The NYT did the old “entitlements” bashing in a budget piece today. In the Congressional Budget Office’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario, which most analysts are using as the basis for budget debates, Social Security outlays are projected to increase by 25 percent as a share of GDP over the next two decades, from 4.8 percent to 6.0 percent. And all of this increase in spending will be covered by the bonds held in the Social Security trust fund.
By contrast, Medicare outlays are projected to increase by almost 70 percent, measured as a share of GDP, from 3.6 to 6.0 percent, in the Alternative Fiscal Scenario. The Medicare trust fund could only cover a small fraction of this projected rise.
These are qualitatively different situations and it is misleading to lump the two programs together as this article does.
The NYT did the old “entitlements” bashing in a budget piece today. In the Congressional Budget Office’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario, which most analysts are using as the basis for budget debates, Social Security outlays are projected to increase by 25 percent as a share of GDP over the next two decades, from 4.8 percent to 6.0 percent. And all of this increase in spending will be covered by the bonds held in the Social Security trust fund.
By contrast, Medicare outlays are projected to increase by almost 70 percent, measured as a share of GDP, from 3.6 to 6.0 percent, in the Alternative Fiscal Scenario. The Medicare trust fund could only cover a small fraction of this projected rise.
These are qualitatively different situations and it is misleading to lump the two programs together as this article does.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post has a lengthy article on Germany which touts the austerity measures the country imposed in the last decade. It tells readers that Germany has the second highest tax rate on ordinary workers based on a chart that strangely excludes Denmark and Sweden, the two highest tax countries in Europe.
The article also never mentions the role of the European Central Bank (ECB) in the current economic crisis hitting most of Europe. The crisis was the result of the failure of the ECB to take steps to counteract housing bubbles before they grew to dangerous levels.
It has been made worse by the relatively restrictive monetary policy pursued by the ECB after the collapse of the bubble. While the Fed pushed its short-term rate to zero and engaged in several rounds of quantitative easing to bring down long-term interest rates, the ECB never allowed its overnight rate to fall below 1.0 percent and actually raised the rate to 1.5 percent in the spring. This has both slowed growth and increased the borrowing cost of heavily indebted countries.
The failure to mention the role of the ECB might lead readers to believe that the excessively generous social benefits are responsible for the European economic crisis. They are not.
The Washington Post has a lengthy article on Germany which touts the austerity measures the country imposed in the last decade. It tells readers that Germany has the second highest tax rate on ordinary workers based on a chart that strangely excludes Denmark and Sweden, the two highest tax countries in Europe.
The article also never mentions the role of the European Central Bank (ECB) in the current economic crisis hitting most of Europe. The crisis was the result of the failure of the ECB to take steps to counteract housing bubbles before they grew to dangerous levels.
It has been made worse by the relatively restrictive monetary policy pursued by the ECB after the collapse of the bubble. While the Fed pushed its short-term rate to zero and engaged in several rounds of quantitative easing to bring down long-term interest rates, the ECB never allowed its overnight rate to fall below 1.0 percent and actually raised the rate to 1.5 percent in the spring. This has both slowed growth and increased the borrowing cost of heavily indebted countries.
The failure to mention the role of the ECB might lead readers to believe that the excessively generous social benefits are responsible for the European economic crisis. They are not.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Marketplace radio had author Don Peck on this morning to tell listeners that middle class jobs are disappearing because of globalization and automation. This is not true.
The reason why factory workers lose their jobs to people in developing countries rather than doctors and lawyers is that we designed trade rules to make our factory workers compete with low-paid workers in China, Mexico and other developing countries. We largely protect our doctors and lawyers from the same sort of competition.
If we had designed our trade policy to put our highly educated professionals in direct competition with their counterparts in the developing world, they would be no more successful than our factory workers. The difference is that professionals have enough political power to mostly preserve the barriers that protect them from such competition.
The over-valued dollar also worsens the situation for U.S. factory workers. If the dollar adjusted to a level that allowed for balanced trade we would have more than 4 million additional jobs in manufacturing.
Marketplace radio had author Don Peck on this morning to tell listeners that middle class jobs are disappearing because of globalization and automation. This is not true.
The reason why factory workers lose their jobs to people in developing countries rather than doctors and lawyers is that we designed trade rules to make our factory workers compete with low-paid workers in China, Mexico and other developing countries. We largely protect our doctors and lawyers from the same sort of competition.
If we had designed our trade policy to put our highly educated professionals in direct competition with their counterparts in the developing world, they would be no more successful than our factory workers. The difference is that professionals have enough political power to mostly preserve the barriers that protect them from such competition.
The over-valued dollar also worsens the situation for U.S. factory workers. If the dollar adjusted to a level that allowed for balanced trade we would have more than 4 million additional jobs in manufacturing.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s the question that readers are undoubtedly asking after seeing this piece on President Obama’s budget proposals. The piece featured three separate cites from Maya MacGuineas, who is the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. (One cite included unnamed “others.”) The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has received substantial funding from Peterson and his foundation over the years.
It then turns to an unnamed “GOP aide” who criticizes Obama’s “fictitious savings,” moving to Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, an organization that was started by Peter Peterson and has received substantial funding from him and his foundation.
The piece concludes with a critical comment from Ken Kies, who is identified as “a longtime corporate tax lobbyist.”
So there you have it: two budget experts funded by Peter Peterson, an unnamed GOP aide and a longtime corporate tax lobbyist. That’s Fair and Balanced budget reporting at the Washington Post.
That’s the question that readers are undoubtedly asking after seeing this piece on President Obama’s budget proposals. The piece featured three separate cites from Maya MacGuineas, who is the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. (One cite included unnamed “others.”) The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has received substantial funding from Peterson and his foundation over the years.
It then turns to an unnamed “GOP aide” who criticizes Obama’s “fictitious savings,” moving to Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, an organization that was started by Peter Peterson and has received substantial funding from him and his foundation.
The piece concludes with a critical comment from Ken Kies, who is identified as “a longtime corporate tax lobbyist.”
So there you have it: two budget experts funded by Peter Peterson, an unnamed GOP aide and a longtime corporate tax lobbyist. That’s Fair and Balanced budget reporting at the Washington Post.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post has a front page article outlining President Obama’s plans for deficit reduction. It then quotes Representative Paul Ryan blaming “uncertainty” for slow growth and high unemployment.
If it were the case that firms would actually be hiring except for uncertainty then we would expect to see firms increasing the average number of hours worked per workers and also turning to temporary workers. The argument here is that firms are seeing demand for labor, but they are scared to take on the commitment of hiring another worker because they think that President Obama would regulate them to death. This means that they would seek to fill this demand through alternative routes.
The data contradict the uncertainty story. Average weekly hours worked is still about 1 percent below its pre-recession level when firms presumably did not suffer from uncertainty.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The data on temp employment is even less friendly to the uncertainty story. Temp employment is still down more than 15 percent from its pre-recession level.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In short, the evidence does not support Representative Ryan’s assertion that uncertainty is a major obstacle to hiring and recovery. It would have been appropriate to call readers attention to the fact that the data contradicts Ryan’s assertions. Post reporters have the time to evaluate the evidence, the vast majority of its readers do not.
Serious news stories, unlike this one, do not include in their first sentence a reference to “the nation’s rocketing federal debt.” Such phrases are best left for the opinion pages.
The Washington Post has a front page article outlining President Obama’s plans for deficit reduction. It then quotes Representative Paul Ryan blaming “uncertainty” for slow growth and high unemployment.
If it were the case that firms would actually be hiring except for uncertainty then we would expect to see firms increasing the average number of hours worked per workers and also turning to temporary workers. The argument here is that firms are seeing demand for labor, but they are scared to take on the commitment of hiring another worker because they think that President Obama would regulate them to death. This means that they would seek to fill this demand through alternative routes.
The data contradict the uncertainty story. Average weekly hours worked is still about 1 percent below its pre-recession level when firms presumably did not suffer from uncertainty.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The data on temp employment is even less friendly to the uncertainty story. Temp employment is still down more than 15 percent from its pre-recession level.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In short, the evidence does not support Representative Ryan’s assertion that uncertainty is a major obstacle to hiring and recovery. It would have been appropriate to call readers attention to the fact that the data contradicts Ryan’s assertions. Post reporters have the time to evaluate the evidence, the vast majority of its readers do not.
Serious news stories, unlike this one, do not include in their first sentence a reference to “the nation’s rocketing federal debt.” Such phrases are best left for the opinion pages.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker lectured readers on the dangers of inflation in a NYT column today. He warned that a little bit of inflation invariably grows to a lot of inflation, which then carries a huge cost to contain.
Actually this has not in general proven to be the case. The one time in the post-war period where inflation clearly became excessive in the United States was in the 70s. This was due to a number of extraordinary events, including large oil price increases associated with the formation of OPEC and the Iranian revolution, a huge wheat deal with the Soviet Union, and a mis-measurement of the rate of inflation that got directly translated directly into wages and other prices as a result of wide-spread indexing.
Even in this case, the cost of bringing inflation down with the 1981-82 recession was minor compared to the costs that the country is now enduring as a result of the current prolonged downturn. It is hard to see how any careful analysis of risks and costs would support Mr. Volcker’s warnings on inflation.
It is worth noting that the financial sector might view the equation differently. Its assets are directly devalued by even modest rises in the rate of inflation. For this reason, the financial industry tends to be strongly opposed to inflation even at the cost of high unemployment.
Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker lectured readers on the dangers of inflation in a NYT column today. He warned that a little bit of inflation invariably grows to a lot of inflation, which then carries a huge cost to contain.
Actually this has not in general proven to be the case. The one time in the post-war period where inflation clearly became excessive in the United States was in the 70s. This was due to a number of extraordinary events, including large oil price increases associated with the formation of OPEC and the Iranian revolution, a huge wheat deal with the Soviet Union, and a mis-measurement of the rate of inflation that got directly translated directly into wages and other prices as a result of wide-spread indexing.
Even in this case, the cost of bringing inflation down with the 1981-82 recession was minor compared to the costs that the country is now enduring as a result of the current prolonged downturn. It is hard to see how any careful analysis of risks and costs would support Mr. Volcker’s warnings on inflation.
It is worth noting that the financial sector might view the equation differently. Its assets are directly devalued by even modest rises in the rate of inflation. For this reason, the financial industry tends to be strongly opposed to inflation even at the cost of high unemployment.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It would have been useful to include the view of an economist in this article that reports on how China and India are now able to produce low-cost versions of bio-tech cancer drugs. These drugs sell now for several thousand dollars per dose as a result of government granted patent monopolies.
Patent monopolies lead to enormous market distortions in the same way as other barriers to trade. However, the impact of patents is much larger since they have a much bigger effect on prices. It is rare that tariffs raise the price of goods by more than 20-30 percent. By contrast, patents often raise the price of protected drugs by several thousand percent.
The huge profits created by patent rents are the cause of kickbacks to doctors, misleading information on the safety and effectiveness of drugs, and government corruption that extends the length and scope of patent rents. These distortions lower the quality of health care and raise its cost. There are far more efficient mechanisms for supporting medical research.
This article also errs in asserting that countries can only issue compulsory licenses for drugs in cases of emergencies. The terms of the WTO allow for compulsory licensing under fairly general conditions.
It would have been useful to include the view of an economist in this article that reports on how China and India are now able to produce low-cost versions of bio-tech cancer drugs. These drugs sell now for several thousand dollars per dose as a result of government granted patent monopolies.
Patent monopolies lead to enormous market distortions in the same way as other barriers to trade. However, the impact of patents is much larger since they have a much bigger effect on prices. It is rare that tariffs raise the price of goods by more than 20-30 percent. By contrast, patents often raise the price of protected drugs by several thousand percent.
The huge profits created by patent rents are the cause of kickbacks to doctors, misleading information on the safety and effectiveness of drugs, and government corruption that extends the length and scope of patent rents. These distortions lower the quality of health care and raise its cost. There are far more efficient mechanisms for supporting medical research.
This article also errs in asserting that countries can only issue compulsory licenses for drugs in cases of emergencies. The terms of the WTO allow for compulsory licensing under fairly general conditions.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
NPR told listeners that the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction being sought by the congressional super committee is inadequate, that in fact we need $4 trillion. It’s great that they got the word from God on this one.
Those of us who look at numbers might think otherwise. The financial markets are saying loudly that there is no problem with current deficits, otherwise they would not be lending money to the United States for 10 years at interest rates of just 2.0 percent. The numbers also offer many examples of countries with (including the United States) which have had much larger debt to GDP ratios and have had no problem borrowing in financial markets.
The piece concluded by telling listeners that we may end up going 14 months until the next election without getting much done. Actually, for people who pay attention to the economy, the main way in which we are not getting much done is in reducing the unemployment rate. This is far and away the most important problem facing the economy in the minds of the vast majority of the public, even if not at NPR.
It is also worth noting that the failure to reduce the unemployment rate will reduce capacity and employment in the long-term. This was pointed out by Paul Krugman in a column today and by David Rosnick in a blogpost last week.
NPR told listeners that the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction being sought by the congressional super committee is inadequate, that in fact we need $4 trillion. It’s great that they got the word from God on this one.
Those of us who look at numbers might think otherwise. The financial markets are saying loudly that there is no problem with current deficits, otherwise they would not be lending money to the United States for 10 years at interest rates of just 2.0 percent. The numbers also offer many examples of countries with (including the United States) which have had much larger debt to GDP ratios and have had no problem borrowing in financial markets.
The piece concluded by telling listeners that we may end up going 14 months until the next election without getting much done. Actually, for people who pay attention to the economy, the main way in which we are not getting much done is in reducing the unemployment rate. This is far and away the most important problem facing the economy in the minds of the vast majority of the public, even if not at NPR.
It is also worth noting that the failure to reduce the unemployment rate will reduce capacity and employment in the long-term. This was pointed out by Paul Krugman in a column today and by David Rosnick in a blogpost last week.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Frank Bruni, one of the NYT’s new columnists, ran a column today complaining about government corruption in Italy and the impact that an aging population in both Italy and the U.S. will have on reducing the living standards of our kids. This is one of those columns which could have been so easily prevented if the NYT just required a remedial 3rd grade arithmetic course for columnists that intend to write on economic issues.
For example, Bruni complains that seniors and older workers want to protect Social Security and Medicare. If he looked at the Congressional Budget Office’s projections for Social Security he would see that they show a 1.6 percentage point increase in the payroll tax would leave the program fully solvent throughout its 75-year planning period.
By comparison, workers’ wages are projected to rise by almost 40 percent over the next three decades. This means that the program can be kept fully solvent with a tax increase that is less than 5 percent of projected wage growth over the next three decades. This will impoverish our kids?
Of course most workers have not shared in the wage growth over the last three decades. The vast majority of wage growth has gone to those in the top 10 percent of the wage distribution. However this raises questions about government policies that redistribute income upward, like trade policy, Federal Reserve Board policy, and patent policy. However, none of these villains appear in Bruni’s column, he just wants to take Social Security checks, which average less than $1,200 a month, from current and future retirees.
The same story applies to Medicare. The problem is not that Medicare beneficiaries are getting such great care. The problem is that we pay way too much to pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and doctors. If we paid the same amount per person for our health care as people in other wealthy countries then we would not have to increase payments to Medicare for many decades into the future. But again, Bruni’s target is the seniors getting Medicare, not the powerful interests driving up costs.
We find the same logic in Bruni’s diatribes against Italy. He complains about the excessive pay and perks of the Italy parliament. While he may well have a case, if we take his numbers at face value, the 1000 member parliament costs Italy around $200 million a year. By comparison, Robert Rubin personally pocketed close to $120 million sitting near the helm at Citigroup, as the company was being driven into the ground and taking the economy down with it.
There is no excuse for public officials ripping off the people they are supposed to represent. But it is striking that they feature so prominently in Bruni’s piece, while the barons of finance, who make the corruption of public officials look like chump change, are nowhere to be found.
Finally, Bruni somehow thinks that young Italians will be hurt by the country’s low birth rate. In fact, this is likely to help future generations of Italians since it means that there will be shortages of workers. That will allow them to command higher wages. There are also many benefits of a smaller population that will not be picked up in official statistics. For example, public facilities like parks and beaches will be less crowded, as will transportation facilities. Also, it will be much easier to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants with a smaller population.
Frank Bruni, one of the NYT’s new columnists, ran a column today complaining about government corruption in Italy and the impact that an aging population in both Italy and the U.S. will have on reducing the living standards of our kids. This is one of those columns which could have been so easily prevented if the NYT just required a remedial 3rd grade arithmetic course for columnists that intend to write on economic issues.
For example, Bruni complains that seniors and older workers want to protect Social Security and Medicare. If he looked at the Congressional Budget Office’s projections for Social Security he would see that they show a 1.6 percentage point increase in the payroll tax would leave the program fully solvent throughout its 75-year planning period.
By comparison, workers’ wages are projected to rise by almost 40 percent over the next three decades. This means that the program can be kept fully solvent with a tax increase that is less than 5 percent of projected wage growth over the next three decades. This will impoverish our kids?
Of course most workers have not shared in the wage growth over the last three decades. The vast majority of wage growth has gone to those in the top 10 percent of the wage distribution. However this raises questions about government policies that redistribute income upward, like trade policy, Federal Reserve Board policy, and patent policy. However, none of these villains appear in Bruni’s column, he just wants to take Social Security checks, which average less than $1,200 a month, from current and future retirees.
The same story applies to Medicare. The problem is not that Medicare beneficiaries are getting such great care. The problem is that we pay way too much to pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and doctors. If we paid the same amount per person for our health care as people in other wealthy countries then we would not have to increase payments to Medicare for many decades into the future. But again, Bruni’s target is the seniors getting Medicare, not the powerful interests driving up costs.
We find the same logic in Bruni’s diatribes against Italy. He complains about the excessive pay and perks of the Italy parliament. While he may well have a case, if we take his numbers at face value, the 1000 member parliament costs Italy around $200 million a year. By comparison, Robert Rubin personally pocketed close to $120 million sitting near the helm at Citigroup, as the company was being driven into the ground and taking the economy down with it.
There is no excuse for public officials ripping off the people they are supposed to represent. But it is striking that they feature so prominently in Bruni’s piece, while the barons of finance, who make the corruption of public officials look like chump change, are nowhere to be found.
Finally, Bruni somehow thinks that young Italians will be hurt by the country’s low birth rate. In fact, this is likely to help future generations of Italians since it means that there will be shortages of workers. That will allow them to command higher wages. There are also many benefits of a smaller population that will not be picked up in official statistics. For example, public facilities like parks and beaches will be less crowded, as will transportation facilities. Also, it will be much easier to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants with a smaller population.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT has an interesting piece discussing Adam Posen, a U.S. citizen who sits on the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee. It reports Posen’s view that the Bank of England and other central banks should take aggressive actions to boost the money supply in order to support growth. It contrasts this view with the concerns of inflation raised by others, noting that inflation in the U.K. has been 4.5 percent over the last 12 months.
The piece then presents Posen’s assertion that inflation will come down, which is met by the skepticism of his critics. It would been helpful to tell readers that inflation already has come down. It was 0.0 percent in July, -0.1 percent in June, and 0.2 percent in May. This means that over the last three months inflation has been increasing at just a 1.0 percent annual rate. This piece of information would have been helpful to readers.
The NYT has an interesting piece discussing Adam Posen, a U.S. citizen who sits on the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee. It reports Posen’s view that the Bank of England and other central banks should take aggressive actions to boost the money supply in order to support growth. It contrasts this view with the concerns of inflation raised by others, noting that inflation in the U.K. has been 4.5 percent over the last 12 months.
The piece then presents Posen’s assertion that inflation will come down, which is met by the skepticism of his critics. It would been helpful to tell readers that inflation already has come down. It was 0.0 percent in July, -0.1 percent in June, and 0.2 percent in May. This means that over the last three months inflation has been increasing at just a 1.0 percent annual rate. This piece of information would have been helpful to readers.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
