1. Agree. See the last paragraph where I promise to write about 'the general equilibrium'.

2. There is a strategy, or a diagnosis of what has gone wrong — it may not be correct, but it exists. But there's also the threading of needles, and the constant head fakes.

3. I think it is very risky. See 1 above.

4. One can't do everything in a single essay. I agree other actors' responses will be decisive.

5. Dunno. We'll see. What is clear is that the Revolution is for real.

6. Ethics come at the end, once the positive, 'what is' questions have been answered. In general, not just in this case. What about the episode with Setser? I believe his entire obsession with net balances is totally and fundamentally misguided. It is a shame that he's been given so much square footage, and yet no one has even asked him to demonstrate in any form whatsoever, that net balances matter AT ALL. It's bullshit. Find me evidence that they move any needle and I will be less caustic to Setser.

7. I think you missed the agenda of the essay. It was to frame our present conjuncture: what explained the stability of the world where nothing ever happened? and how did we arrive in a world where things are most definitely afoot?