A NYT article on Mitt Romney’s approach to health care told readers:
“Mr. Romney’s plan, like those being proposed by Republicans in Congress, would put more emphasis on controlling health costs and less on reducing the ranks of the uninsured, the primary goal of the Obama plan.”
This should say that “Mr. Romney claims his plan would put more emphasis on controlling health costs.” It certainly is not clear that it will actually do anything to control costs.
He does not propose any of the obvious measures to contain costs such as trade agreements that would make it easier for qualified foreign doctors to enter the country, driving down the cost of physicians’ services or limiting patent monopolies, thereby bringing drugs closer to their free market price. If Romney was interested in controlling costs he could give people the option to buy into Medicare which would put considerable downward pressure on the prices charged by private insurers.
Since Romney doesn’t propose any of these measures and the ones listed in the article would have a questionable impact on costs, it is wrong for the NYT to assert that his plan “would put more emphasis on controlling costs.” This is simply a claim by the Romney campaign, it is not a fact.
A NYT article on Mitt Romney’s approach to health care told readers:
“Mr. Romney’s plan, like those being proposed by Republicans in Congress, would put more emphasis on controlling health costs and less on reducing the ranks of the uninsured, the primary goal of the Obama plan.”
This should say that “Mr. Romney claims his plan would put more emphasis on controlling health costs.” It certainly is not clear that it will actually do anything to control costs.
He does not propose any of the obvious measures to contain costs such as trade agreements that would make it easier for qualified foreign doctors to enter the country, driving down the cost of physicians’ services or limiting patent monopolies, thereby bringing drugs closer to their free market price. If Romney was interested in controlling costs he could give people the option to buy into Medicare which would put considerable downward pressure on the prices charged by private insurers.
Since Romney doesn’t propose any of these measures and the ones listed in the article would have a questionable impact on costs, it is wrong for the NYT to assert that his plan “would put more emphasis on controlling costs.” This is simply a claim by the Romney campaign, it is not a fact.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is what readers of a piece on middle class support for the PRI in upcoming elections must be asking. While the piece does make a reference to the “sluggish economy,” but provides no details.
In fact, Mexico’s economic poor economic performance stands out in Latin America. It’s per capita growth since 2000 has been less than half of the average for Latin America as a whole. While the rest of the region has seen a sharp uptick in growth after two decades of near stagnation, Mexico has not shared in this prosperity, seeing per capita GDP growth of just 0.9 percent a year. There has been almost no reduction in poverty over this period.
The Washington Post has had a difficult time acknowledging Mexico’s economic failures. It had been an enthusiastic backer of NAFTA and insists that it has been a great success in spite of the evidence. It even told readers back in 2007 that Mexico’s GDP had quadrupled over the period from 1987 to 2007. (The actual increase was 83 percent.)
That is what readers of a piece on middle class support for the PRI in upcoming elections must be asking. While the piece does make a reference to the “sluggish economy,” but provides no details.
In fact, Mexico’s economic poor economic performance stands out in Latin America. It’s per capita growth since 2000 has been less than half of the average for Latin America as a whole. While the rest of the region has seen a sharp uptick in growth after two decades of near stagnation, Mexico has not shared in this prosperity, seeing per capita GDP growth of just 0.9 percent a year. There has been almost no reduction in poverty over this period.
The Washington Post has had a difficult time acknowledging Mexico’s economic failures. It had been an enthusiastic backer of NAFTA and insists that it has been a great success in spite of the evidence. It even told readers back in 2007 that Mexico’s GDP had quadrupled over the period from 1987 to 2007. (The actual increase was 83 percent.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Good piece by Binyamin Appelbaum in the NYT. It’s surprising that the positive data in recent months has not gotten more attention after so many previous false starts made the front page. Here’s my take.
Good piece by Binyamin Appelbaum in the NYT. It’s surprising that the positive data in recent months has not gotten more attention after so many previous false starts made the front page. Here’s my take.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post ran a classic pointless killing of trees piece on plans for transportation spending in a bill being debated in Congress. The piece told readers, among other things:
“A group co-chaired by former transportation secretaries Samuel K. Skinner and Norman Y. Mineta has estimated that an additional $134 billion to $262 billion must be spent per year through 2035 to rebuild and improve roads, rail systems and air transportation.”
Let’s see, $134 billion to $262 billion per year over the next 22 years, is that a lot or is it a little? I really doubt that even 1 percent of the readers of the Post has any idea how much money is involved here. If you added or subtracted a zero from these numbers it would probably look the same to most readers.
Suppose we put that as a share of GDP, this would be something like 0.6 to 1.2 percent of GDP over this period. (I’m assuming that these are nominal numbers, but the article doesn’t tell us and the report is horribly written so I couldn’t find the numbers upfront.) Or, the piece could have told readers that this was between 3 and 6 percent of projected federal spending over this period.
There are other ways to put these numbers in a context that would make them meaningful to Post readers, but this article just threw out budget numbers like it was a fraternity ritual. As a result it may be the industry standard for budget reporting, but it did not convey useful information to readers.
The Washington Post ran a classic pointless killing of trees piece on plans for transportation spending in a bill being debated in Congress. The piece told readers, among other things:
“A group co-chaired by former transportation secretaries Samuel K. Skinner and Norman Y. Mineta has estimated that an additional $134 billion to $262 billion must be spent per year through 2035 to rebuild and improve roads, rail systems and air transportation.”
Let’s see, $134 billion to $262 billion per year over the next 22 years, is that a lot or is it a little? I really doubt that even 1 percent of the readers of the Post has any idea how much money is involved here. If you added or subtracted a zero from these numbers it would probably look the same to most readers.
Suppose we put that as a share of GDP, this would be something like 0.6 to 1.2 percent of GDP over this period. (I’m assuming that these are nominal numbers, but the article doesn’t tell us and the report is horribly written so I couldn’t find the numbers upfront.) Or, the piece could have told readers that this was between 3 and 6 percent of projected federal spending over this period.
There are other ways to put these numbers in a context that would make them meaningful to Post readers, but this article just threw out budget numbers like it was a fraternity ritual. As a result it may be the industry standard for budget reporting, but it did not convey useful information to readers.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Very good piece by Simon Johnson. It would be good to hear someone try to provide answers to the questions he raises.
Very good piece by Simon Johnson. It would be good to hear someone try to provide answers to the questions he raises.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had an article on the surge in the number of people who are traveling to Mexico for medical care. This is hardly ideal, but since our political system is too corrupted by the insurers, the doctors, the drug companies and others who benefit from the waste in the health care system, this is likely to be the way in which the system is eventually reformed. People will vote with their feet and take advantage of the more efficient health care systems in other countries.
It’s too bad that the economics profession is so corrupt that almost none of them ever discuss the barriers to trade in health care services and how they can be eliminated. A small protectionist barrier that might boost the pay of a steelworker drives economists up the wall, but huge barriers that cost U.S. consumers hundreds of billions annually — and jeopardize their health — do not seem to bother economists.
The NYT had an article on the surge in the number of people who are traveling to Mexico for medical care. This is hardly ideal, but since our political system is too corrupted by the insurers, the doctors, the drug companies and others who benefit from the waste in the health care system, this is likely to be the way in which the system is eventually reformed. People will vote with their feet and take advantage of the more efficient health care systems in other countries.
It’s too bad that the economics profession is so corrupt that almost none of them ever discuss the barriers to trade in health care services and how they can be eliminated. A small protectionist barrier that might boost the pay of a steelworker drives economists up the wall, but huge barriers that cost U.S. consumers hundreds of billions annually — and jeopardize their health — do not seem to bother economists.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT has a good piece on how two of Spain’s top banking regulators went on to top positions at the IMF. They were hailed for their success in designing a regulatory structure in Spain that was widely praised for having designed a system that survived the 2008 financial crisis.
As it turns out, the Spanish regulatory system was not especially successful. The country had an enormous housing bubble and it was inevitable that when it burst, the banking system would face the sort of problems it is now seeing. As of the fall of 2008, banks had not yet recognized the enormous losses they had already incurred on their housing debt.
This should be a good lesson to ignorant experts everywhere: bubbles mean regulation failed. Countries with bubbles still waiting burst (e.g. Canada, U.K. and Australia) have a good financial crisis in their future. Get out some marshmallows to roast at the meltdown.
[Addendum: My reason for saying that the U.K., Canada, and Australia have housing bubbles is that house prices have gotten hugely out of line with rents. There have been large increases in the former over the last 10-15 years, while the latter have only modestly outpaced inflation. This will end very badly and the central bankers in these countries should be fired for not recognizing this fact.
On Spain and regulation, my point is that sound prudential regulation will not prevent bubbles. (I am taking the assessment of others that these systems were well-regulated. This is the responsibility of the central bankers. They are being unbelievably negligent to let these bubbles continue to grow. At the very least, everyone in a policymaking position should lose their pensions.]
The NYT has a good piece on how two of Spain’s top banking regulators went on to top positions at the IMF. They were hailed for their success in designing a regulatory structure in Spain that was widely praised for having designed a system that survived the 2008 financial crisis.
As it turns out, the Spanish regulatory system was not especially successful. The country had an enormous housing bubble and it was inevitable that when it burst, the banking system would face the sort of problems it is now seeing. As of the fall of 2008, banks had not yet recognized the enormous losses they had already incurred on their housing debt.
This should be a good lesson to ignorant experts everywhere: bubbles mean regulation failed. Countries with bubbles still waiting burst (e.g. Canada, U.K. and Australia) have a good financial crisis in their future. Get out some marshmallows to roast at the meltdown.
[Addendum: My reason for saying that the U.K., Canada, and Australia have housing bubbles is that house prices have gotten hugely out of line with rents. There have been large increases in the former over the last 10-15 years, while the latter have only modestly outpaced inflation. This will end very badly and the central bankers in these countries should be fired for not recognizing this fact.
On Spain and regulation, my point is that sound prudential regulation will not prevent bubbles. (I am taking the assessment of others that these systems were well-regulated. This is the responsibility of the central bankers. They are being unbelievably negligent to let these bubbles continue to grow. At the very least, everyone in a policymaking position should lose their pensions.]
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The consumer confidence index is a measure that gets way more attention than it deserves. It is has two components, a current conditions index and a futures expectations index.
While the current condition index tends to be a good measure of consumer spending, it has little predictive power. In other words, if the June reading is high, then June will probably be a good month, but it doesn’t tell us much about July and August.
On the other hand, the future expectations index is erratic and provides almost no information about spending in the present or future. That is why when the consumer confidence index falls, as it did yesterday, and the fall was driven by the expectations index, it is best ignored.
The consumer confidence index is a measure that gets way more attention than it deserves. It is has two components, a current conditions index and a futures expectations index.
While the current condition index tends to be a good measure of consumer spending, it has little predictive power. In other words, if the June reading is high, then June will probably be a good month, but it doesn’t tell us much about July and August.
On the other hand, the future expectations index is erratic and provides almost no information about spending in the present or future. That is why when the consumer confidence index falls, as it did yesterday, and the fall was driven by the expectations index, it is best ignored.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
A Washington Post article on the relatively good new home sales data reported for May made a case that the housing market is rebounding (it is). At one point it told readers that “home prices are low.”
This is not true. Home prices are roughly back to their long-term trend. They are low relative to their levels of the housing bubble years (1996-2007), but not compared to the prior hundred years of U.S. history.
A Washington Post article on the relatively good new home sales data reported for May made a case that the housing market is rebounding (it is). At one point it told readers that “home prices are low.”
This is not true. Home prices are roughly back to their long-term trend. They are low relative to their levels of the housing bubble years (1996-2007), but not compared to the prior hundred years of U.S. history.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
I’m not kidding. We have boys and girls on Wall Street making tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars at banks that enjoy taxpayer subsidies through “too big to fail” insurance. But Ezekiel Emanuel’s “share the wealth” NYT blogpost tells us how we can tap the Social Security and Medicare benefits of people who earned $70,000 a year during their working lifetime to make the poor better off.
It’s amazing how much effort the Washington gang goes through to nail workers who earned slightly more than the average, while doing its best to ignore the millionaires and the billionaires who have been the big winners in the economy over the last three decades.
I’m not kidding. We have boys and girls on Wall Street making tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars at banks that enjoy taxpayer subsidies through “too big to fail” insurance. But Ezekiel Emanuel’s “share the wealth” NYT blogpost tells us how we can tap the Social Security and Medicare benefits of people who earned $70,000 a year during their working lifetime to make the poor better off.
It’s amazing how much effort the Washington gang goes through to nail workers who earned slightly more than the average, while doing its best to ignore the millionaires and the billionaires who have been the big winners in the economy over the last three decades.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
