I had to check repeatedly to make sure that it is not April 1 when I read a NYT editorial complaining about too little trading on Wall Street. The editorial does raise a legitimate point. Many people are wary of Wall Street because they don’t trust the financial sector to treat them honestly for some of the reasons mentioned in the piece.
However this has little to do with trading volume. Middle class people should be able to be comfortable putting money in the stock market, but they should also know that they will generally make more money with a portfolio that does not trade frequently. Trading does not on net increase returns, it just redistributes them. Frequent trading means that a larger share of the returns generated by the stock market will end up in the pockets of the financial industry, with less going to investors.
This piece also notes the poor returns from the stock market since 2000. This was not a surprise. It was a direct result of the high price to earnings ratio at the peak of the bubble. Price to earnings ratios in excess of 30 to 1, virtually guaranteed poor returns in the years ahead. People who took third grade arithmetic understood this fact. Unfortunately most of the people with top positions in the government and financial industry are not among this elite group.
I had to check repeatedly to make sure that it is not April 1 when I read a NYT editorial complaining about too little trading on Wall Street. The editorial does raise a legitimate point. Many people are wary of Wall Street because they don’t trust the financial sector to treat them honestly for some of the reasons mentioned in the piece.
However this has little to do with trading volume. Middle class people should be able to be comfortable putting money in the stock market, but they should also know that they will generally make more money with a portfolio that does not trade frequently. Trading does not on net increase returns, it just redistributes them. Frequent trading means that a larger share of the returns generated by the stock market will end up in the pockets of the financial industry, with less going to investors.
This piece also notes the poor returns from the stock market since 2000. This was not a surprise. It was a direct result of the high price to earnings ratio at the peak of the bubble. Price to earnings ratios in excess of 30 to 1, virtually guaranteed poor returns in the years ahead. People who took third grade arithmetic understood this fact. Unfortunately most of the people with top positions in the government and financial industry are not among this elite group.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In a discussion of President Obama’s re-election prospects David Brooks bemoans the fact that:
“this race, like almost all re-election races, is shaping up to be a referendum on the incumbent, not a choice between two visions.”
When would an election ever be “a choice between two visions?” Why would anyone expect a politician to have a vision? Do accountants and truck drivers have visions?
Most probably do, but it is irrelevant to their jobs, just as a presidential candidate’s vision is irrelevant to their jobs. Winning elections is about getting the support of the people with the money and power to deliver votes. It is not clear why anyone would be looking for vision in this story.
In a discussion of President Obama’s re-election prospects David Brooks bemoans the fact that:
“this race, like almost all re-election races, is shaping up to be a referendum on the incumbent, not a choice between two visions.”
When would an election ever be “a choice between two visions?” Why would anyone expect a politician to have a vision? Do accountants and truck drivers have visions?
Most probably do, but it is irrelevant to their jobs, just as a presidential candidate’s vision is irrelevant to their jobs. Winning elections is about getting the support of the people with the money and power to deliver votes. It is not clear why anyone would be looking for vision in this story.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
A Washington Post article on the crisis in Greece and its potential impact on Europe’s economy told readers that:
“growth in China slowing and U.S. officials looking to tame record government deficits …..[is] leaving Europe, in a sense, operating without a safety net.”
Actually, Europe has a perfectly good safety net. It is called the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB, if it chose to act like a central bank, could guarantee the debt of Italy, Spain and other heavily indebted countries. This would quickly reduce the interest rate on their debt to near German levels, making their debt burden easily sustainable.
To date, the ECB has maintained its obsession with keeping inflation at less than 2.0 percent, which prevents the sort of adjustment that would allow Greece, Italy and Spain to become competitive within the euro zone. The article should have mentioned the ECB’s obsession with maintaining this Maginot Line, which is at the center of the euro zone crisis.
A Washington Post article on the crisis in Greece and its potential impact on Europe’s economy told readers that:
“growth in China slowing and U.S. officials looking to tame record government deficits …..[is] leaving Europe, in a sense, operating without a safety net.”
Actually, Europe has a perfectly good safety net. It is called the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB, if it chose to act like a central bank, could guarantee the debt of Italy, Spain and other heavily indebted countries. This would quickly reduce the interest rate on their debt to near German levels, making their debt burden easily sustainable.
To date, the ECB has maintained its obsession with keeping inflation at less than 2.0 percent, which prevents the sort of adjustment that would allow Greece, Italy and Spain to become competitive within the euro zone. The article should have mentioned the ECB’s obsession with maintaining this Maginot Line, which is at the center of the euro zone crisis.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post constantly uses both its news and editorial pages to push for its view of fiscal responsibility. While this ostensibly means lower budget deficits, the theme that is most consistent in Post reporting is that programs that benefit the middle class (e.g. Social Security and Medicare) should be cut.
This was very clear in a news story on the prospects for a year-end budget deal. The very first sentence in the piece was:
“defense contractors have slowed hiring.”
This is clearly written as though it is a bad thing. Later in the piece we get the specifics:
“Kaman Corporation chief executive Neal Keating said his firm is already scaling back hiring in Jacksonville, Fla., where the company builds cockpits for Blackhawk helicopters. He was hoping for new contracts to refit the nation’s aging fleet of A-10 Warthog attack planes.
“’So many of those things are now uncertain,’ Keating said, adding that plans to hire 200 workers have been put on hold. Without further clarity, Keating said, he could be forced to start ramping down purchases and cancelling shifts sometime this summer.”
Of course this is what happens when the government makes cutbacks. Businesses lose contracts and people lose jobs. One would have thought that the Post understood this fact, but apparently not.
The Washington Post constantly uses both its news and editorial pages to push for its view of fiscal responsibility. While this ostensibly means lower budget deficits, the theme that is most consistent in Post reporting is that programs that benefit the middle class (e.g. Social Security and Medicare) should be cut.
This was very clear in a news story on the prospects for a year-end budget deal. The very first sentence in the piece was:
“defense contractors have slowed hiring.”
This is clearly written as though it is a bad thing. Later in the piece we get the specifics:
“Kaman Corporation chief executive Neal Keating said his firm is already scaling back hiring in Jacksonville, Fla., where the company builds cockpits for Blackhawk helicopters. He was hoping for new contracts to refit the nation’s aging fleet of A-10 Warthog attack planes.
“’So many of those things are now uncertain,’ Keating said, adding that plans to hire 200 workers have been put on hold. Without further clarity, Keating said, he could be forced to start ramping down purchases and cancelling shifts sometime this summer.”
Of course this is what happens when the government makes cutbacks. Businesses lose contracts and people lose jobs. One would have thought that the Post understood this fact, but apparently not.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is what readers of an AP article on the impact of budget cuts stemming from last year’s agreement must be wondering. The first sentence of the piece told readers that:
“Moving to protect the military from a crippling wave of budget cuts next year, a key House committee voted Monday to cut instead food aid, health care and social services like Meals on Wheels.”
The piece would have been more informative if it had avoided editorializing by including the word “crippling.” That assessment is obviously a judgement call on which there is considerable disagreement. Even with the cuts put in place, the government would still be spending well above 4.0 percent of GDP on the military. By contrast, it was spending just 3.0 percent of GDP in 2000, so current spending is more than one-third higher relative to the size of our economy.
It also would be useful if the budget numbers in this piece were expressed as a share of GDP and/or the total budget over the relevant horizon. The vast majority of readers have no ability to assess the importance of items like $80 billion in savings on federal employee pensions over the course of a decade. (This is approximately 0.2 percent of projected spending.)
[Thanks to Randy Schutt for passing this one along.]
That is what readers of an AP article on the impact of budget cuts stemming from last year’s agreement must be wondering. The first sentence of the piece told readers that:
“Moving to protect the military from a crippling wave of budget cuts next year, a key House committee voted Monday to cut instead food aid, health care and social services like Meals on Wheels.”
The piece would have been more informative if it had avoided editorializing by including the word “crippling.” That assessment is obviously a judgement call on which there is considerable disagreement. Even with the cuts put in place, the government would still be spending well above 4.0 percent of GDP on the military. By contrast, it was spending just 3.0 percent of GDP in 2000, so current spending is more than one-third higher relative to the size of our economy.
It also would be useful if the budget numbers in this piece were expressed as a share of GDP and/or the total budget over the relevant horizon. The vast majority of readers have no ability to assess the importance of items like $80 billion in savings on federal employee pensions over the course of a decade. (This is approximately 0.2 percent of projected spending.)
[Thanks to Randy Schutt for passing this one along.]
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is what readers of a front page article on the impact of austerity in Spain must have concluded when the Post told readers:
“The tensions between tackling runaway deficits and stimulating the economy are in many ways akin to those facing the United States, where political leaders are struggling to agree on the right balance.”
Actually, the problems facing Spain and the U.S. are not comparable, most importantly because the United States issues its own currency and Spain does not. This is the main reason that the interest rate on 10-Treasury bonds in the United States is less than 1.8 percent, while it’s close to 6.0 percent in Spain.
Spain’s problems can be viewed as being more in line with the fiscal problems that a particular state, like California or Ohio, might face. The existance of single currency under the control of the European Central Bank, means that individual countries cannot count on the central bank to support their debt, which makes it far more risky than the debt of countries like the U.S., U.K., or Japan, even if the latter might carry much heavier debt burdens.
The term “runaway” was strange editorializing that does not belong in a news story. It is strange because Spain’s deficit is entirely due to the economic crisis created by the collapse of its housing bubble.
That is what readers of a front page article on the impact of austerity in Spain must have concluded when the Post told readers:
“The tensions between tackling runaway deficits and stimulating the economy are in many ways akin to those facing the United States, where political leaders are struggling to agree on the right balance.”
Actually, the problems facing Spain and the U.S. are not comparable, most importantly because the United States issues its own currency and Spain does not. This is the main reason that the interest rate on 10-Treasury bonds in the United States is less than 1.8 percent, while it’s close to 6.0 percent in Spain.
Spain’s problems can be viewed as being more in line with the fiscal problems that a particular state, like California or Ohio, might face. The existance of single currency under the control of the European Central Bank, means that individual countries cannot count on the central bank to support their debt, which makes it far more risky than the debt of countries like the U.S., U.K., or Japan, even if the latter might carry much heavier debt burdens.
The term “runaway” was strange editorializing that does not belong in a news story. It is strange because Spain’s deficit is entirely due to the economic crisis created by the collapse of its housing bubble.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Times showed that it can do serious reporting. This piece on the German labor market is solidly researched and carefully written. At last, the nation’s capital has a real newspaper.
The Washington Times showed that it can do serious reporting. This piece on the German labor market is solidly researched and carefully written. At last, the nation’s capital has a real newspaper.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Andrew Gelman points us to a peculiar Bloomberg column by Reid Hastie that refers to some well-known research results from cognitive psychology with the seeming purpose of undermining efforts to hold anyone accountable for the economic crisis. The piece tells us:
“Just as we are wired to like a diet rich in fats and sugars, we have an appetite for simple, coherent narratives.”
which we are urged to remember:
“the next time you hear a good story about why the financial recession, or any other economically significant event, was caused by a single collection of bad actors.”
This is a truly bizarre juxtaposition. There is a great deal of evidence that many actors in the financial sector were at least unethical in their behavior (e.g. bond rating agencies giving investment grade ratings to issues they knew were junk), and may well have broken the law. In effect what Hastie is telling us is that we should not be concerned about this evidence and its implications for the markets and the economy because we are hard-wired to like a good story.
Sorry, but this one makes no sense. If the argument is that the bad actors in the financial sector should not be held responsible for the economic crisis, then the argument should be based on the facts and the economics. The assertion that the people who think the financial industry was responsible just have some cognition problem is pretty much just a crude ad hominem argument.
Andrew Gelman points us to a peculiar Bloomberg column by Reid Hastie that refers to some well-known research results from cognitive psychology with the seeming purpose of undermining efforts to hold anyone accountable for the economic crisis. The piece tells us:
“Just as we are wired to like a diet rich in fats and sugars, we have an appetite for simple, coherent narratives.”
which we are urged to remember:
“the next time you hear a good story about why the financial recession, or any other economically significant event, was caused by a single collection of bad actors.”
This is a truly bizarre juxtaposition. There is a great deal of evidence that many actors in the financial sector were at least unethical in their behavior (e.g. bond rating agencies giving investment grade ratings to issues they knew were junk), and may well have broken the law. In effect what Hastie is telling us is that we should not be concerned about this evidence and its implications for the markets and the economy because we are hard-wired to like a good story.
Sorry, but this one makes no sense. If the argument is that the bad actors in the financial sector should not be held responsible for the economic crisis, then the argument should be based on the facts and the economics. The assertion that the people who think the financial industry was responsible just have some cognition problem is pretty much just a crude ad hominem argument.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had an article that reports on the high level of corporate debt and indebtedness in general in Spain. The article gives a measure of the total debt to GDP in Spain and then compares it to the ratios in other countries.
This is a confused way to assess the issue. Debt by itself will reveal nothing about the state of an economy. Debt is also an asset.
Suppose every household in the United States lent $300,000 to the household on its left. (We are going to make the United States a circle for purposes of this analysis.) With roughly 130 million households, the United States now has $39 trillion (@ 2.6 times GDP) more debt than it did previously.
However, as a country it is no poorer than it had been previously. In fact, every household is just as well off as it had been previously. It owes $300,000 more than it had previously, but it has $300,000 more in assets than it had previously.
Problems arise due to the distribution of the debt. If every third household borrowed $600,000, which was lent by the other two households, then this third household is getting deep in debt, with the other two are appearing to build up large amounts of assets.
This is what happened to Spain, the United States and other countries with serious housing bubbles. The other two households were willing to lend money to the third household because they thought it held an asset (a house) of great value. When this turned out not to be true, the third household found itself with an unsustainable debt burden and the other two households found themselves with assets of questionable value. If the third household can’t repay its debt, then the loans are no longer worth their face value.
Central banks should be paying attention to the buildup of such unsustainable debt burdens. Unfortunately, the European Central Bank (ECB) was focused on building up its Maginot Line, being vigilant in its fight against inflation.
The problem now is to try to correct the imbalances created by growth of the housing bubble. Spain and the rest of Europe is getting little help from ECB which is still focused on reinforcing the Maginot Line rather than promoting growth in the euro zone.
The NYT had an article that reports on the high level of corporate debt and indebtedness in general in Spain. The article gives a measure of the total debt to GDP in Spain and then compares it to the ratios in other countries.
This is a confused way to assess the issue. Debt by itself will reveal nothing about the state of an economy. Debt is also an asset.
Suppose every household in the United States lent $300,000 to the household on its left. (We are going to make the United States a circle for purposes of this analysis.) With roughly 130 million households, the United States now has $39 trillion (@ 2.6 times GDP) more debt than it did previously.
However, as a country it is no poorer than it had been previously. In fact, every household is just as well off as it had been previously. It owes $300,000 more than it had previously, but it has $300,000 more in assets than it had previously.
Problems arise due to the distribution of the debt. If every third household borrowed $600,000, which was lent by the other two households, then this third household is getting deep in debt, with the other two are appearing to build up large amounts of assets.
This is what happened to Spain, the United States and other countries with serious housing bubbles. The other two households were willing to lend money to the third household because they thought it held an asset (a house) of great value. When this turned out not to be true, the third household found itself with an unsustainable debt burden and the other two households found themselves with assets of questionable value. If the third household can’t repay its debt, then the loans are no longer worth their face value.
Central banks should be paying attention to the buildup of such unsustainable debt burdens. Unfortunately, the European Central Bank (ECB) was focused on building up its Maginot Line, being vigilant in its fight against inflation.
The problem now is to try to correct the imbalances created by growth of the housing bubble. Spain and the rest of Europe is getting little help from ECB which is still focused on reinforcing the Maginot Line rather than promoting growth in the euro zone.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That fact should have been mentioned in a NYT article that told readers, “few options if Europe turns from austerity.” If there were a political consensus within Europe to reject austerity, the euro zone countries could call Mario Draghi, the European Central Bank (ECB) president, and tell him that he must guarantee debt and run expansionary policy or look for a new job and surrender his pension. (Which is far more generous than the ones that were cut in Greece.)
This piece might wrongly lead readers to believe that the ECB could pursue policies that all the governments in the euro oppose. That is not true. If the governments all agreed that they wanted to reject austerity then they could require that the ECB support this position.
That would mean abandoning its obsession with defending its Maginot line (its 2.0 percent inflation target), but such is life.
That fact should have been mentioned in a NYT article that told readers, “few options if Europe turns from austerity.” If there were a political consensus within Europe to reject austerity, the euro zone countries could call Mario Draghi, the European Central Bank (ECB) president, and tell him that he must guarantee debt and run expansionary policy or look for a new job and surrender his pension. (Which is far more generous than the ones that were cut in Greece.)
This piece might wrongly lead readers to believe that the ECB could pursue policies that all the governments in the euro oppose. That is not true. If the governments all agreed that they wanted to reject austerity then they could require that the ECB support this position.
That would mean abandoning its obsession with defending its Maginot line (its 2.0 percent inflation target), but such is life.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
