Can you explain this appearance of Osage oranges to me? (Sounds like a meme I'm not familiar with?) Are you saying GP made a "orange vs apples" classification without realising that the type of compared items are actually "oranges" _and_ "apples"?
>this is what happens generally when you fight against anything out of anger. It’s not that you have no justification for fighting; the real problem is that your efforts only make the situation worse, not just for others, but for yourself also.
Problem is that it's hard to recognise that something is worth our moral efforts without feeling angry at the same time. Stoicism is constant work.
Immigration has a "target" that is easy to get angry at. Corruption also has an "other", but that other is usually physically and even values-wise not that different from one's own tribe
>And a man's foes shall be they of his own household
I don't agree that real GDP measures what he thinks it measures, but he opines
>Data released this week offers a striking corrective to the narrative that AI has yet to have an impact on the US economy as a whole. While initial reports suggested a year of steady labour expansion in the US, the new figures reveal that total payroll growth was revised downward by approximately 403,000 jobs. Crucially, this downward revision occurred while real GDP remained robust, including a 3.7 per cent growth rate in the fourth quarter. This decoupling — maintaining high output with significantly lower labour input — is the hallmark of productivity growth.
[0] on the basis that IT and AI are not general technologies in the mold of the dynamo, keyword "intangibles", see section 4 p21, A method to measure intangibles
GDP growth measurements have a big bias due to tariffs on, tariffs off, tariffs on again policies wrecking imports and exports numbers. Consumer spending is up, too, so I too fail to see that gdp growth while jobs are not as up as expected is due to AI making us more productive and not just people spending more after months of increased savings due to tariffs.
I'm curious how "consumer spending" is quantified here.
Is consumer spending measured in total dollars spent? If so, isn't that curious wrinkle in an economy of rising prices, and decreasing purchasing power?
If true, I believe less quantity could be purchased at a higher cost per person, making it appear that consumer spending is up.
Presumably these numbers are benchmarked/peg to some sort of constant and/or standardization
That we've had 2 Kennedys play the wolf suggests that bears are rarer* in the New World than in your country?
*Or just taking it easier..