Robert Samuelson is worried that S&P is being persecuted by the Justice Department which is suing the company for mis-rating tens of billions of dollars of mortgage backed securites. He argues that S&P was suckered by the housing bubble just like everyone else.
While the claim that they believed that house prices could only rise is probably true (most economists and policy types believed this in the years 2002-2006 — you don’t get fired in economic policy work for making huge mistakes) that has little to do with the charges leveled by Justice Department. These charges claim that S&P changed its rating model in order to get more business. If S&P did not alter ratings to get business then the Justice Department will probably not get far with its case.
There is no inconsistency between the claim that actors in the financial industry both believed in the bubble and committed fraud, as Samuelson seems to think. In a rising housing market every mortgage is a good mortgage. Even if the borrower never makes a single payment, the lender ends up in possession of a home that has risen in value and can likely be resold to cover the cost of the mortgage. This could mean that lenders issue mortgages without proper underwriting (e.g. they make up information) because they know that there will be plenty of potential buyers for the mortgage. The investment banks go along with the hoax because everyone is making money. So do the rating agencies and the captive regulators. The fact that all of these people might be clueless about markets and the economy hardly precludes the possibility that they committed massive fraud.
Robert Samuelson is worried that S&P is being persecuted by the Justice Department which is suing the company for mis-rating tens of billions of dollars of mortgage backed securites. He argues that S&P was suckered by the housing bubble just like everyone else.
While the claim that they believed that house prices could only rise is probably true (most economists and policy types believed this in the years 2002-2006 — you don’t get fired in economic policy work for making huge mistakes) that has little to do with the charges leveled by Justice Department. These charges claim that S&P changed its rating model in order to get more business. If S&P did not alter ratings to get business then the Justice Department will probably not get far with its case.
There is no inconsistency between the claim that actors in the financial industry both believed in the bubble and committed fraud, as Samuelson seems to think. In a rising housing market every mortgage is a good mortgage. Even if the borrower never makes a single payment, the lender ends up in possession of a home that has risen in value and can likely be resold to cover the cost of the mortgage. This could mean that lenders issue mortgages without proper underwriting (e.g. they make up information) because they know that there will be plenty of potential buyers for the mortgage. The investment banks go along with the hoax because everyone is making money. So do the rating agencies and the captive regulators. The fact that all of these people might be clueless about markets and the economy hardly precludes the possibility that they committed massive fraud.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Economists and other policy types are working hard to maintain the absurdity that the housing bubble was hard to see. Hence we have Federal Reserve Board Governor Jeremy Stein pontificating on how the Fed should deal with bubbles and the Post playing along with the gag.
Let’s just run through the basic facts. Nationwide house prices had sharply departed from a 100 year long trend in which they had just kept pace with the overall rate of inflation. At the peak of the bubble in 2006 they were more than 70 percent above their trend level. Housing construction rose from its average of 3-4 percent of GDP to over 6.0 percent of GDP. This was at a point when the demographics would have led observers to expect a drop in construction since the baby boom cohort was seeing their kids move away from home and would have been looking to downsize. On top of this, the vacancy rate was already at record levels as early as 2002. It kept rising to new record highs year by year after that.
The savings rate had dropped from a pre-stock bubble average of more than 8.0 percent to near zero at the peak of the bubble. Again, the demographics with the baby boom cohort in its peak saving years would have led one to expect a rise in the savings rate.
Any economist who could look at these monstrous divergences from normality and not recognize a bubble really needs a new line of work. And this is before we even talk about the explosion of the subprime market, the Alt-A market, and the huge number of homeowners buying houses with no money down.
Folks this was really really easy. The economists and other policy types who are trying to say it was difficult to see are just covering their rears.
Economists and other policy types are working hard to maintain the absurdity that the housing bubble was hard to see. Hence we have Federal Reserve Board Governor Jeremy Stein pontificating on how the Fed should deal with bubbles and the Post playing along with the gag.
Let’s just run through the basic facts. Nationwide house prices had sharply departed from a 100 year long trend in which they had just kept pace with the overall rate of inflation. At the peak of the bubble in 2006 they were more than 70 percent above their trend level. Housing construction rose from its average of 3-4 percent of GDP to over 6.0 percent of GDP. This was at a point when the demographics would have led observers to expect a drop in construction since the baby boom cohort was seeing their kids move away from home and would have been looking to downsize. On top of this, the vacancy rate was already at record levels as early as 2002. It kept rising to new record highs year by year after that.
The savings rate had dropped from a pre-stock bubble average of more than 8.0 percent to near zero at the peak of the bubble. Again, the demographics with the baby boom cohort in its peak saving years would have led one to expect a rise in the savings rate.
Any economist who could look at these monstrous divergences from normality and not recognize a bubble really needs a new line of work. And this is before we even talk about the explosion of the subprime market, the Alt-A market, and the huge number of homeowners buying houses with no money down.
Folks this was really really easy. The economists and other policy types who are trying to say it was difficult to see are just covering their rears.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
As opposed to alternatives like macroeconomists who lack skills in running the economy? Mankiw asserts as a fact that technology is responsible for the upward redistribution of income over the last three decades, but it is not clear that the evidence supports his story. After all technology had a much larger impact in increasing productivity in the decades from 1947 to 1973 yet workers shared in these gains more or less equally.
If technology explains the shift those who try to explain the timing of the process, like M.I.T. professor David Autor, have had a difficult time making their case. The villains that some of us would point to are anti-union measures by government and businesses that have weakened workers’ bargaining power, trade policy that was designed to put less-educated workers in competition with people in the developing world while largely protecting the most highly educated workers, patent and copyright policy that increased the rents pulled out of the economy for these monopolies, and macroeconomic policy that has led to more unemployment in the last three decades than in the early post-war period. High unemployment tends to disproportionately hit less educated workers, both by having more impact on their probability of being unemployed and reducing their wages.
It is easy for Harvard economic professors to assert that technology is the cause of inequality. It is much more difficult for them to produce the data to prove their case.
As opposed to alternatives like macroeconomists who lack skills in running the economy? Mankiw asserts as a fact that technology is responsible for the upward redistribution of income over the last three decades, but it is not clear that the evidence supports his story. After all technology had a much larger impact in increasing productivity in the decades from 1947 to 1973 yet workers shared in these gains more or less equally.
If technology explains the shift those who try to explain the timing of the process, like M.I.T. professor David Autor, have had a difficult time making their case. The villains that some of us would point to are anti-union measures by government and businesses that have weakened workers’ bargaining power, trade policy that was designed to put less-educated workers in competition with people in the developing world while largely protecting the most highly educated workers, patent and copyright policy that increased the rents pulled out of the economy for these monopolies, and macroeconomic policy that has led to more unemployment in the last three decades than in the early post-war period. High unemployment tends to disproportionately hit less educated workers, both by having more impact on their probability of being unemployed and reducing their wages.
It is easy for Harvard economic professors to assert that technology is the cause of inequality. It is much more difficult for them to produce the data to prove their case.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The trade deficit has been rising throughout the recovery. For arithmetic fans this is bad news. It means that the United States has net negative savings. That in turn means that either the government must run deficits or the private sector must have negative savings. There is no way around that fact, which means that people unhappy with the budget deficit should be unhappy about the direction of trade.
The December data showed a sharp drop in the trade deficit for the month. This was hailed by the Obama administration as good news, showing the success of its trade policy. It also touted the fact that exports hit a record level in 2012, as did the export share of GDP. The Post dutifully reported these Obama administration boasts.
It would have been helpful to provide readers with a bit of background. The $10.1 billion drop in the trade deficit reported for December followed a $6.5 billion rise in November. Trade data are highly erratic, with large changes in one month often followed by sharp changes in the opposite direction the next month. For example, the deficit reportedly fell by $7.7 billion last February but then rose by $7.2 billion in March. The average trade deficit for the last three months is actually $1.5 billion higher than for the prior three months, indicating that the deficit has been moving in the wrong direction.
While it is true that we set a record for exports last year, we set records for exports most years. The economy generally grows and the trade share generally grows as well. We also set a record for imports in 2012. Boasting about record exports is not very different than boasting about the sun rising. As far as the export share, the “record” of 13.90 percent compares to 13.89 percent in 2011.
This piece refers to the “free trade” agreement with South Korea. While it was called this by the administration, since many aspects of the deal had nothing to do with free trade and some actually involved increased protection (i.e. patents and copyrights), it would more accurately be described as simply a “trade” agreement. This step towards increased accuracy also saves space.
The trade deficit has been rising throughout the recovery. For arithmetic fans this is bad news. It means that the United States has net negative savings. That in turn means that either the government must run deficits or the private sector must have negative savings. There is no way around that fact, which means that people unhappy with the budget deficit should be unhappy about the direction of trade.
The December data showed a sharp drop in the trade deficit for the month. This was hailed by the Obama administration as good news, showing the success of its trade policy. It also touted the fact that exports hit a record level in 2012, as did the export share of GDP. The Post dutifully reported these Obama administration boasts.
It would have been helpful to provide readers with a bit of background. The $10.1 billion drop in the trade deficit reported for December followed a $6.5 billion rise in November. Trade data are highly erratic, with large changes in one month often followed by sharp changes in the opposite direction the next month. For example, the deficit reportedly fell by $7.7 billion last February but then rose by $7.2 billion in March. The average trade deficit for the last three months is actually $1.5 billion higher than for the prior three months, indicating that the deficit has been moving in the wrong direction.
While it is true that we set a record for exports last year, we set records for exports most years. The economy generally grows and the trade share generally grows as well. We also set a record for imports in 2012. Boasting about record exports is not very different than boasting about the sun rising. As far as the export share, the “record” of 13.90 percent compares to 13.89 percent in 2011.
This piece refers to the “free trade” agreement with South Korea. While it was called this by the administration, since many aspects of the deal had nothing to do with free trade and some actually involved increased protection (i.e. patents and copyrights), it would more accurately be described as simply a “trade” agreement. This step towards increased accuracy also saves space.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is undoubtedly what readers of Matt Yglesias’ blogpost on immigration and retirement income are saying. Matt correctly notes that an economy cannot collectively save for a generation’s retirement in the sense of putting aside the goods and services that the generation will consume in retirement. His conclusion is that we need large numbers of new workers to support our current or soon to be retired population. This leads him to call for a much larger number of immigrants.
While we may want more immigrants, the need to support a larger retired population should not rank high on the list of reasons. According to the Social Security trustees projections, a more rapid pace of immigration will make little difference to the program’s finances. This is due to the fact that immigrants will also get benefits. Since they tend to work for lower pay during their working lifetime, and the program’s payout structure is highly progressive, the net gain from more immigrants is limited. Increasing the projected immigration level by 30 percent reduces the projected long-term shortfall by less than 10 percent.
On the other hand, suppose that real wages grow roughly in step with productivity. If we saw real wage growth of 1.5 percent annually, then the tax increase needed to meet the projected 75-year shortfall would be equal to 4.6 percent of projected wage growth over the next 30 years. Suppose we got real kinky and imagined we saw some of that 2.0 percent annual wage growth that we had in the golden age (1947-1973). Then the tax increase need to main the program’s solvency would be equal to just 3.2 percent of projected wage growth over the next 30 years.
The story here is straightforward. We expect retirees’ income to be related to their living standards in their working lifetime. If wages grow rapidly then it is easy for a smaller number of workers to support a growing population of retirees while still ejoying a rise in living standards. This is the way the world used to work. It might not be easy for political reasons to get back to that world, but we should at least know that such a world did once exist and is still possible.
That is undoubtedly what readers of Matt Yglesias’ blogpost on immigration and retirement income are saying. Matt correctly notes that an economy cannot collectively save for a generation’s retirement in the sense of putting aside the goods and services that the generation will consume in retirement. His conclusion is that we need large numbers of new workers to support our current or soon to be retired population. This leads him to call for a much larger number of immigrants.
While we may want more immigrants, the need to support a larger retired population should not rank high on the list of reasons. According to the Social Security trustees projections, a more rapid pace of immigration will make little difference to the program’s finances. This is due to the fact that immigrants will also get benefits. Since they tend to work for lower pay during their working lifetime, and the program’s payout structure is highly progressive, the net gain from more immigrants is limited. Increasing the projected immigration level by 30 percent reduces the projected long-term shortfall by less than 10 percent.
On the other hand, suppose that real wages grow roughly in step with productivity. If we saw real wage growth of 1.5 percent annually, then the tax increase needed to meet the projected 75-year shortfall would be equal to 4.6 percent of projected wage growth over the next 30 years. Suppose we got real kinky and imagined we saw some of that 2.0 percent annual wage growth that we had in the golden age (1947-1973). Then the tax increase need to main the program’s solvency would be equal to just 3.2 percent of projected wage growth over the next 30 years.
The story here is straightforward. We expect retirees’ income to be related to their living standards in their working lifetime. If wages grow rapidly then it is easy for a smaller number of workers to support a growing population of retirees while still ejoying a rise in living standards. This is the way the world used to work. It might not be easy for political reasons to get back to that world, but we should at least know that such a world did once exist and is still possible.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
An article on Hewlitt-Packard’s decision to require suppliers in China to not use involuntary labor from students told readers:
“Enforcing workplace rules in China has always been difficult, as even Chinese laws on labor practices are flagrantly ignored by some manufacturers as they struggle to keep up with production demand amid labor shortages. The Chinese government announced last month that the nation’s labor force had begun to shrink slowly because of the increasingly rigorous one-child policy through the 1980s and 1990s.”
In a market economy, firms that can’t operate profitably paying the prevailing wage are supposed to go out of business. This is what happened to millions of small farms in the United States between 1860 and 1960. These farms could not afford to pay wages that were competitive with the wages that workers could get in manufacturing.
If the NYT were covering this process today presumably it would be complaining about the labor shortage resulting from the failure of people in the United States to have enough children. Of course to workers at the time this process implied an enormous improvement in living standards. The same will be the result of the news that the NYT seems to think is so dire, that China’s labor force is now shrinking.
An article on Hewlitt-Packard’s decision to require suppliers in China to not use involuntary labor from students told readers:
“Enforcing workplace rules in China has always been difficult, as even Chinese laws on labor practices are flagrantly ignored by some manufacturers as they struggle to keep up with production demand amid labor shortages. The Chinese government announced last month that the nation’s labor force had begun to shrink slowly because of the increasingly rigorous one-child policy through the 1980s and 1990s.”
In a market economy, firms that can’t operate profitably paying the prevailing wage are supposed to go out of business. This is what happened to millions of small farms in the United States between 1860 and 1960. These farms could not afford to pay wages that were competitive with the wages that workers could get in manufacturing.
If the NYT were covering this process today presumably it would be complaining about the labor shortage resulting from the failure of people in the United States to have enough children. Of course to workers at the time this process implied an enormous improvement in living standards. The same will be the result of the news that the NYT seems to think is so dire, that China’s labor force is now shrinking.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
He presented a quote from Mario Draghi, the President of the European Central Bank:
“‘The exchange rate is not a policy target, but it is important for growth and price stability. We want to see if the appreciation is sustained, and if it alters our assessment of the risks to price stability.'”
He then added:
“And with that, the euro fell more than half a percent against the dollar—even though Draghi was really more stating a fact from Economics 101 than signaling some major new policy plans by the central bank.”
Actually the exchange certainly can and often is a policy target. There are many central banks, most notably China’s, that quite explicitly target their exchange rate. Other central banks have often taken steps that clearly seem to have the purpose of raising or lowering the exchange rate, as was the case with this statement.
While a central bank can opt to ignore the exchange rate, that would be a specific policy decision. It is not a basic principle from economics textbooks.
He presented a quote from Mario Draghi, the President of the European Central Bank:
“‘The exchange rate is not a policy target, but it is important for growth and price stability. We want to see if the appreciation is sustained, and if it alters our assessment of the risks to price stability.'”
He then added:
“And with that, the euro fell more than half a percent against the dollar—even though Draghi was really more stating a fact from Economics 101 than signaling some major new policy plans by the central bank.”
Actually the exchange certainly can and often is a policy target. There are many central banks, most notably China’s, that quite explicitly target their exchange rate. Other central banks have often taken steps that clearly seem to have the purpose of raising or lowering the exchange rate, as was the case with this statement.
While a central bank can opt to ignore the exchange rate, that would be a specific policy decision. It is not a basic principle from economics textbooks.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Post has an article implying that many more people are opting for leisure in the United States than in the past and that this fact could even explain income inequallity. Neither of these assertions is very plausible. The United States has seen a much smaller reduction in work time over the last three decades than any other wealthy countries. Furthermore, countries that have seen steeper reductions in work time have seen much smaller increases in inequality.
The Post has an article implying that many more people are opting for leisure in the United States than in the past and that this fact could even explain income inequallity. Neither of these assertions is very plausible. The United States has seen a much smaller reduction in work time over the last three decades than any other wealthy countries. Furthermore, countries that have seen steeper reductions in work time have seen much smaller increases in inequality.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT reported on cuts in military spending that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said could happen if the sequester goes into effect on March 1. The NYT referred to these cuts as “forced,” implying that they were required by the sequester.
This is not accurate. The sequester requires a cut in military spending of approximately 6 percent. The specific cuts chosen presumably reflects the fact that Mr. Panetta views the items to be the least important to the country’s defense. Alternatively, it is possible that Panetta has decided to highlight possible cuts that would provoke the maximum political reaction. In either case the cuts were selected by him, they were not forced by the sequester.
The NYT reported on cuts in military spending that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said could happen if the sequester goes into effect on March 1. The NYT referred to these cuts as “forced,” implying that they were required by the sequester.
This is not accurate. The sequester requires a cut in military spending of approximately 6 percent. The specific cuts chosen presumably reflects the fact that Mr. Panetta views the items to be the least important to the country’s defense. Alternatively, it is possible that Panetta has decided to highlight possible cuts that would provoke the maximum political reaction. In either case the cuts were selected by him, they were not forced by the sequester.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT told readers that a widely expressed concern about losing jobs to “cheap foreign labor …. does not bode well for political support for an amnesty program now being discussed in Washington.” It’s not clear that this would be the case. One of the factors that reduces the wages of undocumented workers is their legal status. Undocumented workers are likely to get lower pay because they risk deportation if they try to unionize or take other measures to increase their wages and improve their working conditions. If U.S. citizens want to reduce the competition from undocumented workers then they logically should support measures that change their legal status so that they are in a position to increase their wages.
The NYT told readers that a widely expressed concern about losing jobs to “cheap foreign labor …. does not bode well for political support for an amnesty program now being discussed in Washington.” It’s not clear that this would be the case. One of the factors that reduces the wages of undocumented workers is their legal status. Undocumented workers are likely to get lower pay because they risk deportation if they try to unionize or take other measures to increase their wages and improve their working conditions. If U.S. citizens want to reduce the competition from undocumented workers then they logically should support measures that change their legal status so that they are in a position to increase their wages.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
