The NYT ran a piece today on a growing tendency for producers of unauthorized copies of merchandise to copy less high end items. The piece uses the term “knockoff” and “counterfeit” interchangeably. In fact, there is a very important and fundamental difference.
A counterfeit item is intended to fool the buyer. Its sales price depends on the buyer believing that they are getting something they are not. By contrast, buyers of unauthorized copies that are not counterfeit understand that they are not purchasing the brand item.
This distinction is important because the buyer is not being ripped off when they buy a knockoff that is not a counterfeit. They are getting what they paid for. This means, among other things, that the buyer cannot be expected to cooperate in efforts to crack down on such sales. The buyer is benefiting like the seller. In the case of an actual counterfeit item, the buyer is being ripped off and can be expected to cooperate with efforts to clamp down on counterfeiters.
This distinction also would be useful in understanding the meaning of the unsourced assertion that: “the counterfeiting industry … costs American businesses an estimated $200 billion a year.” If this is the amount of lost business associated with actual counterfeits, then this would largely be a loss to the economy. People paid $200 billion for items that they did not actually receive.
However, if this represents someone’s estimate (a source would be helpful) of the lost sales to business associated with unauthorized copies, then this figure could be consistent with a net gain to the economy. Consumers were able to buy products at lower prices — often much lower prices — than would have been possible without the copies. In this case the gains would likely dwarf the benefits from NAFTA or other trade agreements.
The NYT ran a piece today on a growing tendency for producers of unauthorized copies of merchandise to copy less high end items. The piece uses the term “knockoff” and “counterfeit” interchangeably. In fact, there is a very important and fundamental difference.
A counterfeit item is intended to fool the buyer. Its sales price depends on the buyer believing that they are getting something they are not. By contrast, buyers of unauthorized copies that are not counterfeit understand that they are not purchasing the brand item.
This distinction is important because the buyer is not being ripped off when they buy a knockoff that is not a counterfeit. They are getting what they paid for. This means, among other things, that the buyer cannot be expected to cooperate in efforts to crack down on such sales. The buyer is benefiting like the seller. In the case of an actual counterfeit item, the buyer is being ripped off and can be expected to cooperate with efforts to clamp down on counterfeiters.
This distinction also would be useful in understanding the meaning of the unsourced assertion that: “the counterfeiting industry … costs American businesses an estimated $200 billion a year.” If this is the amount of lost business associated with actual counterfeits, then this would largely be a loss to the economy. People paid $200 billion for items that they did not actually receive.
However, if this represents someone’s estimate (a source would be helpful) of the lost sales to business associated with unauthorized copies, then this figure could be consistent with a net gain to the economy. Consumers were able to buy products at lower prices — often much lower prices — than would have been possible without the copies. In this case the gains would likely dwarf the benefits from NAFTA or other trade agreements.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT reported on new projections from the Population Reference Bureau showing continuing increases in population in the developing world and slow or negative growth in wealthy countries. Low birth rates in the wealthy countries are projected to lead to a rise in the ratio of retirees to workers. The NYT described this prospect as “sobering.”
There is no obvious reason that people in wealthy countries should be concerned about the prospect of a rising ratio of retirees to workers. This ratio has been increasing for a century. The projected increase in the elderly dependency ratio is largely offset by a decline in the number of dependent children. At the worst, the rise in the dependency ratio will offset some of the gains in wage growth associated with rising productivity, as has been the case in prior decades. So, it is not clear what the NYT wants readers to find “sobering” about this news.
The article also implied that a large jump in the share of GDP going to Social Security and Medicare is due to the aging of the population. Much of the cause of the projected increase in spending on these programs is the projected increase in per person health care costs. If per person health care costs in the United States fell to the levels in Germany or Canada, the share of GDP devoted to these programs in 2050 would be little different from what it is at present.
The NYT reported on new projections from the Population Reference Bureau showing continuing increases in population in the developing world and slow or negative growth in wealthy countries. Low birth rates in the wealthy countries are projected to lead to a rise in the ratio of retirees to workers. The NYT described this prospect as “sobering.”
There is no obvious reason that people in wealthy countries should be concerned about the prospect of a rising ratio of retirees to workers. This ratio has been increasing for a century. The projected increase in the elderly dependency ratio is largely offset by a decline in the number of dependent children. At the worst, the rise in the dependency ratio will offset some of the gains in wage growth associated with rising productivity, as has been the case in prior decades. So, it is not clear what the NYT wants readers to find “sobering” about this news.
The article also implied that a large jump in the share of GDP going to Social Security and Medicare is due to the aging of the population. Much of the cause of the projected increase in spending on these programs is the projected increase in per person health care costs. If per person health care costs in the United States fell to the levels in Germany or Canada, the share of GDP devoted to these programs in 2050 would be little different from what it is at present.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post simply cannot let go on its deficit obsession. The day after a new GDP report indicates that the unemployment rate will remain near double-digit levels long into the future, the Post’s lead editorial warns people that something really bad could happen ten years out if we don’t deal with the deficit. As is their way, the Post never discusses the situation honestly. It begins by telling readers that:
“increasingly, ‘the public’ [in “publicly held debt] means foreign governments and investors.”
Why does it matter that foreigners hold government debt? Why would anyone care? There is an issue about foreign ownership of U.S. assets, which means that future income on these assets will flow abroad rather than to people in the United States, but this is as much or more of an issue of foreigners holding private assets like U.S. stocks and bonds. Furthermore, foreigner’s acquisition of U.S. assets is tied to the trade deficit and the value of the dollar. If the Post is upset about foreigners holding too many U.S. assets than it should be editorializing for a reduction in the value of the dollar. Hasn’t anyone on its editorial board taken econ 101?
The Post fails to mention the two factors that are driving its deficit/debt horror story. First is the debt that is being accumulated simply due to the downturn. I guess since they don’t seem to have access to government data at the Post’s editorial board they don’t know about the high level of unemployment and the severe recession driving up deficits. The prospect of these deficits creating a high interest burden for future generations can be largely eliminated if the Federal Reserve Board just bought and held the bonds used to finance this deficit.
If that seems implausible, there is a good example of exactly this being done on a small island nation called “Japan.” Over the last 15 years, Japan’s central bank has bought up an amount of government debt that is almost equal to Japan’s GDP. As a result, Japan’s interest burden is less than 2.0 percent of GDP (@ $290 billion a year in the U.S.) even though its ratio of debt to GDP is close to 220 percent. In spite of this massive intervention by the central bank, Japan continues to be plagued by deflation, not inflation.
The other factor driving the deficit projections is the projected explosion of U.S. health care costs. If the U.S. faced the same per person health care costs as people in other wealthy countries we would be looking at surpluses, not deficits. However, the Post — as a bastion of deficit chicken hawkism — doesn’t like to talk about health care reforms that would threaten the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, insurance industry and other powerful groups. They just want to cut programs like Social Security and Medicare that benefit ordinary workers.
The Washington Post simply cannot let go on its deficit obsession. The day after a new GDP report indicates that the unemployment rate will remain near double-digit levels long into the future, the Post’s lead editorial warns people that something really bad could happen ten years out if we don’t deal with the deficit. As is their way, the Post never discusses the situation honestly. It begins by telling readers that:
“increasingly, ‘the public’ [in “publicly held debt] means foreign governments and investors.”
Why does it matter that foreigners hold government debt? Why would anyone care? There is an issue about foreign ownership of U.S. assets, which means that future income on these assets will flow abroad rather than to people in the United States, but this is as much or more of an issue of foreigners holding private assets like U.S. stocks and bonds. Furthermore, foreigner’s acquisition of U.S. assets is tied to the trade deficit and the value of the dollar. If the Post is upset about foreigners holding too many U.S. assets than it should be editorializing for a reduction in the value of the dollar. Hasn’t anyone on its editorial board taken econ 101?
The Post fails to mention the two factors that are driving its deficit/debt horror story. First is the debt that is being accumulated simply due to the downturn. I guess since they don’t seem to have access to government data at the Post’s editorial board they don’t know about the high level of unemployment and the severe recession driving up deficits. The prospect of these deficits creating a high interest burden for future generations can be largely eliminated if the Federal Reserve Board just bought and held the bonds used to finance this deficit.
If that seems implausible, there is a good example of exactly this being done on a small island nation called “Japan.” Over the last 15 years, Japan’s central bank has bought up an amount of government debt that is almost equal to Japan’s GDP. As a result, Japan’s interest burden is less than 2.0 percent of GDP (@ $290 billion a year in the U.S.) even though its ratio of debt to GDP is close to 220 percent. In spite of this massive intervention by the central bank, Japan continues to be plagued by deflation, not inflation.
The other factor driving the deficit projections is the projected explosion of U.S. health care costs. If the U.S. faced the same per person health care costs as people in other wealthy countries we would be looking at surpluses, not deficits. However, the Post — as a bastion of deficit chicken hawkism — doesn’t like to talk about health care reforms that would threaten the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, insurance industry and other powerful groups. They just want to cut programs like Social Security and Medicare that benefit ordinary workers.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The WSJ has an article today about Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s efforts to promote FDIC Chair Sheila Bair as the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Near the end, it notes the support for Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren, the leading contender, but then tells readers that: “others worry that choosing someone seen as too activist—a charge leveled at Ms. Warren—could turn public sentiment against from the agency.”
This naturally leads readers to wonder about the identity of these mysterious “others.” Do they have names? Do they have specific positions relevant to this discussion (e.g. CEOs at Bank of America and Citigroup) or are they just a random cross-section of America?
And what does it mean that activism will “turn public sentiment from the agency?” It is believable that the financial industry will be upset about the agency if they block many of their initiatives, but do we really think this would spark a mass uprising?
If only we knew who these mysterious others are then we could ask them such questions. But as it stands — it’s all so mysterious.
Hat tip to Gary Therkildson.
The WSJ has an article today about Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s efforts to promote FDIC Chair Sheila Bair as the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Near the end, it notes the support for Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren, the leading contender, but then tells readers that: “others worry that choosing someone seen as too activist—a charge leveled at Ms. Warren—could turn public sentiment against from the agency.”
This naturally leads readers to wonder about the identity of these mysterious “others.” Do they have names? Do they have specific positions relevant to this discussion (e.g. CEOs at Bank of America and Citigroup) or are they just a random cross-section of America?
And what does it mean that activism will “turn public sentiment from the agency?” It is believable that the financial industry will be upset about the agency if they block many of their initiatives, but do we really think this would spark a mass uprising?
If only we knew who these mysterious others are then we could ask them such questions. But as it stands — it’s all so mysterious.
Hat tip to Gary Therkildson.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Normal 0
As we all know, there are two types of people in the world: those who say that there are two types of people in the world, and those who don’t. David Brooks tells us today that he is in the former category.
He etches out two fundamental positions in economic policy debates. On the one hand are the Obama liberals who believe in an expanded role for government in directing the economy. Brooks’ Obama liberals believe that the government has to rein in business and protect the citizenry.
His other pole is the Paul Ryan conservative. Paul Ryan conservatives believe in unleashing the power of individual entrepreneurs. They want to get the government out of the way by privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and other programs currently provided by the government.
The David Brooks categorization gives us a great fairy tale about the battle of big government liberals versus market-oriented conservatives. But, suppose we step back to the real world for a moment. Let’s imagine that we want to structure the government and market to provide services in the most efficient way and don’t particularly care about whether that means big or small government, which are not well-defined concepts in any case. Outside of David Brooksland, there are many people who hold this view.
When we consider a program like Social Security, we would ask how to carry through its purpose – ensuring workers a core retirement income— at the least possible cost. Any serious analysis would almost certainly show that some public Social Security type program fits the bill.
The administrative costs of the Social Security program are approximately 0.6 percent of what is paid out in benefits each year. By contrast, the administrative costs of privatized systems like the ones in Chile and the U.K. are on the order of 15-20 percent of the benefits paid out annually.
Furthermore, these privatized systems do not allow individuals to do what they want with their money. They threaten them with jail if they don’t turn over a fraction of their earnings to the financial industry each year. So the commitment to a privatized Social Security system seems more like a commitment to force people to give money to Merrill Lynch than a commitment to individual freedom.
The same applies to privatizing Medicare. We can hand people vouchers and tell them to buy the health care they want. However, this would require a massive array of laws and bureaucracy to ensure that the providers accepting these vouchers were not gaming the system and ripping off beneficiaries and the government. This approach can increase profits for insurers and providers but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it would make it possible to provide the elderly with health care at a lower cost.
We can take steps to lower costs and reduce the role of government that will send David Brooks’ small government types fleeing in horror. Suppose that we got rid of government patent monopolies and allowed all prescription drugs to be sold at generic prices in a competitive market. Free market types should love this one. Instead of drugs selling for hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars per prescription, they could be bought at chain drug stores for five or ten bucks.
The research could be supported by government research grants awarded through competitive contracts. The government already spends $30 billion a year on biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health. If this sum was doubled, then it would probably be sufficient to replace the industry’s funding; especially if a requirement of getting grants was that all research findings would be posted on the Internet where they would be freely available to other researchers.
We could also try a variation of the Paul Ryan approach to Medicare vouchers. Instead of creating an incredibly burdensome task of policing a privatized system in the United States, we can allow beneficiaries the option to buy into the much more efficient systems in Europe, Canada and elsewhere. Free market types should love this win-win situation where giving beneficiaries a choice will allow taxpayers to save money on Medicare and put large sums of money (more than $10,000 a year in many cases) into the pockets of our retired workers. But, this voucher system means less money for the insurers, the drug companies and other providers, so Paul Ryan would not support it.
There are many other cases where smaller government can be used to accomplish the progressive goals of providing basic needs and limiting inequality[CSN]. But Paul Ryan and his friends are not likely to be interested in these policies. This might suggest that, in spite of what David Brooks tells us, Mr. Ryan’s concern is not reducing the size of government, but rather redistributing income upward.
Of course, upward redistribution of income is not a very good political platform since there are many more people who end up losers in this story than winners. And, in a democracy, politicians are unlikely to win elections if they promise to take money out of most voters’ pockets.
So, Mr. Ryan and David Brooks come up with stories about how conservatives want to limit government and unleash individual entrepreneurs. The story might have little basis in reality, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t get it in the NYT and persuade lots of people to take it seriously.
Normal 0
As we all know, there are two types of people in the world: those who say that there are two types of people in the world, and those who don’t. David Brooks tells us today that he is in the former category.
He etches out two fundamental positions in economic policy debates. On the one hand are the Obama liberals who believe in an expanded role for government in directing the economy. Brooks’ Obama liberals believe that the government has to rein in business and protect the citizenry.
His other pole is the Paul Ryan conservative. Paul Ryan conservatives believe in unleashing the power of individual entrepreneurs. They want to get the government out of the way by privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and other programs currently provided by the government.
The David Brooks categorization gives us a great fairy tale about the battle of big government liberals versus market-oriented conservatives. But, suppose we step back to the real world for a moment. Let’s imagine that we want to structure the government and market to provide services in the most efficient way and don’t particularly care about whether that means big or small government, which are not well-defined concepts in any case. Outside of David Brooksland, there are many people who hold this view.
When we consider a program like Social Security, we would ask how to carry through its purpose – ensuring workers a core retirement income— at the least possible cost. Any serious analysis would almost certainly show that some public Social Security type program fits the bill.
The administrative costs of the Social Security program are approximately 0.6 percent of what is paid out in benefits each year. By contrast, the administrative costs of privatized systems like the ones in Chile and the U.K. are on the order of 15-20 percent of the benefits paid out annually.
Furthermore, these privatized systems do not allow individuals to do what they want with their money. They threaten them with jail if they don’t turn over a fraction of their earnings to the financial industry each year. So the commitment to a privatized Social Security system seems more like a commitment to force people to give money to Merrill Lynch than a commitment to individual freedom.
The same applies to privatizing Medicare. We can hand people vouchers and tell them to buy the health care they want. However, this would require a massive array of laws and bureaucracy to ensure that the providers accepting these vouchers were not gaming the system and ripping off beneficiaries and the government. This approach can increase profits for insurers and providers but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it would make it possible to provide the elderly with health care at a lower cost.
We can take steps to lower costs and reduce the role of government that will send David Brooks’ small government types fleeing in horror. Suppose that we got rid of government patent monopolies and allowed all prescription drugs to be sold at generic prices in a competitive market. Free market types should love this one. Instead of drugs selling for hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars per prescription, they could be bought at chain drug stores for five or ten bucks.
The research could be supported by government research grants awarded through competitive contracts. The government already spends $30 billion a year on biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health. If this sum was doubled, then it would probably be sufficient to replace the industry’s funding; especially if a requirement of getting grants was that all research findings would be posted on the Internet where they would be freely available to other researchers.
We could also try a variation of the Paul Ryan approach to Medicare vouchers. Instead of creating an incredibly burdensome task of policing a privatized system in the United States, we can allow beneficiaries the option to buy into the much more efficient systems in Europe, Canada and elsewhere. Free market types should love this win-win situation where giving beneficiaries a choice will allow taxpayers to save money on Medicare and put large sums of money (more than $10,000 a year in many cases) into the pockets of our retired workers. But, this voucher system means less money for the insurers, the drug companies and other providers, so Paul Ryan would not support it.
There are many other cases where smaller government can be used to accomplish the progressive goals of providing basic needs and limiting inequality[CSN]. But Paul Ryan and his friends are not likely to be interested in these policies. This might suggest that, in spite of what David Brooks tells us, Mr. Ryan’s concern is not reducing the size of government, but rather redistributing income upward.
Of course, upward redistribution of income is not a very good political platform since there are many more people who end up losers in this story than winners. And, in a democracy, politicians are unlikely to win elections if they promise to take money out of most voters’ pockets.
So, Mr. Ryan and David Brooks come up with stories about how conservatives want to limit government and unleash individual entrepreneurs. The story might have little basis in reality, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t get it in the NYT and persuade lots of people to take it seriously.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Economics seems to be the science of forgetting. All the great truths that were pounded into our heads when we grad students, or even undergrads, seem to be missing from the thinking of those making pronouncements on the economy and economic policy.
For example, the housing wealth effect, a well-established economic doctrine firmly rooted in the center of the discipline, seems to have disappeared from most discussion of consumer spending patterns. The basic point — that a dollar of additional housing wealth leads to 5-7 cents in additional consumption each year — explains both the consumption boom at the peak of the bubble and the falloff in consumption in the wake of its collapse. Instead of noting the huge amount of lost housing wealth and recognizing the drop in the consumption and rise in the saving rate are permanent, economists and economics reporters are looking at consumer attitudes and hoping that greater optimism will lead to a new spending boom.
In the same vein, it is remarkable how little attention a very classic inventory cycle has received in explaining the changes in GDP over the last five quarters. The basic story is that firms were shedding inventory as fast as they could in the 4th quarter of 2008, with the rate of decline increasing into the first quarter of 2008. Although inventories continued to decline in the second quarter, they declined at a slower rate, which meant that inventories added to growth. Eventually firms stopped cutting inventories and began rebuilding. In the most recent quarter they were adding inventories at a very rapid pace, $85.9 billion a year.
With the latest figure, the inventory cycle has come to an end. I don’t have a crystal ball telling me the rate of inventory accumulation in the next few quarters, but it is unlikely that it will be much higher than the current rate. This means that inventories will provide little boost to growth in future quarters, making GDP growth look like final demand growth and that is not very good.
While GDP growth has been erratic over the last four quarters, final demand growth has been much less so. It has been consistently weak, averaging just 1.2 percent. In the most recent quarter it was 1.3 percent. So unless we have some good reason for final demand growth increasing (state and local cutbacks, the end of the housing tax credit, and the phasing down of the stimulus all push the other way), we can expect very slow GDP growth for the next several quarters and rising unemployment.
Economics seems to be the science of forgetting. All the great truths that were pounded into our heads when we grad students, or even undergrads, seem to be missing from the thinking of those making pronouncements on the economy and economic policy.
For example, the housing wealth effect, a well-established economic doctrine firmly rooted in the center of the discipline, seems to have disappeared from most discussion of consumer spending patterns. The basic point — that a dollar of additional housing wealth leads to 5-7 cents in additional consumption each year — explains both the consumption boom at the peak of the bubble and the falloff in consumption in the wake of its collapse. Instead of noting the huge amount of lost housing wealth and recognizing the drop in the consumption and rise in the saving rate are permanent, economists and economics reporters are looking at consumer attitudes and hoping that greater optimism will lead to a new spending boom.
In the same vein, it is remarkable how little attention a very classic inventory cycle has received in explaining the changes in GDP over the last five quarters. The basic story is that firms were shedding inventory as fast as they could in the 4th quarter of 2008, with the rate of decline increasing into the first quarter of 2008. Although inventories continued to decline in the second quarter, they declined at a slower rate, which meant that inventories added to growth. Eventually firms stopped cutting inventories and began rebuilding. In the most recent quarter they were adding inventories at a very rapid pace, $85.9 billion a year.
With the latest figure, the inventory cycle has come to an end. I don’t have a crystal ball telling me the rate of inventory accumulation in the next few quarters, but it is unlikely that it will be much higher than the current rate. This means that inventories will provide little boost to growth in future quarters, making GDP growth look like final demand growth and that is not very good.
While GDP growth has been erratic over the last four quarters, final demand growth has been much less so. It has been consistently weak, averaging just 1.2 percent. In the most recent quarter it was 1.3 percent. So unless we have some good reason for final demand growth increasing (state and local cutbacks, the end of the housing tax credit, and the phasing down of the stimulus all push the other way), we can expect very slow GDP growth for the next several quarters and rising unemployment.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Post noted the weak economic data in recent weeks and then told readers:
“fits and starts are common during early stages of economic expansion.”
This is not true for recoveries from steep downturns like the one the U.S. has just experienced. In the first four quarters of recovery following the 1974-75 recession the economy grew 3.1 percent, 6.9 percent, 5.3 percent and 9.4 percent. In the first five quarters following the 1981-82 recession the economy grew by 5.3 percent, 9.3 percent, 8.1 percent, 8.5 percent, and 8.0 percent.
We should be seeing robust economic growth right now based on past patterns. It is a very bad sign that we are not.
The Post noted the weak economic data in recent weeks and then told readers:
“fits and starts are common during early stages of economic expansion.”
This is not true for recoveries from steep downturns like the one the U.S. has just experienced. In the first four quarters of recovery following the 1974-75 recession the economy grew 3.1 percent, 6.9 percent, 5.3 percent and 9.4 percent. In the first five quarters following the 1981-82 recession the economy grew by 5.3 percent, 9.3 percent, 8.1 percent, 8.5 percent, and 8.0 percent.
We should be seeing robust economic growth right now based on past patterns. It is a very bad sign that we are not.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
This surprising result — that the failure to eat chicken leads to starvation — would be shown true using the same methodology of a new study on the impact of the TARP. The study, by Princeton University Professor Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, examines the impact of the TARP and the stimulus on economic growth and unemployment. It finds that GDP would be 11.5 percent lower in 2010 had it not been for these two policies, with about three quarters of the benefits attributable to the TARP and various Fed/Treasury/FDIC policies that provides aid to the financial sector.
While the analysis of the stimulus is pretty standard and very much in keeping with other estimates, this is not the case with the analysis of the financial sector policies. The problem with the study is the implicit counterfactual. It effectively assumes that if we did not do the TARP and related policies, that we would have done nothing even as the financial sector melted down.
This is comparable to doing an analysis of the benefits of eating chicken where the counterfactual is that people eat nothing. Needless to say, we would find very large benefits to eating chicken in such a study.
Suppose as an alternative counterfactual, we let the market do its work. Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley would be out of business, with their highly paid CEOs walking the unemployment lines. Rather than doing nothing, we could have the Fed flooding the system with liquidity (much as it did), without having to worry about money being siphoned off by bonuses for the honchos who led these banks to ruin.
It would be difficult to fully flesh out the counterfactual in this scenario, but it is certainly more plausible than the one described by Blinder and Zandi. If we need a study to make us feel good about the fact that the Wall Street is rich while the rest of the country is poor, it fits the bill, but it is not serious analysis and the media should not treat it as such.
This surprising result — that the failure to eat chicken leads to starvation — would be shown true using the same methodology of a new study on the impact of the TARP. The study, by Princeton University Professor Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, examines the impact of the TARP and the stimulus on economic growth and unemployment. It finds that GDP would be 11.5 percent lower in 2010 had it not been for these two policies, with about three quarters of the benefits attributable to the TARP and various Fed/Treasury/FDIC policies that provides aid to the financial sector.
While the analysis of the stimulus is pretty standard and very much in keeping with other estimates, this is not the case with the analysis of the financial sector policies. The problem with the study is the implicit counterfactual. It effectively assumes that if we did not do the TARP and related policies, that we would have done nothing even as the financial sector melted down.
This is comparable to doing an analysis of the benefits of eating chicken where the counterfactual is that people eat nothing. Needless to say, we would find very large benefits to eating chicken in such a study.
Suppose as an alternative counterfactual, we let the market do its work. Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley would be out of business, with their highly paid CEOs walking the unemployment lines. Rather than doing nothing, we could have the Fed flooding the system with liquidity (much as it did), without having to worry about money being siphoned off by bonuses for the honchos who led these banks to ruin.
It would be difficult to fully flesh out the counterfactual in this scenario, but it is certainly more plausible than the one described by Blinder and Zandi. If we need a study to make us feel good about the fact that the Wall Street is rich while the rest of the country is poor, it fits the bill, but it is not serious analysis and the media should not treat it as such.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It is incredible that economists and economic reporters still focus on consumer confidence. Consumers are actually spending at a relatively high rate. (The savings rate is well below historic levels.) The problem is that they lost $8 trillion in housing wealth. The housing wealth effect on consumption is something that economists have known about for more than 60 years. It’s too bad that they seem to have forgotten and so have the reporters who cover this issue.
The problem is not confidence. It is a lack of money. That is why consumers are not spending more and will not anytime soon regardless of how happy they are.
It is incredible that economists and economic reporters still focus on consumer confidence. Consumers are actually spending at a relatively high rate. (The savings rate is well below historic levels.) The problem is that they lost $8 trillion in housing wealth. The housing wealth effect on consumption is something that economists have known about for more than 60 years. It’s too bad that they seem to have forgotten and so have the reporters who cover this issue.
The problem is not confidence. It is a lack of money. That is why consumers are not spending more and will not anytime soon regardless of how happy they are.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That is what readers of an NYT article on higher shipping fees for faster service must be wondering. The article tells readers that shippers now have a shortage of space because:
“With little demand for shipping, ocean carriers took ships out of service: more than 11 percent of the global shipping fleet was idle in spring 2009, according to AXS-Alphaliner, an industry consultant.”
Okay, so we are seeing a big run-up in prices and, “fighting for freight, retailers are outbidding each other to score scarce cargo space on ships, paying two to three times last year’s freight rates — in some cases.”
ummm, what happened to the 11 percent of shipping fleet that is now idle? The article does make a brief reference to this idle capacity later, noting that firms are reluctant to bring it back on line. This sounds a bit like a case of collusion to keep prices high. It might make for a good article by an enterprising reporter.
(I’m back from the DC power failure – 32 hours in my hood.)
That is what readers of an NYT article on higher shipping fees for faster service must be wondering. The article tells readers that shippers now have a shortage of space because:
“With little demand for shipping, ocean carriers took ships out of service: more than 11 percent of the global shipping fleet was idle in spring 2009, according to AXS-Alphaliner, an industry consultant.”
Okay, so we are seeing a big run-up in prices and, “fighting for freight, retailers are outbidding each other to score scarce cargo space on ships, paying two to three times last year’s freight rates — in some cases.”
ummm, what happened to the 11 percent of shipping fleet that is now idle? The article does make a brief reference to this idle capacity later, noting that firms are reluctant to bring it back on line. This sounds a bit like a case of collusion to keep prices high. It might make for a good article by an enterprising reporter.
(I’m back from the DC power failure – 32 hours in my hood.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
