Matt Yglesias on Twitter:
What I do think is true, though, is that:
— Under any tactics, Biden would have ended up agreeing to meaningful cuts in discretionary spending.
— The case *on the merits* for austerity budgeting is a much stronger today than it was in 2011
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) May 22, 2023
Generally speaking, Matt's point is that today's economy is stronger than it was in 2011 and we're already spending more money, so there's more scope for cutbacks.
This is fair enough but for a few things. First, we're barrelling headlong into the Fed's huge rate increases from last year, which are going to strangle the economy starting sometime very soon. I know a lot of people don't want to believe this because it all seems sort of invisible and theoretical, but it's neither. Rate increases slowing an economy with a lag time of about a year are about as close to a universal consequence of standard macroeconomics as we have. The tsunami is coming.
Second, high interest rates are already strangling the housing market and will continue to do so. This has obvious ripple effects.
Third, accumulated savings from the pandemic rescue bills is gone outside of the upper middle class—where it does little good anyway. With real income flat/down, this means real spending will drop too. This is already starting to happen.
Finally, there's China as a wild card. Their economy is stumbling, and this will certainly have no good effect on the rest of the world.
Set against all this is the fact that the labor market remains strong. This is indeed a bit mysterious, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it. It can turn around on a dime when other factors suddenly surprise people. It's a thin reed to lean on.
Bottom line: the macroeconomy is stronger right now than it was during the first debt crisis, but it's in a very tenuous state. It's on the edge of recession, and the last thing we need is some stupid default brinkmanship to give it a final nudge over the edge.