Adam Ozimek

What should we do about high skilled immigration and why? This is the topic of my huge new report with @LettieriDC and @cojobrien: Exceptional by Design. Quick thread on why I think you should read this report. eig.org/exceptional-by…

This was great. Now I want @tylercowen to interview Mr Beast conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/any-a…

@MattBruenig It WAS your piece that made me say this. The system works

@ModeledBehavior The ability to repeatedly crawl the web to build a search index tends towards a few winners because websites invariably block crawlers that cost them money without providing any (search exposure) benefit. LLMs don't need to repeatedly crawl the internet to that same extent

Is the argument that AI won’t have huge concentrated winners any different than the argument that search engines won’t have any huge concentrated winners?

If an oil export ban is coming, they should grant export licenses to anyone increasing production

@GaryWinslett Sorry!

Total non-sports people are such an interesting bunch. You’ll make what you think is the most obvious reference and they’ll just look at you like “that has literally zero meaning to me.”

This is a good article that makes a worthwhile point, but it’s odd that @akoustov and @KelseyTuoc don’t address the fact that there is a concerted policy push — mostly on the left, also on the horseshoe right — to more stringently regulate labor markets in ways that will raise barriers to new entrants, whether they’re migrants or young people. Further, immigrant selection is in part a product of the tax-and-transfer system: the U.S. is attractive to high-skill migrants because we allow them to earn more post-tax and our benefit system has emphasized conditional over unconditional benefits. We’re becoming less “exceptional” along both dimensions. So yes, restrictionist policies are very relevant — but when it comes to why the U.S. has done better than Europe when it comes to economic assimilation, the bipartisan rise of Hewlett-Warren-Piketty thought is very relevant. My impression is that @akoustov and @KelseyTuoc understand this very well, so I’m guessing the issue was a space constraint or the desire to offer a clear, positive takeaway.

Daniel wisely argues for letting in younger skilled immigrants. This is the opposite of what Borjas argues we should try to do with this zany $100k fee approach.

@JeremiahDJohns I promise I would get weird too if I became very rich but in a much more fun way

It's genuinely amazing how many billionaires turn into outright cranks and lunatics about the weirdest shit imaginable, despite being otherwise smart people.

If you think demand played a large roll in the pandemic inflation, you are a lot less worried today. If you think it was mostly supply shocks, well you are more worried about supply shocks being inflationary. This explains some of the Dove -> Hawk conversions

Why is the Center for American Progress running interference for the Jones Act americanprogress.org/article/how-th…

Markets didn't like that. Going to need to trot out some fed representative and clean it up soon is my guess.

Me when the guy says "Thanks for doing this" to Powell

Powell says long term inflation expectations are well anchored as well across the data. So markets, households, and oil companies aren't concerned but we need near-term inflation to come down to believe it?

Powell says US oil companies won't raise production unless they believe oil price shocks will be persistent and they don't believe this. Why can't the Fed say the same?

@M_C_Klein You might not think that, but he just said it was

@ModeledBehavior it's not restrictive though, and it's not as if the inflation outlook were otherwise fine

@M_C_Klein From modestly restrictive to more restrictive? That doesn't sound like "looking through it"

@ModeledBehavior They clearly do believe the same, otherwise they would have raised rates

@TheStalwart @colbyLsmith Failure to understand the inflation is costly. Excessive blame on supply shocks is costly. If only we could accept that demand mattered a lot!

In response to a question from @colbyLsmith, Powell acknowledges that 5 years of missing the inflation target will help inform the degree to which the FOMC can look through the oil price surge.

There's not really any reason why we should think that tariff driven inflation shocks need to be seen to be proven they are temporary.