somewhat_drunk

I think you mean accurate, not precise.

You could google instead of assuming, but where's the fun in that, I guess???

The US grid is 20% coal, 40% natural gas, 20% nuclear, and 20% renewables.

Natural gas plants are about twice as efficient (~50%) as a typical gasoline engine (~25%) and burn much more cleanly, producing fewer pollutants across the spectrum for the same amount of energy.

So right off the bat, you know that 80% of the energy going into the typical EV battery in the USA was produced far more efficiently and more cleanly than would burning enough gasoline to produce an equivalent amount of work.

You could also of course simply google "ICE vs BEV emissions" and read a study summary or two. They all generally agree that BEV emissions are much lower than ICE emissions on a lifecycle basis.

Serious question: why did you not do that in the first place?

The author should really learn how to use commas.

Gaslight. Obstruct. Project.

Not necessarily, but I do think that if there's a big UFO coverup dating back half a century, it's obviously highly compartmentalized, and probably more tightly controlled than your run-of-the-mill top secret (or even SCI) documents. Trump's a clown, it's obvious he's a clown, and the people who control such a hypothetical UFO program would do everything in their power to prevent such a clown from 1) becoming aware of their program, and if necessary 2) gaining access to information about their program.

You think the kind of people who know about things like this would have told Trump?

The FED needs to stop and wait.

And it was both of those things, just a bit more than anticipated. Economies are complex and difficult. Who knew?

Won't take much mud to stop it.

100%

>(Which will also require a toilet).

Haha, nice.

After 2000+ years of practice, it's no wonder that SE Asian curries are so good!

I can't tell if you're being disingenuous or if you're just not very bright.

Interest rates were already increasing when Trump was elected. They jacked rates to cool the economy, as they should have done.

Rates were already decreasing when COVID hit, and they dropped rates to zero when the economy shut down, as they should have done.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, as I'm sure you know.

You could have simply looked up a long-term chart of the FED funds rate to verify your political belief, but you chose not to. Why?

https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/reference-rates/effr

New car inventories are increasing as well. Anecdotally, the US auto industry seems to be preparing for a slowdown.

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/new-vehicle-inven...

>Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has follow-up appointments to track his cardiac health.

>Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

Myocarditis is one of very few side effects from the vaccine, all of which are vanishingly rare. It's well understood that the vaccine was highly effective in reducing the severity and spread of COVID and is one of the safest vaccines ever produced.

>How well it works: Moderna’s initial Phase 3 clinical data in December 2020 was similar to Pfizer-BioNTech’s—at that point, both vaccines showed about 95% efficacy for prevention of COVID-19. Later data on real-world effectiveness for adults showed that the protection from the mRNA two-dose primary series wanes over time, but booster doses bring the immune system back to robust levels.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-compariso...

You didn't ignore the mob, you ignored the science. You listened to a mob of your choosing, and now you are misinformed and continuing to spread misinformation.

>if you take population size, age distribution, and obesity rates into account, I could see the adjusted numbers being close.

Those are confounding factors, but I think it's quite a stretch to believe they would provide a 5x adjustment (after accounting for 2x population), especially if you also adjust for the drastically improved quality of and access to healthcare, which would skew the adjustment in the other direction.

Thank you for the correction! I see now that the full dataset is available in the table at the bottom of the page. I was referring to the chart at the top of the page, which (for some reason) leaves out the 14 countries between Peru and the USA. I wish they wouldn't do that.

I'm reasonably certain that if we picked apart the article's logic piece by piece, we'd find that it was mostly (or entirely) based on bullshit.

Thanks for digging up that bit of info.

Unless you believe that 90% of the excess deaths were not directly related to COVID, your implied point falls flat.

Edit: There were 1.1 million COVID deaths in the USA alone.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

This article immediately claims that the Asian Flu in question was far deadlier than COVID. This is categorically false.

In fact, it's not even close. The article claims 116k US deaths attributable to the Asian flu. Meanwhile, there were 10x that number of excess US deaths during the COVID pandemic.

https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

As others have pointed out, the AIER is a conservative think-tank. I don't know where they're getting their casualty numbers from, but it's not from any reputable source.

This is clearly biased garbage.

Edit: COVID directly caused 1.1 million verified deaths in the USA. We were second in the world in COVID deaths as a percentage of the population.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

I don't think you understand how surveys work. The goal of a survey isn't to include everyone's opinion. The goal of a survey is to understand the overall opinion of the population. This is not difficult to understand, I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid having to admit you're wrong.

I don't think you understand what bias is in this context.

To illustrate this, consider the following hypothetical survey.

Survey:

"Is murdering babies wrong"?

End Survey

Essentially everyone will respond with a strong yes.

By your logic, if I don't include a dissenting opinion, the poll is necessarily biased.

Of course that's not correct.

The purpose of a poll is to understand the opinions of a population by understanding the opinions of a randomly selected sample of the population. If the population has strong opinions on a given topic, the survey will return lopsided results. That does not make the survey biased.

If however you seek out people with opinions to the contrary for the sake of including unpopular opinions, THAT DOES bias the survey, because the survey sample is then no longer randomly selected.

I did read your comment, and I blithely responded with another source supporting my original claim. In hindsight though, you're right: I should have simply picked apart your original argument instead of providing another source, as your argument is self-contradictory.

You argued that econlib cherry-picked economists to generate a biased result, which you then followed up by acknowledging that "mainstream" economists do not support price controls, which is exactly what the survey showed.

There is, in fact, a broad consensus among economists that price controls are generally counterproductive. The econlib survey showed it, the wikipedia links support that, and you apparently agree. So... thanks?

Disagree. Climate science and economics are quite similar in this context, in that both an economy and a global environment are so massive and massively complex that neither can be isolated and studied in a controlled environment.

In such cases, when there does exist a consensus, it's probably correct.

I'd wager they aren't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls

If you as an armchair expert disagree with a broad consensus of actual experts - i.e. people who study something as a lifetime pursuit, your first thought should be that your knowledge is lacking, not that they are wrong. And if you find yourself seriously believing that they are wrong without first understanding how they are wrong, then that should be a strong indicator that your thinking is clouded by bias.

Price controls are one of the few things that economists on both sides of the political aisle agree do not work, and/or have unintended consequences which are worse than the problem they attempt to resolve.

https://www.econlib.org/the-consensus-on-price-controls/

Agreed. The real question is: do they produce a net positive effect for society?

>the other half is student debt relief programs

...which student debt relief programs?

Afaik there are no widely used student debt relief programs.