Two Different but Related Op-Eds

Two good op-ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal.  The first discusses the myth of the stagnant middle class. It notes a number of important issues, including adjusting wages for inflation understates real wages since the CPI overestimates inflation, the nonwage portion of compensation has increased sharply--especially medical benefits, increased life expectancy, and the abundance of new products not available in the past that are purchased by middle class households.   The authors could have added another element--the puzzle over why consumption data show the middle and poorer classes consuming more than would seem to be indicated by reported income.

The second concerns climate change. Bjorn Borg criticizes the way in which President Obama referred to climate change in his inauguration address. Borg notes that the evidence cited by the president is wrong. Borg fears that the poor rationale used will ultimately lead to poor policy recommendations.  Borg does not dispute climate change but has long argued for a different approach to looking for solutions.

Both topics provide further evidence that the misinformation on some key issues propogated in the media and by politicians remains a problem.

Three Noteworthy Pieces in Today's Journal

Three interesting articles and op-ed pieces in today's WSJ.  The first article is by David Wessel and provides background for the fiscal cliff and budget talks. There is also a video that can be seen that is interestings. There is also an op-ed piece on global climate change and Hurricane Sandy. It points out that in many ways we have fewer hurricanes and less-destructive hurricanes than in years past. The third is an op-ed piece by Alan Blinder. He argues that the recovery has been slow but steady and that to have expected better is to have been mistaken.  I have a couple of quibbles with Blinder's piece though. First, he is pretty much a standard Keynesian and emphasizes government spending more than I think is appropriate. But another is more political. He mentions the Simpson-Bowles plan, noting that Pres. Obama did not embrace it but neither did Paul Ryan. The difference is that the commission was appointed by Pres. Obama and he failed to endorse or support the recommendations. The plan just fell flat. As president, he should have been providing leadership on the issue but failed to do so.  To equate Ryan's no-vote with Obama's lack of support and leadership is misguided.

Three Cheers for the G-8

G-8 leaders reached an accord on climate change. They agreed to cut emissions of heat-trapping gasses by 80% by 2050. They did not agree on any specific cuts for an earlier date. I plan on cutting my carbon footprint by 100% by 2050. That is, as long as the casket I am in then is sealed properly.