economic growth and generator of inequality, the financial sector is also a major source of campaign contributions.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
