Read on Twitter
The fact that two "populist" conservatives who supposedly cheerlead "dignified work" and want to boost demand for labor are poised to vote for a Fed candidate who is actively hostile to labor-demand-boosting monetary policy is a bad sign for that wing of conservatism. https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1328741189365985281
No amount of tweaking the deliver of work subsidies or trying to tackle marriage penalties can ever offset a monetary policy which is determined to crash the economy into the ground because But Muh Gold Standerrrrd.
You cannot on the one hand be like, "WE MUST ADVOCATE FOR THE WORKING CLASS" and then on the other hand be like, "HOWEVER, monetary policy should prioritize non-expansion of the monetary base because that might theoretically, someday, create inflation, which is bad for bankers."
At this point the empirical debate here is settled. Easy monetary policy is a non-negotiable prerequisite for economic growth provided that inflation isn't rising to super bad levels which, spoiler, it ain't.
So the question quite literally is:
"Should the Federal Reserve in making monetary policy weigh current economic interests of workers against the theoretical future worries of financial institutions, banks, and lenders?"
"Should the Federal Reserve in making monetary policy weigh current economic interests of workers against the theoretical future worries of financial institutions, banks, and lenders?"
You could answer "NO!" There's a cogent argument for answering "NO!" on the basis of certain models of long-run economic growth.
Those are the very models which "Against the Dead Consensus" folks are supposed to be against!
Those are the very models which "Against the Dead Consensus" folks are supposed to be against!
This is actually a great litmus test on whether "conservative economic populism" means "whatever the weird newsletters going to old people say to get them to BUY GOLD" or "actually advocating for workers and families."
And I'm not saying that flippantly. A non-trivial share of the economic opinion-shaping force in America is snail-mail ads, scammy phone calls, and "investment advice" sent to seniors. That's a key part of the economic commentariat.
Anyways.
This is a really nice litmus test. @HawleyMO , @marcorubio , @SenatorTimScott , @BenSasse : if you vote for Shelton, you can kiss goodbye any pretense of a party that works for WORK.
This is a really nice litmus test. @HawleyMO , @marcorubio , @SenatorTimScott , @BenSasse : if you vote for Shelton, you can kiss goodbye any pretense of a party that works for WORK.
If there were actually a risk of inflation I'd understand.... but y'all here';s YoY change in CPI. Inflation is low! It fell to nearly zero during the worst of the pandemic!
Shelton has no political constituency. It's not like if you vote against her, @HawleyMO , there will be some blowback. There won't be. She's just a terrible choice for the position, because she has no interest in helping workers and families.
I mean @marcorubio , @SenMikeLee , @MittRomney : you all care a lot about helping families achieve their goals!
The evidence is crystal clear that easier monetary policy ***boosts fertility*** because it eases family budgets! https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/working-paper/2019/monetary-policy-and-birth-rates-the-effect-of-mortgage-rate-pass-through-on-fertility.pdf?la=en&hash=DC65BDCBC3E36B323DBAFEDA347133B4947A2305
The evidence is crystal clear that easier monetary policy ***boosts fertility*** because it eases family budgets! https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/working-paper/2019/monetary-policy-and-birth-rates-the-effect-of-mortgage-rate-pass-through-on-fertility.pdf?la=en&hash=DC65BDCBC3E36B323DBAFEDA347133B4947A2305
One of the big reasons U.S. fertility fell so much during the Great Recession, while e.g. British fertility fell less, is that British monetary policy was, all things considered, actually *looser* early on than U.S. monetary policy!
But now, remarkably few of the Republicans who talk about workers and families are actually showing up to cast a low-cost, high-impact vote to protect workers and families from an economically destructive anti-natal monetary policy.
Pro-natalism means more than just tweaking a credit here or there.
If you want to actually make society more hospitable for family life, you need to tackle the NUMEROUS obstacles facing families. You need to have more transfers to younger families.
If you want to actually make society more hospitable for family life, you need to tackle the NUMEROUS obstacles facing families. You need to have more transfers to younger families.
That means, all else being equal, you want to run the economy hot, permit some inflation, taking money out of the hands of savers (i.e. old people) and putting it into the hands of people starting new families.
Plus, easier money actually helps avoid damaging recessions, which makes us all richer. Yay!
Oh, I forgot to tag @JECRepublicans in this: you all have done so much good work on these issues. It would be a shame to do all that good work and then vote for a Federal Reserve candidate who is going to systematically undermine every single bit of it.
