I won't get into the metaphor, bit that's my point. The whole issue of whether something has been addressed before, or whether a "new leaf" has to be grown, or is discovered, is where judicial activism can be charged. Attorneys will argue c with all their might that precedent shows the courts earlier decided that the instant case is similar to the other leaves, while some say a court's (any court's) disagreement and determination that a new leaf has been discovered is the complained of activism. I don't think we disagree. I think.you're better at dendrology than I.
> the Academy Award-winning film “Everything Everywhere All At Once” whose plot features an “everything bagel” that includes literally all of multi-dimensional metaphysical possibility. Contemplating this totality induces paralysis and insanity and drives the plot of the movie forward.
Great! Thanks for the spoiler, man. I was just going to watch that movie.
Among the dichotomies that define the two parties is that of prioritization. Democrats don't know how to prioritize and Republicans prioritize the wrong things.
For Democrats, there was the everything bagel of the Green New Deal which was particularly bad because it aimed at solving all of society's problems (from a progressive point of view). Nothing was left out of the fantasy grand coalition that even suckered Paul Krugman into thinking it was a smart political strategy. That flopped but soon enough was replaced by Build Back Better, the monstrosity that tried to be everything to everyone (who's a progressive).
Republicans don't do that. Instead they focus on just a few main things. Resentment. Waging a Don Quixote battle against the imagined dragons of marxist wokism. Launching a bidding war to ratchet up control of women's bodies. They're good at excluding everything else. It's just that people hate hate hate what they've decided to focus on.
The Democrats managed to squeeze out some great victories because they had the prioritization-disciplining forces of the Joes (Manchin and Biden). That gives them a great basis for going to the electorate next year. To discipline their worst instincts the Republicans have . . . well, bupkis. So they're only hope of winning next year is for something exogenous to happen, like a Fed-induced recession or Biden falling and breaking his hip.
Like I said, the Democrats benefitted from having the disciplining mechanism of The Two Joes. Without that, they wouldn't have passed anything.
The Republicans are happy to take victories where they can, but will drop the issue if they can't win. Thus with the ACA where their opposition now lies in the dustbin of history. They just don't care anymore. I can't really see major parts of the Democratic left saying, oh well, guess we didn't get an expanded CTC so we will never talk about that again.
It's worth noting that GOP victory in the courts is due, at least in part, to the mentality of the judges/ justice themselves. They far more often had the good sense and personal humility to retire at the right time. RBG's hubris is the most egregious, but not unique, symbol of the liberal justices/judges lack of good sense on this front.
Nah. Breyer only retire- very late- I the post RBG debacle. The conservative super majority owes much not just to Kennedy retirement but also to that of Sandra Day O'Connor (retired in 2006! And still alive today!) and on the other hand the retirement of Thurgood Marshall who in fact died two weeks into Clinton’s term!)
Yes, there was *some* luck here as well, but that wouldn’t have been enough to create the current scotus composition. Let us also not forget the Garland debacle. Obama gave up with zero fight. On the other hand I believe 3 of the 6 conservatives on the court could not have been confirmed without dem votes. Indeed Biden presided over the confirmation of Clarence Thomas- by far the biggest ideological swing in the court’s history.
P.S.
Even now judicial nominations are being derailed due to Feinstein’s foolishness, and it’s not at all clear to me that Sotomayor is wise not to retire right now. Even if Dems win the WH again in 24 (very much an if imo) they’re almost certain to lose the senate majority for the foreseeable future. She should retire.
Another analogy for "Everything Bagel Liberalism" could be the bit in the HBO movie The Pentagon Wars about the development of the Bradley fighting vehicle where the generals keep demanding more and more stuff and redesigns to what started out as a simple project. Anyone who's ever been involved in software development is familiar with this kind of problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
"He made no effort to reform retirement programs or the health care system."
I'm sorry, are you at this point just trying to gaslight us? GOP got within one vote of repealing ACA. If McCain or Rand Paul (of all people) hadn't decided to go dare I say maverick, ACA repeal would have gone through. At any time, Trump could have stopped ACA repeal in its tracks. Instead, because he's Trump, he was watching cable news all day and tweeting his rage anytime the teevee said something mean about him.
By the way, I think you (rightly) point out that DeSantis has a very clear record of trying to slash social security, Medicare and Medicaid, but it's absolutely fair to say that Trump will try again to slash entitlements when he is President. He said he'd come up with something better than ACA and clearly was lying (surprise surprise). I mean honestly, what indication do we have he will conduct himself any differently than he did last time. In fact, it will likely be worse as he'll be surrounded even more by sycophants. Which basically means the Freedom Caucus and Leonard Leo are going to guide the ship when it comes to policy.
Not the point of this Substack post, but as soon as I read this bullet point I just sort started blinking rapidly and had to address it.
Student loan forgiveness should never have been about "stimulus." Nothing should have been about "stimulus." And decreasing federal revenue over a protracted period does not "stimulate" much during the period that one thinks "stimulus" is necessary, anyway. I'm glad Matt has changed his mind, but I wish he understood why he was mistaken in the first place.
But OTOH it's not "inflationary," either. That's the Fed's business.
“Every one of the requirements — or they’re not really requirements — nudges are for criteria or factors we think relate directly to the effectiveness of the project,” she told me. “You want to build a new fab that will require between 7,000 and 9,000 workers. The unemployment rate in the building trades is basically zero. If you don’t find a way to attract women to become builders and pipe fitters and welders, you will not be successful. So you have to be thinking about child care.”
This is a good example of the frustration I have with the technocracy from 10k feet of so many Democratic officials. The logic here doesn't work in the real world. The notion that central planning via "nudges" at the federal level via strings tied to appropriations will be the secret sauce to creating employees for new fabs is just bonkers. There is no cohort of women dreaming to become pipe fitters and welders if only there were slightly better child care options. There are a lot of other things the federal government could do that would be more effective at getting fabs built and staffed in the US. Not coincidentally, some of those are counter to the political interests of the Democratic party.
This type of technocracy isn't policy analysis, it's policy delusion or policy wishful thinking. More cynically, perhaps this isn't a serious argument she's making and instead it is just a scheme to get more dollars for child care by tying it to something else.
Fundamentally the notion that the federal government can achieve specific outcomes via appropriations that allocate money with the right strings attached at the micro level is just flawed. There's a reason that we in the US get such poor value for tax dollars spent whether it's construction, major projects, education or health care compared to peer countries. It's not because we lack the kind of attempts at technocratic dial-turning that Gina Raimondo explained in this case, it's because our government systems and processes are sclerotic and corrupt. The present situation is great for consultants and lawyers, but not much good at getting actual stuff accomplished. <rant over>
This is a decent overview of macroeconomic policy from a Keynesian perspective, but I think it lacks relevance. Should Biden negotiate with Speaker McCarthy or not? Right now, the prevailing idea is that they shouldn't. But if you're correct that the fiscal environment today, unlike ten years ago, calls for deficit reduction rather than digging ditches and filling them back in, it follows that you need to go to the people who want deficit reduction and hash out a deficit reduction.
I would also consider this other angle. To the extent the people who got the ARP inflation predictions wrong are correct today that raising interest rates won't address causes of inflation as much as Jay Powell thinks, shouldn't they be even more in favor of deficit reduction than they otherwise would be? Because at the end of the day, you have monetary policy and you have fiscal policy. If one is going to cause mass unemployment without fixing the supply issues, maybe try the other one. I know the just the guy Biden should talk to about this.
What's the incentive for Biden and the Democrats to negotiate on the budget if not the debt ceiling? Another Ezra Klein op-ed with a bagel metaphor? Reminds me when Joe Manchin said he was promised a vote on permit reform in exchange for the IRA. But if that meant anything, wouldn't the permit reform *be happening in the IRA*?
The real answer is that he could vote against Biden's nominations until such time as his bill at least got a vote. But that's real hardball and I think Manchin was never going to play hardball on this issue.
You don’t negotiate on raising the debt ceiling because even considering a default is insane; Biden is right to call Kevin’s bluff there. You negotiate on the omnibus because Republicans have the House and you need a budget. The incentive is not having a government shutdown, doing some austerity to help the macroeconomy, and getting some bipartisanship bona fides you can run on in 2024.
That's a good point; the government shutdown is a credible threat McCarthy can use, and the default is incapable of being a credible threat because it's totally insane and accordingly Biden doesn't believe McCarthy's threat.
But then I return to the original point; the main takeaway from Klein's argument is Joe Biden will have to sit down with Kevin McCarthy and disappoint some people. I hope McCarthy can persuade his House members this is the case.
The logic of negotiation is that I have wants and don't wants and so do you. I don't want your want and vice versa and so we have to compromise. The Democratic "don't want" is "we don't want a debt default because it could lead to a national/global economic catastrophe. But since this isn't a Republican "don't want" the Democrats have to make concessions to get the Republicans to grudgingly accept the averting of that catastrophe.
The end point of this negotiation logic is that the Republicans would be fine with a national/global economic catastrophe. Call me extreme, but I'd prefer to not see this kind of behavior normalized.
"He made no effort to reform retirement programs or the health care system."
I'm sorry, are you at this point just trying to gaslight us? GOP got within one vote of repealing ACA. If McCain or Rand Paul (of all people) hadn't decided to go dare I say maverick, ACA repeal would have gone through. At any time, Trump could have stopped ACA repeal in its tracks. Instead, because he's Trump, he was watching cable news all day and tweeting his rage anytime the teevee said something mean about him.
By the way, I think you (rightly) point out that DeSantis has a very clear record of trying to slash social security, Medicare and Medicaid, but it's absolutely fair to say that Trump will try again to slash entitlements when he is President. He said he'd come up with something better than ACA and clearly was lying (surprise surprise). I mean honestly, what indication do we have he will conduct himself any differently than he did last time. In fact, it will likely be worse as he'll be surrounded even more by sycophants. Which basically means the Freedom Caucus and Leonard Leo are going to guide the ship when it comes to policy.
Not the point of this Substack post, but as soon as I read this bullet point I just sort started blinking rapidly and had to address it.
When I was a child, I would take two slices of white bread and American cheese and cover them with every spice and sauce in the cabinet and cover that with about half a cup of sugar, folding it all into a sandwich. The bread, cheese and sugar kept me from gagging. Maybe that’s a good analogy for Depression Economics
I assume that embracing such things in your childhood has led to you becoming the outstanding person you are today...but I'm not sure it was worth it. That sounds terrible!
"I spent over 10 years banging my head against the wall because policymakers were underestimating the extent of labor market weakness and the importance of demand-side policy."
I'm sorry, but that was the wrong wall. The problem was the Fed. The only thing fiscal policymakers should have been doing during the recession was what they should do when NOT in recession: spend so as to increase the NPV when both cost and benefits are evaluated at shadow prices instead of market prices.
The Federal Funds Effective Rate was basically zero for that entire time; they also did a lot of "quantitative easing." What else could they have done? Monetary policy had shot its wad; that's why the focus was on fiscal policy.
More quantitative easing with the message that "the beating will continue until morale improves." In other words that we'll keep doing QE or buying foreign securities, or negative interest rates or "whatever it takes" to get inflation up to target and keep it there.
Do you think the BOJ should be doing even more??? I have personally turned pretty negative on the utility of QE at all, so I'm probably not the best person but surely don't you think Japan shows that there are very real limits of what can get be done just through monetary policy.
For a small taste, they own more than half of outstanding Japanese government debt, earlier this year they technically owned more than 100% of certain outstanding maturities, they bought bonds totaling roughly 6% of GDP in one two month span in the past year, they purchase equities, and the inflation rate has spent more time below zero than above 2% since the GFC.
For all you bagel interested folks in DC, Call Your Mother is ok. Overly complicated bagel sandwiches are their thing. It’s a big distraction from what a bagel should be. I prefer Baked by Yael for no frills, decent bagel with schmeer.
According to my GPT3, Keynes never actually proposed paying people to dig holes and fill them up. That is a canard of people who oppose fiscal "stimulus."
Just wanted to say I think this is very well-written
I won't get into the metaphor, bit that's my point. The whole issue of whether something has been addressed before, or whether a "new leaf" has to be grown, or is discovered, is where judicial activism can be charged. Attorneys will argue c with all their might that precedent shows the courts earlier decided that the instant case is similar to the other leaves, while some say a court's (any court's) disagreement and determination that a new leaf has been discovered is the complained of activism. I don't think we disagree. I think.you're better at dendrology than I.
> the Academy Award-winning film “Everything Everywhere All At Once” whose plot features an “everything bagel” that includes literally all of multi-dimensional metaphysical possibility. Contemplating this totality induces paralysis and insanity and drives the plot of the movie forward.
Great! Thanks for the spoiler, man. I was just going to watch that movie.
For the record, egg everything bagels > plain everything bagels.
Among the dichotomies that define the two parties is that of prioritization. Democrats don't know how to prioritize and Republicans prioritize the wrong things.
For Democrats, there was the everything bagel of the Green New Deal which was particularly bad because it aimed at solving all of society's problems (from a progressive point of view). Nothing was left out of the fantasy grand coalition that even suckered Paul Krugman into thinking it was a smart political strategy. That flopped but soon enough was replaced by Build Back Better, the monstrosity that tried to be everything to everyone (who's a progressive).
Republicans don't do that. Instead they focus on just a few main things. Resentment. Waging a Don Quixote battle against the imagined dragons of marxist wokism. Launching a bidding war to ratchet up control of women's bodies. They're good at excluding everything else. It's just that people hate hate hate what they've decided to focus on.
The Democrats managed to squeeze out some great victories because they had the prioritization-disciplining forces of the Joes (Manchin and Biden). That gives them a great basis for going to the electorate next year. To discipline their worst instincts the Republicans have . . . well, bupkis. So they're only hope of winning next year is for something exogenous to happen, like a Fed-induced recession or Biden falling and breaking his hip.
<with nothing to show for it>
What am I missing here? Wasn't TCJA the biggest tax cut ever passed?
Like I said, the Democrats benefitted from having the disciplining mechanism of The Two Joes. Without that, they wouldn't have passed anything.
The Republicans are happy to take victories where they can, but will drop the issue if they can't win. Thus with the ACA where their opposition now lies in the dustbin of history. They just don't care anymore. I can't really see major parts of the Democratic left saying, oh well, guess we didn't get an expanded CTC so we will never talk about that again.
It's worth noting that GOP victory in the courts is due, at least in part, to the mentality of the judges/ justice themselves. They far more often had the good sense and personal humility to retire at the right time. RBG's hubris is the most egregious, but not unique, symbol of the liberal justices/judges lack of good sense on this front.
Well, while Anthony Kennedy retired strategically, so did Stephen Breyer, so it's one to one.
Nah. Breyer only retire- very late- I the post RBG debacle. The conservative super majority owes much not just to Kennedy retirement but also to that of Sandra Day O'Connor (retired in 2006! And still alive today!) and on the other hand the retirement of Thurgood Marshall who in fact died two weeks into Clinton’s term!)
Good point on O'Connor
Everyone else is just leave feet first
It should be noted that Rehnquist made the same gamble that RBG did, but the electoral dice rolled in his favor.
Yes, there was *some* luck here as well, but that wouldn’t have been enough to create the current scotus composition. Let us also not forget the Garland debacle. Obama gave up with zero fight. On the other hand I believe 3 of the 6 conservatives on the court could not have been confirmed without dem votes. Indeed Biden presided over the confirmation of Clarence Thomas- by far the biggest ideological swing in the court’s history.
P.S.
Even now judicial nominations are being derailed due to Feinstein’s foolishness, and it’s not at all clear to me that Sotomayor is wise not to retire right now. Even if Dems win the WH again in 24 (very much an if imo) they’re almost certain to lose the senate majority for the foreseeable future. She should retire.
Another analogy for "Everything Bagel Liberalism" could be the bit in the HBO movie The Pentagon Wars about the development of the Bradley fighting vehicle where the generals keep demanding more and more stuff and redesigns to what started out as a simple project. Anyone who's ever been involved in software development is familiar with this kind of problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
"He made no effort to reform retirement programs or the health care system."
I'm sorry, are you at this point just trying to gaslight us? GOP got within one vote of repealing ACA. If McCain or Rand Paul (of all people) hadn't decided to go dare I say maverick, ACA repeal would have gone through. At any time, Trump could have stopped ACA repeal in its tracks. Instead, because he's Trump, he was watching cable news all day and tweeting his rage anytime the teevee said something mean about him.
By the way, I think you (rightly) point out that DeSantis has a very clear record of trying to slash social security, Medicare and Medicaid, but it's absolutely fair to say that Trump will try again to slash entitlements when he is President. He said he'd come up with something better than ACA and clearly was lying (surprise surprise). I mean honestly, what indication do we have he will conduct himself any differently than he did last time. In fact, it will likely be worse as he'll be surrounded even more by sycophants. Which basically means the Freedom Caucus and Leonard Leo are going to guide the ship when it comes to policy.
Not the point of this Substack post, but as soon as I read this bullet point I just sort started blinking rapidly and had to address it.
Student loan forgiveness should never have been about "stimulus." Nothing should have been about "stimulus." And decreasing federal revenue over a protracted period does not "stimulate" much during the period that one thinks "stimulus" is necessary, anyway. I'm glad Matt has changed his mind, but I wish he understood why he was mistaken in the first place.
But OTOH it's not "inflationary," either. That's the Fed's business.
“Every one of the requirements — or they’re not really requirements — nudges are for criteria or factors we think relate directly to the effectiveness of the project,” she told me. “You want to build a new fab that will require between 7,000 and 9,000 workers. The unemployment rate in the building trades is basically zero. If you don’t find a way to attract women to become builders and pipe fitters and welders, you will not be successful. So you have to be thinking about child care.”
This is a good example of the frustration I have with the technocracy from 10k feet of so many Democratic officials. The logic here doesn't work in the real world. The notion that central planning via "nudges" at the federal level via strings tied to appropriations will be the secret sauce to creating employees for new fabs is just bonkers. There is no cohort of women dreaming to become pipe fitters and welders if only there were slightly better child care options. There are a lot of other things the federal government could do that would be more effective at getting fabs built and staffed in the US. Not coincidentally, some of those are counter to the political interests of the Democratic party.
This type of technocracy isn't policy analysis, it's policy delusion or policy wishful thinking. More cynically, perhaps this isn't a serious argument she's making and instead it is just a scheme to get more dollars for child care by tying it to something else.
Fundamentally the notion that the federal government can achieve specific outcomes via appropriations that allocate money with the right strings attached at the micro level is just flawed. There's a reason that we in the US get such poor value for tax dollars spent whether it's construction, major projects, education or health care compared to peer countries. It's not because we lack the kind of attempts at technocratic dial-turning that Gina Raimondo explained in this case, it's because our government systems and processes are sclerotic and corrupt. The present situation is great for consultants and lawyers, but not much good at getting actual stuff accomplished. <rant over>
This is a decent overview of macroeconomic policy from a Keynesian perspective, but I think it lacks relevance. Should Biden negotiate with Speaker McCarthy or not? Right now, the prevailing idea is that they shouldn't. But if you're correct that the fiscal environment today, unlike ten years ago, calls for deficit reduction rather than digging ditches and filling them back in, it follows that you need to go to the people who want deficit reduction and hash out a deficit reduction.
I would also consider this other angle. To the extent the people who got the ARP inflation predictions wrong are correct today that raising interest rates won't address causes of inflation as much as Jay Powell thinks, shouldn't they be even more in favor of deficit reduction than they otherwise would be? Because at the end of the day, you have monetary policy and you have fiscal policy. If one is going to cause mass unemployment without fixing the supply issues, maybe try the other one. I know the just the guy Biden should talk to about this.
He should negotiate on the omnibus; he should not negotiate on the debt ceiling. Pass a clean raise, then negotiate the budget.
What's the incentive for Biden and the Democrats to negotiate on the budget if not the debt ceiling? Another Ezra Klein op-ed with a bagel metaphor? Reminds me when Joe Manchin said he was promised a vote on permit reform in exchange for the IRA. But if that meant anything, wouldn't the permit reform *be happening in the IRA*?
“ What's the incentive for Biden and the Democrats to negotiate on the budget if not the debt ceiling? ”
Republicans control the house. If the house doesn’t pass a budget you have a government shutdown.
I believe permit reform could not have been included in IRA under reconciliation rules (which still exist at Manchin's insistence).
Excellent point, thanks. But he could've held out for a permit bill before signing onto the reconciliation.
The real answer is that he could vote against Biden's nominations until such time as his bill at least got a vote. But that's real hardball and I think Manchin was never going to play hardball on this issue.
Which would have given the Republicans a veto over the IRA. Not to mention how many months it would have taken to get that bill up for a vote.
You don’t negotiate on raising the debt ceiling because even considering a default is insane; Biden is right to call Kevin’s bluff there. You negotiate on the omnibus because Republicans have the House and you need a budget. The incentive is not having a government shutdown, doing some austerity to help the macroeconomy, and getting some bipartisanship bona fides you can run on in 2024.
That's a good point; the government shutdown is a credible threat McCarthy can use, and the default is incapable of being a credible threat because it's totally insane and accordingly Biden doesn't believe McCarthy's threat.
But then I return to the original point; the main takeaway from Klein's argument is Joe Biden will have to sit down with Kevin McCarthy and disappoint some people. I hope McCarthy can persuade his House members this is the case.
The logic of negotiation is that I have wants and don't wants and so do you. I don't want your want and vice versa and so we have to compromise. The Democratic "don't want" is "we don't want a debt default because it could lead to a national/global economic catastrophe. But since this isn't a Republican "don't want" the Democrats have to make concessions to get the Republicans to grudgingly accept the averting of that catastrophe.
The end point of this negotiation logic is that the Republicans would be fine with a national/global economic catastrophe. Call me extreme, but I'd prefer to not see this kind of behavior normalized.
"He made no effort to reform retirement programs or the health care system."
I'm sorry, are you at this point just trying to gaslight us? GOP got within one vote of repealing ACA. If McCain or Rand Paul (of all people) hadn't decided to go dare I say maverick, ACA repeal would have gone through. At any time, Trump could have stopped ACA repeal in its tracks. Instead, because he's Trump, he was watching cable news all day and tweeting his rage anytime the teevee said something mean about him.
By the way, I think you (rightly) point out that DeSantis has a very clear record of trying to slash social security, Medicare and Medicaid, but it's absolutely fair to say that Trump will try again to slash entitlements when he is President. He said he'd come up with something better than ACA and clearly was lying (surprise surprise). I mean honestly, what indication do we have he will conduct himself any differently than he did last time. In fact, it will likely be worse as he'll be surrounded even more by sycophants. Which basically means the Freedom Caucus and Leonard Leo are going to guide the ship when it comes to policy.
Not the point of this Substack post, but as soon as I read this bullet point I just sort started blinking rapidly and had to address it.
Agreed! I felt the same!
When I was a child, I would take two slices of white bread and American cheese and cover them with every spice and sauce in the cabinet and cover that with about half a cup of sugar, folding it all into a sandwich. The bread, cheese and sugar kept me from gagging. Maybe that’s a good analogy for Depression Economics
I assume that embracing such things in your childhood has led to you becoming the outstanding person you are today...but I'm not sure it was worth it. That sounds terrible!
"I spent over 10 years banging my head against the wall because policymakers were underestimating the extent of labor market weakness and the importance of demand-side policy."
I'm sorry, but that was the wrong wall. The problem was the Fed. The only thing fiscal policymakers should have been doing during the recession was what they should do when NOT in recession: spend so as to increase the NPV when both cost and benefits are evaluated at shadow prices instead of market prices.
The Federal Funds Effective Rate was basically zero for that entire time; they also did a lot of "quantitative easing." What else could they have done? Monetary policy had shot its wad; that's why the focus was on fiscal policy.
More quantitative easing with the message that "the beating will continue until morale improves." In other words that we'll keep doing QE or buying foreign securities, or negative interest rates or "whatever it takes" to get inflation up to target and keep it there.
Do you think the BOJ should be doing even more??? I have personally turned pretty negative on the utility of QE at all, so I'm probably not the best person but surely don't you think Japan shows that there are very real limits of what can get be done just through monetary policy.
I don't know enough about BoJ and the inflation experience of Japan to have an opinion.
For a small taste, they own more than half of outstanding Japanese government debt, earlier this year they technically owned more than 100% of certain outstanding maturities, they bought bonds totaling roughly 6% of GDP in one two month span in the past year, they purchase equities, and the inflation rate has spent more time below zero than above 2% since the GFC.
I wonder what Noah Smith thinks
For all you bagel interested folks in DC, Call Your Mother is ok. Overly complicated bagel sandwiches are their thing. It’s a big distraction from what a bagel should be. I prefer Baked by Yael for no frills, decent bagel with schmeer.
NJ/NY weed roll out trying to maximize for equity. As a result almost no legal ones open with thousands of black market ones...
More importantly they’re selling mid
One day Milan, you will approach 30 and wish there was more mid around
This is one area west coast better than east coast.
According to my GPT3, Keynes never actually proposed paying people to dig holes and fill them up. That is a canard of people who oppose fiscal "stimulus."