USA Kamala Harris the 47th President of the United States - Hopefully.

[Seeds]

This is a fantasy you've created for yourself. The media accross all spectrums were constantly questioning it. It was all they were talking about. When your world view needs to make shit up in order for it to make sense, its time to do some thinking.

And there we have it. You have confined yourself to an echo chamber. You are actively seeking out sources that will tell you what you want to hear, and are rejecting ones that would challenge you on anything deeper than a superficial level.

Oh, I used to frequent Zerohedge myself. Even met one of the bloggers/editors in real life in upstate NY via happenstance. I stopped going there tho once I realised:

1. Despite every article every day telling me how every random piece of news was a sign that the dollar was going to collapse and BRICS were about to take the world order, nothing much in the real world actually seemed to be changing. And I realised was just being lied to by 'the other side'.

2. No actually, all the antisemitism was not in fact ironic.

You might grow out of it too. Good luck!

Great post

 

[Seeds]

I don’t think the current generation (or even two back) are much other than a pack of lawyer types. And economics is in the toilet as the profession has all time low trust (from no accountability or transparency when they **** up)
Political history - please it’s all just how to fool people and lead them.
Philosophy- will agree on that - again don’t think any of the current ones are significant philosophers

Only non economists think that about economics.

There seems to be some bizarre idea from non economists that politicians are making decisions that economists are pushing foward. They arent. They are constantly ignoring economists and economists are constantly being shown to be right.

Problem is, like in the medical field where some so called doctors have been anti vaccines, there are always some wackos who have economics degrees but dont truly understand their field and somehow have a political voice because they spout what the politicians want them to spout. But they dont represent the economics field even if non economists are confused and think they do.

And thats a weird take on political history. Hard to respond to it if you domt elaborate more on what you mean.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Only non economists think that about economics.

There seems to be some bizarre idea from non economists that politicians are making decisions that economists are pushing foward. They arent. They are constantly ignoring economists and economists are constantly being shown to be right.

Problem is, like in the medical field where some so called doctors have been anti vaccines, there are always some wackos who have economics degrees but dont truly understand their field and somehow have a political voice because they spout what the politicians want them to spout. But they dont represent the economics field even if non economists are confused and think they do.

And thats a weird take on political history. Hard to respond to it if you domt elaborate more on what you mean.

Economists come out and make predictions
When they are right they are celebrated
When they are wrong no one appears to sack their arses and demote them
No consequences for dumb statements.

Even the head of the productivity commission agreed that trust in economists is at a low ebb

'Some of the criticisms … are well justified': Australia's Productivity Commission head defends economists

The head of Australia's Productivity Commission defends the economics profession, saying it will have valuable contributions to make to the big problems of the 21st century.

www.abc.net.au

Yes, while there is a useful knowledge underlying it, I suspect that many economists in position to influence policy have also been corrupted by the need to tell their payer what they want to hear.

On political history - the thing that politicians learn from political history is what strings to pull (dogwhistle) to get people to vote for them or for the other supporters to not turn up (in the case of the USA). Otr how to get cash from donors and how to make laws to benefit the donors. The historical trends don't matter. Until I suppose at some poiint there is an uprising, an execution of the ruling class and a new ruling class starts up, this cycle is never ending

 

[Present Not Past]

Only non economists think that about economics.

There seems to be some bizarre idea from non economists that politicians are making decisions that economists are pushing foward. They arent. They are constantly ignoring economists and economists are constantly being shown to be right.

Problem is, like in the medical field where some so called doctors have been anti vaccines, there are always some wackos who have economics degrees but dont truly understand their field and somehow have a political voice because they spout what the politicians want them to spout. But they dont represent the economics field even if non economists are confused and think they do.

And thats a weird take on political history. Hard to respond to it if you domt elaborate more on what you mean.

Economics is a real profession and economists hold real jobs.
Politicians, not so much.
When society comes to the realisation that politics has no place in society, I think then we can all move forward.

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[OneGreatClub]

Every dirty rotten trick in the book

 

[big_e]

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[bourbons]

Right wing grifters are not happy

**** me they're deranged

 

[Not Important]

the man clearly has dementia.



oh, and getting the support of an inconsequence bro or tay-tay? hard to know which matters.

 

[Not Important]

whack! love j.s




and kimmel.

 

[Not Important]

love this sendup.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

Stone Roses and New Order

Now there's some awesome music

 

[Not Important]

whack!

 

[campbell]

**** me they're deranged

inciting violence much.....
just like jd and djt with the haitians.

disgustingly vile people, will do anything to gain power.

 

[blackshadow]

I’m not that surprised.

 

[OneGreatClub]

I’m not that surprised.

It’s ok though, because Trump has Laura Loomer’s endorsement.

 

[campbell]

It’s ok though, because Trump has Laura Loomer’s endorsement.

oh, is that it is called?

 

[Blue1980]

Right wing grifters are not happy

Dave Rubin hey? That poor victim

Right-wing influencers say they were dupes in an alleged Russian influence operation. They’re keeping their millions, for now | CNN Business

Where did the money go? The right-wing social media stars who were allegedly paid millions in a nefarious Russian influence operation are remaining mum.

amp.cnn.com

 

[Blue1980]

Well he’s won me over. Looks to have great taste.

Just been listening to some new order at the gym.

 

[FruitTingles]

Waltz being a teacher has given him good tools to deal with an immature bully. You just put them in their place. Don’t be afraid or take a step back

 

[Dont_be_a_Plonka]

oh, is that it is called?

Full throated

 

[imtall]

Wait what?

Zero hedge had an article looking at various polls post the debate that show a jump in support for The Donald.

I'm not surprised at all.

This ain't over yet folks.

Havesumadat!!!!

 

[Seeds]

Economists come out and make predictions
When they are right they are celebrated
When they are wrong no one appears to sack their arses and demote them
No consequences for dumb statements.

Even the head of the productivity commission agreed that trust in economists is at a low ebb

'Some of the criticisms … are well justified': Australia's Productivity Commission head defends economists

The head of Australia's Productivity Commission defends the economics profession, saying it will have valuable contributions to make to the big problems of the 21st century.

www.abc.net.au

Yes, while there is a useful knowledge underlying it, I suspect that many economists in position to influence policy have also been corrupted by the need to tell their payer what they want to hear.

On political history - the thing that politicians learn from political history is what strings to pull (dogwhistle) to get people to vote for them or for the other supporters to not turn up (in the case of the USA). Otr how to get cash from donors and how to make laws to benefit the donors. The historical trends don't matter. Until I suppose at some poiint there is an uprising, an execution of the ruling class and a new ruling class starts up, this cycle is never ending

Economists cant predict. Economic outcomes are dependent on politician choices which are impossible to predict. But it should not be economists job to predict. Its their job to advise on what is good policy. Economists failure to predict has nothing to do with their ability to make good policy.

Their are real practising economists who properly understand the relationships between short and long run macro drivers and then there. are analysts/commentators/business leaders/politicians who have economic degrees but dont understand the relationships or forget them or keep getting confused. The latter dont understand what is going on and are not economists despite claims that they are. A degree alone does not make you an economist. You need to be practising in the field. The latter group either got lost in short run cyclical outcomes or abide by simplistic monetarist, libetarian or keynesian ideologies. A number of leaders in the productivity commission and rba arent economists. The real economists in those departments arent the ones making the decisions.

On a couple of the articles points. The real economists know exactly what has caused the housing crisis and knows exactly how to fix it. The author is mistaken on this point. The real economists also saw the problems that created the gfc even if they didnt predict its outcomes (as I said prediction is hard and the gfc probably doesnt even happen if the treasury head bails out Lehmanns). The choice of how equal a society should be isnt an economic decision. Economists can help determine what level of welfare redistribution will maximise total utility of a society and they can help determine what is efficient welfare redistribution policies to maximise total utility. But they cant tell you what level of equality should ultimately occur. Thats a philosophy/political decision. Economists can only inform those decisions. And comparitive advantage doesnt suggest australia should be a manufacturer except maybe in some very niche manufacturing sectors. It suggests australia should be service provider (and commodity provider). I dont think the author is a good economist. She has got this wrong. The only reason australia should be a manufacturer is if the world becomes highly fractured and isolationism dominates. But if that occurs then comparitive advantage is irrelevant.

 

[darrenmorgan]

Zero hedge lol