Monthly Archives: January 2009

The Economist as Sisyphus

President Obama is now claiming that unemployment could climb above 10% without his stimulus program.

This is a weird claim. For every job the stimulus creates, some other job disappears. Suppose one of those jobs pays $50,000 per year. That is $50,000 that taxpayers now do not have to spend. The less they spend, the fewer jobs that their spending can create.

By its very nature, the stimulus cannot create anything, at least on net. It has opportunity costs at least equal to any benefit it has. Add in transaction costs, and the economy stands to worsen from the stimulus. That’s why Obama’s claim is such an strange one.

All this has been said a million times, here and elsewhere. But according to polls, 56% of Americans still don’t get it.

Is it the economist’s job to repeat himself until that figure improves? Or is that a Sisyphean task? Opportunity cost ignorance goes back to at least the Roman Empire. There is no compelling reason to be believe it will ever go away.

State Bailout: Grant or Loan?

Harold Meyerson’s latest Washington Post column, “A Page from the Hoover Handbook,” is, as far as economic illiteracy goes, one of the worst I’ve seen in a while.

It may be impolite to point out others’ mistakes. But we can learn from them in doing so. In that spirit, and with no disrespect to Meyerson, let’s take a look at where he went wrong.

Democrats want the federal government to give grants to states. Republicans want those grants to be loans instead. Meyerson very strongly sides with the Democrats here. But there is no intellectual reason to prefer one side over the other. Both sides favor the same thing.

Here’s why. Suppose the Democrats win. The money goes to states as a grant. It is transferred from taxpayers to the federal government. Then the federal government transfers it to various state governments.

The federal government’s debt then increases by the amount of the grants. Bond buyers loan the federal government the money. Taxpayers then repay the bond buyers’ loans in the future.

Now suppose the Republicans win. The money goes to states as a loan. It is transferred from taxpayers to the federal government. Then the federal government transfers it to various state governments. Sound familiar?

State government debt then increases by the amount of the loans. Bond buyers loan the state governments the money. Taxpayers then repay the bond buyers’ loans in the future. Only the names change. Meyerson has no real reason to favor grants over loans. Only partisanship.

State governments have spent themselves into trouble. The way out of trouble is to spend less. If a family hits hard times, they cut back their spending. Now several state governments have hit a rough patch. But they want to cut back our spending. Not their own. How is that fair? How does that help the economy?

Health Care Spending Up

Health care spending in 2007 went up to $2.2 trillion. That is 16.2% of GDP. All in all, we’re talking $618 per person per month — more than what a lot of people pay for rent.

The good news: the rate of increase is slower than in years past. The bad news: it’s still faster than real wages plus inflation.

The worse news: continued movement toward a third-party payment system will further reduce incentives to contain costs. People aren’t as careful spending other people’s money as they are their own.

Journalism vs. Economics

“[J]ournalism may be the greatest plague we face today — as the world becomes more and more complicated… our minds are trained for more and more simplification.”

-Nassim Taleb, Fooled by Randomness, p. 39.

Most people turn to the television and the newspaper to learn about the world. At the same time, most people don’t have much time to spend consuming news. We have short attention spans. Jobs to go to. Children to raise.

More to the point, a lot of people just don’t care very much. Many journalists — and even more of their consumers — have limited intellectual curiosity. We have better things to do.

This affects the quality of news reporting. The dominant format in print and broadcast media is now the soundbite. It’s short. It’s catchy. You can listen to an entire soundbite on the morning news and still get to work on time. Several of them in fact, on a variety of topics.

But soundbites leave little room for subtlety. For nuance. For shades of gray.

This is a tragedy. Ours is a world full of not just grays, but colors. Vibrant colors, arrayed across an entire spectrum, shining through all of space and all of time. It’s beautiful.

There is little beauty in the harsh, monochrome soundbite. Worse, the soundbite crowds out analysis of anything that takes much longer than a news cycle to materialize. This is the soundbite’s biggest failure. Our world is going through slow but profound changes that a soundbite couldn’t possibly capture.

Take the economy. Because we’re probably in a recession right now, headlines are screaming about economic instability. Volatility. Crashing, churning. A recent CNN/Money article describes “jaw-dropping” market volatility. A Google search of “increasing market volatility” yields 442,000 results.

Journalists should stop screaming. The economy is actually less volatile than it used to be. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the data. Booms are longer now. Recessions are shallower. It’s right there in the data.

But we probably won’t hear about this trend in the news. That’s because it is sixty years in the making. It didn’t happen over a news cycle. It happened over generations.

You’ll hear all about the Dow’s latest ups and downs — down 81 points today, by the way. But here’s something you’ll probably never hear on CNBC or Fox News: the Dow has never had a 15-year period where it lost money. Ever. Including the Great Depression. Your IRA is safe.

If you really want to learn about our world or its economy, listen to the data. They are far more eloquent than any talking head.

When Is a Tax Cut Not a Tax Cut?

When spending doesn’t go down to match. Seen in that light, President Obama’s tax cut… isn’t. George Mason professor Russ Roberts just nails it over at Cafe Hayek:

an increase in spending coupled with lower tax collections is an INCREASE in taxes. AN INCREASE in taxes. NOT A TAX CUT. If I spend more money and collect less, the government is promising to collect more taxes in the future. It is not a tax cut.

Is that really so hard to understand? Judging by both parties’ reactions, apparently it is. Welcome to Washington.

Stimulus Package: Maybe It’ll Work This Time?

The Hill says to expect an economic stimulus package after the inauguration.

Two quick thoughts. One: it won’t work. Any money the government injects into the economy must first be taken out of it. Congress can’t “stimulate” anything, no matter how hard they try. They simply can’t create new wealth. All they can do is redistribute wealth that already exists.

Two: media coverage. When President Bush tried a Keynesian stimulus package, it was widely panned. Left and Right came together to say that Bush was wrong. And he was.

Today, a different man wants to do the same thing. He is just as wrong now as Bush was then. But unlike last time, the media isn’t calling out Obama’s mistake. They’re cheering for him. It seems the only people expressing skepticism are economists and right-wing partisans.

The partisans can — and should — be dismissed. But I’m beginning to think some of them may have a point when they grumble about the media’s kid-glove treatment of President Obama. Politicians are to be treated with skepticism; President Bush’s approval ratings are a good thing.

The country will eventually find out that President Obama is a politician like any other. My fear is that we will learn the hard way. Here’s to hoping the Obama honeymoon is a short one.