It sounds like he is confusing prices and inflation, unless he means that the tariff effects will wear off. It is their effect on inflation that should not be persistent, not their effect on prices.
For the time being, let's just keep calling it your mom's basement.
Wow. A betrayal of a phony yet crazy movement. Quite the serious charge.
We were told that there would be no malarkey. There has been quite a lot of malarkey.
So they just get it out of the ground and then use it all themselves? Do they just burn it away, or do they use it for getting more oil?
I agree that they should not be treated as equal, but a height subsidy would encourage the short to better measure up.
He was referring to NYC central business district when he said "district" and I thought he meant the District of Columbia.
But the claim is that people don't use their trucks for trucking. No need for towing or hauling, so a bike will do. If you demonstrate a need to a truc to a panel of MIT urban planners, they might give you a dispensation to get a truck judged more suitable to their superior sensibilities.
I think the point is quite obnoxious, actually. People paid their own money for what they think is best for them and what they want. Need has nothing to do with it. Taken to its logical conclusion, no one actually needs a vehicle at all. Bicycles will do fine.
You can get any seating/bed-length combo you want. But when your goal is condescending snideness, misrepresentation is useful.
Quite a few. I also see many with extended cabs. Different people have different truck needs and it is good that there is more variety than there used to be.
I get that people have to hate pickup trucks because the wrong type of people drive them, but at least try to be accurate. The F-150 is still a working truck with a long bed. You can get a long cab and short bed if you want to.
So what you'e saying us that we are addicted to saying things are addictive.
Beware of charlatans. Economists run the gamut, but there are many charlatans who get attention as if they are serious people. They are on the left and right. Pro tariff and anti-immigration are sure signs, as is reflexive caterwauling about inequality, greed, and monopoly.
He usually lies about the discipline, but it is not always easy to separate his dishonesty from his ignorance.
And the fact that he has lied about being one suggests that integrity is not one of his strengths.
Given how serious the internet is taking the deadweight loss of Christmas, I think it is time to revive my paper "Cricket vs. Baseball as an Engine of Growth" published by the Royal Economic Society. drive.google.com/file/d/0B-j7...
cricket.pdf
drive.google.com
It was and it is funnier than ever now that people are taking it seriously on the internet. I might try to revive the macroeconomics of vampires, why does everything take e times what it should, growth and the voyage of Columbus, etc.
Well, yes. There is a reason that the salary compression occurs. New people are in the active national market but existing people have 1 or maybe 2 options in the local market.
Did the headline change? The story is how this has been in the works for a while and the headline can be read a number of ways.
And the figure with the survey results is mislabeled. It is the perception of the danger of living in or visiting a city, not just living there.
As I said, geographic concentration is an important factor. A high crime city-wide crime rate that is concentrated in one area will be seen as a safer city than one with the same crime rate spread across the city. You don't see Dallas's crime as a visitor, but you might see it as a visitor to NYC.
The geographic concentration of crime is a huge factor that is ignored by city-level crime rates. In some cities a large majority of the population lives and works in very safe areas. What makes the perception of crime higher in NYC is its occurrence where more people can experience it.