The answer seems to be “yes.” After all, the NYT told readers that,
“The companies estimate that the boom [from new oil drilling] will create more than two million new jobs, directly or indirectly, and bring tens of billions of dollars to the states where the fields are located, which include traditional oil sites like Texas and Oklahoma, industrial stalwarts like Ohio and Michigan and even farm states like Kansas.”
The way that increased oil supplies lead to more jobs is by bringing down the price of oil. The article suggests that if environmental issues are ignored, the new drilling could increase U.S. output by approximately 1 million barrels a day. This would be an increase in world supply of roughly 1 percent. Given standard estimates of the elasticity of supply and demand for oil, this would be expected to lower world oil prices by around 2.5 percent.
A 2.5 percent decline in the price of oil could be expected to generate about 40,000-50,000 additional jobs, less than 1/20th of the low-end job estimate given by the oil industry. It is not surprising that the oil industry would make up ridiculous numbers about the economic benefits of its drilling if it can expect them to be reported without comment by major news outlets
The answer seems to be “yes.” After all, the NYT told readers that,
“The companies estimate that the boom [from new oil drilling] will create more than two million new jobs, directly or indirectly, and bring tens of billions of dollars to the states where the fields are located, which include traditional oil sites like Texas and Oklahoma, industrial stalwarts like Ohio and Michigan and even farm states like Kansas.”
The way that increased oil supplies lead to more jobs is by bringing down the price of oil. The article suggests that if environmental issues are ignored, the new drilling could increase U.S. output by approximately 1 million barrels a day. This would be an increase in world supply of roughly 1 percent. Given standard estimates of the elasticity of supply and demand for oil, this would be expected to lower world oil prices by around 2.5 percent.
A 2.5 percent decline in the price of oil could be expected to generate about 40,000-50,000 additional jobs, less than 1/20th of the low-end job estimate given by the oil industry. It is not surprising that the oil industry would make up ridiculous numbers about the economic benefits of its drilling if it can expect them to be reported without comment by major news outlets
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It’s pretty brave of the NYT to routinely feature a columnist who is completely out of touch with reality. David Brooks has another tirade today in which he lays out his, “Medicare Survival Guide.”
Brooks is very upset that the Democrats won the special congressional election in New York by telling people that the Republicans want to end Medicare. Apparently, Mr. Brooks has not read the Medicare plan that was put forward by Representative Ryan and approved by the House with the support of all but 4 Republicans. This plan replaced the current Medicare system with a voucher, which seniors would use to buy health care insurance. That certainly sounds like ending Medicare. It would be interesting to know what Mr. Brooks would consider ending Medicare.
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment of the Ryan plan, it would increase the cost of buying Medicare equivalent policies by $34 trillion (5 times the projected Social Security shortfall) over the program’s 75-year planning horizon. Adding in the $5 trillion in costs shifted from the government, the Ryan plan would increase the cost to beneficiaries of buying Medicare equivalent policies by $39 trillion.
In pushing the defense plan against Martian attacks Ryan tells the Republicans:
“They need to lay out the facts showing that Medicare is unstable and on a path to collapse, as Representative Paul Ryan is doing.”
Actually, this is not what the facts show. The projections in the Medicare Trustees report, as well as the CBO baseline budget, show that the program faces a relatively modest long-term shortfall. The amount of money needed to balance the program over its 75-year planning horizon is less than 0.3 percent of GDP, approximately one-fifth of the increase in the rate annual defense spending between 2000 and 2011.
There are important issues as to whether the assumptions underlying these projections will prove accurate, importantly limiting the increase in doctors’ compensation under Medicare. However, this is a question of whether Congress will adhere to the current law, not a need to change the law.
The Brooks piece also contains the wonderful line:
“Many Democrats don’t want to go down in history as the people who did nothing while bankruptcy loomed.”
Actually, they already will go down in history that way. Apparently no one told Brooks about the economic downturn. (He has probably been too busy preparing the defense against Martians.)
The Democrats, like their Republican counterparts, completely ignored the run-up in the housing bubble. The collapse of this bubble is likely to cost the country more than $5 trillion in lost output. It is also the reason for the large deficits that concern Brooks so much. Unless the Democrats can ensure that people like Brooks write the story, they are destined to go down in history as people who did nothing while economic disaster (I have no idea what Brooks means by “bankruptcy” and most likely he doesn’t either) loomed.
It’s pretty brave of the NYT to routinely feature a columnist who is completely out of touch with reality. David Brooks has another tirade today in which he lays out his, “Medicare Survival Guide.”
Brooks is very upset that the Democrats won the special congressional election in New York by telling people that the Republicans want to end Medicare. Apparently, Mr. Brooks has not read the Medicare plan that was put forward by Representative Ryan and approved by the House with the support of all but 4 Republicans. This plan replaced the current Medicare system with a voucher, which seniors would use to buy health care insurance. That certainly sounds like ending Medicare. It would be interesting to know what Mr. Brooks would consider ending Medicare.
According to the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment of the Ryan plan, it would increase the cost of buying Medicare equivalent policies by $34 trillion (5 times the projected Social Security shortfall) over the program’s 75-year planning horizon. Adding in the $5 trillion in costs shifted from the government, the Ryan plan would increase the cost to beneficiaries of buying Medicare equivalent policies by $39 trillion.
In pushing the defense plan against Martian attacks Ryan tells the Republicans:
“They need to lay out the facts showing that Medicare is unstable and on a path to collapse, as Representative Paul Ryan is doing.”
Actually, this is not what the facts show. The projections in the Medicare Trustees report, as well as the CBO baseline budget, show that the program faces a relatively modest long-term shortfall. The amount of money needed to balance the program over its 75-year planning horizon is less than 0.3 percent of GDP, approximately one-fifth of the increase in the rate annual defense spending between 2000 and 2011.
There are important issues as to whether the assumptions underlying these projections will prove accurate, importantly limiting the increase in doctors’ compensation under Medicare. However, this is a question of whether Congress will adhere to the current law, not a need to change the law.
The Brooks piece also contains the wonderful line:
“Many Democrats don’t want to go down in history as the people who did nothing while bankruptcy loomed.”
Actually, they already will go down in history that way. Apparently no one told Brooks about the economic downturn. (He has probably been too busy preparing the defense against Martians.)
The Democrats, like their Republican counterparts, completely ignored the run-up in the housing bubble. The collapse of this bubble is likely to cost the country more than $5 trillion in lost output. It is also the reason for the large deficits that concern Brooks so much. Unless the Democrats can ensure that people like Brooks write the story, they are destined to go down in history as people who did nothing while economic disaster (I have no idea what Brooks means by “bankruptcy” and most likely he doesn’t either) loomed.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s what Marketplace radio told listeners this morning in reference to to Japan. It explained Japan’s deflation this way:
“The underlying problem in Japan is that the country is getting older. More and more people are retiring so there’s downward pressure on wages.”
Let’s see, retiring workers reduce supply, therefore wages fall. Hmmm, lower supply therefore lower wages. What are we missing here?
Actually, the larger point of this story, that the inflation caused by higher prices for energy and other unusual costs last month, was a good thing for Japan, also doesn’t make sense. Japan will benefit from a situation in which there are broad based wage and price increases that erode the real value of debt and reduce real interest rates. Having the price of a small subset of goods rise (especially imported goods like oil) is bad news since it erodes workers’ purchasing power.
That’s what Marketplace radio told listeners this morning in reference to to Japan. It explained Japan’s deflation this way:
“The underlying problem in Japan is that the country is getting older. More and more people are retiring so there’s downward pressure on wages.”
Let’s see, retiring workers reduce supply, therefore wages fall. Hmmm, lower supply therefore lower wages. What are we missing here?
Actually, the larger point of this story, that the inflation caused by higher prices for energy and other unusual costs last month, was a good thing for Japan, also doesn’t make sense. Japan will benefit from a situation in which there are broad based wage and price increases that erode the real value of debt and reduce real interest rates. Having the price of a small subset of goods rise (especially imported goods like oil) is bad news since it erodes workers’ purchasing power.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It’s amazing what you can learn reading the Washington Post. Today it’s lead editorial told readers that reducing the annual cost of living adjustment for Social Security by 0.3 percentage points won’t hurt. This would come as news to most seniors who rely on Social Security for most of their income.
This 0.3 percentage point cut is cumulative. After a person has been retired for 10 years benefits would be roughly 3 percent lower than would otherwise be the case. Benefits would be almost 6 percent lower after 20 years, and almost 9 percent lower after 30 years, when most beneficiaries will be in their 90s.
The poverty rate is highest for the oldest seniors, most of whom are women living alone. Most people think cutting benefits for this group by 9 percent would hurt, thankfully we have the Washington Post to tell us otherwise.
(This is a newspaper that has run front page stories warning that raising taxes by less than 1 percent [of income] on people earning $300,000 a year would inflict real pain.)
The rationale for the benefit cut is the use of an alternative measure of inflation, the chained consumer price index, that assumes substantial substitution between consumption items in response to prices changes. The Post asserts that this index is a more accurate measure of inflation.
Actually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has an experimental elderly index that measures the rate of change in the basket of goods and services consumed by people over age 62. This index shows that the inflation rate experienced by the elderly increases by an average of 0.3 percentage points more than the overall CPI to which Social Security benefits are indexed.
While this is an experimental index that does not track the actual purchasing patterns of the elderly (e.g. examining the specific retail outlets where they shop and the items they purchase), those who are interested in an accurate cost of living adjustment would advocate a fuller elderly index. Those who want to cut Social Security benefits advocate using the chained consumer price index, which we know will show a lower measured rate of inflation.
It’s amazing what you can learn reading the Washington Post. Today it’s lead editorial told readers that reducing the annual cost of living adjustment for Social Security by 0.3 percentage points won’t hurt. This would come as news to most seniors who rely on Social Security for most of their income.
This 0.3 percentage point cut is cumulative. After a person has been retired for 10 years benefits would be roughly 3 percent lower than would otherwise be the case. Benefits would be almost 6 percent lower after 20 years, and almost 9 percent lower after 30 years, when most beneficiaries will be in their 90s.
The poverty rate is highest for the oldest seniors, most of whom are women living alone. Most people think cutting benefits for this group by 9 percent would hurt, thankfully we have the Washington Post to tell us otherwise.
(This is a newspaper that has run front page stories warning that raising taxes by less than 1 percent [of income] on people earning $300,000 a year would inflict real pain.)
The rationale for the benefit cut is the use of an alternative measure of inflation, the chained consumer price index, that assumes substantial substitution between consumption items in response to prices changes. The Post asserts that this index is a more accurate measure of inflation.
Actually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has an experimental elderly index that measures the rate of change in the basket of goods and services consumed by people over age 62. This index shows that the inflation rate experienced by the elderly increases by an average of 0.3 percentage points more than the overall CPI to which Social Security benefits are indexed.
While this is an experimental index that does not track the actual purchasing patterns of the elderly (e.g. examining the specific retail outlets where they shop and the items they purchase), those who are interested in an accurate cost of living adjustment would advocate a fuller elderly index. Those who want to cut Social Security benefits advocate using the chained consumer price index, which we know will show a lower measured rate of inflation.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The headline of the Washington Post article told readers:
“Obama, GOP Turn to Job Growth.”
Actually, both plans described in this article would have almost no effect on job growth as almost any economist would have told reporters. This is a cynical effort to pretend to be concerned about job growth by politicians who are not prepared to take any of the steps that actually could lead to more rapid growth.
Reporters are supposed to expose these public relations charades, not act as conduits. That is what the politicians’ communications staff are supposed to do.
The headline of the Washington Post article told readers:
“Obama, GOP Turn to Job Growth.”
Actually, both plans described in this article would have almost no effect on job growth as almost any economist would have told reporters. This is a cynical effort to pretend to be concerned about job growth by politicians who are not prepared to take any of the steps that actually could lead to more rapid growth.
Reporters are supposed to expose these public relations charades, not act as conduits. That is what the politicians’ communications staff are supposed to do.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Yesterday the Labor Department reported that weekly unemployment claims were 424,000. This was the 7th consecutive week that they were above 400,000. This pace is inconsistent with healthy job growth suggesting that the May jobs numbers are likely to be very weak, with the unemployment rate likely rising further.
NYT columnist David Leonhardt noted this weakness, along with other news suggesting an inadequate rate of growth. It seems no one else is paying attention. I suppose that they are busy dealing with end of the world predictions and nonsense scare stories on the deficit.
Yesterday the Labor Department reported that weekly unemployment claims were 424,000. This was the 7th consecutive week that they were above 400,000. This pace is inconsistent with healthy job growth suggesting that the May jobs numbers are likely to be very weak, with the unemployment rate likely rising further.
NYT columnist David Leonhardt noted this weakness, along with other news suggesting an inadequate rate of growth. It seems no one else is paying attention. I suppose that they are busy dealing with end of the world predictions and nonsense scare stories on the deficit.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
At Peter Peterson’s daylong conference on the deficit, former Senator Alan Simpson, who was also the co-chair of President Obama’s deficit commission, once again insisted that Social Security was not intended as a retirement program. He also insisted that the arithmetic for the program doesn’t add up and that therefore there have to be major cuts.
Of course everyone involved with the establishment of Social Security understood it to be a retirement program. It’s not clear what Senator Simpson has been reading that led him to think otherwise.
In terms of the arithmetic underlying the program’s finances, this is performed regularly by the actuaries at Social Security. With the trustees current assumptions, the program can pay all benefits through the year 2036 and almost 80 percent of scheduled benefits for the rest of Social Security’s 75-year planning period. The projected shortfall could be almost completely eliminated with the cap on the payroll tax was removed.
Put another way, if there had not been a massive upward redistribution of wage income over the last three decades, most of the current projected shortfall would not be there. This is the simple arithmetic that apparently Senator Simpson does not understand.
It is incredible that no media outlet other than Huffington Post thinks it is newsworthy that the co-chair of President Obama’s deficit commission is completely uninformed about the country’s most important social program. While these news outlets have been anxious to tout comments by minor administration officials that had little to with their jobs (e.g. Van Jones’ pejorative reference to Republicans), they have consistently covered up Mr. Simpson’s repeated demonstrations of ignorance on the finances of Social Security.
At Peter Peterson’s daylong conference on the deficit, former Senator Alan Simpson, who was also the co-chair of President Obama’s deficit commission, once again insisted that Social Security was not intended as a retirement program. He also insisted that the arithmetic for the program doesn’t add up and that therefore there have to be major cuts.
Of course everyone involved with the establishment of Social Security understood it to be a retirement program. It’s not clear what Senator Simpson has been reading that led him to think otherwise.
In terms of the arithmetic underlying the program’s finances, this is performed regularly by the actuaries at Social Security. With the trustees current assumptions, the program can pay all benefits through the year 2036 and almost 80 percent of scheduled benefits for the rest of Social Security’s 75-year planning period. The projected shortfall could be almost completely eliminated with the cap on the payroll tax was removed.
Put another way, if there had not been a massive upward redistribution of wage income over the last three decades, most of the current projected shortfall would not be there. This is the simple arithmetic that apparently Senator Simpson does not understand.
It is incredible that no media outlet other than Huffington Post thinks it is newsworthy that the co-chair of President Obama’s deficit commission is completely uninformed about the country’s most important social program. While these news outlets have been anxious to tout comments by minor administration officials that had little to with their jobs (e.g. Van Jones’ pejorative reference to Republicans), they have consistently covered up Mr. Simpson’s repeated demonstrations of ignorance on the finances of Social Security.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Nearly all economics reporters missed the housing bubble on the way up. They still seem determined to ignore it even after its collapse wrecked the economy.
The Wall Street Journal has a piece that emphasizes the effect that foreclosures are having on house prices. While foreclosures are lowering house prices, the more fundamental issue is that we have enormous excess supply. The country still has near record housing vacancy rates, although the level is down slightly from the peaks hit in 2009-2010.
This extraordinary vacancy rate puts downward pressure on house prices, since it means that there is excess supply of housing. (Those who took intro econ might recall the concepts of “supply” and “demand.”) One of the predictable results of excess supply and falling prices is a rise in foreclosures, since falling house prices will put many people underwater in their mortgage. As a result of having zero equity, it is harder for people to pay their mortgage (they can’t borrow against equity) and they have less reason to do so.
Anyhow, the key part of this story is the excess supply which was the result of the massive overbuilding of the last decade. It is reasonable to expect that prices will have to fall at least back to their pre-bubble level (@10 percent more) in order to bring the market back into balance.
Nearly all economics reporters missed the housing bubble on the way up. They still seem determined to ignore it even after its collapse wrecked the economy.
The Wall Street Journal has a piece that emphasizes the effect that foreclosures are having on house prices. While foreclosures are lowering house prices, the more fundamental issue is that we have enormous excess supply. The country still has near record housing vacancy rates, although the level is down slightly from the peaks hit in 2009-2010.
This extraordinary vacancy rate puts downward pressure on house prices, since it means that there is excess supply of housing. (Those who took intro econ might recall the concepts of “supply” and “demand.”) One of the predictable results of excess supply and falling prices is a rise in foreclosures, since falling house prices will put many people underwater in their mortgage. As a result of having zero equity, it is harder for people to pay their mortgage (they can’t borrow against equity) and they have less reason to do so.
Anyhow, the key part of this story is the excess supply which was the result of the massive overbuilding of the last decade. It is reasonable to expect that prices will have to fall at least back to their pre-bubble level (@10 percent more) in order to bring the market back into balance.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The news media keeps trying to tell us not to worry about who gets the money, the issue is one of philosophy. The WSJ picks up the task today telling readers that the difference between conservative and liberal budget plans:
“The big takeaway is this: The debate over how to reduce the deficit is truly a philosophical one about the size of government.”
Is that so? The Congressional Budget Office tells us that it will cost $34 trillion (5 times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall) more to provide Medicare equivalent policies through private insurers than through the traditional government Medicare program. This would be additional money paid by taxpayers and beneficiaries to insurers and providers. Is the desire to hand this money over to these groups a question of philosophy?
The news media keeps trying to tell us not to worry about who gets the money, the issue is one of philosophy. The WSJ picks up the task today telling readers that the difference between conservative and liberal budget plans:
“The big takeaway is this: The debate over how to reduce the deficit is truly a philosophical one about the size of government.”
Is that so? The Congressional Budget Office tells us that it will cost $34 trillion (5 times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall) more to provide Medicare equivalent policies through private insurers than through the traditional government Medicare program. This would be additional money paid by taxpayers and beneficiaries to insurers and providers. Is the desire to hand this money over to these groups a question of philosophy?
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In an article reporting on how the Republicans are backing away from the Ryan plan for privatizing Medicare. the NYT quoted former President Bill Clinton on the need to cut Medicare spending. Mr. Clinton was speaking a daylong conference of the deficit sponsored by Wall Street investment banker Peter Peterson.
It would have been worth reminding readers that Clinton is a big proponent of cuts to Social Security. At the deficit conference that Peterson sponsored last year, Clinton boasted that he had wanted to cut Social Security but congressional leaders from both parties blocked him. The cuts that he wanted would have reduced benefits by approximately 1 percent a year. This means that retirees in their 70s, 80s, or 90s, would be getting almost 15 percent less in Social Security benefits today, if President Clinton had gotten his way.
His desire to cut Social Security puts Clinton far outside the mainstream in the Democratic Party. In fact, it puts him far to the right of the majority of the Republican Party. It would have been appropriate to remind readers of this fact so they could put Mr. Clinton’s interest in cutting Medicare in context.
In an article reporting on how the Republicans are backing away from the Ryan plan for privatizing Medicare. the NYT quoted former President Bill Clinton on the need to cut Medicare spending. Mr. Clinton was speaking a daylong conference of the deficit sponsored by Wall Street investment banker Peter Peterson.
It would have been worth reminding readers that Clinton is a big proponent of cuts to Social Security. At the deficit conference that Peterson sponsored last year, Clinton boasted that he had wanted to cut Social Security but congressional leaders from both parties blocked him. The cuts that he wanted would have reduced benefits by approximately 1 percent a year. This means that retirees in their 70s, 80s, or 90s, would be getting almost 15 percent less in Social Security benefits today, if President Clinton had gotten his way.
His desire to cut Social Security puts Clinton far outside the mainstream in the Democratic Party. In fact, it puts him far to the right of the majority of the Republican Party. It would have been appropriate to remind readers of this fact so they could put Mr. Clinton’s interest in cutting Medicare in context.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
