Oddly enough, the market for US debt is partially due to a high trade imbalance. The less people sell to Americans, the less use they have for the dollar.

This is, by far, one of the most innovative and exciting approaches I've seen in a while.

Links to the convo below:

Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/42YTqzi
Spotify: bit.ly/4iPSROb
YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AdL...

The goal? Build a caucus big enough to deny both major parties the majority. This would require both major parties to negotiate on legislation, rather than the all-or-nothing stalemate we have today.

Austen saw the potential for the right kind of independent to gain traction in the deepest red and blue states and districts, and his organization is recruiting and funding independents in safe districts across the country to get more folks like Osborne elected to Congress.

Austen worked as Deputy Finance Director for Dan Osborne, an independent who turned what should have been a glide-path to reelection for Nebraska's Republican Senator Deb Fischer into a competitive election.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.

Your comment also reveals what a unique place on the internet BlueSky is. Can't wait for the world to ruin it.

This is another reminder that we need to change the incentive structure to encourage politicians to campaign for the true majority of voters, as opposed to cobbling together a winnable coalition from the political fringes.

Ranked-choice voting in presidential elections is, by far, the best option.

Of course, the bigger point here is that the opinion of the majority doesn't matter as much as a smaller group of voters in a few key states. While a more left wing candidate might far better, it would come at the expense of an alienated political center.

These voters also appear in large enough numbers in battleground states where they're exceptionally valuable in national elections.

They also have a deep trust of parties and institutions, meaning a moderate, establishment candidate would be viewed with suspicion.

A bolder antiestablishment candidate such as AOC would actually fare better among these voters.

The persuadable voters lie in the populist camp - socially conservative, economically liberal voters who actually like Democratic economic policies but are turned off by their cultural messaging.

Most moderates are functional partisans, meaning they'll habitually vote for one of the two major parties - more out of fear of the opposing party than support for the other.

From an electoral sense, moderates aren't necessarily the most valuable.

Democrats have had a deep-rooted fear that nominating someone too far to the left would alienate moderates and cost them the White House, yet two victories by Donald Trump show us how hard moderate voters are to scare off.

It also wouldn't hurt to reform elections so organized, polarized factions can't take over one (or both) of the only two choices we have on the ballot.

The best option: change elections so we have more than two choices.

Proportional representation, and ranked-choice voting can help.

Whether you're on the left or right, the sort of whipsaw effect this will create is bad for the country.

We need reforms that will put the power ceded to the presidency over the past 70 years back in the hands of Congress.

With the economic forecasts as they are, the GOP could have set itself up for an even more left-leaning, activist Democrat to take the White House and use their expanded presidential powers to build an even more expansive federal government.

Until then, we'll keep podcasting.

Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/4jBonR0
Spotify: bit.ly/3Rh6SsV
YouTube: bit.ly/4j69lCF

This highlights a weakness in our electoral system, where a handful of counties and voters can have such an outsized impact that the global financial order is nearly upended in response.

Per usual reforms such as ranked-choice voting and proportional representation can help.