average skill level very low but the winner so far is definitely the guy doing (to the untrained ear) an impeccable bob dylan impression

sometimes i see an old clip of his and think “this is a man who would have a lot of fun on nick fuentes’s podcast”

he had a masterful delivery but that covered up that most of his jokes were glorified shock humor targeting liberal new york mores - though at the time i’m guessing that coded as less straightforwardly republican/conservative

the more i learn about this jeffrey epstein fellow the less i like him

well that and the fact that my infrequent posts on here don’t get any engagement but i’m not in the blame accepting business right now

this is just one of my pet peeves with inflation-adjusted measures in general, theyre better than nothing ofc but i think they create the illusion that they just completely solve the problem of translating value across time without any room for different interpretations

probably is falsifiable/provable with the right data (share of spending on housing by income being the key one probably). and i do think the point that rising real median household income doesn't necessarily prove that >half of households are increasing in spending power is worth considering

and if the economy is structured eg so theres a(n inverse) relationship between one's income and the share of their spending they devote to higher-inflation products you might get a disconnect between eg "real median household income" and the actual change in spending power of the median household

so then if someone's income has grown by 10% (nominal) in that time, stancilism might claim that person has seen 10% real income growth over time but that particular person has actually experienced a ~9% decrease in spending power

toy example: say rents rise by 90% while other prices drop by 10%

if rent is 10% of all spending, aggregate inflation stays flat:
.1*1.9 + .9*.9 = .19+.81 = 1

but someone spending 30% on rent sees a 20% personal inflation rate:
.3*1.9 + .7*.9 = .57+.63 = 1.2

probably add riot shields/riot police tactics too, it should be very hard for a liberal democracy to stop a large group of its citizens from gathering, and they should pay a very high price for doing so

yeah he doesn't admit it but the moderation definitely seems like an end in itself to him, it definitely seems like he/josh barro/etc think left policies are bad on the merits but doesn't feel comfortable admitting that (even to himself?) so couches it in terms of electoral strategy