I see that @LHSummers is concerned about the impotence of monetary policy in the current macro environment. Maybe I'm just an old-fashioned Keynesian, but I don't think fiscal policy has really yet been mobilized.
@LHSummers One problem is that economists focus too much on the deficit without examining how the deficit is used. Fiscal policy needs to stimulate SPENDING to work--either through private consumption or business investment in capital goods.
@LHSummers The reality is that tax cuts don't stimulate spending because the people who would spend the additional income don't pay income taxes and investors are not buying capital goods, but engaging in share buybacks.
@LHSummers The wealthy don't spend any of their additional after-tax income because they already have everything they want. The money is just saved. This means that tax cuts are essentially just a transfer that is saved. Therefore, no stimulus to aggregate demand.
@LHSummers What Keynes said is that in such circumstances, the government must buy "stuff"--goods and services. This is best done through public works because it will stimulate both long- and short-term growth.
@LHSummers And we need lots of stuff--especially projects to deal with climate change and global warming. Rising sea levels and more intense storm activity are going to create flooding, and we know exactly where. All that's missing is the money--which at current rates is almost free.
@LHSummers We will know when we have spent enough when inflation and real interest rates rise. Those two things will also make monetary policy effective and fix the problems that Larry is concerned with. In the meantime, we should spend, spend, spend.
@LHSummers The only constraint is political. Lying Republicans will once again become "deficit hawks" and the media will solemnly repeat their lies and demand action. Democrats are too feckless to fight back. That only leaves us with the Fed pushing on a string.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The fundamental division between the two parties isn't right and left, it's between a party that is fundamentally evil and will use any means to win, even if it's immoral or illegal, and a party that is thoroughly inept,
thinks voters will reward good intentions and doesn't seem to understand Politics 101. As I have said many times over the years, Democrats are the class nerds while Republicans are the schoolyard bullies. Once upon a time there were tough Democrats. Where did they go?
My observation as an independent is that Democrats equate being tough with being mean, and they would rather lose than risk being mean. It's why Republicans have no respect for Democrats; they are the party of wusses.
I'm not worried about Harris winning an honest election, but I am worried about Republicans stealing it. Unfortunately, I fear Democrats are just not tough enough to stand up to them--especially our utterly worthless Attorney General. I hope I am wrong.
So I am forced to think about life under fascism. I think it will be a soft form of fascism, like Nazi Germany in the early days before Hitler fully consolidated his power. Ironically, I think those who will suffer most are those on the right that Trump can't trust.
Recall that the first to go in Germany were the "brown shirts" during the "night of the long knives." The "Proud Boys" are the closest American equivalent. Lenin once said "no enemies to the left." Trump will say "no enemies to the right." theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-…
Some people wonder how I went from being a libertarian to being a social democrat. A lot of it has to do with luck. Not my luck, but the concept of luck in society.
Everyone knows what luck is--it hits randomly, both the good and the bad....
However, those blessed with good luck will invariably ascribe it to their own intelligence, hard work etc. because it flatters their ego and justifies their good fortune. From this logic it automatically follows that those suffering bad fortune somehow brought it on themselves,
which justifies ignoring their plight and letting them suffer--perhaps at God's direction. But if you think seriously about luck, it leads logically to redistribution--take some of the gains of the lucky and use them to help the unlucky.
Serious question: Is it possible to have any respect whatsoever for a Trump supporter or a member of the party of Trump?
The answer for me is no, I can't respect anyone who supports Trump or his party. The harder problem is whether I can still engage them, civilly, or do I need to cut off all contact? Luckily no close family members are Trumpsters, but a few old friends are that I am dismayed by.
I've looked into how Nazis and Hitler supporters were treated in Germany after the war. From what I can tell, the entire country did its best to forget that the whole Nazi era ever happened. Except for those tried at Nuremburg, ex-Nazis were mostly left alone.
Brief history of Republican disdain for the Black vote. (1) In 1876, the GOP cut a deal with southern Democrats to withdraw federal troops from the South, where they had protected Black voting rights.
Afterwards, Republicans did virtually nothing to protect Black voting rights--although filibusters by southern Democrats were an important obstacle, such as to the force bill in 1890.
As early as 1897, Republicans were actively courting conservative southerners--an early version of the "southern strategy." jstor.org/stable/1404969
I don't think many people realize that the right-wing Heritage Foundation has been doing a version of Project 2025 intermittently since 1980, when it was called Mandate for Leadership. One reason Project 2025 is dangerous is that Heritage has learned a lot since 1980.
I worked on the 1980 report. At that time there weren't many movement conservatives with government experience--the Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford administrations were not very hospitable for them. Now there are many conservatives with experience in government.
Heritage recruited many of these conservatives with government experience to work on Project 2025. Their inside knowledge has greatly enhanced the specificity and detailed advice over what was known in 1980.