It is painful to see the ongoing coverage of the bank bailouts and the extent to which the government is being reimbursed. It is true that the banks have repaid the vast majority of the money that was lent. However, this is almost irrelevant to anything.
At the time the government made money available to the banks through TARP and even more so through the Fed, liquidity carried an enormous premium. The major banks charged each other 5 percent interest on 90 day loans because they did not have confidence in their ability to survive.
In this environment, the government stepped in and providing banks with huge amounts of money (we don't know exactly who got how much because the Fed refuses to tell us what it did with our money), at a cost far below what they would have been forced to pay in private markets. The banks could lend this money at enormous premiums or use it to just buy government bonds and pocket the difference in interest rates. As a result, most banks have been able to get back on their feet.
As a bookkeeping matter we can say that the government "profited" from these deals in the sense that it got interest on its loans. (It also received warrants from banks that it sold at a profit.) However, as a practical matter, these profits no more benefit the government's accounts than if the Federal Reserve Board just printed the same amount of money and handed it to the Treasury by purchasing government bonds. Unfortunately, few reporters covering the economy and the bailout understand this point, so they end up writing pieces that imply the country was somehow benefited by the fact that the banks repaid their loans with interest.
The Washington Post devoted a major article to telling readers that banking industry lobbyists, most of whom are unnamed, are not happy with the financial reform bills being debated in Congress. At one point it tells readers they describe aspects of the legislation as "Draconian," "Crazy," and "Insanely unproductive," although it provides no information as to which lobbyists describe which components with these terms.
One unnamed lobbyist told readers that: "I think the worry is the stuff coming out of left field, the whack-job amendments,... It's limited only to the imagination of the senators." Again, it would have been helpful to have examples of what is considered a whack job amendment and by whom. It's good to know that at least some industry lobbyists are at unhappy with at least some parts of these bills, but without some specific content, this article really is not giving readers much information.
The NYT reports on the difficulties that Spain is facing in the wake of the collapse of its housing bubble. Its unemployment rate has crossed 20 percent and is likely to head higher. Its budget deficit exceeds 8 percent of GDP and its credit rating has recently been downgraded by Standard & Poor's.
It would have been worth noting that the credit rating agencies and the speculators who now believe that Spain is facing severe financial stress thought that Spain's economy was in solid shape as its housing bubble was growing ever more out of line with fundamentals. It is also would have been worth mentioning that Spain was running budget surpluses prior to the collapse of its housing bubble. At the time, it was often held up as a success story by the people now criticizing its institutional structure.
The Post corrected "5 myths about immigration" in the Outlook section today. The first of the myths is that "immigrants take jobs from American workers." It dismissed this concern by telling us that: "economists also estimate that for each job an immigrant fills, an additional job is created." It might have been helpful it had included some names here of economists who hold this view. There are certainly some economists, such as Harvard Professor George Borjas, who see immigrant workers as having a substantial downward impact on the wages of less educated workers.
There also is an important question about who gets counted as an "American worker" in this story. Some analyses have concluded that immigrant workers have little impact on the wages of native born workers, however they do have a substantial negative impact on the wages of other immigrants. Of course many immigrants will become American citizens after being in the country for 10-15 years. So, if we count naturalized citizens as "American workers" then the Post's assertion is completely untrue.
It is worth noting that recent immigrants have had a much more difficult time in catching up with the wages of their native born counterparts than was true in 60s and 70s. This can be partially explained by the larger flow of immigrants in the last two decades.
It is also worth noting that there may be a difference between the marginal impact of more immigrants and the impact of a larger flow over time. In industries like residential construction and meatpacking, native workers have been largely displaced by immigrants over the last three decades. These industries had provided relatively well-paying jobs to workers with little education. They also had a substantial union presence.
This is less true today as wages and conditions in these industries have worsened considerably, as they became almost entirely non-union. At this point, more immigrants are likely to primarily depress the wages of other immigrants working in these sectors, although if there had not been a sharp uptick in immigration over the last three decades it is reasonable to assume that these industries would still employ native born workers at a better wage than they would have been able to receive in other industries.
In discussing the oil spill off the coast of Loiusiana the NYT told readers: "the country needs the oil — and the jobs." The basis for this assertion is not clear.
What is presumably at issue is the prospect of further drilling in currently protected areas. According to the Energy Information Agency, the potential yield from these areas is in the range of 200,000 barrels a day. This is equal to about 1 percent of U.S. oil consumption and around 0.2 percent of world oil consumption.
This amount of oil would have no notable impact on U.S. energy independence. (Actually, in a world where we can freely buy oil on world markets, from the standpoint of concerns about energy indepedence, it would make more sense to leave the oil in the ground so that it can be used if we actually are cut off from world markets.)
This amount of oil would have a trivial impact on oil prices, meaning that no one will notice a lower price at the pump because we open these areas to oil drilling. The jobs created directly by the drilling would also be trivial and would be dwarfed by a few days' job growth in a healthy economy. (The jobs would only come years down the road, since much exploration would have to precede major drilling.)
So, there is no apparent basis for the NYT's assertion about the need for drilling.
In an article discussing the first quarter GDP data the NYT told readers that: "Economists are hopeful that families will continue to pick up the pace of purchasing and make the recovery more sustainable." Economists who know arithmetic (admittedly a tiny subset of economists as evidenced by the failure of almost the entire profession to see an $8 trillion housing bubble) are unlikely to share this perspective.
Tens of millions of baby boomers are at edge of retirement. Because of the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting destruction of home equity, the vast majority of people in these cohorts has almost nothing saved for retirement. The median net worth for older baby boomers (people aged 55-64) is around $180,000. This means that if they took all their wealth (including their current home equity) they would have approximately enough money to pay off the mortgage on the median home. This would leave them with absolutely nothing to support themselves in retirement other than their Social Security. The median net worth for younger baby boomers (people aged 45-54) is approximately $80,000.
The workers in these age cohorts desperately need to be saving more for retirement, especially in a context where the Peter Petersons and Robert Rubins of the world are devoting enormous resources to try to cut their Social Security and Medicare. For this reason, economists who know arithmetic are not hoping for a consumption led recovery. They are hoping that the government will take further measures to stimulate the economy. These measures could also boost private sector investment. Economists who know arithemtic are also hoping that the Obama administration will take steps to end the dollar's over-valuation, thereby leading to more net exports.
Unfortunately, because economic policy is dominated by economists who do not know arithmetic, we may be dependent on consumption to drive the recovery.
This is in the preemptive strike category. It seems from initial reports that no one bothered to notice that half of this quarter's GDP growth (1.6 percentage points) was driven by inventory accumulation. If we pull out inventories, final demand grew at a 1.6 percent annual rate, almost exactly the same as the 1.7 percent rate in the 4th quarter of 2009 and the 1.5 percent rate in the 3rd quarter of 2009.
In other words, we are still looking at a very weak economy; one far weaker than would be expected coming out of such a severe downturn and one which may not even be growing fast enough to create any jobs at all.
NPR told listeners that the public has supported drilling offshore because they objected to the country's dependence on foreign oil and the wars in the Middle East.This is very interesting because it shows how badly the media have reported on this issue. There are no projections that show drilling offshore will have any noticeable effect on U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The media (including NPR) have horribly misrepresented the potential impact of offshore oil so that tens of millions of Americans actually believe that it has anything to do with dependence on foreign oil.
It would have been interesting to report the attitudes towards offshore drilling among those who know that it will not have any noticeable impact on U.S. dependence on foreign oil or the price of gas.
There were down slightly last week, but the 4-week moving average is still 462,000. Usually claims have to be under 400,000 to be consistent with steady job growth.
This release got no mention in the Post even though it provides far more information about the state of the economy than other data releases that are routinely covered, such as the consumer confidence indexes. Perhaps the Post will give the data more attention when it starts showing fewer claims.
New York Times columnist Floyd Norris told readers that: "China ties its currency to the dollar, and despite American jawboning, there is little that the United States can do about that." Actually, the U.S. government is free to set its own higher exchange rate of the yuan against the dollar.
The Chinese government sets an exchange rate puts the value of the yuan at approximately 14 cents. There is nothing that prevents the Treasury of offerring to buy yuan at a higher price, for example 20 cents. If the Treasury made this commitment and was prepared to stand behind it, it would like raise the value of the yuan to 20 cents. This competing exchange rate would be highly unusual, but there is nothing that literally prevents the U.S. government from doing it.
That should not be a surprise given the paper's hostility to Social Security and its outrage over the fact that unionized auto workers can earn $56,000 a year, but the Post's editorial calling for reform does miss an important part of Greece's story. While aspects of Greece's welfare state almost certainly do need to be changed (a retirement age of 60 is hard to support in a modern economy), it is also important to note that there is massive tax evasion in Greece, especially by the wealthy.
The OECD estimated the size of Greece's underground economy at more than 30 percent of its official economy. Even if this is an overstatement, the existance of a large uncounted sector inidcates that Greece's debt burden is considerably smaller relative to the size of its economy than the official data imply. It also points to the fact that many wealthy people are likely paying the taxes that they legally owe. Greece's citizens are likely to be less amenable to giving up benefits like a relatively generous Social Security system in a context where the wealthy are avoiding their tax obligations. This is an important part of the story that needs to be mentioned in any discussion of Greece's fiscal problems.
Just about the whole economics profession missed the housing bubble that sank the U.S. economy. Fortunately for them, economics is not a profession where performance matters. The "experts" who completely missed the largest economic disaster in 70 years are still the sole source for the overwhelming majority of news stories on the crisis.
This is especially painful in coverage of the Greek and now larger euro crisis. Those of us who read Keynes (a group which should include all economists, but apparently excludes nearly all media "experts") know that the problem is that the European Central Bank has to make more money available to its members to get through this crisis. While many governments hold superstitions about the benefits of rain dances and the causes of inflation, there is no basis for concern that printing money will cause inflation in the current economic situation.
The story that reporters should be writing that is that the superstitions of many European governments (with Germany topping the list) are needlessly inflicting pain on tens of millions of people across Europe. Ironically, these superstitions may ultimately have a severely negative effect on Germany's economy as well.
Economists who are not clueless about this crisis could explain this situation to readers. It is unfortunate that most major media outlets have chosen to rely exlcusively on economists who are.
It's possible that he doesn't know this, but it is what he said. According to the NYT, Volcker said that: "He [Volcker] and other speakers expressed fear that without some action in the next year or two that reduces deficits for decades to come, interest rates could spike, the dollar could lose value or some other financial crisis would occur."
A drop in the dollar is the only plausible way to get our trade deficit closer to balance. A large trade deficit, by definition, means that the United States must have low national savings (barring an extraordinary and unprecedented uptick in investment). Low national saving means that we must either have large budget deficits or very low private savings, or some combination. So proponents of a high dollar (like Mr. Volcker) want a large budget deficit and/or very low private savings. It would have been helpful to point this fact out to readers.
NPR presented a segment on the impact of the new health care bill on farmer this morning. It told listeners that employers of more than 50 workers who do not provide insurance will be required to pay a "hefty" fee. It is not clear how NPR determined that the fee was "hefty."
It would have been helpful to point this fact out in an article reporting on the Greek and eurozone financial crisis. While Greece did have serious fiscal problems prior to the economic crisis, the other countries now facing difficulties were not similarly troubled. Spain, the most important of the troubled countries, actually was running surpluses prior to the crisis. The difficulties now facing these countries is largely the result of the economic downturn, which has seriously worsened their fiscal situation.
The European Central Bank (ECB) could make the money available to these countries to sustain their economies through this downturn. (They would print it.) The ECB has opted not to go this route because of peculiar superstititions about inflation. It would be worth pointing out to readers that this crisis is largely the result of superstitions by Europe's central bankers, not fundamental economic problems.
The Washington Post (a.k.a. Fox on 15th Street) told readers that: "Official forecasts suggest that without sharp changes in federal spending or tax collections, the United States could enter into a downward spiral of indebtedness that by the end of this decade would erode the country's ability to educate its children, care for the elderly or mount a robust national defense."
Wow, that sounds really dire. It would have been great if they gave a source for this one because that is not what the standard sources say. For example, if we go to our most recent Budget and Economic Outlook from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), we find the economy growing at an average annual rate of 2.4 percent over the years 2015-2020. CBO also projects average productivity growth for this period at 1.8 percent a year, meaning in principle that living standards can rise at roughly that rate. It also projects an average interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds of 5.5 percent, this is only slightly higher than the low-point of the budget surplus years at the end of the Clinton administration.
In short, there is no evidence in these projections of the sort of crisis described in the Post article. It would be interesting to see the document(s) that provide the basis for the Post's assertion.
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, who famously missed the housing bubble and then insisted the problems in the housing market would be contained in the subprime sector, warned the country about the need to contain deficits in testimony before President Obama's deficit commission today. It would have been helpful to readers if reporters had noted Mr. Bernanke's track record so that they would be better able to assess the importance of his remarks.
Of course, his main statement: "History makes clear that failure to achieve fiscal sustainability will, over time, sap the nation's economic vitality, reduce our living standards, and greatly increase the risk of economic and financial instability," is trivially true. Obviously something that is not sustainable cannot, by definition, persist indefinitely.
However, Bernnake's statement provides no basis for determining whether this is a need to act now, in 5 years, or in 20 years. It effectively says nothing. Reporters could have pointed this fact out to readers.
The Post has a piece this morning on Delaware Senator Ted Kaufman and his proposal for breaking up the big banks. At one point it presents a quote from Larry Summers, the head of President Obama's National Economic Council: "Most observers who study this believe that to try to break banks up into a lot of little pieces would hurt our ability to try to serve large companies, and hurt the competitiveness of the United States."
It would have been worth pointing out to readers that Summers' asssertion is not obviously true. Many prominent experts on banking, including two current regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents and Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the IMF, have argued that the country does not need banks that are as large as the too big to fail institutions that would be broken up under Senator Kaufman's amendment.