ES EN
Menu Menú

Publications

Publicaciones

Search Publications

Buscar publicaciones

Filters Filtro de búsqueda

to a

clear selection Quitar los filtros

none

Article Artículo

NYT Gets Trumpian In Its Criticism of Trump Tariffs

Donald Trump's trade wars seem to lack any logic and are likely to end up badly for both the United States and our trading partners, but that is not a good reason for serious people to start making up numbers to bolster their arguments. That is the route the NYT took in its latest editorial attacking Trump's tariffs.

While the piece makes many valid points, it includes many assertions that can at best be called "truthful hyperbole." For example, the piece tells readers that Trump's steel tariffs "meant a 40 percent increase since January in the cost of steel for their customers who use it in their finished products, according to the US Chamber of Commerce."

It's not clear where the Chamber of Commerce came up with this number, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that the price of steel mill products are up 10.4 percent over the last year. BLS is likely a more reliable source on this issue than the Chamber of Commerce which has been known to produce studies showing massive job loss from policies like minimum wage hikes or mandated family leave.

The piece also warns us about the impact of aluminum tariffs on domestic beer producers.

"Brewers are forecasting that they’ll pay $347.7 million more for aluminum cans. That has small craft-beer makers such as Melvin Brewing in Alpine, Wyo., which packages 75 percent of its products in cans, fretting about impending prices rises and the risks of passing them along to consumers."

It would have been useful to put this $347.7 million figure in context. Beer sales in the U.S. were over $34 billion in 2016, which means that the increased cost of aluminum is equal to roughly 1.0 percent of what the public spends on beer. We are supposed to believe that people paying $10 a six-pack for their craft beer, will get seriously bent out of shape if the six-pack now costs $10.10? (I actually would have thought most craft-beer is sold in bottles, but whatever.)

CEPR / June 16, 2018

Article Artículo

Affordable Care Act

Health and Social Programs

Inequality

Workers

CEO Pay: Still Not Related to Performance

Earlier this year we did an analysis of CEO compensation in the health insurance industry to see if it was affected by the cap on deductibility imposed by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). One of the provisions of the ACA limited the amount of CEO pay that health insurers could deduct on their taxes to $500,000, beginning in 2013.

This provision effectively raised the cost of CEO pay to insurers by more than 50 percent. Prior to 2013, the deduction in effect meant that the government was picking up 35 cents of every dollar of CEO pay, while the companies were paying just 65 cents.[1] With the new provision in place, insurers are now paying 100 cents of every dollar of CEO pay in excess of $500,000.

If the pay reflects the value of the CEO to the company, we should expect this change to reduce the pay of CEOs in the insurance industry. For example, if a CEO gets paid $20 million a year, this should mean that she delivers roughly $20 million in additional value to shareholders.

When the CEO’s pay was fully deductible, the $20 million paid to the CEO actually only cost the company $13 million. This would presumably be the number that matters to shareholders since they care about how much money comes out of their pockets, not the number on the CEO’s paycheck.

Dean Baker and Jessica Schieder / June 13, 2018

Article Artículo

Not Everything Trump Says on Trade is Wrong: Countries Don't Always Benefit from More Trade

Donald Trump's tendency to make things up as he goes along naturally prompts a strong reaction from people who try to approach issues in a serious way. But serious people can sometimes get carried away in this reaction.

Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post's fact checker, got a bit carried away in trying to set readers straight on Trump's bizarre claim we have a $100 billion trade deficit with Canada. (We do have a trade deficit, but it is closer to $20 billion.) In his Fact Check piece, Kessler asserts:

"If overall trade increases between nations, people in each country gain, no matter the size of the trade deficit."

This is not necessarily true. Let me go through two cases, one in which the countries are below full employment and one in which they are at full employment.

Suppose in the first case one country, let's say Denmark, decided to subsidize $100 billion of exported cars to the United States, displacing $100 billion of domestic production. The immediate effect of the increased imports from Denmark is a loss of output and employment in the United States.

In principle, the Danes have another $100 billion to buy goods and services from the United States, but suppose they don't like anything we sell. In the textbook story, they would dump their $100 billion on world currency markets, driving down the value of the dollar. This would make US goods and services relatively cheaper, thereby causing us to export more and import less, possibly fully offsetting the $100 billion in increased imports.

But suppose the evil Danish central bank used these dollars to buy up US government bonds, as many countries have done over the last two decades. This would keep the dollar from falling. The purchase of US bonds would have some effect in lowering US interest rates, but this would be just like the Fed's quantitative easing policy. The lower interest rates would boost demand, but not nearly enough to offset the $100 billion increase in our trade deficit.

So, in this below full employment story we end up with a situation where trade has increased by $100 billion, but the US is left with lower employment and output. It sure looks like it has been hurt by more trade.

CEPR / June 12, 2018

Article Artículo

Former AIG Director Martin Feldstein Wants the Fed to Stop Worrying About Unemployment

No, this one is not at all a joke. Harvard Professor and former AIG director (yes, the one the government bailed out in 2008) Martin Feldstein wants the Fed to stop worrying about unemployment and just focus on inflation. His Wall Street Journal column argues for ending the Fed's dual mandate and instead just having an inflation target.

Before getting to the substance, it is worth a short digression on Feldstein's track record. Feldstein was sitting on AIG's board of directors as the insurer issued hundreds of billions of dollars worth of credit default swaps on mortgage-backed securities at the peak of the housing bubble. Mr. Feldstein apparently saw no problem with this. While the company had to be saved from bankruptcy by a massive government bailout, Feldstein was pocketing well over $100,000 a year for his oversight work as a director.

While Feldstein missed the bubble that sank the economy, he did manage to finger a bubble that didn't exist. Four years ago he wrote a column with former Citigroup honcho (yes, the one the government bailed out in 2008) Robert Rubin, his Democratic counterpart as a purveyor of wisdom from the financial sector. The column urged the Fed to raise interest rates in order to deflate the bubble they saw building in financial markets. (Here is my comment at the time.) Had the Fed taken their advice, the unemployment rate would almost certainly be several percentage points higher today and tens of millions of workers would not have seen the modest real wage gains they've experienced in the last four years.

The fact that someone with a track record as consistently bad as Martin Feldstein can get a column in the country's leading financial paper (he also argued in the 1993 that Clinton's tax increase wouldn't raise any revenue) shows what a great country we have. But let's get to the substance.

CEPR / June 12, 2018

Article Artículo

More Crisis Mongering By People Who Insist on Not Learning the Lessons of the Housing Bubble

OMG! It's the Mother of All Credit Bubbles!. That's not my line, Steven Pearlstein is beating the drums in the Washington Post telling us we should be very afraid because a number of corporations are taking on too much debt.

His basic story is that corporate America is getting heavily leveraged, with many companies likely finding themselves in a situation where they can't repay their loans. I wouldn't dispute the basic story, but there are few points worth noting.

First, companies have an incentive to borrow a lot because interest rates remain at historically low levels even though as Pearlstein tells us that the Republican tax cut is "crowding out other borrowing and putting upward pressure on interest rates." The interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds is under 3.0 percent. By contrast, it was in a range between 4.0 to 5.0 percent in the late 1990s when the government was running budget surpluses.

Much of his complaint is that many companies are borrowing while buying back shares. I'm not especially a fan of share buybacks, but I don't quite understand the evil attached to them. Would we be cool if these companies paid out the same money in dividends? There are issues of timing, where insiders can manipulate stock prices with the timing of buybacks, but they actually can do this with announcements of special dividends also. Anyhow, to me the issue is companies are not investing their profits, I don't really see how it matters whether they pay out money to shareholders through buybacks or dividends.

CEPR / June 10, 2018