i tentatively take it to mean that you did the inference, and it's punishment by the university, but i am not sure, because the mechanism by which the university affects paypal is unclear

There's other disadvantages in that the impact of fiscal policy is usually somewhat on the slow side, leaving a risk that your fiscal tightening hits as you enter the recession or your fiscal stimulus hits as the economy is already booming after the recession. So it's not quite that simple. Take the case of the Inflation Reduction Act, for instance; it purports to reduce inflation by "making a historic down payment on the deficit". Let's take this at face value just to limit any possibility for argument: maybe that'll help!!! but ... if you look closely, this is actually kind of spread out over the next ten years, while we have real inflation now. Does it have an impact? Maybe. Does it have an impact today? Probably not as strong as one would like.

Perhaps you're thinking of NAFTA?

Entirely possible.

> There's too much American money invested in Ethereum for any government agency to even seriously consider the idea of destroying it like this.

I think you underestimate!!

Imagine walking up to an arbitrary random person and saying “the world would be better off if you don’t exist.” Or better, imagine someone doing that to you. Not out of malice, not because you’re a bad person, not because you waste resources, just out of the premise that fewer people is a better thing intrinsically. That’d be a load of crap, right? Quod eras demonstrandum.

We probably can't rely on fuel prices falling 10% again next month.

Real wages are down. Specifically: prices are up 8.26%, and the raise was more like 5.5% ish. People can afford less rent. People can afford less food. People can afford less fuel. People can afford fewer goods. People can afford fewer services. People can afford less of everything. This is what “poorer” looks like.

(And remember, that isn’t 2.6% less discretionary income, that’s a total-income figure.)

As a net debtor, I might see see a 50% fall in the real value of my mortgage in 5-7 years at current inflation rates, if the politicians are feckless enough about it (“Milton Friedman isn’t in charge any more,” Biden tells me.) I seriously doubt I will see it in a month (the threshold cited in TFA).

But don’t use your personal bank accounts to run businesses or charities, and don’t let anyone at the business or charities you might some day run do that either. That’s a massive red flag, the IRS will come auditing and looking for money laundering, and besides that there’s just an ocean of ways that can go wrong.

And the mechanism for sharing your account like you want already exists. It is called “incorporation”. That is like 85% of the point, easily. (That and doing things with the money, like entering into contracts or owning property.) You’re reinventing the corporation.

Anyway. The goal of CU was to air a movie (a stupid political hit-piece movie, I wouldn’t watch it, but it’s plenty politics).

Corporations are also entitled to other rights that can be exercised by groups, like not having their property searched without a warrant or seized without just compensation, or their contracts broken. They are presumed innocent in court unless demonstrated guilty.

The actual Citizens in question were getting together (uniting, if you will) to spend money and engage in overtly political speech in a tradition that goes back to Thomas Paine. They used a non-charitable not-for-profit corporation to make and to show a stupid movie about Hillary Clinton. They used a corporation because that’s what you’re supposed to use for things like this and the alternative is sending the money to one private person’s individual bank account and that’s got all sorts of problems. And the court found that was a valid way for the people who contributed to exercise their rights to free speech, because of course it is.