After long insisting that disclosure of the loans made by its special lending facilities would lead to a financial disaster, the Fed made many of the details public on Wednesday, as required by the Dodd-Frank bill. Now that this information has been released and there have been no financial troubles, the Post, which had backed the Fed’s refusal to disclose, attacked the proponents of disclosure.
It misrepresented the views of Senator Bernie Sanders, the lead Senate sponsor of the disclosure measure. The Post claims that Sanders had wanted the information made available immediately, as the loans were being made. In fact, Sanders had argued that information on disclosure could have been made available sooner, but not necessarily immediately. It is difficult to contend that a delay of 2 years is necessary or that any disclosure would jeopardize the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy, which had been the original position of the Fed and the Post.
The Post also trivializes the fact that many large banks may have made large sums of money by having access to the Fed’s lending facilities at a time when liquidity commanded a very high price. This is consistent with the Post’s general support for measures that redistribute money from ordinary workers to Wall Street. However, most of the public does not share this goal for public policy.
After long insisting that disclosure of the loans made by its special lending facilities would lead to a financial disaster, the Fed made many of the details public on Wednesday, as required by the Dodd-Frank bill. Now that this information has been released and there have been no financial troubles, the Post, which had backed the Fed’s refusal to disclose, attacked the proponents of disclosure.
It misrepresented the views of Senator Bernie Sanders, the lead Senate sponsor of the disclosure measure. The Post claims that Sanders had wanted the information made available immediately, as the loans were being made. In fact, Sanders had argued that information on disclosure could have been made available sooner, but not necessarily immediately. It is difficult to contend that a delay of 2 years is necessary or that any disclosure would jeopardize the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy, which had been the original position of the Fed and the Post.
The Post also trivializes the fact that many large banks may have made large sums of money by having access to the Fed’s lending facilities at a time when liquidity commanded a very high price. This is consistent with the Post’s general support for measures that redistribute money from ordinary workers to Wall Street. However, most of the public does not share this goal for public policy.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT and other papers reporting on the Fed’s disclosure of information on the beneficiaries from loans in its special facilities includes the Fed’s justification that the loans required collateral and the taxpayers were well protected. It would have been worth including some context here.
At the time the special facilities were at their peak, liquidity carried an enormous premium. The Fed was giving out money to banks, non-financial companies, and foreign central banks at interest rates far lower than those available in the private market at the time. This allowed the recipients to make large profits with this money at the time and in many cases kept the companies in business.
It is not surprising that the vast majority of this money was paid back, since the economy did not collapse. However, this does not mean that the loans did not involve a large public subsidy. It is comparable to giving water to people in the middle of a drought. When it rains again, we can easily get the water back with interest, but that doesn’t change the fact that providing water in the drought to the folks like Citigroup and Morgan Stanley who got large amounts of it.
The NYT and other papers reporting on the Fed’s disclosure of information on the beneficiaries from loans in its special facilities includes the Fed’s justification that the loans required collateral and the taxpayers were well protected. It would have been worth including some context here.
At the time the special facilities were at their peak, liquidity carried an enormous premium. The Fed was giving out money to banks, non-financial companies, and foreign central banks at interest rates far lower than those available in the private market at the time. This allowed the recipients to make large profits with this money at the time and in many cases kept the companies in business.
It is not surprising that the vast majority of this money was paid back, since the economy did not collapse. However, this does not mean that the loans did not involve a large public subsidy. It is comparable to giving water to people in the middle of a drought. When it rains again, we can easily get the water back with interest, but that doesn’t change the fact that providing water in the drought to the folks like Citigroup and Morgan Stanley who got large amounts of it.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
NPR again abandoned journalistic standards in pushing deficit reduction by insisting that doing so is courageous. Given the wealth of the people pushing for cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and the fawning attention that these people get from media outlets like NPR and the Washington Post, it is difficult to see what it is courageous about trying to take away benefits for middle class retirees.
It also wrongly described the deficit as “spiraling.” Of course the deficit is not spiraling. The deficit rose in 2008-2010 because the housing bubble collapsed. NPR, like other news outlets, largely ignored the $8 trillion housing bubble. An honest discussion would point out that the deficit has temporarily ballooned because of the incompetence of people who carry through and report on economic policy.
In the longer term the deficit is projected to rise, but that is because of the projected explosion of U.S. health care costs. Our per person costs are projected to rise from more than twice the average in countries with longer life expectancies to more than three times as much.
Honest and courageous politicians and reporters would be talking about the real problem, a broken health care system. They would not be mis-representing it as a problem of a spiraling deficit.
NPR again abandoned journalistic standards in pushing deficit reduction by insisting that doing so is courageous. Given the wealth of the people pushing for cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and the fawning attention that these people get from media outlets like NPR and the Washington Post, it is difficult to see what it is courageous about trying to take away benefits for middle class retirees.
It also wrongly described the deficit as “spiraling.” Of course the deficit is not spiraling. The deficit rose in 2008-2010 because the housing bubble collapsed. NPR, like other news outlets, largely ignored the $8 trillion housing bubble. An honest discussion would point out that the deficit has temporarily ballooned because of the incompetence of people who carry through and report on economic policy.
In the longer term the deficit is projected to rise, but that is because of the projected explosion of U.S. health care costs. Our per person costs are projected to rise from more than twice the average in countries with longer life expectancies to more than three times as much.
Honest and courageous politicians and reporters would be talking about the real problem, a broken health care system. They would not be mis-representing it as a problem of a spiraling deficit.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post told readers today that the plan put forward by the fiscal commission: “could ignite a serious effort to reduce government debt and spare the nation from a European-style fiscal crisis.” This assertion does not appear in an editorial, nor is it presented as the view of any expert or political figure cited in the article.
Rather this is an assertion of fact in a front page “news” story. Of course those who know economics would find this assertion laughable. Unlike the European countries facing fiscal crises, the United States has its own currency. This means that the country need never face the same sort of constraints as these countries. The worst case scenario would be the country would see a bout of inflation from an overstimulated economy. Of course the country is nowhere near this situation now and need never come close to it if the health care sector is fixed, a point never discussed in this article.
Unfortunately, this is not the only piece of editorializing in this article. The article describes the willingness of people on both the left and right to compromise as setting “aside ideological orthodoxy.” This sort of condescending characterization of people’s positions is left for the opinion pages at serious newspaper.
The article also took sharp issue with the judgement of financial markets telling readers that the Bowles-Simpson proposal: “would bring it [the debt] down to a more manageable 40 percent of gross domestic product over the next 25 years.” This implies that the current debt to GDP ratio is not manageable, disputing the assessment of investors who are willing to make long-term loans to the government at interest rates of less than 3.0 percent. In Japan the debt to GDP ratio is 227 percent and investors are willing to make long-term loans to its government at interest rates of close to 1.0 percent. It would be interesting to know what metric the Post has used to determine that current debt to GDP ratios are unmanageable.
The Post also implicitly patted itself on the back, telling readers that:
“the commission has already attracted more attention and received more respect than nearly anyone predicted.”
The extensive and almost completely uncritical coverage that the Post has given the commission co-chairs is a big part of the “more attention” and “more respect” to which this statement refers. More objective reporting might have noted an apparent conflict of interest when one of the co-chairs gets $335,000 from a major Wall Street bank and the financial industry somehow escapes unscathed from taxation in their proposal. It might have also highlighted the ill-informed and sexist e-mails of the other co-chair, which almost certainly would have led to the summary dismissal of a progressive member of the Obama administration.
The Washington Post told readers today that the plan put forward by the fiscal commission: “could ignite a serious effort to reduce government debt and spare the nation from a European-style fiscal crisis.” This assertion does not appear in an editorial, nor is it presented as the view of any expert or political figure cited in the article.
Rather this is an assertion of fact in a front page “news” story. Of course those who know economics would find this assertion laughable. Unlike the European countries facing fiscal crises, the United States has its own currency. This means that the country need never face the same sort of constraints as these countries. The worst case scenario would be the country would see a bout of inflation from an overstimulated economy. Of course the country is nowhere near this situation now and need never come close to it if the health care sector is fixed, a point never discussed in this article.
Unfortunately, this is not the only piece of editorializing in this article. The article describes the willingness of people on both the left and right to compromise as setting “aside ideological orthodoxy.” This sort of condescending characterization of people’s positions is left for the opinion pages at serious newspaper.
The article also took sharp issue with the judgement of financial markets telling readers that the Bowles-Simpson proposal: “would bring it [the debt] down to a more manageable 40 percent of gross domestic product over the next 25 years.” This implies that the current debt to GDP ratio is not manageable, disputing the assessment of investors who are willing to make long-term loans to the government at interest rates of less than 3.0 percent. In Japan the debt to GDP ratio is 227 percent and investors are willing to make long-term loans to its government at interest rates of close to 1.0 percent. It would be interesting to know what metric the Post has used to determine that current debt to GDP ratios are unmanageable.
The Post also implicitly patted itself on the back, telling readers that:
“the commission has already attracted more attention and received more respect than nearly anyone predicted.”
The extensive and almost completely uncritical coverage that the Post has given the commission co-chairs is a big part of the “more attention” and “more respect” to which this statement refers. More objective reporting might have noted an apparent conflict of interest when one of the co-chairs gets $335,000 from a major Wall Street bank and the financial industry somehow escapes unscathed from taxation in their proposal. It might have also highlighted the ill-informed and sexist e-mails of the other co-chair, which almost certainly would have led to the summary dismissal of a progressive member of the Obama administration.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post, which long ago abandoned rules of journalistic objectivity in pushing its agenda for cutting Social Security and Medicare, today covered up the plans by deficit commission’s co-chairs to violate the commission’s charter. The Post reported that the commission expects to delay voting on a plan until December 3. This means that the commission will miss the December 1 deadline for a final report specified in both its by-laws and its charter.
If the Post were not so committed to Bowles and Simpson’s agenda then it would have called readers attention to the fact that they are violating the rules under which the commission was established. Of course, if it were following standard journalistic practices, the Post would have pointed out that the deficit increased not because of out of control spending, as the co-chairs have repeatedly claimed, but primarily due to the downturn caused by the collapse of the housing bubble.
It also would have pointed out that the huge long-term projected deficits are entirely attributable to the broken health care system. If the United States paid the same amount per person for health care as countries with longer life expectancies we would be facing huge budget surpluses, not deficits. However, because it editorial position dominates its news section, almost no readers of the Post would know this simple and important fact.
The Washington Post, which long ago abandoned rules of journalistic objectivity in pushing its agenda for cutting Social Security and Medicare, today covered up the plans by deficit commission’s co-chairs to violate the commission’s charter. The Post reported that the commission expects to delay voting on a plan until December 3. This means that the commission will miss the December 1 deadline for a final report specified in both its by-laws and its charter.
If the Post were not so committed to Bowles and Simpson’s agenda then it would have called readers attention to the fact that they are violating the rules under which the commission was established. Of course, if it were following standard journalistic practices, the Post would have pointed out that the deficit increased not because of out of control spending, as the co-chairs have repeatedly claimed, but primarily due to the downturn caused by the collapse of the housing bubble.
It also would have pointed out that the huge long-term projected deficits are entirely attributable to the broken health care system. If the United States paid the same amount per person for health care as countries with longer life expectancies we would be facing huge budget surpluses, not deficits. However, because it editorial position dominates its news section, almost no readers of the Post would know this simple and important fact.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The media almost completely overlooked the housing bubble on the way up. In the years 2002-2007 there were probably 1000 stories written about the deficit for every story that raised any questions about house prices being inflated.
Of course the bubble did eventually burst, giving us the worst economic disaster in 70 years. But hey, no one ever said that an economics reporter could learn anything. Yesterday’s Case-Shiller data showed that house prices in its 20-City index fell 0.7 percent in September. This would be an 8.5 percent annual rate of decline, which would imply the loss of more than $1 trillion in housing wealth over the course of the year.
The data for the bottom third of the housing market looked even worse. Prices for homes in this segment of the market had a 2.6 percent one-month decline in both Seattle and Boston. They fell by 3.4 percent in Phoenix and 3.7 percent in Portland. Prices for homes in the bottom tier fell by 3.9 percent in both Tampa and Chicago. They fell by 7.0 percent in Atlanta and 7.4 percent in Minneapolis.
The sharp decline in house prices in the bottom tier since the expiration of the first-time buyers tax credit means that the loss of home equity for many recent buyers will have exceeded the value of the credit. In such cases the credit effectively went to the seller, or in the case of underwater mortgages, to the bank that held the mortgage.
For one more interesting data point, the Census Bureau released data on new home sales prices for October last Wednesday. This release reflects much more up-to-date data since it is based on contract prices. The Case-Shiller index is a 3-month average that is based on closings, which typically occur 6-8 weeks after a contract is signed. The report showed that the price of a median home fell 13.6 percent in October hitting its lowest nominal level in 7 years.
These data on falling house prices were largely invisible in business and economic news reporting yesterday. Instead, the focus was the budget deficit and the deficit commission reports. After all, if we don’t do anything and the deficits follow their projected course, we will have a really high budget deficit in 2025.
What does it take to get economic/business reporters to pay attention the economy?
The media almost completely overlooked the housing bubble on the way up. In the years 2002-2007 there were probably 1000 stories written about the deficit for every story that raised any questions about house prices being inflated.
Of course the bubble did eventually burst, giving us the worst economic disaster in 70 years. But hey, no one ever said that an economics reporter could learn anything. Yesterday’s Case-Shiller data showed that house prices in its 20-City index fell 0.7 percent in September. This would be an 8.5 percent annual rate of decline, which would imply the loss of more than $1 trillion in housing wealth over the course of the year.
The data for the bottom third of the housing market looked even worse. Prices for homes in this segment of the market had a 2.6 percent one-month decline in both Seattle and Boston. They fell by 3.4 percent in Phoenix and 3.7 percent in Portland. Prices for homes in the bottom tier fell by 3.9 percent in both Tampa and Chicago. They fell by 7.0 percent in Atlanta and 7.4 percent in Minneapolis.
The sharp decline in house prices in the bottom tier since the expiration of the first-time buyers tax credit means that the loss of home equity for many recent buyers will have exceeded the value of the credit. In such cases the credit effectively went to the seller, or in the case of underwater mortgages, to the bank that held the mortgage.
For one more interesting data point, the Census Bureau released data on new home sales prices for October last Wednesday. This release reflects much more up-to-date data since it is based on contract prices. The Case-Shiller index is a 3-month average that is based on closings, which typically occur 6-8 weeks after a contract is signed. The report showed that the price of a median home fell 13.6 percent in October hitting its lowest nominal level in 7 years.
These data on falling house prices were largely invisible in business and economic news reporting yesterday. Instead, the focus was the budget deficit and the deficit commission reports. After all, if we don’t do anything and the deficits follow their projected course, we will have a really high budget deficit in 2025.
What does it take to get economic/business reporters to pay attention the economy?
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It’s actually pretty easy to do what the rich and powerful people want you do. After all, they are the ones that can give you jobs and money. This is why it is dishonest for reporters to describe the decision by people associated with the several of the deficit commissions to refer to proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare as “tough” decisions.
Given the constellation of power in the United States, these are relatively easy decisions. The really touch decisions would be to confront the doctors’ lobbies, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance industry and Wall Street. People like the co-chair’s of President Obama’s commission, Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, lacked the courage for these tough decisions.
It’s actually pretty easy to do what the rich and powerful people want you do. After all, they are the ones that can give you jobs and money. This is why it is dishonest for reporters to describe the decision by people associated with the several of the deficit commissions to refer to proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare as “tough” decisions.
Given the constellation of power in the United States, these are relatively easy decisions. The really touch decisions would be to confront the doctors’ lobbies, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance industry and Wall Street. People like the co-chair’s of President Obama’s commission, Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, lacked the courage for these tough decisions.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Using the economic analysis that his advisers relied upon in designing the stimulus package, this would be the projected effect of President Obama’s proposal to freeze the pay of federal employees. According the NYT, this will reduce the amount of money that federal employees have to spend by $2 billion in 2011 and by $5 billion in 2012.
Following the multipliers in the Romer-Bernstein paper released by the Obama transition team, we can assume that roughly half of this money would be re-spent. This means that consumption would fall by $1 billion in 2011 and $2.5 billion in 2012. The Romer-Bernstein analysis assumed that an increase in GDP of 1 percent would lead to an increase in employment of 1 million. In this case, GDP will be about 0.007 percent lower in 2011 and about 0.018 percent lower in 2012, implying drops in private sector employment in these years of 7,000 and 18,000 jobs, respectively. The NYT should have noted the impact that the Obama administration’s economic team expects to result from this proposed pay freeze.
Using the economic analysis that his advisers relied upon in designing the stimulus package, this would be the projected effect of President Obama’s proposal to freeze the pay of federal employees. According the NYT, this will reduce the amount of money that federal employees have to spend by $2 billion in 2011 and by $5 billion in 2012.
Following the multipliers in the Romer-Bernstein paper released by the Obama transition team, we can assume that roughly half of this money would be re-spent. This means that consumption would fall by $1 billion in 2011 and $2.5 billion in 2012. The Romer-Bernstein analysis assumed that an increase in GDP of 1 percent would lead to an increase in employment of 1 million. In this case, GDP will be about 0.007 percent lower in 2011 and about 0.018 percent lower in 2012, implying drops in private sector employment in these years of 7,000 and 18,000 jobs, respectively. The NYT should have noted the impact that the Obama administration’s economic team expects to result from this proposed pay freeze.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In the NYT they are. In a world where we have 9.6 percent unemployment and the deficit is problem #1, anything is possible.
The NYT reported on evidence of serious labor shortages in export centers and then told readers today:
“China can point to the labor shortage in the export hubs as one reason not to let the renminbi’s value rise, since companies are already grappling with the possibility that higher wages could make their goods less competitive. A significant currency appreciation could help cause a wave of business failures and bankruptcies, Chinese officials say.”
Okay, black is white, night is day. This makes zero sense. China would have a good case against raising the value of the currency if the opposite were the case. If it had high unemployment so that reducing its exports could create serious deprivation and social unrest, then it would have a good argument against raising the value of its currency, but low unemployment?
If high labor costs push a firm out of business then this is because it uses its labor less efficiently than other firms. This is known as “capitalism.” Firms that cannot compete are supposed to go out of business. Furthermore, in the context of a tight labor market, the bankruptcy does not even hurt workers, since the employees of a bankrupt firm just go over to one of the other firms that are desperate for workers.
The evidence in this article should support the case of those who believe that China should raise the value of its currency. That case should have been made to readers.
In the NYT they are. In a world where we have 9.6 percent unemployment and the deficit is problem #1, anything is possible.
The NYT reported on evidence of serious labor shortages in export centers and then told readers today:
“China can point to the labor shortage in the export hubs as one reason not to let the renminbi’s value rise, since companies are already grappling with the possibility that higher wages could make their goods less competitive. A significant currency appreciation could help cause a wave of business failures and bankruptcies, Chinese officials say.”
Okay, black is white, night is day. This makes zero sense. China would have a good case against raising the value of the currency if the opposite were the case. If it had high unemployment so that reducing its exports could create serious deprivation and social unrest, then it would have a good argument against raising the value of its currency, but low unemployment?
If high labor costs push a firm out of business then this is because it uses its labor less efficiently than other firms. This is known as “capitalism.” Firms that cannot compete are supposed to go out of business. Furthermore, in the context of a tight labor market, the bankruptcy does not even hurt workers, since the employees of a bankrupt firm just go over to one of the other firms that are desperate for workers.
The evidence in this article should support the case of those who believe that China should raise the value of its currency. That case should have been made to readers.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Nearly all economists speak derisively of tariff barriers that raise the price of imported goods above their marginal cost. In addition to the inefficiency this causes, tariff protection also invites corruption as the protected industries try to maximize the value of the rents they receive.
The identical logic applies to patent protection, except patents can raise the price of goods by tens or hundreds of times the competitive market price, not the 15-30 percent that would be more typical of tariff protection. It would be useful if this point was made in the context of an article reporting on how a drug company had ghost authored a textbook for two medical researchers.
Nearly all economists speak derisively of tariff barriers that raise the price of imported goods above their marginal cost. In addition to the inefficiency this causes, tariff protection also invites corruption as the protected industries try to maximize the value of the rents they receive.
The identical logic applies to patent protection, except patents can raise the price of goods by tens or hundreds of times the competitive market price, not the 15-30 percent that would be more typical of tariff protection. It would be useful if this point was made in the context of an article reporting on how a drug company had ghost authored a textbook for two medical researchers.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
