Reposted by Paul Krugman
On the pod, @pkrugman.bsky.social is terrific on how dangerous it is that voters are forgetting the horrors of Trump's last year in office.
"Everything that should have been a disqualifying personality flaw in 2020 has gotten far worse," Krugman says.
Listen:
newrepublic.com/article/1827...
3 replies
55 reposts
202 likes
Extremely nerdy note: core inflation has been higher than headline. But this is NOT because volatile food and energy are driving disinflation. It’s because excluding food and energy raises the weight of shelter. Over the past year, headline ex-shelter is 2.1, core ex-shelter 1.9.
1 replies
7 reposts
92 likes
I keep seeing a factoid to the effect that the euro area and the US economies were the same size in 2008, but America is now 44 percent bigger. Folks, that’s just the exchange rate. At purchasing power parity, nothing like that has happened
10 replies
191 reposts
528 likes
The BLS has finally updated its estimates of the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices, which excludes owners’ equivalent rent, a price nobody pays that is also a lagging indicator. Dude, where’s my inflation problem?
13 replies
64 reposts
211 likes
National reporting is incomplete, but with almost half a year in for NYC, the Trump crime wave is clearly over
6 replies
68 reposts
324 likes
The BLS has finally updated its estimates of the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices, which excludes owners’ equivalent rent, a price nobody pays that is also a lagging indicator. Dude, where’s my inflation problem?
13 replies
64 reposts
211 likes
So how is it that in the 19th century the federal government largely paid its way with tariffs? Because back then the government was much, much smaller. Believing that we can go back to those days is just ignorant 6/
3 replies
4 reposts
96 likes
With an elasticity of 1, the estimate looks like this: t*14/(1+t) = 8 Work this through, and the tariff rate is 8/6 = 1.33, that is, 133 percent. With a higher elasticity, it would go higher, maybe to infinity 5/
1 replies
3 reposts
31 likes
How high you have to go in the end depends on how much prices affect import demand — the elasticity. I assume an elasticity of 1, which is what you sometimes get for the medium run, although the long run is probably higher (which makes it worse) 4/
1 replies
2 reposts
28 likes
Tariffs would raise the cost of imports to consumers, so we'd import less, which would mean you need a higher tariff rate. But this reduces imports further, meaning a still higher tariff, and so on 3/
2 replies
6 reposts
34 likes
Imports are about 14 percent of US GDP. Federal income tax revenue (not including payroll taxes) is about 8 %. So you might think replacing it would require a tariff rate of 8/14 or around 57 percent. But ... 2/
1 replies
5 reposts
42 likes
This was a bit cryptic, so a quick explanation 1/
5 replies
28 reposts
102 likes
Trump has reportedly floated the idea of replacing income taxes with tariffs. I’ll have to write this up in detail, but my first-pass estimate is that this would require an *average* tariff rate of 133 percent.
55 replies
95 reposts
533 likes
Remember all those 2022 predictions that getting inflation down would require years of very high unemployment? Here’s where we are now (using the Cleveland Fed nowcast for May)
20 replies
143 reposts
626 likes
The possible next president, who among other things wants to strip the Federal Reserve of independence
9 replies
33 reposts
145 likes
So core inflation ex shelter — which lags far behind market prices — was 0.0 mom and 1.9 yoy. Inflation has basically been defeated.
8 replies
51 reposts
174 likes
Only the view that people have bought into a narrative about bad things happening to somebody else (not people they know) explains all four. We can talk about where that narrative comes from, but it fits all the facts in a way alternatives don’t 3/
3 replies
16 reposts
149 likes
Many try to explain 1 by saying that things are really bad, eg bc of interest rates. But this doesn’t explain 2,3 or 4. Others say that people are angry about past inflation, while believing that they earned their offsetting wage increases. This could explain 2 but not 3 and 4 2/
3 replies
11 reposts
99 likes
Here are what I consider the key points about negative views on the economy.
1. People are down on the economy
2. They’re fairly positive about their own finances
3. They’re relatively positive about their local/state economy
4. Views on the economy are extremely partisan 1/
9 replies
34 reposts
180 likes
Still thinking about that survey in which 78 percent said that fast food has become an unaffordable luxury. Here are real sales at limited service restaurants: people seem to be buying an awful lot of something they can’t afford
29 replies
43 reposts
265 likes
A number I’ve been watching: the NY Fed asks people whether they expect to be better or worse off a year from now. By this indicator, optimism is surging
10 replies
30 reposts
188 likes
On the dangerous pettiness of plutocrats www.nytimes.com/2024/06/10/o...
3 replies
39 reposts
152 likes
But, but, everyone says that fast food has become an unaffordable luxury
21 replies
21 reposts
159 likes
Ten years ago many Very Serious People said that America could never return to full employment because our workers lacked the necessary skills
17 replies
89 reposts
427 likes
On the ECB rate cut www.nytimes.com/live/2024/06...
2 replies
8 reposts
61 likes
Greg Sargent is thinking along similar lines newrepublic.com/article/1821...
4 replies
13 reposts
124 likes
If you aren’t deeply worried about this, you aren’t paying attention www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/o...
24 replies
87 reposts
333 likes