The Congressional Budget Office actually projects that the deficit is on a downward path, but the NYT still felt the need to tell readers that the deficit is “ballooning” in an article on the agenda for an upcoming meeting of G-8 leaders. The article also felt the need to describe the deficit as “giant.”
These comments reflect the reporters or editors political views. They do not inform readers about facts in the world.
The Congressional Budget Office actually projects that the deficit is on a downward path, but the NYT still felt the need to tell readers that the deficit is “ballooning” in an article on the agenda for an upcoming meeting of G-8 leaders. The article also felt the need to describe the deficit as “giant.”
These comments reflect the reporters or editors political views. They do not inform readers about facts in the world.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Wall Street Journal tells us that:
“Republicans argue that Mr. Obama and the Democrats have no plan to rescue Medicare, despite estimates that it will be unable to pay out full benefits beginning in 2024.”
It then gives us the Democrats’ response, making it a he said/she said. It would have been helpful to inform readers about the projected gap in Medicare funding so that readers know what it would mean to “rescue” Medicare from a shortfall that it is first expected to face 13 years in the future.
The Medicare Trustees put the projected shortfall at 0.79 percent of payroll, which is approximately 0.27 percent of GDP over the program’s 75-year planning horizon. By comparison, the increase in annual spending on the military between 2000 and 2011 was more than 1.6 percentage points of GDP. This increase in spending did not cause serious harm to the economy, therefore increased spending of one-fifth this size will presumably not be a major problem.
The Wall Street Journal tells us that:
“Republicans argue that Mr. Obama and the Democrats have no plan to rescue Medicare, despite estimates that it will be unable to pay out full benefits beginning in 2024.”
It then gives us the Democrats’ response, making it a he said/she said. It would have been helpful to inform readers about the projected gap in Medicare funding so that readers know what it would mean to “rescue” Medicare from a shortfall that it is first expected to face 13 years in the future.
The Medicare Trustees put the projected shortfall at 0.79 percent of payroll, which is approximately 0.27 percent of GDP over the program’s 75-year planning horizon. By comparison, the increase in annual spending on the military between 2000 and 2011 was more than 1.6 percentage points of GDP. This increase in spending did not cause serious harm to the economy, therefore increased spending of one-fifth this size will presumably not be a major problem.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The lead NYT editorial tells readers that it is surprised and upset by the deflating of the housing bubble. It tells us:
“At times, it has looked as if things were improving, like last year’s jump in sales because of a temporary homebuyer’s tax credit or the recent rise in new-home sales from near-record lows. But, over all, sales and construction have been flat for two years, while prices, driven down by foreclosures, are plumbing new depths.”
Actually no; it never looked like “things were improving” to people who follow the housing market. It looked like the tax credits were temporarily delaying the deflation of the housing bubble. This delay allowed banks and investors to have hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages, which would be underwater today, taken off their books and replaced by Fannie and Freddie guaranteed loans, through sales or refinancing.
Prices are still close to 10 percent above their trend level, based on either the 100-year long-term trend in house prices or the current price to rent ratio. Neither the NYT, nor anyone else, has provided an explanation as to why we should expect prices to settle above trend.
It is not clear why the NYT would view any delay in the bubble’s deflation as a positive development. People who buy houses at prices that are still inflated by the bubble can anticipate losing money on their house. Does the NYT have some reason for thinking it is good policy to get new homeowners into homes where they can anticipate capital losses.
More generally, high house prices amount to a transfer of societal wealth from people who don’t own homes to those who do. Since the latter group is much wealthier on average than the former group, why should it be public policy to promote this sort of upward redistribution of wealth?
The NYT’s failure to seriously think about the housing market demonstrates an extraordinary laziness that prevents them from clearly understanding the policy implications. The economy will have adjust to a situation where prices return to trend levels. This will mean lower consumption. (Isn’t this what everyone wants — higher savings?) The lost consumption must be replaced in the short-term by government spending, in the longer term by more net exports. The latter will require a lower dollar. This is all accounting identities from Econ 101.
As far as the housing market, a little clearer thought would get policy to distinguish between markets where the bubble is still deflating (e.g. Seattle, Los Angeles, Boston) and markets where prices are likely overshooting on the low side (e.g. Los Vegas and Phoenix). It might make sense to have policies to boost prices in the latter set of cities. It makes no sense to have policies to boost prices in the former.
Finally, the simplest and cheapest way to help homeowners facing the loss of their home is to give them the right to stay in their house as renters paying the market rent. This requires no taxpayer dollars and no new bureaucracy and would immediately help all the homeowners affected. For these reasons, it is a non-starter in Washington.
The lead NYT editorial tells readers that it is surprised and upset by the deflating of the housing bubble. It tells us:
“At times, it has looked as if things were improving, like last year’s jump in sales because of a temporary homebuyer’s tax credit or the recent rise in new-home sales from near-record lows. But, over all, sales and construction have been flat for two years, while prices, driven down by foreclosures, are plumbing new depths.”
Actually no; it never looked like “things were improving” to people who follow the housing market. It looked like the tax credits were temporarily delaying the deflation of the housing bubble. This delay allowed banks and investors to have hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages, which would be underwater today, taken off their books and replaced by Fannie and Freddie guaranteed loans, through sales or refinancing.
Prices are still close to 10 percent above their trend level, based on either the 100-year long-term trend in house prices or the current price to rent ratio. Neither the NYT, nor anyone else, has provided an explanation as to why we should expect prices to settle above trend.
It is not clear why the NYT would view any delay in the bubble’s deflation as a positive development. People who buy houses at prices that are still inflated by the bubble can anticipate losing money on their house. Does the NYT have some reason for thinking it is good policy to get new homeowners into homes where they can anticipate capital losses.
More generally, high house prices amount to a transfer of societal wealth from people who don’t own homes to those who do. Since the latter group is much wealthier on average than the former group, why should it be public policy to promote this sort of upward redistribution of wealth?
The NYT’s failure to seriously think about the housing market demonstrates an extraordinary laziness that prevents them from clearly understanding the policy implications. The economy will have adjust to a situation where prices return to trend levels. This will mean lower consumption. (Isn’t this what everyone wants — higher savings?) The lost consumption must be replaced in the short-term by government spending, in the longer term by more net exports. The latter will require a lower dollar. This is all accounting identities from Econ 101.
As far as the housing market, a little clearer thought would get policy to distinguish between markets where the bubble is still deflating (e.g. Seattle, Los Angeles, Boston) and markets where prices are likely overshooting on the low side (e.g. Los Vegas and Phoenix). It might make sense to have policies to boost prices in the latter set of cities. It makes no sense to have policies to boost prices in the former.
Finally, the simplest and cheapest way to help homeowners facing the loss of their home is to give them the right to stay in their house as renters paying the market rent. This requires no taxpayer dollars and no new bureaucracy and would immediately help all the homeowners affected. For these reasons, it is a non-starter in Washington.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
There are no, as in none, zero, projections that show that Social Security will not always be able to pay retirees a higher benefit (adjusted for inflation) than what retirees get today. This means that when LA Times, consumer columnist David Lazarus told listeners on Marketplace radio this morning that Social Security may not be there for them, he was speaking utter nonsense.
Responsible radio stations do not present people as experts who either do not know what they are talking about or deliberately say things they know not to be true.
There are no, as in none, zero, projections that show that Social Security will not always be able to pay retirees a higher benefit (adjusted for inflation) than what retirees get today. This means that when LA Times, consumer columnist David Lazarus told listeners on Marketplace radio this morning that Social Security may not be there for them, he was speaking utter nonsense.
Responsible radio stations do not present people as experts who either do not know what they are talking about or deliberately say things they know not to be true.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In a major page 3 news story the Post told readers that Congress is considering an additional $1 billion appropriation for the Federal Emergency Management Agency in order to allow it to better deal with the range of natural disasters hitting the country. Since almost no one knows the size of the federal budget, and $1 billion is a huge number to most people, it is likely that many people will hugely exaggerate the importance of this spending to the deficit or their tax bill.
Polls regularly show that the public is grossly uninformed about the federal budget. This sort of reporting is the reason. It is very simple to report items as a share of total spending. Since this is the only way that the number is meaningful to readers ($1 billion is not meaningful to 99 percent of Post readers), there is no excuse not to present the information this way.
In a major page 3 news story the Post told readers that Congress is considering an additional $1 billion appropriation for the Federal Emergency Management Agency in order to allow it to better deal with the range of natural disasters hitting the country. Since almost no one knows the size of the federal budget, and $1 billion is a huge number to most people, it is likely that many people will hugely exaggerate the importance of this spending to the deficit or their tax bill.
Polls regularly show that the public is grossly uninformed about the federal budget. This sort of reporting is the reason. It is very simple to report items as a share of total spending. Since this is the only way that the number is meaningful to readers ($1 billion is not meaningful to 99 percent of Post readers), there is no excuse not to present the information this way.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Steven Pearlstein wants to know:
“how much more of the nation’s wealth will have to be transferred to senior citizens with six-figure incomes before it will be politically acceptable to hold their future Social Security benefit increases to the rate of inflation?”
The answer is very little, at least if he means through Social Security benefits. Of course, a very large portion of the nation’s wealth is transferred to rich people through financial policy, trade policy, and Federal Reserve Board policy.
Steven Pearlstein wants to know:
“how much more of the nation’s wealth will have to be transferred to senior citizens with six-figure incomes before it will be politically acceptable to hold their future Social Security benefit increases to the rate of inflation?”
The answer is very little, at least if he means through Social Security benefits. Of course, a very large portion of the nation’s wealth is transferred to rich people through financial policy, trade policy, and Federal Reserve Board policy.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is what the Washington Post told readers this morning in an article headlined:
“in poll, debt is scarier than default.”
Of course fearing debt more than default makes no sense just like fearing the consequences of not eating more than starvation makes no sense. The government will always have the option to default on its debt. The consequences would of course be enormous, but there is no reason to think that the consequences of default would be greater 10 or 20 years from now. If the public is prepared to default on its debt, it is difficult to see why it would not want to in effect borrow for free for another 10-20 years and then default to its creditors.
As a practical matter, it is obvious that almost no one has any understanding of what default means nor do they have any idea of the size of the debt and its consequences. One of the main reasons for this confusion is that politicians have sought to build up fears about the debt and they have been allowed to do so with the assistance of major news outlets like the Washington Post and National Public Radio.
When politicians (including political figures like Peter Peterson and his employees) make obviously false statements about the deficit and debt these outlets have routinely passed them on to their audience as plausible arguments. They have rarely treated them as gaffes, like for example then Senator Obama’s comments about guns and religion during the Pennsylvania primaries.
There has been a serious effort (strongly supported by the Washington Post) to hold teachers accountable for what their students learn. Teachers whose students do not learn are supposed to be fired. By this standard, a high percentage of the reporters and editors who deal with budget issues would be out looking for work today.
That is what the Washington Post told readers this morning in an article headlined:
“in poll, debt is scarier than default.”
Of course fearing debt more than default makes no sense just like fearing the consequences of not eating more than starvation makes no sense. The government will always have the option to default on its debt. The consequences would of course be enormous, but there is no reason to think that the consequences of default would be greater 10 or 20 years from now. If the public is prepared to default on its debt, it is difficult to see why it would not want to in effect borrow for free for another 10-20 years and then default to its creditors.
As a practical matter, it is obvious that almost no one has any understanding of what default means nor do they have any idea of the size of the debt and its consequences. One of the main reasons for this confusion is that politicians have sought to build up fears about the debt and they have been allowed to do so with the assistance of major news outlets like the Washington Post and National Public Radio.
When politicians (including political figures like Peter Peterson and his employees) make obviously false statements about the deficit and debt these outlets have routinely passed them on to their audience as plausible arguments. They have rarely treated them as gaffes, like for example then Senator Obama’s comments about guns and religion during the Pennsylvania primaries.
There has been a serious effort (strongly supported by the Washington Post) to hold teachers accountable for what their students learn. Teachers whose students do not learn are supposed to be fired. By this standard, a high percentage of the reporters and editors who deal with budget issues would be out looking for work today.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Not according to Dana Milbank it isn’t. Milbank points out ways in which former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has deviated from the Republican orthodoxy. While Milbank puts these deviations as being support for big government, there is no obvious relationship between these deviations and views on the size of government. Allowing people to buy lower cost drugs from Canada may not be good for the drug industry, but it actually implies a smaller role for the government.
Not according to Dana Milbank it isn’t. Milbank points out ways in which former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has deviated from the Republican orthodoxy. While Milbank puts these deviations as being support for big government, there is no obvious relationship between these deviations and views on the size of government. Allowing people to buy lower cost drugs from Canada may not be good for the drug industry, but it actually implies a smaller role for the government.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post called readers attention to this shocking item today in an article on a new report from the Government Accountability Office that found stimulus recipients owe $750 million in taxes on $24 billion in stimulus payments. Of course people cheat on their taxes on non-stimulus income also.
It would have been helpful to compare the rate of cheating on stimulus with non-stimulus income to determine if compliance was especially bad with stimulus income. The Internal Revenue Service reported that $345 billion in taxes went uncollected in 2006, more than 4 percent of total income in that year. This suggest that the rate of tax evasion with stimulus funds (@ 3.1 percent) might be somewhat lower than with income more generally. The Post should have included this comparison.
The Washington Post called readers attention to this shocking item today in an article on a new report from the Government Accountability Office that found stimulus recipients owe $750 million in taxes on $24 billion in stimulus payments. Of course people cheat on their taxes on non-stimulus income also.
It would have been helpful to compare the rate of cheating on stimulus with non-stimulus income to determine if compliance was especially bad with stimulus income. The Internal Revenue Service reported that $345 billion in taxes went uncollected in 2006, more than 4 percent of total income in that year. This suggest that the rate of tax evasion with stimulus funds (@ 3.1 percent) might be somewhat lower than with income more generally. The Post should have included this comparison.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Harvard’s Joint Center on Housing, which became famous for its failure to recognize the housing bubble, apparently still has no understanding of the housing market. An article by the Associated Press that refers to analysis done by the Center fundamentally misrepresents trends in the housing market.
It tells readers that:
“From the 1940s until 2007, homes appreciated an average of nearly 5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation. In the past four years, the median price of a single-family home has sunk 37 percent, by $57,500, to its lowest since 2002.”
Actually from the 1953 to 1996 house prices just rose in step with the overall rate of inflation according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics home price component (eliminated in 1981) and Federal Housing Financing Authority’s House Price Index. The entire increase in real prices occurred during the bubble years from 1997 to 2007. This means that prior to 1996, homeowners had no reason to expect price appreciation in excess of inflation.
The article also tells readers that:
“Before the housing bust, mortgage rates were so low it was often cheaper to buy than rent. That was true a decade ago in more than half the 54 biggest metro areas, according to Moody’s Analytics. Today, by contrast, it’s cheaper to rent in about 72 percent of metro areas.”
This is complete nonsense. House prices have plummeted since the bust and interest rates are lower today than at any point prior to the collapse of the bubble. There is no consistent methodology that would show that the cost of renting has fallen relative to the cost of ownership.
The article also asserts that:
“the median price of advertised rents rose 4.1 percent between the end of 2009 and the end of 2010.”
This is misleading because this figure does not control for the quality of the units on the market. The Bureau of Labor Statistics rental index, which does control for quality, rose at just over a 2 percent rate during this period.
[Addendum: A reader has called to my attention the fact that the comments cited in this post may be from AP alone and do not refer to the joint analysis with the Harvard Center that is cited at the beginning of the article.]
Harvard’s Joint Center on Housing, which became famous for its failure to recognize the housing bubble, apparently still has no understanding of the housing market. An article by the Associated Press that refers to analysis done by the Center fundamentally misrepresents trends in the housing market.
It tells readers that:
“From the 1940s until 2007, homes appreciated an average of nearly 5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation. In the past four years, the median price of a single-family home has sunk 37 percent, by $57,500, to its lowest since 2002.”
Actually from the 1953 to 1996 house prices just rose in step with the overall rate of inflation according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics home price component (eliminated in 1981) and Federal Housing Financing Authority’s House Price Index. The entire increase in real prices occurred during the bubble years from 1997 to 2007. This means that prior to 1996, homeowners had no reason to expect price appreciation in excess of inflation.
The article also tells readers that:
“Before the housing bust, mortgage rates were so low it was often cheaper to buy than rent. That was true a decade ago in more than half the 54 biggest metro areas, according to Moody’s Analytics. Today, by contrast, it’s cheaper to rent in about 72 percent of metro areas.”
This is complete nonsense. House prices have plummeted since the bust and interest rates are lower today than at any point prior to the collapse of the bubble. There is no consistent methodology that would show that the cost of renting has fallen relative to the cost of ownership.
The article also asserts that:
“the median price of advertised rents rose 4.1 percent between the end of 2009 and the end of 2010.”
This is misleading because this figure does not control for the quality of the units on the market. The Bureau of Labor Statistics rental index, which does control for quality, rose at just over a 2 percent rate during this period.
[Addendum: A reader has called to my attention the fact that the comments cited in this post may be from AP alone and do not refer to the joint analysis with the Harvard Center that is cited at the beginning of the article.]
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
