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  

Good News, There are Federal Limits on Greenhouse Gas Emissions! Print
Thursday, 18 August 2011 09:08

Those who are concerned about global warming will be happy to discover when they read the Washington Post that the federal government has limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The Post had a page two article that told readers how the world would be different if the Tea Party folks, as personified by the House Republicans, ran the country.

The second item in the Post's list of differences is:

"It would no longer have federal limits on greenhouse gases."

Yes, that would be a big difference if the country actually did have limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The bill cited in the article would prohibit the Environment Protection Agency from using its regulatory powers to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases. However, there is no current statute that actually limits greenhouse gases, so the Tea Party folks don't have very much that they could change in this area. 

Health Care Will Only Crowd Out Other Employers If We Don't Need Health Care Jobs Print
Thursday, 18 August 2011 08:29

The NYT had an interesting, if somewhat confused, piece on whether the health care sector will continue to be a reliable source of job creation. The piece notes that the health care sector has been the one major sector that has consistently added jobs since the beginning of the downturn, however it notes that cost pressures are likely to slow the rate of employment growth in the future.

The article concludes with the comments of Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist at MFR Inc.:

"If spending on health care continues at its current pace, it will choke out other vital sectors and end up hurting the rest of the economy, ... I think the path that we’re on now is clearly unsustainable.”

This statement is somewhat misplaced in the article. As long as we are in a period of high unemployment, then the health care industry's growth will not be constraining growth elsewhere in the economy. This would only be an issue if we have returned to something close to normal levels of employment. Of course if we have returned to normal levels of employment, then we won't be dependent on the health care sector to provide jobs.

If S&P's Downgrade Was So Important to Financial Markets, Why Did Bond Prices Soar? Print
Thursday, 18 August 2011 07:07

It's pretty bad when our nation's leading newspaper can't tell which way is up. The NYT told readers today that:

"members of Congress are investigating why S.& P. removed the nation’s AAA rating, which is highly important to financial markets."

If the triple A rating is so important to financial markets, then why did bond prices soar in the first trading day after the downgrade? The downgrade should have meant U.S. government debt is viewed as more risky. This means that government bonds should command a higher risk premium and therefore sell for a lower price. The exact opposite happened.

Of course the stock market did plummet, but that is another obvious explanation: the fear that the debt crisis in Italy and Spain could lead to the collapse of the euro and another Lehman-type financial freeze-up. This explanation fits the pattern of movements in financial markets. The idea that the markets panicked over the downgrade doesn't.

The article also discusses the inherent conflict of interest that results from having the issuer pay the credit rating agency for its rating. It would have been worth mentioning a provision in the Dodd-Frank bill introduced by Senator Franken which would eliminate this conflict. The Franken amendment would have the SEC pick the rating agency.

Representative Frank put in a provision in the conference report that delayed the implementation of the Franken amendment, pending the outcome of an SEC study of the issue.

Casey Mulligan Unloads the Kitchen Sink Print
Wednesday, 17 August 2011 05:20

Casey Mulligan has been putting on a one-economist show in his NYT blog, arguing week and after week that the downturn is really a supply story and has little or nothing to do with the plunge in demand created by the collapse of the housing bubble. This week he sums up his evidence.

Most of it has to do with the fact that even in the downturn employers will hire better qualified workers over less qualified workers and lower paid workers over higher paid workers. He infers from this fact that if all workers were better qualified and/or lower paid that we would not have an unemployment problem.

This is more than a bit of a bizarre argument since it is producing evidence that does not in any way contradict anything argued by Keynes or his followers. Does anyone believe that employers stop caring about workers' qualifications in a downturn? Or, alternatively, that they stop caring about wages?

Keynes' point is that changes that could increase any individual's chance of employment (e.g. improved education or accepting lower wages) would not necessarily lead to lower unemployment in general. In other words, if all workers could instantly get a college education then the main result would be that we would have more unemployed college grads.

This story would seem to be supported by two basic facts about the downturn. First, huge numbers of people who had the skills and desire to work before the collapse of the housing bubble, now do not have jobs. It seems difficult to explain the sudden loss of millions of jobs as a supply side phenomenon. The other basic fact is that unemployment has risen across the board in every major skills grouping and geographical location. This is very hard to explain as a supply side story.

I can't imagine that any Keynesian would have thought that skills don't matter for an individual's employability nor that the wages they expect affects their likelihood of finding a job. So the evidence that Mulligan finds along these lines hardly seems much of refutation of Keynes.

Any Hope That the ECB Will Stop Adhering to Superstitions? Print
Wednesday, 17 August 2011 04:52

The NYT had a piece on the prospect that the euro zone countries might move to a closer fiscal union. The piece commented that one positive aspect to the recent growth numbers for most euro zone countries,

"was the hope that slower growth would lead to less inflation, giving the European Central Bank [ECB] more leeway to keep interest rates low and intervene in bond markets."

Of course it is also possible that sufficient evidence that the euro zone is growing way below its potential could in principle lead the euro zone to abandon its worship of 2 percent. Unlike the Federal Reserve Board, the ECB makes no pretense of targeting full employment. It has indicated a willingness to sacrifice trillions of dollars of output and leave tens of millions of workers needlessly unemployed due its exclusive focus on its 2 percent inflation target. If the banks board could be influenced by evidence then it might in principle be possible for them to alter this focus and switch to a policy designed to boost growth.

The article also peculiarly attributes the growth slowdown to the sovereign debt crisis. The more obvious explanation is the austerity programs that most countries have implemented in response to the crisis. The predicted effect of the cuts in government spending and tax increases put in place to reduce budget deficits is to slow growth. It appears that the economies of Europe are responded as expected.

NYT Notes Problem With GDP Accounts, but Gets the Solution Wrong Print
Wednesday, 17 August 2011 04:33

The NYT reported on the fact that the large revisions to GDP that the Commerce Department reported last month changed our view of the state of the recovery. (Although it is not accurate to term the 1.8 percent growth rate originally reported for the first quarter as respectable. This growth rate is not even sufficient to keep pace with the growth of the labor force.) The data are often subject to large revisions which can substantially change the assessment of the economy from the originally reported data.

However, it is wrong in arguing that the picture would be improved by relying on the income side measure of GDP. There have been two instances in which the income side measure has diverged sharply from the output side measure. One was associated with the growth and later collapse of the stock bubble in the 90s and the beginning of the 00s. Income-side GDP exceeded output side when the bubble was growing and then trailed it in the quarters following the bubble's collapse.

The second major divergence was in the middle of the last decade. We saw the exact same pattern around the growth and collapse of the housing bubble. Income-side GDP growth exceeded output side when the bubble was growing, it fell behind output growth when the bubble burst.

It seems likely that the issue here is that some of the capital gains generated by the bubbles are being misclassified as ordinary income. (Capital gains should not appear in GDP.) In fact, regression results strongly support this case.

To get this outcome, all we need is an assumption that some percentage of capital gains are always misclassified as ordinary income. When capital gains rise relative to GDP, as they do in a bubble, the amount of misclassification rises, causing income-side GDP to exceed output-side GDP. The story is reversed when the bubble bursts and capital gains plummet.

Didn't Anyone Tell the NYT About Work Sharing in Germany? Print
Tuesday, 16 August 2011 04:40

The NYT has a front page piece touting the health of the Germany economy. While the piece notes employment protections in Germany that make it difficult for employers to lay off workers, it doesn't explicit mention the country's shortwork program. This program (noted today by columnist Joe Nocera) encourages companies to reduce work hours rather than lay off workers. Largely as a result of German policies promoting short work (which go beyond the official program), the unemployment rate in Germany is now a full percentage point lower than it was at the start of the downturn.

Germany's extraordinary record on unemployment is almost entirely due to its labor market policy. Its record on growth since the start of the downturn is not especially impressive.

This article also should have used the OECD harmonized unemployment rates, which are calculated in a way similar to the U.S. measure, rather than the German government measures. While the German government measure shows an overall unemployment at 7.0 percent, the OECD measure shows German unemployment at 6.1 percent in June. Since almost no readers will be familiar with the distinction between the German government's methodology and the U.S. methodology with which they are familiar (Germany counts some part-time workers as unemployed) there is no reason not to use the OECD measure.

Good Piece On Perry and the Texas Economic Miracle Print
Monday, 15 August 2011 13:34
The NYT did a nice job outlining the issues in an assessment of the economic performance of Texas under Governor Perry. The piece is not an exhaustive (no short news story could be), but it touched the main points at issue.
Fun With Robert Samuelson Print
Monday, 15 August 2011 05:00

It's always fun to read Robert Samuelson's column on Monday morning to see what silliness he is pushing to justify cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Today he has his plan for balancing the budget over the next decade (the country's most important problem for people who never heard about unemployment).

As part of his argument for cutting benefits for the elderly Samuelson tells us that, "in 2008, the median net worth of married elderly couples was $385,000." (Actually, if we check his source, it looks like the year is 2007.)

Okay boys and girls, can anyone think of anything that might have affected the net worth of the elderly between 2007 and today? Apparently no one at the Post has noticed anything or they might have suggested that Samuelson try to use more recent data in his column.

Naturally, Samuelson doesn't suggest doing anything about the real cause of his deficit crisis story, exploding private sector health care costs. Nor does he consider any measures that might hurt the Wall Street folks that helped inflate the housing bubble that wrecked the economy. But who would expect more from Samuelson or Fox on 15th Street?

WAPO Should Make Clear, Constraints on Monetary and Fiscal Policy Are Political Print
Monday, 15 August 2011 04:47

A front page Washington Post piece was headlined, "Geithner, Bernanke Have Little in Arsenal to Fight New Crisis." This piece should have made it clear to readers that the obstacles to additional action are political not economic. All the obstacles noted in the piece are political in nature. The one possible exception is the S&P downgrade of U.S. government debt, which does not appear to be an obstacle at all. The markets laughed off this downgrade, sending U.S. bond prices soaring on the first trading day after the announcement.

A better headline for this piece would have been, "Political Obstacles Obstruct Response to Economic Crisis."

<< Start < Prev 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 Next > End >>

Page 293 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.