I agree with your overall point. I think the institutions of the US actually do provide important checks on Trump that force him to be less "fash-y" (as the kids are saying) that he brands himself throughout a campaign. However, I'd be curious about your characterization of the Biden administration's economics: what happens if those bills aren't passed? Should they have been more limited/targeted/smaller in scope? Should there have been no spending bills at all? It's unhelpful to simply say "the results of inflation were bad" when there are numerous possible alternatives-worse.
Hey Dana, thanks for comment. My personal preference would have been Dems passing no additional fiscal stimulus in 2021. That would've undoubtedly slowed the recovery, as Brookings found in Jan. '21, but I also understand would have lessened inflation. Of course, politically, this wasn't tenable. Dems felt enormous pressure to go big for the reasons I mentioned. The move would have been to wait for the market to respond to the Dec '20 bill and then use that to inform policy. Politics is defined by contrasts. In my view, a gradual recovery would have been politically easier to campaign on in '24 versus a sharp recovery on paper that had widespread foreseeable adverse effects that contrasted the theme of "normalcy" Biden campaigned on.... That Brookings estimate: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-macroeconomic-implications-of-bidens-1-9-trillion-fiscal-package/
Hey Chris, thanks for the comment. My main point is that by and large during his first term Trump's bark was worse than his bite, a strongman brand that wound up not fulfilling his worst impulses because of incentives and constraints operating against his favor. Biden, conversely, campaigned on moderate normalcy but whose presidency coincided with events, especially the ARP, that eluded normalcy.
I agree with your overall point. I think the institutions of the US actually do provide important checks on Trump that force him to be less "fash-y" (as the kids are saying) that he brands himself throughout a campaign. However, I'd be curious about your characterization of the Biden administration's economics: what happens if those bills aren't passed? Should they have been more limited/targeted/smaller in scope? Should there have been no spending bills at all? It's unhelpful to simply say "the results of inflation were bad" when there are numerous possible alternatives-worse.
Hey Dana, thanks for comment. My personal preference would have been Dems passing no additional fiscal stimulus in 2021. That would've undoubtedly slowed the recovery, as Brookings found in Jan. '21, but I also understand would have lessened inflation. Of course, politically, this wasn't tenable. Dems felt enormous pressure to go big for the reasons I mentioned. The move would have been to wait for the market to respond to the Dec '20 bill and then use that to inform policy. Politics is defined by contrasts. In my view, a gradual recovery would have been politically easier to campaign on in '24 versus a sharp recovery on paper that had widespread foreseeable adverse effects that contrasted the theme of "normalcy" Biden campaigned on.... That Brookings estimate: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-macroeconomic-implications-of-bidens-1-9-trillion-fiscal-package/
Thanks for linking me to this!
I didn't understand your point the first time this was published, and REALLY don't know what you're getting at today.
Hey Chris, thanks for the comment. My main point is that by and large during his first term Trump's bark was worse than his bite, a strongman brand that wound up not fulfilling his worst impulses because of incentives and constraints operating against his favor. Biden, conversely, campaigned on moderate normalcy but whose presidency coincided with events, especially the ARP, that eluded normalcy.