The lead Washington Post editorial told readers that:
“Yet buying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of federal debt in a deliberate effort to lower long-term interest rates and boost employment looks to many economists, market participants and politicians like fiscal policy by another name.”
Huh? How does pushing interest rates down to boost employment look like fiscal policy? Isn’t that pretty close to the textbook definition of monetary policy? Back when I was learning economics, fiscal policy was when the government directly spent money or gave tax cuts, it wasn’t about making it cheaper for the private sector to borrow.
The editorial is also troubling by seeming to suggest that the Fed should no longer have a mandate to pursue full employment.
“Still, the Fed is nearly unique among central banks in the developed world in having responsibility to maximize both price stability and employment. The fact that the left can attack him for not pursuing full employment aggressively enough, while the right can accuse him of pursuing it at the risk of hyperinflation, suggests that the dual mandate piles a heavy political burden on what is and should be a nonpolitical institution.”
The Post is apparently upset that Chairman Bernanke and the Fed are attracting criticism. Sure no one likes to be criticized, but why would anyone think that this is a problem? From the standpoint of an economist this boils down to the question of whether all the nasty comments directed at Bernanke are causing us to have trouble getting people to serve at the Fed. That doesn’t seem to be an issue at the moment, so there is no obvious reason that criticisms of the Fed chair should bother us.
The other flaw in the Post’s logic is the utterly crazy idea that taking away the Fed’s mandate to pursue full employment is somehow non-political. Monetary policy has enormous impact on the level and distribution of income in society. If the Fed has a green light to ignore high levels of unemployment and it takes advantage of this option, then it will be potentially costing the country trillions of dollars of lost output.
Furthermore, since the incomes of middle and lower income workers are most sensitive to the rate of unemployment, the bulk of these losses would be endured by those at the middle and bottom of the income distribution. The negative hit to the incomes of those at the middle and bottom due to high unemployment dwarfs everything that Congress ever debates in terms of TANF, EITC, UI and just about any other tax and transfer program. It is hard to understand why anyone who believes in democracy would want to put such a central economic decision (the trade off between the unemployment rate and the risk of inflation) outside of the scope of political action.
The lead Washington Post editorial told readers that:
“Yet buying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of federal debt in a deliberate effort to lower long-term interest rates and boost employment looks to many economists, market participants and politicians like fiscal policy by another name.”
Huh? How does pushing interest rates down to boost employment look like fiscal policy? Isn’t that pretty close to the textbook definition of monetary policy? Back when I was learning economics, fiscal policy was when the government directly spent money or gave tax cuts, it wasn’t about making it cheaper for the private sector to borrow.
The editorial is also troubling by seeming to suggest that the Fed should no longer have a mandate to pursue full employment.
“Still, the Fed is nearly unique among central banks in the developed world in having responsibility to maximize both price stability and employment. The fact that the left can attack him for not pursuing full employment aggressively enough, while the right can accuse him of pursuing it at the risk of hyperinflation, suggests that the dual mandate piles a heavy political burden on what is and should be a nonpolitical institution.”
The Post is apparently upset that Chairman Bernanke and the Fed are attracting criticism. Sure no one likes to be criticized, but why would anyone think that this is a problem? From the standpoint of an economist this boils down to the question of whether all the nasty comments directed at Bernanke are causing us to have trouble getting people to serve at the Fed. That doesn’t seem to be an issue at the moment, so there is no obvious reason that criticisms of the Fed chair should bother us.
The other flaw in the Post’s logic is the utterly crazy idea that taking away the Fed’s mandate to pursue full employment is somehow non-political. Monetary policy has enormous impact on the level and distribution of income in society. If the Fed has a green light to ignore high levels of unemployment and it takes advantage of this option, then it will be potentially costing the country trillions of dollars of lost output.
Furthermore, since the incomes of middle and lower income workers are most sensitive to the rate of unemployment, the bulk of these losses would be endured by those at the middle and bottom of the income distribution. The negative hit to the incomes of those at the middle and bottom due to high unemployment dwarfs everything that Congress ever debates in terms of TANF, EITC, UI and just about any other tax and transfer program. It is hard to understand why anyone who believes in democracy would want to put such a central economic decision (the trade off between the unemployment rate and the risk of inflation) outside of the scope of political action.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT reports that China’s central bank is raising the reserve requirements for banks. It claims that this is being done to give the central bank more money with which to buy dollars in international currency markets, which will keep the yuan from rising.
The article claims that China does not want the yuan to rise because a higher yuan would make its exports less competitive and therefore cost jobs. However, raising reserve requirements will reduce lending, thereby also throwing people out of jobs.
The article also says that China is worried about inflation. If this is true, then the most obvious way to reduce inflationary pressure would be to just let the yuan rise. This would make imports cheaper and also slow growth by reducing exports.
The actions of China’s central bank is inconsistent with the motives attributed to it in this article. Either those governing China’s central bank are confused about basic economics or the article has inaccurately presented the motives for its actions.
The NYT reports that China’s central bank is raising the reserve requirements for banks. It claims that this is being done to give the central bank more money with which to buy dollars in international currency markets, which will keep the yuan from rising.
The article claims that China does not want the yuan to rise because a higher yuan would make its exports less competitive and therefore cost jobs. However, raising reserve requirements will reduce lending, thereby also throwing people out of jobs.
The article also says that China is worried about inflation. If this is true, then the most obvious way to reduce inflationary pressure would be to just let the yuan rise. This would make imports cheaper and also slow growth by reducing exports.
The actions of China’s central bank is inconsistent with the motives attributed to it in this article. Either those governing China’s central bank are confused about basic economics or the article has inaccurately presented the motives for its actions.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It’s okay for reporters to point out when important people aren’t making sense. In fact, it is really part of their job.
We are told in the same piece that there is concern that the Fed’s QE2 policy will drive down the value of the dollar and also that:
“Brazil, Thailand and other emerging economies, which fear that a surge of foreign capital will drive up prices and interest rates.”
In this situation, it is appropriate to point out these views are contradictory. If the dollar falls in value relative to these countries’ currencies, then it will make imports from the United States cheaper, driving down prices in these countries, not pushing them up. A lower dollar will also reduce exports from these countries, which will lower employment, thereby also reducing inflationary pressures. An inflow of foreign capital would be expected to push interest rates down, not up.
In short, if the views of the leaders of these countries have been presented accurately, then they badly misunderstand basic economics. This should have been pointed out to readers.
It’s okay for reporters to point out when important people aren’t making sense. In fact, it is really part of their job.
We are told in the same piece that there is concern that the Fed’s QE2 policy will drive down the value of the dollar and also that:
“Brazil, Thailand and other emerging economies, which fear that a surge of foreign capital will drive up prices and interest rates.”
In this situation, it is appropriate to point out these views are contradictory. If the dollar falls in value relative to these countries’ currencies, then it will make imports from the United States cheaper, driving down prices in these countries, not pushing them up. A lower dollar will also reduce exports from these countries, which will lower employment, thereby also reducing inflationary pressures. An inflow of foreign capital would be expected to push interest rates down, not up.
In short, if the views of the leaders of these countries have been presented accurately, then they badly misunderstand basic economics. This should have been pointed out to readers.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
BusinessWeek editor Peter Coy told Market Place radio listeners that Peter Peterson spent $1 billion of his own money to inform people about the budget problems facing the country (emphasis in original). This is not true.
Peterson has consistently pushed for cuts to Social Security and Medicare. He has never supported the presentation of a balanced picture of the country’s budget situation. For example, even though it is easy to show that the projected long-term budget deficit is entirely attributable to projections that per person health care costs in the U.S. will rise to three or four times the average for rich countries, this fact is largely concealed in Peterson-financed budget projects.
Peterson has almost completely excluded any discussion of financial sector taxes (the source of his wealth) from budget debates, even though there is wide recognition that the sector is a source of massive waste and rents. He has also routinely misrepresented the state of Social Security’s finance in his public statements, repeatedly insisting that there is no trust fund. This is completely untrue and is an invention of Mr. Peterson. As can be seen in the Social Security trustees report and numerous other budget documents, the trust fund currently holds more than $2.5 trillion in government bonds.
BusinessWeek editor Peter Coy told Market Place radio listeners that Peter Peterson spent $1 billion of his own money to inform people about the budget problems facing the country (emphasis in original). This is not true.
Peterson has consistently pushed for cuts to Social Security and Medicare. He has never supported the presentation of a balanced picture of the country’s budget situation. For example, even though it is easy to show that the projected long-term budget deficit is entirely attributable to projections that per person health care costs in the U.S. will rise to three or four times the average for rich countries, this fact is largely concealed in Peterson-financed budget projects.
Peterson has almost completely excluded any discussion of financial sector taxes (the source of his wealth) from budget debates, even though there is wide recognition that the sector is a source of massive waste and rents. He has also routinely misrepresented the state of Social Security’s finance in his public statements, repeatedly insisting that there is no trust fund. This is completely untrue and is an invention of Mr. Peterson. As can be seen in the Social Security trustees report and numerous other budget documents, the trust fund currently holds more than $2.5 trillion in government bonds.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
NPR departed from normal journalistic standards this morning when it gave a reporter the opportunity to present her opinions on dealing with the deficit as facts to its listeners. Mara Liasson told listeners that it is not possible to address the deficit while leaving any specific area untouched. She included Medicare and Social Security on this list.
Her statement is of course not true, as many people have shown that it easy to meet deficit targets without touching Social Security. In fact, on Tuesday, Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the President’s deficit commission, laid out a plan for meeting the commission’s deficit target that did not touch Social Security or Medicare. Ms. Liasson may not like Representative Schakowsky’s proposal, but it is dishonest journalism to deny that a plan like this exists.
It is also easy to show that the deficit is first and foremost the result of our broken health care system. The country currently pays more than twice as much per person for health care as people in other wealthy countries. This ratio is projected to rise to three and four to one in the decades ahead.
If these projections for health care prove accurate then it will devastate our economy regardless of what we do with the budget deficit. On the other hand, if our health care costs are brought in line with costs in the rest of the world, then the country does not face a long-term deficit problem. Honest reporting on the deficit would point out this simple fact.
NPR departed from normal journalistic standards this morning when it gave a reporter the opportunity to present her opinions on dealing with the deficit as facts to its listeners. Mara Liasson told listeners that it is not possible to address the deficit while leaving any specific area untouched. She included Medicare and Social Security on this list.
Her statement is of course not true, as many people have shown that it easy to meet deficit targets without touching Social Security. In fact, on Tuesday, Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the President’s deficit commission, laid out a plan for meeting the commission’s deficit target that did not touch Social Security or Medicare. Ms. Liasson may not like Representative Schakowsky’s proposal, but it is dishonest journalism to deny that a plan like this exists.
It is also easy to show that the deficit is first and foremost the result of our broken health care system. The country currently pays more than twice as much per person for health care as people in other wealthy countries. This ratio is projected to rise to three and four to one in the decades ahead.
If these projections for health care prove accurate then it will devastate our economy regardless of what we do with the budget deficit. On the other hand, if our health care costs are brought in line with costs in the rest of the world, then the country does not face a long-term deficit problem. Honest reporting on the deficit would point out this simple fact.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post thought it was important to tell readers that the IMF thought that deficit reduction plans in many countries are inadequate because these countries were overly optimistic in their growth projections:
“in its recent review, the IMF warned that governments were relying on optimistic assumptions about economic growth and had not yet specified adequate cuts in spending to control their finances.”
It would have been worth reminding readers that the IMF managed to overlook the housing bubbles in the United States, Spain, Ireland and other countries that led to the current economic crisis. In fact, if IMF economists were held to the same standard of accountability as ordinary workers, the vast majority of them would be among the 15 million unemployed. If readers were aware of the quality of the economic work produced by the IMF they would probably not give its concerns much credence.
The Washington Post thought it was important to tell readers that the IMF thought that deficit reduction plans in many countries are inadequate because these countries were overly optimistic in their growth projections:
“in its recent review, the IMF warned that governments were relying on optimistic assumptions about economic growth and had not yet specified adequate cuts in spending to control their finances.”
It would have been worth reminding readers that the IMF managed to overlook the housing bubbles in the United States, Spain, Ireland and other countries that led to the current economic crisis. In fact, if IMF economists were held to the same standard of accountability as ordinary workers, the vast majority of them would be among the 15 million unemployed. If readers were aware of the quality of the economic work produced by the IMF they would probably not give its concerns much credence.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s the question that listeners to All Things Considered must be asking after hearing Mara Liasson tell them:
“If you sit down with the numbers and look at what the government actually does and how it pays for it, it’s obvious that there is no simple solution.”
Actually, anyone who bothered to sit down and look at the numbers would see that there was not a big deficit problem by any realistic measure until the housing bubble collapsed. If NPR could find a reporter who could read a simple chart (to paraphrase Senator Simpson in one of his famous e-mails) they would quickly recognize that the debt to GDP ratio rose only modestly over the last business cycle, even with the huge increase in defense spending associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The real run-up in the deficits and the debt began in 2008. That’s right folks, it was the collapse of the housing bubble (which NPR never talked about) that led to the big deficits. While NPR is telling its listeners that the deficits are a problem, the deficits are giving people jobs. If we either cut spending or raised taxes we would be pulling money out of the economy and throwing people out of work.
In this sense, people who want lower deficits in the current slump want more people to lose their jobs. This is the same as people who want fish to live out of water effectively want them to die. It is possible that people who push for lower deficits do not know that this would mean throwing people out of work, just like it is possible that some people don’t know that fish cannot live out of water, but neither group of people should be working as a reporter for a serious news outlet.
The longer term deficit is also very simple. It is a problem of exploding health care costs. We currently spend more than twice as much per person for health care as the average for the countries that enjoy longer life expectancies than the United States. The long-term budget projections assume that this ratio will rise to three or four to one. If the United States spends four times as much per person on its health care as Germany, Canada and everyone else, then it will face enormous economic problems. One of these problems is a serious budget deficit, since more than half of health care in the United States is paid by the government.
However, honest people would talk about the problem of health care costs, since nothing about the situation is helped if the government saves money by just cutting back its spending without fixing the system. In that case we would just be left with a situation in which tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of people could not afford decent health care.
So contrary to what NPR told its listeners, there is a very simple solution: fix health care.
That’s the question that listeners to All Things Considered must be asking after hearing Mara Liasson tell them:
“If you sit down with the numbers and look at what the government actually does and how it pays for it, it’s obvious that there is no simple solution.”
Actually, anyone who bothered to sit down and look at the numbers would see that there was not a big deficit problem by any realistic measure until the housing bubble collapsed. If NPR could find a reporter who could read a simple chart (to paraphrase Senator Simpson in one of his famous e-mails) they would quickly recognize that the debt to GDP ratio rose only modestly over the last business cycle, even with the huge increase in defense spending associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The real run-up in the deficits and the debt began in 2008. That’s right folks, it was the collapse of the housing bubble (which NPR never talked about) that led to the big deficits. While NPR is telling its listeners that the deficits are a problem, the deficits are giving people jobs. If we either cut spending or raised taxes we would be pulling money out of the economy and throwing people out of work.
In this sense, people who want lower deficits in the current slump want more people to lose their jobs. This is the same as people who want fish to live out of water effectively want them to die. It is possible that people who push for lower deficits do not know that this would mean throwing people out of work, just like it is possible that some people don’t know that fish cannot live out of water, but neither group of people should be working as a reporter for a serious news outlet.
The longer term deficit is also very simple. It is a problem of exploding health care costs. We currently spend more than twice as much per person for health care as the average for the countries that enjoy longer life expectancies than the United States. The long-term budget projections assume that this ratio will rise to three or four to one. If the United States spends four times as much per person on its health care as Germany, Canada and everyone else, then it will face enormous economic problems. One of these problems is a serious budget deficit, since more than half of health care in the United States is paid by the government.
However, honest people would talk about the problem of health care costs, since nothing about the situation is helped if the government saves money by just cutting back its spending without fixing the system. In that case we would just be left with a situation in which tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of people could not afford decent health care.
So contrary to what NPR told its listeners, there is a very simple solution: fix health care.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Warren Buffet has a thank you note in the NYT. He certainly owes a big thanks to the taxpayers, after all he put a $10 billion bet on Goldman Sachs at the peak of the crisis. Without our help, he would have lost his whole bet.
Of course the issue is not as he presents it here. The question was not whether or not the government did something to keep the financial system functioning. The question was whether the rescue would save investors like Buffet, who were knowingly taken big risks with their money, the highly paid executives of the major banks, and preserve the speculative culture of Wall Street.
That’s what TARP was about. Mr. Buffet has very good grounds to be thankful that the rescue was structured to make preserving the wealth of the wealthy the top priority. The 25 million unemployed and underemployed people may feel differently.
Warren Buffet has a thank you note in the NYT. He certainly owes a big thanks to the taxpayers, after all he put a $10 billion bet on Goldman Sachs at the peak of the crisis. Without our help, he would have lost his whole bet.
Of course the issue is not as he presents it here. The question was not whether or not the government did something to keep the financial system functioning. The question was whether the rescue would save investors like Buffet, who were knowingly taken big risks with their money, the highly paid executives of the major banks, and preserve the speculative culture of Wall Street.
That’s what TARP was about. Mr. Buffet has very good grounds to be thankful that the rescue was structured to make preserving the wealth of the wealthy the top priority. The 25 million unemployed and underemployed people may feel differently.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT referred to the trade pacts with South Korea, Panama and Colombia as “free-trade” agreements. Of course this is inaccurate. They do not free all trade, most notable trade in highly paid professional services like physicians and lawyers’ services. These areas are highly protected by conscious policy. The deals also increase protection in some areas, most notably for patents and copyrights.
Trade pacts have been unpopular with much of the country because they have been designed to place manufacturing workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing working, thereby driving down their wages. By contrast, they have largely left in place the protection from such competition enjoyed by the highest paid workers. As a result, they have contributed to the growth of income inequality in the last three decades.
The NYT referred to the trade pacts with South Korea, Panama and Colombia as “free-trade” agreements. Of course this is inaccurate. They do not free all trade, most notable trade in highly paid professional services like physicians and lawyers’ services. These areas are highly protected by conscious policy. The deals also increase protection in some areas, most notably for patents and copyrights.
Trade pacts have been unpopular with much of the country because they have been designed to place manufacturing workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing working, thereby driving down their wages. By contrast, they have largely left in place the protection from such competition enjoyed by the highest paid workers. As a result, they have contributed to the growth of income inequality in the last three decades.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
David Leonhardt has a good piece pointing out the simple fact that more rapid economic growth will substantially reduce the budget deficit. However he overlooks an important part of the story.
More rapid growth makes the country richer. In his hypothesized growth speed-up, the country grows 0.5 percentage points more rapidly on average over the next two decades. If this happened, then people would be roughly 10 percent better off on average in 2030 than under current projections.
If people are wealthier, then the cost of sustaining the government would be less of a burden. For example, in this fast growth scenario if we had a tax increase equal to 1 percentage point of GDP in 2030 (a large tax increase), it would still leave people with roughly 9.0 percent more after-tax income than in the baseline scenario even without a tax increase.
In other words, if before tax income grows more rapidly, then after-tax income can increase rapidly even if a somewhat greater portion is diverted to the government in tax revenue. Since the deficit is often put as a generational issue, if workers 20 years from now enjoy much higher after-tax incomes than workers today (which they will in every plausible scenario), it is difficult to understand why anyone today should be troubled if workers in future decades will pay a higher tax rate.
David Leonhardt has a good piece pointing out the simple fact that more rapid economic growth will substantially reduce the budget deficit. However he overlooks an important part of the story.
More rapid growth makes the country richer. In his hypothesized growth speed-up, the country grows 0.5 percentage points more rapidly on average over the next two decades. If this happened, then people would be roughly 10 percent better off on average in 2030 than under current projections.
If people are wealthier, then the cost of sustaining the government would be less of a burden. For example, in this fast growth scenario if we had a tax increase equal to 1 percentage point of GDP in 2030 (a large tax increase), it would still leave people with roughly 9.0 percent more after-tax income than in the baseline scenario even without a tax increase.
In other words, if before tax income grows more rapidly, then after-tax income can increase rapidly even if a somewhat greater portion is diverted to the government in tax revenue. Since the deficit is often put as a generational issue, if workers 20 years from now enjoy much higher after-tax incomes than workers today (which they will in every plausible scenario), it is difficult to understand why anyone today should be troubled if workers in future decades will pay a higher tax rate.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
