I thought this paragraph was particularly insightful:

And yet, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the crucial question regarding whether or not to use fiscal stimulus was a completely different one—which is more corrosive to the legitimacy of the institutions which make the prosperity of a liberal, global economy possible: a long economic slump, or a short-term stimulus so large that it inevitably leads to spending on low-return projects or lines the pockets of government-friendly firms? We were all tying ourselves in knots working out whether the multiplier on infrastructure spending was 0.7 or 1.2 or 2.5, when what we ought to have been asking was: what course of action is most likely to avert a crisis of institutional legitimacy that will leave everyone much worse off.

Many years ago I used to play a lot of D&D. I found that there were generally four types of players: social players, creative players, analytic players and competitive players.

The social players liked to hang out and socialize. The creative players took their role playing very seriously. The analytic players would focus on tactics and strategy and solving puzzles. All three of these player types could work together well.

But, when a competitive player joined, things would often become tense.

The tension had little to do with the competitive aspect. In fact, all of the other player types would sometimes dabble in competition. The issue was that the competitive players usually broke the intent of the game or scenario. They would focus on the contract of the game (the rules) and seek out loopholes or ways to bend the rules to create superior advantage. These players were pejoratively called min-maxers or game lawyers. Basically, they were playing a different game than the rest.

I often find that these archetypes fit in real life. Most people get along fine. They understand the social rules and the basic laws. They understand the intent of things rather than the wording of the contracts. They understand that contracts aren't perfect and that there is a lot of room for personal judgement.

But, some people take the rules as an optimization problem. They seek to use them to both maximize their position as well as to justify their behavior. And, the rest of the people are constantly trying to keep up - trying to expand laws, regulations and social rules so that their actions are constrained. It's like a never ending arms race.

Unfortunately, these are the people who now rule the world. But, it causes ripples where we all now have to assume those behaviors to keep up. The orginal intent of the game has been lost, and now the rules are the game.

I'm curious at which point did the science of "economics" changed from "let's see which laws govern the free commercial exchanges between private citizens" into "let's see how we can govern people by imposing laws and regulations related to the commercial exchanges between them". I'm guessing this dates from Keynes's time.

Mainly for the neocons, but also for neolibs, I trace much of the willingness to disregard the consent of the governed to Leo Strauss. I have been saying it for a while, but essentially what is going on is the people in positions of power have decided that we the public are just so stupid we couldnt possibly comprehend the realpolitik things that need to be done, so they say one thing in public, and then a completely different thing once behind closed doors, usually at some think tank or institute or another.

I think I have finally found the root of this problem though, in that any person who is currently in government and has taken the oath to the constitution and signed the required affidavit, that advocates the position that the people do not deserve or need to be informed because they are "too dumb", are technically in violation of their oath of office and therefor should be subject to removal from office and confinement or a fine, as is prescribed by law.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States, created to protect, not to establish, our natural rights, and the entirety of it's power comes from the governed, the people. Any attempt to subvert that or casually dismiss that by any means other than constitutional is a violation of law.

Of course the people with the power to decide to prosecute are mostly compromised so it's unlikely to happen at the current moment, but with a sea change in public opinion and involvement with justice through it's elected officials, this might not always be the case.

I think a key point is to start getting rid of incumbents across the board.

With regard to the $1T platinum coin, sounds like more people should read "Man, Economy, and State" https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-ma...

There is a lack of understanding around money and currency, and how they come to exist in an economy.

drawing attention to a deep and abiding ideology here: economics often presents itself as a science describing a universal and indeed physical phenomenon. remember that "the market" as we it is not only an ideal model but a very limited one that vehemently does not apply to most of the world, both inside and outside of California.

"Institutions are organisations or patterns of behaviour built by societies to help solve social or economic problems which the law or private markets cannot fully address."

institutions have existed long before the rule of law, or the existence of private markets.

what he does get right is the fallacy of "ceteris paribus" or "all else remaining equal" that is used in most economic arguments with their limited scope.

Wait, what does this have to do with the consent of the governed?

This is main objection to e.g. negative returns on deposits. "it just isn't done". You do that, people will have zero faith in banking system. Tell you, living in society where nobody has faith in institutions is very unfun.

One can mount a perfectly sensible economic defence of big bonuses paid to workers at banks that lose massive amounts of money and require state support, and one can also argue that the public should be smart enough to understand such payments and not let them stick in its collective craw. But they’re going to stick; that’s how people work. And that effect on macroinstitutions, whatever they are, ought to be considered in some way.

The author confuses "it just isn't done" with both tradition and the social constraints of polite society.

If anyone listened to or listens to "The History of Rome" podcast, or is otherwise familiar with Roman history, you'll note that the violation of "It just isn't done" precipitated a lot of stuff in Roman history -- much of it directly leading to totalitarianism.

> It seems reasonable to argue that bail-outs for banks amid broad woes for workers led to a loss of confidence in the system.

Well that's one thing. We were told abolishing Glass-Steagall needed to be done because it was only something liberals who like big government wanted and was a 66 year old relic of the New Deal. Then the bankers come to the taxpayers 9 years later and demand to be bailed out because they're now "too big to fail" and if they're not handed a fortune of the taxpayers money quickly with little debate, the world economy would collapse.