The Post wrongly told readers in a front page news story that “budget analysts across the political spectrum agree that popular Medicare and Social Security programs will have to be overhauled to truly cure the nation’s ills.” This is not true.
For example, a book that was co-authored by Peter Orszag, who had been President Obama’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Peter Diamond, a Nobel Laureate and Obama nominee to Fed, suggests relatively modest changes to Social Security. In fact, virtually all budget analysts across the political spectrum agree that the shortfall in the Social Security program is relatively minor.
The Post wrongly told readers in a front page news story that “budget analysts across the political spectrum agree that popular Medicare and Social Security programs will have to be overhauled to truly cure the nation’s ills.” This is not true.
For example, a book that was co-authored by Peter Orszag, who had been President Obama’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Peter Diamond, a Nobel Laureate and Obama nominee to Fed, suggests relatively modest changes to Social Security. In fact, virtually all budget analysts across the political spectrum agree that the shortfall in the Social Security program is relatively minor.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Why does the NYT have to lump Medicare and Social Security together when everyone knows their stories are fundamentally different? According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next quarter century annual spending on Social Security is projected to increase by an amount equal to 1.4 percentage points of GDP. This is considerably less than the increase in annual defense spending of 1.7 percentage points of GDP between 2001 and 2010. And, Social Security expenditures over this period are fully paid for by past and future Social Security taxes.
In contrast, the cost of Medicare is projected to rise by 2.3 percentage points of GDP over this period, starting from a considerably lower base. The annual cost of Medicaid and other health care programs is projected to rise by 1.9 percentage points. As everyone recognizes, the story of long-term budget deficits is the story of our broken health care system. Why is this so hard to tell the public?
(Thanks to Daniel Alvarado.)
Why does the NYT have to lump Medicare and Social Security together when everyone knows their stories are fundamentally different? According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next quarter century annual spending on Social Security is projected to increase by an amount equal to 1.4 percentage points of GDP. This is considerably less than the increase in annual defense spending of 1.7 percentage points of GDP between 2001 and 2010. And, Social Security expenditures over this period are fully paid for by past and future Social Security taxes.
In contrast, the cost of Medicare is projected to rise by 2.3 percentage points of GDP over this period, starting from a considerably lower base. The annual cost of Medicaid and other health care programs is projected to rise by 1.9 percentage points. As everyone recognizes, the story of long-term budget deficits is the story of our broken health care system. Why is this so hard to tell the public?
(Thanks to Daniel Alvarado.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
With reference to intellectual property, the New York Times told readers that, “China has a well-earned reputation for theft.” Intellectual property rules are defined by each country. China can only engage in “theft” if it has set up rules that is violating. In many cases, its laws on intellectual property do not provide clear protection to U.S. firms, therefore they may not be engaging in anything that can be described as “theft.”
This article also misinforms readers about the relative size of the Chinese and U.S. economies. It told readers that China’s per capita income is less than $4,300. This is the measure of income on an exchange rate basis. The more realistic basis for comparison is China’s GDP measured on a purchasing power parity basis, which is $7,400 a year – 75 percent higher.
With reference to intellectual property, the New York Times told readers that, “China has a well-earned reputation for theft.” Intellectual property rules are defined by each country. China can only engage in “theft” if it has set up rules that is violating. In many cases, its laws on intellectual property do not provide clear protection to U.S. firms, therefore they may not be engaging in anything that can be described as “theft.”
This article also misinforms readers about the relative size of the Chinese and U.S. economies. It told readers that China’s per capita income is less than $4,300. This is the measure of income on an exchange rate basis. The more realistic basis for comparison is China’s GDP measured on a purchasing power parity basis, which is $7,400 a year – 75 percent higher.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The New York Times was touting the prospect of renewed spending by business leading the recovery. There are two major problems with this story. First, investment in equipment and software has already been growing rapidly. Over the last four quarters it has grown at almost a 20 percent annual rate. People who have access to the Commerce Department’s data on GDP (a group that apparently excludes employees of the NYT) are aware of this fact.
The other important fact known to people with access to this data is equipment and software spending is actually a relatively small share of GDP. (There was huge overbuilding of non-residential structures, so it is not plausible to imagine a big pick-up in this sector any time soon.) Equipment and software spending were equal to 7.1 percent of GDP in the third quarter of 2010. This means that even if the growth rate doubles to 40 percent, it would only add 1.4 percentage points to GDP growth. This would have less impact than reducing imports by 10 percent.
In short, while a more rapid pace of investment spending can be helpful, it is unlikely to be sufficient to restore the economy to healthy growth path. That will almost certainly require a reduction in the trade deficit, which in turn depends on a decline in the value of the dollar. The latter is apparently a low or non-existent priority for the Obama administration.
The New York Times was touting the prospect of renewed spending by business leading the recovery. There are two major problems with this story. First, investment in equipment and software has already been growing rapidly. Over the last four quarters it has grown at almost a 20 percent annual rate. People who have access to the Commerce Department’s data on GDP (a group that apparently excludes employees of the NYT) are aware of this fact.
The other important fact known to people with access to this data is equipment and software spending is actually a relatively small share of GDP. (There was huge overbuilding of non-residential structures, so it is not plausible to imagine a big pick-up in this sector any time soon.) Equipment and software spending were equal to 7.1 percent of GDP in the third quarter of 2010. This means that even if the growth rate doubles to 40 percent, it would only add 1.4 percentage points to GDP growth. This would have less impact than reducing imports by 10 percent.
In short, while a more rapid pace of investment spending can be helpful, it is unlikely to be sufficient to restore the economy to healthy growth path. That will almost certainly require a reduction in the trade deficit, which in turn depends on a decline in the value of the dollar. The latter is apparently a low or non-existent priority for the Obama administration.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
An article that discussed President Obama’s public campaign to boost exports told readers that the federal government “has little control” over the value of the dollar. This is not true. The Treasury and Fed could set out to lower the value of the dollar if they opted to do so. This could mean selling dollars in international money markets and buying other countries’ currencies. They could even opt to peg the value of the dollar against other countries currencies, as China has done with the dollar.
In the Clinton years, Robert Rubin had a policy of pushing up the value of the dollar. He put muscle behind this effort through the U.S. control of the IMF at the time of the East Asian financial crisis. The conditions that the IMF imposed were so onerous that developing countries decided that they needed to accumulate massive amounts of reserves in order to avoid being put in a similar situation. This meant accumulating large amounts of dollars. They did this by keeping down the value of their currencies against the dollar (i.e. raising the value of the dollar).
It is very misleading to assert that the value of the dollar is outside of the government’s control. President Obama, like his predecessors, has allowed the dollar to remain over-valued. An over-valued dollar effectively subsidizes imports and imposes a tariff on exports. There is nothing that President Obama’s new competitiveness panel can realistically hope to do that would come close to offsetting the competitive disadvantage created by an over-valued dollar.
An article that discussed President Obama’s public campaign to boost exports told readers that the federal government “has little control” over the value of the dollar. This is not true. The Treasury and Fed could set out to lower the value of the dollar if they opted to do so. This could mean selling dollars in international money markets and buying other countries’ currencies. They could even opt to peg the value of the dollar against other countries currencies, as China has done with the dollar.
In the Clinton years, Robert Rubin had a policy of pushing up the value of the dollar. He put muscle behind this effort through the U.S. control of the IMF at the time of the East Asian financial crisis. The conditions that the IMF imposed were so onerous that developing countries decided that they needed to accumulate massive amounts of reserves in order to avoid being put in a similar situation. This meant accumulating large amounts of dollars. They did this by keeping down the value of their currencies against the dollar (i.e. raising the value of the dollar).
It is very misleading to assert that the value of the dollar is outside of the government’s control. President Obama, like his predecessors, has allowed the dollar to remain over-valued. An over-valued dollar effectively subsidizes imports and imposes a tariff on exports. There is nothing that President Obama’s new competitiveness panel can realistically hope to do that would come close to offsetting the competitive disadvantage created by an over-valued dollar.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT adopted Washington insider standards today. In order to push a deficit reduction agenda, it told readers that the United States has: “an accumulated debt that is starting to weigh on the economy.”
The article presents absolutely no evidence (literally) to support this assertion. The way an economist would look for evidence that the debt is weighing on the economy is by examining interest rates. The current interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds is 3.44 percent. This is far lower in both nominal and real terms than it has been (except for the last two years) for most of the last three decades.
In other words, the standard way to measure whether the debt is imposing a burden on the economy is showing clearly that it is not. The NYT’s assertion is just a complete fabrication that has no place in a news article.
The NYT adopted Washington insider standards today. In order to push a deficit reduction agenda, it told readers that the United States has: “an accumulated debt that is starting to weigh on the economy.”
The article presents absolutely no evidence (literally) to support this assertion. The way an economist would look for evidence that the debt is weighing on the economy is by examining interest rates. The current interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds is 3.44 percent. This is far lower in both nominal and real terms than it has been (except for the last two years) for most of the last three decades.
In other words, the standard way to measure whether the debt is imposing a burden on the economy is showing clearly that it is not. The NYT’s assertion is just a complete fabrication that has no place in a news article.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT reported in some detail on the plans by conservative Republican House members for large spending cuts. The piece included several comments from Republican members saying that the country was on the edge of default.
It would have been helpful to point out that there is zero evidence to support this contention. Bond holders are willing to hold U.S. government debt at extraordinarily low interest rates. This means that investors who have tens of billions of dollars at stake do not share the concerns about the government’s solvency expressed by these members of Congress.
It is also worth pointing out that the United States would never be in the same box as Greece or Ireland, as asserted by one of the representatives quoted in the article. Since the United States has its own currency, it can always have the Federal Reserve Board buy its debt. This can create a risk of inflation (in the current economic environment this risk is near zero), but there is no possibility that U.S. debt will lack buyers, as was the case with Greece and Ireland.
In other words, this is a totally imaginary threat, like the prospect of Martians invading. It is possible that members really fear an attack from Martians, but responsible news reporting should point out that there is no basis in reality for such fears.
The NYT reported in some detail on the plans by conservative Republican House members for large spending cuts. The piece included several comments from Republican members saying that the country was on the edge of default.
It would have been helpful to point out that there is zero evidence to support this contention. Bond holders are willing to hold U.S. government debt at extraordinarily low interest rates. This means that investors who have tens of billions of dollars at stake do not share the concerns about the government’s solvency expressed by these members of Congress.
It is also worth pointing out that the United States would never be in the same box as Greece or Ireland, as asserted by one of the representatives quoted in the article. Since the United States has its own currency, it can always have the Federal Reserve Board buy its debt. This can create a risk of inflation (in the current economic environment this risk is near zero), but there is no possibility that U.S. debt will lack buyers, as was the case with Greece and Ireland.
In other words, this is a totally imaginary threat, like the prospect of Martians invading. It is possible that members really fear an attack from Martians, but responsible news reporting should point out that there is no basis in reality for such fears.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT ran a piece profiling Gene Sperling, the new head of President Obama’s National Economic Council (NEC), that could have been a paid advertisement. The piece completely ignores the economic imbalances that developed under the Clinton administration and hit their peaks during Sperling’s tenure as NEC head, most notably the stock bubble and trade deficit caused by an over-valued dollar.
The article gives Sperling credit for coming up with the idea of using the budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton years to “save Social Security,” which thereby prevented this money from being either spent or given back in tax cuts. It would have been worth noting that the surplus eventually disappeared as a result of the collapse of the stock bubble and the stimulus measures necessary to get the economy back on its feet.
The NYT ran a piece profiling Gene Sperling, the new head of President Obama’s National Economic Council (NEC), that could have been a paid advertisement. The piece completely ignores the economic imbalances that developed under the Clinton administration and hit their peaks during Sperling’s tenure as NEC head, most notably the stock bubble and trade deficit caused by an over-valued dollar.
The article gives Sperling credit for coming up with the idea of using the budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton years to “save Social Security,” which thereby prevented this money from being either spent or given back in tax cuts. It would have been worth noting that the surplus eventually disappeared as a result of the collapse of the stock bubble and the stimulus measures necessary to get the economy back on its feet.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Post reported on the better than expected numbers on existing home sales reported for December. It told readers that:
“Low interest rates, relatively affordable prices and tentative optimism about the economy helped lure buyers in December.”
Actually, the data on existing home sales reports on closed sales in December. It generally takes 6-8 weeks between when a house contract is signed and when the sales are closed. This means that the December data reflect attitudes in October and early November, not December.
The Post reported on the better than expected numbers on existing home sales reported for December. It told readers that:
“Low interest rates, relatively affordable prices and tentative optimism about the economy helped lure buyers in December.”
Actually, the data on existing home sales reports on closed sales in December. It generally takes 6-8 weeks between when a house contract is signed and when the sales are closed. This means that the December data reflect attitudes in October and early November, not December.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Suppose that President Obama had a press conference where he announced that he had found a quarter. Once the press corps realized that he was not joking and that this was actually the point of his press conference, they would immediately rush out pieces about how the president was off his rocker.
Well President Obama has not, thus far, had a press conference on the topic, but a “senior administration official” reportedly touted an agreement with China to buy $45 billion in U.S. exports. The Post article provided no information about the time period over which these goods would be purchased (e.g. 2 years? 10 years?), nor is there any reason to believe that the deal actually involves new exports. (One of the items in the Post article is planes being sold by Boeing, the sale of which had already been announced.)
While $45 billion may sound like a big commitment, senior administration officials know that it is not. The United States had a trade deficit with China of more than $250 billion over the first 11 months of 2010. Exports of $45 billion over some indefinite number of future years, many of which were already in the pipeline, will not affect this in any noticeable way.
In other words, it’s great that President Obama found a quarter, but he should not be wasting the public’s time by telling us about his good luck. The media should be ridiculing him for implying that this is an economically meaningful event.
Suppose that President Obama had a press conference where he announced that he had found a quarter. Once the press corps realized that he was not joking and that this was actually the point of his press conference, they would immediately rush out pieces about how the president was off his rocker.
Well President Obama has not, thus far, had a press conference on the topic, but a “senior administration official” reportedly touted an agreement with China to buy $45 billion in U.S. exports. The Post article provided no information about the time period over which these goods would be purchased (e.g. 2 years? 10 years?), nor is there any reason to believe that the deal actually involves new exports. (One of the items in the Post article is planes being sold by Boeing, the sale of which had already been announced.)
While $45 billion may sound like a big commitment, senior administration officials know that it is not. The United States had a trade deficit with China of more than $250 billion over the first 11 months of 2010. Exports of $45 billion over some indefinite number of future years, many of which were already in the pipeline, will not affect this in any noticeable way.
In other words, it’s great that President Obama found a quarter, but he should not be wasting the public’s time by telling us about his good luck. The media should be ridiculing him for implying that this is an economically meaningful event.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
