The GND is on the move. Biden is now promising $2T in green spending. House Select Committee offered up a big report this summer. Voters are demanding green stimulus. But how should we finance a GND? @aldatweets & I have thoughts. THREAD 1/ dissentmagazine.org/online_article…
First, let's recognize that we live in a mixed economy. Decarbonization is going to require large amounts of both public and private spending. A recent proposal by @STOmarova calls for a National Investment Authority (NIA) has been getting some attention. dataforprogress.org/memos/voters-s…
First, I want to say that our aim is to promote healthy debate on the left as we all grapple w/ these big and thorny questions. I believe we share many of the same goals as @STOmarova, though we disagree over some details, and details matter. 2/
.@STOmarova tries to do a lot all at once. This can be both a feature and a bug. There's something to be said to creating something big and new, even if it's a bit clunky. Importantly, it tries to answer the “how will you pay it?” question that forever haunts climate activists 3/
Specifically, it proposes to create 2 new government-owned corporations. 1) a national infrastructure bank (spot on); 2) a national capital management corporation, or “Nicky Mac,” which is essentially a public option for private equity. The second proposal is where we split. 4/
Nicky Mac seeks to create "new form of public-private partnership, in which the public leads and private capital follows.”
BUT it would pay back private capital for these investments by giving them a share of expected economic growth, perhaps in the form of dividends. 5/
This amounts to subsidizing private capital to help solve a problem that doesn't exist. These investments could simply be financed via traditional deficit spending, though the politics are complicated there. That said, NIA would still need to be enacted via Congress 6/
Rather than seeding power to Wall Street, why not fight directly for making spending on nonprofit, shared goods a *public* investment?
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/