wronglyprepaid

> They're probably staying silent because here in Canada at least, this could be violating federal laws.

Could you elaborate?

I hate how when people say scrum they really mean something which is not well defined and you end up with some weird system that only some "scrum master" understands and that they seem to be making up as they go along.

> Here is a quick video explaining how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Uu5eyN6VU

Good video, thanks.

They could veto all laws that don't change this. So to me it as democratic as Democratically elected representatives want it to be.

That being said I have to agree it is not ideal if they can only approve or veto.

> Ursula von der Leyen was not elected by EU citizens

But was she not elected by EU members of parliment, who were elected by EU citizens?

Every country I have ever lived in had a similar arrangement, I control who are elected to parliament, parliament votes for president, and the president serves at the pleasure of partliment.

Not that this is an endorsement of the EU or Ursula von der Leyen, I'm not an EU citizen, don't live in an EU country, and don't care to live in one either.

I think the main issue with EU is that it too much is decided at the EU level, but this to me is not related to it using a parliamentary system or Ursula not being elected directly by EU citizens, I think it is more related to what powers they can exercise.

This is to be expected, GPT-3 is great and all but it is not reasoning or thinking.

> The public health institutions in the US have an abysmal track record for accuracy and also knowingly lied to the public - e.g. advising against masks at the outset because they wanted to preserve their mask supply.

Their track record is flawless, they are just maligned by the right wing media. They stopped COVID-19 and saved millions of lives.

> Finally, just for fun, there's a significant possibility the US public health institute bear responsibility for the pandemic itself - to the extent they funded gain of function research and the Wuhan Institute where COVID possibly (likely?) escaped.

This is a racist anti-Chinese conspiracy theory and in part the reason for the anti-asian hate pandemic in the USA. They did not fund gain of function research in Wuhan, and there was no gain of function research there [1].

[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/fauci-says-rand-paul-egregio...

> I'll grant that he was more competent at administrating the response than Trump, but COVID hasn't ended, the pandemic is still in progress.

He gave US the vaccines, without which the pandemic would have been much worse.

> > he pulled out of Afghanistan

> Yes, but it was a humanitarian disaster.

No it was not, this is just further misrepresentation by the media.

> > he restored US reputation on the global stage

> Citation needed.

https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-donald-tr...

> > he put Russia in it's place

> In what sense?

He sanctioned norstream 2: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/feb/23/biden-u...

Also he said he will make Russia pay for election interference [1].

[1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/joe-biden-vladim...

I'm not interested in repeating it, I don't want to cause further violence against marginalized communities. Enough people have already quoted it from the article in the comments.

And maybe ask yourself, why would a social construct have any impact on a disease?

> In my view allowing new leases on federal land[1] and asking oil companies to boost supply[2] is breaking his campaign promise to end fossil fuels[3].

But as you rightly point out there are so many that he has kept that one hardly makes a difference and he still is the most popular president ever so I don't mean to disparage him.

Hopefully it also incentivizes people to stop being selfish and buy an electric car.

> What promise did he break? If he is anti climate what are you comparing him too? The past president left the Paris agreenment.

Well like I said I still think he is the best president ever, but In my view allowing new leases on federal land[1] and asking oil companies to boost supply[2] is breaking his campaign promise to end fossil fuels[3].

But I understand this may be entirely due to my own biases, and I don't want to malign him, like I said I think he is without question the best president ever and I do not mean to suggest I doubt this for one moment. I would of course prefer that he did not allow new leases on federal land but I can see that I should maybe listen to what others think and consider how this is maybe just a better way to keep his promise than what I have considered. And to be fair I'm not entirely sure that the promise to end fossil fuels is not a right wing smear against him, this could very well be the case.

[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/15/biden-administration-to-resu...

[2]: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/15/politics/joe-biden-oil-co...

[3]: https://apnews.com/article/9dfb1e4c381043bab6fd0fa6dece3974

> I don't believe Biden has the most popular administration among just the last three, a sentiment that I suspect GP shares.

Well he is not if you take the poll numbers, but as Biden has said, the low poll numbers are mainly a side effect of the negative sentiment for his administration in the right wing media. You will need to compensate for this to get an accurate picture.

> If people (companies) just use that money to buy financial products, pay off other debt, and so on, and it just kinda circulates in the banks, but most of it doesn't end up in consumer's hands - then there is no reason that the prices for consumer goods should go up, right?

Even if there was no direct stimulus, which there was, companies don't just take stimulus, put it in their bank account and forget about it. But sure, if you have some evidence to suggest that this money never really entered circulation I think it would help your case.

The reality is though, money supply increases by 400% since March 2020 and historic inflation followed. There may be other reasons, but I'm not sure what you would expect to see other than inflation.

> On the contrary I sometimes suspect it is a bogeyman used to justify not raising wages.

Wages have increased have they not? This is another signature achievement of the much maligned Biden administration, that the media is trying to hide. Wages are at historically high levels.

> I mean, the same media that was apparently run by a vast left-wing conspiracy for years is suddenly right-wing? Did they just change hats?

No, this was just a lie though, the media has always been right wing, they lie and say they are not, but they are.

> What accomplishment does Biden have

He ended COVID, he pulled out of Afghanistan, he restored US reputation on the global stage, he put Russia in it's place, he was busy ending fossil fuels. I dunno there are many things, you just don't hear of them because the media is trying to tank his presidency.

> If gas price doubles does that mean that folks who commute by car go only half way to work or stay at home every other day?

There are a lot of behavior that can be changed, not all of it, but people could skip some trips, maybe only 10% - but it is not 0%.

> If an iPhone costs $10, why would you buy 5 of them?

I have 5 umbrellas but just one body. I sometimes forget it at some place, or misplace it. Nice to have a spare when I need one. I could then leave an iPhone at work for when my battery runs out for example.

> Supply and demand are not infinitely elastic, as some like to think.

Fair enough, my examples were a bit contrived and absurd, but my point is more just that neither supply nor demand is fixed. But yes they are not infinitely elastic, but they are somewhat elastic.

All I see is promise made, promise kept ... or well not quite but at least they were trying their best up til recently when the Biden administration took a anti climate policy turn for some reason which I don't get. I will still vote for them, but I just wish they would not have broken this particular campaign promise. I think they are right when they said people should just stop being greedy and buy electric cars. If people did this the price of oil will be irrelevant.

But I guess the media has been incredibly negative towards the Biden administration and not giving him credit for the good things he has done, so I'm not surprised that people don't recognize or appreciate the work he has done to end fossil fuels.

It is different because the media has not been as right wing as this before.

> If you want to say that M1 has caused a demand-side inflation, fine... but it seems to me that 1/2ing the price of oil would 1/2inflation

I would like to see some evidence for this, as I don't think this is the case, I think this is just propaganda from fossil fuel companies and their political allies. Like Biden said the economy is just in transition. I think restricting oil and gas supply further will be much more more likely to lower inflation. Maybe Biden should outlaw all oil refining on US soil to help drive the transformation faster.

If people were just less greedy and cared more about the environment than their wallets then they would buy electric cars instead of driving gas guzzling SUVs that are destroying our planet.

> Ok, but how can you as a fed say that if you double the money supply the velocity will stay the same forever?

It went up by 500% since March 2020 btw, not just 100%, or 200%: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

I'm pretty sure people are mostly upset with the current inflation level, not the inflation level back when it was low.

But I guess those people should just be grateful it was not higher before, and just be less greedy.

But his low poll numbers is mainly because the media won't give him credit for the good things he did and because of republican rhetoric.

> The only difference today, with inflation, is the supply-side shock. If central bank policies were causing inflation, they'dve caused it over the last decade; and likewise in japan.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

They money supply (M1SL) increase by 500% since March 2020 - don't tell me that this is purely a supply side shock.

Or at the very least cite something that shows supply has dropped. And then explain to my why policies that increase the money supply by 500% is not expected to cause historic inflation while a pandemic is affecting supply?

> When heating your home suddenly costs four times as much you can't just use a quarter of the gas, or you'll freeze.

Maybe this is an aside to you, but would you expect heating cost to increase or decrease if you are using fossil fuels for heating, and the government has promised to end fossil fuels?

I guess we can point all fingers to Putin, but decreasing the supply of fossil fuels seems to be an implicit campaign promise of the Biden administration, and he has the most popular administration in history, so I'm not sure why people are upset with paying more for heating and gas.

> What evidence do you have that campaign promises to end fossil fuels caused an increase in oil prices.

If you create policy that deter investment in fossil fuels, and reduce production, would you expect prices to go up or down? And if you don't create policy to deter investment and reduce production, then how will you end fossil fuels?

Maybe a better question to ask is, do you think there is any way to end fossil fuels other than having it be more expensive than alternatives?

Why would the government resume leasing for oil and gas drilling on federal lands if they don't think stopping it affected the supply [1]? Is it just because they really want to mess the climate up some more and break campaign promises?

[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/biden-adminis...

Would it be better to keep S&P high with inflation at highest levels in 40 years? And if so why?

Well they surely are doing a stellar job running shit into the ground, so I guess they clearly know what they are doing.

> It's not just the amount of money, it is the amount of money available vs the amount of goods available.

Okay, but ... if you just pumping money into the economy, are you not by definition just pumping money into the economy, as opposed to goods and money? If congress could by decree make goods why would anyone need to work?

> Inflation is happening now because oil demand is higher than supply, food demand is higher than supply, electronic chip demand is higher than supply.

I'm not sure this statement makes that much sense, won't demand always go up when prices drop, and drop off when it goes up? Demand does not exist in abstract, if I could get an iPhone 13 pro for $10 I would take 5, if it costs $2,000 I will take 0. If oil cost $1 a gallon instead of $4, won't the demand increase? And if it is $10 a gallon won't the demand decrease?

Maybe to simplify, cite something that backs your claim that demand is higher than supply.

And then maybe further, can you clarify: will demand not increase when people are given more money? Won't for example trillions of direct and indirect stimulus drive up demand? And if price stays constant won't the increase in demand not have to result in prices going up in order to avoid supply shortages?

So something I don't quite get is this. (some) economist postulate that pumping metric fucking shit-tons of money into the economy will cause inflation, because there is literally more money chasing the same amount of goods, and this creates a quite expected upwards pressure in prices.

Other economists and politicians posit this won't happen and then proceed to do it, and then inflation happens, and then all of a sudden nobody could have predicted it, it is transitory (until it clearly is not), it is caused by Putin (except not according to the fed chair), it is because the economy is in transition, etc etc.

How about, don't pump metric shit-tons of money into the economy and see how that works.

And while you are at it, maybe don't make a campaign promise to end fossil fuels and act all surprised when the prices for fossil fuels go through the roof. I'm as happy as the next person to see the end to carbon emissions, but I don't do everything I can to end it and then whine about it ending .