helpfully, Mastodon mentions are distinct in format from Bluesky mentions, and vice versa. BlueSky clients should turn Mastodon mentions into profile links, and Mastodon clients should do the same for BlueSky links. (can’t, and shouldn’t, for X/Twitter, which shares mention format with eg Insta.)
nor executive privilege!
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
This is effectively random deletion, pure injection of chaos into NSA processes. I’d oppose a purge of DEI-related work on political grounds, but fine. We lose some political fights. There’d be an orderly review and revision over time. But this is turning hostility to DEI into outright sabotage.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
yes. besides the unlawful delegation, many of the actions are unlawful and would be unlawful if directed personally by the President. absolutely.
This point is so obvious is should fit in one post. Elon Musk’s role is plainly illegal. The “advice and consent” clause of the Constitution is obviously intended to prevent a President from such powerful delegations of authority without explicit Congressional consent.
i just wrote them. take a minute out of your day.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
“what we’re seeing is what you’d expect if China and Russia had somehow managed to install people who wanted to sabotage America’s international position at the highest levels of the U.S. government.”
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
the Fed chair gets the tone slightly wrong while musing about inflation, markets tumble. the President apparently muses about US Treasuries "It could be that a lot of those things don't count." futures green!
lots more than that if the administration declares some Treasuries fraudulently issued and invalid. bsky.app/profile/cram...
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
disgust, panicked desire to be rid of them because the foundation of their value has been knocked from under them.
buy treasuries because a recession is coming or sell bonds before a great revulsion destroys US assets? really interesting times!
they are actively engaged in sabotage of the US government and anything that might render it influential or effective or admired. so it’s hard to tell just how far they will go.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Would Apple backdoor Advanced Data Protection, or just cease to offer it as a kind of canary? mastodon.world/@Hawaii/1139...
we are fortunate Musk has the character flaw of a B-movie serial killer. he can't refrain from openly taking credit for his misdeeds.
their worldview is basically government is a radical left-wing idea.
this is an MMT view only in the sense they emphasize they support high taxes on the rich even though they argue it's not necessary for revenue purposes. 1/
i am not claiming taxes in general are not necessary to finance govt (to be fair, neither do MMT-ers!), but that this particular tax should not be understood as motivated by revenue generation but by its effect on private incentives. 2/
middle-class taxes finance government in the most straightforward way, they reduce purchasing power that would otherwise bid up the price of goods and services, enabling noninflationary government spending. 3/
but high marginal tax rates at high income should be understood like Manhattan's congestion taxes: the revenue is nice, but it's not primarily motivated to raise revenue or offset the inflationary effect of other government spending, but to alter the incentives and behavior of private actors. 4/
(i'm don't think MMT economists would disagree with any of this, btw!) /fin
good news.
why high marginal tax rates work even though "nobody ends up paying them".
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
yes, exactly. hypocrisy is better than actively justifying the evils you won't refrain from committing. 1/
wealthy people determine their own incomes. they decide whether the firm they own will pay dividends, they set the terms of their compensation package. of course when they'll be taxed the marginal dollar at 94% they keep their pay under that threshold. 2/
but that's exactly how high marginal tax rates *work*. the point is not to generate revenue. the point is to keep it out of very wealthy peoples' pockets. 3/
their apologists will argue it's the same difference, they still control the money if they've left it in their firm. if that's the case, why do they fight so hard against these rates? 4/
the shareholder-value revolutionaries of the 1970s advised firms payout to shareholders briskly and in quantity, so that the firm would always be indebted, hungry for new cashflow just to service their loans. 5/
retained earnings, they said, burned a hole in firms' pockets. managers would use the excess funds for nice facilities, less aggressive pricing, higher wages, prestige research labs, things that weren't "efficient" from shareholders' perspective. 6/
of course, all those "inefficiencies" are more valuable from a social perspective than payouts to already wealthy shareholders. 7/
leaving retained earnings in firms where they are contested for by workers, customers, vendors, prestige-seeking managers, internal researchers, and the broader community is how high marginal tax rates do the work we want them to do. /fin
do the never-Trump former neocons now agree that every billionaire is a policy failure?