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: Germany's Unemployment Rate is 7.0 Percent or 6.2 Percent Print
Saturday, 17 September 2011 07:31

In the NYT, Germany's unemployment rate seems to vary depending on which article you read. We can look at the chart accompanying a piece on Geithner lecturing the European Union on how to deal with debt and see that the German unemployment rate is 6.2 percent. Or we can read in a piece discussing Berlin's economic and social prospects that the city's 13.3 percent unemployment rate is far above the national average of 7.0 percent.

The 6.2 percent number in the chart is right. This is the OECD's harmonized unemployment rate. It uses essentially the same methodology as the United States government, which makes it a meaningful figure for NYT readers.

The 7.0 percent rate is the official German government rate. The German government methodology counts many part-time workers as being unemployed. This number does not provide an apples-to-apples basis for comparisons with the U.S. unemployment rate. Therefore it should not appear in a news story in the U.S. media. 

 
How Did the NYT Determine that the President Can't Do Much About the Economy? Print
Friday, 16 September 2011 22:14

In an article reporting the results of a new public opinion about President Obama and Congress, the NYT told readers:

"Two-thirds of the public say Mr. Obama has not made progress in fixing the economy, even though a majority of people concede the condition of the national economy is not something a president can do a lot about."

The public can only "concede" that the president cannot do much about the economy if it is in fact true that the president cannot do much about the economy. Of course the mainstream of the economics profession would argue the opposite. For example, through Keynesian stimulus, it is possible to boost growth and create jobs. Alternatively, the decision to make budget cutbacks in a downturn adds to unemployment and slows growth.

By using the term "concede," the NYT is implying that this view is wrong. It would be interesting to know how it made this determination.

Alternatively, the paper could have simply told readers what its poll findings actually show: most people do not believe that the president can have much impact on the economy.

 
August Industrial Production: Double Dippers Get Dunked Print
Friday, 16 September 2011 14:17

The Federal Reserve Board released data on industrial production in August yesterday, and it was reasonably good. Manufacturing production rose by 0.5 percent following a 0.6 percent rise in July.

This is not earth shattering growth, and certainly not very good compared to the growth rates following severe downturns in the 70s and 80s, but it is clearly positive. The growth rate over the last 2 months is more than 6.0 percent at an annual rate. Even adding in the zero figure for June, we still get an annual rate of growth of almost 4.5 percent.

These data should have featured far more prominently in news reporting. There has been considerable attention to the risk that the economy is about to sink back into recession. The data from the Fed on manufacturing indicate that this important sector is still growing at a respectable pace.

 
The NYT Says Denmark and Bill Gates are Both Like Greece Print
Friday, 16 September 2011 12:19

The NYT has lost any connection to reality in its deficit/debt discussions. In an article discussing the victory of the left parties in Denmark it told readers:

"For Denmark, a nation of 5.5 million people, the election turned on the issue that has also divided many other Western nations struggling with low growth, large government deficits and historic levels of national debt: what mix of government spending and tax policies to adopt in order to restore economic health and avoid slipping further toward a crisis like Greece’s."

 

According to the IMF, Denmark's debt to GDP ratio is projected to be just over 4 percent at the end of 2011. By comparison, Greece's debt to GDP ratio is 150 percent. Greece's annual interest burden is considerably larger than Denmark's debt.

Claiming that Denmark need worry about being like Greece is like saying that Bill Gates needs to worry about ending up homeless. Both are theoretically possible, but almost unimaginable given their current situations.

The article also includes an unusual discussion of growth rates telling readers:

"Denmark is Scandinavia’s worst-performing economy, with a growth rate less than half of Norway’s and less than one-third of Sweden’s."

Since the growth rates in question are all low, it makes far more sense to express the gap in percentage point terms rather than as ratios. A country with 1.0 percent growth has twice the growth rate of a country with 0.5 percent, but for most purposes there is little difference between these growth rates in the lives of the populations affected.


 
David Brooks Wants Us All to Just Accept That the Unemployed Have to Suffer Print
Friday, 16 September 2011 03:52

David Brooks piece today is titled "the planning fallacy." The gist of it is that because of the financial crisis the gods have dictated that the United States simply must experience a prolonged period of high unemployment.

In Brooks view, the only problem is that the Democrats are stupid enough to rely on the actual history of the New Deal, and mountains of other evidence. They therefore believe that we can actually do something to bring down the rate of unemployment to more acceptable levels.

While a prolonged period of high unemployment may be the gospel according to Brooks' god, it is easy to show that there is no logical reason that the rest of us should accept this line. In fact, we also have good evidence that the stimulus thus far produced as many or more jobs than the Obama administration had predicted. Its problem was that it under-estimated the size of the hole created by the collapse of the housing bubble, not excessive confidence in the ability of stimulus to get us out of the hole.

Brooks' seemingly deeply held conviction that the country is condemned to a prolonged period of high unemployment would be more convincing if he would volunteer to share in the sacrifice. I'm sure the NYT would have no problem finding a currently unemployed columnist with far greater knowledge of the issues Brooks writes on.

 
Increased Demand Gives Firms the Need to Hire, Not the Confidence Print
Wednesday, 14 September 2011 05:59

The NYT told readers that the Obama administration wants to increase the demand for goods and services, "which could then give employers the confidence to hire." Actually, an increase in the demand for goods and services forces employers to hire at the risk of losing business.

If a restaurant doesn't have enough staff to serve its customers, it will lose customers. If a factory doesn't have enough workers to fill its order then it loses orders. Increased demand forces businesses to use more labor.

Confidence may affect the extent to which firms actually hire more workers, as opposed to increasing the number of hours worked per worker. The latter still remains well below its pre-recession level. This is a strong piece of evidence that a lack of demand, not confidence, is the main factor impeding business expansion.

The article at one point comments that:

"Many businesses and consumers remain sufficiently scarred by the financial crisis and long economic slump that they are awaiting clear evidence of a recovery before beginning to spend and hire at a healthy pace again."

Actually consumers are already spending at a healthy pace. Their saving rate is close to 5 percent, well below the pre-bubble average of 8 percent. As a result of this low rate of saving (and high rate of consumption), most workers will have very little wealth accumulated at the point their retire. This is especially troublesome given plans in Washington to cut Social Security and Medicare.

The article also discusses the possibility that the Fed will change the composition of its holdings of U.S. government bonds. It could try to bring down longer term interest rates by selling short-term bonds and buying 10-year or 30-year Treasury bonds.

It would have been worth mentioning that the Fed could also reduce the government's projected interest burden by holding these bonds. Currently the Fed is refunding roughly $80 billion a year (@2.2 percent of spending) to the Treasury from the interest it earns on its assets.

If the Fed continued to hold these bonds, rather than sell them off as it currently plans, it could save the government close to $600 billion in interest payments over the next decade. Given the concerns in Washington over deficits, this would have been worth mentioning.

 
Thomas Friedman Is Making Sense, Are the End Times Here? Print
Wednesday, 14 September 2011 05:49
He gets it right on global warming. I'm off to re-read the Corinthians.
 
Post Calls Attention to the Big Benefit that the Wealthy Get from the Capital Gains Tax Cut Print
Monday, 12 September 2011 10:06
This is a very nice front page piece. This is what newspapers are supposed to.
 
Another Lesson on National Income Accounting for Robert Samuelson Print
Monday, 12 September 2011 07:08

National income really is very basic stuff. It gets taught in every intro econ class. Anyone writing on economics should know it inside out. They should be able to do it blindfolded, with one hand tied behind their back, and standing upside down.

Unfortunately, it seems that most people reporting and writing on economics for major news outlets can't do national income accounting at all. Let's take Robert Samuelson at the Washington Post. I had a lesson on this topic for him last month, which I won't repeat here.

But his column today really would benefit enormously from an understanding of national income accounting. He is asking why the economy has not recovered despite President Obama's stimulus. His answer is that firms are not investing because of regulatory uncertainty created by President Obama's health care plan and other measures and that consumers are worried after the collapse of the housing bubble and therefore not spending money.

See, if Robert Samuelson understood national income accounting, he would know that there really is no problem with either investment or consumption. Investment in equipment and software has pretty much risen back to its pre-recession level as a share of GDP. This is actually quite impressive, since there is a huge amount of excess capacity in most sectors of the economy.

Consumption is actually high, not low. The saving rate is hovering near 5.0 percent. This is well-below its post-war average of 8.0 percent, before the wealth created by the stock and housing bubbles sparked a consumption boom.

So, if neither investment nor consumption is the problem, then why isn't the economy bouncing back? This is where national income accounting would be very useful to Mr. Samuelson. The problem is that the country has a large trade deficit. It is close to 4.0 percent of GDP now, and would likely be in the 5-6 percent range if we were back at full employment. (Higher GDP increases imports, which would increase the size of the deficit.) This creates a huge shortfall in demand.

This shortfall was filled during the housing bubble years by a consumption boom and boom in residential construction and some categories of non-residential construction. With the loss of housing bubble wealth, there is no reason to expect consumption to return to its bubble levels. Nor would this be desirable, since it would mean that families are not saving adequately for retirement even as the nation's elite (e.g. the Washington Post, Peter Peterson, etc.) are planning to cut back their Social Security and Medicare.

The only way to get close to full employment in the short-term is through much higher levels of deficit spending. In the longer term we will have to lower the value of the dollar to get the trade deficit closer to balanced.

It really is that simple. The problem is not regulation, taxes, or uncertainty, the problem was that the stimulus was not big enough or long enough. As it is, we are sitting around watching our national leaders debate why the water that they heated to 160 degrees is not boiling. This is getting really painful.

 
Gregory Mankiw's Bad Memory on Investment Print
Sunday, 11 September 2011 09:17

Gregory Mankiw says that the economy's big problem is a lack of investment in equipment and software. And, he has some remedies that he suggests for President Obama. He is pushing tax reform, more NAFTA-style trade agreements, reduced regulation and weakening the power of workers.The general story is that we want to be even more business friendly.

Of course we did have a president who tried being business friendly. His name was George W. Bush. Gregory Mankiw should remember him since he was President Bush's chief economist for several years.

Let's compare the track record on investment in equipment and software. At its peak before the recession, investment in equipment and software was 8.0 percent of GDP. At 7.4 percent of GDP in the most recent quarter, this category of investment has bounced back from its low in 2009 of 6.4 percent, but still has not made it back to the pre-recession peak.

But this still looks pretty good compared to the record under President Bush. The pre-recession peak share was 9.6 percent in 2000. The share continued to fall through the first three years of the Bush presidency, hitting 7.6 percent in 2003 and then stayed pretty much flat through the rest of the Bush presidency.

eqsoftinv_2961_image001

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

 

Given this track record, it seems like Mankiw might be giving advice on how to boost to investment to the wrong president.

 
<< Start < Prev 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 Next > End >>

Page 271 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