nobel prize
ok go on.
economist
bye
It always makes me laugh because it’s not even a real Nobel prize
incredibly true statement
Literally. It’s given out by a different organization than the Nobel prize.
Not that the Nobel Peace Prize or the Nobel Prize in Literature isn’t political horse shit half the time…
We did it. The price of food went from “not cheap” to “holy shit” and its still at “holy shit”. We won.
Now everybody needs to stop asking for those fucking raises.
A chicken burrito at Taco Johns costs 7 fucking dollars.
I’m just glad we didn’t give everybody raises. These economists clearly were right when they said if everybody got a raise inflation would be insane.
Instead we just had massive inflation at the same wages so everybody is fucked.
It’s still wild here in Europe too, cooking oil went from 2 to 6 dollars for a liter and only went down to like 5 recently. I haven’t deep fried a single goddman thing in 3 years
Wow, great news for off-grid homesteaders living in the middle of fucking nowhere and literally no one else
Laughs in price of agricultural inputs
Literally a Babylon Bee article…
I recently saw the phrase ‘food insecurity’ and while I’ve heard it before, I never realized how weird of a phrase it was. It’s poverty, food insecurity is the definition of poverty. But because people have phones or something it doesn’t count as poverty?
I never realized how weird of a phrase it was.
I never googled “food insecurity” because I could imagine what the definition was. But check out the third sentence on the health.gov page. Emphasis mine.
Food Insecurity - Healthy People 2030
Food insecurity is defined as a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. In 2020, 13.8 million households were food insecure at some time during the year. Food insecurity does not necessarily cause hunger, but hunger is a possible outcome of food insecurity.
And look at the phrasing - “13.8 million households”. How many people is that?
-–
Libs love terms that they can use to make something they don’t want to think about more abstract. In this case - they can avoid having to use sentences like this…
- They don’t get enough to eat.
- They don’t have enough to eat.
- Sometimes they don’t have enough to eat.
And libs don’t want to seem cruel and dismissive so they would like to avoid…
- Sometimes they are forced to skip meals because they don’t have enough money.
- Sometimes they go hungry because they don’t have enough money.
Enter “food insecurity”. Voilà!
- They suffer from food insecurity.
No mention of troublesome words like eat, meals, money, hungry or god forbid hunger.
insecurity does not necessarily cause hunger, but hunger is a possible outcome of food insecurity.
Fuck these liberals lol
I think they mean that a person is food insecure if they have to consistently worry about where their next meals will come from, even if they do end up eating every meal.
As much as I hate liberals, the more lib thing to do would be to strictly define the hunger stat to something like “missed more than 3 meals in a row in the last month” or some shit to keep the stats down.
I fucking hate what libs have done to the English language. It’s not meant for this kind of bullshit. It was developed by bog people, Hagar the Horrible and flea ridden dirt farmers who’s boss made them speak French. We’re best off when we’re blunt.
“A true ruler is the wielder of names. By names she cuts the world as she pleases, and she cuts herself into greater forms still. She is not shaped by the world, but instead becomes the shaper. There’s work to be done.”
People with power define how we use language, and its fucking awful how they use it to inculcate themselves further into power.
I use Passive Voice all the time at work to avoid throwing anyone under the bus. It works on middle management super well from either end
Watch your fucking mouth, those are Job Providers you’re talking shit about
It was developed by bog people, Hagar the Horrible and flea ridden dirt farmers who’s boss made them speak French. We’re best off when we’re blunt.
lmao that goes hard
I don’t think it’s a problem that language becomes more precise and technical over time. What is a problem is gating off understanding of precise and technical use of language behind hundreds of thousands of dollars of private education and then looking down on people for not understanding words. Imo it’s a modern day expression of classism - the new version of laughing at poor people because they don’t know the correct fork to use for the second course.
I’m an absolute fucking English language simp, just a giant sloppy word nerd. I am really into JRR Tolkien. I speak in a normal conversation like Matt Christman rants. I am INTERESTED in etymology. Chuds using military sounding jargon ‘tactically ascertaining a potential development’ and libs making therapy language part of their everyday speech is way more painful to me than anyone who is speaking ‘incorrectly’ due to class reasons. Those people are genuinely doing a better job at English cause they’re not using words they think they should be using and instead yknow, conveying thought through language.
But it’s not becoming more precise and technical, it’s becoming more vague, more meaningless, more flowery and yet uglier all at the same time
WHAT ELSE IS THERE
legitimately this makes me feel so much despair
Yachts, exotic animals, Fabergé eggs, precious metals, artisanal cocaine… Normal stuff that you’ll need in any household.
There’s used boats! And video games! And amusement parks!
Bullshit prize winner in fake “science” says dumb thing, more at 11
: “Please, I just want a house. I’m willing to pay for it and everything, but why are your asking for a million dollars for each?”
: “Awww, look at the dumb naive kid who doesn’t understand that it’s just a sign the economy is going well, you wouldn’t want to hurt ThE eCoNoMy, would you?”you wouldn’t want to hurt ThE eCoNoMy, would you?
I would like my full time job to cover the expense of shelter plz. Around 2 grand a month should really cover bills.
Economists are the high priests of capital
Krugman won a Nobel prize? Lmao
No, just the economics wanna-be Nobel prize
Peter Nobel describes the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel as a “false Nobel prize” that dishonours his relative Alfred Nobel, after whom the prize is named, and considers economics to be a pseudoscience.
It’s so perfect that the econ Nobel is a knock-off for marketing purposes
Not to be confused with the “joke nobel”, the one that was once awarded to Kissinger.
deleted by creator
Literally the most relatable thing ibama did was when they asked him why he won the prize and he just kinda shrugged and said “fuck if I know”
When you look for the reason, you just find layer after layer of recursive Obamas
Traditional theory builds on the idea that countries differ in resources like capital and labour, thereby explaining why poor countries export agricultural products and import industrial goods from richer countries. But traditional theory does not explain why, in reality, world trade is dominated by rich countries trading similar goods with each other. For instance, a country like Sweden exports Volvo and SAAB cars but also imports BMW and Toyota cars.
there’s some interesting work to be done to understand why krugman was given a nobel prize, from a marxist-leninist viewpoint. his work ultimately serves to justify imperialism, to provide a naturalistic explanation for the disparity between rich and poor countries, and thereby obfuscating the role that neocolonial violence plays in suppressing wages and extracting resources for the benefit of the imperial core. and that the nobel prize committee serves to glorify and reinforce this practice for aspiring economists, as a means of ensuring their loyalty to the regime’s ideology and stamping out heresy by withholding their imprimatur.
his award lays bare the farce that is the nobel prize. lmao indeed.
deleted by creator
I don’t know what’s funnier, this
Or this
To be fair, the Internet’s impact on the economy is much less than people assume, especially if you compare it to things like electricity, which did radically transform the economy.
Electricity changed where you could put factories and by extension everything that interacts with them. Electricity single-handedly brought an end to the age of whaling. Electricity brought human communication to nearly the speed of light which is the speed of thought. Electricity is what allows us to record the human voice. Nearly all recorded music is only here because of electricity.
The internet is basically just tv 2.0 (which is itself radio 2.0, famous electric marvel) with a layer of tech arbitrage on top.
A technology that changed how we create and distribute energy down to becoming synonymous with the word “power”, to the extent that it radically reshaped the geography of every nation on the planet earth is not the skeezy parlor trick of computerized mass media.
The internet has such a massive impact on society as a whole. You can look up anything you want. Want to learn how to change the brake cable on an 83 mazda truck? Theres a video. Etc. Etc. Etc. Maybe your taking the access to basic information that not long ago was extremely difficult to find for granted.
I’m not.
Before there even was an internet as we know it the local library had the chiltons manual for that truck. I know because I had a b series and went to the library for the chiltons manual.
Those sections are always big and neighboring counties will collude to make sure they have all the cars covered because it’s such popular information.
There is fantastic potential in the idea of the internet, but what is it? It’s mass media.
Even if it wasn’t and you could fight agent smith inside the matrix and win, the technology that fundamentally changed where people could live and under what limitations is a bigger deal than the one that saves you a trip to the library.
E: sorry if this comes off argumentative. “Electricity is more important than the internet” has some startup lag but the damage is good, it’s got plenty of reach, good hitboxes and can break guards at the end of combos. Once you add in the option to cancel into a roll with iframes it’s hard not to come out a little aggressive.
The Internet is like TV 2.0?
You’re comparing a unidirectional medium to a bidirectional medium, just for starters. It’d be much more appropriate to compare the Internet to phone or telegraph, but neither of those are adequate either.
Consider that the internet enabled smartphones. Many other things did too, but the thing that separates smartphones from those other things is Internet. It turned an already cool wireless global voice communication device into the equivalent of like 40 separate devices you used to own 30 years ago, but that fits in your pocket, and can still do unbelievable god-like shit that just wasn’t possible back then, period.
Smartphones are so ridiculous that in many movies made today they have to pretend smartphones don’t exist, because if they did then the problems that form the basis of the plot wouldn’t—so I see a lot of movies that look like they’re set in circa 2000s, i.e. mostly present day with dumbphones. Anyway.
All this is not to say that anything is more impactful than electricity. I’m just saying Internet is not tv 2.0.
If it’s a bidirectional medium then how can isps possibly get away with selling 1Gb down/56kb up connections?
The truth of the matter is that despite technically being bidirectional, most people aren’t using the internet as a bidirectional communication medium. Measure it by data volume or time spent reading versus replying. The internet is mass media, and the fact that a client initiates tls doesn’t make it not tv2.0.
Consider what everyone is calling enshitification: it needs a lot of ink spilled to understand until you recognize that every example is just doing ads or making you pay a cable bill monthly. It’s either the normal ota stuff or a special wire you have put in to get hbo. The internet is mass media.
The idea of technically being a bidirectional medium isn’t even new. Old radios could receive shortwave bands that individual people used to transmit on. You could tune in Jim down the street or the boats in the harbor or the cops from your living room set. It wasn’t until the idea of mass media developed around the technology of radio that sets with only broadcast bands became the norm. There was only a tiny blip of hobbyist tv broadcasting because everyone knew what tv was: radio but bigger and more powerful!
Instead of just telling people how soft wonder bread is you can show it, and show a woman biting into it, make sure the lips are plump and red, yeah, wipe the corner of your mouth just like we practiced, okay now smile and wink like you did that one time.
Programs? Who cares! They’re just there to get people listening before the ad plays, to get people glued to the set before we tell you that bread is getting your dick sucked.
Why are we advertising a thing everyone already buys? So they buy our brand, our process, our raw materials and labor from our suppliers and stores! Seems like a lot of work to juice bread sales, but we put nearly every bakery in the nation out of business!
How could the government allow this to happen? The government did it! The airwaves were leased, sold and even freely given to commercial broadcasters with one catch: one day, they’ll ask a favor, some tiny percentage of the programming will be government messages. Maybe it’s emergency services or televised debates. Maybe it’s acting as a mouthpiece for the war department, maybe just running anti-drug commercials. No matter what form, one day I’m going to need to speak to those people who dutifully tune in every night, maybe directly, maybe through you. I’ll give you the airwaves and you can cultivate them into whatever you like, but you must do me this one favor.
How can people credibly be shocked by the existence of content mill “journalism” meant to maximize ad views and engagement metrics? The internet is mass media, bidirectional by requirement or technicality, but never in common use.
We wouldn’t have the internet without electricity. The internet is part of the impact electricity has.
You wouldn’t have electricity without metal things, so metalsmithing has a bigger impact. But you can’t manipulate metal without fire…
Basically sticks are the most impactful.
The internet is a product of electricity, soooo, yeah.
You can have that title, or winner of the Nobel prize on the cover, not both.
Vampire gang stays winning. Garlic becoming too expensive to use as a weapon. Nobody has a home so you don’t need permission to enter.
Mr Burns’ Sun Blocker forthcoming
Mark my words: The Amish will survive us all.
I’m more convinced it’ll be the Mormons. They’re far more tightly organized than the Amish.
While I agree about organization, the Mormons are too dependent on the Technological Industrial Society
The Amish are pretty entrenched in capitalism too. They tend to be artisans instead of proletarians but they shop at Walmart and have their brick and mortar businesses starved just like everyone else.
This guy made the rounds all through 2016 bashing Bernie and his policies for being unrealistic and lacking pragmatism. Wtf is this?
Lin-Manuel Miranda could write a musical called Bernie.
-–
[Lin-Manuel Miranda plays Professor K who enters from stage left. He immediately starts to rap.]
I’m here to econ-ed-u-rap. Bring the economics knowledge and hit ya with a rap.
I won the Nobel Prize for Economics which doesn’t scan right but…[Chorus] It’s important (Important)
[Professor K] Bernie’s ideas are unrealistic and lack pragmatism. I’m sorry to say.
[Chorus] Sadly true (true)
[Professor K] The way to do it is Bidenomics.
[Chorus] Yay! Bidenomics! Yay!
Treat based economic benchmarks
![[Not the Onion] Nobel Prize winning economist says Bidenomics is working if you exclude food, energy, shelter, and used cars.](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/056e2b2f-c3f7-43b4-84ae-511a72338a87.png){kind=link}