In my first-ever blog post (apart from a Hello World! announcement), I commented on the fact that, whereas trade and current account deficits were big news in Australia, US papers buried them in the back pages. At least in the online edition of the New York Times, this is no longer the case. The latest US Trade deficit ($58.3 billion in January) is front-page news.
Despite this catch-up, it’s still true that anyone wanting coverage of economic issues in the US would do far better to read blogs than to follow either the NY Times or the WSJ, and no other mainstream media even come close. It isn’t even true, as it is in other cases, that bloggers need the established media to get the facts on which they can then comment. The NY Times story linked above is basically a rewrite of the Bureau of Economic Analysis press release which you can get by automatic email if you want.
The competition is much tougher in Australia. Media coverage of economic issues is better, the number of economist-bloggers is smaller and quite a few of us play both sides of the street anyway.
{ 10 comments }
P O'Neill 03.11.05 at 10:06 pm
Yes the US media have always had a “stuff happens” attitude to the balance of payments, one of the luxuries of being the reserve currency. Of course that may be changing. One hurdle though is that it’s impossible to write a good trade deficit analysis without at least talking about the budget deficit, but that’s a topic where any sensible analysis quickly gets one labeled “shrill” by the attack dogs on the right.
John Emerson 03.11.05 at 11:07 pm
What was the Argentine press’s treatment of these things?
Movie Guy 03.12.05 at 1:11 am
I was told recently that the bird flu will stimulate interest in the trade deficit. Perhaps so. Little else has created much media interest.
raj 03.12.05 at 8:32 am
In the 1960s in the US news reports were replete with the fact that the US had a huge balance of payments surplus. It is fairly clear that the “balance of payments” is a broader metric than the “balance of trade,” but I’m not sure what difference there is–if any–between balance of payments and “current account”
mw 03.12.05 at 11:00 am
One hurdle though is that it’s impossible to write a good trade deficit analysis without at least talking about the budget deficit, but that’s a topic where any sensible analysis quickly gets one labeled “shrill†by the attack dogs on the right.
The trade deficit remained large even when the U.S. was running a budget surplus in the 90’s…
European 03.12.05 at 1:09 pm
I would be very interested to see some estimates on the extent to which an informal international boycott of US merchandise is contributing, if only marginally(?), to the trade deficit.
From the snail’s perspective of a European consumer, I find it telling that US products are now increasingly sold in Viennese supermarkets without giving the country of origin.
Today, for instance, I was reading the small print on a 200g package of almonds, which in former times used to state “Produced in USA”, but interestingly enough, only the Czech and Hungarian descriptions still contained this information, while it had disappeared in German, French, Italian, etc.
John Quiggin 03.12.05 at 3:36 pm
“balance of payments” doesn’t refer to anything specific, it can be the balance on current account, on trade in goods and services or even on capital account (the opposite of current and therefore a big surplus for the US). It’s sloppy usage which is best avoided.
In the 1960s, it most commonly referred to the balance on merchandise trade, but the US ran surpluses on goods and services trade and on the current account also.
At a minimum, US goods and firms have lost the positive associations they had in the 1990s. If they are removing source info from labels, things are definitely worse than that.
There’s an interesting cyclical pattern here. US products got a positive premium from WWII until Vietnam, then a discount in the late 60s and 70s, and a premium in the 90s. I might try a proper post on this sometime
Tom T. 03.12.05 at 8:13 pm
Businessweek often has worthwhile economics coverage.
felixrayman 03.12.05 at 10:47 pm
it’s still true that anyone wanting coverage of economic issues in the US would do far better to read blogs
Which ones should I read? I read DeLong, Brad Setser, Angry Bear, Marginal Revolution, couple others…what other ones would you recommend?
P.S. Get a preview button!
John Quiggin 03.13.05 at 2:36 pm
That’s a pretty good set. The blogroll at my personal blog has a few more.
Comments on this entry are closed.