This week, President Trump could send a powerful and stabilizing signal to financial markets by naming Fed Governor Christopher J. Waller as his nominee for Federal Reserve Chair. Such a move would counter fears of an outsider appointment by selecting an experienced professional with an impeccable resume in monetary economics.
Waller is a Fed insider, having built a distinguished academic career before serving over a decade as the research director at the St. Louis Fed and, since 2020, as a Governor. His entire career points to a policymaker who is rigorously data-driven, famously employing a "no murder mysteries" approach to transparently explain the economic evidence behind his views.
Waller has demonstrated both foresight and fierce independence. He was one of the first Fed officials to call for aggressive rate hikes to fight surging inflation in 2022. More recently, he was one of the first to argue for rate cuts in 2025 as the data showed the economy weakening, a view he backed with a formal dissent. This track record suggests an agile policymaker who is ahead of the consensus. His nomination would place the Fed in the hands of a respected, independent, and data-driven leader whose policy judgment has been consistently sharp, and I think the markets would welcome that positively.
I think this is a good plea since it will be very difficult to coordinate a reduction of alcohol consumption at a societal level. Alcohol is a significant part of most societies and cultures, and it will be hard to remove. Change is easier on an individual level.
I stopped drinking on October 1, 2022, but it required a lot of effort in reprogramming myself to feel comfortable in social settings (Because what Seth's comment said is correct: alcohol is very useful for social bonding). It helps a lot that my spouse seldom drinks and when she does, it is very little.
When reading The MANIAC I knew it was historical fiction going in, but in certain parts when I had doubts I researched them. While the author dramatizes the point for the story most likely, the point was generally accurate.
Hackneyed I guess. I used Gemini to correct grammar, but not to write full sentences.
I was trying to convey the excitement I got when reading this book. I am also writing this review to an audience of normies, who probably have never heard of von Neumann and his contributions. LW crowd is not my target audience, as I assume most of you know more about von Neumann than I do.
I am looking for people to challenge my draft thesis. See below:
Bitcoin's reliance on Proof-of-Work makes it inherently energy-intensive. As AI development accelerates, it will demand an increasingly large share of global energy and infrastructure resources. This creates a potential conflict: both industries need significant capital investment and specialized workforces.
My thesis posits that within the next five years, if the demand for AI infrastructure continues to grow exponentially, it will drive up energy costs and potentially divert capital away from Bitcoin mining. Simultaneously, if Bitcoin experiences a price pullback due to market cycles or external factors, mining operations could become unprofitable.
This scenario could trigger a mass exodus of miners to the more lucrative AI sector. As a result, the Bitcoin network's hashrate would plummet, making it vulnerable to 51% attacks. This loss of security could further erode trust in Bitcoin, causing a price decline and creating a negative feedback loop.
While Bitcoin's difficulty adjustment mechanism is designed to maintain network functionality, it cannot guarantee profitability. If energy costs rise too high and Bitcoin's price stagnates, mining could become unsustainable. This poses an existential threat to Bitcoin's long-term viability.
In my anecdotal experience going to schools like this, the Arias of the elite world have this 'lack of purpose' and thus rebellious / self destructive behavior either due to psychological issues or parental / guardianship neglect.
They were also in the minority. I know plenty of people who have been showered in abundance since birth that are happy with their lives.
I agree entirely with this comment. I would like to add that at the same time as doing what Dagon suggests, Canada should seek to strengthen trade agreements with other countries, especially those who are also affected by President Trump's trade policies (like Brazil).
No need to be very public about this, just do it. It will be help soften the blow from President Trump's protectionist policies.
I don't want to elevate just stay at home motherhood. I want to elevate stay at home parenting.
I hope we can make it cool to be a stay at home father or mother. I think this will raise fertility rates.
Why is there so little discussion about the loss of status of stay at home parenting?
When my grandmother quit being a nurse to become a stay at home mother, it was seen like a great thing. She gained status over her sisters, who stayed single and in their careers.
When my mother quit her office role to become a stay at home mother, it was accepted, but not celebrated. She likely loss status in society due to her decision.
I am a mid 30s millenial, and I don't know a single woman who would leave her career to become a stay at home mother. They fear that their status in society would drop considerably.
Note how all my examples talk about stay at home motherhood. Stay at home fatherhood never had high status in society.
What can we do as a society to elevate the status of stay at home parenting?
On Tuesday I listened to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s address at the World Economic Forum in Davos and found myself nodding along with nearly every point. He is undoubtedly one of the finest financial minds of our generation, and his diagnosis of the geopolitical landscape is sharp.
However, I want to offer a counter-perspective to one specific premise.
Carney argues that the rules-based order is fading, citing Thucydides: "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must."
Respectfully, the events of this past week suggest the opposite. The "strong" (the Trump administration) tried to do what they wanted by threatening the sovereignty of a NATO ally. But they didn't do "what they can"; they did only what the bond market allowed.
In my professional lifetime alone, the global financial system has endured three systemic stress tests: the Global Financial Crisis, the European Debt Crisis, and COVID-19. In every instance, the system proved to be a behemoth that didn't break. Instead, it used its sheer weight to force relevant actors to act and save it.
We saw this mechanism trigger again this week. When the administration threatened to break the geopolitical order, the global financial system acted as an automatic stabilizer.
The rules-based order is using one of its most important tools, the global bond markets, to defend itself. The mechanism of enforcement has simply shifted from diplomatic norms to financial necessity. The order is currently being stress-tested, yes, but so far, the margin clerks are winning against the strongmen.
It is worth noting the irony: those currently testing the system are, without question, the greatest beneficiaries of the rules-based order that has existed for the past 80 years.