well it was novel enough to ignore any lessons from the 1920s and 1930s. The animal spirits aren’t novel, they’ve been there for centuries.
If anything the only novelty was a brief period when the animals were slightly controlled.
Unfortunately for some parts of ‘the west’’ they started to persistently elect animal spirits into to government. fml.
ed: spe;lng
Also to prop up house/property prices in general and pension funds which is a bit wider of a group but generally still the people on the upper end of the wealth rank.
Stupid thing really is when you have an asset bubble it does crowd out other investment.
It needs to burst for the good of the economy.
The QE and such stopped the opportunity for investors to learn that they should inves government to force investors to invest in productive capacity rather than asset bubbles.
Such a portable toilet might be great for shit posting whilst waiting for the train.
Unfortunately someone needs to photoshop a bit of the background platform colour in there
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNfBF2xvhaE&list=PLD19BCF9D57320E03&index=4&pp=iAQB
I sure hope no one gave them positive feedback.
Is this existential angst what caused his winter of discontent?
If you figure out the right protocol you could probably catapult a series of twisted pears from house to house.
The way the internet is going, bashed and bruised fruit salad sounds preferable to the actual data anyway.
Interestingly from a ‘Pigouvian’ tax viewpoint - i.e. polluter pays for externalities they impose; drivers should also be paying the price for any contribution to congestion that causes extra delay to others.
From this perspective, reinvestment in high capacity public transport in congested areas becomes pretty obvious. Or course that logic won’t stop many from wanting to widen low capacity roads instead.
Of course fuel taxes are not very localised in time and space, so they don’t really reflect congestion - not as as closely as they do pollution and noise.
If they cut fuel tax a bit and raised road prices targetting congestion, then reinvested in public transport that’d be good i think - because its closer to delivering the viable alternatives that might actually lead to some mode switching - that’s what you actually want to improve pollution, tax revenue can just be wasted, so rather have the actual switching and less tax revenue.
The problem with fuel taxes is they’re fairly invisible and many people just treat them as an overhead or sunk cost. Fuel tax is just a lot easier to implement than road pricing. But road prices can (should) simply be set a bit higher than the bus /train fare - giving a clear marginal price signal to use public transport as often as possible.
“You’re lion”
“no i’m not”
“ja u ar”
“no i’m not”
“cheetah”
I’m not so sure about that. A lot of people seem to get very angry about things that I don’t think matters, or they can’t do anything about . . . oh hang on, I get it. You’re talking about me aren’t you?
Is marriage just mutual public rickrolling?
A researcher should offer a sufficient compensation package to get enough volunteers after explaining the risks. They should get independent medical advice too.
They can still randomize within the volunteers with treatment / placebo, and maybe use quotas, but they’d just have to extend their trial period until they’d achieved a measurably representative treatment and control group and enough volunteers to test the hypothesis to the required level.
This type of non-random sampling may very well have to be done anyway, for example if they needed the power to test efficacy and safety in all the potential dug interactions or co-morbidity scenarios. Not to mention any diagnosis requirement will also screen the sample which could be influenced by health care system resources and policies, not necessarily pure morbidity. So I think they can deal with non-random sampling in med research perfectly well.
Not if they’ve pre-tested on non-volunteers though.
I don’t know much about nazis but I thought an important part of their rhetoric was to draw distinctions between types of human.
So they’d not see “10bn humans”, they’d see maybe 100m aryan and 9.9bn “untermensch”; the latter being equivalent to rats available to be experimented on.
I just find rats to be much more preferable, pleasant and considerate creatures than humans. I see humans as a single tier of unterratten; totally different hierarchcy.
Browse “all”? You crazy fool.
Presumptuous, smug, know it all, clickbait titles still didn’t die?
Fuck me, if I were in America and had to read toss like that, I’d probably think the population of ‘scientific’ americans contains a larger than normal proportion of cunts.
Previously i’ve only accepted AI into my life as a thing to use when I get asked ‘stupid business jargon management /HR question’ at work.
but I’m tentatively prepeared to allow this, it might be raisin the bar.