Paul Gregory

Paul Gregory

Paul Gregory, a Hoover Institution research fellow, holds an endowed professorship in the Department of Economics at the University of Houston, Texas, and is a research professor at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin. His most recent book is Politics, Murder, and Love in Stalin's Kremlin: The Story of Nikolai Bukharin and Anna Larina (Hoover Institution Press, 2010). He blogs at paulgregorysblog.blogspot.com

  • A A A
  • A Caveat for Krugman

    Critics of my blog post How Krugman Would Ru(i)n Steve Jobs’ Apple point out that Paul Krugman has a Nobel prize in economics and I do not. I should shut up in the face of a superior authority. If Krugman were writing about his specialty, international trade theory, I might indeed shut up. When Krugman puts on his political hat, he is fair game.

    In his Jobs, Jobs, and Cars, Krugman uses bad economics that would shame an introductory economics lecturer. He criticizes Apple because its labor force is too productive. (His figures show that Apple has about the same sales revenue as GM but has one fifth the work force).  By being so productive, Apple creates too few jobs! Let economists chew that one over. Krugman would be in agreement with Marx’s discredited technological unemployment.  I guess the solution is for Apple employees to become as unproductive as GM workers.

    In the same article, Krugman criticizes Apple for outsourcing routine manufacturing operations to Asia. Isn’t this what trade economists call the international division of labor? How can a trade theorist be against this practice? I guess he thinks Apple should keep routine manufacturing jobs at home even if it means higher consumer prices, loss of market share and profits.

    Krugman seems to hold the strange opinion that the business of business is to create as many jobs as possible. Last time I looked at a principles of economics text, I learned that business are there to produce products that people want as cost-effectively as possible, in the course of which the business earns profits for its owners. I guess we need to recall all economics texts.

    Click to read more.

    A “counterfactual” is an analysis of “what would have happened if.” President Obama’s claim that “the stimulus added as many as 3.3 million jobs” is the most famous example of this genre.

    Counterfactual analysis of the effects of the 2010 election on federal spending can be executed, unlike the jobs-saved analysis, on a more solid foundation with nothing more than a pocket calculator. The procedure is simple: First, we find what the Obama administration intended to spend in 2011 and 2012 on the eve of the November 2010 election (and not knowing that an electoral disaster lay in store). Second, we compare these figures with what was actually spent in 2011 and what is likely to be spent in 2012.  For example, if the administration planned to spend $3 trillion in 2011 but actually spent $2.5 trillion after the Republicans gained the House, the “counterfactual saving” for 2011 is $.5 trillion.

    According to my arithmetic, the unanticipated Republican November 2010 sweep of the House with victories of fiscally-conservative freshmen saved or will save taxpayers at least $300 billion dollars for the two-year period 2011 and 2012 alone – a figure that may understate the saving by another two hundred billion.

    Continue reading Paul Gregory…

    The venerable New York Times has been a reliable cheer leader for electric and hybrid cars in its A “news” section. Its "Business Day" section is for readers who base business decisions on what they read. They don’t want to be bothered with political correctness – just the facts. Except for a slip here or there, there is little difference between the Times Business Day and Wall Street Journalbusiness reporting. With its table “The Cost of Higher Fuel Economy,” the Times has blown the cover of the electric or hybrid car. They do not make economic sense even at much higher gas prices.

    I see that Drudge has picked up this story. Now everyone will know the house of cards on which the Volt is built.

    In its Payoff for Efficient Cars Takes Years (April 5), the Timespublishes a table that shows that buying an electric or hybrid car makes little business sense as compared to buying the closest conventional model from the same manufacturer. For example, a buyer choosing between a Chevy Cruze Eco and a Volt requires 27 years to break even. The best buy appears to be the Jetta TDI (which sells for only $500 more than the conventional Jetta) and breaks even in a year.

    It takes much too long for the fuel savings to pay for the higher sales prices – even at $5 or $6 gas. It would take $12.50 gas to make the Volt a decent buy even after the $7,500 government credit.

    The Times article concludes that people buy Volts and Fiesta SFE’s because it makes them feel better and more civic minded. That is not a very solid foundation on which to build a market.

    As a writer on Soviet planning, I am struck by its parallels with Obama Care.  Both believe their planning is “scientific” and executed by “the best of the best,” who know what is best for ordinary people. Both types of planning commissars suffer Hayek’s “fatal conceit” – the belief that they can plan incredibly complex economic systems. Their “scientific” plans, however, fall apart under the weight of unintended consequences as ordinary people circumvent their genial rules and instructions.

    The New York Times’ Mr. Health Care Mandate features economics professor cum scientific planner, Jonathan Gruber. After the Supremes’ brutal questioning, the Times probably felt that Obama Care needed a boost from Gruber, who, by his own admission, “knows more about this law than any other economist.” It was to Professor Gruber that the White House turned to design its new health care law.

    Continue reading Paul Gregory…

    Yesterday I caught the tail end of  an MSNBC commentator saying something to the effect: "Now that the Euro crisis is over…." This caught me by surprise. Yes, bankrupt Greece received a tranche of rescue funds (and was declared officially bankrupt). These funds were given on the condition that Greece stick to the austerity measures promised by its two major parties. The conservative government in Spain is apparently amending bit by bit its austerity measures. In France, the socialist candidate currently stands to beat Sarkozy in a run off election. In Spain and Portugal there are almost daily demonstrations and riots. Yes, Germany apparently agreed to increase its contribution to the stabilization fund to the outrage of German voters. Newspaper accounts inform me that few Irish are paying their property taxes.

    The Euro crisis is far from over. Imagine that the two major Greek parties lose to the nationalists and communists, the Spanish conservative government dilutes austerity, and the stimulus-inclined socialists win in France. Those saying the crisis is over would be proven fools.

    Congress rejected the Obama administration’s proposal to “end tax breaks for big oil.” The White House will prominently feature the Republicans as the lackeys of Big Oil in the 2012 election.

    The Obama administration tells us that “tax breaks for big oil” deprive our treasury of billions.  Besides that, the energy giants are making giant profits. They are greedy and don’t want to pay their fair share. Also we hear that tax subsidies are driving up the price of gas at the pump. (I guess no one in the Obama administration took an economics exam. Subsidies increase supply and drive down the price).
    If we dig deeper into the tax code, we learn that “Big Oil” tax breaks apply, in most cases, to other industries, not just to “Big Oil” as we are led to think. These other beneficiaries are not under attack. I guess they are either less successful, less greedy, or give more to the White House.
     “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Barack Obama October 13, 2008

    A young community organizer is struck by lightning and is transported back to 20,000 BC, sitting around a fire as twenty five cold fur-clad men recount their day of hunting and gathering.
    The community organizer feels an immediate kinship.  His Ivy League course on “Liberation Writings from Marx-Engels to Cornell West” taught him that these noble “first communists” constitute “our loving, peaceful, lyrically fair human core.”  Shared belief in collective production and equal distribution make us spiritual brothers. He is fortunate to be able to observe the “blissful conditions of a fabulous golden age of the remote past,” as one writer phrased it. This should be fun.
    The glorious savages name him their leader.  Anyone who could make fire with the “flick of a Bic lighter” must be a god. Well, if our intrepid time traveler can organize tough Chicago neighborhoods, he can help this clan live up to its principles of  collectivism and redistribution.

    It took President Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney to shock me to my senses. As someone who favors cutting government spending on clean energy and eliminating government subsidies in general, I was particularly distressed to learn (in Carney’s words) that “I am “aggressively and deliberately ignorant of the world economy not to know and understand that clean energy technologies are going to play a huge role in the 21st century.” Even worse, I learn that “I have a severely diminished capacity to understand what drives economic growth in industrialized countries in this century.”

    And I had thought that if clean energy technologies were going to dominate the 21st century, private enterprise would figure this out and develop them itself. In my ignorance, I thought that subsidies are dictated by and for special interests not by economic rationality. I also believed that Solyndra and SunPower were not aberrations but representative of what is going on in Secretary Chu’s and Obama’s energy department. What I fool I have been.

    I fear there I may be many like me. I suggest the President go on television to explain to why we are better off with higher energy costs and lower standards of living so that wealthy green lobbyists fill his campaign coffers and ordinary people like me buy Volts and solar panels.  Without Presidential direction on these things, we will be lost.

    Continue reading Paul Gregory…

    Times columnist Paul Krugman’s continuous railing against austerity reached a crescendo with Greece’s default. In his What Greece Means, Krugman vents his outrage:

    “What Greek experience actually shows is that while running deficits in good times can get you in trouble… trying to eliminate deficits once you’re already in trouble is a recipe for depression…Greece is the worst case, with unemployment soaring to 20 percent even as public services, including health care, collapse.”

    Bankrupt economies, like Greece, need stimulus, not austerity, Krugman declares indignantly. The “austerity-induced depressions” around the European periphery are proof that Keynes was right.  Germany’s Angela Merkel, her IMF-austerity allies, and world-wide lenders do not understand that we need a massive stimulus to get Greece out of this mess. They need to step up to the plate if they are good citizens of Europe (or the world).

    Krugman does not fess up that Greece’s Keynesian policy of endless borrowing to fund wasteful government spending and feed massive welfare programs is exactly what got Greece in the trouble it is now in. The Greeks cannot pay their  bloated public payrolls, out-of-kilter wages, and generous pensions and early retirements unless fools lend them money that will not be repaid. Even the Greeks themselves are not falling for that trick. They are too busy transferring their assets abroad. Merkel and her stingy Germans make for good scapegoats, but it’s not only them. Lenders throughout the world have shut down the lending spigot.

    Continue reading Paul Gregory…

    More Speculation Nonsense

    I regret that the “profitable speculation” diagram has disappeared from economics texts. If more people knew it, we could avoid unnecessary nonsense. Even observers from the right have no idea of the positive role of profitable speculation. Bill O’Reilly this evening launched another attack on speculators.

    If Bernie Sanders’ (and others’) proposals succeeded in eliminating speculation, we would experience broader price and quantity swings and would be worse off.

    The concept is very simple. If speculators anticipate lower future supplies (and higher prices), they buy now and hold for future sales. If they guess right, they sell in the future at a profit. If they guess wrong, they sell in the future for a loss. The profitable speculator has moved supply from a period of relative abundance to a period of relative scarcity and has smoothed out prices. We have been made better off.

    In other words, profitable speculators perform a positive service for the economy. Unprofitable speculators make things worse, but they can’t stay in business if they continue to guess wrong. They disappear. Those with a knack for speculation remain and smooth out prices and supplies.

    Notice that there is no outcry when speculators conclude that future supplies will improve and they push prices down.

    I guess that people will never understand this simple proposition. So we’ll have to live with this hot air.

    I wrote the following advice to President Obama in late August:

    “Instead of trying to prop up the overbuilt housing market, the President should propose measures to allow the economy to work off its excess inventories of housing and to find a bottom in housing prices. Only after the bottom is reached will construction resume.”

    In a campaign appearance, Mitt Romney came to the same conclusion, saying that we must let the housing market clear and then we can have a recovery. Romney was widely ridiculed and has said little since then. In the meantime, Obama has tried one scheme after another to keep housing prices up and foreclosures down.

    Continue reading Paul Gregory…

    Today’s gloom-and-doom Times piece concludes that the Russian protest movement “collided with the cold reality of Mr. Putin’s convincing victory” in the March 4 presidential election. Protesters lack a leader and a positive message. Sunday’s demonstrations gave them an opportunity “to cry out together, one more time, for political freedom.” No further demonstrations are scheduled. All is lost. Putin has won.

    The White House has signed on to this “Putin has won” version.  After five day’s of hesitation, President Obama called Putin, as the White House communiqué reported, to congratulate him on his March 4 victory. Other Western nations sent more muted messages, but not Obama.

    Not so fast. Let’s get this straight. Putin did not win a “convincing electoral victory.” Real elections require an opposition, not the sorry rogues’ gallery Putin allowed to oppose him. His Central Electoral Commission disqualified everyone else. As one protester complained: “We can’t go to the courts. We cannot go to the prosecutor.” The streets remain the only option.

    As long as we believe the big lie that March 4 was a real presidential election, Putin can triumphantly declare (with tears in his eyes?) democracy alive and well.  True: Voters went to the polls. Putin might have won even without the ballot stuffing, carrousel voting, and intimidation. But Putin’s “Party of Scoundrels and Thieves” barely scraped by against the shopworn communists and nationalists in the December 4 parliamentary elections. He could take no more chances.

    Continue reading Paul Gregory…

    Greece: Default or No Default?

    Yesterday, 83 percent of Greek sovereign debt holders agreed to “voluntarily” exchange their bonds for new bonds with face value of 53 percent of the original bonds. The Greek finance ministry announced that it would invoke the collective action clause to impose the swap on an additional thirteen percent of bond holders who did not agree to the swap. This thirteen percent purchased Greek sovereign bonds under Greek law and are subject to the parliament’s collective action clause. This seems to leave seven percent holdouts who did not agree to the swap and did not purchase under Greek law. What will happen to them remains unclear.

    With this “successful” restructuring, the troika monitoring Greece agreed to release a new tranche of bailout funds to stave off a “disorderly” Greek default. These funds will give Greece a short amount of breathing space.

    Continue reading Paul Gregory…

    The Times’ March 1 news piece Tensions Raise Specter of Gas at $5 a Gallon reflects an obvious media bias. As the Times news piece claims, rising gas prices are the result of international events over which President Obama has no control. I cite the first paragraph:

    With no clear end to tensions with Iran and Syria and rising demand from countries like China, gas prices are already at record highs for the winter months — averaging $4.32 in California and $3.73 a gallon nationally on Wednesday, according to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report. As summer approaches, demand for gasoline rises, typically pushing prices up around 20 cents a gallon. And gas prices could rise another 50 cents a gallon or more, analysts say, if the diplomatic and economic standoff over Iran’s nuclear ambitions escalates into military conflict or there is some other major supply disruption.

    Under Bush, the “rising gas price” news story would invariably mention Bush by name, Big Oil, and his long-standing ties to the oil industry.

    I was about to document this media bias by searching news archives, when I found an excellent blog of March 1 by Julia Seymour, whose main results I cite below:

    The Business & Media Institute examined all the broadcast network news reports mentioning gas prices during each of those time periods and found ABC, CBS and NBC aired more than 2 ½ times more stories (63 stories to 24) in 2008 than they did in 2011.

    But it was more than just the amount of coverage that showed the media’s willingness to spin gas prices one way under Bush, and another way under Obama. In 2008, network reporters mentioned "Bush," the "president" or "government" in gas price reports 15 times more often than in 2011 under President Obama (15 stories to 1).

    Congratulations to Julia Seymour for excellent reporting and analysis.

    Credit default swaps are default insurance for corporate and sovereign bonds, to be paid in the event of the restructuring of the debt, a failure to pay coupons or principal on the bonds, or a bankruptcy.

    The International Swaps and Derivatives Association’s EMEA Determinations Committee voted yesterday that no “event” had occurred despite the Greek parliament’s passage of legislation that forces private creditors to accept losses on their holdings.

    The Greeks and banks that sold credit default swaps had hoped to avoid triggering the credit default swaps by claiming that the swap of Greek bonds for “new” bonds at a loss of 53.5 percent was “voluntary.” The problem with this argument was that a number of private lenders were not willing to go along. Now the Greek parliament has legislated that they must.

    So we now have a restructuring that is not a restructuring. We’ll have a default that is not a default. We now use semantics to solve inconvenient problems in new virtual universe of finance.

    Greece’s long term problem is that lenders do not trust it to meet its obligations. I trust that memories are long. Such arbitrary action against private lenders and against holders of credit default swaps will only delay Greece’s return to credit markets. Moreover, they cast a pall over sovereign debt, the cost of which  will be borne by borrowers generally.

    Holders of credit default swaps join Chrysler’s secured lenders.

    President Obama calls for “social justice.”  He agrees with the motley “occupiers” that the One Percent gets almost everything.  Reagan and the Bush tax cuts burdened us with a tinderbox of inequality, he lectures us. The rich should pay their fair share. “Enough is enough.”  We must create a “just” society that guarantees the poor a dignified life.

    In a word, we must become like Europe, for whom Obama expresses open admiration.

    Obama apparently does not know that the European countries that have become “fairer” over the past two decades are now basket cases of debt, social unrest, and an unaffordable welfare state.  Those European countries that have had the discipline to become “less fair,” are, in the words of a sympathetic liberal columnist (The GOP scrambles for a bogeyman) “doing well economically, both in absolute terms and in contrast to us.”

    Continue reading Paul Gregory…

    There Is Still No Greek Solution

    The press is again full of reports that the troika (IMF, EU, and ECB) have reached an agreement on Greece. Markets will again rise, until they see that little has happened.

    The troika has agreed to release a new tranche of rescue funds to stave off a March Greek default. Private lenders have agreed to their haircut (but that had really been decided a long time ago). The rescue funds will probably be doled out slowly to make sure that Greece meets its end of the bargain and cuts wages and public sector employment.

    With an election coming up (and the public vehemently against outside intervention and austerity), Greece cannot meet its end of the bargain. Greece can only do so by agreeing to be governed by external bodies, such as the troika, which spells the end (temporarily perhaps) of Greece independence.

    This is one of a hundred of steps that remain to be taken before we can say that Greece has been rescued.

    Scene: Senate Committee on Finance Hearing Room. Date: Sometime in 2012. Martha, a stylish attractive woman in her 70s, raises a shaking right hand as she is sworn in. The network cameras are notably absent. They have been told by their management to stay away.  CSpan is covering another hearing and Fox News has been delayed.

    Senator John Coburn (R Oklahoma) begins the questioning:

    Coburn: We are meeting here to discuss the President’s proposal to raise the rate of taxation on capital gains from 15 to 23.8 percent. We understand that you have particular views on this subject.

    Martha: Yes sir. I am a widow. I live in a nice retirement community inHouston, Texas. My social security check pays for most of my living expenses, and I do some part time work. But I have to cover the rest by selling off the stock I own.

    Coburn: So you are one of the millions of ordinary Americans who own stock?

    Martha: Yes, my late husband Sam was pretty good when it came to investments. Before he died ten years ago, he told me to hold on to my stocks as long as I could. He was particularly high on Massachusetts Investors Trust. Barron’s lists it in its “Best Mutual Fund Family,” I am told. All I can say is that Sam trusted this company. He had a big share of his assets in Massachusetts Investor’s Trust.

    Coburn: How have these stocks been doing? We all know the market has been down.

    Martha: My stocks have not done well since Sam died, especially the last five years. But I need more money to pay my bills, so I finally sold my Massachusetts Investor Trusts. In December, I sold $20,000 worth of shares and my broker told me that my capital gain was $2,600, and that I would have to pay a tax of $390.

    Continue reading Paul Gregory…

    I am surprised President Obama showed his face at Boeing Corporation last Friday in Washington state to cheering union crowds to praise Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner, declaring eloquently: “I am here to sell stuff.”

    As the Times account reported:

    “the White House also carefully calibrated the optics of the trip, choosing to visit a unionized Boeing plant in Washington State just a few months after the NLRB dropped a lawsuit against Boeing over complaints it built a nonunion plant in South Carolina to retaliate against the union in Washington State for strikes.”

    Indeed, the Obama administration’s NLRB held Boeing’s multi-billion Boeing 787 hostage by ruling it could not build an extra production facility for the  Dreamliner in right-to-work South Carolina (after Boeing had already completed construction of its new plant there). The Obama administration blackmailed Boeing just as it was to begin mass production of its 787 aircraft – a project already four years behind schedule and facing stiff competition from Europe’s Airbus 380. 

    The Obama administration was telling the nation’s premier manufacturing exporter where it must do business or else.

    Had Boeing not caved to its Washington State unions on a new contract, the Dreamliner would have still be in limbo today.

    And Obama, the President who threatened to ruin the project on which Boeing’s fate depends, stood before cheering crowds in Washington state to praise Boeing and its new 787, as "the perfect example of American ingenuity."

    What nerve! What chutzpah! I imagine the Republicans will wish to revisit this mugging on behalf of organized labor during the election campaign.

    The extension of the payroll tax holiday is bad economics. It may be good politics, or avoid a bad political outcome.

    Economists know that temporary tax breaks have little or no effect on aggregate demand. Reducing payroll taxes for the rest of the year only increases the unfunded liability of social security and increases uncertainty. The net effect on growth and employment of extending the payroll tax reduction is likely to be negative. It is bad economics to all but die hard Keynesians.

    Republicans are going along with bad economics because they are unable (or unwilling) to make the powerful economic case for ending the tax break. The longer it lasts, the more likely it is to become permanent, with disastrous results.

    I guess we have little confidence in the good sense of American voters. If they are worried about the solvency of social security, clearly they could be made to understand that you don’t take away a large portion of its funding, for uncertain and unlikely short term gain.

    Republican leaders wilt when they hear the President speaking about the extra $1,000 in the pockets of U.S. households.

    Too bad.