One of the big questions this past year is how much the terms of macroeconomic debate have really changed compared with a few years ago. Here's an exhibit for the case that they have changed a lot.
https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1479528615389847557
This is a direct rejection of the past 30 years' textbook view of inflation: that it's always a result of excess spending or demand relative to potential output (which is fixed by long-run "structural" factors) and should be left strictly to the central bank to deal with.
More immediately, the Biden team is directly challenging conventional estimates of potential output that assume - implicitly or explicitly - that the US economy was operating at or above capacity before the pandemic.
Seems like the administration shares two key @rooseveltinst views on the economy: That the US suffers from a chronic demand shortfall that conventional measures of potential miss, and that inflation is about specific bottlenecks in production, not economy-wide overheating.
The "reduce demand by making Americans" poorer is a nice demystification of monetary policy, too. Unlike a lot of people with an economics background who talk as if the Fed can reduce inflation by magic, this makes clear that it can only do so by reducing employment and income.
I also can't help pointing out that it's quite similar to language I've used in the past:
https://twitter.com/JWMason1/status/1391857897924141060?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
