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  

The Washington Post Imposes Its Own Agenda on the Supercommittee Print
Thursday, 27 October 2011 04:45
The Washington Post told readers that the supercommittee had an "original goal of at least $1.2 trillion in savings through 2021." Actually, its goal was specified in terms of deficit reduction which can come in the form of either higher revenue or reduced spending. The term "savings" implies spending cuts. That may be the Post's agenda, but it is not the one that Congress gave to the supercommittee.
Robert Samuelson Complains About the Paint Job on the Titanic: Yet Another Deficit Whine Print
Wednesday, 26 October 2011 19:48

It is really incredible how much ink that Robert Samuelson and his colleagues on the Post's opinion and news pages can devote to the budget deficit at a time when 26 million people are unemployed, underemployed or out of work altogether. In a column on Monday Samuelson told us of his "fantasy":

"Retired presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush would tour the country together and apologize. They would apologize for not tackling Social Security and Medicare when they had the chance."

What a fantasy! Here we are sitting in the middle of the wreckage of the housing bubble and we are supposed to be upset at Presidents Clinton and Bush for not cutting Social Security and Medicare.

The bubble economy of course had its origins in the Clinton years. His team applauded the rise of stock prices to ever more irrational levels, somehow thinking that ever greater distortions in the stock market were evidence of a successful economy. In addition, Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was the main promoter of the high dollar policy. This was the origins of the country's huge trade deficit, which is the largest remaining imbalance in the U.S. economy. Clinton also pushed the financial deregulation that helped open the door for the financial crisis of 2008.

President Bush certainly has no better record. The housing bubble grew to ever more dangerous levels right in front of his face. All he could do was celebrate the rise in homeownership as a success in his quest for an "ownership society."

The collapse of these bubbles is projected to cost the country $8.3 trillion. This is more than $27,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. It might be reasonable to think that our former presidents owed us some sort of apology for leading us into this disaster. But not in Robert Samuelson's world.

In Samuelson's world they should be apologizing that the retirees, who saw their housing wealth decimated by the collapse of the bubble, are living on $1,200 monthly Social Security checks instead of $1,100 monthly checks. And, they should be apologizing that these retirees don't have to pay more money for their health care.

That's really some fantasy that Robert Samuelson has there.

A Bit of Confusion on Consumption Print
Wednesday, 26 October 2011 07:17

I'm not ordinarily one to complain that a person is not an economist, but when one writes on economics, it does help to have some familiarity with the topic. That does not seem to be the case with the NYT column by James Livingston touting the merits of more consumption.

While part of the story sounds very good -- reverse the upward redistribution from wages to profits -- some of the rest does not make sense. Yes, consumption has grown more than investment over the last century. That happens in every country as it develops. When it is poor, there is a real focus on building up the capital stock to get richer, which means that investment will be a very high share of GDP.

In China investment accounts for close to 50 percent of GDP now, compared to around 20 percent in the U.S. However, as China moves from a rapidly developing country into being a wealthy country, its consumption share of income will almost certainly rise, as was the case with the U.S. and other wealthy countries. This doesn't change the fact that it is investment, not consumption, that provides the basis for productivity gains which will make the country wealthier in the future.

Also Livingstone tells us that we should not worry about the large trade deficit because many of the goods we import are made by U.S.-owned companies. I understand how this helps the shareholders in these companies, but I can't see what this does for the rest of us.

The basic accounting identity here is inescapable. If we have a large trade deficit then must have either large budget deficits or negative private saving or some combination of the two. Over the long-run, that is not a pretty picture.

Contrary to What the Post Says It's Not Hard to Project the Lost Revenue from Governor Perry's Tax Plan Print
Wednesday, 26 October 2011 05:11

The Washington Post left readers with the impression that Governor Perry's flat tax proposal would give people the option of staying under the current tax code. It favorably cited a Heritage Foundation analyst comment that:

"it will be difficult for analysts to accurately predict what its economic and fiscal impact would be."

Actually, it should not be very difficult to project the economic and fiscal impact of the plan.

If people are given the option of paying $2 for a gallon of gas or $4 we would usually assume that they would opt to pay $2. Undoubtedly there will be some people who would make mistakes under Governor Perry's plan and end up paying more in taxes than necessary, but presumably most people will get it right and the ones who get it wrong are not likely to be off by much.

As the NYT showed, an analyst of the plan by the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brooking Institution showed that the flat tax would imply a substantial tax increase for most low and middle-income households. These people would presumably keep paying tax at their current rate. However, the Perry plan would provide large reductions in taxes for the highest income taxpayers. Undoubtedly these people, all of whom have professional tax preparers, would take advantage of the large tax cut offered under the Perry plan.

It is a very simple exercise to project the revenue from a tax plan that is likely to leave the tax bill of the bottom 80 percent little changed and provide large tax cuts to top 20 percent and especially the top 1 percent. The result is a large fall in revenue and a big increase in the deficit. The Post misled its readers by implying otherwise.

Does the NYT Invest in Pets.com? Print
Tuesday, 25 October 2011 04:50

For those young uns out there, Pets.com was the poster child of the craziness of the 90s stock bubble. At the peak of the bubble it had a market valuation in the hundreds of millions of dollars even though it had never made a profit nor any clear way of making a profit.

While most people now recognize the craziness of the stock bubble years, there are some people, apparently including the NYT editorial board, who still do not recognize the craziness of the housing bubble years. Its editorial today calls for stronger measures from the Obama administration in the hope of "restoring home equity," which in turn it tells readers "is also crucial to getting consumers to spend again."

Umm, no it is not crucial to getting consumers to spend again since consumers are already spending at a higher than normal rate. The saving rate is currently around 5 percent compared to a pre-bubble average of more than 8 percent. It continues to be the case that consumption is higher than normal, not lower than normal. This corresponds to a situation in which households are putting little aside for retirement. That is especially dangerous when almost all the serious people in Washington want to cut their Social Security and Medicare benefits.

In the short term, the demand lost from the housing bubble will have to be filled by government deficits. In the longer term we will have to get the dollar down to increase exports. This is what Mr. Arithmetic says and no one has ever won an argument with him.

Brooks Is Wrong: The OWS Crew Is Against Redistribution Print
Tuesday, 25 October 2011 04:26

David Brooks told readers that the Occupy Wall Street movement it out of step with the country because it favors redistribution while most of the country opposes it. It is not clear what Brooks thinks he means by this.

The country has been seeing enormous redistribution over the last three decades, but it has all been in an upward direction. For example, the government gave trillions of dollars of below market interest rate loans to the largest banks to save them from collapse. The big banks continue to benefit from a too big to fail subsidy.

It has strengthened patent monopolies and sought to impose them on foreign countries through trade agreements. These monopolies provide the basis for huge drug companies like Pfizer and Merck.

The government has also pursued a policy of one-sided enforcement of labor law. The firing of union organizers and other law-breaking measures directed against workers are given a slap on the wrist, whereas unsanctioned strikes are confronted with the full power of the law, with unions seeing assets seized and officers put in jail.

It would not be surprising if most of the country is against this sort of redistribution since 99 percent (or thereabout) are losers from these government interventions. But this is consistent with a populist stance against the wealthy and their abuse of governmental powers to advance their interests.

The Washington Post STILL Has Not Heard About the Housing Bubble Print
Monday, 24 October 2011 04:44

During the run-up of the housing bubble the Washington Post's main and often exclusive source in stories on the housing market was David Lereah, the chief economist for 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. A front page article in today's newspaper indicates that its understanding of the housing market has not improved much.

Many of the basic facts in the article are wrong. For example, it tells readers that, "a quarter of all homeowners are 'underwater,'" owing more than their homes are worth. In fact, the correct statement is that a quarter (actually 22.5 percent in the Core Logic piece that is linked to in the piece) of mortgage holders are underwater. Since roughly one-third of all homes do not carry a mortgage, this translates into about 16 percent of all homeowners.

The piece also tells readers that:

"Housing prices remain near a crisis low. Millions of people are deeply indebted, owing more than their properties are worth, and many have lost their homes to foreclosure or are likely to do so. Economists increasingly say that, as a result, Americans are too scared to spend money, depriving the economy of its traditional engine of growth."

Actually, rather than being near a crisis low, house prices can be better described as still being about 10 percent above their trend level. If the Post has some reason to believe that the fundamentals in the housing market justify this divergence from a 100-year long trend in nationwide house prices it should have discussed it in this article.

Also, consumption continues to be higher than normal relative to disposable income, not lower, as this quote asserts. The saving rate is currently hovering near 5 percent, compared to a post-war pre-bubble average of more than 8 percent. Consumption is down relative to its bubble peaks, but this is easily explained by the loss of close to $7 trillion in housing bubble wealth and $6 trillion in stock market wealth, not being too scared to spend.


Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The article also includes the bizarre and unsourced assertion that:

"Behind the scenes, Geithner had grave concerns that if courts could change the terms of mortgage loans after the fact, banks would be less likely to lend, reducing the availability of credit in the financial system."

It is certainly possible that Geithner claims that allowing bankruptcy judges to alter mortgages would reduce lending, but the Post has no way of knowing that he actually believed this. As a practical matter, it is difficult to see why it would have much impact on lending, although it would undoubtedly reduce bank profits.

Doesn't NPR Know That the Wage Matters for Workers? Print
Monday, 24 October 2011 04:23

Workers work for pay. Most of the country understands this fact, but apparently the reporters and editors at National Public Radio do not. A Morning Edition segment [sorry, no link yet] on the impact that Alabama's crackdown on illegal immigrants is having on the ability of farms in the state to get workers never once mentioned the wages being offered for this work. 

The piece repeated complaints by farmers that they could not get citizens or green card holders to work in their fields because the work is too hard. The inability to get workers presumably reflects the pay being offered. For example, if the farmers were offering $40 an hour plus health care benefits, then they would likely be able to fund people willing to work in their fields.

Of course offering higher wages would make most of these farms unprofitable, but it is not true that people in the United States are literally unwilling to do farm work. The question is the wage at which they would be willing to work.

The NYT Can't Find Anyone to Say Anything Good About Argentina Print
Sunday, 23 October 2011 21:47

That is sort of striking since its President Cristina Kirchner seems headed for re-election with a clear majority of the votes. Argentina has also enjoyed the strongest growth over the last decade of any country in Latin America. Nonetheless all 5 of the NYT's sources in an article discussing the election were critical of Kirchner.

This quote deserves special mention:

"'This election really seemed to defy the normal rules of politics,' said Michael Shifter, the president of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. 'But that is what happens when things are going well in the economy and there is a dearth of alternatives.'"

It really should not have been hard to find someone who has positive things to say about President Kirchner. It appears that the NYT is relying on a narrow range of sources who are more in tune with Argentina's creditors than the majority of the Argentine population.

The article at one point comments negatively about the state of Argentina's economy, noting that growth is expected to slow to 4.6 percent next year. This rate would still be almost a full percentage point faster than the average growth rate in Brazil over the last decade. Brazil is described as a positive contrast to Argentina in the article.

More NYT Editorializing About the Budget in the News Section Print
Sunday, 23 October 2011 21:38

The NYT discussed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's responsibilities and told readers that one of the issues on the table is "the financial health of a debt-ridden country." It is not clear how the NYT made the determination that the United States is debt ridden. The financial markets seem to disagree with its assessment since they are willing to lend money to the United States at very low interest rates.

The more obvious economic problem is massive unemployment and the fact that the economy is operating far below its potential and is projected to continue to do so long into the future. If the NYT were listing the economic problems facing the country, unemployment might be the more obvious one to mention, but in any case, the sort of speculation that appears in this article is ordinarily left to opinion pages.

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

Page 273 of 422

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.