justinwolfers.bsky.social - Profile | ThreadSky | a Reddit-style client for Bluesky

“Well, you’ve left me a little speechless," the MSNBC anchor admitted to University of Michigan's Justin Wolfers.

submitted 1 day ago • 9 comments

The President isn’t indecisive. He’s laser-focused on his only two options: Decide in two weeks or in 90 days. And he’s very decisive about which delay to pick.

submitted 16 hours ago • 15 comments

When assessing the Republican budget, ask yourself: What should our fiscal stance be right now? a) Surplus b) Balanced budget c) Small deficit d) Moderate deficit e) Historically large deficit If you picked (e), you'll love their plan.

submitted 17 hours ago • 12 comments

I've only ever felt the TACO critique was half right. To my eye, Trump's economic team has much more of a N.A.C.H.O. problem: Never Actually Completing Homework Obligations

submitted 22 hours ago • 22 comments

New haircut here to help you understand why the Fed's not moving interest rates.

submitted 23 hours ago • 18 comments

Sending a trading partner a letter is to a trade negotiation deal as masturbation is to sex: Whatever you're imagining, you're not actually involving the other party, and you're not exploring gains from trade.

submitted 1 day ago • 60 comments

Here's a suggestion: If you have a track record of appointing "a stupid person" to run the Fed, maybe let someone else make the next pick.

submitted 1 day ago • 24 comments

Trump is losing the battle of ideas over trade v. protectionism (albeit not with his base). [HT thomasjwood.bsky.social]

submitted 1 day ago • 7 comments

Powell finally speaks directly: "we expect a meaningful amount of inflation to arrive in coming months, and we have to take that into account." In English: Rates are higher than they need to be because of tariffs.

submitted 1 day ago • 12 comments

A simple point on the stance of monetary policy: If inflation expectations have risen (on average) by about a quarter of a percentage point, and the Fed has kept the nominal rate unchanged, then it has effective cut the real interest rate by one quarter of a percentage point.

submitted 1 day ago • 9 comments

Two facts worth considering: 1. The Fed is projecting GDP growth of 1.4% this year 2. Nearly every time growth has slowed to this rate, the economy stalls, and a recession follows

submitted 1 day ago • 21 comments

Policy (aka tariffs + uncertainty + destabilizing fiscal policy) since March has shifted the U.S. economy in a stagflationary direction. Latest Fed forecasts show slower growth, higher unemployment, amid higher inflation, with rates staying higher for longer.

submitted 1 day ago • 15 comments

As expected, the Fed has left rates unchanged. Uncertainty still the key issue as it is unclear just what macroeconomic environment it is meant to be reacting to. When the White House decides, I bet you'll see the Fed respond.

submitted 1 day ago • 4 comments

Also CBO: There an odd convention that requires we don't count how much interest payments will rise due to the amount we owe rising. (Weird, I know.) TL; DR Add all the macro effects and not only do they fail to offset the $2.4 trillion deficit, they raise it to $3.4 trillion.

submitted 2 days ago • 15 comments

It's 12 years to the day since this immigrant became a citizen.

submitted 2 days ago • 163 comments

GOP: Our budget will reduce the deficit CBO: It'll increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion GOP: But with greater growth, it'll pay for itself CBO: Accounting for growth it's $2.3 trillion GOP: ... CBO: Also, more debt raises interest rates, so the true effect is $2.8 trillion.

submitted 2 days ago • 38 comments

That escalated quickly.

submitted 2 days ago • 16 comments

Bit of a furrowed brow as I update this chart to include this morning's (disappointing) industrial production numbers. While retail sales isn't shown on this chart, it's also an important indicator, and this morning's print (for May) was also disappointing. Watch this space.

submitted 3 days ago • 15 comments

Holy crap. The US-UK trade deal is a blank sheet of paper and only Trump signed it. (Genuine screen grab).

submitted 3 days ago • 219 comments

"we have our trade agreement with the European Union." (That's Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, who has no authority over the European Union.)

submitted 3 days ago • 123 comments

You have 67 seconds to teach the economics of immigration and what it might teach about current policy debates. Go.

submitted 5 days ago • 7 comments

Tariffs will... Solve illegal immigration, rid us of fentanyl, secure national defense, create manufacturing jobs, generate tax revenue (to fund childcare/cut the deficit/pay for tax cuts/replace income tax), eliminate trade deficits, create leverage for trade deals and now ALLOW US TO SEND LETTERS.

submitted 4 days ago • 32 comments

I thought the point of the tariffs was leverage. You don't need leverage to send someone a form letter.

submitted 4 days ago • 43 comments

If we are all willing to dig in and sacrifice, by growing our red bars we can do our part in making the green bar even bigger.

submitted 4 days ago • 24 comments

Tariffs are meant to encourage domestic production. But who’s building a new factory if the incentive might vanish next Tuesday?

submitted 4 days ago • 29 comments

mood

submitted 5 days ago • 266 comments

You have 67 seconds to teach the economics of immigration and what it might teach about current policy debates. Go.

submitted 5 days ago • 7 comments

"You're suffering a bit like Trump might say you're suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome" is definitely one way to begin an interview.

submitted 6 days ago • 100 comments

A podcast for my mates back home: Could Australia actually be better off under Trump’s tariffs? I had a nice long chat with the ABC Insiders podcast and digging into what all of this means for Australia:

submitted 6 days ago • 9 comments

1. Trump's tax cuts overwhelmingly help the rich 2. His spending cuts are targeted at the poor 3. Tariffs cost the poor a larger share of their income Roll these three regressive policies together and you get the largest redistribution from poor to rich in American history. The anti-Robin Hood.

submitted 7 days ago • 48 comments

You have to add up all the red bars and stack them on top of each other to pay for the green bar.

submitted 7 days ago • 50 comments

Yesterday Bessent said the deadline for deals was flexible so today Lutnick it wasn't.

submitted 7 days ago • 7 comments

We've had exactly one GDP reading since Trump became President and it showed the economy contracting.

submitted 7 days ago • 18 comments

1. Trump's tax cuts overwhelmingly help the rich 2. His spending cuts are targeted at the poor 3. Tariffs cost the poor a larger share of their income Roll these three regressive policies together and you get the largest redistribution from poor to rich in American history. The anti-Robin Hood.

submitted 7 days ago • 48 comments

Declaring trade this weeks agreement-to-agree with China trade a “big win” when at best all we've done is partly reversed a self-inflicted wound is like bragging that your hangover finally wore off.

submitted 7 days ago • 8 comments

“No one’s talking anymore about getting things good. They’re talking about a set of trading conditions with China that are less bad than the Trump administration had gotten us to just a few weeks ago.”

submitted 8 days ago • 7 comments

Consumer confidence? Collapsing. Business confidence? Tanking. Vibes? Awful. But the U.S. economy? Still chugging along — for now. The question is how long momentum can outrun fear.

submitted 8 days ago • 19 comments

Of course Trump is yet to say anything about "90 deals in 90 days" = "18 deals, whenever", so we have no idea what official White House policy is. (I wonder if any of the 18/90 countries know.)

submitted 8 days ago • 17 comments

It's Schrödinger’s Trade Deal: not an agreement, but not not an agreement. It's both a pause and a promise. And apparently, worth flying to London for.

submitted 8 days ago • 12 comments

🌮 Trump always chickens out🌮 misses half the story. He flails, yes. But he also leaves landmines. Thirty percent tariffs on China didn’t disappear—they hardened into policy.

submitted 8 days ago • 6 comments

Treasury Secretary just announced the new dealmaking plan. "90 deals in 90 days" just became 18 deals, and as long as he's started talking within 90 days, he'll grant as many extensions he wants on each of these 18 deals. That feels like a non-deadline that he can't fail to meet.

submitted 8 days ago • 57 comments

The latest “agreement” in the US-China trade saga? Turns out it’s just the last non-agreement repackaged. Status quo anti.

submitted 8 days ago • 11 comments