We can frame violence in ways that justify or invalidate its righteousness.

It depends on how you define “wrong”. But there are universal truths. If someone tries to kill or harm you it’s considered just if you harm them in defense.

We dont know Luigi’s legal defense yet but my guess is his attorney will argue self defense. If so the justice system now has to sort out whether this was self defense and in that sense it will likely be considered wrong.

It’s been mentioned before but NYC will be using special jury screening processes to make sure none of the jurors are “terrorist” sympathizers.

A competing viewpoint is that our health insurance system is fine and that denying people coverage and either saddling them with debt or causing their deaths is also fine. Anyone who thinks that way hasn’t had to deal with a claim getting rejected. But with AI reject bots becoming more common over time everyone will. Pain can teach empathy.

Most people are fine with a little institutionalized corruption but when essential services like healthcare stop functioning they’re going to get very angry. It’s not so much vigilante justice as it is an insurrection against bad governance.

Everything you wrote lined up with the article on wikipedia so if you got something wrong I didn’t see it.

I’m referring to the book “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly” the title of which mocks the oft repeated defense of bubble investors:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13882/w13882.pdf

But their point is that every single asset bubble ended up popping, despite the protections instituted by banks and governments. They also point out that the bubbles have been getting bigger and bigger

I’m not sure what you mean, but no, I don’t think that and I didn’t write that but i can understand the confusion because it’s not well known how QE works. Some forms of QE prevent crashes. The Fed can achieve this by taking the bank’s failing debt instrument off the books, and swapping it for a t bill.

Sorry I appreciate your comment. So I read (erroneously?) that central bankers had done away with the reserve ratio in the fractional reserve banking article. And that just seems like a reckless thing to do given how prone to bubbles our economy is.

One of the main points in “this time is different” is that despite the math, we are experiencing greater and greater asset bubbles and at no point in world history were things actually different.

Thanks for the reply. I hope you don’t let my spelling or use of ex nihilo (this is the exact language used by the fed and economists, I didn’t just make it up) turn you off, because at a policy level they are pursuing policies that keep real estate prices high.

This seems like an already failed banking model which places lenders at the front of the pack and will lead to only larger asset bubbles. Japan’s Kiretsu system of banking led to banks taking out loans to cover up their own investment losses as they had put their money into an asset bubble which collapsed. Banks then committed wholesale fraud by disguising such losses on their books. The Japanese government then used quantitative easing. They create money ex nihilo, swap the money for a t bill, then they bought the toxic assets by giving t bills to the bank. The bank doesn’t sell the t bill, they merely collect interest on it.

The main effect is a system in which bubbles are never popped and consumers suffer a declining standard of living in order to keep asset prices high.