I asked @LHSummers today at #WSJCEOCouncil what the odds were now. He sees 30% to 40% probability of recession starting in next 24 months. Soft landing (third option) now just 20% to 25%...(implicitly stagflation 35-50%)...
I noted 10y yields are lower and 5y5yforward inflation breakevens roughly similar to in spring. Summers said: "I think in part that market forecast is wrong. & ... technical factors ... including QE ... rebalancing towards fixed income ... by pension funds... foreign flows."
.@LHSummers says another reason for low yields: "People expect that sooner or later and in some way, possibly involving a serious recession, inflation will be beat out of the system."
.@LHSummers: Low bond yields are "not a judgment that things are under control on the policy path we've been pursuing for the last year and a half. It's a bet that that policy path will change and will change in ways that might involve a recession." #WSJCEOCouncil
Are deficient demand, lowflation, low rates still the main macro challenge? @LHSummers tells #WSJCEOCouncil "Secular stagnation was the issue of the moment in the late 1930s. Once rearmament and WW2 began, and there was a massive fiscal expansion, it was no longer the issue..."
.@LHSummers: "... In the same way, after we've had a 15% of GDP fiscal expansion, secular stagnation is not the issue of this moment.Whether in several years it will again be the issue, I think, is a paramount macro economic question..."
.@LHSummers Whether secular stagnation will return "is a paramount macro economic question...I think that's... probably better than 50/50. But I don't think it's by any means a certainty given the altered posture of fiscal policy &... increased commitments to public investment."
.@jasonfurman notes: "Unconditional probability of a recession in any year is about 15%. For two years about 27%. So 30-40% not that high."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Covid carved a partisan divide through the U.S. Democrats have been much more cautious/protective which manifests itself as generally lower infections/deaths but also much weaker economic outcomes. Omicron could perpetuate that. /1 My latest: wsj.com/articles/omicr…
2/ Especially after the initial spring/2020 wave in the northeast, infections & deaths have been higher in red states where social distancing has been lower. But job growth there has also been consistently stronger ...
3/ This reflects not just D vs R policies but D vs R attitudes e.g. as reflected in vaccine hesitancy and perceived risk from Covid, and attitudes are harder to change than policies ...
A polarized electorate and an agenda ill-suited to inflation are depriving Biden of the political benefits of a strong economy. My column. wsj.com/articles/why-b…
1/ Voters' opinion of the president increasingly drives economic perceptions, not vice versa. And opinions are increasingly focused on non-economic cultural, social issues. (See: Virginia, where 55% voters said economy was excellent/good but still voted against incumbent party)
2/ The lesson Team Biden drew from 2009 was that Obama's stimulus was too small. But Obama faced inadequate demand, Biden faces inadequate supply and his stimulus, on top of all the others, contributed to inflation. (How much is debatable but Rs and Manchin tout the connection)
Many things went wrong with our response to covid, but the fiscal response, to paraphrase Keynes, was magnificently right. The poverty rate dropped last year. GDP will soon be back to pre-pandemic trend. After 2008 it never got back. Column + caveats .... wsj.com/articles/how-t…
1/ The response was expensive. Adding 20 % debt to GDP is not a plausible remedy for every recession, esp since interest rates are likely to be higher in the future, not lower...
2/ Some of it was inefficient. PPP loans that didn't change recipient behavior. UI supplements that outlived their purpose and slowed labor market normalization. A final round of stimulus checks that added to inflation pressure.
1/ There are superficial parallels between Biden Admin's attack on corporate concentration and China's new crackdown on big tech. Both see large companies' agglomeration of information, data, market share, as a threat ....
2/ But Biden's program stems from a view that the government and corporations are among many countervailing forces in our society, and the balance has swung too far in favor of corporations (I'm just describing, not passing judgment, on ... their approach) ...
3/ Indeed, the neo-Brandeisians, as I describe in this week's column, see large agglomerations of economic power as antithetical to democracy. They are spiritual companions with libertarians who feel the same way about government power ... wsj.com/articles/antit…
Antitrust has long focused on efficiency and consumer welfare. A new generation of neo-Brandeisian trustbusters, led by FTC's Lina Khan, want to focus on the threat of concentrated economic power to democracy. A test case: Amazon's bid for MGM. My latest. wsj.com/articles/antit…
Louis Brandeis thought antitrust should constrain bigness for its own sake; true democracy required a multitude of economic actors. This influenced antitrust law for decades. But in the 1970s Robert Bork attacked it...
... for ignoring how size brought efficiency which raised consumer welfare. Thereafter antitrust law has been largely viewed through the prism of consumer welfare. Two big forces are pushing the pendulum back. First, growing evidence of monopoly power (wide profit margins ...
1/ A thread. Underlying the differences between neoliberalism and Bidenomics that I wrote about this week wsj.com/articles/how-b… is a different weighting applied to macroeconomic and microeconomic policy...
2/ If you accept the neoliberal default that macro can’t help when all capital and labor are employed, then microeconomic policy must be designed to use those inputs as efficiently as possible. But Bidenomics assumes we're almost always below potential …
and thus it’s okay to pursue microeconomically “inefficient” channels to raise demand (universal transfers, UI bonuses, high minimum wages, etc) because we are still going to end up with higher employment and incomes...