I've been having a lot of conversations about deficits, fiscal and monetary policy right now & frustrated with how many basic facts about our economy are misrepresented. So for Valentines Day, a #nerdthread on our national finances. Hope you enjoy:
1/ First, prior to COVID, the biggest ever emergency funding program in our history was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed in response to the 2008 crisis. Just shy of $700B in emergency funding.
2/ (In 2008 $. I leave to other nerdier nerds to adjust these numbers for inflation.)
3/ The CARES Act, passed in response to COVID was more than twice that big at $1.8T. The 2020 year end omnibus spending bill included an additional $900B.
4/ In other words, the top two largest emergency funding bills in our nation's history were passed in the last year. Both are bigger than ARRA. And we are finalizing terms of an additional $1.9T.
5/ This has raised all sorts of completely reasonable questions about how we are going to pay for this, impacts on long term deficits, etc. As it should. But if all we talk about is fiscal policy, we are telling a massively incomplete story.
6/ In 2008, with the economy in freefall, Congress approved the aforementioned ~$700B ARRA. It wasn't anywhere near enough to meet the need, but it was the most that political will would tolerate. And so monetary policy came to the rescue.
7/ The Federal Reserve massively expanded its balance sheet, injecting nearly 4x as much money into the economy over the next decade as the ARRA provided. federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy…
9/ In other words, the $800B in fiscal policy expansion really wasn't the story of the 2008 recovery. The $4T in monetary policy expansion was. And while fiscal policy was constrained by politics, monetary policy wasn't. (Thankfully: Politically independent Fed = good.)
10/ But the fact that it is politically easier to flex (up or down) with monetary rather than fiscal policy also means that our political system is biased to over-use monetary at the expense of fiscal policy. And their impacts are quite different.
11/ Monetary policy is very good at injecting money into the banking system. It's not especially good at getting money to the under-banked, or to long-dated infrastructure, or to R&D activities with uncertain return, or to hard-to-monetize social welfare.
12/ Fiscal policy is good at doing all those things that monetary policy is bad at, but is bad at optimizing capital flows to the private sector. Which is to say that good overall policy strikes a prudent balance between the two.
13/ So now some history. In the Depression / New Deal era the fed balance sheet (aka monetary policy) got as high as 23% of GDP. stlouisfed.org/~/media/Public…
15/ To be clear there is no perfect balance of fiscal and monetary policy. But you can't have an honest conversation about debt and deficits without including both. And - since 2008 - we have relied extensively on monetary, rather than fiscal tools.
16/ That has, in no small part increased wealth inequality even as it has helped sustain the Obama economic boom. (Remember, monetary policy isn't well structured to address social welfare, but it is good at boosting GDP.)
17/ So as big as our recent fiscal measures have been, they should also be seen as an overdue corrective re-balancing of our fiscal / monetary policy ratio.
18/ And when we emerge from the COVID downturn, the independence of the Fed will be an asset - in the same way that it was politically easier to "flex up" monetary policy after 2008, it will be politically easy to "flex down" on that side if the economy starts to overheat.
19/ We will be watching all these issues closely on the Financial Services Committee where I am proud to serve. In the meantime, I hope you all enjoy snuggling up by the fire with someone you love and reading them this thread for Valentines Day. Much love. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For those wondering what the causes are of Texas blackouts, @JesseJenkins is doing a really good real time analysis of generator capacity and operation. (Short story: we have a natural gas problem in TX). A few additional thoughts to add:
1/ As Jesse notes, natural gas is somewhat unique in that it is both a power plant fuel and a home heating fuel. When cold weather comes, regulators bias in favor of heating rather than power generation.
2/ New England - a region that is both cold and has long been more reliant than others on natural gas for power generation - has had to grapple with this for a long time.
I'm obviously disappointed today. Disappointed in 43 Senators who found it easier to do what they knew was wrong than to embrace what is right. But before you get too down about partisanship in America, a bit of history is in order: (thread)
1/ The Senate voted 57 - 43 to convict. That didn't meet the 2/3 bar our founders set. Our founders had good reasons for setting the bar that high, but keep in mind - political parties did not exist at the time our founders wrote the Constitution.
2/ Since the Constitution was drafted, there have been 4 Presidential impeachments. In every instance, it was exceptionally hard for the party of the President to vote in favor of impeachment.
1. As I noted at the DuPage fairgrounds yesterday, we have to play the cards we have, not the cards we wish we had. My height and vertical leap means I won't ever dunk a basketball. The process of vaccine rollout to date has created similar near-term challenges.
2. Among those issues is the lack of any federal coordination during the prior administration. From PPE to ventilators to testing to vaccines, states had to compete with each other rather than work collaboratively to crush the virus.
MTG short take: values, morals, hopes and dreams that are universally shared by Americans across the political spectrum are only "partisan" in the sense that they are wholly rejected by majorities of the @HouseGOP.
That is cause for optimism insofar as the country is not nearly as polarized as it looks from within DC. But it's cause for great sadness for what it means about a once great political party.
The @GOP - a party that emerged to stop the spread of slavery, that gave our country the great gift of Abraham Lincoln - still has registered voters who are pro-decency, pro-equality, pro-science, pro-market, pro-truth.
This is worth the read. It is the natural result of the fact that a transition to clean energy is a huge labor productivity enhancer. (Eg, many more MWH per hour of labor.) That is good for the economy but will create temporary labor dislocations.
To be clear, there is a lot more in this story as well, and I wish we'd stop talking about highly technical jobs as an alternative to being a barista. It's an extremely patronizing view of the American worker.
But the core issue here derives from the fact that old, dirty energy sources are really OPERATING labor intensive. New clean sources require a surge in construction jobs but much less operating labor.
There are some really remarkable graphics in this article, but I have a pet peeve with this sentence: hcn.org/issues/53.2/in…
There is this narrative that coal is cheap, and would still be dominant but for falling natural gas prices and clean energy tax credits. That simply isn't true. Coal hasn't been cheap since the Clean Air Act was passed. It's been slowly dying for decades.
Coal is only cheap if we're willing to let it be dirty. Get rid of scrubbers, baghouses, stop caring about acid rain and asthma and you can build a cheap coal plant. We haven't tolerated that since the CAA. Thankfully.