9/ Checks and balances are a) not free b) mostly paid for as 'insurance costs' in non-priced ways c) by people who can least afford to do so
-
-
Replying to @vgr
10/ And this is just micro-level issues with market-based narrative of 'everything is fine' there is the macro-level: fine compared to WHAT?
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr
11/ The counterfactual isn't just "no nuclear war, no concentration camps, haha you liberals were scaremongering"
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr
12/ Firstly, if somebody paid real but non-market costs to ensure doomsday didn't happen, your positive outcome isn't what you claim
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr
13/ Secondly, even if you leave out doomsday, right macro counterfactual is: how well *could* economy have done with a more normal POTUS?
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @vgr
14/ Fair comparison would be a POTUS who might have done similar things but with less fascist craziness that has all non-white-males on edge
3 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr
15/ ie POTUS who pursues protectionism, ACA repeal, NATO unwind etc., but *without* threatening judges, tweet-destablizing war zones etc
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @vgr
16/ Counterfactual diff gets at the costs of keeping fascists in check... how much economic value was lost in neutralizing the loony bits?
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
Do Wall Street pricing models even include a term for "unstable executive branch"?
1 reply 3 retweets 8 likes -
that protects the execs, not shareholders
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.