May 19, 2024

Letters: A Third Factor on the Economy

Opinion »

Op-Ed: Let Shareholders Decide

Shareholders, not self-interested corporate managers, should decide policies on corporate political contributions.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=bdca8fda5d52f1ff4fc99906759e192d

MTV Chief to Step Down

Opinion »

Bloggingheads: The Osama Stimulus?

Matthew Yglesias and Karl Smith debate whether Bin Laden’s death could help the economy.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6756897ed0df650276a372959ae513d6

Starbucks’s Profit Gains 20%

The company said it earned $261.6 million, or 34 cents a share, for the quarter, which ended April 3, meeting analysts’ average expectations. The profit was up from $217.3 million, or 28 cents a share, a year earlier.

Revenue rose nearly 10 percent to $2.79 billion, beating expectations for $2.73 billion, according to FactSet.

Starbucks said the underlying health of its business had never been better, despite the challenges of higher costs and a weak economy. The results showed the company’s strength.

The company, based in Seattle, now expects to earn $1.46 to $1.48 a share for the year, up from $1.44 to $1.47 a share.

But that is just short of Wall Street’s average forecast for $1.49 a share, and Starbucks shares dipped 69 cents, to $35.92, in after-hours trading.

The company said the new forecast accounted for a still bigger increase in commodity costs than it foresaw in January. It now says those rising costs will cut earnings for the year by 22 cents a share, up from 20 cents a share. The 2-cent difference reflects an expectation that dairy and fuel costs will keep rising, Starbucks said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1153027bbd69ff563b948eaac8895069

Iceland Holds Rates Amid Worries About Economy

Opinion »

Disunion: The Great Sumter Rally in Union Square

The brazen assault on Fort Sumter caused Northerners, despite their many differences, to unite.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/business/global/21icebank.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Top Down: The 3 Biggest Tax Breaks — and What They Cost Us

Why else is getting rid of tax breaks a good idea? For one, economists say many of them slow growth by forcing individuals and businesses to waste time complying with the tax code. A tax code with lower rates and fewer loopholes would almost surely be more efficient. Meanwhile, from a political perspective, some Republicans who oppose just about any tax increase think cutting tax breaks is an acceptable way for the government to refill its coffers.

And yet these loopholes have become bigger in the last 20 years, mostly because tax breaks for individuals have grown. Business tax breaks, as a share of the economy, have not changed much but, at roughly $150 billion a year, remain significant.

To the left are details on the three largest permanent tax breaks — each of which has serious flaws. If Washington is finally going to get serious about the country’s long-term fiscal problems, there is no better place to start.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c45e30b4ebb42dd664cf36c3d10dcfd5

Room For Debate: The Sorry Lot of the Risk-Averse Saver

Introduction

retirees Srdjan Srdjanov/Dreamstime.com

The Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping interest rates at rock bottom is meant to stimulate the economy and encourage people to invest and borrow. But as a recent Wall Street Journal article notes, it also means that people who simply want to save money — especially those who are older or those who cannot manage the complexities of a financial portfolio — continue to be caught in a bind. They either lose ground, because interest rate returns are low while food and energy costs are going up, or they have to consider making investments that are relatively risky and require longer term commitment.

What does this mean for the financial security of cautious small savers? If they are going to lose ground, what incentive do they have to save in the first place?

 Read the Discussion »

<!–

Topics: Economy, Federal Reserve, inflation, interest rates, savings

–>

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=615f47b8800b1d419d198865f3de85f6

Economix: Inflation? Not in Wages

One of the big questions facing the Federal Reserve is whether the recent rise in oil and food prices will turn into an inflationary spiral. Today’s jobs report suggests that the answer, at least so far, is that there is little reason to worry about such a spiral.

The average hourly wage across the economy — including salaried employees — did not grow at all in March. It was $22.87, just as it had been in February. And from January to February, it rose only a single cent.

Over the last year, hourly wages have grown 1.7 percent. That matches the smallest annual increase since the recession began, in late 2007. In the middle of 2009 — when the economy was still shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month — the annual increase was significantly larger: about 2.5 percent.

It’s all but impossible to have an inflationary spiral if wages are not rising rapidly. Companies may want to increase prices because their energy costs are rising, but if customers don’t have the buying power to pay higher prices, most price increases won’t stick.

On the whole, today’s jobs report was a solid one, showing an acceleration of job gains. (And more on them shortly.) But to the extent that Fed officials are trying to decide whether the bigger risk is an economy that may be too strong — with inflation about to soar — and an economy that may be too weak, the evidence from the job market is quite clear. The economy remains years away from full employment, and wages are barely rising at all.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=df218729be3e2e936ccf98072b6613f4