OK, so we're apparently getting more or less a UK-EU free trade area for goods, although service trade will de facto face new protective barriers 1/ nytimes.com/2020/12/24/bus…
This is better than no deal, although tariffs were never the important issue; the serious costs of Brexit were always going to come from red tape and border checks, which are impossible to avoid unless you have a full customs union 2/ nytimes.com/2018/07/10/opi…
Wrong to be apocalyptic here: traffic flows pretty smoothly at the border between the US and Canada, even though we only have a free trade area. But there will be some costs — probably highest in the next few months, when business is still adjusting 3/
Long run Britain will be a few percent poorer than it would otherwise have been. But it won't be all that obvious, probably lost in the statistical noise. In return, Britain will get some ability to make its own rules on immigration etc 4/
I'd feel better about this if I thought Britain would use its freedom of action wisely, which it won't; I'd feel worse about it if the EU were living up to its promise of building a solidly democratic Europe, which it isn't 5/
Maybe it's just me, but my sense is that everyone involved has basically made a dreariness and called it peace 6/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Dems are gleefully signing on to Trump's demand for $2000 checks, hoping to embarrass Rs; fair enough. And it would do no harm, since debt is not a problem given negative real interest rates. But the way this is playing out is still bad news for the future 1/
Where we are now is that a minority of American have suffered a catastrophic loss of income, which is likely to last at least 6 months, while many have suffered no loss at all. Sending everyone a check is not a good response 2/
For someone who won't have earnings until we have mass vaccination, even a $2000 check isn't remotely enough to compensate for the loss of that $300 a week extra unemployment benefit starting in mid-March 3/
Still thinking about the R effort — apparently abandoned as a practical matter — to prevent the Fed from acting to prevent crises. I still think sabotage was the main motive. But I wonder also whether the Fed's very integrity upset them. 1/
One of the shocking things about the past four years was the ease with which Trump undermined the professionalism of technocratic agencies, from the Weather Service to, of course, the CDC. But the Fed, protected by its quasi-independence, remained competent 2/
In particular, it quickly controlled a financial crisis that for 2 weeks looked worse than the fall of Lehman 3/
Putting the Republican attempt to hobble the Fed in perspective: important to realize that financial crises have been a defining feature of the world economy these past 25 years 1/ nytimes.com/2020/12/17/us/…
The run arguably began with Mexico's tequila crisis in 1995; then there was the Asian crisis of 1997-8, the horrifying global crisis of 2008, the euro crisis of 2010-12, and a brief but very scary breakdown in March 2020 2/
I generally think of these crises in terms of the framework Shleifer and Vishny offered in 1997, explaining how it's possible for some assets to become massively underpriced; why don't buyers rush in? 3/
I don't see any way to avoid seeing this last-minute R demand that the Fed be hobbled as economic sabotage — an attempt to increase the odds of a financial crisis on Biden's watch 1/ nytimes.com/2020/12/17/us/…
It's true that financial markets are currently operating smoothly — precisely because the Fed stepped in back in March, when we came very close to a catastrophic financial meltdown 2/
Of course, this happened under Obama too: Rs attacked the Fed for trying to do its job. But back then they at least tried to offer a rationale, making (false) predictions of runaway inflation 3/
The absence of state aid is a huge problem, because state and local governments, unlike the federal gov, are required to balance their budgets. But why? Important question 1/ nytimes.com/2020/12/17/bus…
In general, discussions on this point emphasize the impact of the rules but don't say much about their justification 2/ taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/….
My take is that the difference from the federal rules is ultimately driven by the difference in likely permanence of economic shocks. The nation as a whole can be expected to bounce back from a recession, which means that revenue will return 3/