You have a readership that should bring in some interesting questions.
I would avoid a "reader vote" system on what questions to answer, though. You should exercise that judgment yourself (with as much good faith as you muster toward questions sceptical of your views).
If Yglesias does this, it's the best reason in the world for you NOT to. I vote no (though I'm sure to be in the minority; but you probably should ask my former neighbor, Cosma for his opinion as well).
No. Put bluntly, I pay for YOU, not for everybody else's demand from YOU. More often than not -- and you probably don't realize this -- you write or post about things I didn't even know I should know.
I'd see them as very different animals. Matt's mailbag is mainly a way for readers to talk to each other. His short takes are OK; who would not like to hear a politically knowledgeable person on random subject X.
If YOU did it, It ought to be about areas of your expertise, not whether you think the filibuster is a good thing or not.
I've followed Matt for years. In fact, I believe your blog originally turned me on to him and Ezra whom you jokingly referred to as the juicebox mafia. However, I'm not sure that the diversion of effort from producing your own original content would be worthwhile. Your productivity and the scope of your interests continues to amaze me. However, time for writing is a scarce resource. Unless you harbor a desire to match Matt's subscriber numbers, I would prefer that you maintain your stacks uniqueness.
I subscribe to you and him. I like Matt's because he gets a wide variety of esoteric questions. I think this entirely depends on the diversity of your subscriber base and if you get questions worth answering
What I think is that you have a day job and you are already pretty generous with your extra-curricular time. Also, you have no financial need to generate more reader enthusiasm.
That said, you could say the same things about Sean Carroll, and he somehow finds time to record podcasts and do a long AMA every month, so there is an existence proof of possibility. I have to confess, though, that I listen to the podcasts but not to the AMA, which is long and often addresses questions that don't interest me. Part of the problem is the audio format, which makes it hard to skip ahead to something I might want to hear.
Which is to say, "what kinds of questions I should answer" is an important consideration to which I have no good answer. You are partly at fault here, because anything you write about ought to be fair game, and you write about a lot! But the questions need to be interesting both to you and to your subscribers; that seems a like a fine needle to thread.
I just read Varoufakis' "Technofeudalism". I would like to see a critique on his ideas - both the framework to reach this post-capitalistic state, and the examples he uses to support his econ history.
IF you have a mailbag, my suggestion for one of the first posts would be to explain how in your concept (whihc I understand to be a variant of ordinary New Keynesian theory), the Fed should make monetary policy: what inputs/data should it use, how should it use them to set policy instruments (which instruments for which situations), what targets should it be attempting to hit. I laid out some of my questions organized around the use of r* in this post. [https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/arrrrr]
No. The power of your voice is , in part, because you are not caught up in the hour to hour mania and bullshit.
Yes, I think you should.
You have a readership that should bring in some interesting questions.
I would avoid a "reader vote" system on what questions to answer, though. You should exercise that judgment yourself (with as much good faith as you muster toward questions sceptical of your views).
If Yglesias does this, it's the best reason in the world for you NOT to. I vote no (though I'm sure to be in the minority; but you probably should ask my former neighbor, Cosma for his opinion as well).
No. Put bluntly, I pay for YOU, not for everybody else's demand from YOU. More often than not -- and you probably don't realize this -- you write or post about things I didn't even know I should know.
Don't forsake your current format for this new one. Please. I don't want other people steering your content.
I'd see them as very different animals. Matt's mailbag is mainly a way for readers to talk to each other. His short takes are OK; who would not like to hear a politically knowledgeable person on random subject X.
If YOU did it, It ought to be about areas of your expertise, not whether you think the filibuster is a good thing or not.
It might be worth a try, but I'm not persuaded.
I've followed Matt for years. In fact, I believe your blog originally turned me on to him and Ezra whom you jokingly referred to as the juicebox mafia. However, I'm not sure that the diversion of effort from producing your own original content would be worthwhile. Your productivity and the scope of your interests continues to amaze me. However, time for writing is a scarce resource. Unless you harbor a desire to match Matt's subscriber numbers, I would prefer that you maintain your stacks uniqueness.
I subscribe to you and him. I like Matt's because he gets a wide variety of esoteric questions. I think this entirely depends on the diversity of your subscriber base and if you get questions worth answering
I see no reason for it. Your own personal curiosities are what keeps me coming back.
Maybe.
What I think is that you have a day job and you are already pretty generous with your extra-curricular time. Also, you have no financial need to generate more reader enthusiasm.
That said, you could say the same things about Sean Carroll, and he somehow finds time to record podcasts and do a long AMA every month, so there is an existence proof of possibility. I have to confess, though, that I listen to the podcasts but not to the AMA, which is long and often addresses questions that don't interest me. Part of the problem is the audio format, which makes it hard to skip ahead to something I might want to hear.
Which is to say, "what kinds of questions I should answer" is an important consideration to which I have no good answer. You are partly at fault here, because anything you write about ought to be fair game, and you write about a lot! But the questions need to be interesting both to you and to your subscribers; that seems a like a fine needle to thread.
I just read Varoufakis' "Technofeudalism". I would like to see a critique on his ideas - both the framework to reach this post-capitalistic state, and the examples he uses to support his econ history.
Not for me thanks Brad. I am here to find out what is top of your mind, not other people's.
No. Sounds like an awful lot of extra work on your part.
Yes, it will more involvement from your readers - like me.
Yes
IF you have a mailbag, my suggestion for one of the first posts would be to explain how in your concept (whihc I understand to be a variant of ordinary New Keynesian theory), the Fed should make monetary policy: what inputs/data should it use, how should it use them to set policy instruments (which instruments for which situations), what targets should it be attempting to hit. I laid out some of my questions organized around the use of r* in this post. [https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/arrrrr]