prev <-> next
[2025-07-01 02:51:36] - a: "socialism is just a word" Sure.... but it's a word describing a set of beliefs. I'm surprised by your support of a $30 minimum wage. Do you not think it will increase unemployment and/or prices? -Paul
[2025-07-01 02:49:52] - a: The alternatives aren't biking and walking, though. The alternatives are people owning a car or renting a car or taking a taxi or Uber. -Paul
[2025-07-01 02:49:19] - a: "how fast do you think a tesla model 3 or y depreciates?" Based on time or usage? We had this debate before about driving my car into DC, remember? I don't think a Tesla is going to depreciate by $50 if rented out for a trip to the airport. -Paul
[2025-06-30 19:15:20] - paul: oops missed this one. "but with the recent Mamdani win I'm curious: Do people here consider 'socialism' to be bad?" paul socialism is just a word. i'm against rent control AND city-owned grocery stores AND public child care (assuming we aren't talking about "sacc"?). i'm border-line on fare-free city busses: i could get behind it, depending on some context. i'm pro nyc $30 minimum wage, i'm VERY pro zoning/parking reform. ~a
[2025-06-30 17:16:02] - paul: i forgot to mention road deaths and road injury too: assuming the robotaxis aren't perfect they'll also increase road deaths+injuries compared to all altervatives. ~a
[2025-06-30 17:15:41] - paul: "It's to have them driving around to pick up people similar to an Uber" yeah, i put that in parentheses because it's not related to comparing robotaxis vs ubers: instead i am comparing robotaxis to all alternatives. to get the total cost. alternatives like public transit or pedestrians etc. ~a
[2025-06-30 17:11:30] - paul: "but I don't think cars depreciate as fast as you think they do" how fast do you think a tesla model 3 or y depreciates? ~a
[2025-06-30 17:05:40] - paul: "but I don't think cars depreciate as fast as you think they do" oh man this is so knowable though. the debate can be so definitive. Tesla Values Are Tanking Three Times Faster Than Any Other Brand. how long do you expect a tesla battery to last, and how expensive do you think a new tesla battery is? ~a
[2025-06-30 17:01:31] - a: I don't know if I get your point about it still putting out emissions even if empty. The idea isn't to have a bunch of empty cars driving around for no reason. It's to have them driving around to pick up people similar to an Uber. -Paul
[2025-06-30 17:00:13] - a: "you can't possibly make money and it isn't even close" Sure, if everybody is vomiting in your Tesla every time you rent it out. But that's probably not the case? I know this touches on a dispute from before, but I don't think cars depreciate as fast as you think they do. -Paul
[2025-06-30 16:59:18] - paul: that has not been my experience, but i guess it's just who you follow? ~a
[2025-06-30 16:58:55] - a: "if you're trying to say maga doesn't post there, then i am not sure i care" It's not just maga, it seems like nobody posts there except for the far left. -Paul
[2025-06-30 16:58:23] - a: https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-bluesky-echo-chamber-engagement-boosts-elon-musk-x-2025-6 Here is one. It's easy to find others with Google searches if you don't like this one. -Paul
[2025-06-30 16:57:28] - paul: shrug. i'm not a follower of history sorry. trust all historians
~a[2025-06-30 16:56:28] - paul: "allowing Tesla owners to rent out their car during downtimes" this seems like an oversimplification. in these down times, you still have to clean out the vomit and vandalism, you still need to maintain the tires/battery/upholstery and pay depreciation. you can't possibly make money and it isn't even close. (and in other news, it still puts out emissions and still takes up space on the road, even if nobody is riding in it). ~a
[2025-06-30 16:56:27] - a: Similarly for Woodrow Wilson being ahead of people like Reagan. Didn't Wilson re-segregate the federal government? How is Obama so high? What did he accomplish that puts him top ten near Jefferson? -Paul
[2025-06-30 16:53:45] - a: Does the Japanese internment mean nothing? The Yalta conference? -Paul
[2025-06-30 16:52:13] - a: I know my opinion of a good president is different than most, but I still am absolutely floored that historians continue to rank FDR so highly. Is it just because he was president for so long? Because he was president during WW2? -Paul
[2025-06-30 16:50:43] - a: The economics of robotaxis will be interesting. Not sure what the path to profitability for Waymo will look like, but Tesla seems like it will have a slightly different model in terms of allowing Tesla owners to rent out their car during downtimes. -Paul
[2025-06-30 14:26:12] - paul: what articles? can i read them? diversity of thought doesn't feel like a metric that can be easy to measure: if you're trying to say maga doesn't post there, then i am not sure i care. ~a
[2025-06-30 14:17:59] - paul: somehow historians manage. obviously owning slaves was a terrible practice. unforgivable by today's standards. and comparing apples and oranges is hard. especially if one president had to manage a war they didn't start, and another had to preside in peacetime. the point was that trump was the worst president since the first trump presidency. they both sucked. ~a
[2025-06-30 14:13:29] - paul: (off topic on our bet, but i do find it interesting how robotaxis and waymo can't possibly make money. for a taxi to make money, i believe you need a cheaper car, or higher fares) ~a
[2025-06-30 14:11:02] - paul: yes, i think you are right. my info on the tesla fsd is a bit dated, my mistake. i've seen some videos now, and the tesla robotaxis are still being "monitored"? the monitor sits in the passenger seat, which i think is a huge step forward: it's a huge sign, and i agree with you, that's level four by our old definition. ~a
[2025-06-27 14:59:52] - a: https://aporter.org/msg/?action=prev&prev=178250#178266 Do you still consider Bluesky to not be a protest app? There's been some articles highlighting perceived lack of diversity of thought there. -Paul
[2025-06-27 14:55:25] - title: I always struggle with ranking presidents. How does one compare somebody like Trump with somebody like Washington who is generally revered as one of the best.... but also owned slaves? -Paul
[2025-06-27 14:54:35] - I don't know if anybody besides Adrian and I check this regularly, but with the recent Mamdani win I'm curious: Do people here consider "socialism" to be bad? -Paul
[2025-06-27 14:53:50] - a: Aren't robotaxis (either Waymo or the Tesla ones) oftentimes unoccupied? Feels like those would count as level 4 based on the old definition that we used for the bet. -Paul
[2025-06-26 14:49:25] - paul: i'm not sure we disagree on this. which part do we disagree on? whether the definitions changed? ~a
[2025-06-26 14:47:22] - paul: (and using the original 2015 definition we used for the bet it is clearly level 3. of course a telsa y+fsd couldn't be an "unoccupied car". it seems like they shifted the levels over by one?) it's possible waymo is able to achieve a level higher than tesla, right? they can be unoccupied, or potentially have no steering wheel or driver. ~a
[2025-06-26 14:43:11] - paul: "Model Y with FSD" is pretty clearly level 4 using J3016_202104 (page 29 of the pdf). there are clearly "domains" (odd) where the car can't handle. ~a
[2025-06-24 16:39:02] - a: Are Tesla robotaxis different from a Model Y with FSD? Sure, I'm interested in your opinion on the robotaxi as well as something for sale (I'm guessing Waymos are going to be too expensive on account of the lidar. -Paul
[2025-06-24 15:08:25] - paul: "Waymo and the Tesla robotaxis". Those aren't for sale. I can try to answer anyways for fun but should I include something for sale as well? ~a
[2025-06-23 15:03:53] - a: I think we can both agree that EVs have been proven to be viable years ago, but they still only account for like <10% of car sales. -Paul
[2025-06-23 15:02:45] - a: "I don't think the us will get to 50% motor vehicle passengers using" That's a pretty different bet. Something being viable and something being used by 50%+ of Americans is very different. -Paul
[2025-06-23 15:01:27] - a: "doesnt the tesla cost too much" Yup. That's why I mentioned the price points dooming me. "I know you want to blame this on biden" I don't know if Biden is to blame specifically. There are a lot of factors that led to bad inflation a few years ago. -Paul
[2025-06-23 15:00:14] - a: "we disagree on that? I didn't realized we disagreed on that." I thought we did. What level do you think we've achieved right now with Waymo and the Tesla robotaxis? -Paul
[2025-06-23 06:07:49] - paul: regardless of all of that, if you think we're close, and I do not think we are close, we could always make a new bet. I don't think the us will get to 50% motor vehicle passengers using (sae J3016_202104) level 5 fsd, in 10 years. hell, 15 years. ~a
[2025-06-23 05:34:36] - paul: "I know we disagree on what level we've reached" we disagree on that? I didn't realized we disagreed on that. even if so, aren't there a ton of other problems? doesnt the tesla cost too much (with or without inflation?)? doesn't fsd cost a *lot* extra? (99/month or 8k?). I know you want to blame this on biden (within normal amount of) inflation, but I'm not sure that is realistic. ~a
[2025-06-23 02:24:25] - a: I still think the autonomous driving one is close (I know we disagree on what level we've reached) but the thing I failed to take into account was my price points so that basically made things moot. We had low inflation for so long that I didn't anticipate it impacting the bet. -Paul
[2025-06-23 02:23:26] - a: And in the end, it was still a lot more actively managed than I prefer (they kept trading into and out of things like Tesla). I'm a little surprised I lost by that much, but not surprised to take the L. -Paul
[2025-06-23 02:22:23] - a: Oh, the ARKK one doesn't surprise me at all. Like literally a few minutes after making it I realized it was probably a mistake. ARKK was pretty much at the absolute peak when we made the bet. -Paul
[2025-06-22 21:02:15] - paul: post-mortem on those three bets: the one that surprises me the most is arkk. like, wth happened? electric cars being all talk and no show, and bitcoin prices being crazy are both non-surprising (imo). ~a
[2025-06-21 02:39:17] - paul: I'm not being intentionally obtuse. this time. I linked bip 177. It's a serious proposal, but I have doubts it will catch on. (I would be pleasantly surprised if 177 caught on). ~a
[2025-06-21 02:29:18] - Xpovos: Yes, about it being acquired. -Paul
[2025-06-21 02:29:04] - a: It's possible. My memory isn't good enough to say for sure. -Paul
[2025-06-21 01:38:57] - a: Is this the bet on Nintendo? -- Xpovos
[2025-06-21 01:38:43] - 100,000,000x is a big multiplier. 10^8. I assumed (it sounds correctly) that a was just having fun with it. But also, we've lived in a weird time where this money barely even makes sense. Almost anything is possible. -- Xpovos
[2025-06-20 21:47:58] - paul: didn't we bet $100 on something? I have a vague memory of having a $100 check from you. ~a
[2025-06-20 13:26:25] - yep, people juat say "wallet" or ("hot wallet" in this case where you're referring to it by comparison). ~a
[2025-06-20 13:17:07] - a: Unless Bitcoin crashes by then.
I'll try to get you the address today. I'm torn between my cold storage and maybe my... hot storage? Not sure what the right term is. -Paul[2025-06-19 22:43:37] - paul: i mean, i assume he gets that. xpovos knows neither of us are secret billionaires ($7b would be a world-record sized bet). xpovos: yeah, probably the biggest? but it is not actually that bad. also, your bet with paul ending in 2030 is larger. ~a
[2025-06-19 20:12:59] - Xpovos: Just in case it's unclear, Adrian is being (intentionally?) misleading with his nomenclature. The bet will ultimately be for around $100 USD. -Paul
[2025-06-19 19:57:45] - How many more btc denominated bets are going to be impacted? — Xpovos
[2025-06-19 19:56:37] - Is that the biggest payout ever on Mr. IOU? Is has to be, right? — Xpovos
[2025-06-19 15:15:26] - paul: sure ok. i'll pay you back (more) if either of those bets have huge swings in the next six months. so, 100k - $30 = ~72k. message me the address you want me to send to, pls. ~a
[2025-06-19 06:06:58] - a: I'm good with sats or btc or however you want to call it. We might consider rolling up our two other outstanding bets as well since I'm willing to concede on both. -Paul
[2025-06-19 01:38:47] - paul: a week from tomorrow, i'll owe you 100k bitcoin, or the equivalent in usd. ( see bip-177
). how did you want to settle? i'm good with cash, check, credit, venmo, paypal, cashapp, or bitcoin. just, no zelle. ~a[2025-06-18 13:18:27] - i was not referring to clinton, no. i was referring to many democrats (and some in congress). specifically you didn't see the "decreased the deficit spending". i know you pooh-pooh a decrease in deficit spending, but i think that's certainly better than the norm. ~a
[2025-06-18 00:51:44] - a: Also, for the one year Clinton had a Democratic congress, he ran a deficit. -Paul
[2025-06-18 00:51:04] - a: "some democrats have decreased the debt and some democrats have decreased the deficit spending" I assume you are referring to Clinton? If so, then I believe he had a Republican congress for 7 out of 8 of those years. So why would credit be given to him instead of the Republican congress (especially since, again, congress in theory is in charge of passing budgets)? -Paul
[2025-06-13 06:01:40] - paul: you're up late. it sorta does depend on which democrat though, right? some democrats have decreased the debt and some democrats have decreased the deficit spending. ~a
[2025-06-13 05:59:27] - a: That's a really odd way of phrasing it, because if the Democrats hold one branch than the Republicans hold the other. So your first statement holds equally true for Republicans. Democrats holding both is NOT second place by any reasonable estimate. They're second worst, beaten only by R/R. And need I remind you that we're talking about degrees of terrible. They are both obscenely awful when it comes to increasing the debt. -Paul
[2025-06-12 12:40:25] - mig: "No, LA isn’t a city in chaos, wracked by devastating riots requiring military intervention." this is not a drill. ~a
[2025-06-11 20:29:47] - paul: "where the evidence is that Democrats would be frugal spenders if not for Republicans". it was you the whole time. you are the evidence. democrats holding the executive XOR the legislative is the best thing for spending. my evidence for that is you. and what you told me. XOR is "exclusive or" and it means one or the other, but not both. (and second place, is of course, dems in both. again, you are the evidence). ~a
[2025-06-11 19:38:44] - a: Well, if Democrats increase spending when they are in power, and their criticisms of budgets when not in power is to complain about spending cuts... I guess I'm just wondering where the evidence is that Democrats would be frugal spenders if not for Republicans. -Paul
[2025-06-11 16:09:34] - mig: northern virginia. mostly peaceful. ~a
[2025-06-10 17:38:49] - paul: wow, the triple negative is pretty hard to parse, paul. you suggest, it could be biased towards reporting on Democrats being against spending? i guess i agree. either way, i'm sorry i don't have any information on the subject. honestly, i couldn't care less what democrats think
until they have a majority, there is little they can do to decrease spending. republicans proposing a bill that even they hate, is our hope. ~a[2025-06-10 16:58:41] - a: I haven't seen any myself, you weren't able to provide any, so I went looking for it elsewhere and AI seemed like as good a bet as any. I'm sure AI can be biased, but it would be a little weird if it was biased against reporting on Democrats being against spending. -Paul
[2025-06-10 16:57:24] - a: "why would you assume ai would create an unbiased assessment of the situation?" I don't assume it would be unbiased, but I'm looking for any evidence of Democrats objecting to the BBB on spending grounds. -Paul
[2025-06-10 15:05:29] - paul: considering who they're both covering, 11.5k is astonishingly low. it's below average for the us, which seems backwards to me. ~a
[2025-06-10 15:04:01] - paul: if it matters, i'm also against medicaid cuts. honestly i'm a bit surprised republicans are pro-medicaid cuts, i doubt that will help them in the midterms. an interesting fact i just learned: medicare and medicaid have some interesting similarities. they both cover similar numbers of members (~75m each), for a similar amount of money per year (average ~11.5k each). so their total cost is also similar (~850b each). ~a
[2025-06-10 12:17:56] - paul: I do find myself disagreeing with the conclusions of ai responses, but rarely do i do it here. why would you assume ai would create an unbiased assessment of the situation? democrats have a much easier time making a balanced budget, despite ai's assessment of their rhetoric. ~a
[2025-06-10 06:23:40] - a: So no, I don't think we would be in a better place if only those low spending Democrats had gotten their way. -Paul
[2025-06-10 06:23:12] - a: There was one mention of the deficit... but considering in the next breath the summary mentioned criticizing the spending cuts I imagine it was more of an issue of the tax cuts. -Paul
[2025-06-10 06:22:10] - a: "Democrats oppose the bill’s healthcare cuts (e.g., $880 billion from Medicaid) and border security funding, refuting White House claims about their stance on child tax credits" I said I was going to post some, but I actually ended up posting all. I believe all of those summaries involve Democrats criticizing spending cuts (which is the opposite of what you were claiming). -Paul
[2025-06-10 06:20:52] - a: "Democrats focus on opposing Medicaid cuts, with the bill’s healthcare reforms becoming a key point of contention in campaign ads", "Democrats, including Senator Andy Kim, rally against Medicaid cuts, arguing the bill prioritizes tax breaks for the wealthy over social services" -Paul
[2025-06-10 06:20:11] - a: "Democrats criticize the bill for perpetuating stereotypes about poverty and justifying cuts to social safety nets like Medicaid, aligning with Project 2025’s agenda.", "Senator Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats label the bill a “disgusting abomination,” citing CBO estimates of $2.4 trillion in added deficits and healthcare cuts affecting millions" -Paul
[2025-06-10 06:19:35] - a: I asked AI to provide some news reporting on Democrats objecting to the Big Beautiful Bill. Here are some of the summaries I got: "While some Democrats support specific tax cuts (e.g., no tax on tips), they are expected to oppose the bill overall due to proposed Medicaid cuts and other service reductions" -Paul
[2025-06-10 04:57:37] - mig: why is he doing this? ~a
[2025-06-10 01:21:15] - a: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/los-angeles-ice-protests-timeline/ Throwing concrete blocks at police, blocking law enforcement and traffic, all happening before the order sound like civil disorder to me . - mig
[2025-06-09 17:33:42] - what? ~a
[2025-06-09 17:14:23] - mig: and i hope you agree he was doing all of this on purpose? ~a
[2025-06-09 17:12:47] - mig: insurrection act of 1807 only gives trump the ability to federalize the national guard to suppress civil disorder, or an insurrection, or an armed rebellion. definitely some civil disorder in los angeles now: but zero of those things were happening * before * he federalized the national guard. ~a
[2025-06-09 17:06:22] - mig: "mostly peaceful" ~a
[2025-06-09 16:46:13] - https://image-cnbcfm-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/F6/s/image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/108156469-1749472774335-gettyimages-2218782185-MEI-USA-BH-AICEPLA-20250608-161 “mostly peaceful” - mig
[2025-06-06 13:44:19] - paul: yes mainly like you said, it wouldn't be news for prominent democrats to be against this budget. so, i'm not sure how i would find out about it. the "news" is that republicans seem to (now, all of a sudden) be against it. even many that voted for it. their reasoning to change their opinion always seems shady. they didn't have time to read it? they forget that we know the CRS exists. and that they have a huge staff. ~a
[2025-06-05 14:59:17] - paul: yes. ~a
[2025-06-05 14:59:00] - a: I thought the CBO was supposed to be non-partisan? -Paul
[2025-06-04 16:54:51] - paul: does the cbo count as a democrat? ("also, nearly 11 million more people would be uninsured" so at least we're getting less than nothing for our extra money) i'm sure trump considers if you are not with him, then you are his enemy: so i'm sure cbo are all evil democrats to him. ~a
[2025-06-04 16:46:09] - a: Honesty question, but have any prominent Democrats criticized the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) on spending grounds? I've seen news about Republicans like Massie and Rand Paul (and if you want to count him, Elon) but haven't seen much news about Democrats that have been critical about it spending too much. That could just be because it's not quite news that a Democrat might be critical of a Trump budget. -Paul
[2025-06-04 03:13:20] - paul: yes. strap in. ~a
[2025-06-04 02:21:50] - a: Then.... I guess you want Republican Presidents paired with a Republican Congress? -Paul
[2025-06-03 22:33:16] - actually that sounds like fun. ~a
[2025-06-03 20:40:48] - a: Or maybe, more accurately, accelerating at 10 miles per hour per second vs 5 miles per hour per second? -Paul
[2025-06-03 20:39:10] - a: Sure, if that's the very specific and narrow takeaway you want to take.
I prefer to think of it as the difference between driving towards the cliff at 75 mph vs 85 mph. -Paul[2025-05-31 20:44:54] - paul: it sounds like the worst thing from a fiscal responsibility perspective is a republican president with a republican congress. i can agree to that much. ~a
[2025-05-28 14:35:29] - a: Also, it's worth noting that the second worst combination is a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress, so I don't think there's much evidence indicating Democratic presidents would increase the debt less if it weren't for those meddlesome Republicans. -Paul
[2025-05-28 14:34:06] - a: And the lowest is Democratic Presidents with a Republican Congress. One of the volunteered observations was: "Party Dynamics: Debt increases occur under all combinations, but major spikes align with crises (2008–2010, 2020) rather than party control alone. Republican Congresses under Democratic presidents (Scenario 2) correlate with lower increases, possibly due to fiscal gridlock." -Paul
[2025-05-28 14:32:23] - I asked AI to run some analysis of debt increases from Clinton onwards broken down by party control of the White House and Congress. The highest increases by year look to be Republican presidents with a Republican Congress (which we agree on). -Paul
[2025-05-28 14:25:07] - a: But that's not really relevant. We're not disagreeing that Republican presidents with Republican congresses spend a ton. I 100% agree. What I am saying is that I think there's an established history of Republican congresses checking the spend for Democratic presidents. -Paul
[2025-05-28 14:15:31] - a: "a perfect example of this is doge" I said the same thing months ago: https://aporter.org/msg/?action=prev&prev=178250#178257 -Paul
[2025-05-28 14:14:16] - a: ""clinton" and "obama" and "biden" would have spent less if it weren't for congress" You honestly think Clinton would've spent less if he had a Democratic Congress? And Obama too? What's the rationale for that? -Paul
[2025-05-28 14:12:24] - a: And I'm not disputing that at all. But I think if you're trying to argue that Clinton and Obama were somehow debt hawks than I think it has to be acknowledged that a big part of that was having to deal with a hostile Republican Congress. -Paul
[2025-05-28 14:10:30] - a: It's not because the Democratic president wanted to cut spending and the Republican Congress insisted on increasing it. I get that you're trying to make the point that Republican presidents with Republican congresses increase the debt a lot... -Paul
[2025-05-28 14:09:35] - a: "you seem to be speculating" A bit? But it's pretty informed speculation. What was the whole deal with Newt Gingrich and the Republican revolution? Why did the government shut down a bunch during the Obama years? -Paul
[2025-05-28 14:07:51] - a: "if you increase the debt by 20% and the gdp by 20%, you'll (more or less) be in the same situation" Yeah, but one (increasing the debt) is FAR more in your control than the other (increases in GDP). -Paul
[2025-05-27 11:56:12] - windows vs linux in a 2025 light. ~a
[2025-05-27 11:32:11] - paul: a perfect example of this is doge. they lost way more than they saved. that is not fiscally responsible. ~a
[2025-05-27 11:29:58] - paul: what i speculate is that "bush" and "trump" would have spent more if it weren't for congress. and that "clinton" and "obama" and "biden" would have spent less if it weren't for congress. because, it seems to me, that democratic presidents are more fiscally responsible than republican presidents. ~a
[2025-05-27 11:28:08] - paul: "you don't think Obama's administration would've spent more without the tea party influence in Congress" "Or Clinton". you seem to be speculating: and this speculation is on the assumption that democrat presidents want to tax and spend and republicans want to decrease taxes and decrease spending. but the opposite seems to be more true when you root into the numbers. ~a
[2025-05-27 11:24:51] - paul: "more luck than any particular skill on their part" wait, you seem to be also arguing the changes to debt is also total luck (vs skill). ~a
[2025-05-27 11:23:28] - paul: "you could add a ton to the debt and it could be masked because the economy grew under your watch" some economists that this "masking" is what happens in real life: if you increase the debt by 20% and the gdp by 20%, you'll (more or less) be in the same situation. i'm not totally convinced myself, because gdp disapears easier than debt, but i also respect that it is more or less how debt works for billionaires. ~a
[2025-05-27 11:20:19] - paul: "I don't understand why a log scale is preferable to raw dollars" in general? or in this case? log scale shows and highlights percent changes (ratios) easier and more accurately at the expense of some initial confusion. a . . . 20% increase, shows up as the same vertical height always. it's directly related to my other issue: "won't let me look at the dollar amounts to find out the percent change per president". ~a
[2025-05-24 15:43:33] - a: Regarding tariffs.... yeah, I don't see how these massive increases aren't going to just completely destroy so many industries. Materials cross borders, then refined products cross again, then those go across another border to be assembled, then across again to be sold. -Paul
[2025-05-24 15:34:42] - a: Yes, Presidents have influence over budgets, but you don't think Obama's administration would've spent more without the tea party influence in Congress? Or Clinton wouldn't have spent more without Republicans in Congress? -Paul
[2025-05-24 15:32:52] - a: So both Biden and Obama benefit from having taken office right after COVID lockdowns ended and the economy started recovering from the GFC respectively, which I would argue was more luck than any particular skill on their part. -Paul
[2025-05-24 15:30:56] - a: In that case, I would argue comparing debt growth to GDP growth is misleading because you could add a ton to the debt and it could be masked because the economy grew under your watch. -Paul
[2025-05-24 15:29:52] - a: I don't understand why a log scale is preferable to raw dollars. What is GPD? Did you mean GDP? That's the only way I can see where you would get a 0% growth in debt under Biden. -Paul
[2025-05-24 03:21:54] - paul: presidents have total veto power on all bills (in these parisan times a two-thirds vote of both chambers is uncommon) right? the president can't change the budget but they have sweeping power over any new budget. and the legislature generally knows if they want something signed it'll have to be something the president will accept. ~a
[2025-05-23 14:30:37] - paul: the graph you linked won't let me look at the dollar amounts to find out the percent change per president! it's also using raw dollars without a log scale so can't just look at it and "see" anything useful. (it also doesn't include GPD changes). the graph i linked has all that fixed. clinton: -1%/year, bush: +3%/year, obama +3%/year, trump1 +5%/year, biden +0%/year. seems pretty decisive to me when you math it out. ~a
[2025-05-23 14:18:16] - won't we still have to import the parts from china? that doesn't even include the change in us labor costs. i feel like (americans) eating the 25% difference is far cheaper than moving the labor to the us if you count the tariffs on all of the parts OR the change in labor costs. both? forget it. ~a
[2025-05-22 23:12:19] - a: But this particular budget is with a Republican President and Republican Congress so yeah, they 100% own this disaster. -Paul
[2025-05-22 16:29:33] - Also, in theory spend is controlled by congress. Always thought it was a bit weird how often we look at spend by presidential administration. -Paul
[2025-05-22 16:17:20] - a: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-national-debt-grew-314-trillion-high/story?id=99429867 I don't care about pointing fingers at who is worse. This is a bipartisan problem. Look at the chart halfway down. I don't see a ton of fiscal constraint by the Obama or Biden administrations. -Paul
[2025-05-22 16:15:55] - a: "but 25 years is more relevant" Why? 25 years ago the debt was ~$5 trillion? 5% of that is $250 billion? Now we're at $35 trillion in debt? $1.7 trillion? Besides, the point isn't that rates were higher decades ago. The point is that they're higher NOW, which makes our already obscene debt even worse. -Paul
[2025-05-22 01:34:08] - do you guys have an opinion on the 0.4m (sorry, 0.4b) emolument trump's library is receiving? certainly there is a good reason that emoluments are illegal: and that there would be a enforcement / punishment for ignoring it? the current air force one was in service 30+ years. why does the new air force one go into service for 3 years? ~a
[2025-05-20 16:10:42] - paul: (us mortgage rates / us federal debt vs gdp) ~a
[2025-05-20 16:09:33] - paul: 15 years? true, and i agree. it's significantly higher than it's been the last 15 years. 25 years otoh? nah. interest rates in the 80s 90s and 00s were much higher. but 25 years is more relevant: if you look at the national debt as a percent of gdp, this has been a problem for a while, not the past 15 years (but admittedly it has been getting worse under republican presidents). ~a
[2025-05-20 14:04:09] - a: Higher than they have been in the past ~15 years? It's a LOT easier to finance debt at like 1% interest rates and the numbers balloon really quickly when you have even more debt at 5% interest rates. -Paul
[2025-05-19 16:41:20] - paul: "Rates are higher" rates are higher? higher than what? as a bond holder, i'm pretty happy with the rates these days, but they're nothing like we saw in the 00s or 10s. ~a
[2025-05-19 15:43:16] - a: Has the interest changed? Kind of. We keep adding more debt, which means the interest goes up. Rates are higher so when we refinance the debt the interest is going up as well. -Paul
[2025-05-19 15:37:08] - paul: the interest on debt has changed? i feel like the interest on the debt is compounding, but that is nothing new. both parties (for worse) are agreed that you can continue to hold a huge debt if the gross national product (and tax revenue) is increasing. (eye roll) and the "deficit hawk" repubicans seem to be the worst offenders. ~a
[2025-05-19 15:33:01] - mig: "why should I trust the democrats on anything ever again" do you currently trust the democrats on anything? i do not. but also, what's more, the biden administration was pretty feckless and bullshit, so i'm not sure i'd trust anyone in that administration ever again. if you thought biden was NOT wrestling with huge extra-special old-age issues, especially during the 2024 election, i'd be surprised. ~a
[2025-05-19 15:30:18] - And now instead of any sort of introspection and maybe taking some sort of accountability, its “its in the past please move on.”. Fuck that. - mig
[2025-05-19 15:28:31] - a: maybe but why should I trust the democrats on anything ever again not only about lying about Biden’s mental state for so long but also smearing nearly anybody who brought up those concerns? Yes Trump bad but I’m a “none of the above” person. - mig
[2025-05-19 14:52:46] - a: That's by far the biggest issue. We can talk about things that we are spending too much on or too little on or maybe that we shouldn't spend money on at all, but I frankly think that all pales in comparison to the horrific fiscal mismanagement. -Paul
[2025-05-19 14:48:33] - a: "how exactly is the budget bad?" The government not only continues to spend more than it takes in, but it's getting worse AND completely ignoring the things that are going to continue to worsen (interest on debt, social security, etc). -Paul
[2025-05-18 03:52:39] - paul: currencies do this all the time. so do stocks. ~a
[2025-05-18 03:46:54] - paul: yeah i've been hoping for this for a while. you see me using "bits"? which is a similar (but different) proposal. ~a
[2025-05-18 03:43:02] - mig: ? aren't both major parties fielding presidental candidates with memory lapses? ~a
[2025-05-17 18:43:59] - https://www.axios.com/2025/05/16/biden-hur-tape-special-counsel-audio we can gripe about trump all we want but if this is the opposition party I don’t know if our griping matters. - mig
[2025-05-17 12:54:09] - a: I'll answer your other question when I'm back on my computer. On my phone now. -Paul
[2025-05-17 12:53:43] - a: https://bitcoinerrorlog.medium.com/bip-177-for-dummies-3993db575490 Any thoughts on BIP177? At first I was against it because I thought it might be confusing to some but I think I might be on board now. -Paul
[2025-05-16 04:11:19] - paul: "Looks like the budget is going to continue to ignore fiscal reality". See? Now we can discuss and debate the specifics of how much we hate trump! this is perfect, thank you. how exactly is the budget bad? ~a
[2025-05-15 22:46:23] - a: Looks like the budget is going to continue to ignore fiscal reality. Monetary crisis on the horizon! How stupid is all of this talk about Canada as a 51st state? -Paul
[2025-05-15 22:45:33] - a: "i'll give you the best super duper fucking extra magic response every time." Okay, well, I've got a popular opinion: These tariffs are super stupid. Deporting people to an El Salvadoran prison with no due process because of things they said is really bad. -Paul
[2025-05-15 19:46:41] - paul: "governing like an old-school Democrat, with an admin staffed with former Democrats, and who appeals to former Democrats". you've got some interesting observations here. but, like, obviously you're glossing over a LOT. ~a
[2025-05-15 19:44:13] - paul: "I just don't feel like posting that here is likely to get any kind of response" never. i'll give you the best super duper fucking extra magic response every time. ~a
[2025-05-15 19:15:28] - Anti-free trade, price controls, and anti-interventionism is typically more out of the Democratic playbook. -Paul
[2025-05-15 19:14:27] - Like, Trump himself was a former Democrat. So was Tulsi and RFK Jr. Elon is another prominent supporter who was a former Democrat. Batya Ungar-Sargon from the Free Press is a big Trump supporter who talks about how she was a former Democrat. -Paul
[2025-05-15 19:13:15] - In fact, one thing I've discussed with Andrew and Travis is that I think it's super interesting how, in a lot of ways, Trump is kind of governing like an old-school Democrat, with an admin staffed with former Democrats, and who appeals to former Democrats. -Paul
[2025-05-15 19:08:09] - I will say that one bad thing that I think could be interesting to discuss here is the cap on drug prices. It's interesting to me because it's pulling more from the Democrat playbook than the Republican one. -Paul
[2025-05-15 19:07:30] - a: I don't think I feel "meh" about all the horrible things that Trump is doing. I just don't feel like posting that here is likely to get any kind of response. -Paul
[2025-05-15 17:18:08] - None of this has any bearing to the fact that due process was violated and he should be immediately sent to the us to at bare minimum contest his standing deportation order, but clinging to this nonsense just poisons the well to the point that your average joe probably would side with Trump on this. - mig
[2025-05-15 17:16:34] - We can start with the whole “Maryland Man” narrative which implied that Garcia was a US citizen or an LPR (he isn’t). Then clinging on to this kind of mythical folk hero image of Garcia which got blown up by the allegations he beat his wife and was suspected of human trafficking. - mig
[2025-05-15 17:12:26] - a: Yes Trump is the root problem here but it gets lost in the nonsense of democrats and the media coverage to such a degree that it lets Trump get away with a lot of shit. - mig
[2025-05-15 16:23:41] - mig: i am also frustrated. but blaming the democrats, and blaming the media seems like a bit of misplaced blame? sure there is like 1% blame on the democrats for being fucking push-overs and losers, and bad at PR, and 1% blame of the media for total abdication of their jobs. but, aren't we skipping the "big-blame"?! ~a
[2025-05-15 12:27:54] - a: I think my main frustration is that i sense this story is being dropped because the media/democrats have basically lost the PR war on this one and that was probably very preventable. - mig
[2025-05-14 16:43:32] - mig: i feel like i see a lot of "meh" from you and paul regarding trump being trump and i'm glad to see a trump issue that resonates with you. but, it seems weird you'd phrase it as "no mentions on wtop today". it 100% sucks the media has given up, but there is no reason to blame this solely on the media. ~a
[2025-05-12 21:45:25] - mig: what did you expect to happen? ~a
[2025-05-12 21:42:29] - has the kilmer abrego garcia already story already run out of the news cycle? no mentions on wtop today and seems out of the google news topics. jesus. - mig
[2025-05-12 20:49:55] - paul: what i read online, somewhere, was that trump is a dumb dumb moron? and he somehow confused his ass with a hole in the ground. or something along those lines. ~a
[2025-05-12 20:47:13] - paul: yeah no. gas didn't break $1.98 per gallon. prices won't break $2.98 any time soon. (current national average = 3.14, according to AAA). ~a
[2025-05-09 05:35:26] - a: Did it actually? Because I thought the first few times he said that it was.... stretching the truth. -Paul
[2025-05-09 05:34:56] - a: I think the reddit itself confused me. I didn't grok that somebody legit didn't understand the comic and was asking what was going on. -Paul
[2025-05-07 06:30:41] - gas just broke $1.98 per gallon. wow, even i am surprised. ~a
[2025-05-06 18:12:39] - paul: i think you were right originally: it's hyperbole. what about the joke you don't get? ~a
[2025-05-06 16:20:25] - a: Seems like a bit of a stretch to say that, just because vehicular manslaughter is a thing that people are violently against walkable cities? I mean, I guess it's probably technically true that you can find at least one person who is violently against anything. -Paul
[2025-05-06 13:47:31] - mig/paul: thanks for the opportunity to point out that drivers kill 150 people per day. 150 people per hour? not all of those are unintentional.
~a[2025-05-06 13:39:11] - a: Nope! Can't say that I have. I feel like local planning meetings likely draw a lot of hyper opinionated and maybe mentally unstable people with too much time on their hands.
-Paul[2025-05-06 13:29:22] - you have never been to the local planning meetings for a new bike lane? ~a
[2025-05-06 06:01:06] - a: The "I'd kill them" felt like hyperbole to make some kind of joke (which I admittedly don't get). Like Miguel said, I don't know if I really see a lot of people violently against walkable neighborhoods. -Paul
[2025-05-05 22:01:55] - a: citation needed? who are these people violently against walkable cities? - mig
[2025-05-05 19:57:55] - paul: yes they're describing nimbyism. is nimbyism bad and hypocritical? well, no, not always. usually. is it . . . understandable? sorta. it's the "i'd kill them" that tips the scales a bit though, right? hopefully you agree that's a bit over the line. some people are . . . violently against walkable neighborhoods? such that it makes them so angry that they can barely keep their shit together. ~a
[2025-05-05 19:32:31] - a: For example, I like visiting Vegas every once in awhile but likely wouldn't want to live there. -Paul
[2025-05-05 19:31:53] - a: Like, I get that some people like certain things when on vacation but wouldn't want it at home (like bicycle lanes or whatever). I guess I can see how it can be hypocritical, but I think it can be a reasonable thing. -Paul
[2025-05-05 16:23:41] - a: "i thought you wfh?" I do. That was a message reddit gave me. I could see it the second time, though. I.... don't get it? -Paul
[2025-05-05 16:20:54] - a: "big oof for the constitutional republicans these days" Rand Paul is handling himself a little better this time around in terms of speaking out against the tariffs. -Paul
[2025-05-05 16:20:25] - a: "tariffs, if they ever work, if they can ever work, ONLY could possibly do so when they're stable, simple/understandable, and predictable. these seem to be none of the above, right?" It's none of the above, true. Whether it can work depends on what they're trying to accomplish, I guess. -Paul
[2025-05-04 19:30:18] - paul: "I've been blocked by network security" i thought you wfh? ~a
[2025-05-04 17:23:52] - i always thought the oath of office is pretty clear about a few things. "i don't know" is such a bad response to something clearly covered in his presidential inauguration. ~a
[2025-05-04 17:21:26] - "Trump says he doesn't know if he must uphold the Constitution" big oof for the constitutional republicans these days. ~a
[2025-05-04 17:19:48] - paul: "it might change tomorrow and it's not like I can do anything about it in the meantime" isn't that one part of the problem? maybe that's your point, i guess? tariffs, if they ever work, if they can ever work, ONLY could possibly do so when they're stable, simple/understandable, and predictable. these seem to be none of the above, right? ~a
[2025-05-04 14:21:18] - I haven't been keeping up with the tariff stuff at all. Why bother? It might change tomorrow and it's not like I can do anything about it in the meantime. Wake me up when the new world order has arrived.
-Paul[2025-05-04 14:20:37] - a: Nice on the nVidia gains! I owned it many years ago and sold it for a small gain well before it took off. Much regret. -Paul
[2025-05-04 14:20:06] - a: I've been blocked by network security. -Paul
[2025-05-02 16:09:23] - welcome to the war on cars, explainthejoke ~a
[2025-05-02 16:05:13] - wikipedia says "the 10% minimum tariff and the 25% sector-specific tariffs remain in effect" is that right? i'm a bit surprised the stock markets are cool with this especially with the 90 day thing looming? ~a
[2025-05-02 16:03:35] - i'm having trouble keeping up. what tariffs are we currently paying? google has let me down. i know he kept the tariff rate on china in tact. i know he backed out of most of the others: but are we still paying +10% on everything and everybody? or, no. ~a
[2025-05-02 15:33:08] - needs more logarithms! my IRA website has a chart that shows where i've been making all my realized gains in 2025: i sold 10 shares of nvidia last week and realized 21,000% in gains: so all my other realized gains look like zero gains on their non-logarithm chart. ~a
[2025-04-30 21:40:45] - a: We'll see what Bitcoin is at by 2030. Hopefully I do owe him a lot (or he owes me even more). At the time Microsoft and Tencent and Amazon and Apple seemed like the ones making the biggest push into gaming. -Paul
[2025-04-30 21:39:35] - a: "losing to really good players doesn't matter, right?" In theory if I lose to somebody who is ranked significantly higher, I won't lose much MMR. -Paul
[2025-04-30 21:38:23] - a: "you might actually *be* masters 3" No way. I've played enough ranked Zerg 1v1 to feel pretty confident that I am low diamond with Zerg and I feel like my Terran is significantly worse than my Zerg. I was thinking maybe Plat 1. -Paul
[2025-04-30 19:48:41] - paul: i think you're gonna have to pay andrew a bunch of money in 2030. why did you pick such a short list of companies? you didn't include meta or sony or alphabet or . . . disney? netflix? ea? ~a
[2025-04-30 19:33:03] - paul: "I missed it" nah it's still fucked. if you change "bats:arkk" to "arkk" you'll see the issue i'm observing. ~a
[2025-04-30 19:26:27] - paul: you might actually *be* masters 3. (i always saw you and daniel and mark as high-diamond). losing to really good players doesn't matter, right? i also have a strong feeling that the "match assignments" are bullshit and don't matter. ~a
[2025-04-30 17:53:08] - I was feeling a little under the weather today so I played some 1v1 ranked SC2 using Terran. 5 matches to get my league assigned. Got my ass kicked in 4/5 and only won the other because I did a proxy barracks rush. It kept pitting me up against Masters and Diamond players. End result? It put me in Masters 3! Wtf? -Paul
[2025-04-30 17:51:48] - a: I missed it. Last I checked a few weeks ago it looked like things were tracking fine. Of course, I don't watch it too closely because I've already written that one off.
-Paul[2025-04-28 13:59:25] - bonus points, since i don't alphabetically have any stocks in my list between "arkk" and "bats", i didn't have to reorder my list. ~a
[2025-04-28 13:57:39] - nm i figured out a workaround (it's at the very bottom). ~a
[2025-04-28 13:54:36] - paul: any clue what's going on with the bets/wagers spreadsheet? arkk is listed as ~[$5 per unit] on google's api. i see ~[$51 per unit] on google.com/finance (and on all other sources). maybe we're mid-split, but that does not jive with what i would expect: most people don't split when they've dropped a bunch. ~a
[2025-04-25 14:11:09] - a: "he is unpredictable, do you disagree?" Nope. 100% agree. But inflation can be pretty unpredictable too. -Paul
[2025-04-25 13:55:33] - paul: i agree lowering the fed rate would increase home sales. but i don't think they should lower the fed rate and i don't think increasing home sales was ever a goal: the goal was always affordable housing if people want it. which, like you, is something i don't think the government can provide. but instead, affordable housing is something the government can fuck up (zoning, etc). ~a
[2025-04-25 13:48:28] - paul: his tarrifs on china are at 145%. ok. fine, if they stay at 145%, then i predict his four year average inflation will be 5% or greater. ~a
[2025-04-25 13:44:53] - paul: no, i refuse. he is unpredictable, do you disagree? my "huge and obvious" wording was under the assumption that he wouldn't u-turn. sorry i didn't say that. ~a
[2025-04-24 18:42:22] - a: "it'll likely be because he both illegally ignored congress and illegally ignored the supreme court" TIL that the President CAN'T just unilaterally fire the head of the Fed unless it's "for cause". -Paul
[2025-04-24 18:39:53] - a: It looks like Biden's was 4.95% over his 4 years? -Paul
[2025-04-24 18:37:35] - a: Oh, sorry, I missed that you were looking at total inflation over the entire term. Pick a number for that then. -Paul
[2025-04-24 18:37:02] - a: "that depends" Don't hedge now! You were making predictions of "huge and obvious inflation". What's your best guess on what Trump will do and what the result will be? If you had to set an over/under of inflation in.... 6 months? What would it be? -Paul
[2025-04-24 18:35:30] - a: "decreasing the fed rate isn't a silver bullet" Sure. Nothing is guaranteed, but I feel pretty confident that lower interest rates will NOT be detrimental to home sales and would likely increase them. -Paul
[2025-04-24 07:36:02] - paul: "maybe it just hates the uncertainty around the idea of Trump nominating a flunky" i disagree: if he nominates *anyone* before 2028, it'll likely be because he both illegally ignored congress and illegally ignored the supreme court. that's some uncertainty the market hates. ~a
[2025-04-24 07:32:49] - paul: "What do you think inflation will peak at in the coming months?" that depends: if trump goes back to his original plan (the one he presented on the sandwich boards), his 4-y-average inflation will be higher than biden's 4-y-average inflation (cpiu). if trump does not do that, then the inflation could be lower. ~a
[2025-04-24 07:28:44] - paul: "unlock housing supply" decreasing the fed rate isn't a silver bullet: decreasing the fed rate will potentially increase the supply of cheaper homes . . . but will also increase the demand on expensive homes. it will also encourage builders to tear down cheap homes to replace with expensive ones. ~a
[2025-04-23 14:55:15] - a: I'm a little surprised there's been such a big reaction to Trump walking back his comments about Powell a bit. Does the market love Powell? Maybe. I think maybe it just hates the uncertainty around the idea of Trump nominating a flunky. -Paul
[2025-04-23 14:53:43] - a: "that is my prediction" What do you think inflation will peak at in the coming months? -Paul
[2025-04-23 14:37:26] - a: Oops, that was in reference to: "so, who should decide?" -Paul
[2025-04-23 14:37:10] - a: Hard money instead of fiat money. -Paul
[2025-04-23 14:36:38] - a: But there's also reason to be concerned about reducing rates and stoking inflation given other things going on. -Paul
[2025-04-23 14:35:08] - a: I was critical of his past decisions. I don't necessarily have a position on what he should do now. As I mentioned, there are reasons to think reducing rates is a good idea (unlock housing supply, help federal government refinance debt)... -Paul
[2025-04-23 14:18:15] - it's pretty clear that the market loves powell (and/or the market hates the constitutional crisis of trump ignoring both the legislative *and* the judiciary by firing the chair of the fed). trump decides not to fire powell and the market goes up 7% over half of a day, jfc. ~a
[2025-04-23 14:12:01] - paul: "Have we seen huge and obvious inflation lately?" seen? that is my prediction. we won't have information from the bls on inflation for a few more weeks but also i don't think the true cost of tariffs will take at least a year to be fully realized. ~a
[2025-04-23 14:02:01] - paul: "idea of the government trying to control the money supply" what do you propose? yes, having individual banks deciding their own interest rates is what we do now, but who prints new usd? currently, the fed gets the new usd from the treasury and lends it out at the rate decided by the FRB? you don't want the president or congress deciding how new dollars are printed + loaned? so, who should decide? ~a
[2025-04-23 13:54:54] - paul: "it's probably impossible to tell right now because nobody knows what Trump is going to do next in terms of tariffs or whatever else" you seem to question powell's decisions but then parrot his words? powell (et al) thought keeping 4.3 going is smart until the economy figures out what direction it'll head after the dust settles from the (past and future) tariffs. ~a
[2025-04-23 13:20:15] - a: Have we seen huge and obvious inflation lately? I haven't been following the numbers but I haven't seen any news stories on it and I assume I would've given the obvious ties to tariffs. -Paul
[2025-04-23 13:10:39] - a: But clearly we have a problem where a bunch of people are locked into super low 30 year mortgages and thus don't want to move which is creating a supply problem. -Paul
[2025-04-23 13:10:07] - a: Furthermore, it's probably impossible to tell right now because nobody knows what Trump is going to do next in terms of tariffs or whatever else. Also, in theory the federal reserve isn't responsible for things like housing affordability... -Paul
[2025-04-23 13:09:04] - a: Is 4.3 too high or low? I honestly don't know (and taking a step back, I'm not sure any one individual can really know, which is why I'm leery on the whole idea of the government trying to control the money supply). -Paul
[2025-04-22 16:48:35] - paul: my prediction is that trump will blame the huge and obvious inflation on powell. and his followers will eat that up. the inflation will be mostly caused by the tariffs in my opinion. ~a
[2025-04-22 16:34:01] - paul: to ask this differently. do you think 4.3 is too high? or do you think it is too low? (i will agree 0.1 was held for way too long, and powel was probably to blame, but i will not agree that 4.3 is obviously too high NOR that 4.3 is obviously too low). ~a
[2025-04-22 16:15:56] - paul: we did. it's on the bets wagers spreadsheet. ~a
[2025-04-21 17:06:41] - a: https://reason.com/2025/04/02/javier-mileis-free-market-reforms-are-starting-to-pay-off/ I don't remember if we ever came up with official metrics to use, but it sounds like Argentina is looking up. -Paul
[2025-04-21 14:03:27] - a: I think you know I've been complaining about the debt for awhile.
-Paul[2025-04-21 13:58:40] - a: I don't know the specifics of the debt and deficit right now, but I know it's really bad. It's been feeling really bad and unsustainable for like 17+ years and it just keeps getting even worse. -Paul
[2025-04-21 13:54:36] - a: At the same time, if the Treasury had been looking ahead, they probably should've been refinancing government debt when rates were low and instead they have to refinance a bunch of debt at higher rates soon. -Paul
[2025-04-21 13:52:53] - a: Well, for starters, I think the Fed was too late to raise rates (I know this sounds like the benefit of hindsight but I clearly remember thinking this before they raised rates). Then I think they raised rates too fast, which contributed to some of the bank failures. -Paul
[2025-04-21 04:14:40] - paul: the new budget is supposed add 6t to the deficit? did i read that right? i feel like that can't be right, it seems too high. that seems like a much bigger problem than the current federal reserve rate. ~a
[2025-04-21 04:14:04] - paul: "the recent actions of the Fed and the Treasury seem especially bad" how so? the interest rate looks pretty normal to me today, i'm kinda glad they aren't dropping rates yet. ~a
[2025-04-20 03:30:01] - a: "also as libertarians" I'm not a huge fan of central banking and fiat currency in general, but the recent actions of the Fed and the Treasury seem especially bad. The government has a crap ton of debt it has to refinance soon at rates it hasn't had to deal with in a long time. A terrible fiscal situation is about to get loads worse. -Paul
[2025-04-20 03:27:33] - a: "the independent treasury has been a pretty good thing for the united states, imo." You mean independent federal reserve? That would be better than a political one, but I also think it's a bit of a myth considering the head of the federal reserve answers to the president. -Paul
[2025-04-20 03:26:30] - a: "any thoughts on jerome powell potentially being fired?" Not really? I think he messed up pretty badly with raising rates too late (and then raising them too quickly) but I also feel like the government / banking cartel probably shouldn't be playing around with the monetary system like it does and if Powell gets fired it would probably be for a stupid reason like Trump doesn't like the market dropping. -Paul
[2025-04-20 03:21:49] - a: I think (1) has to be the whole deal with tariffs because it's super bad and pretty stupid and impacts everybody (not just in the country, but the entire world), and will likely have long term repercussions which will last for awhile. (2) is probably the whole shipping people off to El Salvador without due process for speech we don't like.... and ignoring the courts while doing it. -Paul
[2025-04-18 16:44:53] - stock market has been crazy the past few weeks: any thoughts on jerome powell potentially being fired? the independent treasury has been a pretty good thing for the united states, imo. i think they wrote about it in a they might be giants song. i also as libertarians, i'm sure you're super against the government printing money at really low rates? ~a
[2025-04-10 03:29:36] - Judge Gives Trump Administration 3 Days To Return Her From El Salvador Prison. ~a
[2025-04-07 14:10:01] - mig: ok. ~a
[2025-04-07 13:19:33] - I’m aware the statistics are of course low of something happening but that doesn’t keep it out of my mind and that won’t be much comfort if an incident does ever occur. - mig
[2025-04-07 13:18:11] - I think there’s a difference worrying about imaginary harms from the mere act of Ben Shapiro speaking vs being concerned about the very real violence against tesla dealers and drivers going on around the nation. - mig
[2025-04-04 19:30:26] - mig: i didn't mean to discount your feelings. i apologize. usually you are on the side of "fuck your feelings", so i guess i figured you felt that way about your own feelings too? i found newer numbers, and maybe a more persuasive argument, but i feel like maybe you don't want to talk about this anymore. lmk, otherwise i'll let it drop. ~a
[2025-04-04 19:00:07] - a: I’m not sure how statistics from 9-ish years ago are relevant? Telling me my concerns are somehow not real feels a bit condensing and unhelpful. And unpersuasive. - mig
prev <-> next