funnystuff

I think people under appreciate how prevalent this is in academia. Not just in race studies, but in all of the social sciences.


Think money laundering, but in the thousands of low rated academic journals. Science laundering. Pushing junk science through a dummy journal to give it an air of legitimacy even though it’s actually fake.


That’s not 90% of the academic literature of anything… but it’s a big enough chunk that it’s fricking with a lot of social systems.

quote:

---

We need fewer laws. Not more.

---

*Federal*. We need fewer *federal* laws.



This is how state’s rights are supposed to work. Different states experiment with different social contracts so that the best ones can reveal themselves.

Personally, I’m glad that there is a state experimenting with removing a temptation that we know, unequivocally, our children are struggling mightily to navigate. We may not need this ban forever. But having someone experiment with banning it now will at least allow us to fully parse out the impacts.



This is exactly what the founders had in mind when they built this country… a laboratory of political experimentation where the cream of the crop rises to the top. I applaud Texas for having the balls to run an experiment that they know won’t be popular.

:lol:


Read two posts below your reply :lol:

And Investment = Business Investment + Residential Investment + Inventory Investment


Google is telling you wrong. This economist is telling you that the negative GDP impact from growing imports is offset by the positive GDP impact from other areas like inventory accumulation. By design. The whole point of putting imports into the GDP equation with a negative component is to cancel out the other positive impacts that would otherwise inappropriately materialize.


So for example, if you buy a toy made in China, that would add $20 to GDP through the consumption category. You are consuming a $20 toy. However, GDP is, by definition, Gross Domestic Product. Product meaning production. So we don’t want that toy to count as US GDP, as it was not produced in the US. So we subtract imports from the equation so that the positive shock to consumption cancels against the negative shock to imports, leaving total GDP unchanged.


Same idea for inventory buildup on imports. If a housing company buys a bunch of lumber from Canada to put into their inventory, that adds to GDP in the investment category. Because inventory investment is part of total investment, But since the lumber wasn’t produced in the US, we don’t want it in GDP. After all, the D stands for Domestic. As in, made in this country. So we use the negative import category to offset the boost to investment that would otherwise artificially inflate the true value for the gross domestic production.


The entire point of the import category is to offset purchases of goods made in other countries that are incorrectly adding to the other elements of GDP. Meaning the net effect of an import on GDP is zero.

Imports don’t lower GDP, that even CNBC doesn’t understand that is staggering.


If firms boosted their imports to load up on their inventory, then that would count as Inventory Accumulation, which is included in the Investments category of GDP. The negative hit from imports would thus cancel out with the positive boost to investment, leaving the net impact unchanged.

If GDP fell, it’s because we’re producing less. Not because we’re importing more.

Respectfully, I think that’s nonsense


Judkins, Henderson, Johnson and Harvey will all lead their teams in touches. And Skatteboo and Tuten have the potential to.

Hunter, Warren, Golden and Kyle Williams could all lead their teams in catches.



There are multiple rookie assets that will be on championship rosters in year 1 from this draft

Quantum computing

False



The worst of AI can be worse than the worst human

I withdraw everything I said about this dude’s case in the other thread, and will accept the requisite crow that comes with that withdrawal