When we met, we knew we'd be the perfect match for the zombie apocalypse. Turns our it's a global pandemic. In light of #COVIDー19, we've decided to cancel our wedding next weekend. While these decisions are hard, they're necessary to protect pub health. #LoveInTheTimeofCorona.
We have a lot of cake to carry us through though!
Oh, and 4 dozen eggs worth of lemon curd!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We've got countless books about the failures of neoliberalism, but few that put forth an affirmative vision of an economy of, for, & by the people.
So I wrote The Ends of Freedom. In the book I set out to do three things: 🧵
First: Explain how we got here. How did freedom become associated w/ limited government + "free" markets, & how was the term monopolized by the right? What led to this collective failure w/ terrible impacts for our national policy discussions + political imaginations?
Second: Show how economic rights — housing, jobs, healthcare — have been a part of the American conversation from Day One.
Economic rights were a part of the New Deal + Civil Rights Movement, whose leaders saw them as key to be fully realized along w/ civil + political rights.
My new article on Neoliberalism & Climate Change with @anfrafrem is now published in Ecological Economics! It's open access for the next 50 days. A few thoughts: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Activists and scholars increasingly see a major tension between capitalism & climate change. They argue the profit motive is ruining the planet (it is). But the idea that we will transcend capitalism in the timeline necessary to address the climate crisis is, well unlikely.
But the current flavor of capitalism that's dominant, namely neoliberal capitalism, has uniquely hindered our collective ability to address climate breakdown. In this paper, we provide a coherent account as to why neoliberalism specifically hamstrings climate action.
Washington repeatedly relies on estimates from macroeconomic policy as to the costs of legislation. But what if the “numbers” lawmakers rely on are wrong, and systematically so? That is: What if what the CBO says shouldn’t go? 1/n noemamag.com/the-most-impor…
The CBO came to power in 1974. It was created by Congress in response to Nixon and his team 1) impounding funds & 2) essentially cooking the books over at the OMB. Congress wanted a "fair" referee. So we got the CBO. 2/n
Now, the CBO has no legislative authority. Yet, it has it holds enormous sway over our democracy.
As Sen. Chuck Grassley put it back in 2006, “CBO is God around here.” Indeed, according to the Senator, “policy lives and dies by CBO’s word.” 3/n
I can't express how grateful I am to @AyannaPressley for her leadership on full employment. The #JobGuarantee has was a central demand of FDR and New Deal Dems along with Civil Rights leaders. It's time to to make the the dream of MLK, FDR, Scott King, and others a reality. 🧵 1/
Full employment has a rich history here in the US. In fact, it was a cornerstone of the Dem party platform from 1944-1988. The country's first experiment w/ direct employment came in the cold harsh winter of 1933-34 w/ the Civil Works Administration. 2/
With two months of creating the program Harry Hopkins, a trained social worker, and FDR employed *4 million* workers through the CWA. That was nearly 1-in-10 Americans employed at prevailing wages. 3/
Everyone in the West Wing should instead read this @Groundwork paper which puts people at the center of the economy in estimating how much stimulus is needed. Our finding? The economy needs $2-3T on top of the $900B passed to bring back a healthy economy groundworkcollaborative.org/wp-content/upl…
In the paper, we ask a simple question: How much stimulus does the economy need to run a high pressure labor market that will bring widespread employment and rising real wages? We found the economy needed $3-4.5T in stimulus for that. Since, Congress passed $900B.
That was a good down payment. But the economy needs more if we want to prevent a lackluster recovery like we saw in the Great Recession. Taking our foot off the stimulus pedal back then resulted in an entire decade where workers fell further and further behind.
Larry Summers has put out a bad faith argument in WaPo. Democrats should NOT take him seriously. The primary concern is providing too little stimulus and a prolonged and deeply painful recovery. The potential costs of going too big are negligible. 1/ washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
First, let's talk about the output gap. Summers takes a top down vs a bottom up approach to the output gap.
When considering full employment/ an economy operating at capacity, we can either 1) calculate a top-down measure via GDP output gap (as Summers and CBO do) 2/
Or 2) take a bottom up approach that puts people
at the center of the economy by focusing on employment.
Right now continuing UI claims for all programs are nearly 16 million above pre-pandemic levels according to @hshierholz 3/