Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Your call is very important to us.

Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

Huh! IRS Direct File is implemented in part in #Scala, both JVM and JS.

Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

“when you’re in this kind of situation it’s hard not to become preoccupied obsessing over how stupid you’ve been.” #relatable i think i want it on my tombstone from a great piece by Moe Tkacik. revenue-based repayment in theory makes some sense for small business loans, but price is everything.

Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

everything they pretended to complain about on principle they were really only jealous of. this is their diversity statements.

Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

i had no idea there was a credible challenge in the courts until last night they announced its success. and i’m a pretty obsessive news reader.

Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

they seem inconsistent, with mutually exclusive reasoning. but i guess not!

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

will it be the Supreme Court that ignores Humphrey’s, or the Supreme Court that exempts the Fed?

Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

(I don’t have a strong view one way or another on the question of whether holding eg US Treasuries gives a player meaningful power over the US. The Fed, after all, can buy what the other guy sells, has the power to do yield curve control if it wants. But what are the knock-on effects of that?)

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

the ownership of the investment claims that derive from trade is distinct from the initial trade. securities trade in global markets. 1/

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

so, China can (and i think has) sell US dollar claims for Euro claims, as it grows concerned about sanctions, even as it continues to encourage issuance of USD claims through trade. 2/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

i’m not sure whether we care too much about who holds our negative NIIP. we might. but trying to regulate bilateral trade balances wouldn’t address it, at least not without a bunch of other capital controls. 3/

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

but overall balance is sufficient to reduce the likelihood our negative NIIP continues to grow. /fin

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

yeah. the exceptions we’d want to make to taxing payouts on US securities would be securities issued by US subs to purchase primary, greenfield, real investment in domains where we want to learn from foreign suppliers.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

they are! but i don’t think they should be. if the US had a big bilateral deficit with China offset by a surplus elsewhere, i don’t see a problem. (there might be problems in terms of sole-sourcing particular critical items, but that’s distinct, might be the case even under bilateral balance.)

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

overall more than bilateral balance! but yeah, some kinds of FDI we may want (TSMC factories in Arizona), some kinds of cross-investment we don’t want even if the buyer is willing to cover the tax (a foreign firm wants to buy Lockheed). those are concerns separate and distinct from overall balance.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

(my view is for inbound FDI investment we want, there should not be a category, which just encourages people to game into the category, but a discretionary application to waive the tax…

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

which can be granted under Congressionally delineated circumstances only AND when a discretionary committee deems the waiver to be in the national interest. it should be structurally bound to remain the exception, not the rule.)

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

❤️

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

i don’t care about “zionist” or “propalestinian spaces”. i detest every national movement, both of those are icons of why. i’m for the liberal universalism that killed Jim Crow and would not tolerate arrangements that prevail btw the river and the sea, from lawless dispossession to all that murder.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

you enjoy your pro palestinian or anti palestinian spaces, your zionism or anti zionism. all that shit is the devil’s work. i’m sorry it’s destroying my country as it long ago destroyed yours.

in reply to self
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

you are talking about nothing i have brought up, nothing i give a shit about. they are your talking points. your shield.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

i am not any of these groups, and the source of my shame and disgust at this point with the state of Israel has nothing to do with any of the irrelevances you are throwing my way. on this subject (and this subject alone), i simply do not consider you a good faith interlocutor.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

this American Jew is sick to death of all the murder, and all the apologetics that surrounds it. all the rest is noise noise noise.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

and all the arabs in new jersey who celebrated 9/11. this rhetorical style is, to put it very gently, uninformative. you are better than this on every subject but this one.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

we are all opposed to the 7.10 attack. because we are liberal universalists and oppose murder, of anyone. there has been a lot of murder and it is ongoing and we oppose it.

in reply to this
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com

“The perversity at the center of American Jewish liberalism is the fact that American liberalism’s towering achievement, the end of Jim Crow, is precisely what Israel violates.”

Loading quoted Bluesky post...