Why has Trump apparently blown up the economic relief deal? I don't care, and neither should anyone else. In 24 days we can stop worrying about this terrible person's motives, and focus on the GOP backed him all the way. But there are more interesting questions 1/
One is whether $2K for most Americans is a good idea. Even some Democrats, notably Larry Summers, don't think so 2/ bloomberg.com/news/videos/20…
LS should always be listened to, but I think he's wrong here. I agree that across-the-board checks are not an ideal policy — much better to extend enhanced unemployment benefits until the economy recovers — but that's not politically on the table 3/
Maybe Ds should have fought harder for more weeks of UI, but I don't see the harm in borrowing some more money at negative real interest rates; at least some of it will go to people who need it 4/
Larry appears to be worried that across-the-board checks will overheat the economy, leading to inflation. Again, I agree that the economy is likely to recover fast once there's a vaccine, so that demand-side stimulus won't be crucial. But inflationary pressure? Not a worry 5/
Increasing the checks from $600 to 2K would be a fiscal stimulus of <2% of GDP — and a fairly low-multiplier stimulus, bc many will save their checks. So yes, it might give an already high-employment economy extra fuel, but not that much 6/
And everything we've seen over the past 20 years says that the short-run Phillips curve is pretty flat — that is, low unemployment pushes inflation up very slowly. So the inflation risks if the economy runs somewhat hot for a year are small 7/
Wait, there's more. While I'm optimistic for the 2nd half of 2021, there's good reason to believe that the economy was suffering from persistent weakness of demand pre-pandemic. It's called secular stagnation, an idea pushed by ... Larry Summers. 8/
In a secstag economy you actually want the government pushing up demand with deficit spending, even when there isn't a crisis. Better if that spending takes the form of public investment, but as with extended UI, that's not on the table right now 9/
So sending most people $2K checks isn't great policy, but it's not a "big mistake". And it's politically popular, so it makes sense for Dems to highlight R refusal to do it 10/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The proposal for $2000 stimulus checks is divisive, and not along simple left-right lines. Lots of disagreement among progressives, with people like Bernie Sanders very pro but many others not on board. Both sides have a point 1/
My take: the economics aren't very good, but the political economy may make such checks necessary 2/ nytimes.com/2020/12/17/opi…
The key economic argument, which @crampell picks up on, is that given a slump that has affected people very unevenly, aid should concentrate on those actually suffering 3/ washingtonpost.com/opinions/2000-…
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/
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/