In an article on the richest one percent of families in the country, the NYT told readers that:
“they may prefer facing cuts to their own benefits like Social Security than paying more taxes.”
The average income among the richest one percent is roughly $1.5 million. The maximum Social Security benefit for a retired couple is around $45,000. If we assume that the everyone in the one percent gets the maximum benefit (which would certainly be an overstatement of their benefits), then completely eliminating their Social Security would be equivalent to a 3 percentage point increase in their tax.
For families with higher incomes in the one percent, the potential loss due to a reduction in Social Security benefits would be an even smaller share of their income. For this reason, it is understandable that they would prefer to go the route of reduction in benefits to tax increases.
In an article on the richest one percent of families in the country, the NYT told readers that:
“they may prefer facing cuts to their own benefits like Social Security than paying more taxes.”
The average income among the richest one percent is roughly $1.5 million. The maximum Social Security benefit for a retired couple is around $45,000. If we assume that the everyone in the one percent gets the maximum benefit (which would certainly be an overstatement of their benefits), then completely eliminating their Social Security would be equivalent to a 3 percentage point increase in their tax.
For families with higher incomes in the one percent, the potential loss due to a reduction in Social Security benefits would be an even smaller share of their income. For this reason, it is understandable that they would prefer to go the route of reduction in benefits to tax increases.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Reporters always complain about space constraints. Therefore it is difficult to understand why they feel the need to add the word “free” when reporting on trade deals, as the Post did in a piece talking about the possible implications for trade of President Obama’s plans for restructuring the Commerce Department.
Of course the deals in question (recent pacts with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama) were not free trade agreements, since they increased barriers in some areas, most obviously intellectual property rights. They were just called “free trade: agreements by proponents, presumably because they think this will make them politically salable.
It would have been helpful to include the views of a critic of U.S. trade policy in this piece. If the restructuring makes the government less effective in promoting a trade agenda that they consider harmful, a restructuring may be viewed positively.
Reporters always complain about space constraints. Therefore it is difficult to understand why they feel the need to add the word “free” when reporting on trade deals, as the Post did in a piece talking about the possible implications for trade of President Obama’s plans for restructuring the Commerce Department.
Of course the deals in question (recent pacts with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama) were not free trade agreements, since they increased barriers in some areas, most obviously intellectual property rights. They were just called “free trade: agreements by proponents, presumably because they think this will make them politically salable.
It would have been helpful to include the views of a critic of U.S. trade policy in this piece. If the restructuring makes the government less effective in promoting a trade agenda that they consider harmful, a restructuring may be viewed positively.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The lead Washington Post editorial noted (and excused) the Fed’s complete failure to understand the dangers posed by the housing bubble (the economy is soooo complicated) and then somehow used this failure as an argument against its housing proposals. The Fed’s main housing proposals were that Fannie and Freddie should make it easier for underwater homeowners to refinance and also that they should look to convert some of their foreclosed properties to rental units. The Fed also suggested that it might be advantageous to allow foreclosed homeowners to stay in their home as renters. (Yes, that one is my right to rent plan.)
The Post doesn’t like the plans because the government could lose money on the deals. They also say that they may not fix the housing market.
Let’s take these in turn. In answer to the first, the question is how much money does the government stand to lose by allowing homeowners who are already underwater to refinance at lower rates. Remember, we are already on the hook for the loans. The deal is simply that homeowners will now be paying lower interest to holders of mortgage backed securities, or in cases where Fannie and Freddie held the loans directly, to the government. The downside risk to the government seems pretty small and, as the Fed noted, if it reduces the default rate, then it could be a net gainer. Of all the ways in which we can conceivably help homeowners, this one should top the list as no-brainer.
The question about fixing the housing market depends on what we mean by “fixing?” There was a housing bubble. It burst. Does the Post think that we will get house prices back to their bubble-inflated levels? That is probably not possible and certainly not desirable. If the point is to get homes occupied and to allow people who are no longer homeowners to find good rental housing, then again the Fed’s proposals seem like no-brainers.
The Fed deserves tons of ridicule; letting the housing bubble grow to such dangerous levels was an act of ungodly stupidity. But its latest proposals on housing are definitely a step in the right direction.
The lead Washington Post editorial noted (and excused) the Fed’s complete failure to understand the dangers posed by the housing bubble (the economy is soooo complicated) and then somehow used this failure as an argument against its housing proposals. The Fed’s main housing proposals were that Fannie and Freddie should make it easier for underwater homeowners to refinance and also that they should look to convert some of their foreclosed properties to rental units. The Fed also suggested that it might be advantageous to allow foreclosed homeowners to stay in their home as renters. (Yes, that one is my right to rent plan.)
The Post doesn’t like the plans because the government could lose money on the deals. They also say that they may not fix the housing market.
Let’s take these in turn. In answer to the first, the question is how much money does the government stand to lose by allowing homeowners who are already underwater to refinance at lower rates. Remember, we are already on the hook for the loans. The deal is simply that homeowners will now be paying lower interest to holders of mortgage backed securities, or in cases where Fannie and Freddie held the loans directly, to the government. The downside risk to the government seems pretty small and, as the Fed noted, if it reduces the default rate, then it could be a net gainer. Of all the ways in which we can conceivably help homeowners, this one should top the list as no-brainer.
The question about fixing the housing market depends on what we mean by “fixing?” There was a housing bubble. It burst. Does the Post think that we will get house prices back to their bubble-inflated levels? That is probably not possible and certainly not desirable. If the point is to get homes occupied and to allow people who are no longer homeowners to find good rental housing, then again the Fed’s proposals seem like no-brainers.
The Fed deserves tons of ridicule; letting the housing bubble grow to such dangerous levels was an act of ungodly stupidity. But its latest proposals on housing are definitely a step in the right direction.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Arguably the main reason that France and the rest of the euro zone countries are facing recession and debt downgrades is the failure of the European Central Bank (ECB) to act as a lender of last resort and promise to back up the debt of its member states. This failure, coupled with its obsession to curb inflation even at the expense of growth, would seem to be the main source of the euro zone’s economic problems at the moment.
However the NYT sees it otherwise. In an article on Standard & Poor’s downgrade of French debt it told readers:
“France will have to work to restore its financial luster, especially if it is subsequently downgraded by other ratings agencies. French officials say their priority now is to demonstrate that the euro area is solid, while also showing that France is working to improve its own finances.
Mr. Sarkozy’s austerity programs, including higher taxes on items like some food and beverages that kicked in across France recently, are aimed at whittling the country’s budget deficit to 3 percent of G.D.P. by 2015.”
Austerity is of course one route, although if it leads to further weakness in the French economy, it is not clear that it will be a successful route. Another possible route would be for France to pressure the ECB to adopt sounder policies.
The NYT seems to have ruled this path out for France, but the French people might see changing ECB policy as preferable to tax increase and spending cutbacks that will have an uncertain impact on the deficit and France’s financial standing.
Arguably the main reason that France and the rest of the euro zone countries are facing recession and debt downgrades is the failure of the European Central Bank (ECB) to act as a lender of last resort and promise to back up the debt of its member states. This failure, coupled with its obsession to curb inflation even at the expense of growth, would seem to be the main source of the euro zone’s economic problems at the moment.
However the NYT sees it otherwise. In an article on Standard & Poor’s downgrade of French debt it told readers:
“France will have to work to restore its financial luster, especially if it is subsequently downgraded by other ratings agencies. French officials say their priority now is to demonstrate that the euro area is solid, while also showing that France is working to improve its own finances.
Mr. Sarkozy’s austerity programs, including higher taxes on items like some food and beverages that kicked in across France recently, are aimed at whittling the country’s budget deficit to 3 percent of G.D.P. by 2015.”
Austerity is of course one route, although if it leads to further weakness in the French economy, it is not clear that it will be a successful route. Another possible route would be for France to pressure the ECB to adopt sounder policies.
The NYT seems to have ruled this path out for France, but the French people might see changing ECB policy as preferable to tax increase and spending cutbacks that will have an uncertain impact on the deficit and France’s financial standing.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
At this point it should be universally known that the Federal Reserve Board has been guilty of disastrous incompetence. It allowed an $8 trillion housing bubble to grow unchecked. The inevitable collapse of this bubble has produced the worst downturn since the Great Depression and ruined the lives of tens of millions of people across the country.
This is why it was striking to read a Washington Post headline for an article on newly released Fed transcripts that showed that Greenspan and the rest of the Fed were completely oblivious to the bubble and the risks it posed to the economy as late as 2006:
“Fed’s image tarnished by newly released transcripts.”
At this point, the Fed should not have an image that could possibly be tarnished further. If its record had been reported accurately, everyone would be well aware of its incredible incompetence as a manager of the economy.
btw, as noted in the article, many of the people at these Fed meetings are still in top policy making positions. This shows that the U.S. economy still produces good-paying jobs for people without skills.
Addendum: This is what people who were not Greenspan sycophants were saying at the time. And, here’s another blast from the past.
At this point it should be universally known that the Federal Reserve Board has been guilty of disastrous incompetence. It allowed an $8 trillion housing bubble to grow unchecked. The inevitable collapse of this bubble has produced the worst downturn since the Great Depression and ruined the lives of tens of millions of people across the country.
This is why it was striking to read a Washington Post headline for an article on newly released Fed transcripts that showed that Greenspan and the rest of the Fed were completely oblivious to the bubble and the risks it posed to the economy as late as 2006:
“Fed’s image tarnished by newly released transcripts.”
At this point, the Fed should not have an image that could possibly be tarnished further. If its record had been reported accurately, everyone would be well aware of its incredible incompetence as a manager of the economy.
btw, as noted in the article, many of the people at these Fed meetings are still in top policy making positions. This shows that the U.S. economy still produces good-paying jobs for people without skills.
Addendum: This is what people who were not Greenspan sycophants were saying at the time. And, here’s another blast from the past.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
A Morning Edition segment today told listeners (sorry, no link yet) that “there’s no doubt that private equity firms create value,” which it then justified by referring to the high returns earned by those who invest in private equity (PE) companies. This is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!
First, it is not at all clear that those who invest in PE funds (not the PE partners themselves) do beat the stock market when a full accounting is done. Recent research shows that net of fees, private equity investors (pension funds and university endowments) would have been better off buying the S&P 500.
Furthermore, even if the PE investors did come out ahead, this does not mean it created value. Investors in Bernie Madoff’s fund, who got out, made money too, but Bernie Madoff did not create value.
Much of what private equity does is financial engineering. For example, it is standard to load up the companies they purchase with debt. The resulting interest payments are tax deductible. This increases profitability but creates no value for the economy. It simply transfers money from taxpayers to the private equity company.
To take a simple example, suppose a public company (let’s call it Gingrich Inc.), has $1 billion a year in profits. If Gingrich Inc. paid taxes at the full 35 percent rate (fat chance), it would have $650 million [thanks Robert] a year to either keep as retained earnings or to pay out as dividends to its shareholders.
Now suppose that a PE company (we’ll call it Romney Capital) steps in. The current price to earnings ratio in the stock market is around 14, so Gingrich Inc. would have a pre-takeover market value of approximately $9.2 billion (14*$650 million). Romney Capital then arranges for Gingrich Inc. to borrow $6 billion which it pays out as a dividend to itself. This means that the Romney Capital has just gotten back almost two-thirds of its investment.
Suppose that Gingrich Inc. pays 5 percent interest on its debt (closer to the 5.20 Baa rate than the 3.80 Aaa rate). This means that before tax profit falls by $300 million. This leaves Gingrich Inc. with $700 million in before tax profit. Deducting the 35 percent tax, Gingrich Inc. now has $455 million a year to distribute to Romney Capital, 70 percent as much as before ($455 million/$700 million) even though Romney Capital has already recovered two-thirds of what it paid for Gingrich Inc.. In this case, the benefit to the Romney Capital came at the expense of taxpayers, not through the creation of value.
Now suppose that the Romney Capital arranges to sell off some of Gingrich Inc.’s assets, such as real estate or a highly profitable subsidiary, and then uses the proceeds to make a payment to the Romney Capital rather than leaving the money under the control of Gingrich Inc. Such sales may allow Romney Capital to recoup the rest of its investment and possibly more. Gingrich Inc. is then left as a highly indebted company with few assets.
In this story, Romney Capital may have earned a substantial profit on a limited investment (it recouped most of its money almost immediately when it loaded Gingrich Inc. with debt), without doing anything to improve the operation of Gingrich Inc. If Gingrich Inc. manages to stay in business and generate profits, then this will increase the return. Romney Capital may be able to resell the company and treat the whole sale price as profit.
On the other hand, if Gingrich Inc. goes bankrupt, this will primarily be a problem for creditors, since Romney Capital has already gotten its investment back. In effect, Romney Capital might have secured large gains entirely by financial engineering, while creating no value whatsoever.
The sort of asset stripping described here, which harms creditors by taking away potential collateral for their loans, violates the law. However it is extremely difficult to prevent, especially with private equity companies that have to make few public disclosures. If Gingrich Inc. were to fall into bankruptcy, this is the sort of thing that would likely be contested in the bankruptcy proceedings. Of course the resources used in fighting out this sort of legal battle are a pure waste from an economic perspective.
Anyhow, these are the sorts of issues that are raised with private equity. It is flat out untrue to say, as NPR does:
“Here’s what private equity firms like Bain Capital do: First, they go out and find a few large investors — usually pension funds, university endowments and possibly wealthy individuals. Then, says Ohio State professor Steven Davidoff, they take that money, borrow a lot more, and buy companies — usually companies that are in trouble or undervalued.
‘They buy them in hopes that they can increase the value of the companies and sell them at a fantastic profit,’ Davidoff says.”
Private equity companies absolutely do not have to increase the value of a company to make a profit. They can end up making a profit on their investment even if they take the company into bankruptcy and leave it much worse off than it was before the takeover.
A Morning Edition segment today told listeners (sorry, no link yet) that “there’s no doubt that private equity firms create value,” which it then justified by referring to the high returns earned by those who invest in private equity (PE) companies. This is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!
First, it is not at all clear that those who invest in PE funds (not the PE partners themselves) do beat the stock market when a full accounting is done. Recent research shows that net of fees, private equity investors (pension funds and university endowments) would have been better off buying the S&P 500.
Furthermore, even if the PE investors did come out ahead, this does not mean it created value. Investors in Bernie Madoff’s fund, who got out, made money too, but Bernie Madoff did not create value.
Much of what private equity does is financial engineering. For example, it is standard to load up the companies they purchase with debt. The resulting interest payments are tax deductible. This increases profitability but creates no value for the economy. It simply transfers money from taxpayers to the private equity company.
To take a simple example, suppose a public company (let’s call it Gingrich Inc.), has $1 billion a year in profits. If Gingrich Inc. paid taxes at the full 35 percent rate (fat chance), it would have $650 million [thanks Robert] a year to either keep as retained earnings or to pay out as dividends to its shareholders.
Now suppose that a PE company (we’ll call it Romney Capital) steps in. The current price to earnings ratio in the stock market is around 14, so Gingrich Inc. would have a pre-takeover market value of approximately $9.2 billion (14*$650 million). Romney Capital then arranges for Gingrich Inc. to borrow $6 billion which it pays out as a dividend to itself. This means that the Romney Capital has just gotten back almost two-thirds of its investment.
Suppose that Gingrich Inc. pays 5 percent interest on its debt (closer to the 5.20 Baa rate than the 3.80 Aaa rate). This means that before tax profit falls by $300 million. This leaves Gingrich Inc. with $700 million in before tax profit. Deducting the 35 percent tax, Gingrich Inc. now has $455 million a year to distribute to Romney Capital, 70 percent as much as before ($455 million/$700 million) even though Romney Capital has already recovered two-thirds of what it paid for Gingrich Inc.. In this case, the benefit to the Romney Capital came at the expense of taxpayers, not through the creation of value.
Now suppose that the Romney Capital arranges to sell off some of Gingrich Inc.’s assets, such as real estate or a highly profitable subsidiary, and then uses the proceeds to make a payment to the Romney Capital rather than leaving the money under the control of Gingrich Inc. Such sales may allow Romney Capital to recoup the rest of its investment and possibly more. Gingrich Inc. is then left as a highly indebted company with few assets.
In this story, Romney Capital may have earned a substantial profit on a limited investment (it recouped most of its money almost immediately when it loaded Gingrich Inc. with debt), without doing anything to improve the operation of Gingrich Inc. If Gingrich Inc. manages to stay in business and generate profits, then this will increase the return. Romney Capital may be able to resell the company and treat the whole sale price as profit.
On the other hand, if Gingrich Inc. goes bankrupt, this will primarily be a problem for creditors, since Romney Capital has already gotten its investment back. In effect, Romney Capital might have secured large gains entirely by financial engineering, while creating no value whatsoever.
The sort of asset stripping described here, which harms creditors by taking away potential collateral for their loans, violates the law. However it is extremely difficult to prevent, especially with private equity companies that have to make few public disclosures. If Gingrich Inc. were to fall into bankruptcy, this is the sort of thing that would likely be contested in the bankruptcy proceedings. Of course the resources used in fighting out this sort of legal battle are a pure waste from an economic perspective.
Anyhow, these are the sorts of issues that are raised with private equity. It is flat out untrue to say, as NPR does:
“Here’s what private equity firms like Bain Capital do: First, they go out and find a few large investors — usually pension funds, university endowments and possibly wealthy individuals. Then, says Ohio State professor Steven Davidoff, they take that money, borrow a lot more, and buy companies — usually companies that are in trouble or undervalued.
‘They buy them in hopes that they can increase the value of the companies and sell them at a fantastic profit,’ Davidoff says.”
Private equity companies absolutely do not have to increase the value of a company to make a profit. They can end up making a profit on their investment even if they take the company into bankruptcy and leave it much worse off than it was before the takeover.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In an article explaining why older people are increasingly deciding to work the Washington Post neglected to mention the cost of health care. If a person over 55 is not getting health care insurance through their employer, the cost of insurance would typically be more than $10,000 per year per person and several times this amount for people with a pre-existing condition. The rising cost of care and the sharp decline in the percentage of workers with retiree health benefits is undoubtedly a major factor behind the decision of more older workers to remain in the workforce.
In an article explaining why older people are increasingly deciding to work the Washington Post neglected to mention the cost of health care. If a person over 55 is not getting health care insurance through their employer, the cost of insurance would typically be more than $10,000 per year per person and several times this amount for people with a pre-existing condition. The rising cost of care and the sharp decline in the percentage of workers with retiree health benefits is undoubtedly a major factor behind the decision of more older workers to remain in the workforce.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It looks like unemployment is on the rise again, new claims for unemployment insurance jumped to 399,000 last week. That is 24,000 more than the consensus forecast and also 24,000 more than the prior week’s number. So let’s see some of those shrill talking heads getting scared — real bad news for President Obama’s re-election prospects.
Of course folks who know some economics remember that the December data showed a peculiar jump of 42,000 jobs in the courier industry in December. The same thing happened last year. Last year, all those jobs disappeared in January. And last year there was a jump in claims of 19,000 for the second week in January. Let’s see if we can guess what this all means.
It looks like unemployment is on the rise again, new claims for unemployment insurance jumped to 399,000 last week. That is 24,000 more than the consensus forecast and also 24,000 more than the prior week’s number. So let’s see some of those shrill talking heads getting scared — real bad news for President Obama’s re-election prospects.
Of course folks who know some economics remember that the December data showed a peculiar jump of 42,000 jobs in the courier industry in December. The same thing happened last year. Last year, all those jobs disappeared in January. And last year there was a jump in claims of 19,000 for the second week in January. Let’s see if we can guess what this all means.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
One of the simplest ways in which the media could improve their reporting is by reporting numbers in ways that make sense to their readers. When the Washington Post told readers that Germany’s economy shrank by 0.25 percent in the 4th quarter, I would suspect that more 99 percent of readers thought this was an annual rate of decline, which is way numbers are always reported for the United States.
In fact, this is a quarterly rate of decline, which is the standard practice in Europe and much of the rest of the world. It is not hard to convert quarterly growth numbers to an annual rate. For small numbers, multiplying by four will do the trick. (For larger numbers it is necessary to take the growth figure to the 4th power, but that still is not hard.)
One of the simplest ways in which the media could improve their reporting is by reporting numbers in ways that make sense to their readers. When the Washington Post told readers that Germany’s economy shrank by 0.25 percent in the 4th quarter, I would suspect that more 99 percent of readers thought this was an annual rate of decline, which is way numbers are always reported for the United States.
In fact, this is a quarterly rate of decline, which is the standard practice in Europe and much of the rest of the world. It is not hard to convert quarterly growth numbers to an annual rate. For small numbers, multiplying by four will do the trick. (For larger numbers it is necessary to take the growth figure to the 4th power, but that still is not hard.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
This point would have been worth making in an NYT article on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s trip to China. The article notes that Geithner will likely try to prod China to raise the value of its currency against the dollar. It also reports that:
“American corporations in industries like telecommunications and financial services have increasingly complained that China continues to restrict their access to domestic markets, despite pledges of openness when China joined the World Trade Organization a decade ago.”
Insofar as Geithner makes a priority of pushing for increased market access for the financial and telecommunications industry it will almost certainly mean less progress on raising the value of the yuan against the dollar. The United States is not in a position to simply dictate conditions to China, so getting more concessions in one area almost certainly means getting fewer concessions in other areas.
This means that if Geithner succeeds in getting concessions from China on market access for financial and telecommunications firms, it will likely be at the expense of achieving more progress on lowering the dollar against the yuan. This would mean in effect that he will have placed the interest of these industries ahead of the interest of U.S. manufacturing workers, since we could potentially gain millions of manufacturing jobs from a lower valued dollar.
This trade-off should have been made clearer in the article.
This point would have been worth making in an NYT article on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s trip to China. The article notes that Geithner will likely try to prod China to raise the value of its currency against the dollar. It also reports that:
“American corporations in industries like telecommunications and financial services have increasingly complained that China continues to restrict their access to domestic markets, despite pledges of openness when China joined the World Trade Organization a decade ago.”
Insofar as Geithner makes a priority of pushing for increased market access for the financial and telecommunications industry it will almost certainly mean less progress on raising the value of the yuan against the dollar. The United States is not in a position to simply dictate conditions to China, so getting more concessions in one area almost certainly means getting fewer concessions in other areas.
This means that if Geithner succeeds in getting concessions from China on market access for financial and telecommunications firms, it will likely be at the expense of achieving more progress on lowering the dollar against the yuan. This would mean in effect that he will have placed the interest of these industries ahead of the interest of U.S. manufacturing workers, since we could potentially gain millions of manufacturing jobs from a lower valued dollar.
This trade-off should have been made clearer in the article.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
