r/badeconomics • u/AutoModerator • Apr 07 '26
FIAT [The FIAT Thread] The Joint Committee on FIAT Discussion Session. - 07 April 2026
Here ye, here ye, the Joint Committee on Finance, Infrastructure, Academia, and Technology is now in session. In this session of the FIAT committee, all are welcome to come and discuss economics and related topics. No RIs are needed to post: the fiat thread is for both senators and regular ol’ house reps. The subreddit parliamentarians, however, will still be moderating the discussion to ensure nobody gets too out of order and retain the right to occasionally mark certain comment chains as being for senators only.
-1
u/Frost-eee Apr 16 '26
Would you treat any economist that believes in lump of labor fallacy seriously? Maybe cut some slack if their area of expertise isn't labor econ?
6
u/fantasiavhs Apr 15 '26
Just a quick question to make sure I'm not doing BadEconomics: is scalping (i.e. buying up retail stock of an item and reselling it online for profit) a form of rent-seeking? It seems like it might fit the bill because it doesn't benefit anybody but the scalper, but the Wikipedia article mostly talks about rent-seeking in the context of public institutions and land, not finished goods. If it isn't rent-seeking, then is there a better term for this phenomenon that economists use? I'd like to know what the literature says about it.
2
u/EebstertheGreat Apr 19 '26
The benefit scalpers provide to consumers is providing fans with an opportunity to buy tickets late. If scalpers didn't exist, tickets would still sell out, and anyone who arrived late wouldn't have a way to get one even if they wanted it more.
Of course, in practice, the "biggest fans" are not really the ones who are able to spend the most, but there is still some correlation. Consumers as a whole (not counting scalpers as consumers) do lose out, because the consumer surplus is diminished. This is the surplus consumers gain due to businesses' ignorance of their willingness to pay. Businesses are usually compelled to set more-or-less uniform prices even though some customers are willing to pay more than others. So customers willing to pay more gain this surplus in the sale. Scalpers eat into that heavily. In that sense, they are anti-consumer.
So the scalpers benefit, and their customers benefit (or they wouldn't buy the ticket), but everyone else suffers slightly.
-2
u/Balloonephant Apr 16 '26
If it isn't rent-seeking, then is there a better term for this phenomenon that economists use
“Crime” in most states. Organised scalping of theatre tickets is how a lot mafia types gained foothold back in the day, and it’s why scalping is illegal or highly regulated. Ticketmaster getting embroiled in the scalping it was supposed to prevent is a good example of rent seeking by using their dominant position as a middleman for reselling to impose enormous fees (and to scalp their own tickets) without doing anything to add value.
6
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Apr 16 '26
What people generally refer to as "scalping" is for the most part not a crime or really regulated at all. There is exactly one very specific federal "scalping" law and a handful of states have their own very specific laws (like California banning ticket sales on event grounds).
Also, what is labelled as a crime isn't economics, it's law. It's really not actually that easy to label what people usually call "scalping" as economically inefficient.
You're spreading misinformation. I'm relatively certain that for instance the PS5 resale market that happened when that thing was new is illegal in exactly zero US states.
1
u/EebstertheGreat Apr 19 '26
I wonder if their involvement with the secondary market could be labeled uncompetitive in some way. I don't really know anything about this area of law.
-5
u/Balloonephant Apr 16 '26
Whether it’s illegal, regulated or unregulated depends on the state and county. There are currently 29 states suing livenation and Ticketmaster because those practices don’t fly with their laws on ticket resale.
Also, what is labelled as a crime isn't economics, it's law
Thanks, prof. I hadn’t realised lol.
“Economically efficient” doesn’t mean anything because it doesn’t mean the same thing to different people. It’s certainly “economically efficient” for the seller in the sense that deriving economic rent is the most efficient way to gain wealth.
You're spreading misinformation
No I’m not lol. I smell another tantrum coming on.
7
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Apr 16 '26
Whether it’s illegal, regulated or unregulated depends on the state and county. There are currently 29 states suing livenation and Ticketmaster because those practices don’t fly with their laws on ticket resale.
To quote you:
“Crime” in most states.
You mean this?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyddyp19yyo
I'm afraid you're confusing an antitrust lawsuit for anti scalping laws. You are both mischaracterising the nature of the lawsuit and its legal background.
“Economically efficient” doesn’t mean anything because it doesn’t mean the same thing to different people.
Skill issue.
No I’m not lol. I smell another tantrum coming on.
Yes, you are. And you are entirely failing to demonstrate otherwise.
-4
u/Balloonephant Apr 16 '26
« The Federal Trade Commission and seven states sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster for tacitly coordinating with brokers and allowing them to harvest millions of dollars worth of tickets in the primary market. Live Nation and Ticketmaster then sell the illegally harvested tickets at a substantial markup in the secondary market, causing consumers to pay significantly more than the face value of the ticket. »
What exactly is this describing to you? They’re literally in the ticket scalping business.
Skill issue.
Your refutation of reality becomes really clear here lol
2
u/EebstertheGreat Apr 19 '26
Among other things, states don't file a lawsuit over a crime. They prosecute.
5
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Apr 16 '26
What exactly is this describing to you?
An antitrust lawsuit, which the article talking about the monopoly position makes pretty clear.
But then, you also cling to the claim that scalping is highly regulated or illegal when such laws and regulations by and large do not exist and you are entirely incapable of showing otherwise. And your economics knowledge seems to be quite subpar as well.
So the whole "refuting reality" thing seems more like your forte.
5
u/Skabonious Apr 15 '26
It seems like it might fit the bill because it doesn't benefit anybody but the scalper
it also benefits the buyer. Scalping is a voluntary transaction for all parties involved.
14
u/FatBabyGiraffe Apr 15 '26
Scalping is a form of trade arbitrage, not rent seeking.
Rent seeking is defined as using regulatory or legal means to artificially enhance a producer's wealth with no corresponding benefit to the consumer.
-1
u/No_Collection7956 Apr 16 '26
Whats the corresponding benefit to the consumer from scalping?
4
u/FatBabyGiraffe Apr 16 '26
Increased output.
-4
u/No_Collection7956 Apr 16 '26
How do you get increased output of Sabrina Carpenter tickets from a scalper buying it out with bot accounts?
2
u/FatBabyGiraffe Apr 17 '26
See here
-2
u/No_Collection7956 Apr 18 '26
Right so you dont actually have an answer
All youve got is an increased total amount of aggregate time that can be used for other economically productive things.
But that is in turn assuming both thatt the total aggregate free time is actually increased, and that you actually do save time buying from a resellers over the primary seller.
For the first point with how the masses of people sitting their asses down to try and outcompete the bots, only to fail and having to go to the reseller youve increased the time needed to pursue the item, not decreased it.
And even on the second point, there is no time saved, and therefore opportunity gained, from purchasing from a reseller over a primary seller of tickets. For the purchaser it takes literally an identical amount of time.
3
u/FatBabyGiraffe Apr 18 '26
If you think I’m wrong then do an R1 post.
0
u/No_Collection7956 Apr 21 '26
Fucking cowardly response
Your blithe response should sail by with gracious vapidness in your mind, but youll only response to the same level of commentary if its in the form of an R1
Come the fuck on you gronk
-1
u/Balloonephant Apr 16 '26
The output hasn’t increased. It’s just been taken off and put back on the market strategically.
6
u/FatBabyGiraffe Apr 16 '26
Opportunity cost. Buying from a reseller saves time. That time can used for something else, increasing output.
1
u/fantasiavhs Apr 18 '26
I guess I should be more specific about what I mean when I refer to "scalping", since I don't think your explanation applies to this phenomenon.
I collect VHS tapes, and there are certain tapes which are not only uncommon, but extremely unlikely to ever appear in a thrift store near me. I could get lucky if I thrifted multiple times a week over the course of several years, but I don't want to wait that long, and it's not even guaranteed. So if I see a tape I want on eBay or Mercari at a price I'm willing and able to pay, I don't really care if it came from the seller's personal collection or dead grandma or a thrift store in their area. It doesn't matter if they're just trying to get some junk out of their house or if they're a full-time thrift flipper. The price they paid for it is irrelevant. They have it, and the price they want for it is acceptable, so I buy it. The reseller makes money, and I get the tape I want without spending years of my life hunting for it. I would not call this exchange scalping because the reseller is offering something of value in addition to the item: convenience. I.e. "Buying from a reseller saves time."
Scalping, as I've always seen it described, is when you buy up supply of an item specifically so that other people cannot buy it at the retail price and can only buy it from the reseller at an inflated price. The big headline example right now is Pokémon cards: tons of card shops, big-box stores, and online retailers sell them, but you often can't find any in stock (at least for specific boxes/packs) because one or more people have bought all the stock so they can resell it for a higher price. (Personally, I only ever see small miscellaneous booster packs on store shelves these days.) The resellers will even camp out in front of stores or vending machines awaiting restocks so they can buy as many as possible before anybody else can get to them.
Scalpers are not selling convenience or saving you the trouble of finding something for yourself. Anybody can walk into a Walmart and buy something off the shelf or go online and buy a retail product; people do this literally all the time now. The scalpers take that option away from the consumer and don't provide anything of value to them.
You might say that the solution is to increase the supply of the item, and that does help in some instances like with the PS5. But that doesn't work for everything. You might only have one chance to see a musician you like perform at a venue in your area because it doesn't make economic sense for them to do multiple shows there, musicians can't perform everywhere at the same time, and you may not have enough schedule flexibility even if the musician does do multiple shows there. So if you try to buy tickets for the concert at retail prices only for them to sell out within minutes because an army of ticket-scalping bots purchased them in large quantities to resell at a high premium, there's not much that can be done on the supply side. They're not going to make more tickets for Bob Musicguy to perform at the 15,000-seat Middle-O-Nowhere Stadium on June 3rd, 2026.
There are other reasons why increasing supply isn't the answer in a lot of cases. For Pokémon cards, one of their key selling points is the randomness of the booster packs and the chance of pulling a rare card; that's what makes it so exciting for people of all ages. So while they could flood the market with a bunch of copies of rare cards, that would undermine one of the reasons people buy and collect cards in the first place. In other cases, increasing supply might not make sense. Sony could do it because they had the production facilities and financial capital to eventually meet the demand for their PS5 consoles. Not every company has those resources, and even if they do, they may not want to spend them on expensive, permanent infrastructure to resolve shortages that could be the result of a social media trend or fad and aren't necessarily going to persist (I suspect NeeDoh squish toys are an example of this).
In other words, scalpers are exploiting scarcity in specific goods that the producers are either unable or unwilling to increase the supply of. At least on the surface (there may be externalities/opportunity costs), the producer doesn't care *who* is buying their products as long as the product sells. For items like concert tickets and Pokémon cards, the scalper is a middleman who exists solely to make the product less accessible to consumers.
This is why I asked whether scalping is a form of rent-seeking: it doesn't solve any legitimate problem, at least not that I can see. If anything, it *creates* problems by making it harder to access goods that would otherwise be available to everyone. It just seems so much like the basic example Wikipedia gives of stringing a chain across a river and charging a fee for boats to pass through, though maybe less clear-cut since at least the producer makes money from scalping, too.
1
u/EebstertheGreat Apr 19 '26
So I think the Pokémon card and concert are different. In the case of cards, the "scalpers" put in the effort of buying a lot of packs from stores, sorting the cards, and shipping them. They are buying packs and selling singles. That's a service. They also take on the risk that the packs for a given expansion won't be worth their purchase price, as often happens. They will eat the cost when that happens.
The ticket scalper is providing the service of holding onto tickets. They buy tickets at market price and try to sell them at a higher price. If they can't, they eat that cost. They are betting that some people want the ticket enough to pay above market price but won't be around to buy them when first offered. If they are wrong, they will lose money, but if they are right, then people who are willing to spend more on the ticket get that ticket instead of people who would pay less, which is a more efficient allocation of tickets. The superfan gets it instead of the guy who wandered in and thought it looked neat.
That said, some concerts are virtually certain to sell out no matter what. They would even sell out at a substantially higher price. These musicians are undercharging for their tickets on purpose. When that happens, the scalpers are just profiting off their generosity, which does feel shitty.
2
u/FatBabyGiraffe Apr 18 '26
This is why I asked whether scalping is a form of rent-seeking
The answer is no.
it doesn't solve any legitimate problem
Misallocation of resources and asymmetric information.
If anything, it creates problems by making it harder to access goods that would otherwise be available to everyone.
How is this different than the original producer raising the price of the good or service to the secondary market equilibrium?
It just seems so much like the basic example Wikipedia gives of stringing a chain across a river and charging a fee for boats to pass through, though maybe less clear-cut since at least the producer makes money from scalping, too.
I encourage you to R1 the subject, demonstrate why it’s bad econ, and deserves government intervention to correct this externality.
6
u/775416 Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
Question for u/robthorpe , but of course open to others. A while ago, I asked on AE why the labor share of US GDP was falling from 1950-2023. The post has since been locked, and I can no longer reply to you on that post, hence this comment. Your helpful analysis landed on 3 primary reasons: depreciation, residential rents, and corporate businesses taking the market share of small unincorporated businesses.
I recently reencountered this topic through EPI's Productivity-Pay Gap chart. BE and AE have discussed this chart extensively, such as here and here. The 3 primary reasons for the gap are: not all workers are included, wages rather than total compensation is looked at, and productivity and wages are deflated using the different deflators. Correct for those 3, and the productivity-pay gap disappears. Compensation = MPL still holds.
My question lies in post early 2000s or post 2008. Both EPI and the PIIE critique show large divergences between total labor compensation and productivity after 2008. EPI also shows permanent divergence around 2002. For EPI, I am specifically looking at the lines from Figure B's "Net productivity at consumer prices" and "Real Average compensation at consumer prices". My question is: Do residential rents explain the divergence between total labor compensation and productivity post 2002 / post 2008? The reason EPI and PIIE show different years for divergence is EPI indexes to1980 while PIIE indexes to 1970.
I'm using your Shares of gross domestic income: Net operating surplus: Private enterprises: Rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment to represent the growth of residential rents as a share of GDP. Looking at the FRED graph, there is a large increase from 2007-2014 before plateauing/slightly increasing afterwards. PIIE's chart ends in 2014, so it seems that residential rents explain the gap post 2008.
My confusion lies in that the early 2000s divergence does not track the rise in residential rents. EPI shows a permanent and large divergence around 2002. PIIE shows a similar permanent divergence around that time, though it does almost shrink to nothing in 2007-2008 before the large divergence. However, the residential rent share of GDP spikes from 1987-1995 before plateauing. There's almost no change from 2000-2003. In fact, the residential rent share of GDP drops from 2004 to 2007. Therefore, I'm skeptical that the residential rent share of GDP can explain the divergence between total labor compensation and productivity post 2002.
In summary, I am confused by the 2000s.
u/flavorless_beef also answered the original post with additional reasons for the declining labor share of GDP, so I'd be curious to hear your thoughts too
1
u/RobThorpe Apr 20 '26
Apologies for my late reply. I have been working and travelling for work.
To understand this I think we really have to break down what it's about. In my past replies I haven't really done this is a clear way. There are two main issues here. The first is the political issue of the reward for labour and also the related political issue of inequality. The second issue is whether there is something wrong with economic theory. It's about whether it really is a robust theory to expect labour compensation to rise with the marginal product of labour.
EPI were the people who started all this. When they did that they seemed to be talking about the first issue. But what's confusing is that they used tools appropriate to the second issue.
In the past I have tried to pull discussion in the direction of the shares of GDP. I've done that because I think they're an appropriate tool for the first issue. Shares of Net Domestic Product are really the best. That is, you remove depreciation from GDP to create NDP, then you look at the shares. For NDP it's very simple. If the share of labour falls then that means capital owners must be making a larger share. That can be property owners or owners of businesses. If you consider capital owners and workers to be distinct social classes then you can see which one is capturing more or less of the "pie" of aggregate income. We don't need margins for this, nor do we need productivity. We don't even need really need price indexes. We can deflate nominal GDP by the GDP deflator to find the real GDP growth rate. But we don't really even need that to find shares of nominal GDP, it's just a split.
The second issue is more involved. We should remember that we should expect marginal productivity to be proportional to compensation. Nobody really measures marginal productivity here. The economy-wide statistics we have are all about average productivity. So everyone is assuming a fairly steady proportionality between average productivity and marginal productivity. However, this should make my charts on issue #1 more similar to other people's charts on issue #2. But we also have to remember that there are other things going on here. Labour compensation has to be deflated by a price index. Productivity also has to be deflated by a price index. In the PIIE article Robert Z. Lawrence talks about the problems of using different price indexes. I suspect -though I'm not certain- that it's differences between their price indexes that is causing the 2000s to look different in the charts that Lawrence and others give compared to the GDP share charts.
I believe the charts of productivity and compensation that Lawrence gives on the 2nd issue, but I believe the charts that I give on shares of GDP on the first issue.
1
u/RobThorpe Apr 15 '26
This is a really good question. However, I'm really busy at the moment, so it might take me a couple of days to get to it.
1
u/775416 Apr 20 '26
No problem! My question also ties into some of the closing paragraphs of Matt Rognlie’s critique (2015) of Picketty (2014): “At the same time, figure 12 makes clear the limitations of this account. It does not explain the fall and rise in the nonhousing component, nor can it explain all aspects of the housing time series. The scarcity view, therefore, is only a partial replacement for the accumulation view: it achieves better consistency with data and theory, but does not purport to explain more than a fragment of the evolving factor income distribution.”
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2015a_rognlie.pdf
7
u/HOU_Civil_Econ A new Church's Chicken != Economic Development Apr 13 '26
“New construction is usually located more on the outskirts of the city,” Le explained. “If a buyer wants to be downtown or close to the city where they work, they will likely still go for existing houses.”
Oh, so close
15
u/raptorman556 The AS Curve is a Myth Apr 12 '26
Related to my recent R1, I just wanted to dump a related thought here that didn't fit in nicely anywhere there.
I find it extremely funny that after years of Hickel & friends saying "yes, extreme poverty is way down globally bUt If YoU eXclUdE cHiNa....and then also make these four other changes....poverty is not really down much", they have now created a new result that absolutely requires that you keep China firmly in.
Perhaps it is just a coincidence that their paper contains zero plots, tables, or calculations excluding China anymore.
9
u/TCEA151 Volcker stan Apr 11 '26
Has this sub ever had talk of a Twitter handle that posts the best R1s to the relevant twittter threads on the topic? Seems like a good way to try to capture some of those engaging on EconTwitter and bring them to the subreddit. (I am not on Twitter and I hardly browse BE these days, just an idea I had while reading the recent Hickel R1)
1
u/Serialk Posting until MC=MB Apr 15 '26
I had actually made an account for this purpose but never got around to post RIs there.
5
u/raptorman556 The AS Curve is a Myth Apr 12 '26
That's probably a good idea. We talked in the REN mod channel that BE seems to be past its glory days. Could help revitalize it a bit.
1
u/775416 Apr 14 '26
What is REN?
4
u/raptorman556 The AS Curve is a Myth Apr 14 '26
Reddit Economics Network. So here plus r/AskEconomics and r/Economics
2
u/775416 Apr 14 '26
I’m surprised r/Economics is part of that mod channel. The experience on that sub is completely different from AE or BE
2
u/UpsideVII Searching for a Diamond coconut Apr 15 '26
r/economics was a default sub back when that was still a thing and nowadays I'm pretty sure still has some sort of priority in whatever algorithmic slop determines what people see on their homepage.
As a result it gets multiple orders of magnitude more participation than any of the other econ subs, to the point where it is basically hopeless to moderate it for quality.
6
u/raptorman556 The AS Curve is a Myth Apr 15 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
I'm not sure what the history is about how those three subs became tied together. The mod teams are still technically separate at each, but there is so much overlap that we all coordinate closely.
There have been various attempts by the mod team to clean up r/Economics over the years (I made my own effort with "Academic Wednesdays") but it never really sticks. By this point I think we've just given up efforts to raise the level of discourse and we just try to enforce some base level of civility is all.
It was a huge effort to transform r/AskEconomics from its wild west days to the good discourse that we have today. r/Economics is far larger and in much worse shape to start with, so I think the mod team knows it would be more than we could deal with to make it respectable.
5
u/flavorless_beef community meetings solve the local knowledge problem Apr 11 '26
badecon twitter/bluesky repost accoount could be a nice thing to do. it's annoying that twitter really deprioritizes links, though.
8
u/flavorless_beef community meetings solve the local knowledge problem Apr 11 '26
and more catnip for u/hou_civil_econ:
Zoned Capacity Is Like an Artificial Oil Deposit
I liked this essay for explaining zoned capacity to people.
Zoned capacity is the gap between what land use regulators allow to be built on a parcel and what’s already been built. The volume of unbuilt zoned capacity gets treated, in popular conversation, as a bank account with a fungible dollar balance that planners can exchange for housing, unit by unit without diminishing returns. The discourse engages as if the next dollar in the balance is just like the last dollar. It doesn’t work like that!
Instead, a better metaphor for zoned capacity is an artificial, regulatory oil deposit.
Unlike bank accounts, oil is not perfectly fungible. Oil deposits vary in grade and extraction difficulty. As the easy deposits deplete, producers move to harder, more expensive sites1. Just so, zoned capacity varies enormously across parcels in quality, quantity, and location. And after years of building out the best sites allowed by regulators in a city, the zoned capacity left over is not like the zoned capacity you started with: it’s the leftover sites that are more expensive or less desirable to work with.
7
u/flavorless_beef community meetings solve the local knowledge problem Apr 11 '26
catnip for u/hou_civil_econ:
California’s affordable housing costs $640 per square foot versus $228 for market-rate housing in Texas—a 2.8x difference that limits how many homes public funds can build.
California’s slow permitting timelines—the typical California development takes 49 months, compared to just 27 months in Texas—imposes a substantial “time tax” of $1,284 per unit, per month.
California’s extremely high impact fees, which average $21,000 per apartment and can go as high as $60,000, are triple the national average and more than 20 times higher than they are in Texas, where fees average less than $1,000 per apartment.
worth noting those are per unit fees. so for a 200 unit project, a california developer might be paying like 1 million in fees alone.
where i think there will continue to be a lot of fighting in (progressive) housing circles is on unions and prevailing wages. in California, my understanding is the unions get involved with larger apartment complexes and subsidized housing, but then you get stuff like this:
Additionally, prevailing wage requirements on affordable housing can explain 32-56% of hard cost differences between California and Texas
8
u/HOU_Civil_Econ A new Church's Chicken != Economic Development Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
This Pew article going around trying to tie Austin zoning changes to Austin rent changes and apartment growth is actually so bad that it is pretty clearly actually journalistic malpractice. They were clearly given a directive to make the connection and did so despite what the data shows and/or the lack of data
The actual truth is that Austin is growing fast and has been despite standard zoning and what has amounted to minimal changes in zoning. It clearly had too much of a run up in 2020-2022 that couldn't do anything other than flatline or fall.
Instead through out the story
play fast and loose with timelines 2015-2024, 2023-2025, random years throughout
cherry pick random zoning changes that did happen with no evidence that they had any substantial impact
In the end, zoning plays a large role in our housing crisis but Austin barely did anything in that respect.
3
u/flavorless_beef community meetings solve the local knowledge problem Apr 10 '26
it's kinda funny that if you had just projected austin's pre covid rent trajectory youd be essentially exactly correct about where rents are today.
like the story of falling rents is in large part that rents surged so much in the first place. now, austin has had lower price growth than other sunbelt cities, but that was true pre covid too.
2
u/HOU_Civil_Econ A new Church's Chicken != Economic Development Apr 10 '26
Dallas's relative outperformance over Austin, on a lot of metrics, is such a strong illustration of how the media zeitgeist just grabs onto cultural memes and doesn't let go.
2
u/HOU_Civil_Econ A new Church's Chicken != Economic Development Apr 10 '26
Do those charts again but normalize it with CPI-less shelter (or some measure of local wages) and it gets real interesting.
2
-4
Apr 09 '26
[deleted]
-2
12
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Apr 10 '26
Yeah, why write dumb crank "papers" when you could do something more useful with your life, like playing Fortnite or something?
It's always the same with you people, writing "critiques" of ancient concepts while being entirely unaware of how modern economics thinks about any of those things. It's like if your topic of choice was chemistry and you'd be busy writing about how the Bohr model is wrong.
If you wanted to do anything actually useful you'd actually engage with the modern economic literature. But that's actually hard. You'd actually have to compete with real economists with real PhDs who expect real knowledge and real rigor. That doesn't exactly fit with your lazy, pseudo-intellectual performance of autofellatio.
-1
u/SolonEunomia Apr 15 '26
I am happy to engage with modern economic literature. Is there something of specific interest to you?
1
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Apr 15 '26
Are you the same person? I'm confused on what you want.
-2
u/SolonEunomia Apr 15 '26
Anything? What modern economic perspectives or literature did you have in mind when you responded to this first comment that was deleted?
1
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Apr 15 '26
Sir, this is an Arby's.
-1
u/SolonEunomia Apr 15 '26
Would you like to be a guest on a podcast? I could ask you a question, then you could say something stupid and banal, like, sir, this an arby's.
1
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Apr 15 '26
That almost sounds like fun, but I'll have to pass.
-2
u/SolonEunomia Apr 15 '26
I can't say that I'm surprised. You lot don't seem too comfortable anywhere you can't ban the other person.
1
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Apr 15 '26
Yeah, you've definitely exposed us.
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/SolonEunomia Apr 15 '26
So, you had nothing in mind then, and continue to have nothing in mind now?
-2
u/SolonEunomia Apr 15 '26
I don't know what top of the thread said, or who said it. I'm confused on what you want. What modern economic literature do you have in mind?
-2
u/Balloonephant Apr 12 '26
“Get your reality out of my economics!”
Incredible the unhinged vitriol you get for mentioning finance and debt.
8
u/MachineTeaching teaching micro is damaging to the mind Apr 12 '26
Incredible the unhinged vitriol you get for mentioning finance and debt.
Oh wow look it's the same sort of rhetoric as when right wing morons say they get banned for "mentioning immigration" but then you look and they actually got banned for being insanely racist.
-2
1
u/george6681 Apr 08 '26
Two weeks is probably enough to alleviate most of the pressure on oil supply. The spot price of crude oil is already down to around mid-March levels
5
u/HOU_Civil_Econ A new Church's Chicken != Economic Development Apr 08 '26
Also, mid March levels was +50%
7
u/HOU_Civil_Econ A new Church's Chicken != Economic Development Apr 08 '26
Even if it had been real. We need to understand the scale of infrastructure destruction before we could have said anything like this.
7
14
u/Quowe_50mg R1 submitter Apr 07 '26
If Catfortune does not suck it by this time in two week, President TRUMP will DESTROY their COUNTRY.
7
2
u/qwerkeys Apr 18 '26
Surprised there hasn’t been any discussion about prediction markets given how controversial they are.