This independent MWK newsletter era is absolutely lit. This week I sent no fewer than three screenshots to my wife of stories and takes that made my jaw drop.
Although I am the opposite of Katie (male, old, southern, uninterested in fashion which is a side effect of age), I thoroughly enjoy her writing and I'm always excited to see her in my emails.
I see your realtor-with-a-drone quote (which made me cackle) and raise you this correction published with The Guardian's review:
"The star rating for this film was corrected on 2 February 2026. A formatting issue led an earlier version to be awarded one star, when the reviewer’s intention was zero."
Reading "Melania" takedowns has been my happy place this week.
" 'I think the ultimate status symbol for this group now is a new face. There are seemingly endless luxury plastic surgery and aesthetic treatments people can spend lavishly on. I think a Kris Jenner facelift is the new “It” bag for this group.' There’s a think piece just begging to be written about conspicuous medical procedures becoming class signifiers."
When reading this part of the newsletter I was reminded of one of my favorite childhood book series, The Hunger Games. In the series, the citizens of the wealthy Capitol district were known to get extreme plastic survey that in some cases made them no longer look human.
I remember thinking that was so odd when first reading the story, but now I'm recognizing that Collins probably (aptly) identified this trend and what might be signifiers of wealth 100 years from now.
so, we can't have universal healthcare because too much of our economy and corporate profit is fueled by admin costs, thanks Obama! He didn't want to disrupt too much. That centrism has been real helpful.
That piece about Equifax is shocking. BUT OF COURSE. I manage a blog and newsletters for Medicare beneficiaries and have been covering the new Medicaid requirements. I have some work to do today.
I appreciate the range of this piece, but I think its biggest weakness is also its ambition: it moves between frameworks without ever stopping to reconcile them. That makes parts of the argument feel less like synthesis and more like selective borrowing... especially when it comes to affordability, MMT, and technocratic authority.
On “affordability”: I’m sympathetic to the idea that cost is often treated as a moral veto rather than a diagnostic signal. But prices and budgets aren’t just accounting artifacts... they’re one of the few mechanisms complex societies have for encoding institutional memory, scarcity, and tradeoffs. Dismissing “affordability” as a framing error risks throwing away information, not just ideology. The question isn’t “could we afford this if money weren’t the constraint?” but “what knowledge and discipline are currently embedded in that constraint... and what breaks if we override it?”
That concern becomes acute with Modern Monetary Theory. Even granting its mechanical claims about currency sovereignty, the strongest objection to MMT isn’t technical, it’s political. It assumes a level of institutional restraint, timing precision, and incentive alignment that history simply doesn’t support. A system that depends on elected officials and bureaucracies stopping exactly at the inflationary threshold is not bold... it’s brittle. Blunt tools like interest rates persist not because they’re elegant, but because they fail impersonally and impose costs on decision-makers. That ugliness is a feature, not a bug.
Where this essay is strongest is in its descriptive critique: means testing as a rent-extraction industry, credential inflation as elite cartel behavior, and “hidden subsidies” flowing through family capital rather than markets or the state. Those are real, corrosive dynamics. But they aren’t primarily market failures... they’re failures of mediating institutions. When families, local labor structures, apprenticeships, and non-credential pathways collapse, everything becomes transactional and status-driven, including beauty, education, and politics. That layer feels underexplored.
Which brings me to Paul Krugman. Treating him as a neutral referee at this point undermines the credibility of the analysis. Paul Krugman isn’t just “left-leaning”; he’s been repeatedly wrong on inflation, consistently dismissive of dissent, and has a long habit of treating political alignment as epistemic virtue. That’s not expertise... that’s arrogance with a Nobel. The Fed isn’t corrupted because it’s political; it’s corrupted when it pretends it isn’t. Krugman has spent years missing that distinction, and frankly he’s earned more criticism than deference.
None of this is to say the piece is wrong in spirit. It’s clearly grappling with real contradictions in modern political economy. But it would gain a lot by doing one of two things explicitly: either declare that it’s testing multiple frameworks to see where each breaks, or slow down and separate description from prescription. Right now, the confidence level doesn’t always match the fragility of the assumptions, especially around technocracy and monetary discretion.
The most convincing critiques of elite failure tend to start with humility about human limits, not faith in better abstractions. There’s a very strong essay here trying to get out. I think it just needs firmer guardrails.
I snorted at “Jesus is famously pro empire”. But why is the idea of 0 interest rates so scary? It makes my undergrad economics brain explode MMT is such a shift in thinking
Hi Katie! I signed up for Copilot thanks to your overview, and was curious if you have any longer form video tutorials you recommend? I've been digging around and weirdly can't find any, want to make sure I set everything up really well!
I’m so curious , is there a way to get that graph of homes being sold under, over, and at ask for specific regions/cities within states?
Also as someone who is very interested in finance, would you ever do a breakdown of the various software out there. There seems to be a split of budgeting software like Copilot, Monarch, YNAB. But then also financial modeling software like Projection Lab vs Boldin.
I’m a current YNAB user and love it , but I have a hard time knowing - can I afford a house? Can you predict what my new estimated costs will be and where will that money come from , etc.
Also - I love the new independent newsletter ! I can just tell you are way more free in your writing and it is much appreciated!
Has the Democratic Party bought this news platform also? Swung hard left in the past few months.....please include the cost of feeding and housing those illegal immigrants along with the costbof enforcing the law on immigration....example, NYC spends $5billion taxpayer dollars on immigrant fod and housing per year.....and NY citizens must pay to drive in certain parts of the city on streets that are paved with taxpayers dollars.....
Now show us what was spent by the federal and local governments to house and feed the migrants. Include the clandestine flights that were taking place and any other associated costs. Monetize the cost to actual citizens for the diversion of funds that normally benefit them.
This independent MWK newsletter era is absolutely lit. This week I sent no fewer than three screenshots to my wife of stories and takes that made my jaw drop.
Although I am the opposite of Katie (male, old, southern, uninterested in fashion which is a side effect of age), I thoroughly enjoy her writing and I'm always excited to see her in my emails.
I see your realtor-with-a-drone quote (which made me cackle) and raise you this correction published with The Guardian's review:
"The star rating for this film was corrected on 2 February 2026. A formatting issue led an earlier version to be awarded one star, when the reviewer’s intention was zero."
Reading "Melania" takedowns has been my happy place this week.
" 'I think the ultimate status symbol for this group now is a new face. There are seemingly endless luxury plastic surgery and aesthetic treatments people can spend lavishly on. I think a Kris Jenner facelift is the new “It” bag for this group.' There’s a think piece just begging to be written about conspicuous medical procedures becoming class signifiers."
When reading this part of the newsletter I was reminded of one of my favorite childhood book series, The Hunger Games. In the series, the citizens of the wealthy Capitol district were known to get extreme plastic survey that in some cases made them no longer look human.
I remember thinking that was so odd when first reading the story, but now I'm recognizing that Collins probably (aptly) identified this trend and what might be signifiers of wealth 100 years from now.
so, we can't have universal healthcare because too much of our economy and corporate profit is fueled by admin costs, thanks Obama! He didn't want to disrupt too much. That centrism has been real helpful.
That piece about Equifax is shocking. BUT OF COURSE. I manage a blog and newsletters for Medicare beneficiaries and have been covering the new Medicaid requirements. I have some work to do today.
Katie, are we paying our taxes this year?
I appreciate the range of this piece, but I think its biggest weakness is also its ambition: it moves between frameworks without ever stopping to reconcile them. That makes parts of the argument feel less like synthesis and more like selective borrowing... especially when it comes to affordability, MMT, and technocratic authority.
On “affordability”: I’m sympathetic to the idea that cost is often treated as a moral veto rather than a diagnostic signal. But prices and budgets aren’t just accounting artifacts... they’re one of the few mechanisms complex societies have for encoding institutional memory, scarcity, and tradeoffs. Dismissing “affordability” as a framing error risks throwing away information, not just ideology. The question isn’t “could we afford this if money weren’t the constraint?” but “what knowledge and discipline are currently embedded in that constraint... and what breaks if we override it?”
That concern becomes acute with Modern Monetary Theory. Even granting its mechanical claims about currency sovereignty, the strongest objection to MMT isn’t technical, it’s political. It assumes a level of institutional restraint, timing precision, and incentive alignment that history simply doesn’t support. A system that depends on elected officials and bureaucracies stopping exactly at the inflationary threshold is not bold... it’s brittle. Blunt tools like interest rates persist not because they’re elegant, but because they fail impersonally and impose costs on decision-makers. That ugliness is a feature, not a bug.
Where this essay is strongest is in its descriptive critique: means testing as a rent-extraction industry, credential inflation as elite cartel behavior, and “hidden subsidies” flowing through family capital rather than markets or the state. Those are real, corrosive dynamics. But they aren’t primarily market failures... they’re failures of mediating institutions. When families, local labor structures, apprenticeships, and non-credential pathways collapse, everything becomes transactional and status-driven, including beauty, education, and politics. That layer feels underexplored.
Which brings me to Paul Krugman. Treating him as a neutral referee at this point undermines the credibility of the analysis. Paul Krugman isn’t just “left-leaning”; he’s been repeatedly wrong on inflation, consistently dismissive of dissent, and has a long habit of treating political alignment as epistemic virtue. That’s not expertise... that’s arrogance with a Nobel. The Fed isn’t corrupted because it’s political; it’s corrupted when it pretends it isn’t. Krugman has spent years missing that distinction, and frankly he’s earned more criticism than deference.
None of this is to say the piece is wrong in spirit. It’s clearly grappling with real contradictions in modern political economy. But it would gain a lot by doing one of two things explicitly: either declare that it’s testing multiple frameworks to see where each breaks, or slow down and separate description from prescription. Right now, the confidence level doesn’t always match the fragility of the assumptions, especially around technocracy and monetary discretion.
The most convincing critiques of elite failure tend to start with humility about human limits, not faith in better abstractions. There’s a very strong essay here trying to get out. I think it just needs firmer guardrails.
I snorted at “Jesus is famously pro empire”. But why is the idea of 0 interest rates so scary? It makes my undergrad economics brain explode MMT is such a shift in thinking
Hi Katie! I signed up for Copilot thanks to your overview, and was curious if you have any longer form video tutorials you recommend? I've been digging around and weirdly can't find any, want to make sure I set everything up really well!
Literally yelling “THIS!!!” about the condescension of Puck writers.
So curious to hear back what (or if) Dylan from Puck will actually respond to your inquiry!
Also, Christiana who writes Pop Syllabus had a good primer on 'The Sculpt' era as the elites move to medical enhancement/optimization as means of status. https://popsyllabus.substack.com/p/goodbye-thin-hello-sculpt
I’m so curious , is there a way to get that graph of homes being sold under, over, and at ask for specific regions/cities within states?
Also as someone who is very interested in finance, would you ever do a breakdown of the various software out there. There seems to be a split of budgeting software like Copilot, Monarch, YNAB. But then also financial modeling software like Projection Lab vs Boldin.
I’m a current YNAB user and love it , but I have a hard time knowing - can I afford a house? Can you predict what my new estimated costs will be and where will that money come from , etc.
Also - I love the new independent newsletter ! I can just tell you are way more free in your writing and it is much appreciated!
Has the Democratic Party bought this news platform also? Swung hard left in the past few months.....please include the cost of feeding and housing those illegal immigrants along with the costbof enforcing the law on immigration....example, NYC spends $5billion taxpayer dollars on immigrant fod and housing per year.....and NY citizens must pay to drive in certain parts of the city on streets that are paved with taxpayers dollars.....
Citation needed. I don’t see any published data that supports the statement that NYC spends $5B/year.
Now show us what was spent by the federal and local governments to house and feed the migrants. Include the clandestine flights that were taking place and any other associated costs. Monetize the cost to actual citizens for the diversion of funds that normally benefit them.
Undocumented immigrants paid an estimated 97.6 Billion in taxes in 2022. All immigrants paid approximately 579 Billion in 2022. Google is free. Still no subscription needed. https://itep.org/reuters-fact-check-undocumented-immigrants-can-and-do-pay-taxes/