You've heard it: "Capitalism can't be reformed." It sounds principled. Who wants to collaborate with an exploitative system? Here's what's actually happening: that position is strategic paralysis. While you debate revolutionary purity, concentrated wealth consolidates control through the democratic institutions you've abandoned. In this essay, I expose how far-left arguments function: - The structural absolutism declaring all reform as futile or collaboration - How these positions share the same economic myths as the far-right - Why retreat from federal power serves concentrated wealth perfectly - How purity politics fragments coalitions while oligarchs consolidate unopposed - Response templates for building effective coalitions despite these arguments The evidence is clear: the New Deal, Scandinavian social democracy, and the GI Bill demonstrate democratic reform works. Denmark's stronger safety net enables 30% higher business formation than the U.S. Institutional quality matters more than ideological purity. This is Part 2 of a three-part series defending democratic capitalism from extremist attacks. Part 1 examined far-right libertarian positions. Part 3 will make the positive case for public money as democratic tool.

You've heard it: "Taxation is theft." Maybe from a libertarian uncle, maybe from a podcast, maybe in online debates. It sounds principled. Who likes being forced to pay for things they don't support? Here's what's actually happening: that phrase is a weapon. A corporate-funded weapon designed to eliminate the only tool (democratic government) capable of constraining concentrated wealth. For fifty years, far-right rhetoric has been dismantling democratic capitalism. Every time someone says "taxation is theft," they're attacking the legitimacy of democratic collective action itself. When all collective action becomes "violence," oligarchs operate without democratic accountability. In this essay, I expose how these arguments actually work: The core philosophical contradiction that makes libertarian framework self-defeating The corporate funding behind these arguments (billions invested since the 1940s) Six rhetorical techniques designed to manipulate you into accepting oligarchy Five economic myths exploited to make collective action seem impossible Specific response templates for defending democratic capitalism in real conversations This is Part 1 of a three-part series. Part 2 examines far-left constraints on democratic capitalism. Part 3 makes the positive case for public money as the tool enabling broad prosperity.

In January 1946, Federal Reserve Chairman Beardsley Ruml published an article explaining that the federal government doesn't need tax revenue to fund its spending. He was describing the actual mechanics of sovereign currency systems after leaving the gold standard. We spent 80 years forgetting what he told us, and it's time to remember.

This essay develops a framework for assessing whether economics qualifies as a genuine science. Drawing on Popper's falsificationism, Kuhn's paradigm theory, and Merton's norms of scientific communities, I identify six necessary attributes and apply them systematically to the discipline. The conclusion refines my earlier argument: economics as currently practiced is largely not a science, but it contains scientific elements and has the potential to become genuinely scientific. The critical failures include systematic refusal to abandon falsified theories, teaching operational falsehoods about monetary systems, and resolving disputes through institutional power rather than evidence. A companion piece to "Economics is not a Science" and draws on analysis from "Why Monetary Systems Matter" and "Why Economic Models Matter."

Yelling about generational inequality is a sure tell someone is a liar or clueless

Universal Basic Income (UBI) has captured progressive imagination as the solution to poverty and inequality. But the policy has a fatal flaw: cash transfers into markets with inelastic demand get capt...

For seventy years, American political discourse has been trapped in a Cold War binary that no longer serves us. While we debate whether government or markets should control the economy, countries from Singapore to Sweden have built prosperous societies by ignoring this false choice entirely. This essay argues that the capitalism versus socialism framework obscures the real issue: most Americans fundamentally misunderstand how money works in the post-1971 fiat currency world. This misunderstanding - what I call macroeconomic illiteracy - has led us to accept artificial constraints on what's possible, resulting in forty years of wage stagnation, wealth concentration, and declining public goods. Drawing on my previous work on monetary systems, economic models, and hidden wealth transfers, I demonstrate why successful economies use markets for what they do well (discretionary goods) and non-market mechanisms for what they don't (survival needs like healthcare and housing). The path forward isn't choosing between markets and government but understanding our monetary reality well enough to use both effectively. As democratic institutions face unprecedented threats and economic anxiety fuels political extremism, breaking free from obsolete ideological constraints isn't just an economic necessity - it's essential for preserving democracy itself.

This essay began as a response to a thoughtful Facebook comment expressing concerns shared by millions of Americans about inflation, government debt, and economic insecurity. The commenter blamed our problems on leaving the gold standard in 1971 and the government's ability to 'print money.' While their frustrations are entirely valid, their diagnosis misses the mark. This piece examines three fundamental misconceptions about money, debt, and government spending that have dominated American economic discourse for forty years: and explains why correcting these misconceptions is essential for building broadly shared prosperity.

This essay reveals how accounting rules systematically block wealth-building for middle-class families while concentrating profits in wealthy pockets. When businesses depreciate equipment, they get ta...

A comprehensive response examining competing economic frameworks and their predictions about money creation, government deficits, and inflation. Using evidence from quantitative easing, Japan's three-decade experiment, and the 2021-2022 inflation episode, this essay tests which theories actually explain how modern monetary systems work... and reveals why economics maintains failed models through institutional power rather than empirical success.

The revolution is the protocol. In advertising, protocols solve coordination problems at scale. Before RTB, buying from 50 publishers meant 50 different relationships and custom processes. RTB created a standard auction language—suddenly you could access thousands of publishers because everyone spoke the same way.

The primary factor enabling AI psychosis is a mismatch between how easy AI systems appear to use and how difficult they are to use competently. This creates a dangerous overconfidence gap where people believe they're operating sophisticated cognitive tools effectively while potentially degrading their own thinking capabilities.

We already tried making humans into machines with SaaS workflows and ticket queues. Everyone lost. And now the real machines are here. AI can do a lot of things better than humans but here's what it can't do- and never will.

A generative human is someone who uses AI to amplify their capacity to create original insights, novel solutions, and new value rather than just consuming AI's outputs. Generative humans become more capable, more creative, and more valuable over time because each interaction with AI enhances their thinking abilities rather than replacing them.

Since OpenAI's GPT-5 model started rolling out last week, people ask me the same thing: "How do I use AI better?" The answer is simpler than you think, but it requires a shift in how you approach the problem. Instead of focusing on techniques and prompts, you need to identify your use case first.

AI Is Replacing Jobs” they say, but it’s a cover

I usually write about big-picture paradigm shifts, but lately I've noticed something: while we're all living through the AI revolution, many people are struggling with the basics—understanding what everyone is actually talking about.