Nice curtain closer by the great John Cassidy (though the New Yorker’s insistence on writing out big numbers vs…um…numerals is cray-cray).

--is revenues. To be clear, spending cuts *are* part of the solution. But we definitely have a revs problem. More to come on that. (Data note: see appendix tbl 4 if you want to see spending including interest; same pattern.).

Figure below, imho, is a useful way to look at it, from my 2018 testimony above, but needs an update (Bobby/Brendan update on revs, but good to include spending). Shows spending (sans interest; that's not cuttable) tracking earlier forecasts. The laggard--casualty of tax cuts--

I can see where someone might think that based on raw numbers: revs/gdp ~ 17%, ~historical avg. But at full emp w above trend growth, you need to be above avg. I wrote about this years ago. @BBKogan & @brendan_duke update here:.

These are the numbers behind the "they've got fewer degrees of freedom to play around with potentially inflationary policies" point. Of course, trajectories matter a lot in this context, and there's clearly (bumpy) disinflation; but not so re yields.

Exit interview! .

So, misleading to conclude our econ team didn’t get listened to, which I’ll grant you doesn’t mean we prevailed enough, but that’s life.

These views were carefully listened to in internal debates, and reflected in trade policies that were targeted, not sweeping. The idea was always to support full emp and worker bargaining clout at home while maintaining trade flows to boost the supply side.

For Keynes’ sake, this stuff is all over our website, including ERP chapters—new one out today! (see Chap 6)—and speeches. Or maybe, I dunno, **look at the data**, showing continued, strong trade flows, though a lot less from China.

On trade policy, the piece is pretty far off. My good pal @jasonfurman quip not right. CEA consistently--internally and externally--argued on behalf of worker-centered trade policy that extolled both the costs *AND* benefits of robust trade flows.

I briefed the President and senior staff, as did Ceci, literally every week on the dataflow, and we were carefully listened to (Zients is an absolute data freak, ftr, and felt entitled to call me at all hours to discuss minutiae to the second decimal place.).

On what’s wrong in the piece, before concluding that economists were sidelined in our admin based on disgruntled outsiders, how about talking to those of us who’ve been here for 4 freakin’ years?!.

In my experience at highest levels of policy, we get listened to pretty carefully when we bring solid empirics to the policy work in these areas. Though, sure, we not infrequently end up under the bus. And no question we've got a lot of room for improvement.

Big @bencasselman fan, but this article gets some things wrong--and a lot right. Re the latter, strong agreement @mioana re increased dispersion in economists’ view/advice to policy makers. Min wg, trade, climate, indus policy, full emp, all good eg’s.

As always, seasonally adjusted greetings from CEA and here's hoping we can build on all this economic progress in the new year!!.

. trends and implications of work-from-home, macro, micro, health care, climate, education policy). And I didn't even mention the stock market, as per this AM's WSJ: .

I could literally go on all day, and MUCH more to come in the forthcoming new Economic Report of the President, out in the next few weeks, and chock full of insights re all the above and more (e.g., great trade chapter tracking recent gains in US FDI. .

Essential to build on these trends toward cleaner, renewables-driven electricity generation:.

Important progress on health coverage; bottom figure shows how elastic this variable is to admin policy:

Ok, we're back live. While grocery inflation is way down, grocery prices remain elevated relative to pre-pan levels. There are two ways to fight this: a deep recession to take down price levels or rising real pay. We like the latter:.