VooDoo Economics And The Growing Percent Of Income For Necessities

I have on occasion disagreed with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) findings and estimates - but NEVER perceived a political bias in their work. Their studies on raising the minimum wage did not sit well with the left, and likewise cost estimates on extending the unemployment insurance did not sit well with the right. But even in periods of full control by a single political party - there is no evidence of a new economic bent in their work.

How does the CBO maintain neutrality ?:

To ensure that CBO’s cost estimates and other analyses are impartial and nonpartisan, the agency draws on the knowledge and insights of outside experts representing a variety of perspectives and applies an intensive internal review process. It makes no policy recommendations and enforces strict rules to prevent financial conflicts of interest by its employees and to limit its employees’ political activities.

Read more about our transparency and objectivity, which includes a longer discussion of CBO's approach to presenting and explaining its work, links to a variety of documents that provide information about CBO's methodologies, and a statement of our conflict of interest policies.

It is the link abut CBO transparency and and objectivity which should be read by all  [click here] . Professor Krugman believes it is dangerous to have a single party in control of Congress (he never objected when Democrats were in full control). Could he be biased?

Get The News You Want

Read market moving news with a personalized feed of stocks you care about.

Get The App

What was important last week was a little read study from the Cleveland Fed which has significant implications relating to consumption shares of luxuries and necessities. From the study:

As figure 3 illustrates, the relative consumption shares of luxuries and necessities vary greatly between income groups. From the different graphs one can see that, as the income level increases, luxury items account for a greater share of the consumer’s market basket. While it is true that all income groups reduced their consumption of necessities over the analysis period, the rate at which they transitioned into consuming greater amounts of luxuries differed greatly across groups. As the results in both table 1 and figure 3 detail, the lowest and highest income quintiles were the most invariant over time with respect to their consumption of luxury goods. Middle income consumers experienced the greatest variation of all the groups. Their consumption of necessities declined by 12.2 percentage points over the analysis period, while their consumption of luxuries increased the most—rising by 6.2 percentage points.

h2 Implications/h2

If income growth continues to lag for lower to middle income groups, two potential long-term implications for future economic growth come to mind. First, while consumption has gradually been rebounding from the recession, current trends in both income growth and income inequality are altering the mix of goods and services that consumers are purchasing. While macroeconomic models tend to focus on average income effects, there may useful information in the disaggregated patterns.

Second, to the extent that consumption of the necessity “education” continues to decline as a share of real consumption for all but the highest income quintile, it may exacerbate the income inequality trend over the coming years; increased education is one of the most reliable paths to increased income. However, the lowest, second-lowest, middle, and second-highest income quintiles have all seen their shares of education decline significantly over the analysis period (8.1 to 2.6 percent, 2.8 to 1.2 percent, 2.5 to 1.1 percent, and 2.6 to 1.6 percent, respectively). The highest income quintile has seen its share of education consumption remain relatively steady, declining only slightly from 3.4 to 3.2 percent.