Director @ EconOne | Editorial Board @TheSlingOrg | NYT: "one expert for the plaintiffs" | Prospect: "preeminent watchdog of The Economist's most wrong takes"
Joined December 2011
- Tweets6.4K
- Following2.6K
- Followers17.5K
- Likes45.8K
Good piece by @greg_ip on why Congress can’t do much on Trump’s tariffs or wars that are contributing to inflation. But it would be a mistake to think that Congress is helpless here. For example, Congress could ban common pricing algorithms and surveillance pricing, which are also contributing to inflation. Hell, the mere *investigation* by the DOJ into the egg industry caused egg prices to fall; Congressional investigations into sectors experiencing inflation could have the same effect. Congress could also extend the FTC’s policing authority into invitations to collude to private and state enforcers. Congress could pass an anti-price gouging law, as contemplated (however briefly) by Harris in her 2024 run. Congress can also slow the conversion of apartments into short-term rentals, bringing some relief to renters. Let’s not let these guys off the hook, just because they can’t control Trump’s worst impulses.
wsj.com/politics/policy/the-…
@LeeHepner has a wonderful new piece out addressing the same topic—whether Congress is indeed helpless at combatting inflation. Lee reviews statements from Jason Furman and a WaPo essay telling voters there’s really nothing Congress can do on this front. And Lee offers this great line: “So the question is whether newly elected Democrats will even try to move an agenda that points to something other than learned helplessness.” I’m skeptical given the money in politics and Dems’ reliance on neoliberal economists. But there is hope.
The factional war in the Democratic Party split wide open today, but it’s been bubbling under the surface. Whatever Tuesday’s outcome, corporate Dems will do anything to kneecap a governing agenda.
My thoughts on the midterms, for @matthewstoller’s BIG. thebignewsletter.com/p/monop…
I spelled out these policies and others here:
thesling.org/progressives-ne…
Hal Singer retweeted
🚨NEW: Inside Big Tech's new Democratic front group and its plan to shield tech oligarchs from scrutiny after the election
The front group that helped kill blue-state AI regulation is now pressuring Dems to commit to not using congressional power to investigate tech companies.
If Ds accept cash from the same companies like Paramount that engaged in quid-pro-quo deals with the Trump administration, then they will relinquish the moral high ground and power back to GOPers in the next election. To garner support for the anti-corruption platform, you can’t be corrupt yourself!
Hal Singer retweeted
This article is insanity. Why should shoppers have to worry about “hiding how much they need things”? And how is that *in itself* not an increase in the cost and decrease in the quality of shopping for something? And in what world does the author believe there is a liquid market for every consumer good at Walmart in which consumers could *resell* low-priced products to obtain some kind of windfall? And even if such a resale market existed, again — how is it not a degradation of the shopping experience for consumers to have to balance out high personalized prices in one instance by reselling items obtained at low personalized prices in another instances?
Even more insane about this secondary argument is that a fundamental assumption of this article is that stores would calibrate their personalized pricing systems so that the value of personalized discounts is equal to the value of personalized upcharges — which would defeat the very purpose of implementing a personalized pricing system at least from the perspective of an entrenched incumbent, and probably from the perspective of any actual business (rather than the stick-figure models of business economists like to assume into existence to support nonsense arguments—like this one).
Hal Singer retweeted
This 1000%. If we had a government that wasn’t overrun by tech lobbyists and financiers, Apple’s rancid battery wear and planned obsolescence schemes—where they slow prior hardware with new iOS iterations, could be made a meal of by regulators.
If you have ever faced the Orwellian nightmare of going to an Apple Store with an in-warranty iDevice that has a battery that’s declining faster than the AI bubble is bursting, the double talk and runaround they give you about this problem is something to behold. They are trained to show you battery statistics in the settings app which display *what apps* are using the most of your battery, and will blame *usage* stats like *24% YouTube* as the issue (in other words, using YouTube is responsible for eating 24% of your battery life) as the problem.
This is flawed because it purposefully
ignores the essential problem—*performance* stats—aka that problem devices are burning more mAh for the same tasks than non-problem devices with healthier batteries do, and that your battery health is lower than normal. When you confront them about this canard, they don’t have an answer.
Apple also has a set battery life drop off limit (I think it’s 80% of battery capacity as when the device is new) as when the warranty will cover battery replacement. 85% in a year is very noticeable and unusual, but they won’t cover it. Few devices will actually decline to the sneaky, actuary-set 80% within the 1 year warranty despite having abnormally failing batteries. That’s not unintentional.
The good news is battery replacements are relatively cheap and can sustain the device without having to buy a new one, but—and this is something few realize other than the hard way—cracking open an iPhone to replace the battery breaks the water-resistant seal. Apple and independent shops swear they replace the seal, but this is entirely unreliable as to whether they do so properly or not, and whether the device will actually be water-resistant after replacing the battery is unknown unless you find out by water getting inside. If it’s not, and water damages it, the warranty does not cover it, even if it’s from their own shoddy work.
This is one of Apple’s larger scams and it does not get as much attention as it should.
I really hate to use one of my three Saturday tweets on a personal gripe, but ever since I installed the new operating system for the iPhone (27.0.1), I’ve been receiving scary messages that my capacity is done (but I can buy more) and, to add insult to injury, my battery has been running down at mindboggling rates. It’s as if @Apple wants me to buy a new phone that can accommodate the new iOS software. This is such a corrupt way to spur spending. I’m an Apple loyalist, but this horseshit is straining goodwill. Please do better.
This @TheEconomist story on the winners and losers from Trumponomics is fantastic and highlights just how REGRESSIVE his (and GOP) policies have been.
* Tariffs will cost the average household $1,100 this year (per Yale’s Budget Lab)
* The war in Iran will cost the average household another $1,000 (per Yale’s Budget Lab)
* Removing Obamacare subsidies raised average premiums for individual insurance purchased on exchanges by $800 a year (per KFF)
The story has a chart that shows the impact of Trump’s policies by income decile, revealing how the poorest took the biggest income blow, while the richest did the best. And this chart vastly understates the disparity in impact, as a 3% lift on an income of $500K is much larger in dollar terms than a 3% drop in income for the poorest.
This is the choice in the election. Vote Republican if you believe in regressive policies. Vote Democratic if you believe in progressive policies.
Link to full story here (subscription required)
The winners and losers of Trumponomics
economist.com/united-states/…
from The Economist
Last point. By neutering antitrust enforcement, gutting labor laws, and sending the regulators on vacation, Trump arguably deserves some credit for the stock market gain—a reflection of rising profits. But even this policy is regressive, as 90% of the gains have been captured by the richest households. It’s regressive policies all the way down. And not by accident. Trump is catering to the oligarchs, with the expectation that he will personally benefit via a quid pro quo arrangement.
Hal Singer retweeted
Billionaire LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman donated $7 million to support Kamala Harris's presidential campaign, while publicly calling for her to fire Lina Khan.
He donated millions to key Senate candidates while claiming that we need to build more data centers.
If Reid wants money out of politics he should give without comment and never take a meeting with candidates who he gives to, but just two days ago he was boasting in the NY Times about his influence.
If billionaires like Hoffman weren't handcuffing candidates with his bad, unpopular ideas as the price of a donation, the Democrats wouldn't need his donations.
Hal Singer retweeted
A great interactive story, filled with testimonials from young people, about how demoralizing and dehumanizing it is right now trying to get a job.
Searching for jobs, Gen Z feels likes it's staring into the void
Hal Singer retweeted
@RepRaskin introduced an important piece of legislation to begin the process of making antitrust less susceptible to corruption. The bill proposes a number of common sense policies (listed below). Enacting this legislation should be a no-brainer.
democrats-judiciary.house.go…
Hal Singer retweeted
NEWS: @RepRaskin has introduced the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act!
As the Trump-Vance DOJ continues a pattern of backing away from major antitrust challenges — from Live Nation-Ticketmaster to HPE-Juniper, and more — it’s more urgent than ever to establish clear rules to stop corporations from lobbying their way out of accountability.
Hal Singer retweeted
Hello @elonmusk and @tylercowen ,
You have just decided to publicly attack our research, six days before the vote on the California billionaire wealth tax.
Your attempt to discredit our work and that of our numerous academic colleagues is pathetic.
Let’s take a look. 🧵
Hal Singer retweeted
New from ISP fellow Madhavi Singh: “The Government Should Bring the Next Case Against Google for AI."
thesling.org/the-government-…
Hal Singer retweeted
Doordash and Instacart both have long histories of bullying Main Street businesses and workers. The FTC must block this merger.
@LeeHepner on this in @CNNBusiness: “This merger represents the next frontier of data-driven abuse, exploiting massive asymmetries of power to squeeze worker compensation on the way in and drain consumer wallets on the way out.”
