Ïîïóëÿðíûå ñîîáùåíèÿ

среда

Remember the economy?

The election year was dominated by talk about jobs and the economy, but neither the administration nor Congress seems to have any grand ideas for jump-starting a still sluggish recovery — and they're not even talking about it much.

President Obama sought to turn attention back to economic issues with a speech last week in Texas on manufacturing, but that's already long since been forgotten. A cascade of scandals has driven the issue entirely off the Washington radar.

Even before Benghazi, the IRS and the Department of Justice controversies started heating up, the economy had consistently taken a back seat to issues such as immigration and gun control.

"The economy is by far the most important issue for voters," says Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's not unusual for Washington preoccupations to be different than those of the public."

She says that the public is skeptical that Washington can provide economic answers at this point. Politicians themselves seem a little dubious.

The two parties remain far apart on economic issues. The type of debt reduction Republicans seek through overhauling entitlement programs is gaining little traction among Democrats, while the GOP-controlled House will never approve further stimulus of the type Democrats would like.

"We've moved away from proposals for big changes and toward piddle policy," says Stephen Weatherford, a political scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "My impression is both the president and the people around him have ratcheted back their expectations, so they've ratcheted back what they're willing to send to Congress."

The Economic Picture

If you looked only at Wall Street, it would seem that happy days might be nearly here again. The Dow Jones average passed a milestone last week, closing above 15,000 for the first time — nearly double its value at its trough early in the Obama presidency.

Looking at Main Street, however, the picture looks entirely different. "We're just sort of worn down by this subpar recovery that continues but doesn't ever seem to accelerate, and if so, not for very long," says Sean Snaith, director of the University of Central Florida's Institute for Economic Competitiveness.

Wall Street cheered last week's jobs report, which showed more people found work in April than expected. But it was still far from enough to take up much slack in the labor market.

"That level of growth will not get us up to pre-recession levels of unemployment until 2020," says Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "We are still in a massive crisis in the labor market."

No Agreement In Washington

Liberal economists like Shierholz argue that current conditions demand more stimulus — federal spending on things like infrastructure and aid to states and localities that would put people back to work.

"We have a situation where we have persistent high unemployment and interest rates near zero," Shierholz says. "This is precisely the time when you want to do fiscal stimulus."

Conservatives couldn't disagree more. Rather than increases in spending, Republicans are concerned with the nation's debt problem, which they see spiraling out of control.

"The administration is not willing to put forward a serious proposal to address the fiscal challenge, which would include meaningful reforms to Medicare and Social Security," says Phillip Swagel, who served as a Treasury Department official in the Bush administration. "Instead, the administration has put forward modest proposals in both areas to intense opposition from progressive supporters."

No Ideas To Sell

For some, the deficit is starting to feel like a less pressing concern. In April, the Treasury Department ran a relatively rare monthly surplus, of $113 billion.

Still, spending cuts demanded by the sequester are proof enough that Washington will not be getting back into the stimulus business, says Jason Seligman, an economist at Ohio State University.

The nation can't spend more in the short term if it can't get its long-term budget in order, he says. But there's no agreement about how to get long-term spending under control.

"Really, we can't agree on anything," Seligman says.

Indeed, there appears to be no appetite in Washington for further talk of a "Grand Bargain," in which both parties would put cherished priorities on the table. Such cooperation would be politically risky at any point, but seems especially unlikely now, at what appears to be the beginning of a season of scandal and myriad congressional investigations.

The end result is that any help the economy could use from Washington is going to remain long in coming.

"The issues circulating around the economy are so central to both parties' ideologies that their incentives for obstruction are even larger than they are for other issues," says Weatherford, the Santa Barbara professor.

U.S. oil production is rising sharply and increased output from shale will be a "game changer" in global energy markets in the coming years, according to a new report out Tuesday by the International Energy Agency.

"U.S. shale oil will help meet most of the world's new oil needs in the next five years, even if demand rises from a pick-up in the global economy," the Paris-based agency said in its five-year outlook, called the Medium-Term Oil Market Report.

"North American supply is an even bigger deal than we thought. A real game changer in every way," said Maria van der Hoeven, the IEA's executive director.

She said that North American production has set off a "supply shock that is sending ripples throughout the world" and urged the United States to dismantle the Export Administration Act of 1979, which bans the sale of U.S. crude abroad, except to Canada and Mexico.

"This issue is on the table. I think it has to be addressed because if there are no export licenses for crude, then the industry will find different ways, as they are looking for now already with processed, half-processed products, things like that," van der Hoeven said.

The IEA report forecasts:

"North American supply to grow by 3.9 million barrels per day from 2012 to 2018, or nearly two-thirds of total forecast non-OPEC supply growth of 6 [million barrels per day]. World liquid production capacity is expected to grow by 8.4 [million barrels per day] – significantly faster than demand – which is projected to expand by 6.9 [million barrels per day]. Global refining capacity will post even steeper growth, surging by 9.5 [million barrels per day], led by China and the Middle East."

Those debating were:

FOR THE MOTION

Scott Gottlieb, M.D., is a practicing physician and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2005-2007, Gottlieb served as deputy commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration and, before that, from 2003-2004, as a senior adviser to FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan and as the FDA's director of medical policy development. He left the FDA in the spring of 2004 to work on implementation of the new Medicare drug benefit as a senior adviser to the administrator of Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he supported the agency's policy work on quality improvement and coverage and payment decision-making, particularly as it related to new medical technologies. Gottlieb has held editorial positions on the British Medical Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association and appears regularly as a guest commentator on the cable financial news channel CNBC.

Peter Huber is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute writing on the issues of drug development, energy, technology and the law. Before joining the Manhattan Institute, Huber served as an assistant and later associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for six years. He clerked on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and then on the U.S. Supreme Court for Sandra Day O'Connor. Huber also is a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen and Todd. He is the author of The Bottomless Well (2005), which he co-wrote with Mark P. Mills. He is also author of the forthcoming book The Cure in the Code: How 20th Century Law Is Undermining 21st Century Medicine.

AGAINST THE MOTION

Jerry Avorn, M.D., is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital. An internist, geriatrician and drug epidemiologist, he studies the intended and adverse effects of prescription drugs, physician prescribing practices and medication policy. Avorn pioneered the "academic detailing" approach to continuing medical education, in which noncommercial, evidence-based information about drugs is provided to doctors through educational outreach programs run by public-sector sponsors. Such programs are now in use in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Europe. He has served as a member of the Institute of Medicine Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines and is the author or co-author of more than 400 papers in the medical literature on medication use and its outcomes. He is the author of the book Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs (2004).

David R. Challoner, M.D., is vice president emeritus for health affairs of the University of Florida. Challoner has held leadership and health policy positions in many national organizations, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, where he holds distinguished service membership; the American Medical Association, where he served as chairman of the Section on Medical Schools; and the American Federation for Clinical Research, where he served as president. From 1988-1990, he was appointed by President Reagan to chair the President's Committee on the National Medal of Science. He also served as a member of the governing council of the Institute of Medicine and was a member of the governing board of the National Research Council. He received the 2010 Walsh McDermott Medal of the IOM for distinguished service. He chaired the IOM's Committee on the Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510K Clearance Process (2011).

вторник

U.S. oil production is rising sharply and increased output from shale will be a "game changer" in global energy markets in the coming years, according to a new report out Tuesday by the International Energy Agency.

"U.S. shale oil will help meet most of the world's new oil needs in the next five years, even if demand rises from a pick-up in the global economy," the Paris-based agency said in its five-year outlook, called the Medium-Term Oil Market Report.

"North American supply is an even bigger deal than we thought. A real game changer in every way," said Maria van der Hoeven, the IEA's executive director.

She said that North American production has set off a "supply shock that is sending ripples throughout the world" and urged the United States to dismantle the Export Administration Act of 1979 that bans the sale of U.S. crude abroad, except to Canada and Mexico.

"This issue is on the table. I think it has to be addressed because if there are no export licenses for crude, then the industry will find different ways, as they are looking for now already with processed, half-processed products, things like that," van der Hoeven said.

The IEA report forecasts:

"North American supply to grow by 3.9 million barrels per day from 2012 to 2018, or nearly two-thirds of total forecast non-OPEC supply growth of 6 [million barrels per day]. World liquid production capacity is expected to grow by 8.4 [million barrels per day] – significantly faster than demand – which is projected to expand by 6.9 [million barrels per day]. Global refining capacity will post even steeper growth, surging by 9.5 [million barrels per day], led by China and the Middle East."

Blog Archive