Nice curtain closer by the great John Cassidy (though the New Yorker’s insistence on writing out big numbers vs…um…numerals is cray-cray).
newyorker.com/news/the-finan…
I can see where someone might think that based on raw numbers: revs/gdp ~ 17%, ~historical avg. But at full emp w above trend growth, you need to be above avg.
I wrote about this years ago. @BBKogan & @brendan_duke update here:
americanprogress.org/article…
financialservices.house.gov/…
Figure below, imho, is a useful way to look at it, from my 2018 testimony above, but needs an update (Bobby/Brendan update on revs, but good to include spending).
Shows spending (sans interest; that's not cuttable) tracking earlier forecasts. The laggard--casualty of tax cuts--
These are the numbers behind the "they've got fewer degrees of freedom to play around with potentially inflationary policies" point.
Of course, trajectories matter a lot in this context, and there's clearly (bumpy) disinflation; but not so re yields.
Exit interview!
bloomberg.com/news/videos/20…
Exit interview!
bloomberg.com/news/videos/20…
Big @bencasselman fan, but this article gets some things wrong--and a lot right. Re the latter, strong agreement @mioana re increased dispersion in economists’ view/advice to policy makers. Min wg, trade, climate, indus policy, full emp, all good eg’s.
These views were carefully listened to in internal debates, and reflected in trade policies that were targeted, not sweeping. The idea was always to support full emp and worker bargaining clout at home while maintaining trade flows to boost the supply side.
Choosing @WhiteHouseCEA's best graphs of '24 is like choosing your favorite child. But here goes, with minimal commentary as strong figures speak for themselves.
Real GDP beat the forecasts...repeatedly!
whitehouse.gov/cea/written-m…
...trends and implications of work-from-home, macro, micro, health care, climate, education policy)...
And I didn't even mention the stock market, as per this AM's WSJ:
wsj.com/finance/stocks/stock…







