Tag Archives: policy

Obama and Prices: The Markets Expect Inflation to Remain Low

Posted on by

US Treasury Bond Yields, TIPS, and Expected Inflation, Jan 2, 2003, to Aug 8, 2013

Conservative critics of Obama argue his policies will inevitably lead to high inflation.  A previous blog post on this site showed that in fact inflation during the four years of Obama’s first term had been the lowest over any presidential four year term going back a half century.  Low inflation during Obama’s first term cannot be denied.

The conservative critics respond that while inflation may have been low so far, it is inevitable that inflation will soon rise.  The blog post cited above provides links to several examples of what they have been saying.  But this assertion can be examined as well.  In particular, the financial markets (which the conservative critics generally take as reflecting a sound view on such matters, as the investment returns of such investors will depend on getting this right) can be used to see what at least the markets believe inflation will be going forward.

Since 1997 the US Treasury has been issuing bonds of varying maturities whose principal is indexed to the US CPI price index.  These bonds, known as TIPS (for Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities), provide a return which will be the same in real terms regardless of what inflation turns out to be.  The yields on such bonds can be compared to the yields on regular US Treasury bonds of similar maturity.  Such regular US Treasury bonds will pay interest and at the end return the principal in certain dollar amounts, with a value in real terms which will vary depending on what inflation turned out to be.

Inflation is normally positive, so the regular bonds will pay rates which are higher than the rates on TIPS bonds.  But whether the higher rates are worthwhile will depend on how high inflation turns out to be.  To illustrate with some simple numbers, suppose the rate on a 10-year regular US Treasury bond is 3% while the rate on a 10-year TIPS is 1%.  If inflation turns out to be 2%, the bonds will be equally valuable.  But if inflation turns out to be 3%, it would have been better to have invested in the TIPS.  The TIPS will still pay out a 1% real return, while the regular US Treasury will yield a real return of only 0% (a 3% nominal return, but with 3% inflation the real yield will be zero).  Alternatively, suppose inflation turns out to be 1%.  The real return on the regular US Treasury will be 2% (equal to 3% minus 1%), while the TIPS will still yield the contracted 1% real return.  In one believes inflation will be just 1% over this period until maturity, it would have been better to have invested in the regular bonds.

The investors will therefore need to determine what they expect inflation to be.  They will bid up the price of one of the bonds (and bid down the price of the other) if they believe inflation over the time to maturity of the bond, will be higher or lower than the current gap in the yields between the two.  Where the prices of the two bonds settle, and therefore what the gap in yields is between the two, therefore reflects what the financial markets as a whole believe will be the rate of CPI inflation over the period until the bonds mature.  Since real money is riding on this, the investors will take it seriously.

The graph above shows the yields on regular 10-year US Treasury bonds (in blue) and on 10-year TIPS (in green), for the period from January 2, 2003, to August 8, 2013.  The data comes from the official US Treasury web site (where the data presented there goes back to January 2, 2003).  The implied 10-year expected rate of inflation (in red) is then calculated based on the difference between the two yields.

As can be seen in the graph, the yields on the regular 10-year US Treasury bond varied a fair amount over the period, from generally between 4 and 5% during the Bush presidency, falling over time to below 2% for much of 2012, and then rising to about 2 1/2% recently.  The 10-year TIPS yield similarly varied from around 2% during the Bush years, to negative levels for 2012 and the first half of 2013, and rising to a still low but positive 1/2% recently (and most recently just 1/3%).

Despite such fluctuations in the yields of the regular 10-year bond and the 10-year TIPS, the implied expected inflation rate (the difference between the two yields) has been relatively constant, at about 2 1/2% during the Bush years and a similar but slightly lower rate (on average) during the Obama presidency.  The one exceptional period, which should be excluded, would be during the period of economic and financial collapse in the final months of the Bush presidency, after Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and the financial markets were in chaos.  The TIPS yields went up while the regular US Treasury bond yields fell sharply, leading to an implied expectation of inflation of close to zero.  But the figures under such chaotic conditions should not be taken as meaningful.  The chaotic markets then stabilized within a short period of Obama taking office in January 2009, with the rates then returning to more normal levels.

The financial markets, which the conservative critics of Obama normally place a good deal of faith in, therefore do not show any indication that they expect inflation over the next decade to rise.  Rather, they expect inflation of around 2% a year to continue, which is consistent also with the rate of inflation the Fed targets.

Finally, the figures on the bond yields in the graph above also show that the US government has been able to borrow, and continues to be able to borrow, at incredibly low rates, whether in real or nominal terms.   The TIPS yield (the borrowing rate in real terms) was indeed negative in for most of 2012 and the first half of 2013, and is still only 1/2% or less.  Even were it not for the still high unemployment in the country, this is the period when the government should be undertaking investments in both new infrastructure and other assets, and in maintenance of existing assets.  Such investments are worthwhile even if they generate returns of only 1/2% in real terms.  Yet such investments, particularly in maintenance, will generate returns that are orders of magnitude greater than that.

It has been incredibly stupid that the Republican insistence on cutting government spending has blocked us from proceeding with such investments at a time when the borrowing costs to fund them have been so low.

Impact of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban on Homicide Rates and Mass Shootings

Posted on by

US Murder Rates, 1980 to 2010Mme. Marie Curie (Nobel Laureate):  “Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.  Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”

[Note:  An update to this post, with more recent data as well as a discussion of what should be done for a more effective ban, was posted on this blog on March 17, 2018.]

Introduction

The horrific shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in December, in which 20 school children aged 6 and 7 died, led to an outcry for effective measures to stop this from happening again.  The gun control measure most commonly called for was reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons (the type of weapon used in the Sandy Hook shooting) that Congress had passed in September 1994.  The law had a 10 year sunset provision, and with the more conservative political climate in 2004 during the Bush Administration, efforts to renew the law were blocked.  Hence it expired in September 2004.  The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was then legally eligible to purchase an assault weapon, and her son used the one she had at their home to kill the 20 school children, after he first shot his mother.

But did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban law have an effect on homicides in the US, and separately on mass shootings?  This note will review what we might be able to say from simple trends over time.

US Homicide Rates Fell in the 1990s

The chart above shows US homicide rates between 1980 and 2010, with a breakdown (for 1980 to 2008) of the number of homicides as a result of the use of any gun, by handguns only, and by all other guns.  Other homicides could be through the use of knives or other objects.  The source is a report dated November 2011 on homicide trends in the US over 1980 to 2008, prepared in the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the US Department of Justice, and is the most recent such report available from this source.

The chart shows that homicides did indeed decline sharply over the 1994 to 2004 period that the law was in effect (more precisely, September 13, 1994, to September 12, 2004).  The overall homicide rate in the US was 9.5 deaths per 100,000 population in 1993, and this fell to a rate of 5.6 in 2005.  The homicide rate from use of guns fell from 6.6 in 1993 to 3.8 in 2005.

While these homicide rates are an improvement over what they had been, keep in mind that compared to other developed countries, the rates are still abysmal.  Based on UN assembled data for 2010 (or the most recent year available), the total homicide rates were just 1.2, 0.8, 1.1, and 0.4 for the UK, Germany, France, and Japan respectively, and the homicide rates by firearms were only 0.1, 0.2, 0.1, and 0.0 for the four countries (where the rate in Japan rounded to 0.0 per 100,000 population as there were only 11 homicides in Japan in 2008, the most recent year with data available in the UN report on this; in 2008, the US had 11,030 homicide deaths by firearms.  Japan has strict gun controls.).

But can one attribute this fall in the homicide rate to be a consequence of the Assault Gun Ban then in effect?  From just the relationship found in the chart, not really.  There was much else going on during this period which could and probably did also have an impact on homicide rates.  In addition, one can see in the chart that the decline in homicide rates began before the new law went into effect, and that the large fall then bottomed out around 2000, after which there was a small rise.  Furthermore, one does not see a jump back to previous rates once the ban was allowed to expire in September 2004.  Looking at this relationship over time, a stronger case could probably be made that the drop in the homicide rate was more due to the totality of measures implemented during the period of the Clinton presidency, from January 1993 to January 2001.  This fits well the observed period when the homicide rate dropped.  But here again, there was much else also going on which could affect the homicide rates, including at the level of state and local governments.

Mass Shootings, 1982 to 2012

It is also arguable that the metric used above (the overall homicide rate) is not the metric that should be used when assessing whether the Assault Gun Ban helped.  The Assault Gun Ban only affected one category of gun (semi-automatic weapons), and highly imperfectly at that (which will be discussed below).  Most murders are done with simple handguns.  Particularly with the Sandy Hook shooting of school children very much in mind, can one say whether the 1994 Assault Gun Ban may have reduced the number of, and severity of, mass shootings?

Following the Sandy Hook shooting, Mother Jones magazine recently updated a data set it had earlier prepared (after the Aurora theater shootings) on mass shootings in the US since 1982.  Using specific criteria to define what to include as a mass shooting (four or more people shot in a single incident; one shooter; the shootings occurred in a public place; and some other factors and with some specified exceptions), Mother Jones provides a well documented data set concluding that there were 62 mass shootings meeting its criteria over this period.  They provide brief descriptions of each event, what weapons were used, the number of fatalities and the number of those wounded, and other relevant data.

Based on this data set, the following graph shows the number of mass shooting incidents in each year from 1982 to 2012:

Mass Shootings, Number by Year, 1982-2012

The number of mass shootings meeting the specified definition averaged 1.5 each year between 1982 and 1994, and possibly might have been rising in the period leading up to 1994 (I say possibly as the number of events are small, and it is not clear this is statistically significant).  The annual average was about the same, at 1.6 per year, between 1995 and 2004, but with this average brought up by a high number in 1999 (the year of the Columbine High School shooting, but where there were five mass shootings in total), and to a lesser extent in 1998 (with three mass shootings).  The numbers were low in the other years.  After the Assault Gun Ban expired, the frequency went up, reaching 3.4 per year on average between 2005 and 2012, with an especially high number (seven) in 2012.

The data set also has the numbers over time on the number of fatalities and of all victims (including those wounded):

Mass Shootings, Fatalities and Total Victims, 1982-2012

Using the numbers underlying this figure, over 1982 to 1994 the number of fatalities in mass shootings averaged 8.5 per year and the number of total victims (including those injured) averaged 18.2.  Over the period 1995 to 2004, the number of fatalities fell somewhat to 6.4 per year while the total number of victims fell to 13.2.  The averages were higher than otherwise in this period due to the spikes in 1999 (the year of Columbine) and to a lesser extent 1998.  The numbers then went higher in the period 2005 to 2012, after the Assault Weapons Ban expired, to 9.2 fatalities per year and 16.7 total victims per year.  2012 was a particularly bad year.

But with the limited number of years and small number of incidents involved each year, it is difficult to say whether there were significant changes over time, and in particular whether the fatalities fell significantly during the period the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect.  Were it not for 1999, and to a lesser extent 1998, the number of annual fatalities and victims would have fallen sharply during the period of the Assault Weapons Ban, and then risen again after it was abandoned.  But 1999 and 1998 did occur, so it is hard to say whether the impact was significant.

The underlying numbers also indicate that over the period as a whole, 73% of the weapons used in the mass shootings (and there were typically multiple weapons used in each mass shooting) were either semi-automatic handguns or long-barreled assault weapons.  Both were in principle banned under the Assault Weapons Ban, but only the manufacture and sale of new such weapons were banned –  the existing stock remained.  Such weapons accounted for 67% of the weapons used in the mass shootings between 1982 and 1994, for 74% of the weapons during the period of Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, and for essentially the same share of 75% in the period 2005 to 2012 when the law had expired.  There was no significant change during the period of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Limitations of the Assault Weapons Ban Law

The evidence is therefore not clear whether the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had a significant effect.  But part of this is certainly a consequence of the “ban” being extraordinarily weak.  While the law was controversial, and some attribute the loss of the Congress by the Democrats to a resurgent Republican Party that year (when Newt Gingrich became Speaker) to passage of the act, the act itself did little to “ban” assault weapons, despite the title.

First of all, the law only affected the manufacture and subsequent sale of newly produced assault weapons.  The existing stock of such weapons would remain, and could be sold or transferred between owners.  In anticipation of the law, manufacturers flooded the market with a huge supply of newly produced weapons.  Second, the law defined “assault weapons” in a highly specific way.  As an advocacy group later noted, gun manufacturers soon found they could circumvent the law with what were little more than cosmetic changes to the existing arms.  Finally, while the Assault Weapons Ban also limited the manufacture and sale of newly produced high capacity ammunition magazines (limited to ten rounds or less), the manufacturers also ramped up production of these clips and flooded the market in the period before the law went into effect.  The high capacity clips were still widely available in 2004.

With these limitations in the law, it is not surprising that it is difficult to determine with any confidence whether the law had an effect on homicides and mass shootings.  And it appears as I write this, that President Obama is likely to propose tomorrow, January 16, a new assault weapons ban as a center piece of his initiative to reduce gun violence.  I would certainly welcome this.  But for the law to be effective, it will be very important that it take into account and remedy the limitations that made the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban so weak.  And I do not expect that the current Congress will do this.

The Need for Serious Analysis and Research

It is also clear that the limitations that have been placed on serious research on the causes of gun violence has to end.  These were discussed in a previous posting on this blog.  As discussed there (and also see a recent summary here), the limitations on research have been imposed by a conservative Congress at the instigation of the NRA.

A good recent summary of the problem is provided in an open letter to Vice President Biden (as chair of the Commission on Gun Violence) signed by a senior group of 108 professors and analysts from prominent universities and institutions.  Despite the importance of gun violence to our health, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been effectively blocked from sponsoring research on understanding the issue, and the CDC and the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) have not been allowed even to assemble and disseminate relevant data.

As a consequence, high level review commissions have been forced to say, honestly, that we simply do not know what the impact of various possible gun measures might be.  Comprehensive reviews in 2003 by the CDC and in 2004 by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences had to conclude that the research has not been done, nor even the data assembled to permit such research to be done, to determine what might be effective in curbing gun violence.  And as the CDC report notes in its up front summary:  “insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.”  They both called for further work, but I am not aware of a similar commission and review since 2003/2004, which itself is indicative.

It is extremely important to keep in mind that while we do not have adequate analysis which can allow us to say with any certainty what measures might be taken to reduce gun violence, that does not mean that measures to control the availability of firearms will not be effective.  We do, after all, see the lower homicide rates, and especially the far lower homicide rates by firearms, in countries that have controlled access to firearms, such as most of Europe and Japan.  Figures are cited above.  And it is not true that the overall level of crime is especially high in the US.  According to statistics issued by the OECD, the overall crime rate in the US, as well as the rate of criminal assaults and threats, are in the middle of the ranges for the 26 OECD members reviewed.  Where the US stands out is not in criminality, but in homicides resulting from criminality.

The easy availability of guns certainly has something to do with this.

Update:  An observant reader noted that in my original post I had mistakenly referred to Sandy Hook Elementary as Sandy Hill Elementary.  I have corrected that in the above.  My thanks to that reader.

 

Impact of the New Tax Provisions: The Poor and Middle Classes Account for Most of the New Revenues

Posted on by

Tax Policy Center - Net Impact of Jan 1, 2013, Tax Law

The discussion on the new tax law, passed by the Senate late on December 31 and by the House late on January 1, focussed on whether income tax rates should have been allowed to revert to what they were during the Clinton years for the well off (incomes over $250,000), the rich (incomes over $450,000), or the extremely rich (incomes over $1,000,000).  The final law, which Obama said he will sign, sets the break at $450,000.

But there is much more in the new law as well.  Many of its provisions will affect the poor and middle classes, so the federal taxes they will pay will also go up in 2013.  Especially important will be the end to the 2% point reduction in the payroll tax rate, which has been in effect since the start of 2011.  These impacts have been less discussed, but in the aggregate they will account for substantially more of the revenues that will be generated than the impact of the reversion to previous income tax rates on incomes over $450,000.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has estimated what the impacts will be by household income level of the new law.  The analysis uses their microsimulation model.  The model is based on data from a large sample of actual tax returns, to determine what the different income sources are by category of household.  Hence it can determine with some accuracy the impact of changes in the tax code.

The graph above shows how much average taxes would rise in 2013 in percentage terms under the new law, for households classified by income category.  The Tax Policy Center also included two lower income groups (income of less than $10,000 per year, and income of $10,000 to $20,000 per year), but I have left these off of the graph.  Such very low levels of taxable income will be dominated by special groups, such as students with summer jobs, and may not be representative of actual households.  The official government poverty line for a family of four in 2012 was $23,050.  The taxes due are also quite small on average as one is averaging in many with a zero tax liability.  As a result, the percentage changes can be huge.  For those interested, the percentage increases that will result from the new tax law was 73% and 151% for the two groups, respectively.  But it is not clear that these figures are meaningful.

But the pattern seen among the other groups is significant, and interesting.  Those in the lowest income categories will see the largest percentage increases in their taxes due (by 21% for those earning between $20,000 and $30,000), with this then steadily declining to just a 3.8% increase for those earning between $200,000 and $500,000.  This then rises to an increase of 7.2% for those earning between $500,000 and $1,000,000, and to an increase of 15.5% for those earning over $1,000,000.

This is not terribly progressive.  Under a progressive scale, the percentage change would have been smallest for the poorest, and then rise steadily as one goes up the income scale to the richest.  But here one has the steepest increases for the poorest, with this declining steadily until one reaches an annual income of $500,000.  Only then does it start to rise.  And the percentage increase for those earning between $500,000 and $1,000,000 is less than the increase for those earning anything up to $100,000.  The percentage increase for those earning over $1,000,000 is less than the increase for those earning less than $30,000.

The reason for this is largely the impact of ending the 2% point reduction in the payroll tax. This had been introduced with effect from January 1, 2011, on the initiative of President Obama, as a mechanism to help especially the poor, as well as an economic incentive to businesses to hire more workers rather than use more machines (by reducing the relative cost of labor).  It would also have an especially strong stimulative effect, as the tax cut would be focused on relatively lower income workers who would likely spend most of the extra income, thus generating demand.  And while the 2% point reduction in the payroll tax was always viewed as temporary, some would question whether it is best to end it now, as opposed to next year or the year after.

The payroll tax is used to finance Social Security.  While the 2% point reduction was in effect, the US Treasury transferred an equal amount to the Social Security Trust Fund.  The amounts transferred were $103 billion in 2011 and an estimated $112 billion in 2012.  Projecting this forward, the amount needed would have been about $120 billion in 2013.  The figures underlying the graph above from the Tax Policy Center estimate that the aggregate increase in tax revenues in 2013 across all income groups (relative to what they would have been had 2012 law been extended into 2013) would have been about $200 billion ($199 billion to be more precise).  That is, the end of the 2% point reduction in the payroll tax accounts for 60% ($120 billion of the $200 billion) of the increase in revenues.  All the other changes, including the increase in the tax rates for those earning over $450,000, the phasing out of deductions and exemptions for households with incomes over $250,000, the increase in the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15% for those earning over $450,000, and the other changes, only account for 40%.

Consistent with this, the Tax Policy Center figures indicate that 57% of the extra revenues generated will come from households of income $500,000 or less (they do not have a break point at $450,000).  Indeed, 33% comes from households of income of $100,000 or less.  Only 43% will come from households of income above $500,000.

The debate on this new tax law has centered on how much the rich should pay in taxes.  But the final law, as passed, is far from focussed only on taxes the rich.  The steepest increases will be borne by the poor, and the poor and middle classes will account for most of the revenues that will be raised.