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  


Speaker Boehner Commits Huge Gaffe, Can't Do Simple Arithmetic Print
Saturday, 08 October 2011 09:01

Republican House Speaker John Boehner committed an enormous gaffe yesterday according to a Washington Post article. Mr. Boehner claimed that:

"Our unemployment rate has been higher than 8 percent for more than 21 / 2 years, far above what the Obama administration promised with the ‘stimulus.'”

Actually, the stimulus did not promise to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent as Mr. Boehner would know if he ever looked at the administration's discussion of its stimulus proposal at the time. The report claimed that the stimulus as proposed would create between 3-4 million jobs by the end of 2010. However, the bill passed by Congress was substantially smaller than the stimulus requested by the president. The expected effect would therefore be in the range of 2-3 million jobs.

However, the economy was in much worse shape than the administration recognized at the time. It expected the unemployment rate to peak at 9.0 percent even without any stimulus. At the time, the economy was losing close to 700,000 jobs a month. The unemployment rate had already risen to 9.4 percent by May when the first stimulus related checks were just going out the door.

The best evidence available shows that the stimulus worked almost exactly as planned, creating 2-3 million jobs. However, the economy needed 10-12 million. The Obama administration's error was in underestimating the severity of the downturn, not overpromising for the benefits of the stimulus.

This is apparent to people who can read and know arithmetic. The Washington Post should have highlighted the fact that Mr. Boehner apparently either has difficulty with arithmetic or was deliberately trying to mislead the public.

 
Washington Post Calls Jobs Report Better than Incompetent Economists Had Expected Print
Saturday, 08 October 2011 08:37

The headline of the front page article in the Washington Post told readers that the September jobs report from the Labor Department "offers a respite." It added that the report, "was merely mediocre, not the horrible result that some economists had feared."

In fact, this was a very bad jobs report. The report showed that the economy created just 103,000 jobs in September, 45,000 of which were Verizon workers who were returning from being on strike in August and were therefore not counted in that month's job numbers. With modest upward revisions to the prior two months' data, the Labor Department reports the economy creating an average of 99,000 jobs a month, just slightly above the 90,000 jobs per month needed to keep pace with the growth of the labor force. At this pace, it would take many decades to return to full employment.

This should have been reported as a really bad jobs report. However, in recent weeks the Washington Post had reported the views of several economists who were highlighting the risks of a double-dip recession.

These economists obviously had a poor understanding of the economy. Every post-war recession has been caused by a sharp downturn in housing and car sales. With both sectors of the economy already badly depressed it was highly unlikely that either sector could turn sharply lower. Absent a big decline in these sectors, it is difficult to envision a scenario in which the economy would go into a recession, the one exception being a collapse of the euro zone caused by a disorderly default of Greece or one of the other debt-burdened governments.

The most likely scenario is simply the one that we are seeing, a prolonged period of weak growth in which almost none of the lost jobs are regained. However, because the Post had made a point of highlighting the views of ill-informed economists predicting a double-dip, it is now putting a positive light on the very dismal job and growth situation that the country is experiencing, since it is better than a second recession. This is comparable to the situation at the start of the downturn when it and other media outlets and politicians invented the possibility of a Second Great Depression to make us happy about the disastrous situation that the country was actually facing.

The Post has a long history of relying on poorly informed economists. During the run-up of the housing bubble the views of economists warning of the risks of the bubble were almost completely excluded from the Post's news and editorial pages. Its main authority on the housing market was David Lereah, the chief economist of the National Association of Realtors and the author of the 2005 bestseller Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust and How You Can Profit from It.

 
Is It Possible that the Jobs Numbers Would Not Provide Ammunition to Republicans? Print
Friday, 07 October 2011 22:53

The NYT told readers that:

"The tepid jobs report provided more ammunition for Mr. Obama’s Republican rivals, who seized on Friday’s results as further evidence of what they say is the president’s ineffective stewardship of the economy."

This is true, the Republicans did blame President Obama for the weak economy. Of course President Obama requested more stimulus than Congress approved and he just asked for another round of stimulus that would likely involve more money in 2012 than his original stimulus package did for either 2009 or 2010.

This means that if the jobs numbers had been good, it would have provided ammunition to Republicans to denounce President Obama for unnecessary spending. At this point, it should be evident that the Republicans will use anything in the world as ammunition to criticize President Obama. Therefore, it is not especially newsworthy that they used the jobs report for this purpose.

 
Argentina's Problem Was an Over-Valued Dollar, Not Inflation Print
Thursday, 06 October 2011 19:59

In an otherwise thoughtful column comparing the current situation with Greece and its options for leaving the euro with the situation of Argentina in its 1998-2002 crisis, Floyd Norris gets a fundamental fact wrong. Norris told readers:

"In 2002, Argentina’s currency, the peso, was officially tied to the dollar at a one-to-one parity. There was a “currency board” that was supposed to assure the tie could never be broken, and it had worked for a decade. But Argentine inflation had outpaced that of the United States, and the peso was seriously overvalued."

Actually, Argentina had no inflation at all in the years from 1997 to 2001. The reason that its economy became less competitive was that the dollar had soared in value against other currencies. When the dollar rose, the Argentine peso rose with it. This made Argentina's economy uncompetitive.

The problem was not excessive domestic inflation, but simply that its currency was linked to the dollar at a time when its value was rising. While the United States could support the large trade deficit that resulted from an over-valued currency, Argentina could not.

 
Dana Milbank Does What the Media Is Supposed to Do to Politicians Who Just Make Things Up Print
Thursday, 06 October 2011 05:16

Dana Milbank had a solid column today. He ridiculed Republican claims that President Obama's health care plan is responsible for high unemployment. Milbank showed that the claims put forward by leading Republican politicians lacked any evidence and for the most part defied commonsense.

For example, one business owner with 50 employees claimed that he could not hire another worker because this would make him subject to provisions in the bill that apply to firms with 51 or more employees. However, these provisions do not take effect until 2014 giving the employer more than 2 full years to adjust his workforce to the desired level.

It is easy to show that the claims that regulation is impeding hiring are nonsense. If firms had need for more labor but were reluctant to hire because of regulations then we should be expecting to see that the length of the average workweek is increasing. It isn't. It is still below its pre-recession level.

In short, the Republicans are just making things up when they claim regulation is impeding job creation. The media have the time to research this issue and explain the situation to the public. Milbank's column is the sort of ridicule that politicians deserve for this sort of behavior.

 
Is There Anyone Other than the NYT Who Wants to See a Lehman-Type Collapse In Europe? Print
Thursday, 06 October 2011 04:39

In a front page news analysis the NYT told readers that:

"but these days the problem for Europe may be that it has not had — and may not have — its own Lehman Brothers, at least in the sense that Lehman shocked Americans to take divisive and expensive steps to repair the damage."

There is no one cited in the article who says anything like this. In the wake of the Lehman collapse, the economy lost more than 700,000 jobs a month over the next nine months. While much of this job loss was probably an inevitably result of the bursting of the housing bubble, the financial freeze up associated with Lehman's collapse almost certainly worsened the situation. It is difficult to see how Europe or the world economy as a whole would benefit from the same sort of financial freeze-up.

It is also worth noting that, contrary to assertions in the article, the Fed began its special lending facilities long before the Lehman collapse. It expanded these facilities in response to the collapse and Congress did authorize the TARP, but it difficult to see how the economy on net ended up better off as a result of the crisis that followed the Lehman collapse.

Of course there are scenarios that could be positive in Europe or could have been positive in the U.S. For example, if the government had used the bankruptcies that would have resulted from letting the market run its course to restructure the financial system, then the country might have a much more efficient industry. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Bank of America all would have been bankrupt, giving the government an opportunity to reestablish these banks as a set of smaller financial institutions that were more focused on serving the productive economy.

This is a possible, but not likely outcome from a collapse in Europe. Just as is the case here, the financial industry holds enormous power. It is likely that they would be able to garner the government assistance to keep their current structures largely intact.

 
British Prime Minister David Cameron Doesn't Know Economics, Where Is the Ridicule? Print
Wednesday, 05 October 2011 13:32

The NYT reported that British Prime Minister David Cameron was prepared to give a speech in which he would call on households and businesses to pay down their debt rather than spend. This amounts to a gaffe of enormous proportions. It implies that the Prime Minister overseeing one of the world's largest economies has no clue about economics. If households and businesses responded to the prime minister's request, it would further reduce demand leading to a second recession and a further rise in unemployment.

While the NYT piece did note that Cameron changed his comments in response to complaints from businesses, it did not go on to quiz his staff in the same way that the media have followed up on other alleged gaffes by political figures. For example, in the weeks following the disclosure of then Senator Obama's comments about working class Pennsylvanians turning to guns and religion out of frustration and bitterness, news stories were filled with accounts from Obama's press people and others about his remarks. 

Certainly the magnitude of Cameron's gaffe dwarfs the guns and religion statement from Obama. The media should be pressing his aides to determine whether Mr. Cameron is really as confused about the economy as the text of his original speech implied. People in both the UK and the rest of the world would undoubtedly like to know.

 

 
Why Do Trade Agreements Have to be "Free?" Print
Tuesday, 04 October 2011 05:13

Why can't the NYT just call the trade agreements being sent to the senate "trade" agreements? Why does it feel the need to mislead readers in the headline and several times in the article itself by calling them "free trade" agreements?

These deals do not free all trade. There will still be plenty of protectionist barriers left in place that will make it difficult for doctors, lawyers and other professionals from these countries from working in the United States. Furthermore the deals actually increase protectionism in the areas of patents and copyrights, which is one of their main purposes.

Presumably the NYT approves of these deals which is why it blesses them as "free trade" agreements, but this sort of editorializing should be left to the opinion pages.

 
The IMF, ECB, and EC are Prepared to Wreck the World Economy to Squeeze a Few Extra Dollars Out of Greece Print
Tuesday, 04 October 2011 04:59

The NYT piece on the failure of Greece to meet its deficit targets and the response by the IMF, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission should have included a comment from someone pointing out that these institutions are jeopardizing the growth prospects for the world economy in order to try to squeeze some additional money out of Greece for its creditors.

The risk of a Greek default is leading to soaring interest rates on the debt of several euro zone countries and creates a real risk of another Lehman-type financial freeze-up. This would virtually guarantee a double-dip recession in both the euro-zone and the United States.

This fact should have been included in the article. Given that the current economic crisis is in large part the result of the incompetence of these institutions, the public might not appreciate the fact that they are risking further damage to the world economy in order to squeeze a country that is already suffering enormous economic pain.

 
How Did the NYT Determine that the U.S. Has a Budget Crisis? Print
Tuesday, 04 October 2011 04:45
The paper doesn't tell its readers how it made the determination that the country faces a budget crisis, but this did not prevent it from telling readers in both a headline and an article's first sentence that there is a budget crisis. The NYT's assessment certainly differs sharply from the assessment of financial markets in this respect. They are willing to lend the U.S. government trillions of dollars at interest rates of less than 2.0 percent on 10-year bonds. If the financial markets shared the assessment of the NYT editors they would be demanding far higher interest on government debt.
 
<< Start < Prev 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 Next > End >>

Page 264 of 408

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