Ratna's math, in the second tweet, is high on the savings by 10x.
> If rolled into 10-yr bonds, every 1 basis point drop in rates saves approx $1B/year; so a 0.5% drop would save $500B over a decade.
It would be $50B on this math. Also, and I am an econ idiot here, how does the $9.2T refinancing work? Who is the US negotiating with to do this, itself?
> Lower yields free up fiscal room—without them, core spending gets crowded out.
What does this sentence mean? Fiscal room relative to what, to do what?
> But cheap refinancing isn’t enough on its own. Even at lower rates, the debt remains enormous.
Especially when Congress is about to vote on a bill to explode the debt again. Like, refinancing at $50B/year for savings isn't going to mean a thing compared to extending the tax cuts.
> Don’t forget: tariffs also bring in revenue. Estimates suggest they could raise over $700 million within the first year. That’s not a game-changer on its own, but it gives the Treasury a bit more room to maneuver—especially if paired with deficit cuts.
Again, that's 1.4% of the $50B. Literally a rounding error. No room is given to do anything. Also, what is a deficit cut, do you mean spending cuts (genuine question)? The only real spending cuts we can do to anything are, what, ~1/6th of the budget?
> Still, this approach isn’t without risks. If domestic supply chains can’t catch up, or if global retaliation kicks in, inflation could rise again. And if that happens, the Fed may be forced to raise rates—which would blow a hole in the low-yield plan. That’s the tightrope.
This was written on Apr 3. So, it seems that the tightrope that Ratna talks about has failed, the plan is over.
Look, the thread was an attempt at sanewashing the policy, it lasted about a day. Obviously, there is no plan.