A better way of saying this: compare an increase of annual emissions not to zero (just another number) but to -4%. If emissions are up 2%, they're 6% above where they need to be.

Is it ever. Is this just a case of mismanagement, or are there other motives? (Not either/or, of course.) Who wants to shrink TNS, which parts and why?

When reading this, remember that it's cumulative, not annual, emissions that drive the climate. Even a modest decline instead of an increase would not be nearly enough. That magic number for limiting warming to 2 degrees is 4% annual reduction globally, year after year.

1. Dewey had very important things to say about this issue, still relevant. 2. Incorporating pluralism is the key missing piece in socialism. What is pluralist social ownership? (I'm writing a book about this....)

We (including dog) have been enjoying it too. The fall has been crazy mild across the state.

This was an absolutely devastating takedown and also a cogent analysis of goyper/nativist/racist politics. Man, would I love to see you in a debate with JDV. (Poor Tim Walz, nice guy who had no idea what he was dealing with.)

Also bilateral with multilateral. But the economics is almost irrelevant; the frame (for our appreciation) is dominant/submissive.

Today I would also talk about private credit, since shadow banking has been resurrected in a new form. But Biden's crew accommodated this just as Trump's is doing. Incidentally, Biden did want to extend the pandemic welfare state, but he didn't have the votes. That was devastating.

I missed this when it came out in J, thanks! I agree with a lot of what you say, and there's a lot more overlap. I think we're in agreement on clientelist quant easing and digital assets, but the bank supervision aspect is important. (Josh Mason thinks this.)

We seem to be on different pages. My Substack is here: open.substack.com/pub/peterdor...

I read the NLR piece and thought it missed the main point: Trump wants to capture the Fed's supervisory and asset provision apparatus. The power to reward friends and punish opponents would be vast. I wrote a Substack on this a while back.

Hey, that would make a great r&r song. It even works metrically.

And here's the explanation. Thanks, Steve.
www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-w...

To be more specific, the econ part uses CES production and demand functions. Aside from convenience, there is *no* justification for them. They overconstrain scenarios, and the underconstraining due to writing in carbon removal doesn't balance out!

I guess this is why there are no chimps in Trump's cabinet.