I took 3 Econ 101 lectures and here's why I think GDP is completely useless yet experienced economists continue to use it.

We show a long-run player who repeatedly observes private signals and takes actions can sometimes establish a reputation even when their strategy is not identified. Our result applies to games of deterrence, delegation, signaling, and Bayesian persuasion. econometricsociety.org/publications/e…

This is very funny because he blocked me for pointing out his obsession with financing reform wouldnt meaningfully increase housing supply.

so it's like rick, but he's a pickle. pickle rick. funniest shit i ever saw.

Coming back to this David Bowie gets mocked for the laughing gnome but that song is at least listenable. The crossed out songs are both ridiculous and grating. I have no idea why they got away with writing them.

All my followers should listen to this:

This was and is entirely the fault of the building safety regulator that you set up and is currently rejecting 70% of applications that are viable even under our horrifically draconian planning system.

New political science grad students, a piece of unsolicited advice: Take the full formal theory sequence; if it's not offered, go to the econ department (that's what I did). Formal logic is also a great option! Why? You never know what will happen during grad school. 1/8

"Borrows several hundred billion to subsidise energy bills" "Is this spending restraint?"

Ren faire with Samuel Watling

"Oh hello I see you have excellent music taste I too love Tim ... oh you mean his son. Nevermind"

We are never solving the housing crisis are we.

I assumed the article was positive from the headline for this reason

My argument against this is that we have a decent-ish estimate of GDP per capita in 18th century Britain which was c. $3000 in 2005 dollars. I am happy to bet that based on material and qualitiative evidence alone that this was also the upper limit for any prior civilisation.

Land value taxes are once again becoming a popular all-purpose solution to housing issues. But implementing them in early 1900s Britain destroyed the then-dominant Liberal Party.

1. Not the key point 2. Its not *that* bad given the constraints of our current system.

They're going to disprove set theory?