Michael Feuz

11.6K posts

Michael Feuz banner
Michael Feuz

Michael Feuz

@MikeFeuz

Catholic | Husband | Dad | Economist | Research @freethepeople | Alum MA @MasonEconomics | Subsidiarity | Localism | Decentrist | Ordered Liberty | #BillsMafia

Virginia, USA Katılım Mart 2013
522 Takip Edilen1.5K Takipçiler
Michael Feuz retweetledi
Pete Earle
Pete Earle@peter_c_earle·
True; money isn’t the economy; real goods & services are. But it’s vastly more than a neutral ledger: it’s the medium through which prices form and economic calculation takes place. Changes in money and credit don’t just ‘scale’ prices - they move unevenly, reshaping relative prices and the intertemporal structure of production. Someone so (justifiably!) focused on relentlessly cutting production costs - I read & enjoyed the Isaacson book - should know that money isn’t a weightless abstraction drifting above the real economy: it moves through it, transmitting signals and outcomes as it does.
DogeDesigner@cb_doge

"People get confused sometimes they think an economy is money. Money is a database for exchange of goods & services. Money doesn't have power in & of itself. The actual economy is goods & services" 一 Elon Musk

English
0
2
9
618
Michael Feuz retweetledi
Pete Earle
Pete Earle@peter_c_earle·
No, that is incorrect. Of course more output doesn’t mean the money supply “must” be expanded. Prices aren’t a simple output/money ratio: money enters unevenly, shifts relative prices, and distorts signals. AI can boost production, but generating new dollars still reallocates claims, not resources. This line of reasoning drifts into an MMT-style view that treats money as a simple dial to match output, overlooking how it actually enters the economy and reshapes prices, incentives, and capital allocation. Abundance ≠ monetary neutrality. thedailyeconomy.org/article/ai-abu…
Elon Musk@elonmusk

Your statement is true if goods & services output doesn’t rise dramatically due to AI/robots, but false if it does. In a normal economy, issuing more money simply increases the dollar price of the existing output of goods & services, meaning people do NOT get more stuff. If AI/robots massively increase goods & services output, then you actually MUST issue dollars to people or there will be massive disinflation. Prices are simply the ratio of goods & services output to number of dollars.

English
0
2
14
722
Michael Feuz
Michael Feuz@MikeFeuz·
@michaelbd What about the actual content of the piece? This seems inconsequential to the main point. A well crafted rebuttal would be awesome.
English
1
0
8
104
Michael Brendan Dougherty
Expert on nefarious Hungarian subversion of America confuses the Danube River with the Long Island Sound, or rather John O’Sullivan with John Derbyshire.
Michael Brendan Dougherty tweet media
English
9
7
50
11.2K
Michael Feuz retweetledi
James M. Patterson
James M. Patterson@McGillPatterson·
We are only just now beginning to appreciate how much Hungarian money was laundered into conservative institutions and subverting their original mission for Orbán's allies in Russia and China. My initial appraisal here:
James M. Patterson tweet media
English
30
647
2K
134.3K
Michael Feuz retweetledi
Joshua Charles🇻🇦
Joshua Charles🇻🇦@JoshuaTCharles·
Our latest podcast episode is out (link below)! Puritan Pastor in Revolutionary America Becomes Catholic: The Conversion of John Thayer | Ep. 69 In our first episode since Easter Sunday, and in light of the extraordinary number of new Catholic converts this year, we cover the amazing (and very familiar sounding!) conversion account of the first early American Puritan Pastor to the Catholic Faith. His name was John Thayer. He was known to Benjamin Franklin, and even challenged John Adams on Luther and Calvin. He converted in 1783, the same year the United States won its independence from Great Britain, and later became a priest dedicated to evangelizing his beloved America. To our knowledge, this is the first time his conversion story has been shared in video/audio form. It will sound very familiar to many converts (especially from protestantism), and we trust it will be deeply encouraging and edifying this Easter season! Christ is King! Christ is Risen! Alleluia!
Joshua Charles🇻🇦 tweet media
English
5
27
132
6.4K
Michael Feuz retweetledi
Richard Reinsch
Richard Reinsch@Reinsch84·
We're going to need to restart the Neuhaus/Novak/Weigel public square argument about God, man, and the law all over again. First Things, as it was originally known. It's always been opposed by the progressive left. Of course. But new foes draw near.
TheBlaze@theblaze

Vance: "The president has to look out for the interests of the United States of America. In some cases it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of what's going on in the Catholic Church and let the president stick to dictating American public policy."

English
3
6
21
2.6K
Michael Feuz
Michael Feuz@MikeFeuz·
@drantbradley This is a marriage stat not a home affordability stat. Usually marriage happens first then the home.
English
0
0
0
36
Michael Feuz
Michael Feuz@MikeFeuz·
@Chafuen Looking forward to reading. It has been on my “wish list” for sometime. I have been enjoying learning about the scholastics as of late and think they can be valuable to make inroads for good Catholics who lack economic learning and hesitate to embrace “free markets”
English
0
0
0
14
Michael Feuz
Michael Feuz@MikeFeuz·
The mailbox treated me well today. @ActonInstitute Religion & Liberty. @Chafuen Faith and Liberty. Getting closer to completing the “Ethics & Economics” collection.
Michael Feuz tweet media
English
0
1
6
403
Michael Feuz retweetledi
Jay W. Richards 🇺🇸
Jay W. Richards 🇺🇸@DrJayRichards·
I'm old enough to have lived through several tech and AI hypes. (I lived and worked in Seattle during the dot com bubble, for instance.) There is always hype followed by let down. This is the first time I've thought the hype might be more true than false.
Big Brain AI@realBigBrainAI

Marc Andreessen explains why we are only three years into what is effectively an 80-year technological revolution: He opens with a blunt assessment: "This is the biggest technological revolution of my life. This is clearly bigger than the internet. The comps on this are things like the microprocessor and the steam engine and electricity." But to understand why, you have to go back 80 years. In the 1930s, the pioneers of computing understood the theory of computation before they'd even built the machines. And they faced a fundamental choice. Build computers in the image of the adding machine — hyper-literal, mathematical, capable of billions of operations per second, but unable to understand human speech or deal with humans the way humans like to be dealt with. Or build computers modelled on the human brain. Neural networks. They chose the adding machine. And that single decision shaped everything — mainframes, PCs, smartphones, every dollar of wealth the computer industry created over the next 80 years. IBM itself is the successor company to the National Cash Register Company of America. The lineage runs that deep. But here's what makes this moment so extraordinary. They knew about the other path. The first neural network academic paper was published in 1943. Marc points to a remarkable piece of forgotten history: "There's an interview you can watch on YouTube with the authors. It's him in his beach house, not wearing a shirt, talking about this future in which computers are going to be built on the model of the human brain." That was 1946. The vision existed. The path just wasn't taken. So neural networks spent the next eight decades living in the shadows. Kept alive by a small academic movement — first called cybernetics, then artificial intelligence — that refused to let the idea die. And for most of that time, it simply didn't work. "It was basically decade after decade after decade of excessive optimism followed by disappointment." By the time Marc reached college in 1989, AI was a backwater field. Everyone assumed it was never going to happen. But the scientists kept working. Quietly building up an enormous reservoir of concepts and ideas across those decades of disappointment. And then Christmas 2022 arrived. ChatGPT. And suddenly: "All of a sudden it's like: oh my god. It turns out it works." That moment wasn't the start of something new. It was the payoff on an 80-year-old bet that almost everyone had written off. Which is exactly why Marc's framing matters so much: "We're three years into what is effectively an 80-year revolution." Most people are treating AI like another technology cycle — something to adapt to, ride, and wait out. But if Andreessen is right, we are not adapting to a new cycle. We are standing at the very beginning of the longest and most consequential technological transformation in human history. The road not taken in the 1930s is finally being built. And we have barely broken ground.

English
0
1
7
1.5K
Phil Magness
Phil Magness@PhilWMagness·
@aaron_renn Postliberalism = the 1619 Project for the far right.
English
2
13
85
1.7K
Michael Feuz retweetledi
Bishop Fulton Sheen
Bishop Fulton Sheen@Bishop_Sheen·
The greatest love story of all time is contained in a tiny white Host.
English
15
238
2.3K
20.4K