Howard Kurtz, the Post’s media critic, had a lengthy profile of NYT columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman in the paper today. At one point Kurtz told readers that:
“Many other White House officials [other than Larry Summers] view Krugman as an irritant who has become predictable and whiny in his criticism.”
Actually, Mr. Kurtz doesn’t know how other White House officials actually view Krugman, he only knows how they say they view Krugman. Since Krugman has been a harsh critic of many Obama administration policies, the unnamed White House officials would have good reason to try to discredit Krugman to the public regardless of whether or not they thought these criticisms were accurate.
This is why a competent reporter would write that:
“White House officials say they view Krugman as an irritant who has become predictable and whiny in his criticism.”
This would accurately convey information to readers instead of serving the White House public relations effort.
Howard Kurtz, the Post’s media critic, had a lengthy profile of NYT columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman in the paper today. At one point Kurtz told readers that:
“Many other White House officials [other than Larry Summers] view Krugman as an irritant who has become predictable and whiny in his criticism.”
Actually, Mr. Kurtz doesn’t know how other White House officials actually view Krugman, he only knows how they say they view Krugman. Since Krugman has been a harsh critic of many Obama administration policies, the unnamed White House officials would have good reason to try to discredit Krugman to the public regardless of whether or not they thought these criticisms were accurate.
This is why a competent reporter would write that:
“White House officials say they view Krugman as an irritant who has become predictable and whiny in his criticism.”
This would accurately convey information to readers instead of serving the White House public relations effort.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s right NYT columnist Ross Douthat told readers today that: “And as everybody knows, the only way to really bring the budget into balance is to reform (i.e., cut) Medicare and Social Security.”
Of course everybody who knows anything about the budget knows full well that this is not true. The budget problem is almost entirely a story of a broken health care system. If the United States had the same per person health care costs as any of the countries which enjoy longer life expectancies than the United States, then it would be facing long-term budget surpluses, not deficits.
Everybody also knows that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. It is financed by a separate designated tax. The most recent projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that this tax will be sufficient to fully fund benefits through the year 2039 with no changes whatsoever.
Given the health of the program, it is not clear why anyone would want to cut Social Security except to take money from ordinary workers — a major sport in Washington. It would make more sense to default on the national debt.
That’s right NYT columnist Ross Douthat told readers today that: “And as everybody knows, the only way to really bring the budget into balance is to reform (i.e., cut) Medicare and Social Security.”
Of course everybody who knows anything about the budget knows full well that this is not true. The budget problem is almost entirely a story of a broken health care system. If the United States had the same per person health care costs as any of the countries which enjoy longer life expectancies than the United States, then it would be facing long-term budget surpluses, not deficits.
Everybody also knows that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. It is financed by a separate designated tax. The most recent projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that this tax will be sufficient to fully fund benefits through the year 2039 with no changes whatsoever.
Given the health of the program, it is not clear why anyone would want to cut Social Security except to take money from ordinary workers — a major sport in Washington. It would make more sense to default on the national debt.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Princeton University Professor Uwe Reinhardt does not believe that it is possible to keep per person health care costs from rising from twice the average in the countries with longer life expectancies than the United States to more than four times the average in countries with longer life expectancies. Of course there are obvious ways to get costs done, such as the $270 billion a year that could be saved by eliminating government patent monopolies for prescription drugs and adopting a more efficient mechanism for financing drug research.
But the easiest mechanism to eliminate these enormous price differentials would be to simply open the market to international trade and allow people in the United States to take advantage of the more efficient health care systems in other countries. Too bad the NYT’s economists don’t believe in free trade.
Princeton University Professor Uwe Reinhardt does not believe that it is possible to keep per person health care costs from rising from twice the average in the countries with longer life expectancies than the United States to more than four times the average in countries with longer life expectancies. Of course there are obvious ways to get costs done, such as the $270 billion a year that could be saved by eliminating government patent monopolies for prescription drugs and adopting a more efficient mechanism for financing drug research.
But the easiest mechanism to eliminate these enormous price differentials would be to simply open the market to international trade and allow people in the United States to take advantage of the more efficient health care systems in other countries. Too bad the NYT’s economists don’t believe in free trade.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Most workers are held accountable for their performance. The same does not apply at the Washington Post for the people who run economic policy. Once again the Post offered praise to Presidents Bush and Obama for preventing a Great Depression.
Of course it is always good to prevent a Great Depression, but the only reason a severe recession is even on the agenda is the result of braindead economic policies that were almost entirely ignored by the Washington Post. In the real world avoiding a Great Depression is a rather weak boast. (For the record, the second “Great Depression” story is a myth to scare little children and Post readers. The first Great Depression was the result of a decade of failed policies, not a single mistake or set of mistakes at its onset.)
Competent economists saw and warned of the dangers of the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which eventually sank the economy. This was an entirely predictable and predicted event, as was the fallout from this collapse.
However, those warning of the bubble were almost completely excluded from the pages of the Post. Instead, the Post filled its economic coverage and opinion pages with discussions of the budget deficit, which was (and is) the topic of endless hyperventilation.
Most workers are held accountable for their performance. The same does not apply at the Washington Post for the people who run economic policy. Once again the Post offered praise to Presidents Bush and Obama for preventing a Great Depression.
Of course it is always good to prevent a Great Depression, but the only reason a severe recession is even on the agenda is the result of braindead economic policies that were almost entirely ignored by the Washington Post. In the real world avoiding a Great Depression is a rather weak boast. (For the record, the second “Great Depression” story is a myth to scare little children and Post readers. The first Great Depression was the result of a decade of failed policies, not a single mistake or set of mistakes at its onset.)
Competent economists saw and warned of the dangers of the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which eventually sank the economy. This was an entirely predictable and predicted event, as was the fallout from this collapse.
However, those warning of the bubble were almost completely excluded from the pages of the Post. Instead, the Post filled its economic coverage and opinion pages with discussions of the budget deficit, which was (and is) the topic of endless hyperventilation.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Yes, they work cheap, but is it a good thing to have a group of especially low-paid workers in the United States? That is the question that goes unaddressed in Ezra Klein’s column hyping recent research suggesting that immigrants do not lower the wages of even less-educated workers.
While there are some issues about the research findings (rent, which is a large share of low-wage workers’ budgets, is far higher in cities with large immigrant concentrations [e.g. Los Angeles and Miami] than in cities with relatively few immigrants [e.g. Buffalo and Toledo] which makes real wage comparisons difficult), the implications are a bit more complicated than suggested in the column.
Essentially the research implies that less-skilled immigrants have formed an underclass that is paid so poorly that its size does not affect the wages of even the least skilled native born workers. This would be consistent with the findings of other research that it is taking far longer now than in prior decades for immigrants’ wages to catch up with the wages of native born workers. As would be expected, new immigrants primarily compete with other earlier immigrants, so a more rapid flow depresses their wages.
There are some statements (derived from the cited research) that are simply untrue. There are very few jobs done by less-skilled immigrants that would not be done by native-born workers. They would be done, just at much higher wages. For example, the jobs in construction and meat-packing that are now filled largely by immigrants used to be filled by native born workers, and in fact were often sought out. But, the pay in these sectors has fallen sharply and many fewer native born workers are now willing to fill the jobs. However, there is nothing intrinsic to the jobs that makes them unsuitable for native-born workers.
Klein is right about the enormous potential gains from allowing in more highly-skilled immigrants but does not carry the point far enough. If the United States adopted more transparent professional and licensing standards for doctors and lawyers and other highly paid professionals, and adopted an open door policy for foreigners who met these standards, we could send pay in these professions plummeting. There would be enormous gains to consumers and the economy, which would swamp the marginal benefit of getting lower cost construction workers and custodians. However, doctors and lawyers have enough power to prevent such policies from being adopted and generally from even being discussed.
Yes, they work cheap, but is it a good thing to have a group of especially low-paid workers in the United States? That is the question that goes unaddressed in Ezra Klein’s column hyping recent research suggesting that immigrants do not lower the wages of even less-educated workers.
While there are some issues about the research findings (rent, which is a large share of low-wage workers’ budgets, is far higher in cities with large immigrant concentrations [e.g. Los Angeles and Miami] than in cities with relatively few immigrants [e.g. Buffalo and Toledo] which makes real wage comparisons difficult), the implications are a bit more complicated than suggested in the column.
Essentially the research implies that less-skilled immigrants have formed an underclass that is paid so poorly that its size does not affect the wages of even the least skilled native born workers. This would be consistent with the findings of other research that it is taking far longer now than in prior decades for immigrants’ wages to catch up with the wages of native born workers. As would be expected, new immigrants primarily compete with other earlier immigrants, so a more rapid flow depresses their wages.
There are some statements (derived from the cited research) that are simply untrue. There are very few jobs done by less-skilled immigrants that would not be done by native-born workers. They would be done, just at much higher wages. For example, the jobs in construction and meat-packing that are now filled largely by immigrants used to be filled by native born workers, and in fact were often sought out. But, the pay in these sectors has fallen sharply and many fewer native born workers are now willing to fill the jobs. However, there is nothing intrinsic to the jobs that makes them unsuitable for native-born workers.
Klein is right about the enormous potential gains from allowing in more highly-skilled immigrants but does not carry the point far enough. If the United States adopted more transparent professional and licensing standards for doctors and lawyers and other highly paid professionals, and adopted an open door policy for foreigners who met these standards, we could send pay in these professions plummeting. There would be enormous gains to consumers and the economy, which would swamp the marginal benefit of getting lower cost construction workers and custodians. However, doctors and lawyers have enough power to prevent such policies from being adopted and generally from even being discussed.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Post told readers that Republicans who complain about a bloated federal work force have the view that:
“new hires under Obama and the premium are helping to drive the deficit and discourage private investment that could boost the economy.”
Actually, they don’t usually say this since the claim is so obviously at odds with reality. With interest rates at 60 year lows, it is very hard to say how the deficit would be discouraging investment — as opposed to encouraging it by increasing demand. The argument against deficits usually involves name calling and hand waving. There is no obvious logic to it at this point and the Post is misleading readers by implying that there is.
The Post told readers that Republicans who complain about a bloated federal work force have the view that:
“new hires under Obama and the premium are helping to drive the deficit and discourage private investment that could boost the economy.”
Actually, they don’t usually say this since the claim is so obviously at odds with reality. With interest rates at 60 year lows, it is very hard to say how the deficit would be discouraging investment — as opposed to encouraging it by increasing demand. The argument against deficits usually involves name calling and hand waving. There is no obvious logic to it at this point and the Post is misleading readers by implying that there is.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post ran another front page editorial calling for cuts to Social Security. The context was a discussion of the Republicans’ “Pledge to America.” The editorial complained that the plan did not include any concrete ways to deal with Social Security.
It then suggested that three ways that the Republicans should look to put the system into long-term balance: “raising the Social Security retirement age, changing the cost-of-living formula, offering personal or private accounts.” The first two measures are ones that are strongly supported by the Post editorial board (hence their appearance in this front page editorial), but strongly opposed by the vast majority of the public.
Insofar as it is necessary to address a funding gap (projections from the Congressional Budget Office show the program is fully solvent for the next 29 years with no changes whatsoever), polls show that the public overwhelmingly favors raising the cap on income subject to the payroll tax. Currently, high income workers only pay the Social Security tax on their first $106,000 in wages. Polls also show that the public much prefers even an increase in the tax rate itself to the cuts pushed by the Post editorial board.
It is also worth noting that offering private accounts is not a route toward improving the program’s finances. Private accounts worsen the finances of Social Security by pulling money out of the system. This would be like a family facing budget problems deciding to buy a new car to help the situation. Private accounts may be an effective way to get fee income to Wall Street banks, but they do not help the finances of Social Security.
The article also reports on the Republicans calls for a “full accounting” of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It would have been appropriate to point out that there is already a very full accounting of these programs. The trustees of both Social Security and Medicare issue lengthy accounts of the programs’ finances each year. (They do refuse to disclose the documents that provide the basis for these projections. However, the Republicans did not imply that they would make these public.) The Congressional Budget Office does regular analyses of all three programs. The Government Accountability Office also periodically evaluates specific issues connected with these programs on request from members of Congress as does the Congressional Research Service. In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Research does extensive analysis of Medicare and Medicaid, along with other government health care programs.
In this context, the Republican call for a “full accounting” would appear to be a quest for a pointless government bureaucracy that would duplicate work already being done. A serious news article would have called attention to the Republicans’ push for needless bureaucracy.
The Washington Post ran another front page editorial calling for cuts to Social Security. The context was a discussion of the Republicans’ “Pledge to America.” The editorial complained that the plan did not include any concrete ways to deal with Social Security.
It then suggested that three ways that the Republicans should look to put the system into long-term balance: “raising the Social Security retirement age, changing the cost-of-living formula, offering personal or private accounts.” The first two measures are ones that are strongly supported by the Post editorial board (hence their appearance in this front page editorial), but strongly opposed by the vast majority of the public.
Insofar as it is necessary to address a funding gap (projections from the Congressional Budget Office show the program is fully solvent for the next 29 years with no changes whatsoever), polls show that the public overwhelmingly favors raising the cap on income subject to the payroll tax. Currently, high income workers only pay the Social Security tax on their first $106,000 in wages. Polls also show that the public much prefers even an increase in the tax rate itself to the cuts pushed by the Post editorial board.
It is also worth noting that offering private accounts is not a route toward improving the program’s finances. Private accounts worsen the finances of Social Security by pulling money out of the system. This would be like a family facing budget problems deciding to buy a new car to help the situation. Private accounts may be an effective way to get fee income to Wall Street banks, but they do not help the finances of Social Security.
The article also reports on the Republicans calls for a “full accounting” of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It would have been appropriate to point out that there is already a very full accounting of these programs. The trustees of both Social Security and Medicare issue lengthy accounts of the programs’ finances each year. (They do refuse to disclose the documents that provide the basis for these projections. However, the Republicans did not imply that they would make these public.) The Congressional Budget Office does regular analyses of all three programs. The Government Accountability Office also periodically evaluates specific issues connected with these programs on request from members of Congress as does the Congressional Research Service. In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Research does extensive analysis of Medicare and Medicaid, along with other government health care programs.
In this context, the Republican call for a “full accounting” would appear to be a quest for a pointless government bureaucracy that would duplicate work already being done. A serious news article would have called attention to the Republicans’ push for needless bureaucracy.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had a front page article on the decision by regulators in the United States and Europe to restrict access to Avandia, a major drug for treating diabetes. The reason for the restriction was a new study that linked the drug to tens of thousands of heart attacks.
This assessment was based on an independent analysis of data from GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of the drug. GlaxoSmithKline did not do (or report) this analysis itself even though it had the data. The patent monopoly on Avandia granted by the government gave GlaxoSmithKline a strong incentive not to find the potential dangers of its drug. This failure of big government should have been noted in this article. (There are more efficient alternatives to patent monopolies for supporting prescription drug research.)
The NYT had a front page article on the decision by regulators in the United States and Europe to restrict access to Avandia, a major drug for treating diabetes. The reason for the restriction was a new study that linked the drug to tens of thousands of heart attacks.
This assessment was based on an independent analysis of data from GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of the drug. GlaxoSmithKline did not do (or report) this analysis itself even though it had the data. The patent monopoly on Avandia granted by the government gave GlaxoSmithKline a strong incentive not to find the potential dangers of its drug. This failure of big government should have been noted in this article. (There are more efficient alternatives to patent monopolies for supporting prescription drug research.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post, which is losing circulation rapidly, routinely misleads its readers about the burden of the national debt. First, it rarely puts debt and deficit numbers in any context. Telling readers that the debt will grow by $4 trillion over the next decade due to tax cuts is a meaningless statement to nearly all of its readers, who have no idea how large $4 trillion is. It would be a very simple matter to tell readers that this sum is approximately 2.3 percent of projected GDP over this period.
It also would be important to point out that debt accrued in a period of high unemployment, like the present, does not have to impose any current or future burden on the public since it can be fully financed by the Fed. If the Fed buys and holds the bonds used to finance the debt then the money paid by the government in interest would be refunded by the Fed every year creating no net interest burden for the government. Currently the Fed is refunding $77 billion a year to the government, more than one-third of the interest paid out by the government.
The Washington Post, which is losing circulation rapidly, routinely misleads its readers about the burden of the national debt. First, it rarely puts debt and deficit numbers in any context. Telling readers that the debt will grow by $4 trillion over the next decade due to tax cuts is a meaningless statement to nearly all of its readers, who have no idea how large $4 trillion is. It would be a very simple matter to tell readers that this sum is approximately 2.3 percent of projected GDP over this period.
It also would be important to point out that debt accrued in a period of high unemployment, like the present, does not have to impose any current or future burden on the public since it can be fully financed by the Fed. If the Fed buys and holds the bonds used to finance the debt then the money paid by the government in interest would be refunded by the Fed every year creating no net interest burden for the government. Currently the Fed is refunding $77 billion a year to the government, more than one-third of the interest paid out by the government.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
There was virtually no decline in the real value of the dollar against the Chinese yuan during President Bush’s presidency. This fact is an important point to mention in a Post article that told readers:
“The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has preferred to address the currency issue through diplomatic channels.”
The article misleadingly tells readers that, “negotiations won a 20 percent rise in the yuan during President George W. Bush’s tenure.” Virtually all of this increase was offset by the more rapid inflation rate in the United States, so the real value of the yuan against the dollar — the relevant variable for trade — changed little during the Bush years.
There was virtually no decline in the real value of the dollar against the Chinese yuan during President Bush’s presidency. This fact is an important point to mention in a Post article that told readers:
“The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has preferred to address the currency issue through diplomatic channels.”
The article misleadingly tells readers that, “negotiations won a 20 percent rise in the yuan during President George W. Bush’s tenure.” Virtually all of this increase was offset by the more rapid inflation rate in the United States, so the real value of the yuan against the dollar — the relevant variable for trade — changed little during the Bush years.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
