I assessed what the macro data tells us about the Tax Cut & Jobs Act for @AEIdeas. My bottom line: "not much". Since passage GDP growth has slowed slightly as slowing consumption & investment growth only partly offset by faster govt spending. #TCJANowWhataei.org/publication/no…
The second sense in which the data tell us "not much" is that is the difficulty of extracting the signal (the effect of the tax cut) from the noise (the effect of the Fed, global economy, trade war, oil prices, fiscal stimulus, etc. etc. etc.)
A lot of sector-specific stories are important. This table tells some of them: (i) oil-related investment growth slowed dramatically as oil prices stopped their rapid rise; (2) software and R&D growth increased for reasons unrelated to the TCJA; and (3) everything else slowed.
At least three macro stories are also important but go in different directions: fiscal stimulus boosted the economy while the trade wars and interest rate increases went in the opposite direction.
Sorting all of this out the main conclusion is that the second sense of "not much" (hard to extract the signal from the noise) reinforces the first sense of "not much" (if the tax cut was so important relative to everything else we would see the signal much more clearly).
The best hope for a better understanding of the causal impact of the TCJA will be microeconomic research that looks at how similar firms are affected differently by the law and tracking their differential responses.
Ultimately, however, the most important issue is what to do going forward. I believe we can have a more efficient business tax system while raising more revenue than the current system. I couldn't explain it in 280 characters so you'll have to read the image.
I really appreciate @aparnamath and @erinmelly2 inviting me to write this--and recommend you stay tuned for the all star cast they have doing upcoming blogs on the TCJA drawing on a diverse set of expertise and perspectives. aei.org/tag/trumps-tax…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I believe it is useful to make small contributions to big things (many engaged in doing that now) & also bigger contributions to small things.
On the later, in @BostonGlobe I argue for zoning reform to enable Cambridge to help build more than 1,000 additional housing units.
A🧵
States and localities can resist the likely regressive thrust of federal policymaking while doing what they can to build a more progressive, inclusive and upwardly mobile society.
To do that we need cheaper housing.
And to do that we need more housing.
VP Harris was right to set a goal of building 3 million housing units. On a proportional basis that would require 1,050 from Cambridge. Unfortunately on current course we'll get 100. But with reforms proposed by the City Council that could be raised to more than 1,000.
I know many skeptics of prediction markets. I don't have an ideological faith in them (OK, maybe quasi ideological). But the empirical evidence is they have worked really, really, really well. And did again on Tuesday night.
A short 🧵 about this remarkable picture.
Markets gave Trump a 60% chance. How does that prove they know what they're doing? If Harris won could say, "but she had a 40% chance" so wasn't wrong.
That's correct. Can only judge when you've seen them many, many times. Do 60% chance things happen 60% of the time?
In Ec10 we should them 15 million data points from sports betting from @andrewlilley_au comparing the prediction market probability to the outcomes.
And guess what: if you collect 100 markets with a 6% chance of a team winning and look at the results you'll see them win 6 times.
The macroeconomy is strong--high growth, low unemployment, falling inflation--the best of any advanced economy.
But there was a reluctance to present/understand how families were still not out of the deep inflation hole. And too much masked by cherrypicking/misleading stats.
IF Donald Trump had been President for the last 4 yrs here are some stats you would have heard more from progressives. Relative to 2019:
--Real median household income down 0.7%
--3m more people in poverty (poverty rate up 0.6pp)
--Unemp rate up 0.6pp
--Mortgage rate up 3pp
To be clear: Not claiming these were or weren't Biden-Harris's fault (e.g., if Congress had passed their child tax credit maybe poverty down). Also not saying that they are the only objective perspective on economy (I omit positive data). But under appreciated by progressives.
I was asked to recommend 5 books on economic policy by @nytimesbooks--ostensibly to help people make up their minds for this election but even if you don't have time to read them before voting the issues will still be relevant in 2028, 2032, etc.
One tweet for each.
1. The Little Book of Economics by @greg_ip
I was looking for a primer on deficits, inflation & other macro issues. I had this on my shelf unread but a colleague suggested it for this purpose--and it fit the bill perfectly.
Except is really The Little Book of MACROeconomics...
2. Career and Family by @PikaGoldin
Microeconomics centers around scarcity and there may be nothing more scarce than our time. And no more difficult tradeoff for many than career and family.
This book is the culmination of the work that earned Goldin the Nobel Prize.
Caveat: PCE inflation was 1.8% over the reference period, lower than it needed to be. And 2.3% would be fine going forward under the existing target. So room to be to the right on the histogram. Just not this far to the right.