We're coming up on the 2nd anniversary of Biden's inauguration, and I have a few (not very original) thoughts about his economic policy 1/
The opening salvo was the American Rescue Plan, which came in for immense criticism as "the most irresponsible fiscal policy in 50 years". Soaring inflation seemed to vindicate the critics 2/
But now inflation seems to be coming down as fast as it went up. The new Team Transitory warns that this improvement won't last — but it's getting harder to make that case 3/
Here's "supercore" inflation — ex food, energy, shelter (which we know is very lagged) and used cars 4/
And here's average hourly earnings, skipping the period when pandemic compositional effects caused huge distortions 5/
Meanwhile, we seem to have avoided the "scarring" many feared, with the labor market recovering to pre-crisis levels far faster than it did after the financial crisis 6/
Maybe new data will make the picture look worse in a few months. But right now it looks as if we achieved rapid recovery at the cost of maybe 20 months of elevated inflation. 7/
Obviously we've had problems, and would do things differently with the benefit of hindsight. But does this outcome really look like a catastrophe? 8/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Like many others, I'm experiencing a fair amount of MAGAfreude — pleasure in watching horrible Republicans destroy each other. But there may be collateral damage 1/
In particular, I was baffled by the failure of Democrats to use the lame duck to raise the debt ceiling. Maybe the idea was that Rs could be shamed into avoiding a crisis later this year 2/
But you can't shame House Rs into avoiding a financial crisis if, when we hit the ceiling, they're on the 600th ballot in a still unsuccessful attempt to elect a Speaker 3/
Not about economics or politics, at least directly, but I thought this was interesting and ties into how I've been trying to understand the Ukraine War 1/ nytimes.com/2023/01/03/wor…
Even before the war I learned a lot from Phillips O'Brien's take on WW2, which emphasized materiel rather than famous battles 2/ cepr.org/voxeu/columns/…
Even battles like Kursk or D-Day destroyed only a few days' military production for the losing side. What mattered was resources, most of which on both sides went to the air war 3/
Continuing this discussion. Again, Olivier is tapping into an important point often missed in monetary/macroeconomics: in the end, it all comes down to individual motives and decisions 1/
A business that raises its prices doesn't do so because the Fed has increased the money supply. The chain of events that leads to that price rise may have started with the Fed, but the firm is responding to its own market conditions 2/
There was a similar debate over the balance of payments back in the 1980s. The trade balance must equal the difference between savings and investment, and some argued that this made exchange rates and competitiveness irrelevant 3/
I think this came from Martin Baily in the 70s. Anyway, one way to think about inflation is that it's like a sports event where everyone stands up to get a better view of the action — which is collectively self-defeating 2/
Controlling inflation by inducing a recession is like stopping the action on the field until everyone sits down again. It works, but at a cost 3/
So, I'm doing some homework on the Southwest disaster — probably more tomorrow. And I hate to say this, but it doesn't look like a simple morality play about greedy capitalists 1/
A lot of the issue was apparently that SW does point-to-point, not hub and spoke. This left planes and especially crews stranded far more than other airlines 2/
But p2p has advantages in normal conditions. In fact, other airlines have to some extent been moving back to the direct flight system over time 3/