SubStack’s latest attempt to find & promote a “decent right” appears to blow up wiþ Richard Hanania/Hoste; global warming eats our technological dividend over þe next two generations...
Boushey on Noah's Substack: A string softball questions and talking point answers. :(
I'd like to believe that Biden is doing the best he can, given Republican opposition and public understanding of economics, but make the case! Don't leave the impression that the Administratio is part of the problem.
I'm certainly glad you read all the disappointing intellectual frauds from the American Wrong (the real name of the "Right") so I don't have to waste my time on their drivel.
I wish the Substack guys would learn the rule If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It. But being Silly Con Valley techies, no, they'll keep fucking with it till they kill it, like their buddies up there have with everything else.
Klein: Why isn't FAIT 2% still possible if the Fed makes perfectly clear that it will not tolerate less than 2%. Yes, it probably needs to start bringing down the EFFR to achieve that.
The Fed's big error was not 2007-08 [of course it should have started zero EFFR, no IOR and QE in September 2008 at least] but 2009-20. It should never have validated TIPS < target inflation expectations.
Posen: Even if all this is right -- if I had a nickel for every article about China's "troubles" -- I don't see much implication for US economic policy: inclusive growth and globalization are still good. Maybe it's easier to get countries to sign up for the American-Asian Co-Prosperity Hemisphere. Or maybe not if they fear a stumbling China less.
McKinesie & Sahay. So does the news affect their prior on the optimal trajectory of a tax on net CO2 and methane emissions? Or it is just a lot of hot air?
Billi, Gali, Narkof ??? With real shocks, I doubt any rule for any given policy instrument will be optimal. I'm not persuaded the Fed can do better than FAIT. And in a world that needs gazillions of dollars of investment in CO2 and methane accumulation avoidance technologies and adaption to costs of previous accumulations, why worry about r*<0?
One image: With so many old fashioned Left Neoliberal opportunities to increase growth: progressive taxes on consumption to decrease deficits, merit-based immigration, lad and building code reform, getting NEPA out of the way of zero-energy transmission and generation, urban congestion pricing, and the still low deadweight loss of CO2 and methane abatement, I think this is far too pessimistic. And that's discounting any help from LLM/AGI,
Of course if environmental policy remains in the hands of "environmentalists," 2070 will be not only poorer but have much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as well. But I'm counting on the Churchillian aphorism.
"Of course if environmental policy remains in the hands of "environmentalists," 2070 will be not only poorer but have much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as well."
Can you explain your reasoning? What assumptions are you making about what policies "environmentalists" would make and why would this worsen the CO2 emissions, rather than ameliorate them?
You wrote: "the world come 2070 will be little richer than the world today."
How do you measure riches? Fighting climate change will reduce the damage done by an over-heated nature while reduction of pollution from fossil fuel combustion will make us much healthier. Greater safety and improved health are "riches" of the most important kind.
I would compare it to fighting a justifiable war. The war HAS to be fought, but consumes an enormous amount of resources that would otherwise go to standards of living. We'd be far better off if the war never had to be fought in the first place, or if we could have strangled climate Hitler in the crib.
You are missing Bill Wyman's point. War is destructive, even if teh outcome is a better political world. Fighting climate boiling is a war that if fought and won ends up with a world that is immeasurably better from a biosphere perspective and in turn from a human perspective. Once you properly factor in the costs of the externalities, fighting the emissions war will have a net gain in real assets, even if our economic assets are diminished.
Yes, and fighting it a low cost will give us those advantages AND allow us to continue becoming richer: more folks having more money to spend on what they want.
Boushey on Noah's Substack: A string softball questions and talking point answers. :(
I'd like to believe that Biden is doing the best he can, given Republican opposition and public understanding of economics, but make the case! Don't leave the impression that the Administratio is part of the problem.
I'm certainly glad you read all the disappointing intellectual frauds from the American Wrong (the real name of the "Right") so I don't have to waste my time on their drivel.
I wish the Substack guys would learn the rule If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It. But being Silly Con Valley techies, no, they'll keep fucking with it till they kill it, like their buddies up there have with everything else.
Did you click on the sublink? 100+ degree heat dome in S. America now (their winter). This seems worse than the other heat dome stories.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/02/southamerica-record-winter-heat-argentina-chile/
"unless the only things you care about are low taxes on the rich and right-wing judges with unjudicial temperaments"
Seem like a revealed preference.
Klein: Why isn't FAIT 2% still possible if the Fed makes perfectly clear that it will not tolerate less than 2%. Yes, it probably needs to start bringing down the EFFR to achieve that.
The Fed's big error was not 2007-08 [of course it should have started zero EFFR, no IOR and QE in September 2008 at least] but 2009-20. It should never have validated TIPS < target inflation expectations.
Posen: Even if all this is right -- if I had a nickel for every article about China's "troubles" -- I don't see much implication for US economic policy: inclusive growth and globalization are still good. Maybe it's easier to get countries to sign up for the American-Asian Co-Prosperity Hemisphere. Or maybe not if they fear a stumbling China less.
McKinesie & Sahay. So does the news affect their prior on the optimal trajectory of a tax on net CO2 and methane emissions? Or it is just a lot of hot air?
Billi, Gali, Narkof ??? With real shocks, I doubt any rule for any given policy instrument will be optimal. I'm not persuaded the Fed can do better than FAIT. And in a world that needs gazillions of dollars of investment in CO2 and methane accumulation avoidance technologies and adaption to costs of previous accumulations, why worry about r*<0?
One image: With so many old fashioned Left Neoliberal opportunities to increase growth: progressive taxes on consumption to decrease deficits, merit-based immigration, lad and building code reform, getting NEPA out of the way of zero-energy transmission and generation, urban congestion pricing, and the still low deadweight loss of CO2 and methane abatement, I think this is far too pessimistic. And that's discounting any help from LLM/AGI,
Of course if environmental policy remains in the hands of "environmentalists," 2070 will be not only poorer but have much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as well. But I'm counting on the Churchillian aphorism.
"Of course if environmental policy remains in the hands of "environmentalists," 2070 will be not only poorer but have much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as well."
Can you explain your reasoning? What assumptions are you making about what policies "environmentalists" would make and why would this worsen the CO2 emissions, rather than ameliorate them?
You wrote: "the world come 2070 will be little richer than the world today."
How do you measure riches? Fighting climate change will reduce the damage done by an over-heated nature while reduction of pollution from fossil fuel combustion will make us much healthier. Greater safety and improved health are "riches" of the most important kind.
I would compare it to fighting a justifiable war. The war HAS to be fought, but consumes an enormous amount of resources that would otherwise go to standards of living. We'd be far better off if the war never had to be fought in the first place, or if we could have strangled climate Hitler in the crib.
Yes indeed...
You are missing Bill Wyman's point. War is destructive, even if teh outcome is a better political world. Fighting climate boiling is a war that if fought and won ends up with a world that is immeasurably better from a biosphere perspective and in turn from a human perspective. Once you properly factor in the costs of the externalities, fighting the emissions war will have a net gain in real assets, even if our economic assets are diminished.
Yes, and fighting it a low cost will give us those advantages AND allow us to continue becoming richer: more folks having more money to spend on what they want.