The NYT ran a piece telling readers that business leaders do not have the same influence with Republicans in Congress that they had in the past, noting in particular their differences on using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations. It is important to note that the fact that politicians are willing to say that they would be prepared to push the government to a default doesn’t mean that they actually would push the government to default.
It is relatively costless for a politician to publicly say that he/she feels so strongly about excessive spending that she would let the government default when the country is at least a month away from any deadline. Such appeals are popular with many voters. However this does not mean that these politicians would vote against raising the debt ceiling when the government actually faced default. The history has been that the Republican leadership has been able to get the necessary support on votes that were deemed important for business, such as the TARP. This article presents no reason to believe that situation has changed.
The NYT ran a piece telling readers that business leaders do not have the same influence with Republicans in Congress that they had in the past, noting in particular their differences on using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations. It is important to note that the fact that politicians are willing to say that they would be prepared to push the government to a default doesn’t mean that they actually would push the government to default.
It is relatively costless for a politician to publicly say that he/she feels so strongly about excessive spending that she would let the government default when the country is at least a month away from any deadline. Such appeals are popular with many voters. However this does not mean that these politicians would vote against raising the debt ceiling when the government actually faced default. The history has been that the Republican leadership has been able to get the necessary support on votes that were deemed important for business, such as the TARP. This article presents no reason to believe that situation has changed.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Eduardo Porter had a nice piece in the NYT making the point that privatized services will often be less efficient than publicly provided services. Porter notes research that argues that when the service in question is not well-defined and easily measured it is likely to better provided directly by the public sector. This would be the case with education, health care and other major services that are largely provided by the government.
Eduardo Porter had a nice piece in the NYT making the point that privatized services will often be less efficient than publicly provided services. Porter notes research that argues that when the service in question is not well-defined and easily measured it is likely to better provided directly by the public sector. This would be the case with education, health care and other major services that are largely provided by the government.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The answer is $11.5 million, at least if you work at J.P. Morgan. That is what Jamie Dimon took home last year according to the WSJ. This was half of his prior year’s take, apparently this is the punishment for allowing his London Whale crew to engage in risky trading that cost the bank $6.2 billion.
The answer is $11.5 million, at least if you work at J.P. Morgan. That is what Jamie Dimon took home last year according to the WSJ. This was half of his prior year’s take, apparently this is the punishment for allowing his London Whale crew to engage in risky trading that cost the bank $6.2 billion.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
For some reason it was hard to find news about December retail sales in the papers. The Census Department reported they were up a healthy 0.5 percent. Remember all those stories from worried economists that told us how the fiscal cliff was already taking a toll. They told us about plunging confidence levels and consumers who were putting off purchases because of uncertainty about the resolution of the standoff.
Yes, some of us did ridicule the cliff mongers at the time. Consumers are used to the boys and girls in Washington getting silly. They will adjust their spending when they actually feel the impact in their paycheck.
Anyhow, some of us were right. Get out a heaping helping of ridicule for everyone else.
For some reason it was hard to find news about December retail sales in the papers. The Census Department reported they were up a healthy 0.5 percent. Remember all those stories from worried economists that told us how the fiscal cliff was already taking a toll. They told us about plunging confidence levels and consumers who were putting off purchases because of uncertainty about the resolution of the standoff.
Yes, some of us did ridicule the cliff mongers at the time. Consumers are used to the boys and girls in Washington getting silly. They will adjust their spending when they actually feel the impact in their paycheck.
Anyhow, some of us were right. Get out a heaping helping of ridicule for everyone else.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Those of you who didn’t know the cause of Japan’s debt problems, or perhaps that it even had debt problems, will be happy to know that the NYT has the answers for you. In an article on the new prime minister Shinzo Abe’s plans for economic stimulus and expansionary monetary policy it told readers:
“At the root of Japan’s debt problems was a similar attempt in the 1990s by Mr. Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party to stimulate economic growth through government spending on extensive public works projects across the country.”
That’s good to know. Those of us who look at data on Japan’s debt might have thought that the main reason for the growth of the debt in Japan was the collapse of the stock and housing bubbles in 1990-1991. The economic downturn and deflation caused by this collapse had already raised the debt to GDP ratio by 10 percentage points by 1993 (@$1.6 trillion in the United States), a point at which deficits were still minimal.
We also might not have known that Japan has debt problems. The interest burden of its debt is now roughly 1.0 percent of GDP, lower than the interest burden in United States at any point in the post-World War II era and less than one-third of the peak burden hit in the early 90s. The interest rate on 10-year Japanese government bonds has been hovering near 1.0 percent. This isn’t the sort of interest rate that is ordinarily associated with a debt problem.
That’s why readers are thankful for the information the NYT gave us in this article. If they had just relied on the data, they wouldn’t know these things about Japan’s economic situation.
Those of you who didn’t know the cause of Japan’s debt problems, or perhaps that it even had debt problems, will be happy to know that the NYT has the answers for you. In an article on the new prime minister Shinzo Abe’s plans for economic stimulus and expansionary monetary policy it told readers:
“At the root of Japan’s debt problems was a similar attempt in the 1990s by Mr. Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party to stimulate economic growth through government spending on extensive public works projects across the country.”
That’s good to know. Those of us who look at data on Japan’s debt might have thought that the main reason for the growth of the debt in Japan was the collapse of the stock and housing bubbles in 1990-1991. The economic downturn and deflation caused by this collapse had already raised the debt to GDP ratio by 10 percentage points by 1993 (@$1.6 trillion in the United States), a point at which deficits were still minimal.
We also might not have known that Japan has debt problems. The interest burden of its debt is now roughly 1.0 percent of GDP, lower than the interest burden in United States at any point in the post-World War II era and less than one-third of the peak burden hit in the early 90s. The interest rate on 10-year Japanese government bonds has been hovering near 1.0 percent. This isn’t the sort of interest rate that is ordinarily associated with a debt problem.
That’s why readers are thankful for the information the NYT gave us in this article. If they had just relied on the data, they wouldn’t know these things about Japan’s economic situation.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT ran a news article promoting a trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. The article wrongly referred to the trade deal as a “free trade” agreement three times. The agreement is almost certain to include greater restrictions on intellectual property. These restrictions are forms of protection, they are the opposite of free trade. It would have been possible to both make the piece more accurate and save space by leaving out the word “free.”
It also told readers that European leaders:
“have argued that a free-trade deal would be both a cheap and a relatively painless way to stimulate growth. …
“Richard Bruton, the Irish minister for jobs, enterprise and innovation, said in a statement that a trade deal could lift the E.U. economy by €120 billion, or $160 billion, per year and the U.S. economy by $100 billion.”
The piece provides no clear context for these numbers, nor does it make it clear that these are one time gains that are projected to be realized over a substantial period of time. (Most of the terms in any agreement will be phased in over time.) These gains come to about 0.7 percent of GDP for the U.S. and 0.9 percent of GDP for the EU. Assuming it takes ten years to achieve them, the projections imply that the deal will increase growth in the U.S. by roughly 0.07 percentage points and in the EU by 0.09 percentage points.
This increment to growth will barely be noticeable and will have a minimal impact on employment. If the EU leaders are looking to this deal as a source of stimulus, as the article asserts, then they have a very poor understanding of economics.
The NYT ran a news article promoting a trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. The article wrongly referred to the trade deal as a “free trade” agreement three times. The agreement is almost certain to include greater restrictions on intellectual property. These restrictions are forms of protection, they are the opposite of free trade. It would have been possible to both make the piece more accurate and save space by leaving out the word “free.”
It also told readers that European leaders:
“have argued that a free-trade deal would be both a cheap and a relatively painless way to stimulate growth. …
“Richard Bruton, the Irish minister for jobs, enterprise and innovation, said in a statement that a trade deal could lift the E.U. economy by €120 billion, or $160 billion, per year and the U.S. economy by $100 billion.”
The piece provides no clear context for these numbers, nor does it make it clear that these are one time gains that are projected to be realized over a substantial period of time. (Most of the terms in any agreement will be phased in over time.) These gains come to about 0.7 percent of GDP for the U.S. and 0.9 percent of GDP for the EU. Assuming it takes ten years to achieve them, the projections imply that the deal will increase growth in the U.S. by roughly 0.07 percentage points and in the EU by 0.09 percentage points.
This increment to growth will barely be noticeable and will have a minimal impact on employment. If the EU leaders are looking to this deal as a source of stimulus, as the article asserts, then they have a very poor understanding of economics.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Jerry Springer made himself famous by having a television show in which he encouraged people to say and do outrageous things. The Washington Post applies the same standard to people who rant about the debt and deficit on its opinion page.
Today’s entry is from Marc Thiessen, who argues that the deficit is out of control due to excessive spending. Of course as all budget wonks know the reason that we have large deficits today is that the economy plunged after the collapse of the housing bubble. In fact, one of the best pieces making this simple point was written by the Post’s own Evan Soltas.
The economic downturn caused tax collections to plummet and led to an increase in benefit payments for items like unemployment insurance. It also led to deliberate efforts to boost the economy with temporary tax cuts, like the payroll tax holiday and temporary spending measures. However, the structural deficit is little changed from what it was before the economic downturn when the debt to GDP ratio was falling.
But hey, when it comes to discussions of debt and deficit the Post doesn’t have time for numbers. Let’s see some chairs flying, it’s the WAPO opinion pages!
Jerry Springer made himself famous by having a television show in which he encouraged people to say and do outrageous things. The Washington Post applies the same standard to people who rant about the debt and deficit on its opinion page.
Today’s entry is from Marc Thiessen, who argues that the deficit is out of control due to excessive spending. Of course as all budget wonks know the reason that we have large deficits today is that the economy plunged after the collapse of the housing bubble. In fact, one of the best pieces making this simple point was written by the Post’s own Evan Soltas.
The economic downturn caused tax collections to plummet and led to an increase in benefit payments for items like unemployment insurance. It also led to deliberate efforts to boost the economy with temporary tax cuts, like the payroll tax holiday and temporary spending measures. However, the structural deficit is little changed from what it was before the economic downturn when the debt to GDP ratio was falling.
But hey, when it comes to discussions of debt and deficit the Post doesn’t have time for numbers. Let’s see some chairs flying, it’s the WAPO opinion pages!
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The polite position in Washington policy circles is that politics has yielded to extremes in both parties. That is a really nice children’s tale, but it is more than a bit absurd for anyone interested in reality. While the Republicans have adopted many extreme positions, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower would be very comfortable with the center position in the modern Democratic Party.
Michael Gerson helped to clarify the fundamental asymmetry between the two parties’ positions in his column today. He complained that President Obama forced Congressional Republicans to vote for a tax increase for the first time in more than twenty years, violating their fundamental opposition to tax increases. (As a technical matter, the votes took place after taxes had already risen on January 1, so they were effectively voting for tax cuts for most households.) However, he complains that there was no quid pro quo with Democrats forced to support cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
This complaint shows well the nature of the asymmetry. While most Democrats are willing to support tax increases, especially on the wealthy, most Republicans consistently tell pollsters that they are opposed to cuts in Social Security and Medicare. In fact, there is not very much difference between Democratic and Republican attitudes towards these programs. The bases of both parties support them overwhelmingly.
Gerson is unhappy that President Obama refused to take a position that was not only unpopular with the Democratic base but also unpopular with the Republican base. This shows well the extremism of the Republican leadership in Washington.
It is also important to note that as a matter of arithmetic, support for Social Security and Medicare virtually necessitates higher taxes at some point, especially if health care costs are not brought under control. With a rising share of the population over age 65, these programs already cost considerably more now than they did forty years ago, measured as a share of GDP. They will cost still more in another twenty years.
Unless we are willing to see a substantial shrinkage in the rest of the government, it is impossible to support the increased spending on these programs without ever raising taxes. This makes the difference between Democrats and Republicans on this point primarily the fact that Democrats are willing to accept arithmetic whereas Republicans are trying to deny it.
The polite position in Washington policy circles is that politics has yielded to extremes in both parties. That is a really nice children’s tale, but it is more than a bit absurd for anyone interested in reality. While the Republicans have adopted many extreme positions, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower would be very comfortable with the center position in the modern Democratic Party.
Michael Gerson helped to clarify the fundamental asymmetry between the two parties’ positions in his column today. He complained that President Obama forced Congressional Republicans to vote for a tax increase for the first time in more than twenty years, violating their fundamental opposition to tax increases. (As a technical matter, the votes took place after taxes had already risen on January 1, so they were effectively voting for tax cuts for most households.) However, he complains that there was no quid pro quo with Democrats forced to support cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
This complaint shows well the nature of the asymmetry. While most Democrats are willing to support tax increases, especially on the wealthy, most Republicans consistently tell pollsters that they are opposed to cuts in Social Security and Medicare. In fact, there is not very much difference between Democratic and Republican attitudes towards these programs. The bases of both parties support them overwhelmingly.
Gerson is unhappy that President Obama refused to take a position that was not only unpopular with the Democratic base but also unpopular with the Republican base. This shows well the extremism of the Republican leadership in Washington.
It is also important to note that as a matter of arithmetic, support for Social Security and Medicare virtually necessitates higher taxes at some point, especially if health care costs are not brought under control. With a rising share of the population over age 65, these programs already cost considerably more now than they did forty years ago, measured as a share of GDP. They will cost still more in another twenty years.
Unless we are willing to see a substantial shrinkage in the rest of the government, it is impossible to support the increased spending on these programs without ever raising taxes. This makes the difference between Democrats and Republicans on this point primarily the fact that Democrats are willing to accept arithmetic whereas Republicans are trying to deny it.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Charles Lane is on the money in his column today. There is no good reason for Medicare not to make public the procedures for which it is reimbursing doctors.
While most doctors are honest, many are not. If a doctor is carrying through an expensive procedure far more frequently than his peers, then people are right to be asking questions. This is not just an issue of ripping off Medicare, it is also a question of bad medicine. No one should ever be put through an unnecessary medical procedure to line a doctor’s pockets.
Charles Lane is on the money in his column today. There is no good reason for Medicare not to make public the procedures for which it is reimbursing doctors.
While most doctors are honest, many are not. If a doctor is carrying through an expensive procedure far more frequently than his peers, then people are right to be asking questions. This is not just an issue of ripping off Medicare, it is also a question of bad medicine. No one should ever be put through an unnecessary medical procedure to line a doctor’s pockets.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT has a confusing analysis of the China’s economy in which it tells readers that the country suffers from a labor shortage because employers in certain sectors (nursing homes and restaurants) can’t afford to pay workers enough to pull them away from other sectors. This is not evidence of a labor shortage, this is the way capitalist economies work.
As an economy grows and goes through sectoral shifts there will always be businesses and sometimes whole sectors that collapse because they are no longer competitive. For example, in the United States millions of farms went out of business because they could not afford to pay workers as much money as they could earn in manufacturing. This did not mean that the United States had a labor shortage, it simply meant that many farms had become uncompetitive.
Similarly, if China has restaurants or nursing homes that can’t afford to pay the prevailing wage then it means that they are not competitive. If there is real demand for these services in China, then they should be able to raise their prices enough to pay higher wages. (There may be demand for nursing home care which is not being met because people cannot afford to pay for it, but this is a problem of income distribution, not evidence of a labor shortage.)
The NYT has a confusing analysis of the China’s economy in which it tells readers that the country suffers from a labor shortage because employers in certain sectors (nursing homes and restaurants) can’t afford to pay workers enough to pull them away from other sectors. This is not evidence of a labor shortage, this is the way capitalist economies work.
As an economy grows and goes through sectoral shifts there will always be businesses and sometimes whole sectors that collapse because they are no longer competitive. For example, in the United States millions of farms went out of business because they could not afford to pay workers as much money as they could earn in manufacturing. This did not mean that the United States had a labor shortage, it simply meant that many farms had become uncompetitive.
Similarly, if China has restaurants or nursing homes that can’t afford to pay the prevailing wage then it means that they are not competitive. If there is real demand for these services in China, then they should be able to raise their prices enough to pay higher wages. (There may be demand for nursing home care which is not being met because people cannot afford to pay for it, but this is a problem of income distribution, not evidence of a labor shortage.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
