Austerity “has come to mean any time the government spends less than you think it should.” This is true, but most people also use it in the context of the reduced capacity for growth that comes with reduced spending and entitlements. More in reference to the hangover than the drinking, so to say.
Yup, we've made a risky trade with Trump. Tax cuts, deregs, and judges in exchange for trade and foreign policy upheaval. But I'm a born optimist, the glass is always half full. The incentives to not kill growth or alliances are too large. We're going to muddle through this...
No "stimulus comes only through the Fed. The larger deficit that the cut engenders does not "stimulate" unless the Fed abandons its programed inflation rate target. Otherwise the deficit just leads to higher interest rates (or whatever instrument the Fed is using to target inflation an lower private investment.
A proper definition of "austerity" would be for Fiscal policy to fail to execute activities with NPV > 0 [NPV evaluated taking account of externalities and that MC < P for underemployed resources and labor] because of reasons. This might have been true in 2008-16, but I've not see it argued per se.
I would argue that it's time to end 45 years of predatory capitalism, but it looks like Trump is turning it into the final solution. Privatizing all government services will just add a layer of rent-taking to everything they do. And the balance of power between labor and capital will be tilted even further away from labor. The pie may grow, but the working majority will end up with less.
"since this level of chaos can’t go on for four years."
Do we have any data that would suggest it can't go on for four years? In my experience, the level of chaos trended higher, not lower, toward the end of Trump's first term, COVID excluded.
Is our politics capable of viewing things holistically with a clear eyed understanding of the differences between risk and uncertainty or are we stuck in a semi-permanent stance of viewing everything via “vibes”
Austerity “has come to mean any time the government spends less than you think it should.” This is true, but most people also use it in the context of the reduced capacity for growth that comes with reduced spending and entitlements. More in reference to the hangover than the drinking, so to say.
Yup, we've made a risky trade with Trump. Tax cuts, deregs, and judges in exchange for trade and foreign policy upheaval. But I'm a born optimist, the glass is always half full. The incentives to not kill growth or alliances are too large. We're going to muddle through this...
"Tax Cuts are stimulus, too."
No "stimulus comes only through the Fed. The larger deficit that the cut engenders does not "stimulate" unless the Fed abandons its programed inflation rate target. Otherwise the deficit just leads to higher interest rates (or whatever instrument the Fed is using to target inflation an lower private investment.
A proper definition of "austerity" would be for Fiscal policy to fail to execute activities with NPV > 0 [NPV evaluated taking account of externalities and that MC < P for underemployed resources and labor] because of reasons. This might have been true in 2008-16, but I've not see it argued per se.
Why do people equate uncertainty with absolute ambiguity?
I would argue that it's time to end 45 years of predatory capitalism, but it looks like Trump is turning it into the final solution. Privatizing all government services will just add a layer of rent-taking to everything they do. And the balance of power between labor and capital will be tilted even further away from labor. The pie may grow, but the working majority will end up with less.
"since this level of chaos can’t go on for four years."
Do we have any data that would suggest it can't go on for four years? In my experience, the level of chaos trended higher, not lower, toward the end of Trump's first term, COVID excluded.
Is our politics capable of viewing things holistically with a clear eyed understanding of the differences between risk and uncertainty or are we stuck in a semi-permanent stance of viewing everything via “vibes”
Our politics probably not, but this post does a good job of it