A strange embrace of “drill, baby, drill” on the left.”
Hope springs eternal that leftists (and rightists) will embrace that restrictions on the demand for fossil fuels, not the production and transport of fossil fuels as the way to deal with the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere
"The not-so-savvy foreign interference in America’s politics/energy security"
Precisely because the US is a net fossil fuel exporter the Saudi move is only political. There are many more users of gasoline than shareholders of fossil fuel producing firms although the gains of the latter in the aggregates should exceed costs to the former. [We are not donating the LNG shipped to Europe.] But as for being anti-Saudi, guilty as charged and was even before they chopped up one of our journalists and he Wahabis formed the consciences of Osama ben Laden and the 9/11 murderers.
“America needs to take steps to facilitate the energy transition in order to respond to the increasing threats posed by climate change for sure, but if it does so in a way that hurts working Americans, it could end up stalling the transition.”
In other words, a rebated tax on net CO2 and methane emissions even as we give gas frackers the Medal of Freedom for making solar and wind power cheaper and mitigating the discomfort of Europeans this winter.
"whether fiscal policy not accommodated by monetary policy mattered. As it turns out, it did…"
Blinder must be right in what he means; he is Alan Blinder and I am not. But I have a hard time believing it on my understanding of "not accommodated."
For me, "accommodated" means the Fed would alter its inflation or employment target (it might of course alter its policy instrument set) on account of a fiscal event. In doing so, it has an opportunity to make a mistake, but then we cannot rule out that the pre-event setting was optimal and the "mistake" could improve things. I presume this is what Bernanke had in mind when he suggested that additional fiscal "stimulus" would be welcomed in 2009. He know his QE and IOR settings were inadequate and would welcome the opportunity to "accommodate" a larger fiscal deficit.
So the set of instrument setting can "accommodate" without the target changing. The Fed thinks it can achieve its targets by buying $Z of stuff made of a $Z1 stuff and $Z2 stuff. Then, surprise! the Treasury offers more $Z2 stuff and the Fed accommodates, holds $Z constant, by buying less $Z1 stuff, confident that it will still achieve it targets. [The example assumes perfect substitutability between $Z1 and $Z2, but mutatis mutandis.]
Sean Carol yesterday in the monthly AMA section answered a question about an amateur who asks an expert to critique his idiosyncratic (crackpot?) ideas. Sean very gently suggests that he go do the hard work of studying the material to be able to critique his own ideas. And I thought, is this me and Brad Delong? If so, sorry, but I'm too old and have too many ideas to follow that advice, and just ignore the impertinence. :)
I take it that you no longer think that we should try to play the role of Britain 1865-1943? Does that mean a policy of opposition or even confrontation is in order? Or is it, in the famous words, too soon to tell?
The China Syndrome link is confusing ("you must remember this"). Better is
https://gideons.substack.com/i/78837592/the-china-syndrome
Katulllis:
A strange embrace of “drill, baby, drill” on the left.”
Hope springs eternal that leftists (and rightists) will embrace that restrictions on the demand for fossil fuels, not the production and transport of fossil fuels as the way to deal with the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere
"The not-so-savvy foreign interference in America’s politics/energy security"
Precisely because the US is a net fossil fuel exporter the Saudi move is only political. There are many more users of gasoline than shareholders of fossil fuel producing firms although the gains of the latter in the aggregates should exceed costs to the former. [We are not donating the LNG shipped to Europe.] But as for being anti-Saudi, guilty as charged and was even before they chopped up one of our journalists and he Wahabis formed the consciences of Osama ben Laden and the 9/11 murderers.
“America needs to take steps to facilitate the energy transition in order to respond to the increasing threats posed by climate change for sure, but if it does so in a way that hurts working Americans, it could end up stalling the transition.”
In other words, a rebated tax on net CO2 and methane emissions even as we give gas frackers the Medal of Freedom for making solar and wind power cheaper and mitigating the discomfort of Europeans this winter.
"whether fiscal policy not accommodated by monetary policy mattered. As it turns out, it did…"
Blinder must be right in what he means; he is Alan Blinder and I am not. But I have a hard time believing it on my understanding of "not accommodated."
For me, "accommodated" means the Fed would alter its inflation or employment target (it might of course alter its policy instrument set) on account of a fiscal event. In doing so, it has an opportunity to make a mistake, but then we cannot rule out that the pre-event setting was optimal and the "mistake" could improve things. I presume this is what Bernanke had in mind when he suggested that additional fiscal "stimulus" would be welcomed in 2009. He know his QE and IOR settings were inadequate and would welcome the opportunity to "accommodate" a larger fiscal deficit.
“Accommodation” is a term of art here. It means holding some policy tool—reserves levels, or money-stock estimates, or interest rates—constant...
So the set of instrument setting can "accommodate" without the target changing. The Fed thinks it can achieve its targets by buying $Z of stuff made of a $Z1 stuff and $Z2 stuff. Then, surprise! the Treasury offers more $Z2 stuff and the Fed accommodates, holds $Z constant, by buying less $Z1 stuff, confident that it will still achieve it targets. [The example assumes perfect substitutability between $Z1 and $Z2, but mutatis mutandis.]
Sean Carol yesterday in the monthly AMA section answered a question about an amateur who asks an expert to critique his idiosyncratic (crackpot?) ideas. Sean very gently suggests that he go do the hard work of studying the material to be able to critique his own ideas. And I thought, is this me and Brad Delong? If so, sorry, but I'm too old and have too many ideas to follow that advice, and just ignore the impertinence. :)
I take it that you no longer think that we should try to play the role of Britain 1865-1943? Does that mean a policy of opposition or even confrontation is in order? Or is it, in the famous words, too soon to tell?
You keep adding books to my reading list!!!! Blinder's book looks quite good.
Regarding Kari Lake, America always falls for another pretty face so her apparent lead in the AZ governor's race is unsurprising.
:-) & :-(