Opening paper at #BPEA, is @LHSummers and @LukaszRachel who begin by juxtaposing two strikings:
Ten-year projections for debt-to-GDP for the US rose from 6% of GDP in 2000, to 105% today. Yet the ten-year real interest rate declined from 4.3% to 0.8%. brookings.edu/bpea-articles/…
Implication is that if not for fiscal policy, r* — the neutral real interest rate — would be substantially negative. Secular stagnation might turn out to be a bigger deal than we ever imagined. #BPEA
This likely terrifies central banks for whom the zero lower bound might become an everyday problem. It suggests that policymakers needs to become comfortable at using fiscal policy as a counter-cyclical tool. And with r<g, we need to rethink what fiscal responsibility means #BPEA
Concludes that full employment is basically incompatible with following both the sorts of monetary policies that the BIS would approve of, and the sorts of fiscal policies that the (pre-Blanchard) IMF would approve of. Something’s gotta give (and in the US, both have).
A methodological aside for the youngs: This paper is based on juxtaposing a market price and a forecast today, with levels 18 years ago. Taken together, the 4 numbers point to some major policy challenges. Yes, the authors churn through some models, but it’s really about 4 facts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After all: Is there a principled difference between weighting on age (to ensure that your sample includes youngs and olds) and weighting on past vote (to ensure you get folks from across the political spectrum)?
Both age and past vote are:
- Predetermined (before this poll)
- Non-manipulable
- Though self-reported
- And we have good population estimates to weight them to.
What principle would make one of these a legitimate survey design weight and the other "herding"?
This decline in violent crime is evident in not just the FBI reports, but also an independent survey by the BJS.
If you don't trust data from G-men, the decline in homicide rates the FBI reports is also evident in a count of death certificates in which coroners cute homicide as the cause of death.
September payrolls grew +254k, well above expectations.
August payrolls revised up +17k to +159k, and July revised up +55k to +144k.
Unemployment fell to 4.1%
This economic expansion that is motoring along.
Honestly, there's not much to say here other than that fears the job market had slowed turned out to be a statistical illusion due to incomplete data.
Over the past three months, payrolls is motoring along at +186k per month, on average, which is pretty much where you want it.
(The conspiracy theories on revisions to economic numbers confuse me, and I can't remember whether numbers getting revised up to look good is evidence of a conspiracy, or numbers later get revised down is evidence of an initial conspiracy that falls apart.)
Senator, you're misleading folks again. I just read the CBO report you recommend. It actually says that an immigration surge boosts federal revenues quite dramatically, and has only a small effect on mandatory spending and interest.
The CBO study @JDVance cites analyzes how immigration improves the *federal* budget.
Yet he pulls a misleading quote, talking about the effects of *state and local* budgets and ignoring the (likely larger) federal govt impacts.
Here's the CBO directly saying this isn't okay:
Of course, you might ask: How could @JDVance have known that this was a study of *federal* budgets, not of what's happening to *state and local* budgets?