The news in the last couple of weeks has had endless references to two people who we have been repeatedly told are brilliant: former Treasury Secretary and top Obama advisor Larry Summers and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. The paeans to the genius of both men say a great deal about the quality of public debate in elite circles.
Larry Summers has been in the news because President Obama told a number of reporters of his desire to have Summers replace current Federal Reserve Board chair Ben Bernanke when his term ends in January. This caught many by surprise, since Janet Yellen seemed the obvious pick for this position.
In addition to having served the last two years as vice-chair at the Fed, Yellen had previously been president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, headed President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, and been a member of the Board of Governors. Yellen also had an outstanding academic background, having been a professor at both Berkeley and Harvard. In addition, she would be the first woman to chair the Fed.
But Summers supporters countered that the country needed his brilliant mind. New York Times columnist David Brooks led the charge, telling the audience of an NPR show about Summers' "meta-cognition skills," which Brooks defined as his ability to know what he doesn't know.
While most of us really don't have any idea of how smart Summers actually is, we do have some basis to assess his record. He was a big proponent of deregulation of the financial sector in 1990s and in the last decade, right up to when the collapse of the housing bubble led to the financial crisis. Apparently his meta-cognition skills didn't help him much on that one.
Summers also was an opponent of actions to break up the big banks even when they when they were bankrupt and would have collapsed if the market was allowed to work its magic. Largely as a result of Summers' actions, the big banks are bigger and more profitable than ever.
Summers also played a role in getting President Obama to accept a less than adequate stimulus and then shifting his focus to deficit reduction, even when the economy clearly needed more stimulus. The weak recovery and continued high unemployment is the price that we are paying for these policies. Whatever meta-cognition skills Summers may have, they do not seem to have benefited the country thus far.
Jeff Bezos has been in the news because of the surprise announcement of his purchase of the Washington Post for $250 million, roughly 1 percent of Bezos' estimated wealth. This announcement was quickly followed by news stories praising Bezos' extraordinary business acumen in building up Amazon as the dominant force in on-line retailing.
While Bezos has succeeded over many competitors in the online world, it was more than just his brilliance that allowed him to get a hand up on the competition. In the vast majority of states Amazon has an advantage over brick-and-mortar competition (including brick-and-mortar stores with Internet sales) because it does not have to collect sales tax.
This is a really big deal. In many states, including California and New York, sales taxes are in the range of 7-8 percent. This means that if Jeff Bezos and a mom and pop retail outlet could both deliver the same product to your house for $100, Bezos would be able to pocket an extra $7-$8 on the sale because the mom and pop retail outlet has to collect the tax, whereas Jeff Bezos gets to put everything you pay into his pocket.
This comes to real money. Last year Amazon.com's sales in North America were $34 billion. Amazon does collect taxes in some states and in many states sales taxes are lower, but if we assume an average uncollected tax rate of 5 percent, Amazon and Bezos effectively got a subsidy from taxpayers of more than $1.7 billion last year. This was a year in which Amazon recorded a small loss.
In fact, if we go back through Amazon's history, the size of the implicit subsidy through Amazon's sales tax exemption vastly exceeds the company's cumulative profits. This raises the question of whether Amazon would even exist today without the generosity of taxpayers in being willing to subsidize Amazon's business at the expense of brick-and-mortar competitors.
None of this changes the fact that there are many would-be Jeff Bezos out there who benefited from the same subsidy in setting up online retailers, but who did end up out of business. The subsidy by itself didn't make Bezos ridiculously wealthy. But it is absurd to imagine that Amazon would have been anywhere near as successful if it had to compete on a level playing field with traditional retailers. Those who leave this fact out of the picture are re-writing history.
It will be a big step forward when reporters and columnists are able to look at the people they consider brilliant with open eyes and talk about their accomplishments and failures in a serious way. In the recent Summers and Bezos chapters, they have been awed into vapidity.Also on HuffPost:
People commonly say that the Fed itself prints money. It's true that the Fed is in charge of the money supply. But technically, the Treasury Department prints money on the Fed's behalf. Asking the Treasury Department to print cash isn't even necessary for the Fed to buy securities.
Both CNN anchor Erin Burnett and Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan have compared the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing to government spending. But the Federal Reserve actually has created new money by expanding its balance sheet. The Fed earned a $77.4 billion profit last year, most of which it gave to the U.S. government.
Some conservatives have claimed that the Federal Reserve is causing hyperinflation. But inflation is actually at historically low levels, and there is no sign that is going to change. Core prices have risen just 1.4 percent over the past year, according to the Labor Department -- below the Federal Reserve's target of 2 percent.
Some Federal Reserve critics claim that the Fed has devalued the U.S. dollar through a massive expansion of the amount of currency in circulation. But not only is inflation low; currency growth also has not really changed since the Fed started its stimulus measures, as noted by Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has claimed that bringing back the gold standard would make prices more stable. But prices actually were much less stable under the gold standard than they are today, as The Atlantic's Matthew O'Brien and Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal have noted.
CNN anchor Erin Burnett claimed in September that the Federal Reserve's stimulus measures have caused food and gas prices to rise. But many economists believe global supply and demand issues are influencing these prices, not Fed policy. And there actually is no correlation between the Fed's stimulus measures and commodity prices, according to some economists Paul Krugman and Dean Baker.
Some Federal Reserve critics claim that the Fed's stimulus measures have destroyed jobs. But the Fed's quantitative easing measures actually have saved or created more than 2 million jobs, according to the Fed's economists. In addition, JPMorgan Chase chief economist Michael Feroli told Bloomberg last month that QE3 will provide at least a small benefit to the economy.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has proposed tying the value of the U.S. dollar to a basket of commodities, in an aim to promote price stability. But this actually would cause prices to be much less stable and hurt the U.S. economy overall, as The Atlantic's Matthew O'Brien has noted.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) claims that ending the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard would make the U.S. financial system more stable. But the U.S. economy actually experienced longer and more frequent financial crises and recessions during the 19th century, when the U.S. was using the gold standard and did not have the Fed.
Many commentators have claimed that there simply aren't any tools left in the Fed's toolkit to be able to help job growth. But some economists have noted that the Fed could target a higher inflation rate to stimulate job growth. The Fed, however, has ruled this option out -- for now.
Some commentators have claimed that the Fed can't safely unwind its quantitative easing measures. But the Fed's program involves buying some of the most heavily traded and owned securities in the world, Treasury and government-backed mortgage bonds. The Fed will likely have little problem finding buyers for these securities, all of which will eventually expire even if the Fed does nothing. But economists have noted that once the Fed decides it's time to unwind the stimulus, the economy will have improved to such an extent that this won't be an issue.
Follow Dean Baker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeanBaker13