We gotta have an economy to function as a society but the rub of economics in the West is that if it acknowledged why the economy functions the way it does, it would be peeling the facade off our supposedly democratic system of governance and folks would start taking a much keener interest in why wealth is getting so concentrated. We can’t have that, so instead we get increasingly elaborate versions of economic Lamarckism and the field’s Darwins are ostracized as cranks.

If you’re gonna be a lumper you might as well go all the way

The large number of recipes on the internet seems to suggest that they are actually edible, though?

why don’t we just move our corn production over from the east Midwest to the west Midwest?

Live Colorado river reaction:

Gallows humor aside, it’s already happening, but you can see that yields are still lower at the leading edge:

The syllogism P (you read something) then Q (you learn something) presumes a) you can process information contained within the written word and b) you have the capability of learning. While not conclusively falsified by these exchange, a postpostivist interpretation suggests that the preponderance of the evidence rests with the counterfactual. No need for P to actually take place. Thanks for playing, best of luck in your future endeavors.

You’re not really considering the article in the context of what it’s arguing against, which is the implicit position of the World Bank that someone is not “poor” if they’re living on the equivalent of over $3.00 per day (as of 2025). The standard that Hickel et al. are proposing, while low by Western standards, is still much higher than what billions of people are currently experiencing.

My position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you’ve provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.

Nope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.

It’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor

Can’t believe I’m coming to an incredibly qualified defense of Obama here, but I think this is a nothingburger. Gabbard appears to be conflating intelligence community findings that Russia didn’t attempt to directly manipulate the vote count with the squishier narrative that the dems adopted in the post-election ass covering scramble so top-level party members could be spared the wrath of the donors. The fact that the Trump campaign was talking to Russian officials is still a matter of public record, there’s just disagreement over what level of impact that had on the election - Mueller concluded that there was little, while the Dems continued to insist that it did because their face-saving campaign relied on it.

Not sure why we’ve suddenly decided to start posting Republican party propaganda just because the Democrats also suck.

Because it would be a more efficient way to understand their actual methodology than posting random guesses on a comment thread?

Maybe you should read the paper and find out.

The bulk of labor under capitalism goes toward maintaining conditions of artificial scarcity, not supporting wellbeing.

Any explanation for why there was similar convergent evolution toward goofy names? C’mon, numbat, mongoose, sloth bear, aardvark, pangolin, echidna? No way that’s coincidence.

You are, just not in the part of the spectrum visible to humans

I’d say we had a good run but we really didn’t.