I happened to notice Matt Kranz’s calculations in USA Today of what someone would have earned owning shares of GE stock since 1970. The calculations don’t adjust for inflation, which means that no one can assess what their real return would have been. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that the calculation does not include dividend payouts. Typically close to half of the real return on a stock will be in the form of dividend payouts.
I happened to notice Matt Kranz’s calculations in USA Today of what someone would have earned owning shares of GE stock since 1970. The calculations don’t adjust for inflation, which means that no one can assess what their real return would have been. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that the calculation does not include dividend payouts. Typically close to half of the real return on a stock will be in the form of dividend payouts.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Boston Globe helped to create some new myths on Social Security with a piece by Robert C. Pozen that ran under the headline “Myth Busters: The Truth About Social Security Reform.”
Pozen first told readers that Social Security is not progressive even though its payback structure is highly progressive. (A low-wage earner will get a payment equal to about 90 percent of their average wage income, while a maximum wage earner [$106,800 in 2010], will get a benefit equal to less than 30 percent of their taxable wage.) He argued that the differences in life expectancy (wealthy people live longer), offset the progressivity of the payback structure.
While this is partially true, the differences in life expectancy do not fully offset the progressivity of the payback structure. Also, Social Security includes survivor and disability benefits that disproportionately benefit low and moderate-income earners.
The second myth created by Pozen’s piece is his claim that the proposed increase in the Social Security retirement age is no big deal. He described as a myth the claim that:
“The Budget Commission’s proposal raises retirement age too quickly, especially for physical laborers.”
First, the commission did not issue a proposal. The co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, issued a proposal that got the support of 9 other commission members, 3 short of the number needed to make it a formal proposal of the commission.
Pozen goes on to tell readers that the proposal increases the normal retirement age at a:
“much slower pace for increases in the retirement age than the projected increases in life expectancy. During the 48 years between 2027 and 2075, the normal retirement age will rise by only two years, but life expectancy in the United States will on average rise by more than 10 years.”
Actually, the Social Security Trustees project an increase in life expectancy of 6.4 years over this period. The bulk of gains in life expectancy in recent years have gone to high-end earners. If this pattern continues in coming decades, it is very likely that the gains in life expectancy for most workers will not exceed the increases in the normal retirement age proposed by Bowles and Simpson.
Pozen then assures readers:
“In their proposal to reform Social Security, the co-chairs would allow physical laborers to claim half of their benefits early and the other half at a later date. Moreover, the proposal directs the Social Security Administration to develop a new and more flexible method for delivering retirement benefits for those in “physical labor jobs.”
Actually, the suggestion by Bowles and Simpson that there would be different retirement schedules for different occupations is reversing a worldwide trend toward standardizing benefit schedules. The Bowles-Simpson proposal is precisely the policy for which Greece was widely ridiculed. Hairdressers were one of the occupations that qualified for early retirement based on the fact that they worked with dangerous chemicals. It is not clear that the government is well positioned to make this sort of assessment and that it can impose rules that prevent easy gaming.
The third myth created by Pozner’s when he labels as a myth the claim: “The proposal would constitute a large “cut’’ in Social Security benefits for American workers.”
Before addressing the benefit schedule, it is worth noting Bowles-Simpson propose a change in the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) that would amount to roughly a 3.0 percent cut in benefits for someone who lives 20 years after starting to collect benefits. Whether or not this is “large” can be debated. However, it is worth noting that this proposed cut would have more impact on the after-tax income of most beneficiaries than the ending of the Bush tax cuts would have on most of the people who earn more than $250,000 a year.
For example, those earning more than $300,000 a year would see their income about $250,000 taxed at a 36 percent rate instead of a 33 percent rate. Since this higher rate would apply to just one-sixth of their income, it would reduce their after-tax income by just 0.5 percent. Only the very wealthy would see their after-tax income fall by a larger percentage due to the expiration of the Bush tax cut than the 3.0 percent cut in Social Security proposed by Bowles-Simpson from changing the annual COLA.
The media and members of Congress have certainly acted as though this change in taxes is “large,” so the proportionately bigger cut in benefits proposed by Bowles and Simpson must also be “large.”
Pozen wrongly asserts that:
“The proposal would actually increase the current schedule of Social Security benefits for low-wage workers. It accomplishes this result by expanding the concept of minimum benefits available to any worker.”
In fact, most low-wage earners would not have enough years of earnings to qualify for the step up in benefits proposed by Bowles and Simpson.
Pozen then notes that, in addition to the cut in the COLA, scheduled benefits will be cut for “more affluent workers.” It is worth noting that “more affluent workers” in this context means anyone with average earnings above $10,000 a year.
Pozen also claims that the schedule of benefits proposed by Bowles and Simpson must be compared to the payable benefit in years after 2037, since the program is not projected to have enough money to pay full benefits in years after 2037.
In fact, there are literally an infinite number of ways to fill the gap in funding. The idea that if Congress does not endorse the Bowles and Simpson plan that there would be no other way to close the projected shortfall in the next 27 years is absurd on its face.
The Boston Globe helped to create some new myths on Social Security with a piece by Robert C. Pozen that ran under the headline “Myth Busters: The Truth About Social Security Reform.”
Pozen first told readers that Social Security is not progressive even though its payback structure is highly progressive. (A low-wage earner will get a payment equal to about 90 percent of their average wage income, while a maximum wage earner [$106,800 in 2010], will get a benefit equal to less than 30 percent of their taxable wage.) He argued that the differences in life expectancy (wealthy people live longer), offset the progressivity of the payback structure.
While this is partially true, the differences in life expectancy do not fully offset the progressivity of the payback structure. Also, Social Security includes survivor and disability benefits that disproportionately benefit low and moderate-income earners.
The second myth created by Pozen’s piece is his claim that the proposed increase in the Social Security retirement age is no big deal. He described as a myth the claim that:
“The Budget Commission’s proposal raises retirement age too quickly, especially for physical laborers.”
First, the commission did not issue a proposal. The co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, issued a proposal that got the support of 9 other commission members, 3 short of the number needed to make it a formal proposal of the commission.
Pozen goes on to tell readers that the proposal increases the normal retirement age at a:
“much slower pace for increases in the retirement age than the projected increases in life expectancy. During the 48 years between 2027 and 2075, the normal retirement age will rise by only two years, but life expectancy in the United States will on average rise by more than 10 years.”
Actually, the Social Security Trustees project an increase in life expectancy of 6.4 years over this period. The bulk of gains in life expectancy in recent years have gone to high-end earners. If this pattern continues in coming decades, it is very likely that the gains in life expectancy for most workers will not exceed the increases in the normal retirement age proposed by Bowles and Simpson.
Pozen then assures readers:
“In their proposal to reform Social Security, the co-chairs would allow physical laborers to claim half of their benefits early and the other half at a later date. Moreover, the proposal directs the Social Security Administration to develop a new and more flexible method for delivering retirement benefits for those in “physical labor jobs.”
Actually, the suggestion by Bowles and Simpson that there would be different retirement schedules for different occupations is reversing a worldwide trend toward standardizing benefit schedules. The Bowles-Simpson proposal is precisely the policy for which Greece was widely ridiculed. Hairdressers were one of the occupations that qualified for early retirement based on the fact that they worked with dangerous chemicals. It is not clear that the government is well positioned to make this sort of assessment and that it can impose rules that prevent easy gaming.
The third myth created by Pozner’s when he labels as a myth the claim: “The proposal would constitute a large “cut’’ in Social Security benefits for American workers.”
Before addressing the benefit schedule, it is worth noting Bowles-Simpson propose a change in the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) that would amount to roughly a 3.0 percent cut in benefits for someone who lives 20 years after starting to collect benefits. Whether or not this is “large” can be debated. However, it is worth noting that this proposed cut would have more impact on the after-tax income of most beneficiaries than the ending of the Bush tax cuts would have on most of the people who earn more than $250,000 a year.
For example, those earning more than $300,000 a year would see their income about $250,000 taxed at a 36 percent rate instead of a 33 percent rate. Since this higher rate would apply to just one-sixth of their income, it would reduce their after-tax income by just 0.5 percent. Only the very wealthy would see their after-tax income fall by a larger percentage due to the expiration of the Bush tax cut than the 3.0 percent cut in Social Security proposed by Bowles-Simpson from changing the annual COLA.
The media and members of Congress have certainly acted as though this change in taxes is “large,” so the proportionately bigger cut in benefits proposed by Bowles and Simpson must also be “large.”
Pozen wrongly asserts that:
“The proposal would actually increase the current schedule of Social Security benefits for low-wage workers. It accomplishes this result by expanding the concept of minimum benefits available to any worker.”
In fact, most low-wage earners would not have enough years of earnings to qualify for the step up in benefits proposed by Bowles and Simpson.
Pozen then notes that, in addition to the cut in the COLA, scheduled benefits will be cut for “more affluent workers.” It is worth noting that “more affluent workers” in this context means anyone with average earnings above $10,000 a year.
Pozen also claims that the schedule of benefits proposed by Bowles and Simpson must be compared to the payable benefit in years after 2037, since the program is not projected to have enough money to pay full benefits in years after 2037.
In fact, there are literally an infinite number of ways to fill the gap in funding. The idea that if Congress does not endorse the Bowles and Simpson plan that there would be no other way to close the projected shortfall in the next 27 years is absurd on its face.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Dana Milbank is really excited as he tells readers in the first sentence of his column:
“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of President Obama.”
Wow, and why is Mr. Milbank so excited? Has President Obama stood up to the Wall Street banks, the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical companies, or the oil industry? Well, not exactly, Milbank tells us that: “I’m proud that he has finally stood firm against the likes of Peter DeFazio.”
For those who don’t know of him, Peter DeFazio is a 12 term Congressman from Oregon. He has never held a leadership position in the party and has not played an important role in designing any major piece of legislation. (In other words, he does not have much power.) He has also backed President Obama on all the key items in his legislative agenda.
But, Mr. DeFazio has criticized President Obama’s tax deal with the Republicans. This got President Obama angry and he told DeFazio and his types to get lost. That passes for being tough at the Washington Post.
Milbank is also impressed that:
“That display [telling the liberals to get lost] was coupled with some hardball politics (Larry Summers’s warning that rejecting the package would return the economy to recession).”
That’s really cool. Larry Summers told the liberals that if this deal does not got through that the economy would go into a recession. How tough can you get?
Does Larry Summers have a model that shows the economy will fall back into recession without this deal? This certainly is not the forecast that the administration is using in its budget modeling. This modeling projects 4.3 percent as the growth rate for 2011. This modeling assumes the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, a continuation of UI benefits, and a couple of other items that would not happen if the Obama-Republican package and no subsequent language is approved. However, there are no (as in zero, nada, not any) models that show the items assumed in the President’s budget projections, which may not happen absent this deal, boosting the growth rate by 4.3 percentage points relative to a situation without these items.
This means that when Larry Summers was playing hardball and telling Congressional Democrats that failure to the pass the compromise would lead to a recession he was saying something that is not true. Outside of polite Washington circles this is known as a “lie.” (It is also worth noting that Larry Summers has a proven track record of being wrong about almost every major macroeconomic development in the last 15 years, the stock bubble, the housing bubble, the over-valued dollar, and financial deregulation.)
Apparently, at the Post, saying things that are not true to advance a political agenda is something to be applauded.
[Addendum and apology to readers. I foolishly accepted Milbank’s characterization of Summers’ remarks rather than reading the remarks myself.
Summers did not say that rejection of the budget deal would throw the economy back into recession as Milbank claimed. Summers said that rejection of the deal would increase the risk of recession. This claim is true, since the deal would be a net stimulus to the economy if enacted. If the economy does not get this stimulus, then it would be weaker and therefore at greater risk of recession. So, Summers statement is true; it is Milbank’s inaccurate representation of his position that would be a lie.]
Dana Milbank is really excited as he tells readers in the first sentence of his column:
“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of President Obama.”
Wow, and why is Mr. Milbank so excited? Has President Obama stood up to the Wall Street banks, the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical companies, or the oil industry? Well, not exactly, Milbank tells us that: “I’m proud that he has finally stood firm against the likes of Peter DeFazio.”
For those who don’t know of him, Peter DeFazio is a 12 term Congressman from Oregon. He has never held a leadership position in the party and has not played an important role in designing any major piece of legislation. (In other words, he does not have much power.) He has also backed President Obama on all the key items in his legislative agenda.
But, Mr. DeFazio has criticized President Obama’s tax deal with the Republicans. This got President Obama angry and he told DeFazio and his types to get lost. That passes for being tough at the Washington Post.
Milbank is also impressed that:
“That display [telling the liberals to get lost] was coupled with some hardball politics (Larry Summers’s warning that rejecting the package would return the economy to recession).”
That’s really cool. Larry Summers told the liberals that if this deal does not got through that the economy would go into a recession. How tough can you get?
Does Larry Summers have a model that shows the economy will fall back into recession without this deal? This certainly is not the forecast that the administration is using in its budget modeling. This modeling projects 4.3 percent as the growth rate for 2011. This modeling assumes the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, a continuation of UI benefits, and a couple of other items that would not happen if the Obama-Republican package and no subsequent language is approved. However, there are no (as in zero, nada, not any) models that show the items assumed in the President’s budget projections, which may not happen absent this deal, boosting the growth rate by 4.3 percentage points relative to a situation without these items.
This means that when Larry Summers was playing hardball and telling Congressional Democrats that failure to the pass the compromise would lead to a recession he was saying something that is not true. Outside of polite Washington circles this is known as a “lie.” (It is also worth noting that Larry Summers has a proven track record of being wrong about almost every major macroeconomic development in the last 15 years, the stock bubble, the housing bubble, the over-valued dollar, and financial deregulation.)
Apparently, at the Post, saying things that are not true to advance a political agenda is something to be applauded.
[Addendum and apology to readers. I foolishly accepted Milbank’s characterization of Summers’ remarks rather than reading the remarks myself.
Summers did not say that rejection of the budget deal would throw the economy back into recession as Milbank claimed. Summers said that rejection of the deal would increase the risk of recession. This claim is true, since the deal would be a net stimulus to the economy if enacted. If the economy does not get this stimulus, then it would be weaker and therefore at greater risk of recession. So, Summers statement is true; it is Milbank’s inaccurate representation of his position that would be a lie.]
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That could have been the lead of a front page Washington Post news story reporting on a press conference in which former President Bill Clinton touted the budget deal that President Obama negotiated with the Republicans. Remarkably, President Clinton’s record on these issues was never mentioned in the article.
As many former aides have acknowledged, President Clinton had been considering a variety of options for partially privatizing Social Security in the beginning of 1998 when the Lewinsky scandal exploded. With his presidency in jeopardy, Clinton had to rely on his core constituencies — labor, the African American community, women’s organizations — all groups that would have been infuriated by an effort to privatize Social Security. As a result, Clinton was forced to abandon this effort.
President Clinton also set the economy on a path of bubble-led growth, touting the stock market bubble that drove growth in the late 90s. He also pushed for the financial de-regulation that helped clear the way for the abuses of the housing bubble era. In addition, he also actively promoted the high dollar policy that led to the enormous trade deficit, which was another major imbalance distorting the economy’s growth path.
During his campaign, President Obama openly criticized this bubble-led growth path. Competent news reporters would have pointed out the irony that at this moment Obama now appears to be embracing the economic legacy he criticized. They also would have pointed out that Obama is relying on a Democratic president who was actively planning to privatize Social Security, ostensibly to curb fears that his deal could lead to the privatization of Social Security.
That could have been the lead of a front page Washington Post news story reporting on a press conference in which former President Bill Clinton touted the budget deal that President Obama negotiated with the Republicans. Remarkably, President Clinton’s record on these issues was never mentioned in the article.
As many former aides have acknowledged, President Clinton had been considering a variety of options for partially privatizing Social Security in the beginning of 1998 when the Lewinsky scandal exploded. With his presidency in jeopardy, Clinton had to rely on his core constituencies — labor, the African American community, women’s organizations — all groups that would have been infuriated by an effort to privatize Social Security. As a result, Clinton was forced to abandon this effort.
President Clinton also set the economy on a path of bubble-led growth, touting the stock market bubble that drove growth in the late 90s. He also pushed for the financial de-regulation that helped clear the way for the abuses of the housing bubble era. In addition, he also actively promoted the high dollar policy that led to the enormous trade deficit, which was another major imbalance distorting the economy’s growth path.
During his campaign, President Obama openly criticized this bubble-led growth path. Competent news reporters would have pointed out the irony that at this moment Obama now appears to be embracing the economic legacy he criticized. They also would have pointed out that Obama is relying on a Democratic president who was actively planning to privatize Social Security, ostensibly to curb fears that his deal could lead to the privatization of Social Security.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT tells us that cutting corporate taxes is:
“a way to address warnings by American business that corporate tax rates and the costs of complying with the tax code are cutting into their global competitiveness.”
Corporate profits are equal to about 16 percent of the value of output in the corporate sector. Businesses pay roughly a third of their profits in taxes, which means that taxes are equal to about 5 percent of the value of output. If taxes were reduced by 20 percent, a very large tax cut, then this would reduce the cost of doing business in the United States by 1 percent relative to foreign countries.
Suppose the dollar falls by 10 percent against other currencies. This would reduce the price of goods produced in the United States by 10 percent relative to goods produced elsewhere in the world, or ten times as much as the boost to competitiveness that businesses would receive from even a very large reduction in tax rates.
It is understandable that businesses would claim that cutting their taxes is important for U.S. competitiveness. People often make false claims in order to enrich themselves. However, newspapers are not supposed to simply accept such claims as being true and present them to their readers this way.
The NYT tells us that cutting corporate taxes is:
“a way to address warnings by American business that corporate tax rates and the costs of complying with the tax code are cutting into their global competitiveness.”
Corporate profits are equal to about 16 percent of the value of output in the corporate sector. Businesses pay roughly a third of their profits in taxes, which means that taxes are equal to about 5 percent of the value of output. If taxes were reduced by 20 percent, a very large tax cut, then this would reduce the cost of doing business in the United States by 1 percent relative to foreign countries.
Suppose the dollar falls by 10 percent against other currencies. This would reduce the price of goods produced in the United States by 10 percent relative to goods produced elsewhere in the world, or ten times as much as the boost to competitiveness that businesses would receive from even a very large reduction in tax rates.
It is understandable that businesses would claim that cutting their taxes is important for U.S. competitiveness. People often make false claims in order to enrich themselves. However, newspapers are not supposed to simply accept such claims as being true and present them to their readers this way.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Reporters don’t always know what politicians actually believe, they only know what they say. This is why the Post should not have told readers in describing the White House’s view of Senator Charles Schumer’s effort to block President Obama’s tax deal:
“But to the White House, it is Schumer who is acting recklessly by seeking to wage class warfare with just days left on the legislative calendar, risking the health of the economy and the pocketbook of every middle-class household with his threat to carry the fight into next year.”
The Post does not know that the White House actually views Schumer’s effort as reckless and risking the health of the economy. The Post only knows that some unspecified person in the White House made this assertion.
Reporters don’t always know what politicians actually believe, they only know what they say. This is why the Post should not have told readers in describing the White House’s view of Senator Charles Schumer’s effort to block President Obama’s tax deal:
“But to the White House, it is Schumer who is acting recklessly by seeking to wage class warfare with just days left on the legislative calendar, risking the health of the economy and the pocketbook of every middle-class household with his threat to carry the fight into next year.”
The Post does not know that the White House actually views Schumer’s effort as reckless and risking the health of the economy. The Post only knows that some unspecified person in the White House made this assertion.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The statement about “at least two schools” is a quote in an NYT article from Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. However, one will look in vein in this article for anything other than the view from Mr. Westerwelle that:
“People used to think that it would be the next generation that would some day have to deal with the issue of public debts. … And now everybody is surprised that it doesn’t take that long, that it hits us now in the shape of the ever increasing price of credits.”
One alternative view is that unnecessarily tight monetary policy in the wake of the collapse of housing bubbles across Europe and the United States is forcing unnecessary austerity on Ireland, Spain, and other European countries. Proponents of this position point out that these countries are not suffering from a shortage of labor and capital, but rather a lack of demand.
This means that if the European Central Bank and/or national governments stimulated these economies by creating additional demand, this demand could easily be met without inflation. From this perspective, the imposition of austerity is simply pointless pain. Furthermore, the people who bear the brunt of the suffering are ordinary workers, not the bankers whose greed fueled the bubbles or the incompetent central bankers and other policymakers who allowed the housing bubbles to grow to such dangerous levels.
The statement about “at least two schools” is a quote in an NYT article from Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. However, one will look in vein in this article for anything other than the view from Mr. Westerwelle that:
“People used to think that it would be the next generation that would some day have to deal with the issue of public debts. … And now everybody is surprised that it doesn’t take that long, that it hits us now in the shape of the ever increasing price of credits.”
One alternative view is that unnecessarily tight monetary policy in the wake of the collapse of housing bubbles across Europe and the United States is forcing unnecessary austerity on Ireland, Spain, and other European countries. Proponents of this position point out that these countries are not suffering from a shortage of labor and capital, but rather a lack of demand.
This means that if the European Central Bank and/or national governments stimulated these economies by creating additional demand, this demand could easily be met without inflation. From this perspective, the imposition of austerity is simply pointless pain. Furthermore, the people who bear the brunt of the suffering are ordinary workers, not the bankers whose greed fueled the bubbles or the incompetent central bankers and other policymakers who allowed the housing bubbles to grow to such dangerous levels.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman apparently believes that higher unemployment will make the United States better able to compete with highly educated workers in China and India. This is the logical implication of his argument that the United States should stop accumulating debt.
If the United States reduced its deficit in the current downturn, it would reduce demand in the economy, thereby leading firms and/or governments to lay off more workers. Friedman does not indicate why he believes that higher unemployment will make U.S. workers more competitive internationally.
He seems to think that the government’s debt poses a problem. Of course the Federal Reserve Board can simply buy and hold debt incurred in a downturn like the present. In this case the debt creates no interest burden since the interest would be paid to the Fed which then refunds it to the Treasury at the end of the year.
While this practice could lead to inflation in more normal times, this is not an issue at present, when a somewhat higher inflation rate would be desirable in any case. Japan’s central bank holds an amount of debt that is close to the size of its GDP ($15 trillion in the case of the United States) and it is still experiencing deflation. The Fed could raise reserve requirements at some future point if inflation threatens to be a problem.
There is no good economic argument for wanting to see a lower deficit at present. Apparently Friedman has some other rationale for wanting a lower deficit.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman apparently believes that higher unemployment will make the United States better able to compete with highly educated workers in China and India. This is the logical implication of his argument that the United States should stop accumulating debt.
If the United States reduced its deficit in the current downturn, it would reduce demand in the economy, thereby leading firms and/or governments to lay off more workers. Friedman does not indicate why he believes that higher unemployment will make U.S. workers more competitive internationally.
He seems to think that the government’s debt poses a problem. Of course the Federal Reserve Board can simply buy and hold debt incurred in a downturn like the present. In this case the debt creates no interest burden since the interest would be paid to the Fed which then refunds it to the Treasury at the end of the year.
While this practice could lead to inflation in more normal times, this is not an issue at present, when a somewhat higher inflation rate would be desirable in any case. Japan’s central bank holds an amount of debt that is close to the size of its GDP ($15 trillion in the case of the United States) and it is still experiencing deflation. The Fed could raise reserve requirements at some future point if inflation threatens to be a problem.
There is no good economic argument for wanting to see a lower deficit at present. Apparently Friedman has some other rationale for wanting a lower deficit.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
This is relevant because the Washington Post printed the assertion from Xie Zhenhua, China’s chief negotiator at the climate talks in Cancun Mexico, that China’s per capita income is $3,700. According to the CIA Factbook, China’s per capita income in 2009 was $6,700 a year and it has grown by more than 10 percent over the last year.
Of course the rest of Mr. Xie’s comments are accurate. China is a developing country that still has a per capita income that is less than one sixth that of the United States. It also did not play an important role in creating the problem, unlike the United States and wealthy European countries who have been spewing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for decades.
This is relevant because the Washington Post printed the assertion from Xie Zhenhua, China’s chief negotiator at the climate talks in Cancun Mexico, that China’s per capita income is $3,700. According to the CIA Factbook, China’s per capita income in 2009 was $6,700 a year and it has grown by more than 10 percent over the last year.
Of course the rest of Mr. Xie’s comments are accurate. China is a developing country that still has a per capita income that is less than one sixth that of the United States. It also did not play an important role in creating the problem, unlike the United States and wealthy European countries who have been spewing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for decades.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The news outlets that insisted Congress approve TARP or the world will end have been anxiously touting the prospect of repayments and possible profits for the taxpayers from one-time basket cases like Citigroup and AIG. It is worth noting that the question of the government showing a profit or loss on its loans to these companies has little to do with whether the bailout was a net benefit to taxpayers.
Suppose the government uncovered a counterfeiting operation. Instead of shutting it down, suppose it allowed the counterfeiters to print $1 trillion in counterfeit money and buy up the stock of legitimate companies. The counterfeiters would then give ten percent of this stock, worth $100 billion, to the government and shut down their counterfeiting operations.
By the TARP accounting logic, the taxpayers made $100 billion on this deal. In reality, the counterfeiters were allowed to lay claim to $900 billion of the country’s wealth based on their counterfeit currency.
The situation with the TARP is similar. Through the TARP and the much larger Fed lending operations, the Wall Street banks were able to borrow money at far below market interest rates. This allowed them to make substantial profits at the peak of the financial crisis. They are now using the profits made with government funds to repay the government with interest. However, the shareholders, creditors, and top executives of these banks are now far richer than they would be if they had not been given access to public money at below market rates.
To imply that this situation has profited the taxpaying public as a whole because the loans have been repaid is extremely misleading, just as it would be inaccurate to imply that the country had benefited by getting a cut of the counterfeiters’ profits.
The news outlets that insisted Congress approve TARP or the world will end have been anxiously touting the prospect of repayments and possible profits for the taxpayers from one-time basket cases like Citigroup and AIG. It is worth noting that the question of the government showing a profit or loss on its loans to these companies has little to do with whether the bailout was a net benefit to taxpayers.
Suppose the government uncovered a counterfeiting operation. Instead of shutting it down, suppose it allowed the counterfeiters to print $1 trillion in counterfeit money and buy up the stock of legitimate companies. The counterfeiters would then give ten percent of this stock, worth $100 billion, to the government and shut down their counterfeiting operations.
By the TARP accounting logic, the taxpayers made $100 billion on this deal. In reality, the counterfeiters were allowed to lay claim to $900 billion of the country’s wealth based on their counterfeit currency.
The situation with the TARP is similar. Through the TARP and the much larger Fed lending operations, the Wall Street banks were able to borrow money at far below market interest rates. This allowed them to make substantial profits at the peak of the financial crisis. They are now using the profits made with government funds to repay the government with interest. However, the shareholders, creditors, and top executives of these banks are now far richer than they would be if they had not been given access to public money at below market rates.
To imply that this situation has profited the taxpaying public as a whole because the loans have been repaid is extremely misleading, just as it would be inaccurate to imply that the country had benefited by getting a cut of the counterfeiters’ profits.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
