I think the point is people disproportionately tsk tsk about the harms of drug use compared to the harms of alcohol.
Personally I think most substances in moderate quantities taken only occasionally are no big deal. Yes there is probably some minute health impact visible in long term longitudinal studies but it's probably dwarfed by other lifestyle factors. I would rather be someone who exercises regularly, eats a healthy diet and uses MDMA or cocaine a few times a year than a sedentary obese teetolar who's never touched drugs.
not 100% disputing what you're saying and im sure more automatics/EVs etc will gradually filter in. BUT it's not just an affordability thing lots of people just prefer cheaper cars and would prefer to put their disposable income elsewhere.
There's still a big demand for manuals here, not just from petrolheads either. They're popular generally but in particular with newly qualified drivers, and people who live in urban areas and drive only infrequently. They're just cheaper and more economical.
That being said it is shifting (haha) slowly- I think in the last couple of years the majority of new cars sold have been automatic. But most people buy used anyway so manual is going to be around for a long time yet.
I'm UK based and still drive a manual. The main reason being cost. I'm a super infrequent driver (maybe once a week for bulky shops or long weekend trips) and don't want to be paying through the nose for something that is a convenience not an essential. I drive a second hand 2013 Toyota aygo which was super cheap, is zero rated for road tax, incredibly reliable and ultra fuel efficient.
I'd be willing to bet I'm quite representative of other city based drivers who have the option of public transport, walking or cycling. That's why I don't see the demand for manual dropping any time soon.
Sorry I just don't agree with this. I run 50 miles a week and mix in some cycling too, and I actively have to make an effort to eat enough to maintain weight. Endurance cardio doesn't trigger hunger or cravings for me unless it's a long (90 mins plus) effort.
you say that but a complete minnow (Leicester) won the league only five years ago putting all these 'big' clubs to shame. Yes the odds are stacked in their favour but the only thing that keeps it exciting is the (small) chance of a big upset.
> This claim is false. If you can empirically support a result which shows that something most other economists believe is likely false and can do so convincingly
It's almost impossible to do that though isn't it? Economics isn't a hard science, it's not like you can run RCTs or experiments. And all actually-existing economic systems are situated within an actually-existing political, social and historical context, meaning we only ever observe a tiny fraction of the possible universe of economic systems. There is no possibility to explore counterfactuals.
> This demonstrates a misunderstanding of how economics departments are funded. Grant funding is a very small part of the departmental budget everywhere
I never mentioned grants, departments still have to be funded somehow, whatever that process is, it will introduce selection biases.
It's not that simplistic, it's not a conspiracy it's a self-selecting self-replicating system.
How do economics professors get hired? By impressing other economics professors. And by having the power to win funding for the department. Who are the people that tend to fit those criteria? Mostly, those who already agree with the existing establishment, and those who already have views amenable to the well-resourced bodies that distribute funding.
my main problem with economics is it makes a philosophical error in that it assumes people and economic agents are inert objects to be studied as you would chemicals or atoms, without the capacity to react and respond to economic "laws" thereby changing them. Reflexivity is a thing.
Would you apply the same criteria to literature? Film? Art? Why isn't someone like, say, Jackson Pollock as 'clear and understandable' as a renaissance painter?
I admit Deleuze's writing is hard work but he has some really interesting metaphysical ideas linked to complexity and systems theory, try reading Manuel DeLanda for a more accessible introduction
Personally I think most substances in moderate quantities taken only occasionally are no big deal. Yes there is probably some minute health impact visible in long term longitudinal studies but it's probably dwarfed by other lifestyle factors. I would rather be someone who exercises regularly, eats a healthy diet and uses MDMA or cocaine a few times a year than a sedentary obese teetolar who's never touched drugs.