CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research


En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press

Beat the Press

 facebook_logo  Subscribe by E-mail  

Does the NYT Find It Stimulating to Hear Politicians Talk About "Job-Killing" Regulations and Taxes? Print
Sunday, 20 November 2011 06:52

That's what readers of the Sunday Magazine piece on Elizabeth Warren might conclude. At one point it tells readers:

"When pressed on what kind of formidable legislation she would actually pursue in the Senate, Warren’s organization served up a snoozy list of the priorities that Democrats have been talking about for years: she will push for spending on infrastructure, education and renewable energy. She will work to strengthen labor unions and advocate for the reregulation of the big banks while easing regulations that make it difficult for small businesses and community banks to compete with giants." (emphasis added)

There are few politicians that come out with ideas that are not already common in the public debate. Certainly none of the presidential contenders, with the exception of Ron Paul and Herman Cain, have presented ideas that have not been pushed by Republicans for decades. Nonetheless, the NYT has not suggested that these ideas are sleep inducing.

[Thanks to Greg Wilson.]

Supercommittee Democrats Insist on Not Giving Republicans Everything Print
Saturday, 19 November 2011 10:33

In much of the media it is the rule that both parties are equally to blame regardless of what the facts of the situation are. Hence the lead sentence in the Post's article on the supercommittee's deadlock tells readers:

"Congressional negotiators made a yet another push Friday to carve $1.2 trillion in savings from the federal debt, but remained stuck in their entrenched positions on tax policy even as the clock was running down on their efforts to reach a deal."

It would be interesting to know how the Post decided that the Democrats have an entrenched position. They have offered dozens of plans, many of which would not involve having the rates return to their pre-Bush level, as is specified in current law. By contrast, the Republicans have consistently put forward proposals that would keep the taxes on the wealthy at their current level or lower them further.

Even though the Democrats have shown every willingness to cave, the Post refuses to give them credit for it.

David Brooks Confuses the United States with Greece Print
Saturday, 19 November 2011 10:16

It is easy to get Greece and the United States confused, after all they are both in the northern hemisphere. Okay, this is a case where someone making the comparison puts their ignorance and/or dishonesty in full public view. The three reasons why we are not Greece, in reverse order of importance are:

1) Greece had chronic budget deficits, with a rising debt to GDP ratio even in the upturn. Its government has great difficulty collecting revenue as tax evasion is the major national sport. The United States actually had relatively modest deficits, prior to economic collapse in 2008. The debt to GDP ratio was actually falling. It was the economic collapse that gave us huge budget deficits.

If the economy recovers, ALL projections show that the deficit will return to relatively modest levels. In the longer term we are projected to have serious budget problems, but this is entirely due to our broken health care system. We pay more than twice as much per person as people in other wealthy countries. If we paid a comparable amount for our health care then we would be projecting budget surpluses, not deficits.

2) The United States has a huge diversified economy. If there was a run on the dollar then our goods would suddenly be hyper-competitive in the world economy. For example, if the dollar fell by 20 percent, then it would be equivalent to giving a 20 percent subsidy to all our exports and imposing a 20 percent tariff on all imports. Since the rest of the world would not tolerate this situation, they would have no choice but to support the dollar even in a worst case scenario. (In this respect, our productivity continues to grow by about 2.5 percent annually, so the economy is not going down the drain. We just need demand.)

3) We have our own currency. The ECB could buy Greek bonds and prevent the disaster it is facing. It is choosing not to. In the United States, this decision would be up to us. In a worst case scenario, we could have the Fed buy absolutely as many bonds as we want. There could be problems of inflation at some point, but we are very very far from that world.

In short, the comparison with Greece is utterly baseless. People are making this comparison to advance their agenda for cutting Social Security and Medicare. It absolutely should not be taken seriously.

Washington Post Has a Reasonable Piece on Supercommittee Print
Friday, 18 November 2011 06:22

This is worth mentioning amidst the near hysteria in the media over the prospect of a failed supercommittee. The Post piece began:

"If the congressional 'supercommittee' cannot agree on a plan to tame the federal debt by next week’s deadline, as now appears likely, here’s what will happen: nothing."

NYT Puts Editorial on Deficit Reduction in News Pages Print
Friday, 18 November 2011 05:44

Taking a cue from the Washington Post, the NYT ran an editorial on the budget deficit in its news pages. It told readers:

"At stake is not simply the country’s fiscal health, but also what remains of the government’s credibility. Without an agreement in sight, investors, business leaders and consumers, already worried about the deepening crisis in Europe, have begun to brace for the possibility of yet another blow to a fragile recovery, this time from Washington."

Is this a fact? The country's fiscal health is at stake? If the NYT reporters had access to the bond yields printed in their own newspaper they would discover that the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds fell by almost 1 percent on Thursday to 1.96 percent.

It seems pretty hard to maintain that investors are terrified about the fiscal health of the U.S. government if they are prepared to lend the government money long-term at less than 2.0 percent interest. They demanded 6.0 percent interest back in 2000 when we had budget surpluses and ostensibly serious people thought we would pay off the government debt in a decade.

This is not a news article. It is an opinion piece, and in fact a bad one. The writers/editors responsible obviously do not like the budget deficit and are trying to scare readers about its risks. This belongs on the opinion pages, not the news section.

NPR Pushes Its Deficit Agenda With Full Force Print
Friday, 18 November 2011 05:15

Morning Edition had a piece warning us that the markets will be hard hit if the supercommittee doesn't reach a deal (sorry, no link yet). It attributed the decline in the stock market in the period around the debt ceiling battle to fears about default, even though bond prices actually rose in this period. Bonds are the asset on which the U.S. government might theoretically default.

So in NPR land, when investors increasingly fear a default on U.S. government bonds, they bid up the price of bonds. However, fears that government bonds will default makes investors less willing to hold stock.

This makes sense as something to say if your agenda is to force Congress to cut programs like Social Security and Medicare. If you're looking for a more coherent explanation, the markets were responding to the prospects of a meltdown of the euro. This raises the prospect of a post-Lehman type freeze up of the financial system. That would be very bad news for the stock market and is the most obvious explanation for movements in the financial markets.

John Cassidy Still Has Not Heard About the Housing Bubble Print
Friday, 18 November 2011 05:04

John Cassidy, the long-time economics writer for the New Yorker, apparently still has not gotten word about the housing bubble: you know, that $8 trillion run-up in house prices that collapsed and caused the financial crisis and the downturn. In a piece telling readers that President Obama has done about as good as could have been expected, he commented:

"And bailing out underwater homeowners on the scale necessary to raise house prices would have been a huge logistical and political challenge."

Of course there was no reason to expect or want house prices to rise. The bubble has largely deflated. Why on earth would we try to re-inflate a housing bubble as a matter of policy? Do we want the stock of Pets.com and other bankrupt loon tune companies to again sell for billions?

It was both inevitable and good that house prices corrected from their bubble peaks. The unforgivably policy mistake was to allow the bubble to grow so large in the first place and to be so unprepared to provide some support (e.g. Right to Rent and serious countercyclical policy) for the victims of this incompetence.

[Thanks to Keane Bhatt.]

George Will Says the 1990 Budget deal Caused the Recession That Started Four Months Earlier Print
Thursday, 17 November 2011 09:19

George Will gave a seriously inaccurate accounting of history in his Washington Post column today. He told readers:

"Sensible people who remember the last grand budget bargain will be dry-eyed about not having another now. Although only 21 of the 242 Republicans in the House and eight of 47 Republicans in the Senate were on Capitol Hill in 1990, everyone there should remember the results of that year’s budget agreement, wherein President George H.W. Bush jettisoned his “no new taxes” pledge: Taxes increased. So did spending. And the deficit. Economic growth decreased."

That's not quite right. The economy actually slid into recession in June of 1990. The budget deal wasn't made until October of 1990. It would take a really really bad deal to slow growth four months before it had been made.

Will also includes a chart that shows projected spending growth with and without a sequester. The point is to imply that there will be large growth in spending regardless even if money is sequestered.

Economists would ordinarily adjust for inflation, which is projected to be around 30 percent in total over the next decade. Perhaps the Post still pays Will the same amount it did in 2001, but wages in general typically rise at least in step with inflation.

Economists would also typically adjust for growth in the economy. If the economy is 30 percent larger (which is the projection), then we would expect to spend roughly 30 percent more, after adjusting for inflation, educating our kids, maintaining and improving our infrastructure, and on other public needs. Apparently, Mr. Will believes that a huge country like the United States does not need to spend any more on education than a small poor country like Haiti. Otherwise he would discuss these sums as shares of GDP, as would any serious analyst.

Unauthorized Copies Are Not "Pirated" Just Because Microsoft Says It Print
Thursday, 17 November 2011 08:18

Someone has to tell the Post that things do not become true just because Microsoft or some other major corporation assert them. This problem pervades an article on efforts by the entertainment industry to force Internet companies to help them police their copyrights.

The article refers to the material in question as being pirated. This is in fact in dispute. In many cases, for example countries where the specific material involved is not protected by national copyright law, it is wrong to claim that the material is "pirated." It is simply unauthorized. The Post should have used this term throughout the piece, since it has certainly has no reason whatsoever to believe that all the material in question will in fact have been posted in violation of copyright.

It would have been helpful to include some economic analysis in this piece. It tells readers that the industry groups claim that they are losing $135 billion a year due to the circulation of unauthorized copies of their work. If this is true, under standard economic assumptions, the loss to consumers from enforcing copyrights would likely be several times larger.

It is also striking that the Post did not use the dichotomy of big government versus the market that it so often throws into its news articles. In this case, we are discussing a law that involves really big government, since it will impose major sanctions on companies that don't in effect act as agents of the government in policing what people post on the web.

Will Cutting Social Security and Medicare Help Congressional Approval Ratings? Print
Thursday, 17 November 2011 08:06

In an article noting that some Republican members of the supercommittee are willing to raise taxes, the Washington Post told readers that Republicans might be willing to make concessions on taxes because they are:

"Party leaders wary of Congress’s dismal approval ratings are loath to appear incapable of deficit reduction."

The packages that have been talked about in the media include cuts to Social Security and Medicare, both of which are likely to be highly unpopular. It is not clear that members of Congress who are concerned about their approval ratings would go this route. However there is little doubt that the Washington Post (in both its editorial and news sections) will warmly praise members of Congress for reaching an agreement as will other major news outlets. 

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

Page 262 of 419

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.