The New York Times had a front page story that claimed that companies are being forced to raise prices as a result of rising commodity prices. There are two problems with this story.
First, commodity prices are just returning to their pre-recession levels. The Bureau of Labor Statistics crude goods index stood at 236.1 in December, slightly below the 236.4 level of December 2007 and well below the peak of 301.0 in July of 2008. So, the price pressure from commodities is considerably less than it was at the pre-recession peak.
The other problem with the story is that commodity prices are a relatively small portion of total costs. In principle, companies could easily absorb higher prices, since profit margins are at near post-war highs.
The New York Times had a front page story that claimed that companies are being forced to raise prices as a result of rising commodity prices. There are two problems with this story.
First, commodity prices are just returning to their pre-recession levels. The Bureau of Labor Statistics crude goods index stood at 236.1 in December, slightly below the 236.4 level of December 2007 and well below the peak of 301.0 in July of 2008. So, the price pressure from commodities is considerably less than it was at the pre-recession peak.
The other problem with the story is that commodity prices are a relatively small portion of total costs. In principle, companies could easily absorb higher prices, since profit margins are at near post-war highs.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post noted that President Obama’s budget called for a $30 billion bank fee to recoup losses from the TARP. It would have been helpful to give readers some context for this number.
It would raise approximately $3 billion a year, this is less than one-fifth the size of the $17.5 billion bonus pool at Goldman Sachs in 2010.
The Washington Post noted that President Obama’s budget called for a $30 billion bank fee to recoup losses from the TARP. It would have been helpful to give readers some context for this number.
It would raise approximately $3 billion a year, this is less than one-fifth the size of the $17.5 billion bonus pool at Goldman Sachs in 2010.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Let’s hope that this is the last silly article telling us that China has just passed Japan as the world’s second largest economy. Using a purchasing power parity measure of GDP, China passed Japan several years ago. Its economy is now more than twice the size of Japan’s. Japan is still doing fine, since its per capita GDP continues to rise.
Arghhhhhh, Market Place radio committed the same sin in their morning report.
Let’s hope that this is the last silly article telling us that China has just passed Japan as the world’s second largest economy. Using a purchasing power parity measure of GDP, China passed Japan several years ago. Its economy is now more than twice the size of Japan’s. Japan is still doing fine, since its per capita GDP continues to rise.
Arghhhhhh, Market Place radio committed the same sin in their morning report.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The WSJ referred to, “a future spike in the projected costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.” While the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are projected to rise rapidly due to rapidly rising private sector health care costs, the cost of Social Security is projected to increase only modestly. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the higher cost of Social Security will be fully covered through the year 2039 by the Social Security trust fund.
The WSJ referred to, “a future spike in the projected costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.” While the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are projected to rise rapidly due to rapidly rising private sector health care costs, the cost of Social Security is projected to increase only modestly. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the higher cost of Social Security will be fully covered through the year 2039 by the Social Security trust fund.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It seems not from this NYT discussion of the extent to which writers end up generating free content for outlets like the Huffington Post. The obvious issue is that a new mechanism is needed to finance the production of creative work, since the old mechanism — government imposed copyright monopolies — no longer work in the Internet Age. It is not hard to think of alternatives. The ProPublica model is one, here is another.
It seems not from this NYT discussion of the extent to which writers end up generating free content for outlets like the Huffington Post. The obvious issue is that a new mechanism is needed to finance the production of creative work, since the old mechanism — government imposed copyright monopolies — no longer work in the Internet Age. It is not hard to think of alternatives. The ProPublica model is one, here is another.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post’s Outlook section told readers today that, “On cancer, the EPA rates fears over facts” [the headline is slightly different in the online version]. The point of the piece is that people are 10 percent more likely to die from heart disease than cancer, yet they fear cancer more. As a result of this seemingly irrational fear, the EPA is placing a greater emphasis on combating cancer, the less dangerous killer, than heart disease.
Let’s trot over to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to see what they say about this issue. They confirm the basic story, heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women. But we find something very interesting when we look at the causes of death by age.
For men, cancer is a more frequent cause of death up to age 25, heart disease is somewhat more frequent cause of death for men between the ages of 25-54. Cancer is then the leading cause of death for men between the ages of 55-74, with heart disease then becoming the most important cause of death for the oldest men.
For women, the age issue is more unambiguous. Up to age 65, cancer is by far the more frequent cause of death, killing more than twice as many women as heart disease. Heart disease only passes cancer as a cause of death among women once they reach the age of 75.
So, it doesn’t look like the EPA has to rate fear over facts in order to focus more of its attention on cancer than heart disease, it just has to look at the data.
The Washington Post’s Outlook section told readers today that, “On cancer, the EPA rates fears over facts” [the headline is slightly different in the online version]. The point of the piece is that people are 10 percent more likely to die from heart disease than cancer, yet they fear cancer more. As a result of this seemingly irrational fear, the EPA is placing a greater emphasis on combating cancer, the less dangerous killer, than heart disease.
Let’s trot over to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to see what they say about this issue. They confirm the basic story, heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women. But we find something very interesting when we look at the causes of death by age.
For men, cancer is a more frequent cause of death up to age 25, heart disease is somewhat more frequent cause of death for men between the ages of 25-54. Cancer is then the leading cause of death for men between the ages of 55-74, with heart disease then becoming the most important cause of death for the oldest men.
For women, the age issue is more unambiguous. Up to age 65, cancer is by far the more frequent cause of death, killing more than twice as many women as heart disease. Heart disease only passes cancer as a cause of death among women once they reach the age of 75.
So, it doesn’t look like the EPA has to rate fear over facts in order to focus more of its attention on cancer than heart disease, it just has to look at the data.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That would have been a better headline for an article in the San Diego Union Tribune than the actual headline: “San Diego tech companies can’t fill thousands of jobs.” The article begins by telling readers:
“Even though the jobless rate continues to hover in the double digits, there are literally thousands of high-paid job openings in San Diego County just waiting for the applicants with the right skills, according to the leaders of the local high-tech community.
But they say that finding those applicants can be a challenge, partly because of the area’s high cost of living and the lingering perception that San Diego’s more of a beach town than a Silicon Valley South.”
There actually is a chart accompanying the article that tells readers why tech firms in San Diego may be having trouble getting workers. Of 14 cities listed on the chart, the pay for tech workers in San Diego, adjusted for living costs, ranks 8th. It is more than 30 percent below the pay in Durham, North Carolina, the top paying city on the list.
If firms in San Diego really want to attract more workers then the trick is paying higher wages. Managers of tech companies should understand the way markets work. If they want to attract workers from other cities then they will have to pay more money, if they are unwilling to pay more money, then there is really no shortage. These firms are simply unwilling to hire people at the prevailing wage.
It is also worth noting that the unfilled tech jobs have little to do with the problem of unemployment in San Diego. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are more than 160,000 unemployed people in San Diego. The article reports that there are 6,000 unfilled tech jobs. This means that if every last tech job was filled (there would always be some vacancies due to turnover), it would reduce the number of unemployed by less than 4 percent.
(Thanks to Mark Paul for the tip.)
That would have been a better headline for an article in the San Diego Union Tribune than the actual headline: “San Diego tech companies can’t fill thousands of jobs.” The article begins by telling readers:
“Even though the jobless rate continues to hover in the double digits, there are literally thousands of high-paid job openings in San Diego County just waiting for the applicants with the right skills, according to the leaders of the local high-tech community.
But they say that finding those applicants can be a challenge, partly because of the area’s high cost of living and the lingering perception that San Diego’s more of a beach town than a Silicon Valley South.”
There actually is a chart accompanying the article that tells readers why tech firms in San Diego may be having trouble getting workers. Of 14 cities listed on the chart, the pay for tech workers in San Diego, adjusted for living costs, ranks 8th. It is more than 30 percent below the pay in Durham, North Carolina, the top paying city on the list.
If firms in San Diego really want to attract more workers then the trick is paying higher wages. Managers of tech companies should understand the way markets work. If they want to attract workers from other cities then they will have to pay more money, if they are unwilling to pay more money, then there is really no shortage. These firms are simply unwilling to hire people at the prevailing wage.
It is also worth noting that the unfilled tech jobs have little to do with the problem of unemployment in San Diego. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are more than 160,000 unemployed people in San Diego. The article reports that there are 6,000 unfilled tech jobs. This means that if every last tech job was filled (there would always be some vacancies due to turnover), it would reduce the number of unemployed by less than 4 percent.
(Thanks to Mark Paul for the tip.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT came up with the bizarre assertion that:
“With Republicans in charge of the House, Mr. Obama’s budget is more a statement of his priorities and philosophy than an actual template for federal spending and tax policy.”
It is not clear why the NYT would think that the budget proposed by President Obama has anything to do with “philosophy.” President Obama is a politician. He got elected president by virtue of the fact that he is a very effective politician. People who express philosophies are typically found in the philosophy departments of colleges and universities, they are not generally found in elected offices.
The article also asserted that:
“The point of Mr. Obama’s [budget] forecast is less to promise a specific result than to signal to voters and financial markets that he is serious about reducing annual deficits.”
This leaves out the important group of wealthy campaign contributors. It takes a substantial amount of money to run for president, which to date has only been raised by courting wealthy contributors. Since President Obama hopes to be re-elected it is reasonable to assume that his proposals are structured in a way that would matter to this group of people. It is strange that the NYT article would not mention this fact.
The NYT came up with the bizarre assertion that:
“With Republicans in charge of the House, Mr. Obama’s budget is more a statement of his priorities and philosophy than an actual template for federal spending and tax policy.”
It is not clear why the NYT would think that the budget proposed by President Obama has anything to do with “philosophy.” President Obama is a politician. He got elected president by virtue of the fact that he is a very effective politician. People who express philosophies are typically found in the philosophy departments of colleges and universities, they are not generally found in elected offices.
The article also asserted that:
“The point of Mr. Obama’s [budget] forecast is less to promise a specific result than to signal to voters and financial markets that he is serious about reducing annual deficits.”
This leaves out the important group of wealthy campaign contributors. It takes a substantial amount of money to run for president, which to date has only been raised by courting wealthy contributors. Since President Obama hopes to be re-elected it is reasonable to assume that his proposals are structured in a way that would matter to this group of people. It is strange that the NYT article would not mention this fact.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Post wrongly told readers that readers that President Obama is proposing budget cuts to independent voters about whom it says:
“this bloc shares the tea party’s alarm over the $14 trillion national debt but takes a more nuanced view of how to achieve fiscal balance.”
Actually, polling data have consistently shown that independents place a top priority on job creation and see deficit reduction as a secondary concern. President Obama will likely secure more money for his campaign from funders and more positive coverage from the Washington Post and other news outlets by proposing cuts in the deficit, but the polling data suggest that any gains from independent voters will likely be indirect outcomes from these more obvious gains.
The Post wrongly told readers that readers that President Obama is proposing budget cuts to independent voters about whom it says:
“this bloc shares the tea party’s alarm over the $14 trillion national debt but takes a more nuanced view of how to achieve fiscal balance.”
Actually, polling data have consistently shown that independents place a top priority on job creation and see deficit reduction as a secondary concern. President Obama will likely secure more money for his campaign from funders and more positive coverage from the Washington Post and other news outlets by proposing cuts in the deficit, but the polling data suggest that any gains from independent voters will likely be indirect outcomes from these more obvious gains.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is what we should conclude from an article on the Obama administration’s proposal for dismantling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that told readers:
“Investors also may be reluctant to provide money for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages, a product that has never existed without government support.”
Jumbo mortgages are mortgages whose size exceeds the maximum allowed for them to be purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. They have been offered by the private sector at interest rates that were usually about 25 basis point (0.25 percentage points) higher than the rates charged on mortgages that could be purchased by Fannie and Freddie. Since the crisis, this spread has increased to around 75 basis points.
The article also bizarrely frames the discussion in a context where “the country could no longer afford to sustain its commitment to minting homeowners.” It is absurd to say that in the past we could afford a commitment that we will not be able to afford in the future, since we are getting richer year by year. With productivity growing at a rate of about 2.5 percent a year, the country will be generating almost 30 percent more output for each hour of work in a decade, and over 60 percent more than we produced back in 2000. If we could afford a commitment to “minting homeowners” in 2000, then surely the country could afford it in 2020.
The more obvious question is whether it is good policy. Many moderate-income people were persuaded to buy homes at the peak of the bubble, losing whatever savings they had accumulated and ending up seriously underwater in their mortgages. Also, many people in unstable work or family situations, who will not be able to stay in a home for a long period of time, have wasted large amounts of money on realty fees, closing costs, and other transactions costs as a result of buying a home. This is why people who care about giving moderate- and low-income families good housing options and the opportunity to accumulate wealth do not push homeownership but focus on rental options instead.
Also, the government did not solve the moral hazard problem associated with the public/private mix in Fannie and Freddie. These institutions ended up bankrupting themselves because they were run by executives who received Wall Street type salaries in the tens of millions a year by virtue of generating large amounts of fees. This incentive structure encouraged them to take huge risks since they had a government guarantee standing behind them.
These policy issues loom as much larger concerns than whether the government can afford a commitment to homeownership, since it so obviously can.
That is what we should conclude from an article on the Obama administration’s proposal for dismantling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that told readers:
“Investors also may be reluctant to provide money for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages, a product that has never existed without government support.”
Jumbo mortgages are mortgages whose size exceeds the maximum allowed for them to be purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. They have been offered by the private sector at interest rates that were usually about 25 basis point (0.25 percentage points) higher than the rates charged on mortgages that could be purchased by Fannie and Freddie. Since the crisis, this spread has increased to around 75 basis points.
The article also bizarrely frames the discussion in a context where “the country could no longer afford to sustain its commitment to minting homeowners.” It is absurd to say that in the past we could afford a commitment that we will not be able to afford in the future, since we are getting richer year by year. With productivity growing at a rate of about 2.5 percent a year, the country will be generating almost 30 percent more output for each hour of work in a decade, and over 60 percent more than we produced back in 2000. If we could afford a commitment to “minting homeowners” in 2000, then surely the country could afford it in 2020.
The more obvious question is whether it is good policy. Many moderate-income people were persuaded to buy homes at the peak of the bubble, losing whatever savings they had accumulated and ending up seriously underwater in their mortgages. Also, many people in unstable work or family situations, who will not be able to stay in a home for a long period of time, have wasted large amounts of money on realty fees, closing costs, and other transactions costs as a result of buying a home. This is why people who care about giving moderate- and low-income families good housing options and the opportunity to accumulate wealth do not push homeownership but focus on rental options instead.
Also, the government did not solve the moral hazard problem associated with the public/private mix in Fannie and Freddie. These institutions ended up bankrupting themselves because they were run by executives who received Wall Street type salaries in the tens of millions a year by virtue of generating large amounts of fees. This incentive structure encouraged them to take huge risks since they had a government guarantee standing behind them.
These policy issues loom as much larger concerns than whether the government can afford a commitment to homeownership, since it so obviously can.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
