Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. U3 Unicorns Puking Rainbow Recoveries

 

unicorn

Do you ever feel a bit of a disconnect between the continuous media reports that the economy is doing awesome (here, here, and here to name a few) and how much it feels like the economy, to use a technical term, sucks outside of the stock market? Well, you’re not alone, and a couple of basic charts will validate your feelings. This is not data produced in the depths of my basement while I replace the tinfoil around my head. These are government-reported numbers on the health of the labor market. I call your attention to the time period during which the media was harping on the theme of, “It’s the economy, stupid!” and our recent “awesome recovery.”

This first chart shows the labor force participation rate, measuring the percentage of adults who are working. I’m using this instead of the commonly reported – and improving – U3 unemployment rate, because U3 has about as much correlation with the health of the labor market as the ratio of pixies to hobgoblins in Neverland. The reason I’m so down on U3 is that it behaves as if the underemployed are fully employed. (Settle down, James Pethokoukis, I mean the objectively underemployed, as in, part-time workers who want or need to work full time.)

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Bear Week Begins

 

grizzlyIf you’re just waking up, chances are you’re waking up to the news that you’ve lost money.

The Greece crisis is being likened to an economic Sarajevo. The markets are sinking faster than I can type. Asian stocks began tanking hours ago. (Last I checked, the Shanghai Composite Index was down 3.7%; the Nikkei 225 down 2.4%; Hang Seng down 2.7%; Sydney’s S&P ASX-200 down 2.3%; Seoul’s Kospi … well, you get the drift. By the time I hit “publish” these numbers are sure to be down further.) The European markets opened a few hours ago and … wow. Stampede city.

Yesterday, Puerto Rico — well, I’m sure you heard:

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Grecian Formula €1.55 Billion

 

An ATM in Athens. The sign says "empty."While we’ve been debating the Supreme Court, there’s been a whole lot of noise going on in Europe over the snap referendum the Greeks have called on their loans from the IMF, the European Commission, and the European Central Bank (hereinafter “the troika,” as they are commonly known in Greece and Cyprus — usually with an epithet as a modifier.)

Here’s a guide to what’s happening and what’s at stake, as well as a few thoughts on what we’ll see on Monday.

This is a very odd referendum. Normally, the troika and the Greek government — currently controlled by the left-wing Syriza party that swept to power 8 months ago on a pledge to not borrow more money and get out from under the troika’s economic stabilization plan — would agree to some compromise. Syriza’s leader, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, would go on television, announce the agreement, and ask the people to vote to support it. (Chances are the compromise would include his breaking a couple of promises, so he’d want the people’s blessing to do so.) But no, this referendum comes after Tsipras left negotiations and flew back to Athens without an agreement — and he is putting the troika’s deal on the table. It is clear he would like the public to vote no.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Worse Than the Supremes: Obamacare Economics

 

shutterstock_154183430The judicial decision to uphold all of the president’s health care subsidies may be very disappointing, but the economics of Obamacare are far worse than whatever constitutional mistakes have been committed by the Supreme Court.

The economics of Obamacare are very bad. The law is inflicting broad damage on job creation and new business formation. It ruins job incentives by making it pay more not to work, thereby intensifying a labor shortage that is holding back growth and in turn lowering incomes and spending.

And across-the-board Obamacare tax increases are inflicting heavy punishment on investment — right when the U.S. economy desperately needs more capital as a way of solving a steep productivity decline.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Libertarian Podcast: The Fight Over Free Trade

 

In this week’s episode of The Libertarian podcast from the Hoover Institution, I lead our own Richard Epstein through a discussion of the many controversies birthed by the debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Do trade deals put the screws to American workers? Is the quest for fast-track authority another example of presidential overreach? Should the public be worried about the secrecy around the TPP? Does this deal present threats to American sovereignty? All those topics and more will be addressed when you listen to the show below or subscribe to The Libertarian via iTunes.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The World Is Losing Faith in American-Style Capitalism vs. China. But Maybe Not For Long

 

062315chinaFrom Pew:

The U.S. is still regarded as the top economic power, even more so than last year, but most people around the world continue to believe that China either will eventually replace or already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower. A median of half across the countries surveyed say that the U.S. is the world’s leading economic power, while only 27% say that of China. While a median of only 14% say China has already replaced the U.S. as the top superpower, majorities or pluralities in 27 of 40 countries say China will eventually become or has already replaced the U.S. as the top superpower.

The economic dynamism generated by democratic capitalism is a key element of the American Project’s persuasive power. But there are other models, such as China’s state-directed capitalism conjoined with an authoritarian state. Years of very fast Chinese growth and relative US stagnation have made China look like the strong horse to many — especially those not-so-interested in democracy. “I have seen the future, and it’s capitalism with Chinese characteristics!” The Beijing Consensus. As the Economist put it back in 2011:

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Game Theory Argument for Fast-Track Trade Authority

 

While public debate rages over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the real issue before Congress right now is merely whether or not President Obama should be granted fast-track authority, which allows him to negotiate a treaty on behalf of the United States and then present it to the Congress for a straight up-or-down vote with no amendments allowed. As I note in my new piece for Defining Ideas at the Hoover Institution, there’s a very strong game theory rationale for giving the president this ability:

… [F]ast-track is a good solution to a complex two-stage bargaining game. At stage one, the President and his trading partners are well aware of the prospect that the Congress could turn down a trade treaty if it is perceived, no questions asked, to put the United States in a worse position. So Congress will agree to a treaty that is better than the status quo ante for the U.S., but not so one-sided that it will drive our potential trading partners away. Hence, a stage one agreement will leave everyone better off.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. On Marco Rubio’s Supposed ‘Tax Mistake’

 

shutterstock_192953363The Wall Street Journal editorial page recently offered a lengthy criticism of Senator Marco Rubio’s tax plan — “Rubio’s Tax Mistake” — first coauthored with Senator Mike Lee. To be more precise, it’s a lengthy criticism of Rubio’s proposed expansion of the child tax credit. Why does the WSJ hate that credit so much? It argues a bigger child credit (a) does nothing for economic growth and is thus (b) a waste of money that could be better spent on lowering the top personal income tax rate below the 35% rate in the Rubio plan.

A few thoughts: First, to the extent that higher take-home pay would allow families to invest more in their own kids and reduce family instability and stress, the tax credit does have a pro-growth aspect. Human capital counts, too, and this would be a human capital gains tax cut for the folks creating and raising the next generation of workers. Now the WSJ might counter that a better solution for a struggling middle class would be to supercharge GDP growth by deeply cutting the top rate. Yet note that Rand Paul’s new flat tax plan with its low, low, low 14.5% top rate would only increase growth by about 1 percentage point a year for the next decade, according to the Tax Foundation. We are talking about a Three Percent (ish) Economy not a Five Percent Economy, if you buy the group’s optimistic modeling assumptions. (Indeed, the same Tax Foundation modeling shows a significantly bigger growth impact from the Rubio plan thanks to its sweeping, supply-side investment and corporate tax reform.)

Second, the WSJ fails to consider the possibility that right now a “rising tide” might not not so easily lift all boats in a US economy where globalization and automation are buffeting the middle class. Faster growth is necessary, of course, but may not currently be sufficient for broadly experienced prosperity. What’s more, smart supply-side reforms may take some time to raise US growth potential. (That sure seemed to be the case with the Reagan tax cuts.) For instance: The WSJ points out how the economy flagged after the slow-motion tax cuts of George W. Bush, which also included a larger child tax credit: “…only when Mr. Bush pushed in 2003 to accelerate the rate reductions and slashed the capital gains rate to 15% from 20% did the economy take off and save his re-election.”

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Rejecting the Premise with Humor and Charm

 

dboazIn the course of a six-hour drive last Thursday, I tuned in the NPR station on my satellite radio in our truck. I found myself laughing out loud periodically during an interview on a show called “Ballot Talks” with David Boaz, the executive Vice President of the Cato Institute. He has written a book, The Libertarian Mind, which was recently updated, hence the current invitation to the NPR show. Please spend the 30 minutes to enjoy this yourself. Here’s what I found amusing.

I sensed the mood when the interviewer stated that most people think of “wealthy white men” and the Koch brothers when one talks about libertarians. However, Boaz responded consistently with humor, charm, and a variation of “I reject that premise…” or “I just do not agree…” It really threw her off her game each time he failed to sound annoyed, apologetic, or defensive.

As the show continued, the interviewer became a little defensive, or astonished that her assertion was completed denied. I’m confident that some of the information that Mr. Boaz presented was unknown to her. Several times, he turned upside-down certain historical “facts” or common perspectives that are treated as truths — especially regarding free trade and child labor laws– yet are simply one point of view about society.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Hamilton Was Asking For It

 

shutterstock_252138229I understand Mona Charen’s outrage at the Treasury Department’s announcement that it will eventually replace — or at least demote — Alexander Hamilton as the face of the ten dollar bill.

The Treasury move certainly fits right into the Obama Administration’s craven “identity politics” strategy, presumably intended to shore up Democratic support among key constituencies. As if the switcheroo wasn’t sufficiently poll-driven to begin with, the clincher of course is that Hamilton will be replaced by a woman to be selected… by popular demand.

But I cannot feel too sorry for Hamilton. The Department of the Treasury is, after all, the House that Hamilton built. No individual is so responsible for consolidating national power over economic affairs as Hamilton. He managed to have the central government assume the states’ debts and then establish a Bank of the United States, despite the utter lack of any constitutional authorization for the federal government to get into the banking business (as James Madison and many others pointed out at the time). He did not manage to wipe out state currency in his lifetime, but his political heirs — the Republicans and erstwhile Whigs who emerged victorious from the Civil War — did so with national currency legislation that taxed state legal tender out of existence. This aspect of Hamilton’s legacy is well documented in Thomas DiLorenzo’s book: Hamilton’s Curse.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Jeb Is Right About 4 Percent Growth

 

shutterstock_211615246“There is not a reason in the world why we cannot grow at a rate of 4 percent a year.” That’s what Jeb Bush said when he officially announced his presidential run in Miami last week. And right off the bat, most economists trashed the idea.

“It can’t happen and it’s never happened.” “Productivity is too low.” “The labor force is growing too slowly.” “Secular stagnation.”

They don’t call it the gloomy science for nothing.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. How Whom We Marry Affects Income Inequality

 

A recent Economist issue highlighted the role of assortative marrying in the US inequality story. From its review of Inequality: What Can Be Done by Anthony Atkinson:

In America, for instance, incomes at the top of the scale began pulling away from the rest quite soon after 1945. Yet household inequality—taking account of taxes and transfers—did not rise until what Mr Atkinson calls the “Inequality Turn” around 1980. Several factors contributed to this, including changes for women and work. After the second world war, when female labour-force participation grew rapidly, high-earning men tended to marry low-earning women; the rising numbers of working women reduced household inequality. From the 1980s on, by contrast, men and women tended to marry those who earned like themselves—rich paired with rich; rising female participation in the workforce exacerbated inequality.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Pope Francis Endorses Climate Science, Trashes Modernity

 

shutterstock_186370886As promised, the pope’s encyclical came out today, so I spent most of my morning reading and processing so I could say something useful about it. (Amusingly, I was recently pre-interviewed for an NPR panel on the topic, but they got spooked when they discovered that I’m a climate skeptic. Such disreputable views are obviously not suitable for NPR. So I had to wait and read the encyclical today, with the rest of the plebs.)

So here’s something you already knew: Pope Francis believes in climate change. Here’s something else you knew: he’s wary of free markets. Despite that, I found it a very enjoyable read. Neither climate change nor free markets were the central focus. It’s more of a meditation on the dehumanizing, technocratic tendencies of modernity. It occurred to me as I was reading that Pope Francis believes in climate change mainly for the same sorts of reasons that conservatives are prone to doom-and-gloom future projections: the progressive disregard for nature has advanced so far that it seems credible to him that the earth is on the brink of disaster.

So, that’s some interesting food for thought. I’ll pull out a few passages that I liked, and invite others to leave whatever reactions they want to share.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Was the 1990s Clinton Economy Really That Good?

 

I was on Bill Bennett’s always-excellent “Morning in America” radio program today, and a caller asked me — basically — to provide talking points on why the 1990s Clinton economic boom “wasn’t really that good.” (The caller probably wanted ammo against liberal coworkers or relatives when they used Bill Clinton’s economic record as reason to support Hillary Clinton.) My response was, “Well, the Clinton years really were pretty good!”

How could I say otherwise? Why would I say otherwise? The economy grew by nearly 4% annually during the Clinton years, creating 24 million jobs and driving the unemployment rate to a superlow 3.9%. Incomes and stocks were way up, inflation and interest rates were way down. Budget deficit? What budget deficit?

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Did Hillary Clinton Really Just Blame the Bush Tax Cuts for the Financial Crisis? Does Bill Agree?

 

Hillary-Clinton-6-14-15-Reuters-500x293During her presidential announcement speech over the weekend, Hillary Clinton offered this interesting explanation for the Financial Crisis:

We’re still working our way back from a crisis that happened because time-tested values were replaced by false promises. Instead of an economy built by every American, for every American, we were told that if we let those at the top pay lower taxes and bend the rules, their success would trickle down to everyone else.

What happened? Well, instead of a balanced budget with surpluses that could have eventually paid off our national debt, the Republicans twice cut taxes for the wealthiest, borrowed money from other countries to pay for two wars, and family incomes dropped. You know where we ended up.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Sovereignty, Technical and Actual

 

cropped-iStock_000017452286XSmallIn this interview (hat tip to Melissa P), Senator Ted Cruz explains why he believes Senator Jeff Sessions is mistaken in the claim that the Trans-Pacific Partnership proposal would undermine America’s sovereignty.

Cruz points out that the international body a trade agreement like this sets up is merely advisory. In a trade dispute, the court would mediate between the two nations to judge whether or not the original agreement has been honored. But it would not be able to enforce its judgement. That lack of force is the difference between a government and … well, that other thing.

It’s not clear why a standing court, theoretically neutral, is superior to mediating disputes more directly or by more spontaneous mediation. I welcome arguments for why an international body might be merited.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. On the Downside of Being an Emperor in a Democratic Republic

 

ObamaChinHere’s some bad news for a Friday: you’re going to spend most of the weekend hearing about Nancy Pelosi. The House Minority Leader, her body temperature slowly elevated to allow full mobility and partial sentience, took to the floor of the lower chamber earlier today to come out against trade adjustment assistance (TAA) in the run-up to the vote to give President Obama fast-track authorization to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

Now, TAA, which provides government resources for workers dislocated by international trade, is normally popular with Democrats. But Pelosi didn’t take this position on the merits. Knowing that the passage of TAA would be essential for getting Democrats behind the Trans-Pacific deal, she was trying to smother the effort in the crib. As she said on the House floor,“If TAA slows down the fast-track, I’m prepared to vote against TAA.” And she got her way: it went down handily in the House, losing the vote 126-302.

There are a couple of easy journalistic frames coming here: progressives are abandoning the president in much the same way that conservatives took their leave of George W. Bush towards the end of his administration; The Obama Administration is officially sliding into lame duck territory; With Obama in the home stretch and Harry Reid preparing to retire, Pelosi is now the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. Choose your own adventure.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Is There Really a Great Stagnation? The Problem of Measuring Economic Growth in America’s Digital Economy

 

shutterstock_282670979Last month, Goldman Sachs economists Jan Hatzius and Kris Dawsey put out a research report arguing US government statistics understate GDP growth because they understate productivity growth. Over the past five years, productivity growth has averaged 0.6% annually vs. 2.6% over the prior 15 years. Here’s the gist of Goldman’s argument in “Productivity Paradox v2.0″:

— Measured productivity growth has slowed sharply in recent years, and we have reduced our working assumption for the underlying trend to 1½%. This is the same sluggish rate that prevailed from 1973 to 1995 and stands well below the long-term US average of 2¼%. The proximate cause of the slowdown is a slump in the measured contribution from information technology.

 But is the weakness for real? We have our doubts. Profit margins have risen to record levels, inflation has mostly surprised on the downside, overall equity prices have surged, and technology stocks have performed even better than the broader market. None of this feels like a major IT-led productivity slowdown.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Going Through The Motions

 

51tgilp1VzL._SY300_It doesn’t take much sympathy to feel for the long-term unemployed, especially those who held down jobs for decades before discovering that — due to changes in the market, financial collapse, or injury — neither they nor their skills have useful employment. I’d even say that one needn’t be a raging leftist to at least consider whether the state should have some role in helping them transition into something new and remunerative, rather than let their skills and work habits atrophy to the point where they’re incapable of ever getting a new job.

It should come as little surprise that in Europe — where more than half of the unemployed haven’t had a job in over a year — consideration often turns into implementation. Sometimes, as this New York Times piece describes, that goes to some very, very weird places:

Sabine de Buyzer, working in the accounting department, leaned into her computer and scanned a row of numbers. Candelia [her employer] was doing well. Its revenue that week was outpacing expenses, even counting taxes and salaries. “We have to be profitable,” Ms. de Buyzer said. “Everyone’s working all out to make sure we succeed.”

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Who Will Get Credit For a Stronger US Economy in 2016? Democrats? Republicans? No One?

 

061015huffpo

In my new The Week column, I argue that the economic recovery could well be a major plus for the Democratic presidential nominee:

Mitt Romney couldn’t beat President Obama in 2012 when the jobless rate was almost 8 percent, how can the next Republican nominee beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 when the unemployment rate could be under 5 percent? That’s the big question Republican presidential candidates must ask themselves. And the unpleasant political possibility for the GOP’s White House hopefuls is that the improving U.S. economy is, well, “likeable enough” for voters to give Democrats four more years in the Oval Office. At the very least, the economy might be such a strong tailwind for Democrats that Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or whoever else the GOP puts up would need to run a near-flawless campaign to win.