PeterI just realized that what Trump is doing with the financial markets is spending down his trust capital. right now, a certain number of traders react when he says something, but every time he tells a lie, the reaction is less and the reversal comes faster. we are approaching a perilous point where "the markets" don't believe any communication coming out of the federal government, and that is **extremely dangerous** for when we really do need the feds to speak out and calm markets.
people like Jay Powell understand this. Trump and the people around him do not. I experienced 2008 as an adult, and the credibility of federal messaging was very important for ensuring the entire financial system didn't just lock up. it was touch and go there for awhile. if we got a similar financial crisis with Trump and his goons at the wheel... I don't even want to think about it. terrifying.
the positive bump from Trump's optimistic blather is going to be less and less until it inverts.
Infoseepage@peter Given Iran seems to be maximally contradicting him and we keep hearing about more troop deployments and ship movements, I think the smart money is on further escalation with calamitous effects on ME energy source availability for the next 5-15 years.
The Witch of Crow Briar@peter especially after seeing how he “handled” covid
Solarbird 
@peter Y'know, I've been trying to figure out how you'd get the complete viability confidence crisis that led to the functional near-shutdown of the Great Depression when you _don't_ have a competing system out there.
I don't think this necessarily does it; economic movers would still be able to trust other data sources in other places.
But I do think it gets closer.
Eliza MB@moira @peter
As much as it would have caused massive disruption and poverty and global instability the best thing that could have come out of 2008 would have been to let the financial institutions collapse. Instead we arrive at today where the result of that collapse will be an order of magnitude worse.
As much as it would have caused massive disruption and poverty and global instability the best thing that could have come out of 2008 would have been to let the financial institutions collapse. Instead we arrive at today where the result of that collapse will be an order of magnitude worse.
@OneInterestingFact @moira no, the best thing to do would have been to nationalize their assets, jail those responsible, and bail out homeowners instead. letting the system collapse would have caused enormous suffering, we just bailed out the wrong people and then no one got punished.
@peter @OneInterestingFact Indeed I was in the nationalisation camp at the time, and led a much smaller protest than I would've liked in Seattle's Westlake Park against the bailout. (It was too complicated for most people to get so a tiny number of people signed up. But I think we did a decent job of being informative; people were generally _on our side_ about it, and the conversations were good.)
But yeah, what needed to happen was nationalisation, removal of upper levels of management and appropriate prosecutions. Then - imo - follow it by reprivatization where possible. This would've been a great time to bring back _real_ anti-trust enforcement, too, _starting with_ these financial institutions.
But instead, well... and here we are.
@OneInterestingFact @moira i disagree. there are plenty of intermediate options between "let capitalism collapse" and "the State owns the means of production." for example, you can nationalize and then wind down later, with the government taking the profits instead of the private sector. make private investors eat shit, book the profits to the public. also, there are plenty of good examples of successful long-term public banking options.
rakoo@OneInterestingFact @peter @moira
This isn't a problem inherent in nationalization though, it's an issue of political will. State-owned entities are as good as the State wants them to be. If the public sector is bad in a domain don't look at the state owning it, look at what the state is doing with it.
Private entities, the for-profit kind, are bound to be bad: profit above all else always leads to shitty situation for everyone except those who own it, by definition. It is literally the worst option we can have.
(Private non-profit is a different beast but then we have to look how it's funded and it can get messy: either a company is at its helm, or it's funded by donations aka trying to survive month after month)
This isn't a problem inherent in nationalization though, it's an issue of political will. State-owned entities are as good as the State wants them to be. If the public sector is bad in a domain don't look at the state owning it, look at what the state is doing with it.
Private entities, the for-profit kind, are bound to be bad: profit above all else always leads to shitty situation for everyone except those who own it, by definition. It is literally the worst option we can have.
(Private non-profit is a different beast but then we have to look how it's funded and it can get messy: either a company is at its helm, or it's funded by donations aka trying to survive month after month)
@OneInterestingFact @moira @peter disagree. capitalism has never been about benefitting everyone. Thatcher's neoliberalism is the logical evolution of capitalism: less worker's power thanks to less organization, less state support of people, more coercion. A little bit of capitalism is like a little bit of rot, it never stays put
Jackie
Andres
LovesTha🥧
Listerine Lavender Mint@peter *slipping into hallucinations after smoking Hypernormalization: the documentary* that's because Jay Powell IS the president, and the next president is Kevin Warsh
@thedansimonson hell yeah
Mark Kristensson@peter the markets and maga are the only ones who seem to still believe him. I’m genuinely astonished by this CNN analysis from their front page because it’s so straightforward, no sanewashing https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/26/politics/trump-iran-peace-talks-us-troops-analysis
@peter this is super long but exactly the kind of game theory-ish analysis I’ve been looking for. Ti;dr: only one can win but everyone can lose https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/
David C. Norris 🇺🇦 🗽@mkristensson @peter "But the result was that by bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities in June of 2025, the Trump administration created a situation where merely by launching a renewed air campaign on Iran, Israel could force the United States into a war with Iran at any time."
Jens Finkhäuser@mkristensson @peter Except they give the war the wrong name, it's called "Epstein War".
Arne Dehli Halvorsen@peter Reminds me of the question somebody posed: "If Trump was an agent of a foreigh power, tasked with doing the maximum damage to the US and its relations without getting stopped - what would he have done differently?"