CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research

Multimedia

En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press

Beat the Press

 facebook_logo  Subscribe by E-mail  


NYT Tries to Explain Why Unusually High Levels of Consumption Are Not Even Higher Print
Monday, 15 August 2011 04:20

One of the bizarre statements that is routinely repeated by people who should know better is that consumers are not spending and that is one of the reasons that the recovery has been so weak. The NYT has a piece along these lines this morning. The reason why this argument is bizarre is that consumption is still unusually high, not low.

The saving rate out of disposable income has been averaging just over 5 percent for the last 3 years. This is above the near zero rate at the peak of the housing bubble, but still well below the 8.0 percent average that households averaged for most of the post-war period prior to the growth of the stock bubble in the 90s and the housing bubble in the last decade. (Due to measurement issues, specifically capital gains showing up as income in the national income accounts, the official data likely understate the drop in savings at the peak of the bubbles and the subsequent rise since the crash.)

The predicted result of the ephemeral wealth created by these bubbles would be a surge in consumption, which implies a drop in the saving rate. Now that both bubbles have deflated we should expect the saving rate to return to normal levels or perhaps even somewhat higher as households must make up for the years when they did not save adequately.

This is one of the reasons that competent economists saw these bubbles as so dangerous. Once the economy gets on a specific growth path it is difficult to change courses. Specifically, it is not easy to find a source of demand to replace $600 billion or so in lost consumption coupled with $600 billion in lost bubble-driven construction demand.

Click for Larger Image.

Book1_301_image001

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

 
Perry's Growth Failure in Texas Print
Sunday, 14 August 2011 20:08

After getting my numbers wrong last time, I thought I would take one more look. Folks love to look at per capita GDP growth as a measure of economic progress. It's certainly not everything, but it does tell you something.

So how does Texas look under Governor Perry compared to his predecessors? Using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (I had to chain these two series), I get that in the years 1987-2000 per capita GDP growth averaged 2.2 percent in the U.S. as a whole. In Texas it averaged 2.8 percent, a 0.6 percentage point gap. However, in the years 2000-2010 the gap goes the other way. Per capita GDP in the U.S. as a whole grew at an average rate of 0.6 percent, while it grew at a 0.5 percent rate in Texas, a difference of 0.1 percentage point in favor of the U.S. 

Texas_growth_27052_image002Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

What does this say about Governor Perry's success as the steward of the Texas economy? It doesn't tell us much. There are all sorts of reasons that Texas's per capita GDP growth might have slowed relative to the rest of the country that have nothing to do with the effectiveness of Perry's policies. However, if we are looking for quick comparisons, per capita GDP growth is a common one, and it goes the wrong way for the Perry economic miracle story. 

 
The Post Gets It Right on the Debt Downgrade and the Stock Market Print
Sunday, 14 August 2011 16:35
The Post featured an Outlook piece by Liaquat Ahmat that made the obvious point that Standard and Poor's downgrade could not plausibly be blamed for the stock market plunge. The downgrade most immediately was an assessment of the creditworthiness of U.S. government bonds. These soared in price. The most obvious basis for the plunge in stock prices was the fear of the break-up of the euro and a financial freeze-up of the type that followed the bankruptcy of Lehman in the fall of 2008.
 
Republicans Say That Tax Increases are "Job Killers," the WAPO Doesn't Know What They Believe Print
Sunday, 14 August 2011 16:28

More journalism 101 for the Washington Post. It told readers in a front page story that tax increases on the wealthy

"are considered 'job-killing' and off-limits by many Republicans."

Of course Republicans call tax increases job killers, but politicians often say things that they do not believe to be true. Many members of Congress are old enough to remember the 90s when the economy created 3 million jobs a year even though the higher Clinton era tax rates were in effect.

The Post should restrain itself to telling readers what politicians say and do; it does not know what they actually think.

 
Germany Uses Work Sharing Print
Sunday, 14 August 2011 07:48

Roger Cohen has an interesting column touting the performance of Germany compared to the United States in the years since the onset of the crisis. He concludes by suggesting that Germany can save the United States with its ideas as to how to manage an economy and society.

While Cohen mentions several important differences between the United States and Germany, remarkably he did not mention Germany's work sharing system. Even though growth in Germany and the United States has been comparable since the beginning of the downturn, Germany has actually seen a decline in its unemployment rate of more than half a percentage point from the pre-recession level.

This is due to the fact that Germany encourages firms to reduce work hours rather than lay people off. In a standard arrangement, workers may put in 20 percent fewer hours and end up taking home 4 percent less pay. Most of the difference comes from a government unemployment benefit that is converted to a subsidy for short-time work. The company is also expected to make up some of the pay. This system is very popular across the political spectrum in Germany. It has been embraced by the conservative government although it was originally put forward by a Social Democratic minister in the previous unity government.

 
Did Rick Perry Sink the Texas Economy? (Corrected Version) Print
Saturday, 13 August 2011 13:59

Sorry, folks I made a very bad mistake on this one. (Lesson: always double-check your commands in an Excel spreadsheet.) It turns out that Texas maintained and actually increased the gap between its rate of job growth and the rest of the country during the Perry years.

Over the years from 1987 to 2001, annual job growth in Texas averaged 2.8 percent. This is 0.8 percentage points higher than the growth rate for the economy as a whole. In the ten years since Governor Perry took office job growth has averaged just over 1.0 percent annually, during a period in which employment in the country as a whole actually shrank slightly. This makes the gap in the Perry years just under 1.1 percent. This means that, at least by the measure of job growth, Perry does have something to show in Texas.

(If you're looking for me, I'm the guy wearing a paper bag over his head. Thanks to Sam123 for prompting me to recheck my numbers.)

 

Texas_growth_2028_image001

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and author's calculations.

 
Why Does the NYT Think It's So Cool To Beat Up on Seniors? Print
Friday, 12 August 2011 06:58

The NYT decided to have a special dialogue around a letter to the editor that called on President Obama to take "decisive action" on the economy. Remarkably, only one item on the list of decisive actions, investing in infrastructure, would have any positive impact on jobs and even this would be limited. While investing in infrastructure is a very good idea, there are not very many people who can be usefully employed on infrastructure projects in the next two years.

It takes time to plan a project and many projects, like building high speed rail, are only going to be built over many years. This means that even the most aggressive infrastructure program will only have a limited impact on jobs in the rest of 2011, 2012, and even 2013. If we want to see substantial reductions in unemployment over the next two years we will need more decisive action than this.

The rest of the items in the letter all involve reducing the deficit. While some of the proposals are very reasonable, like ending the war in Afghanistan and raising taxes on the wealthy, these will certainly not help create jobs. The list also contains two profoundly silly proposals, means-testing Social Security and raising the age of Medicare eligibility to 67.

The idea of cutting Social Security is especially off-base since the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that the program is fully funded through the year 2038 with no changes whatsoever. Even after this date, the program would always be able to pay more than 80 percent of scheduled benefits. Given the overall health of the program, proposals for cuts are effectively taking away benefits that people have already paid for. 

In addition to the fact that such cuts would be unnecessary and arguably unfair it also is worth noting that means-testing is an especially bad way to make cuts. While investment banker Peter Peterson likes to go around the country boasting that he doesn't need his Social Security, the reality is that there are very few rich elderly people like Mr. Peterson. In order to have any noticeable impact on the program's finances, a means-test would have to hit very middle income people -- people with incomes in the neighborhood of $40,000 a year.

Even then the impact would be very limited. To have a major impact on the program's expenses it would probably be necessary to move the means-test down to people with incomes around $30,000 a year. This would not fit most people's definition of rich.

The proposal to raise the age of Medicare eligibility is also incredibly misguided. It is extremely expensive for seniors to get health care insurance. Many workers struggle to stay on jobs until age 65 when they can first qualify for Medicare. This proposal would push the bar out two years. Those who lose their jobs or can't find jobs will generally not be able to afford insurance, which could easily exceed $20,000 a year for those with even minor pre-existing conditions.

Rather than looking to reduce benefits the more obvious way to go with Medicare is to reduce the cost of care. The United States pays more than twice as much per person for its health care as the average for other wealthy countries. If we could get our costs down to those of other countries we would be facing huge long-run budget surpluses, not deficits. One way to get lower costs would be to allow Medicare beneficiaries to buy into the more efficient health care systems in other countries. The enormous potential savings could be split between the government and the beneficiary.

It is perverse that the NYT thinks it is reasonable to have major cuts to programs that affect retirees or near retirees. These people were especially hard hit by the collapse of the housing bubble. Many of them saw most of their life's savings disappear as their house price plummeted. Insofar as we need revenue (which we clearly do not now), the most obvious place would be to tax the people who profited most from the bubble, the Wall Street crew.

A tax on financial speculation could easily raise more than $100 billion a year. Congress could also instruct the Federal Reserve Board to hold onto the $3 trillion in assets that it has acquired as part of its quantitative easing program. This could save the government more than $100 billion a year in interest payments later in the decade. In short, it is not difficult to find money for people who are not afraid of going after the rich and powerful.

 
Ratings Agency Miss the Boat on Debt Defaults Print
Friday, 12 August 2011 05:53
The WSJ has a nice piece that looks at the track record of the rating agencies in predicting defaults on government debt. It ain't pretty.
 
Morning Edition Tells Listeners That Large Budget Deficits Are Good Print
Friday, 12 August 2011 05:20

The folks at Morning Edition may not know that this is what they said, but in fact, this is exactly what a Planet Money segment on the dollar's status as a reserve currency implied. The segment told listeners that it was a good thing that foreigners demanded large amounts of dollars to use and hold as a reserve currency.

If foreigners increase their holdings of dollars then this means that the United States has a trade deficit. This is a logical implication of foreigners' efforts to acquire more dollars. In order to get more dollars, they have to sell more to the United States than they buy from the United States. There is no way around this.

If the United States has a trade deficit then it means that the country as a whole is a net borrower. That means that the combination of private and public savings must be negative. Again, this is an accounting identity, it must be true, just like 2+2 will always be equal to 4.

Generally private savings are roughly equal to private investment. The main exception is when asset bubbles like the stock market bubble or the housing bubble lead to a consumption boom and thereby depress private saving. (The housing bubble did also lead to a boom in construction, which as a component of investment allowed private investment to exceed savings, until the bubble burst.)

If the country has a trade deficit and private saving is equal to private investment, then the country must have a budget deficit. This means that in general circumstances, Morning Edition was telling us that budget deficits are good, since it told us that we should be happy that the dollar is the world's reserve currency.

There was another important aspect to this issue that the piece failed to mention. Even if the dollar is used as a reserve currency the amount that a country needs to support a given level of trade can vary enormously. The amount of reserves that developing countries hold soared in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis. This is usually attributed to the fact that the terms of the bailout imposed by the IMF on the countries of the region were viewed as being so harsh that developing countries wanted to make sure that they would never be put in the same situation. This meant accumulating massive amounts of reserves (i.e. U.S. dollars) as an insurance policy.

This was the origin of the massive trade deficits that the United States has been running in recent years. It would have been useful to make this point in this segment.

 
Do Companies Really Not Know What They Pay Their Workers? Print
Friday, 12 August 2011 05:11

The Post seems to think that this may be the case. In reference to a provision of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that requires companies to publish the ratio of top executive pay to the pay of an ordinary worker it reported that "businesses have argued that this proposal would be costly and impractical to implement."

This would only be true if businesses had no clue about either how much they pay their top executives or their ordinary workers. While it certainly seems to be the case that the top management of many corporations is not very competent, it is difficult that so many people earning 7 and 8 figure salaries could be that incompetent.

 
<< Start < Prev 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 Next > End >>

Page 261 of 389

CEPR.net
Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.

Archives