5 ms·

I like Cory Doctorow's explanation of the situation: https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/132439163962895

I like Cory Doctorow's explanation of the situation: https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745

parliament32 6y ago
I like Doctorow, but not enough to figure out how to read a 20-some-thing-piece twitter-thread-shitpost.
- dimator 6y ago
  https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-there/ https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-the...
- SECProto 6y ago
  I'll be a bit blunt here: you read each sentence/tweet then scroll down a bit. Twitter isn't the best medium for everyone, but while you or I might prefer a HN link to a blog post, the twitter thread will have much broader reach.
  - snypher 6y ago
    It's just a bad format having to read past a profile picture 47 times.
germinalphrase 6y ago
I would love someone more knowledge than me to red-team that narrative.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  I can't speak on the China stuff, but the initial comments about the origins of money are quoting from David Graeber's work without saying so. That's all true, though Cory is giving a bit of an oversimplified version.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    From “Debt: The First 5,000 Years”, presumably?
    - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
      Yes. He's mentioning things in essentially the same terms and narrative order as the book.
  - QuesnayJr 6y ago
    No, he's quoting Modern Monetary Theory. The state theory of money is not due to Graeber -- it goes back to the 19th century.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
      No, he is very much directly referencing Graeber in the same terms and narrative order as the book.
- refurb 6y ago
  I’m not sure how much I buy into his analysis. It’s a lot of hyperbole and technical term dropping. His whole theory is that Jack Ma was going to go forward with an IPO the gov’t would never let happen. So why was the IPO date still scheduled up until this speech? Why wouldn’t the govt pull the approval from the beginning?
  - Aperocky 6y ago
    Govt is not a singular entity, not in US, not in China. Xi is one person and he can't run the whole country by himself. I don't even think Xi's work involved any particular IPO, the stock exchange and regulators on that level rushed the process likely knowing what's to come and having huge amount to gain from it. Which made them competing interest against the central government, and in the murky waters local/lower level functionaries often win because central government can't focus on all of them. This happened in Wuhan, with disastrous consequences. But the saving grace is when things no longer stay murky, that it has drawn the full attention of the central government, the center always win, often the opposition will just cease to exist. That has also happened in Wuhan/Hubei. This is likely the case here.
    - refurb 6y ago
      I don't disagree with your take. Xi isn't going to know everything that's going on. It's just seems odd that it's a speech (and a relatively benign one from a layman's perspective) that set it all off. This was a world record setting IPO and I can't see China's leadership not knowing about it well in advance considering the international media attention it was getting far before it all blew up. It just feels like there must be a lot more to the story. Was Jack told he could have his IPO as long as he kept his mouth shut? Was there something in the speech that directly contradicted what either Jack was told by leadership? Or what leadership had been telling the Chinese financial industry?
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  Same here. I don't agree with the parts I understand, especially when he veers off into an attack on Proposition 22, but I also don't really know enough about the larger subject to hold a qualified opinion one way or the other. Is the primary purpose of money to facilitate taxation? Beats the hell outta me. It sounds like he's basically refuting the whole of Austrian economics. Is that a reasonable birds'-eye view of his position?
nayuki 6y ago
Slightly more readable: https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745
- qqii 6y ago
  Even better, but unfortunately linked in the last reply in the thread: https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-there/#jack-ma https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-the...
  - sundarurfriend 6y ago
    I'd suggest putting the "but unfortunately ..." bit after the link (or leaving it out); as it is, it sounds as if the relevant content in your link is going to be at the end of the page and and hard to find, and I almost didn't click because of that.
- haecceity 6y ago
  Why do people write essays on twitter
QuesnayJr 6y ago
I didn't find it very convincing. The stimulus wasn't diverted by the finance industry to itself. The government set up a system where monetary stimulus comes from the central bank, and fiscal stimulus comes from the legislature. Congress sent out one big round of stimulus checks. The Fed increased the money supply by buying bonds, the way it always does. Congress could have done another round of fiscal stimulus, but declined to do so. There was no obstacle, other than the fact that our freely elected leaders decided not to do it, and did not pay a political price for it last week.

I like Cory Doctorow's explanation of the situation: https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745

parliament32 6y ago

I like Doctorow, but not enough to figure out how to read a 20-some-thing-piece twitter-thread-shitpost.

dimator 6y ago
https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-there/ https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-the...
SECProto 6y ago
I'll be a bit blunt here: you read each sentence/tweet then scroll down a bit. Twitter isn't the best medium for everyone, but while you or I might prefer a HN link to a blog post, the twitter thread will have much broader reach.
- snypher 6y ago
  It's just a bad format having to read past a profile picture 47 times.

germinalphrase 6y ago

I would love someone more knowledge than me to red-team that narrative.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
I can't speak on the China stuff, but the initial comments about the origins of money are quoting from David Graeber's work without saying so. That's all true, though Cory is giving a bit of an oversimplified version.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  From “Debt: The First 5,000 Years”, presumably?
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    Yes. He's mentioning things in essentially the same terms and narrative order as the book.
- QuesnayJr 6y ago
  No, he's quoting Modern Monetary Theory. The state theory of money is not due to Graeber -- it goes back to the 19th century.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    No, he is very much directly referencing Graeber in the same terms and narrative order as the book.
refurb 6y ago
I’m not sure how much I buy into his analysis. It’s a lot of hyperbole and technical term dropping. His whole theory is that Jack Ma was going to go forward with an IPO the gov’t would never let happen. So why was the IPO date still scheduled up until this speech? Why wouldn’t the govt pull the approval from the beginning?
- Aperocky 6y ago
  Govt is not a singular entity, not in US, not in China. Xi is one person and he can't run the whole country by himself. I don't even think Xi's work involved any particular IPO, the stock exchange and regulators on that level rushed the process likely knowing what's to come and having huge amount to gain from it. Which made them competing interest against the central government, and in the murky waters local/lower level functionaries often win because central government can't focus on all of them. This happened in Wuhan, with disastrous consequences. But the saving grace is when things no longer stay murky, that it has drawn the full attention of the central government, the center always win, often the opposition will just cease to exist. That has also happened in Wuhan/Hubei. This is likely the case here.
  - refurb 6y ago
    I don't disagree with your take. Xi isn't going to know everything that's going on. It's just seems odd that it's a speech (and a relatively benign one from a layman's perspective) that set it all off. This was a world record setting IPO and I can't see China's leadership not knowing about it well in advance considering the international media attention it was getting far before it all blew up. It just feels like there must be a lot more to the story. Was Jack told he could have his IPO as long as he kept his mouth shut? Was there something in the speech that directly contradicted what either Jack was told by leadership? Or what leadership had been telling the Chinese financial industry?
CamperBob2 6y ago
Same here. I don't agree with the parts I understand, especially when he veers off into an attack on Proposition 22, but I also don't really know enough about the larger subject to hold a qualified opinion one way or the other. Is the primary purpose of money to facilitate taxation? Beats the hell outta me. It sounds like he's basically refuting the whole of Austrian economics. Is that a reasonable birds'-eye view of his position?

nayuki 6y ago

Slightly more readable: https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745

qqii 6y ago
Even better, but unfortunately linked in the last reply in the thread: https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-there/#jack-ma https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-the...
- sundarurfriend 6y ago
  I'd suggest putting the "but unfortunately ..." bit after the link (or leaving it out); as it is, it sounds as if the relevant content in your link is going to be at the end of the page and and hard to find, and I almost didn't click because of that.
haecceity 6y ago
Why do people write essays on twitter

QuesnayJr 6y ago

I didn't find it very convincing. The stimulus wasn't diverted by the finance industry to itself. The government set up a system where monetary stimulus comes from the central bank, and fiscal stimulus comes from the legislature. Congress sent out one big round of stimulus checks. The Fed increased the money supply by buying bonds, the way it always does. Congress could have done another round of fiscal stimulus, but declined to do so. There was no obstacle, other than the fact that our freely elected leaders decided not to do it, and did not pay a political price for it last week.