It’s always fun to read the Post’s editorials on economic issues, since you never know what you might find. For example, it recently told readers that reducing the annual cost of living adjustment for Social Security beneficiaries by 0.3 percentage points annually (i.e. 3 percent after 10 years, 6 percent after 20 years, and 9 percent after 30 years) “won’t hurt.”
Today we get the Post’s assessment of the Fed’s QE2 policy. It praises the policy for preventing deflation, which it says was a risk at the time the Fed started the program. Actually, it is hard to see how deflation was a serious risk in the fall of 2010 or much impact of QE2. The core inflation rate has been pretty constant over this period, running in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 percent, with nominal wage growth running close to 1.6 percent.
The Post also makes a common mistake in viewing deflation as some sort of grave economic threat. There are good reasons for wanting a higher inflation rate (e.g. 3-4 percent) as economists across the political spectrum have argued. Most importantly it would reduce the real interest rate at a point where the nominal interest is already stuck at its zero lower bound.
In this context, a lower inflation rate is worse than a higher one, but crossing zero holds no special magic. In other words, it is bad news if the rate of inflation falls from 0.5 percent to -0.5 percent, but there is no reason to believe that this decline in the inflation rate is any worse than the drop from 1.5 percent to 0.5 percent.
The Post may be thinking about the sort of rapid deflation that was seen at the start of the Great Depression, when prices were dropping at near double-digit rates. That kind of deflation makes any sort of economic planning almost impossible, but there was little risk that economy would see rates of deflation go that high.
The other oddity in the Post’s piece is that it blames QE2 for the run-up in commodity prices:
“But the negative consequences of QE2 — all of them also foreseeable — have canceled out some of the positives. Perhaps the most important of these was a commodity price boom, caused by the fact that many investors used the Fed’s freshly printed money to speculate on grain or oil. The winnings accrued to a wealthy few, while the U.S. middle class coped with higher prices for groceries and gasoline.”
There are two big problems with this story. First, much of the recent run-up in commodity prices is likely to be enduring, driven by rapid growth in China and elsewhere in the developing world. I don’t know anyone betting on a return to $40 a barrel of oil.
However the other part is even more bizarre. Speculators did not need QE2 to speculate. The Post’s editorial writers are probably too young to remember, but back in 2008, before the collapse of Lehman, most commodity prices were even higher than their recent peaks. The Fed was in a tightening phase at that point. Given that we saw a much larger speculative bubble just three years ago, when the Fed still had relatively tight monetary policy, why would anyone think that the current bubble was primarily due to the Fed’s actions?
Oh well, that’s why it is always fun to read the Post’s editorials on economic issues.
It’s always fun to read the Post’s editorials on economic issues, since you never know what you might find. For example, it recently told readers that reducing the annual cost of living adjustment for Social Security beneficiaries by 0.3 percentage points annually (i.e. 3 percent after 10 years, 6 percent after 20 years, and 9 percent after 30 years) “won’t hurt.”
Today we get the Post’s assessment of the Fed’s QE2 policy. It praises the policy for preventing deflation, which it says was a risk at the time the Fed started the program. Actually, it is hard to see how deflation was a serious risk in the fall of 2010 or much impact of QE2. The core inflation rate has been pretty constant over this period, running in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 percent, with nominal wage growth running close to 1.6 percent.
The Post also makes a common mistake in viewing deflation as some sort of grave economic threat. There are good reasons for wanting a higher inflation rate (e.g. 3-4 percent) as economists across the political spectrum have argued. Most importantly it would reduce the real interest rate at a point where the nominal interest is already stuck at its zero lower bound.
In this context, a lower inflation rate is worse than a higher one, but crossing zero holds no special magic. In other words, it is bad news if the rate of inflation falls from 0.5 percent to -0.5 percent, but there is no reason to believe that this decline in the inflation rate is any worse than the drop from 1.5 percent to 0.5 percent.
The Post may be thinking about the sort of rapid deflation that was seen at the start of the Great Depression, when prices were dropping at near double-digit rates. That kind of deflation makes any sort of economic planning almost impossible, but there was little risk that economy would see rates of deflation go that high.
The other oddity in the Post’s piece is that it blames QE2 for the run-up in commodity prices:
“But the negative consequences of QE2 — all of them also foreseeable — have canceled out some of the positives. Perhaps the most important of these was a commodity price boom, caused by the fact that many investors used the Fed’s freshly printed money to speculate on grain or oil. The winnings accrued to a wealthy few, while the U.S. middle class coped with higher prices for groceries and gasoline.”
There are two big problems with this story. First, much of the recent run-up in commodity prices is likely to be enduring, driven by rapid growth in China and elsewhere in the developing world. I don’t know anyone betting on a return to $40 a barrel of oil.
However the other part is even more bizarre. Speculators did not need QE2 to speculate. The Post’s editorial writers are probably too young to remember, but back in 2008, before the collapse of Lehman, most commodity prices were even higher than their recent peaks. The Fed was in a tightening phase at that point. Given that we saw a much larger speculative bubble just three years ago, when the Fed still had relatively tight monetary policy, why would anyone think that the current bubble was primarily due to the Fed’s actions?
Oh well, that’s why it is always fun to read the Post’s editorials on economic issues.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT reported the results of a telephone survey which found that 41 percent of respondents thought a 401(k) or IRA was a better long-term investment vehicle than investing in stock. It’s not clear what question people thought they were answering. The vast majority of people who invest in stock do it through a retirement account. Therefore, it’s not clear what it would mean to say that investing in a 401(k) or IRA is better than investing in stock.
The NYT reported the results of a telephone survey which found that 41 percent of respondents thought a 401(k) or IRA was a better long-term investment vehicle than investing in stock. It’s not clear what question people thought they were answering. The vast majority of people who invest in stock do it through a retirement account. Therefore, it’s not clear what it would mean to say that investing in a 401(k) or IRA is better than investing in stock.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That would seem to be the implication of his quote in an NYT article:
“The American people know tax hikes destroy jobs … They also know Washington has been on a spending binge for many years, and they will only tolerate a debt-limit increase if we stop it.”
Actually, the economy was creating 3 million jobs a year in the late 90s, when the higher Clinton-era tax rates were in effect. This means that unless the memory of the American people is as bad as Mr. Boehner’s memory, they could not know that “tax hikes destroy jobs,” since it is not true. (It is impossible to know something that is not true.)
This error would seem to qualify as a “gaffe,” like when then-Senator Obama referred to voters in Pennsylvania being bitter and clinging to guns and religion in response to bad economic times. It would have been appropriate for the NYT to press Mr. Boehner on whether he is really ignorant of the economy’s job growth record in the 90s or whether he is deliberately saying things that he knows not to be true.
The “spending binge” presumably refers to the increases in spending that began when President Bush took office. (Spending as a share of GDP rose substantially during the Bush presidency. [Corrected – thanks Tom.]) Most of the increase in spending was on the military. If the Republicans were to support reversing this increase in military spending then they would likely enjoy wide bi-partisan support.
That would seem to be the implication of his quote in an NYT article:
“The American people know tax hikes destroy jobs … They also know Washington has been on a spending binge for many years, and they will only tolerate a debt-limit increase if we stop it.”
Actually, the economy was creating 3 million jobs a year in the late 90s, when the higher Clinton-era tax rates were in effect. This means that unless the memory of the American people is as bad as Mr. Boehner’s memory, they could not know that “tax hikes destroy jobs,” since it is not true. (It is impossible to know something that is not true.)
This error would seem to qualify as a “gaffe,” like when then-Senator Obama referred to voters in Pennsylvania being bitter and clinging to guns and religion in response to bad economic times. It would have been appropriate for the NYT to press Mr. Boehner on whether he is really ignorant of the economy’s job growth record in the 90s or whether he is deliberately saying things that he knows not to be true.
The “spending binge” presumably refers to the increases in spending that began when President Bush took office. (Spending as a share of GDP rose substantially during the Bush presidency. [Corrected – thanks Tom.]) Most of the increase in spending was on the military. If the Republicans were to support reversing this increase in military spending then they would likely enjoy wide bi-partisan support.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post should have made this point in an article that noted that Greece is likely to face further problems in meeting its debt obligations. If Greece ultimately has to restructure (i.e. partially default) on its debt, then it means that the new money being put in by the IMF and the EU is effectively allowing current debtors to be repaid. The public lenders will then be the victims of the partial default. Rather than being loans to the Greece, these loans are effectively a transfer from the taxpayers who support these institutions to Greece’s creditors. The article should have made this obvious point.
The Washington Post should have made this point in an article that noted that Greece is likely to face further problems in meeting its debt obligations. If Greece ultimately has to restructure (i.e. partially default) on its debt, then it means that the new money being put in by the IMF and the EU is effectively allowing current debtors to be repaid. The public lenders will then be the victims of the partial default. Rather than being loans to the Greece, these loans are effectively a transfer from the taxpayers who support these institutions to Greece’s creditors. The article should have made this obvious point.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The system of patent-supported research gives drug companies like Genentech enormous incentive to mislead the public and government agencies, like the FDA, about the effectiveness of their drugs. Companies can lose billions of dollars if the FDA determines that a drug is not safe or effective and removes it from the market.
Therefore economic theory predicts that companies will make misleading claims to try to prevent removal. If the government did not grant patent monopolies that allow companies to sell drugs at prices far above the free market level, this incentive would not exist.
This fact should have been noted in reporting on the FDA’s decision to stop authorizing the use of Avastian as a treatment for breast cancer.
The system of patent-supported research gives drug companies like Genentech enormous incentive to mislead the public and government agencies, like the FDA, about the effectiveness of their drugs. Companies can lose billions of dollars if the FDA determines that a drug is not safe or effective and removes it from the market.
Therefore economic theory predicts that companies will make misleading claims to try to prevent removal. If the government did not grant patent monopolies that allow companies to sell drugs at prices far above the free market level, this incentive would not exist.
This fact should have been noted in reporting on the FDA’s decision to stop authorizing the use of Avastian as a treatment for breast cancer.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
USA Today told readers that:
“economists say it could be several years before the nation’s housing market recovers.”
This is probably referring to the views of economists who did not see the housing bubble. Economists who saw the housing bubble know that house prices are still about 10 percent above their trend level. This means that they do not expect the housing market to recover in terms of prices rising back to prior levels. They expect further price declines until the market returns to trend levels and then subsequent increases in step with the overall rate of inflation.
It would be helpful to readers if USA Today did not rely exclusively on economists who managed to overlook one of the largest asset bubbles in the history of the world.
USA Today told readers that:
“economists say it could be several years before the nation’s housing market recovers.”
This is probably referring to the views of economists who did not see the housing bubble. Economists who saw the housing bubble know that house prices are still about 10 percent above their trend level. This means that they do not expect the housing market to recover in terms of prices rising back to prior levels. They expect further price declines until the market returns to trend levels and then subsequent increases in step with the overall rate of inflation.
It would be helpful to readers if USA Today did not rely exclusively on economists who managed to overlook one of the largest asset bubbles in the history of the world.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Just asking, and asking why no one in the media is asking. The Washington Post, NYT and other major news outlets have been running wild yelling about excessive public sector pensions. The median pension for a public sector worker is a bit over $20,000. In many cases this is their sole retirement income, since they are not covered by Social Security. The pensions of public sector employees has been the topic of numerous front page stories in major newspapers.
This is why it is striking that no one raised this question with the announcement that Christine Lagarde had been selected as the new director of the IMF. IMF economists are often able to retire with 6-figure salaries in their early 50s. This is likely to strike many people as unfair by itself, however it would seem especially inappropriate in an institution that has explicitly called for governments to raise the age of eligibility for much smaller pensions to 65 or even 67.
And the strangest part of it all is that no one in media is even talking about it.
Just asking, and asking why no one in the media is asking. The Washington Post, NYT and other major news outlets have been running wild yelling about excessive public sector pensions. The median pension for a public sector worker is a bit over $20,000. In many cases this is their sole retirement income, since they are not covered by Social Security. The pensions of public sector employees has been the topic of numerous front page stories in major newspapers.
This is why it is striking that no one raised this question with the announcement that Christine Lagarde had been selected as the new director of the IMF. IMF economists are often able to retire with 6-figure salaries in their early 50s. This is likely to strike many people as unfair by itself, however it would seem especially inappropriate in an institution that has explicitly called for governments to raise the age of eligibility for much smaller pensions to 65 or even 67.
And the strangest part of it all is that no one in media is even talking about it.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Doctors in the United States have enormous political power. They use it to limit the supply of doctors domestically both by restricting medical school enrollment and the number of foreign doctors who can enter the country. As a result of these protectionist measures, the United States pays more than twice as much for its doctors as other wealthy countries, costing it more than $90 billion a year.
The NYT reported on the successful effort by the doctors’ lobby to stop the use of government testers to determine the ability of people with different types of insurance to get appointments. The plan was to have people call doctors’ offices and ask for an appointment saying that they have various types of insurance (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance). This would provide a basis for determining how easy it is for people get care.
The article should have pointed out that this use of anonymous testers is absolutely standard. It has been used to uncover discrimination in the issuing of loans by banks, in selling cars, and offering jobs. It would be irresponsible for the government to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on programs like Medicare and Medicaid without knowing how effective they are in providing care.
Therefore when Senator Orin Hatch complained that the administration was “wasting taxpayer dollars to snoop into the care physicians are providing their patients”, he was not saying anything that made sense. Presumably he was doing the bidding of the doctors’ lobby.
Doctors in the United States have enormous political power. They use it to limit the supply of doctors domestically both by restricting medical school enrollment and the number of foreign doctors who can enter the country. As a result of these protectionist measures, the United States pays more than twice as much for its doctors as other wealthy countries, costing it more than $90 billion a year.
The NYT reported on the successful effort by the doctors’ lobby to stop the use of government testers to determine the ability of people with different types of insurance to get appointments. The plan was to have people call doctors’ offices and ask for an appointment saying that they have various types of insurance (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance). This would provide a basis for determining how easy it is for people get care.
The article should have pointed out that this use of anonymous testers is absolutely standard. It has been used to uncover discrimination in the issuing of loans by banks, in selling cars, and offering jobs. It would be irresponsible for the government to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on programs like Medicare and Medicaid without knowing how effective they are in providing care.
Therefore when Senator Orin Hatch complained that the administration was “wasting taxpayer dollars to snoop into the care physicians are providing their patients”, he was not saying anything that made sense. Presumably he was doing the bidding of the doctors’ lobby.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The rules under which President Obama’s fiscal commission were formed are very clear. They required that any report must be approved by a vote of 14 of the 18 members. The rules also required that the vote take place by December 1, the date that the commission went out of existence.
As it turned out, there was no plan approved by 14 of the 18 commissioners. Nor was there a formal vote taken by the members of the commission before December 1, although 11 of the 18 members did indicate support for a plan from the co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson on December 2, the day after the commission went out of existence.
This means that there is no commission report. We can assume that when reporters at the Hill or other publications refer to the Bowles-Simpson report as the commission’s report that they are telling us that they like the report. However they are not conveying information accurately to readers.
The rules under which President Obama’s fiscal commission were formed are very clear. They required that any report must be approved by a vote of 14 of the 18 members. The rules also required that the vote take place by December 1, the date that the commission went out of existence.
As it turned out, there was no plan approved by 14 of the 18 commissioners. Nor was there a formal vote taken by the members of the commission before December 1, although 11 of the 18 members did indicate support for a plan from the co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson on December 2, the day after the commission went out of existence.
This means that there is no commission report. We can assume that when reporters at the Hill or other publications refer to the Bowles-Simpson report as the commission’s report that they are telling us that they like the report. However they are not conveying information accurately to readers.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT has a piece this morning on the teacher evaluation policy used in the Washington, DC schools. The end of the piece includes a quote from Mark Simon who works on education issues with the Economic Policy Institute (my former employer). In identifying the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the NYT added the comment:
“which receives teachers’ union financing.”
While it is arguably relevant that EPI gets teacher union funding in this context, it is unusual for the NYT to present the sources of financing for individuals or organizations who get large amounts of money from the corporate sector.
The most obvious example of this difference in policies is Erskine Bowles, one of the co-chairs of President Obama’s deficit commission. Mr. Bowles receives $350,000 a year as a director of Morgan Stanley. It is worth noting that the Bowles-Simpson report did not include a financial speculation tax or any other tax on the financial sector, making Wall Street one of the few industries to escape unscathed. This is especially striking since there has been a major push by many in Washington and around the world for a financial speculation tax and even the International Monetary Fund has called for a substantial increase in taxes on the financial sector.
In the same vein, the NYT printed a blogpost by Laura Tyson, another Morgan Stanley director, arguing against taking any steps to lower the value of the dollar against the Chinese yuan. Morgan Stanley has substantial interests in China. The NYT did not identify Ms. Tyson’s ties to Morgan Stanley in this piece.
The NYT has a piece this morning on the teacher evaluation policy used in the Washington, DC schools. The end of the piece includes a quote from Mark Simon who works on education issues with the Economic Policy Institute (my former employer). In identifying the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the NYT added the comment:
“which receives teachers’ union financing.”
While it is arguably relevant that EPI gets teacher union funding in this context, it is unusual for the NYT to present the sources of financing for individuals or organizations who get large amounts of money from the corporate sector.
The most obvious example of this difference in policies is Erskine Bowles, one of the co-chairs of President Obama’s deficit commission. Mr. Bowles receives $350,000 a year as a director of Morgan Stanley. It is worth noting that the Bowles-Simpson report did not include a financial speculation tax or any other tax on the financial sector, making Wall Street one of the few industries to escape unscathed. This is especially striking since there has been a major push by many in Washington and around the world for a financial speculation tax and even the International Monetary Fund has called for a substantial increase in taxes on the financial sector.
In the same vein, the NYT printed a blogpost by Laura Tyson, another Morgan Stanley director, arguing against taking any steps to lower the value of the dollar against the Chinese yuan. Morgan Stanley has substantial interests in China. The NYT did not identify Ms. Tyson’s ties to Morgan Stanley in this piece.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
