The NYT told readers:
“The Federal Statistics Office in Germany reported on Friday that gross domestic product grew 1.5 percent over the previous quarter, when harsh winter weather had held growth to just 0.4 percent.”
Let’s see, GDP growth in the United States was 1.8 percent in the first quarter, so I guess we’re doing a bit better than Germany at this point.
Wrong!!!! The growth figure reported by in this article is a quarterly rate of growth. The annual rate of growth in Germany in the first quarter was a very solid 6.1 percent.
It is difficult to understand why the media insist on reporting quarterly rates of growth when the standard in the United States is to report GDP growth as an annual rate. Often it is not even clear that the growth being reported is a quarterly rate. For example, later in this piece the NYT tells us:
“France, too, surpassed expectations with growth of 1 percent, the steepest increase since spring 2006, according to the statistics office Insee in Paris. That compared to an increase of just 0.3 percent in the last quarter of 2010, and a median forecast of economists surveyed by Reuters and Bloomberg News of 0.6 percent.”
This is like reporting the temperature in a European country as being 20 degrees without bothering to tell readers that this is the temperature measured on the Centigrade system. Presumably the point of this article is to convey information to readers. If we want to let people in the United States know how hot it is in France then the proper way to do this is to convert the Centigrade measure into a Fahrenheit measure.
If the point is to let people in the United States know how fast Germany and France are growing then the growth rates should be reported as annual rates. It’s that simple.
[Addendum: I corrected the German growth figure from 4.9 percent that I had gotten from a Wall Street Journal article. What I took to be an annual rate of growth for the first quarter was in fact a year over year rate of growth. Stefan Karlsson had the correct number.]
The NYT told readers:
“The Federal Statistics Office in Germany reported on Friday that gross domestic product grew 1.5 percent over the previous quarter, when harsh winter weather had held growth to just 0.4 percent.”
Let’s see, GDP growth in the United States was 1.8 percent in the first quarter, so I guess we’re doing a bit better than Germany at this point.
Wrong!!!! The growth figure reported by in this article is a quarterly rate of growth. The annual rate of growth in Germany in the first quarter was a very solid 6.1 percent.
It is difficult to understand why the media insist on reporting quarterly rates of growth when the standard in the United States is to report GDP growth as an annual rate. Often it is not even clear that the growth being reported is a quarterly rate. For example, later in this piece the NYT tells us:
“France, too, surpassed expectations with growth of 1 percent, the steepest increase since spring 2006, according to the statistics office Insee in Paris. That compared to an increase of just 0.3 percent in the last quarter of 2010, and a median forecast of economists surveyed by Reuters and Bloomberg News of 0.6 percent.”
This is like reporting the temperature in a European country as being 20 degrees without bothering to tell readers that this is the temperature measured on the Centigrade system. Presumably the point of this article is to convey information to readers. If we want to let people in the United States know how hot it is in France then the proper way to do this is to convert the Centigrade measure into a Fahrenheit measure.
If the point is to let people in the United States know how fast Germany and France are growing then the growth rates should be reported as annual rates. It’s that simple.
[Addendum: I corrected the German growth figure from 4.9 percent that I had gotten from a Wall Street Journal article. What I took to be an annual rate of growth for the first quarter was in fact a year over year rate of growth. Stefan Karlsson had the correct number.]
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
George Will is very proud of himself because he found an anti-Ryan protester who didn’t know that the 18th century refers to the 1700s and not the 1800s. This provides the basis for his lecture to progressive baby boomers, including President Obama, who think that the security provided by Medicare and Social Security is somehow intrinsic to the country.
Will rightly points out that these programs are relatively new to the country. After all, Social Security has been around for less than a third of the country’s existence (dated from 1776) and Medicare for less than a quarter.
Of course Will could have pointed out that it is a relatively new phenomenon for people to have a life expectancy beyond age 60. For the vast majority of the country’s history life expectancy was considerably shorter. He can include the expectation that people will live into their 80s and 90s into his list of progressive conceits that ignore history.
If he wanted to look at the actual proposal on the table, the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Ryan plan shows that it will hugely increase the cost of buying Medicare equivalent policies. Its projections show that the cost of such plans would rise by more than $34 trillion over the program’s 75-year planning period. This is equivalent to almost 7 times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall. This projected additional cost comes to $110,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.
But, this is talking about the impact of a policy going forward, not history, so Will is not interested.
George Will is very proud of himself because he found an anti-Ryan protester who didn’t know that the 18th century refers to the 1700s and not the 1800s. This provides the basis for his lecture to progressive baby boomers, including President Obama, who think that the security provided by Medicare and Social Security is somehow intrinsic to the country.
Will rightly points out that these programs are relatively new to the country. After all, Social Security has been around for less than a third of the country’s existence (dated from 1776) and Medicare for less than a quarter.
Of course Will could have pointed out that it is a relatively new phenomenon for people to have a life expectancy beyond age 60. For the vast majority of the country’s history life expectancy was considerably shorter. He can include the expectation that people will live into their 80s and 90s into his list of progressive conceits that ignore history.
If he wanted to look at the actual proposal on the table, the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Ryan plan shows that it will hugely increase the cost of buying Medicare equivalent policies. Its projections show that the cost of such plans would rise by more than $34 trillion over the program’s 75-year planning period. This is equivalent to almost 7 times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall. This projected additional cost comes to $110,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.
But, this is talking about the impact of a policy going forward, not history, so Will is not interested.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In the New York Times they don’t. In a piece on protests in Greece against austerity plans, the NYT three times referred to the opinions of unnamed “experts.”
It would be helpful to identify the people whose opinions are being cited. Not all experts agree on the situation in Greece.
Also, many of the people who claim the title of “expert” have an especially bad track record in understanding the economy. They held the view that everything was fine as the housing bubble was building up in the United States, Spain, Ireland and elsewhere. Readers may want to know if the experts whose opinions are presented in this article are among this group.
In the New York Times they don’t. In a piece on protests in Greece against austerity plans, the NYT three times referred to the opinions of unnamed “experts.”
It would be helpful to identify the people whose opinions are being cited. Not all experts agree on the situation in Greece.
Also, many of the people who claim the title of “expert” have an especially bad track record in understanding the economy. They held the view that everything was fine as the housing bubble was building up in the United States, Spain, Ireland and elsewhere. Readers may want to know if the experts whose opinions are presented in this article are among this group.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
For the fifth week in a row new unemployment insurance (UI) claims came in over 400,000. The number for last week was 434,000, bringing the 4-week moving average to 436,750, the highest it has been since November.
(CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE)
Source: Department of Labor.
This should be real news. There were a lot of explanations for increases in the prior weeks based on administrative issues or the timing of Easter. These factors can explain a one-week jump, but they imply lower claims in the preceding or following week.
At this point, the data are clearly giving a warning of weakness in the labor market. It is also worth noting that many newly unemployed workers will not be eligible for benefits since they have been unemployed for much of the last two years. (Eligibility for benefits is based on recent work history. Someone who was unemployed for 8 months, and then employed at a low-paying job for 4 months, and then laid off, likely will not have an earnings history that qualifies them for benefits.) If ineligible workers generally do not apply for benefits, then 434,000 new claims in 2011 would correspond to more layoffs than 434,000 claims in May of 2008.
For the fifth week in a row new unemployment insurance (UI) claims came in over 400,000. The number for last week was 434,000, bringing the 4-week moving average to 436,750, the highest it has been since November.
(CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE)
Source: Department of Labor.
This should be real news. There were a lot of explanations for increases in the prior weeks based on administrative issues or the timing of Easter. These factors can explain a one-week jump, but they imply lower claims in the preceding or following week.
At this point, the data are clearly giving a warning of weakness in the labor market. It is also worth noting that many newly unemployed workers will not be eligible for benefits since they have been unemployed for much of the last two years. (Eligibility for benefits is based on recent work history. Someone who was unemployed for 8 months, and then employed at a low-paying job for 4 months, and then laid off, likely will not have an earnings history that qualifies them for benefits.) If ineligible workers generally do not apply for benefits, then 434,000 new claims in 2011 would correspond to more layoffs than 434,000 claims in May of 2008.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the Ryan plan will cause the cost of buying Medicare-equivalent insurance policies to exceed the median income of retirees shortly after it is implemented. This means that an independent analyst has determined that the plan poses a risk to the security of those under age 55 who would be subject to Ryan’s Medicare program.
Therefore the NYT is inaccurate when it reports that:
“Ms. Hochul, the Erie County clerk [a Democratic congressional candidate in a special election in upstate New York], argues that the Republican plan poses a risk to older residents.”
This “risk” is not just something that Ms. Hochul argues, it is something that she is calling attention to, since this is a fact that has been determined by independent analysts. However the risk is actually to younger residents (those under age 55), not to older residents who would be less affected by the Ryan plan. (It does leave in place the donut hole in the prescription drug benefit.)
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the Ryan plan will cause the cost of buying Medicare-equivalent insurance policies to exceed the median income of retirees shortly after it is implemented. This means that an independent analyst has determined that the plan poses a risk to the security of those under age 55 who would be subject to Ryan’s Medicare program.
Therefore the NYT is inaccurate when it reports that:
“Ms. Hochul, the Erie County clerk [a Democratic congressional candidate in a special election in upstate New York], argues that the Republican plan poses a risk to older residents.”
This “risk” is not just something that Ms. Hochul argues, it is something that she is calling attention to, since this is a fact that has been determined by independent analysts. However the risk is actually to younger residents (those under age 55), not to older residents who would be less affected by the Ryan plan. (It does leave in place the donut hole in the prescription drug benefit.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In its lead front page article, the Washington Post (a.k.a. Fox on 15th Street) referred to a proposal by the “the bipartisan commission” that President Obama appointed to deal with the deficit. In fact, there was no proposal by the commission. The commission never even voted on a plan because it did not have the required majority.
The proposal referred to in this article was in fact a plan put forward by the commission’s co-chairs, former Senator Alan Simpson and Morgan Stanley Director Erskine Bowles. The Post badly misleads readers by implying that this plan had the support of the commission.
It is also worth noting that Post has chosen to completely ignore numerous public statements by Mr. Simpson in which he indicates that he has very little knowledge of the Social Security program and the budget issues facing the country. The public would likely give less credence to a deficit plan co-authored by someone with little knowledge of many of the issues addressed by the plan. The Bowles-Simpson plan does coincide with many of the positions argued in Washington Post editorials.
In its lead front page article, the Washington Post (a.k.a. Fox on 15th Street) referred to a proposal by the “the bipartisan commission” that President Obama appointed to deal with the deficit. In fact, there was no proposal by the commission. The commission never even voted on a plan because it did not have the required majority.
The proposal referred to in this article was in fact a plan put forward by the commission’s co-chairs, former Senator Alan Simpson and Morgan Stanley Director Erskine Bowles. The Post badly misleads readers by implying that this plan had the support of the commission.
It is also worth noting that Post has chosen to completely ignore numerous public statements by Mr. Simpson in which he indicates that he has very little knowledge of the Social Security program and the budget issues facing the country. The public would likely give less credence to a deficit plan co-authored by someone with little knowledge of many of the issues addressed by the plan. The Bowles-Simpson plan does coincide with many of the positions argued in Washington Post editorials.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
This is what the Washington Post reported in an article on a set of agreements negotiated by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Chinese government, although it did not explain this point to readers. The article told readers that:
“The agreement included action on some long-standing issues — including initial moves by China toward opening its financial sector by allowing U.S. and other foreign firms to sell auto insurance, sell mutual funds and other investments, and underwrite corporate bonds.”
The United States has also been pushing for China to raise the value of its currency against the dollar [thanks Downpuppy]. The over-valuation of the dollar against the yuan is the reason that the United States borrows money from China.
The high value of the dollar makes imports cheap, causing people in the United States to buy more imports from China. It also makes U.S. exports more expensive to people living in China, leading them to buy less of our exports. The resulting trade deficit is financed by borrowing from China.
Many politicians have sought to appeal to racist sentiments by citing this borrowing from China in their push to reduce budget deficits. The Washington Post has also followed this path in both its news and opinion pages. As long as the dollar remains over-valued, the United States will continue to run large trade deficits and continue to borrow from abroad, whether or not it has a budget deficit. (The foreign borrowing would be in the form of purchases of private assets or outstanding government debt, if the United States did not run a budget deficit in future years.)
When Secretary Geithner or other U.S. officials negotiate with the Chinese government they place priorities on their agenda items. Obviously Mr. Geithner placed a greater priority on gaining increased access for the financial industry (i.e. the big Wall Street banks) than he did on lowering the value of the dollar and reducing foreign borrowing.
This is what the Washington Post reported in an article on a set of agreements negotiated by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Chinese government, although it did not explain this point to readers. The article told readers that:
“The agreement included action on some long-standing issues — including initial moves by China toward opening its financial sector by allowing U.S. and other foreign firms to sell auto insurance, sell mutual funds and other investments, and underwrite corporate bonds.”
The United States has also been pushing for China to raise the value of its currency against the dollar [thanks Downpuppy]. The over-valuation of the dollar against the yuan is the reason that the United States borrows money from China.
The high value of the dollar makes imports cheap, causing people in the United States to buy more imports from China. It also makes U.S. exports more expensive to people living in China, leading them to buy less of our exports. The resulting trade deficit is financed by borrowing from China.
Many politicians have sought to appeal to racist sentiments by citing this borrowing from China in their push to reduce budget deficits. The Washington Post has also followed this path in both its news and opinion pages. As long as the dollar remains over-valued, the United States will continue to run large trade deficits and continue to borrow from abroad, whether or not it has a budget deficit. (The foreign borrowing would be in the form of purchases of private assets or outstanding government debt, if the United States did not run a budget deficit in future years.)
When Secretary Geithner or other U.S. officials negotiate with the Chinese government they place priorities on their agenda items. Obviously Mr. Geithner placed a greater priority on gaining increased access for the financial industry (i.e. the big Wall Street banks) than he did on lowering the value of the dollar and reducing foreign borrowing.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Alan Greenspan, the central banker who gained international notoriety for being unable to see the largest asset bubble in the history of the world, is again giving advice on the economy. Bloomberg News tells us that:
“Greenspan said the deficit is one reason that corporate investment as a share of profits is lower than historical patterns, in an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box on Dec. 3, 2010.
‘Approximately one-third of the decline in capital investment as a share of cash flow is directly attributable to” the “crowding out by U.S. Treasury borrowing.'”
Greenspan is right that investment as a share of profits is below its historic average, but this was also true for most of his tenure as Federal Reserve Board chairman.
Click for a Larger Version
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
It is also worth noting that investment is depressed right now in part because of the bubble in non-residential real estate. This led to enormous overbuilding in most areas of non-residential construction leading to very high vacancy rates. As a result, non-residential construction is at extraordinarily low levels. Apparently Mr. Greenspan is still unaware of this bubble.
Alan Greenspan, the central banker who gained international notoriety for being unable to see the largest asset bubble in the history of the world, is again giving advice on the economy. Bloomberg News tells us that:
“Greenspan said the deficit is one reason that corporate investment as a share of profits is lower than historical patterns, in an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box on Dec. 3, 2010.
‘Approximately one-third of the decline in capital investment as a share of cash flow is directly attributable to” the “crowding out by U.S. Treasury borrowing.'”
Greenspan is right that investment as a share of profits is below its historic average, but this was also true for most of his tenure as Federal Reserve Board chairman.
Click for a Larger Version
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
It is also worth noting that investment is depressed right now in part because of the bubble in non-residential real estate. This led to enormous overbuilding in most areas of non-residential construction leading to very high vacancy rates. As a result, non-residential construction is at extraordinarily low levels. Apparently Mr. Greenspan is still unaware of this bubble.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
David Brooks is very angry that Democrats are relying on the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Medicare privatization plan put forward by Representative Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican House. This analysis shows that the Ryan plan would increase the cost of buying Medicare-equivalent policies by $34 trillion over the program’s 75-year planning period. This increased cost is almost 7 times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall.
Brooks wants Democrats to ignore the evidence that shifting from a public Medicare program to private insurers will increase costs and instead accept his claims that Ryan’s plan will save money. He describes their refusal to follow his faith-based policy as “mendacity.”
Interestingly, Brooks discusses the increasing number of prime age men who are not employed without ever once mentioning the criminal justice system. A hugely disproportionate share of non-employed prime age men have spent time in jail or prison. The enormous growth in incarceration rates over the last three decades (the number of prisoners has more than quadrupled since 1980) is almost certainly an important factor in declining employment rates.
David Brooks is very angry that Democrats are relying on the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Medicare privatization plan put forward by Representative Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican House. This analysis shows that the Ryan plan would increase the cost of buying Medicare-equivalent policies by $34 trillion over the program’s 75-year planning period. This increased cost is almost 7 times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall.
Brooks wants Democrats to ignore the evidence that shifting from a public Medicare program to private insurers will increase costs and instead accept his claims that Ryan’s plan will save money. He describes their refusal to follow his faith-based policy as “mendacity.”
Interestingly, Brooks discusses the increasing number of prime age men who are not employed without ever once mentioning the criminal justice system. A hugely disproportionate share of non-employed prime age men have spent time in jail or prison. The enormous growth in incarceration rates over the last three decades (the number of prisoners has more than quadrupled since 1980) is almost certainly an important factor in declining employment rates.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
NPR did a classic he said/she said piece on the battle over debit card swipe fees. It gave people the line from the banks about how they will have to cut back on services to customers if fees are reduced. It also presented the line from retailers on how most of the savings will be passed on to consumers. It presented no independent analysis. (It is likely that most of the $12 billion in savings will be passed on to consumers.) This would have been useful since most listeners do not have more time to evaluate this issue than NPR’s reporters.
NPR did a classic he said/she said piece on the battle over debit card swipe fees. It gave people the line from the banks about how they will have to cut back on services to customers if fees are reduced. It also presented the line from retailers on how most of the savings will be passed on to consumers. It presented no independent analysis. (It is likely that most of the $12 billion in savings will be passed on to consumers.) This would have been useful since most listeners do not have more time to evaluate this issue than NPR’s reporters.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
