Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Beat The Press: A Weekly Round-up of Dean Baker's Commentary on Economic Reporting

By Dean Baker, The American Prospect. Posted August 13, 2007.


A weekly roundup of Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting.
Advertisement

How High Are Stock Prices?

The NYT tells us that the price-to-earnings ratios in the stock market are just 16.8, only a bit higher than the long-term average of 15.7. This might make the stock market sound reasonably safe right now, but this misses an important piece of information.

Profits are currently at a cyclical high. Profits fluctuate hugely over the course of the business cycle. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that profits will revert to their trend share of output over the next several years, so that in 2017, real corporate profits will be just 13 percent higher than in 2006. If this proves right, and stock prices rise in step with corporate profits over the next decade, it implies that real returns in the stock market will be just over 4 percent annually.

By comparison, a completely riskless inflation indexed treasury bond pays a return of 2.6 percent. This means that, if the CBO profit projections are in the ballpark, stockholders will receive a very low risk premium over the next decade.

--Dean Baker

Posted at 06:29 AM

David Broder: "Free-Trade" Enforcer

August 12, 2007

When it comes to cracking down on opponents of the selective protectionism that passes for free trade in Washington policy circles, David Broder is one of the foremost enforcers. He is working overtime this Sunday, denouncing the irresponsibility of the Democratic presidential candidates for not supporting his trade agenda.

Just to remind everyone, these trade deals are slectively protectionist because they only break down some trade barriers, while leaving others in place, and actually strengthening some forms of protectionism. The main barriers that the "free-traders" want to eliminate are the barriers to importing manufactured goods into the United States. Eliminating these barriers has the effect of placing U.S. manufacturing workers into direct competition with low paid workers in the developing world. While this lowers the price of manufactured goods for consumers in the United States, it also reduces the wages of manufacturing workers and less-educated (non-college educated) workers more generally. As a practical matter, the "free-traders" have largely succeeded in removing the barriers to trade in manufactured goods (we can buy anything we want from China), so the remaining deals will have little impact in this regard.

The free-traders are absolutely fine with the protectionist barriers which keep up the wages of highly paid professionals. There are professional and licensing barriers that prevent foreign doctors, lawyers, and other professionals from working in the United States. These barriers cost U.S. consumers hundreds of billions of dollars every year. The "free-traders" don't object to barriers that sustain their own high wages or those of their friends. (They all claim to oppose such barriers, but no one has ever been denounced in the pages of the Washington Post for not supporting liberalized trade in physicians services.)

The protectionist part of these trade deals is increasing the stringency of patent and copyright protection. Almost all of the trade deals pushed by the U.S. increase patent protection for prescription drugs and copyright protection for music, movies, and software. These are incredibly costly forms of protectionism since items that would otherwise be cheap (drugs) or free (downloaded music and software) are made very expensive as the result of government granted monopolies. But, the free traders like pharmaceutical companies and software tycoons more than they like textile workers and autoworkers, so they denounce the opponents of protectionism for their products as "protectionist."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: media, econ

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. TomPaine contributor.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Currently Liquidity Crisis shows inherent contradictions of late capitalism.
Posted by: yellow on Aug 13, 2007 8:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ceaseless drive toward massive accumulation on a global scale and the concentration of wealth and income at upprecedented levels has created a crisis of capitalism based on its inability to sustain itself on a solid and stable basis. The ceaseless financialization of the system and the use of debt to feed income and GDP growth in the absence of stable forms of profitable investment outlets is evident in the current crisis.

The growth of liquidity prolonged the housing bubble by giving the impression that the economy was solid and that risk was minimal. The achilles heel of the system was shown to be the inherent instability of a system that increasingly creates a precarious low wage sector of working poor who's incomes and financial stability threaten the overall stability of the entire ediface. The surge of subprime lending became a base for mortgage backed securities. In the process, the default of this sector, revealing the increasing precariousness and general decline of the US middle class, caused jitters on Wall Street and affected the equities markets that are heavily leveraged to these funds. The decline of middle and working class security rippled through the system revealing that the current casino economy, based as it is on speculation, is as unstable today as it was seventy years ago. Large cash infusions and hedge fund bailouts like those of the two managed by Bear Stearns, are only temporary paliatives. The real problem lies at the core or an increasingly polarizing social system.

Reform must begin with a redistribution of wealth and the restructuring of the economy so that it is based on the creation of real wealth and value through the building of valuable infrastructure needed by society at large. A massive focus on the creation of labor intensive jobs in fields such as health care, renewable energy, mass transit, education, and affordable housing are needed to restore a solid basis of economic expansion to the US economy. Perhaps it can serve as the basis of yet a fifth long wave of economic expansion that will lift the US and the rest of the world out of the morass of chronic stagnation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]