i feel like Roberts + Barrett know the Court is violating core values they pretend to share, but don’t want to actually thwart the insurrection. so they take turns ineffectually joining dissents (while the other helps plunge the knife). they can present themselves as one of the good ones, i tried!
miserable. from Justice Jackson dissenting www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p... ht @stevevladeck.bsky.social @proptermalone.bsky.social
Text: At least when the Court went off base in the past, it left a record so posterity could see how it went wrong. See, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today's Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.
oh, i too was once a neoliberal. but i realized a lot of my worldview was mistaken, including the notion that private willingness to invest is a quantitative bottleneck on investment and growth. 1/
monopoly rents come through as corporate profits, though we could sometimes try to target them more specifically than a traditional perhaps progressive corporate profits tax does. www.interfluidity.com/v2/9416.html
* it hits all of investors’ equity alternatives at once, and they still have funds to invest. 2/
* investment is mostly a state function, private capital’s role is directing investment and bearing first loss. monetary, fiscal, and subsidy programs can ensure a sufficient overall level of investment, the pattern of equity investment is unaffected by the level of a profits tax 3/
this is such a delicious and true point. xcancel.com/PhoenixWrigh... ht @justinwolfers.bsky.social and the left-right-and-center podcast
Income taxes much less, and corporate income taxes also less, the profit maximizing strategy is not altered when profits are transformed by a positive monotonic function. 1/
(the main issue with corporate taxes is the debt preference it brings—firms tilt towards debt rather than equity, because payouts to creditors are tax deductible interest while payouts to shareholders remain taxable profit—but we should address that by eliminating tax deductibility of interest.) 2/
Suppose Trump had crashed the stock market by sharply raising the corporate tax rate. In a certain sense, "wealth" would have been destroyed, but our actual prosperity would not be impaired. 1/
It would have been a purely distributional change, stockholders would have gotten poorer but the "pie" we share would have been unchanged. 2/
Highly disruptive tariff moves are not like that. The stock market is declining because long-term economic plans, on the production side as well as the sales side, have been upended. Firms that would have been productive will disappear. 3/
We will in aggregate be poorer. The change is not merely distributional. 4/
In the long-term, of course, if the policy environment stabilizes, um, somewhere, new production arrangements will be planned, and it's possible we find a new equilibrium more prosperous than the one we left, short-term pain for long-term gain. We have no evidence this is likely, but sure. 5/
But even if so, there was no need to so sharply destroy in-pipeline production. We could have telegraphed and gradually imposed over five years a more autarkic trade policy, if that's what we want. 6/
holding all else equal it might raise longer-term interest rates. but all else needn’t be equal, the Fed ultimately has control over interest rates, even longer term if they offer credible forward guidance or adopt outright yield curve control.
no. it might raise a bit of money and so reduce the deficit, but the goal is to raise not so much, to mostly discourage foreign entities from holding domestic securities, which means foreign entities in aggregate buying from domestic firms as much as they sell to them.
i feel like upscale television is moving on from antiheroes to good people caught in overwhelmingly tragic situations.
it would, it kind of is right now, not via a tax but via under- rather than out- performance of US assets. part of the US trade deficit is just a perception that US stocks crush it and they’re what all the world’s investment managers want to hold. 1/
but for the particular purpose of encouraging balanced trade, taxing securities in foreign hands in a manner largely reversible by trading back for goods and services is especially potent. 2/
whether wealth taxes are inherently progressive depends on often contentious definitions. is a flat income tax progressive because 10% of $1M is more than 10% of $50K? conventionally, no, but some people argue about it. 3/
that sounds like a general wealth tax, which i think desirable, though i’d render it progressive rather than flat. this proposal is intended specifically to target trade imbalance. it’s non-application to domestic holders is important, encourages trading US securities to USians for goods and svcs.
yes. our faction is complex and nuanced, theirs is fully summed up by their worst elements, if they didn’t want people to jump to that they’d have exiled those people, right?
i think sortition might have a role in lots of good institutional reforms, but i don’t think it’s as simple as “have a parliament that serves for several years selected by sortition.”
a solidaristic tactic might be to just let the stupidest or most hurtful things said by the most ridiculous members of groups you mean to be in coalition with just wash off your backs rather than making a big deal of it. 1/
