i guess that’s fundamentally the question. personally, i really like Pete, he’s smart and comes up with zingers on the fly on Fox News. 1/

but the Israel mishmash strikes me as showing off his Achilles Heel, a weakness, including in competitive districts. he now famously “doesn’t move” more moderate Black voters. 2/

in a reach-but-still-purple district like my Pinellas County, this kind of answer is, in my view, Why Democrats Lose. 3/

my neighbors didn’t love Trump. they are cynical, try to avoid politics. but they thought Harris was fake and polished and also that democrats have overdone weird. 4/

(a neighbor told me being a live-and-let-live person but maybe litter boxes at the local high school went a bit too far. and they would, she was sure they are there. but of course they’re not, it’s right-wing urban legend congealed to fact, perhaps with the help of pranksterish kids, oh yes mom.) 5/

anyway, the reasons people chose Trump-at-least-he-says-what-he-thinks and eschewed Harris were shining through all that Israel hedging. 6/

Pete’s not always like that! It’s for the best, perhaps, that he’s encountering this pushback, maybe learning this lesson, so early. /fin

* litter boxes at the local high school FOR FURRIES. that was the claim.

remarkable with how little “money” Russia gets a seat at the geopolitical table. i’m quite skeptical that labor time is the binding constraint on Europe’s geopolitical heft. 1/

on narrowly economic grounds, much of their current difficulty has to do with having too much to sell and requiring US markets to absorb it. producing more would do nothing to address that, unless wages also rise. but if the politics permitted, wages would already have risen. 2/

or maybe for geopolitical heft, the (economic) constraint is the supply side of the defense sector. working more would enable more supply there, but on inflationary terms, the extra wages would have to be sterilized by taxes, rates, or regulation. 3/

alternatively you could shift existing labor hours to defense production, which would be inflationary via fewer consumer goods for the same incomes, requiring sterilization by taxes, rates, or regulations. 4/

not sure why shifting the consumption basket from leisure to other goods matters very much one way or another, other than via a kind of discreditable angloamerican calvinist intuition. 5/

(maybe it’s German Cavinism + somehow the politics, once there is extra arbeit, allow an increase in domestic aggregate demand that the ordoliberal order refuses under conditions of lazy leisure? so working more is how Europe permits its international account to rebalance? i guess it’s possible!) 6/

(mostly i think Europe’s geopolitical constraint is not economic at all, it’s the EU’s consensus-oriented decisionmaking which, with its absence of strategic unity, renders the union a geopolitical nonentity. taking away the lovely vacay will do nothing about that!) /fin

i don't know that any service has enjoyed an enshittification arc quite as steep as meetup.com, which briefly seemed like a revolutionary and essential utility and now seems like a scammy, spammy backwater. 1/

i'm sorry for it too, because in its heyday i think it genuinely did lubricate and encourage in-person civil society. nothing as convenient and effective has emerged to supersede it. /fin

I haven’t really written on it, but, perhaps predictably, I think a lot of it comes down to what “richer” means as economists measure it (dollars spent deflated by some inflation series) and how a skewed income distribution distorts that. 1/

“We” spend more on the goods of the affluent while our capacity to produce what used to be ordinary withers because the nonaffluent have seen their wealth grow more slowly than costs grow due both to Baumol’s disease and producer market power. /fin