drphungky @ drphungky @lemmy.world

I'm just a guy, my dudes.

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

241

Joined

2 yr. ago

I literally just cancelled my McAfee subscription because of annoying constant pop-ups like this. At least this one from Microsoft is a legal notice. McAfee constantly spams you to turn on unnecessary features, and even changes settings periodically to turn things on like "browser monitoring". Literally worse than old school pop-up viruses.

More importantly, it also never caught a single thing. Windows Defender does fine. My buddy in cyber security suggested them for safety despite how bad they are, but I can honestly recommend you should never, ever, get it. Just keep backups and be prepared to nuke your system if needed, and save yourself a pop-up every other day.

he couldn’t even get his own party’s nomination

Tell me more about politics please.

People still used the hell out of it up until the pandemic, despite having a terrible two track design, despite having delayed maintenance for essentially 30 years, and despite having three jurisdictions arguing over how to fund what is truthfully only a commuter rail, not a proper full system.

I'd love to see more investment in Metro, but there needs to be a seismic shift in how we think about it, because commuting is only going to continue to decline in the long term, even if it will bounce a bit in the short term. I'm hoping DC can find a way to incentivize development around metro stops to make metro better for locals rather than M-Fers that the Post keeps insisting are responsible for subsidizing the city through lunches and happy hours. That includes repurposing half empty office buildings, and maybe looking at relaxing the height restriction as you get further out of the city center.

So we need Valve to make gaming on trains better?

I get that "man bites dog" is more newsworthy, as they say. But can we stop a tick and internalize that a human driven car hit and killed someone, and we're talking about how it's the autonomous car's fault for adding a slight delay!

Give me a break. An ambulance being stuck in traffic by idiot drivers is nothing new. The autonomous cars may even kill people at a rate we're uncomfortable with. They're still gonna be better than humans. Humans are terrible drivers. Autonomous cars can't come soon enough, and yes, I say that even as someone who prefers transit. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

It's not actually junk prediction, though you might call it doom-bait journalism. WHO put climate change related deaths at like 150,000 people annually in the year 2000. Those numbers will obviously go up, which is why they're backed in a lot of studies, but the real rub on reporting here is that they're talking about "over the course of a century". So it's a completely reasonable estimate, it just ignores a lot of nuance like "some countries are having higher population growth so we're not going to just lose 1 billion (though these deaths are theoretically preventable)" but also "the vast majority of these deaths will be concentrated in Southeast Asia and poorer countries."

Why is a three year old article being posted in the news community? This is not news. This is just rage bait because the concept of trickle down economics is infuriating.

You realize economists wrote the paper disproving the theory?

We also knew it 3 years ago, when the study came out. What a weird article to link.

Did you listen to the NPR report? I don't understand how you still have these questions.

Literally just copy pasting this places now because so many people are still claiming greedflation is a thing. Not trying to spam but links to comments don't seem to work, and as a literal economist who works on inflation I'm tired of reading political talking points disguised as economic analysis.

I think everyone should probably listen to this great report from NPR that dissects this issue. The Tl;dr: is greedflation is not really a real thing.

The deeper answer to your question of, "can one party increase prices in a market?" is sort of basic economics, and the answer is, "Usually, no." In a competitive market, the answer is no. In a monopolistic market (meaning one company controls most of the market, think like Google with browsers) with no government oversight, the answer is yes. Things get complicated when you add in government regulation or oligopolistic markets (markets where only a few players control the market). In those cases, it depends on how strong government regulations on price-gouging are and any anti-monopoly or anti-anticompetitive practice laws are, and also depends on how oligopolists behave. Sometimes, particularly in industries with few big players, the big players will make the same decisions independently. If they do this cooperating it will usually violate antitrust laws, but if they both decide they'll be better off say, not paying workers as much, or charging super high markups, them that can happen. A lot of economic research shows that kind of "tacit collusion" happens in real life, like in the oil and gas industries. But other times oligopolies will behave very competitively, only uniting through lobbyist trade groups if at all (think Microsoft and Amazon in cloud software).

So that's the facts, but here's my economic musing: The reason it feels like greedflation is a thing is a combination of factors:

1. Inflation was very real, and very salient.
2. Corporations (as mentioned in the NPR piece) crowed about their "record profits" in the short term, and also mention them when they are absolute record profits, not just record profit margins (something not mentioned but very real - a company can make twice as much money but also have spent twice as much, making way "more" money but with identical margins)
3. In the US at least, we are seeing the highest numbers of industry consolidation and monopolies/oligopolies since the Gilded Age, so it feels like companies should be able to raise their prices if they want to.
4. Media coverage and online spaces have become extremely polarized, so "corporations bad" is a very easy refrain to find if you're watching or reading anything remotely left-wing, and it has been parroted by many democratic politicians as well, because it scores cheap and easy political points (also, and this is just my opinion, it helps vilify corps more in the public eye to help get more support for better antitrust legislation and enforcement, the actual end goal. I don't think senators like Bernie Sanders don't actually understand what's going on with profit margins, I think they're using it to generate political will, but that may be my own bias creeping in).

I have literally never heard that described as a tankie talking point. Honestly, shouting down the fact that Russian aggression caused global prices to rise in everything (not just food, oil and gas causes ripples) feels like something their psyops people would do. Trying to tie it to US aid and calling it a tankie talking point is double plus hilarious. I don't know where you're reading that, but I'd be careful.

This concept of greedflation has been disproved in recent meta-analysis. It should probably die. I'll copy paste a comment I wrote in some other thread analyzing it.

I think everyone should probably listen to this great report from NPR that dissects this issue. The Tl;dr: is greedflation is not really a real thing.

The deeper answer to your question of, "can one party increase prices in a market?" is sort of basic economics, and the answer is, "Usually, no." In a competitive market, the answer is no. In a monopolistic market (meaning one company controls most of the market, think like Google with browsers) with no government oversight, the answer is yes. Things get complicated when you add in government regulation or oligopolistic markets (markets where only a few players control the market). In those cases, it depends on how strong government regulations on price-gouging are and any anti-monopoly or anti-anticompetitive practice laws are, and also depends on how oligopolists behave. Sometimes, particularly in industries with few big players, the big players will make the same decisions independently. If they do this cooperating it will usually violate antitrust laws, but if they both decide they'll be better off say, not paying workers as much, or charging super high markups, them that can happen. A lot of economic research shows that kind of "tacit collusion" happens in real life, like in the oil and gas industries. But other times oligopolies will behave very competitively, only uniting through lobbyist trade groups if at all (think Microsoft and Amazon in cloud software).

So that's the facts, but here's my economic musing: The reason it feels like greedflation is a thing is a combination of factors:

1. Inflation was very real, and very salient.
2. Corporations (as mentioned in the NPR piece) crowed about their "record profits" in the short term, and also mention them when they are absolute record profits, not just record profit margins (something not mentioned but very real - a company can make twice as much money but also have spent twice as much, making way "more" money but with identical margins)
3. In the US at least, we are seeing the highest numbers of industry consolidation and monopolies/oligopolies since the Gilded Age, so it feels like companies should be able to raise their prices if they want to.
4. Media coverage and online spaces have become extremely polarized, so "corporations bad" is a very easy refrain to find if you're watching or reading anything remotely left-wing, and it has been parroted by many democratic politicians as well, because it scores cheap and easy political points (also, and this is just my opinion, it helps vilify corps more in the public eye to help get more support for better antitrust legislation and enforcement, the actual end goal. I don't think senators like Bernie Sanders don't actually understand what's going on with profit margins, I think they're using it to generate political will, but that may be my own bias creeping in).

I'm an inflationary economist and I feel you, man.

Ah yes, the US Fed causing inflation in all of Europe and Canada too. It's crazy how the Fed made inflation lower here at home though. I don't know how they do that without there being some kind of series of global supply shocks.

I guess we'll never know.

My wife and I regularly joke that one day we’ll harass our kids to help us with our neural interfaces

This but unironically.

Seriously, there will be new interfaces in the next 20 years. People always underestimate tech change and growth, and we already see VR and AR in their infancy. Do you remember what it was like watching your parents or grandparents hunt and peck type, or struggle to double click something, or double clicking things that don't need double clicked? Did you struggle with helping them Google their problem (back when Google was useful)? There will always be luddites and people who don't adopt new tech, but even among those who do, they're often slower or just have a less intuitive understanding of newer tech. This will happen to us. Even simple motion controls while in AR will likely be hard for people to pick up and develop new muscle memory. Neural interfaces will likely require you to "think a certain way" to best interact with things, and I don't doubt many of us will be bad at it. And most likely of all, we'll be bad at something we don't even predict - and many people won't care that much. I'd argue in some cases it actuallystarts with "what's the use?" which tons of millennials have already done with Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok etc. Even if you recognize the value, you're comfortable and happy not using the new thing, and that's a double whammy when combined with the effort it takes to learn new tech.

The Kansas Bureau of Investigation is already investigating: https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/08/15/state-investigators-will-probe-police-raid-kansas-newspaper-office/

Lots of local police forces absolutely suck. Many cops are bastards, so to speak. But lots of state and federal (and yes, even some local) cops investigate white collar crime, human trafficking, murders, and yes, even wrongdoing by other local cops!

The paradox of tolerance is based on some schmo's personal article. It's not backed up by any research, historical analysis, or anything other than the fact that it kinda feels good to think about because it gives us an excuse to other a group, ignoring that someone else will eventually other us. It's literally only in the zeitgeist because it's attractive, not because it's right.

It's like I'm in the readme of every project I've stumbled across from Google to a forum to GitHub pathway...