A long overdue sea change in economic policy is underway. It started gaining momentum in the Great Recession, and since the Covid crisis began, it's gotten real.
The "progressive" label is simultaneously a pejorative from the right and a red badge of courage from the rest of us. Wear it proudly. You are doing the right thing for most people.
Adding to your new macroeconomic structure, we, Fed included, should strive for a high-pressure economy all the time as it is the best economy for the broad population swath most of us live in; we need new tools to manage inflation, but those are conceptually easy.
"I was a vocal proponent of the $1,400 checks. I also argued for enhanced unemployment benefits and aid to state and local governments."
In hindsight wasn't the enhanced aid to state and local governments a bit excessive? Tax revenues didn't collapse like they did after the Great Recession and the upshot of the extra aid seems to be state governments either doing reckless tax cutting schemes or other poorly-thought-out policies that only make inflation worse like further stimulus checks in California and Massachusetts.
The transfers in the Rescue Plan were a one time allocation and cannot be used for tax cuts. Of course money is fungible so it's possible that it could open up budget space for a one time tax break (not permanent ones). I do agree that, of all the relief programs, this is the one that could use more evaluation, across this episode and the Great Recession. It's complicated because Congress funds the program and the states choose how to (or whether to) spend the money. Of course, with 50 states and DC some of the choices will be undesirable (using various metrics). Note, that with the public health crisis and long-standing infrastructure problems, tax revenue being normal (or even above normal with house price boom) does not necessarily mean it was excessive. That's going to require more analysis.
I disagree that NAFTA had a negative impact on US economy.
I agree that the 2009 relief act should have been larger, specifically by creating a national system of unemployment insurance that replaces a portion of lost incomes.
I think that Obama could also have subtly jawboned the ed for not meeting it's inflation targets 2008-2020.
It is a shame that Democrats failed to support Obama's TPP. It would have strengthened our position against Chinese abuse. In stead we played into Trump's hands.
That's not true. I was clear that the legislation signed into law by Trump was larger and as important in the strong recovery from the Covid recession. And quoted from Dean Baker who explained that Trump voters had good reason for their discontent. I am objective and non-partisan.
Don't let 'em beat you up. You help me and others think.
The "progressive" label is simultaneously a pejorative from the right and a red badge of courage from the rest of us. Wear it proudly. You are doing the right thing for most people.
Adding to your new macroeconomic structure, we, Fed included, should strive for a high-pressure economy all the time as it is the best economy for the broad population swath most of us live in; we need new tools to manage inflation, but those are conceptually easy.
What do you expect from Harvards Larry Sommers he’s an Epstein follower & his financial backer.
"I was a vocal proponent of the $1,400 checks. I also argued for enhanced unemployment benefits and aid to state and local governments."
In hindsight wasn't the enhanced aid to state and local governments a bit excessive? Tax revenues didn't collapse like they did after the Great Recession and the upshot of the extra aid seems to be state governments either doing reckless tax cutting schemes or other poorly-thought-out policies that only make inflation worse like further stimulus checks in California and Massachusetts.
https://www.governing.com/finance/states-are-cutting-taxes-can-they-afford-it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-states-doing-better-than-expected-time-to-rethink-bidens-350-billion-rescue/2021/02/09/67dd98c2-6afd-11eb-ba56-d7e2c8defa31_story.html
The transfers in the Rescue Plan were a one time allocation and cannot be used for tax cuts. Of course money is fungible so it's possible that it could open up budget space for a one time tax break (not permanent ones). I do agree that, of all the relief programs, this is the one that could use more evaluation, across this episode and the Great Recession. It's complicated because Congress funds the program and the states choose how to (or whether to) spend the money. Of course, with 50 states and DC some of the choices will be undesirable (using various metrics). Note, that with the public health crisis and long-standing infrastructure problems, tax revenue being normal (or even above normal with house price boom) does not necessarily mean it was excessive. That's going to require more analysis.
I disagree that NAFTA had a negative impact on US economy.
I agree that the 2009 relief act should have been larger, specifically by creating a national system of unemployment insurance that replaces a portion of lost incomes.
I think that Obama could also have subtly jawboned the ed for not meeting it's inflation targets 2008-2020.
It is a shame that Democrats failed to support Obama's TPP. It would have strengthened our position against Chinese abuse. In stead we played into Trump's hands.
That's not true. I was clear that the legislation signed into law by Trump was larger and as important in the strong recovery from the Covid recession. And quoted from Dean Baker who explained that Trump voters had good reason for their discontent. I am objective and non-partisan.
Why we should walk away from the 90% if the 1% are acting recklessly? We should not.
Look at these numbers and explain to me how this is isn't a broken economy. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/index.html
Congress enacted on all three relief packages in 2020 and 2021. The first two with bipartisan support.
No I will not. Most of my family votes for Trump and I support their vote as much as yours or anyone else's.