I loved this episode. But on running the football I don't know how to square 'the best offences run the ball' with the fact that passing is so much more valuable. I thought Grubb in Seattle was hard done by - don't we want to throw the ball more?

To be fair, I'd also complain about this!

Isn't it just the tax that's different?

A one sentence summary could be: 'i wish more people liked the stuff I liked'. It has the veneer that this is something to do with streaming... But in the article they point out this is also exactly what Hollywood studios have done too (boring IP franchises).

I'm confused how you can think this is a good article. It's a standard snobby nostalgia, with many assertions and little evidence. "How dare big studios and streamers not fund higher quality less profitable content, if only we could go back to the halcyon 90s".

Isn't he taking the job to line his son up with a future HC job?

I know blogs are uncool these days but would make a great post...

Ok this squares the circle in my head. Lots of time I think of allocative reforms as designed to align incentives to support technology adoption / FDI related knowledge transfer. But I see mileage in the argument that it might just be more realistic to push on the latter.

Are these as distinct as you make out? As an example, I like (though understand the contestability of) the narrative of 'how Asia works' - that links an allocative efficiency point (land reform) to a growth/PPF driver (structural transformation).

Ok, I think that's fair - and resonates with lots of the examples I was thinking of, thanks.

I'm surprised by this! Most of the time when I see an economic reform that (I think) will clearly benefit a country, someone with detailed country knowledge points to an "elite" who will clearly lose out and explains the policy is a complete non starter.