Economic Report of the President

[Tiassa]

I haven't done enough reading to make any real comment, as the Economic Report of the President is 400+ pages in PDF form. However ....

David Horsey, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, February 13, 2004.

• Levey, Collin. "Crying 'wolf' over jobs won't help grandma." Seattle Times, February 12, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001855823_collin12.html
• Weisman, Jonathan. "2004 Economic Report of the President." Washington Post.com, February 10, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25935-2004Feb9.html
• Government Printing Office. Economic Report of the President. See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/index.html
• Groshen, Erica L., and Simon Potter. "Has Structural Change Contributed to a Jobless Recovery?" Federal Reserve Bank of New York, August, 2003. See http://www.ny.frb.org/research/current_issues/ci9-8.html

It's not hard to get under Democratic skin these days, but among the topics at hand were two destined to heat up the election battle: jobs, and jobs. In the contentious paper, Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, reported that the outlook for job growth was strong and (drum roll) praised corporate America's recent increase in outsourcing.

Read from the left, that translates as an opportunity to howl that the current recovery isn't bringing a fast enough drop in unemployment rates, and to hype protectionist anxiety over what Lou Dobbs has been relentlessly bannering the "Exporting of America."

"They've delivered a double blow to America's workers, 3 million jobs destroyed on their watch, and now they want to export more of our jobs overseas," John Kerry reliably thundered. "What in the world are they thinking?"

Ivy Leaguer Kerry is certainly smart enough to know the White House isn't endorsing mass unemployment for Americans here. But give the Democrats credit for trying to make the best of a less than ideal situation. A few months back, candidates were looking forward to campaigning during a recession and now they're stuck with a rebounding economy at the most inconvenient time . . . .

. . . . In the interim, assessing blame for the "jobless recovery" is the ticket and, to please the unions, it can be linked to corporate America's plot involving the shipment of certain kinds of "call centers" and other service jobs to villainous non-unionized computer geeks in Bangalore . . . . (Levey)

Levey's article goes on to point to a job-creation number of 73,000 starting in August, and notes that Bill Clinton "embraced, championed, and defended" competitive change.

But I think this assertion is ill-pointed inasmuch as Bush needs a ridiculous number of jobs per month ... nearly 400,000 ... just to break even.

Jonathan Weisman, staff writer at the Washington Post held an online discussion about the 2004 economic report.

Washington, D.C.: Where is the focus on the economy of real people in these reports? By 'real people' I mean the people who have to work to make a living.

This report and statements by N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers seem to be about the economy of people who derive their incomes from capital gains and dividends.

For them -- maximizing corporate profits by shipping jobs overseas seems like a good idea. For those of us who need those jobs and opportunities it's lousy policy.

I see nothing in this report that refers to my reality or the reality of anyone I know.

Jonathan Weisman: An understandable point. Mankiw concedes that this report is "the nerdiest" part of the White House, and it dwells more on the theoretical than the real world. He makes the point, for instance, that the estate tax is a tax on "capital accumulation." By stifling capital accumulation, the government hurts investment. By holding down investment, the estate tax ultimately hurts worker wages. Well, theoretically. But in the real world, it is also a tax on really rich heirs, at a time of record budget deficits. Policy makers must weigh the theoretical against the practical, but economists don't necessarily do so . . . .

. . . . New York, N.Y.: What is the purpose of this report? Has it been produced every year?

Jonathan Weisman: It is produced every year, by the White House Council of Economic Advisers. But it has the president's signature on it and is sent to Congress as the president's broadest view of the economy, both its recent performance and its future. (Washington Post)

At any rate, there's a few interesting points in that discussion, including wage stagnation and deflation, credibility of the numbers, and the disparity between the economic theory of the "recovery" and the economic reality of job growth. Weisman also offers a link on structural and cyclical jobs in the figures. There's also a snooty joker from Virginia that gives him a Sciforums-styled rub at the end.

Anyway, it's a nice messy topic, and I think that's how it's supposed to be.

 

[Eluminate]

who is it written by?
is it a recognized source? are there sitings of material thats
accepted as factual?

I personally rather listen to Greenspan then any report that comes
out right now because he is usually much more right about things
then any reports.

 

[Tiassa]

It's written by the White House Economic Advisers, released under the authorship of its chairman, N. Gregory Mankiw. The report bears the president's signature as an endorsement--it is the president's report to Congress on the state of the economy.

It's a recognized source in political circles, and has largely remained obscure for press dissemination to the public; it's a weighty document. The PDF is 417 pages long, and I'm searching for the bibliography and notes. Right now, I'm caught up in informational tables, including one that starts on PDF page 394 that tracks "Corporate Profits and Finance, 1959 - 2003."

Most people don't hear of the ERP because it's so complex. With over 100 pages of informational tables including footnotes, it seems to be the report people should look to when they hear Greenspan say something and ask, "Why?"

The textual report can be politicized, as the presence of the ERP in the news--introduced, apparently, by Bush--is based around political arguments. The data tables, though, would be an obscure exercise in difficult politicking.

In the sinister, one could accuse that politicians could exploit this report by politicizing small but salient portions and causing those who oppose them to dredge through the hundreds of pages just to find the context. In other words, not even the press enjoys that.

It's an annual report from the executive; that we're paying any attention to it this year seems to be the result of Mr. Bush's statements to the press and people.

It's got some interesting information, including hints at the government's regard for things like intellectual property. But I'm going to check prior reports now in order to find out if the textual portion has always been written in such an instructional manner:

Intellectual Property

The kinds of goods that have been traded for centuries, such as wine or clothing, have two important attributes: the value of the good is linked to the physical object, and it costs roughly the same to produce the second unit of the good as the first. Many of the goods in which the United States now excels--movies, books, music, software, and pharmaceuticals--are dramatically different from traditional goods. The value of a book, movie, or computer program lies in the ideas contained iwthin, more than in the paper and binding or disk. The cost of producing the first book includes not just the paper and ink, but the intellectual contribution of the author. To produce the second copy of the book, however, only the raw materials are required, which makes it significantly less expensive. As dicsussed later in the chapter, trade in goods with valuable intellectual property raises different policy questions than does more-traditional trade. (pdf 233, report 228)

 

[Deadwood]

At uni I did an economics course and the text book was written by Mankiw. Interesting to note is that the lecturer thinks he's a bit of a fool. He follows the economics school of thought of Kaines(spelling?-forgot his name) rather than Adam Smith which Mankiw follows.

It's not hard to get under Democratic skin these days, but among the topics at hand were two destined to heat up the election battle: jobs, and jobs. In the contentious paper, Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, reported that the outlook for job growth was strong and (drum roll) praised corporate America's recent increase in outsourcing.

Isn't Mankiw aware that fast food chains employ people based on how many facial pimples they have?

"They've delivered a double blow to America's workers, 3 million jobs destroyed on their watch, and now they want to export more of our jobs overseas," John Kerry reliably thundered. "What in the world are they thinking?"

Ok, let me see now. Creating products more cheaper and selling at the same high price will equal greater profit. But greater unemployment will equal less willing and able people to buy product at same high price.

Further if queried about greater unemployment Mankiw will simply state that the natural rate of unemployment has raised. However the natural rate of unemployment only assumes that everyone is between jobs in the short term and not out of work in the long term. The bottom line being that 3 million new people out of work does not make for the efficient market/capital system that Mankiw purports.

PS: I actually did like Mankiws version of an efficient economic system when I studied it, but reading this I can see what my lecturer was really talking about when he said he was "a bit of a dill". 3 million jobs gone and wanting more jobs to go shows his system is out of touch with the people it is supposed to benefit in the short and long term. Well they did warn us at uni about this "natural rate of unemployment" term which really means "excuse".

 

[goofyfish]

Fast Food Reclassified As Manufacturing Job!

Some of our Congressional critters have a
sense of humor. Here's a letter from Dingell.

:m: Peace.

 

[Tiassa]

That's the really effed-up thing about life in America. Whenever things get really ugly, there's always a Congressman to bring you a smile.

How the hell does that work?

Thank ye, kind Fish.