International NGO Creating a better world one day at a time.
Find us: Our Website Bluesky Mastodon
I have technically used them, however not by my own volition at all.
Spent two weeks getting comments from a colleague about my consistent driving habits, being a safe driver, etc.
I thought we just shared a portion of the route there. Turns out we didn’t lmao. That was a fun one.
Read alot, research well, and be honest about your own skills and understanding on a topic when talking with your friends, family, and strangers.
Look for, and even ocassionally try researching as an advocate of the opposing viewpoint.
Try your hand at creating your own as-close-to-the-truth sources of information for others. Could be anything from quick notes and topic basics, to full newsletters, reports, and expert statements.
All depends on the who, what, when, where, and how.
Are we talking muppet muppets? Or can we go all old fashioned?
If so my choice is Big Bird.
I can speak as someone who holds public office.
In my work as an appointed member of government, all our meetings are held fully accessible to the public. We technically can have have conversations about what our votes will be, or what we think etc. outside of the meetings, however those conversations cannot let anyone whether us or any member of the public, know how the votes will go before the meeting happens, and that can include the minutes prior. If it happens it can range in anything from fines to jailtime, of course and garunteed to be blacklisted from just about any public work in the future given violation of our Oath of Office.
Thus, technically any conversations or messages between the board, our liason, etc. relating to the work we do can be subpoena’d or FIA’d, or just outright requested by members of the public given relevance, but generally anything we do as private citizens should remain private like for anyone else.
It’s quite huge in many ways and smaller in others. Not enough studies have been done overall to determine the range of it’s affect, especially given the growing access to the wider internet and social media across a major portion of the human population, though significantly still segregated in the ways in which it’s accessible.
I can personally say for a fact that there is already growing social mobility relating to how it’s being used, as well as where policy is moving. This is where we will end up seeing the longer term trends given more are sociologically changing habits as well as better legal requirements, shifting policy reccomendations, and overall scientific recognition of affects.
I hope better in the long run, but definitely close to a net neutral given the way it’s moved overall, and a net negative in recent years.
Eh. Classic story of a street punk who turns his life around. Been done a million times.
Generally? Haiti.
What’s that?
<Huh?>
What’s that called?
Denali <Mountain>
I’m sorry?
Denali <Mountain> is what that’s called.
Ah. Of course, off you go.
Marks down Mount Denali. Excellent.
[Joke from a bit farther up north than us, language is different but the joke’s the exact same.]
For the good stuff ? Always buy thrift, long as you know how to clean the absolute hell out of them properly, I find it’s a worthwhile venture.
That’s actually quite the improvement. I remember back when I had the lovely choice between an actual hourly train that would take you within a literal days walk of your destination with the entire route having the constant risk of you being run over, the local bus route which requried switching three busses even to leave town, with another 5 or 6 easily to reach close walking distance to where you’d be going the next town over, or the good old fashioned route of just driving there which took a good hour and a half if you were going anywhere important and had the added bonus of constant risk of being run off the road from our local drivers.
To be fair these days it’s a lot better, the bus route only takes three swaps at worst, and the bus drivers only ocasionally start driving like they are formula 1 racers on their way to take a pit stop in the middle of goddamn nowhere.
Well wealth wealth usually doesnt show show, even moderately wealthy households don’t have much worn on them that would make them targets.
Like that other guy said, as far as my memory goes as to the reality, and mathematical theory, the method is vastly more inefficient in just transmitting power. Material science is generally a better area of research given everything.
Oh and the whole this method of transmission of power is entirely incompatible with our modern world thing plays a part why its not much considered anymore. As far as I know of course.
Lol sorry for taking so long, night classes are totally kicking my ass.
I love the way you put the question, to give you a simple answer, no.
The closest I could say that would fit the bill would be the general assumption that if one person has one thing, another person has another thing, there should be some measurable mutual demand in most cases that will allow for a mutual agreement as to make a trade.
Outside of that, pretty much the entirety of the field is based on various assumptions that compound one another, or build upon earlier assumptions to try and make better theories as to how the markets function, or how to use past and current data to create better predictions of the future markets. While less so do now, many would dedicate their time towards better study and understanding as to past market conditions as well.
Lol yea, think tank thing is real as well. First-gen student and all that, so thought hell I have the education might as well use it, even if I’m a one man show here. This is genuinely turning into a whole lecture here lmao so uh, good luck lol.
Funny you say that, that’s actually one of the reasons I’m trying to push my local library to host a few community education semminars and the such, in a perfect world I would spend my life going from one subject to another just soaking in everything I can.
Economics as a whole, and the economists themselves, can either end up being practically stuck in the 19th or 20th century, or standing right on the bleeding edge of theory and application. While as a field in and of itself, economics equally relies on existing mathematical principles for use, so it’s a rarity to find an economist trying to create new mathematical principle like you would with a mathematician, but you will find lots of economists working to use new mathematics to integrate into economics models. A good example of this, is how often models used in the world of physics end up being used in modeling economies, or specific sectors. Even right now, the most common model used for determining market averages is a 19th century equation developed to determine the temperature of a room. Though that’s not even looking at the priciples of the subject, which are as old as know written language, if I recall you can still find basic economic principles on old cuneiform tablets. As for actual acceptance of theory, it’s pretty much always up for grabs, given it’s a field of observations on the real world, it’s impossible by it’s nature to have a universal proof, mathematically speaking at least.
As for currently widely accepted theory, the easiest to point to in the modern world are two basic assumptions. First, is that in any given economy, growth is considered a perpetuity. In the junior economics world (aka business leaders lol) they take that as the mantra “expand or die,” though it’s quite a bit more accurate to see each part of an economy, whether that’s a single business or entire sector, as limited in it’s current full potential, but the additions to the economy as a whole tend to be stay within the whole, in one form or another, even if that firm or sector disappears. Mostly this is through research, infrastructure, even how taxes paid get redistributed. So, you can technically have “infinite” future growth, while still operating within a limited resource world.
Of course the problem is most businness leaders and politicians don’t end up taking that longer run thinking, and just jump into the take everything you can and give nothing back bandwagon.
Recessions are a bit of of a hot-bed in the policy side of things, given the underlying assumption of the post-war economic models implemented in the US after WW2, and copied world-wide, is that consistent inflation on a year to year basis would be able to both foster greater economic growth by increasing total possible credit in an economy (which it does) but, that that year to year constant inflation rates should also prevent recessions and general depressions. Of course that half hasn’t come true, most senior economists over the years have pivoted into the viewpoint that controlled inflation smoothes out larger recessions and depressions, but that’s still up in the air. Since the 2008 recession was very much a depression, with many recessions ocurring pretty much decade after decade since it was enacted in 1945, it’s very much being questioned as a central policy, but for the most part it hasn’t collapsed so it’s still probably going to be enacted.
Democrats now are where Republicans were in the 80s
To quote some of my most respected and honorable colleagues on the hill:
“Stephen Miller plays with dolls”
Kinda like that other guy, once I ripped my cd collection to digital, just didn’t even get into streaming.
Still make mixtapes the old fashioned way for my partner (corny lol I know) and I buy the occasional remaster at a local thrift shop, or the old baked out hippie running a music / instrument shop.
It’s an honest joy.
It’s reality.