(6/6) If we thought of macroeconomics more like quantum physics, we would see it as a field of relationships rather than a machine of separate parts. Policy would aim less at control and more at maintaining coherence between the pairs that hold the system together.

(5/6) The economy is not a set of isolated actors but a network of linked balances. Stability depends on keeping those links consistent over time. When they come apart, no amount of market adjustment will restore order by itself.

(4/6) In both physics and economics, observation changes what happens next. Once new data or forecasts are published, people act differently. The act of watching becomes part of the system itself.

(3/6) Policy works like a magnetic field acting on radical pairs. It can hold relationships steady or flip them entirely. A change in interest rates or accounting rules can turn cooperation into conflict between sectors that once moved together.

(2/6) Macroeconomies stay stable only while these linked relationships hold together. When one side of a balance-sheet pair stops matching the other, the system falls out of sync. Crises are not accidents but signs that coherence has broken down.

Remember when Dana wanted to run for president? I wonder if she's on his team of advisors.

If the economic rights and privileges that they use to transfer money and wealth from others to themselves were taxed (land, IP, platform ownership, etc.), those rights and privileges cannot be offshored and would be inescapable. Taxing these things would directly tackle inequality growth.

What counts as wealth and how would it be taxed?

My concern is that, if a neoliberal frame is used, the focus will be on taxing things that can be offshored to tax havens.

The last time Trump wanted to distract people from Epstein, he and JD Vance began brow-beating Vladimir Zelensky. It looks like it was just a fluke that he's distracting people from Epstein by being condescending to Joseph Boakai.

#peakignorance #Liberia

Adding supply doesn't always fix the problem. When I lived in Melbourne, 25% of the units in the docklands were vacant - investors were happy just to get the capital gains without rental income.

Here's what would work:
1) Regulate banks so that they can't overlend.
2) Regulate rent increases.

I'm in favour of taxing any rights and privileges that allow people to take money from others without having to earn it.

Make it high enough and it would disincentivise landlords from holding surplus property - especially institutional investors who lock would-be owner-occupiers out of the market.

I misread this and thought it said the US had a trade deal. AND I WAS WEARING MY GLASSES!

kyivindependent.com/eu-seals-new...

#midnightreading

So, you're saying that Tim Pool has Schrödinger's cat under his hat?

With popularity, intentionality and a little thing I like to call cheddar.

It's partly a language issue. Outside the US, ‘liberal’ often means pro-market, anti-state (what people in the US might call conservative).

US leftists use it inconsistently -sometimes for centrists, sometimes for anyone left of centre. But lots of self-identified liberals clearly support change.

I should point out that the benefits of a Job Guarantee programme goes beyond just income. It restores purpose, protects mental health, maintains skills, builds social ties, anchors prices by providing a stable wage floor, and more. It gives structure, dignity, and shared direction.

MMT programmes like monthly payments for child poverty are great, but they don’t address structural rents. You can cut poverty with cash, yes, but without taxing land, IP, finance, and resource rents, you risk inflating the domains that extract most. Do you see what I'm saying?

(9/9) Redistribution without taxing economic rights and privileges is like pouring water into a leaky bucket. It might look useful, but it won’t hold.