goodthingsliker.bsky.social
552 posts
257 followers
1,022 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
And just to spell this out a little bit more straightforwardly: murder is a state crime in every state and it doesn’t matter who was killed in that state—the state will prosecute murders within its jurisdiction. Minnesota will prosecute this guy (assuming he is taken alive, etc.).
comment in response to
post
Fed can continue doing all the other very important, good stuff like LOLR, swap lines, etc. Obviously Cruz is just a general Fed hater and an idiot so I wouldn’t expect to get any decent policy out of him. But the debate specifically about Fed paying interest on reserves is worth having.
comment in response to
post
Sure, and I haven’t read anything except the FT article about Cruz’s proposal linked above. But paying a positive rate of interest on bank reserves is free money to JPM Chase and its shareholders. We should stop doing it and just let the overnight rate fall to zero and stay there.
comment in response to
post
Okay but why should the central bank pay interest on reserves, which means free money to big banks?
comment in response to
post
this quote minnesotareformer.com/2025/06/09/l...
comment in response to
post
Are you aware of empirical work attempting to determine the net effect? I’d like to read it if so
comment in response to
post
of higher vs lower rates. I don’t think this is a crazy or evidence-free proposition.
comment in response to
post
Higher interest rates represent a larger amount of income to bond holders than lower rates do. Higher rates also make it more expensive for businesses who have revolving credit (which is ~all businesses) to borrow money. It is possible that these effects could outweigh the disinflationary effects
comment in response to
post
So you didn’t see, for example, that the city of New York was able to amend a lawsuit it has against the Trump administration in large part because of his work at his blog? www.crisesnotes.com/new-york-cit...
comment in response to
post
To the extent mainstream macro was directionally correct at that period of time, the proponents were (a) not as correct and (b) for not factually accurate reasons. These things matter.
comment in response to
post
You haven’t been reading his critical coverage of the doge crisis? Sounds like a you problem.
comment in response to
post
Lmao what utter shit. The most important journalist in America these days, Nathan Tankus, is an MMT guy. It’s the only school that takes law and money seriously in a systematic way.
comment in response to
post
And now one from Tankus that is related but not directly on point. www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/07/the-...
comment in response to
post
www.bondeconomics.com/2014/08/unde...
comment in response to
post
mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2013/12/just...
comment in response to
post
Not from him directly addressing the factual claims we’re specifically discussing. I’ll send other stuff in a minute.
comment in response to
post
All that is wrong. For a comprehensive understanding of why, the best person to read is Nathan Tankus.
comment in response to
post
Of course, interest rates are a policy variable, entirely, exclusively, and always within the capacity of the Fed to determine. “Higher rates” should never be used as an excuse for weak fiscal policy.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, but the two sentences above ^ invest you with way, way more legal protections than just literally saying zero words. So it’s my opinion that regular people should memorize those two sentences and then say nothing else.
comment in response to
post
(1) “I want my attorney present and I am unambiguously invoking my right to counsel.”
(2) “I am unambiguously invoking my right to stay silent.”
And then, as you say, not another word.
comment in response to
post
Under the prevailing “right to silence” case law, you have to “affirmatively invoke” the right (e.g., “I am invoking my right to stay silent.”). Literally saying nothing does not invest you with the right to silence. So, in my view, it is best to say the following two sentences:
comment in response to
post
Indeed
comment in response to
post
Of course, under prevailing “invocation of right to counsel” case law, the invocation must be unambiguous, the mere word “lawyer” doesn’t establish that you, in fact, are invoking your right. Pretty silly stuff but true.
comment in response to
post
He criticized Trump for “disappearing people without due process,” which speaks directly to Trump “rolling back civil rights protections.” Due process is the bedrock of literally all civil rights.
comment in response to
post
Lmao
comment in response to
post
Really awesome, wish I was doing something as cool as this with my time!
comment in response to
post
Not a misunderstanding. He’s a liar and a Nazi
comment in response to
post
Where are you seeing this? My grocery stores are fully stocked. No issues at all finding anything right now.
comment in response to
post
Moron
comment in response to
post
I wasn’t unclear in what I asked. I asked a clear question. I received a clear answer. I asked a clear follow up question. And I received another clear answer. Seems like a success!
comment in response to
post
I mean, okay?
comment in response to
post
I know that, but it’s possible that others don’t know it. And in my experience, it is helpful, both for their interlocutors and for non-participants, if people clearly state what they are saying.