I think you might have been a little harsh on Walter. Perhaps the answer is more of a "yes and no" depending on your point of view. It does seem like inflation/deflation kind of canceled each other out before moving off the gold standard.
> It is probable that in 1913, while financial panics were not uncommon, high inflation was still largely seen by the founders of the Fed as a relatively rare phenomenon associated with wars and their immediate aftermath. Figure 1 plots the US price level from 1775 (set equal to one) until 2012. In 1913 prices were only about 20 percent higher than in 1775 and around 40 percent lower than in 1813, during the War of 1812. Whatever the mandates of the Federal Reserve, it is clear that the evolution of the price level in the United States is dominated by the abandonment of the gold standard in 1933 and the adoption of fiat money subsequently. One hundred years after its creation, consumer prices are about 30 times higher than what they were in 1913. This pattern, in varying orders of magnitudes, repeats itself across nearly all countries.
Not my area of expertise and no skin in the game, just wanted to point this out.
Hm, I'm skeptical. I think the data might be a little equivocal on that one.
I'm also part of the barefoot running army and tend to think that the braking forces from shoes have a role to play in knee problems (I personally stopped having them when I started running barefoot so that's where my bias comes from.)
Well the point of wearing a mask is mostly to protect vulnerable people, and to slow the spread of a disease. These protests are also about protecting vulnerable people. And, I would argue, to slow the spread of a disease.
I’m thin but I agree with you, I don’t have to think or try to be this way, I just am. I do probably have healthier habits than average. But still, it comes naturally to me. I would feel awful and exhausted if it took willpower all the time just to maintain my weight.
For those who are curious, there's some anecdata online that extended fasting (days or weeks) can reverse this disease.
I can't find much published research on it to be fair, but I think the science in this field is lagging behind people's personal experiences.
If there's evidence to the contrary let me know, I'm not trying to spread misinformation. It's just one of the things I consistently recall reading over the years.
Look, in my neighborhood, in a single weekend, something like 5 people died due to car crashes. One of them was a kid who was killed by a driver who was texting. Some drivers were drinking. Last year, a driver drove into the lobby of a CityMD a few blocks from me and destroyed the entire corner of the building and possibly killed people, I don't know. Just yesterday a car was upside down in the middle of the road on Skillman Blvd.
Even having said that, I kind of agree that it's true that drivers in Manhattan tend to be pretty aware, considerate, and mindful compared to other cities, all the traffic lights notwithstanding. But they have to be -- even just a little bit of distraction and they will kill someone. I can't say the same for the Citi bikers as reckless as they may be. They're far more likely to hurt themselves than someone else, and I'd rather have the reckless amateurs be on bikes than driving cars.
Yea I partly agree I guess. I am a cyclist in NYC and there are definitely "e-bikes" that present more like motorcycles and people drive them over the Queensboro Bridge bike path which is like 3 feet wide. It's crazy. I'm surprised I don't see more streaks of blood on the concrete there to be honest.
So I would like to see better e-bike laws that make it illegal to have a machine that's too heavy and/or fast, and to issue court summonses to people operating those machines in bike lanes. That seems fair. It's a clear hazard, it's a selfish use of resources, and if everyone did it they'd just close the bike path altogether because it'd become unusable.
Having said that, that's not what the city is doing. They're fixated on cyclists running red lights and stop signs, not distinguishing between different kinds of bikes. Bikes, and e-bikes, are safer than cars for everyone around them. We want to encourage people to bike more and drive less because they're so much safer. (Remember a bike isn't like a car -- if a cyclist hits a pedestrian, they're gonna get hurt too!) For this reason, many states allow bikes to treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs. So NYC's sudden shift in policy, to me, feels backwards.
It sucks because if safety was really the major concern the mayor could have just built more and safer bike lines -- which was what he promised to do, made a plan to do, and then just didn't.
They are giving court dates to (regular) cyclists, they are harsher on bikes than cars, and they are stopping cyclists at a higher rate than they stop drivers of cars.
It's around 900 pages. In NYC we have a study group to go over it -- we've covered just a handful of chapters. But most people can get a lot out of just reading the opening section.
You can understand, for example, most of their tactics about immigration by reading the section on Homeland Security, tariffs by reading the Economy section (by Peter Navarro), and so on. They are in fact hewing pretty closely to the plan.
Was told the same thing, but my tap water works fine. If it’s true that it’s harmful I’d like to see some science (even citizen science.) Pretty sure it’s a myth.
They have nothing you describe -- no agriculture, no antibiotics, no farming, no electricity. (The fridge, however, they got covered.) They are quite happy that way. Certainly happier than the people around me in NYC.
Perhaps quality of life is about more than just material goods.