rise to vote, sir

paul:  he also reminded me that recent interest rates are artificially low.  they were low for years because of the (kinda, batshit, crazy) actions of the fed.  having a 0% interest rate for decades at a time, on money, is dangerous, imo.  0% interest rate is very anti-free-market i think, right?  ~a paul:  harris might not have the best record for some independents.  i hear you there.  i'm not a hard-line democrat, i think you know that:  i've voted third party dozens of times.  but, harris didn't take part in january 6th.  she doesn't have dozens and dozens of felony convictions.  the one independent i've been talking to recently seems more concerned with the disqualifying event that happened on january 6th. he is no real president. ~a paul:  "Combine that with some serious inflation and concerns over the border and there's not a lot for independents to feel good about with Biden's presidency"  i 100% agree with you on this.  the inflation isn't terrible, but it isn't great, and the border situation isn't great either.  but i spent the weekend with an independent, and he couldn't stop talking about how january 6th (etc) is disqualifying.  ~a paul:  "I was a bit shocked and dismayed that they decided to coalesce around Harris".  who, who other than harris, had a larger chance of winning against trump?  ~a a: Which is why I was a bit shocked and dismayed that they decided to coalesce around Harris, who is the candidate with the strongest connection to the administration as possible (besides Biden himself). -paul a: And it doesn't help that the Ukraine invasion and October 7th also happened under his watch. Combine that with some serious inflation and concerns over the border and there's not a lot for independents to feel good about with Biden's presidency. -Paul a: I kind of feel like Democrats might be a bit in denial over the popularity of the Biden presidency. His approval ratings were consistently pretty poor. The Afghanistan withdrawal was a significant black-eye... -Paul a: I'm just saying that given it's consistently listed as a top concern, and a significant percentage of voters are seeing the highest inflation of their lifetimes.... I think that likely doesn't help Harris. -Paul a: And sure, there are older voters who remember inflation which is higher. I'm not arguing that all voters today are experiencing the highest inflation of their lives. -Paul a: Yeah. Obviously there is no right or wrong answer, but I don't really see FDR, LBJ, and Nixon as relevant comparisons here given that we're talking about voters who are like 70+ years old who could've possibly voted for them? -Paul paul:  "There are people voting for the first time now who were in diapers in the 2000s"  an increasing number, for sure, every election, but voters older than us will far outnumber voters younger than us in 2024 (based on the 2020 numbers).  people older than us remember high inflation, high interest, and high unemployment.  ~a paul:  "What constitutes a modern president to you?"  seems like there's a lot of disagreement here.  I see FDR, LBJ, and Nixon as first modern presidents argued by historians.  i don't really care which one, but, yeah, probably one of those three.  ~a a: Once you get to people in their 40s, we might remember borrowing costs being lower, but I honestly don't remember mortgage rates being this high. To a big swath of voters, these numbers feel unprecedented. -Paul a: "90s and 2000s" I am absolutely serious when I say that the 90s and 2000s are (distressingly) a long time ago! There are people voting for the first time now who were in diapers in the 2000s. People in their 30s weren't borrowing money back then. -Paul a: The previous President where inflation wasn't a big issue? Or the current vice President whose administration has seen the highest inflation in 20+ years? -Paul a: "harris != biden.  and so do the voters." Not sure I agree on either account. Harris was a part of this administration and thus should have to own at least a portion of its record. If voters are upset about inflation, who are they likely to blame more? -Paul a: "they are old, and wrong numbers" The graph says it's from December 2023, which doesn't seem so misleading old to me, but sure. "it's not above average for the modern presidents" What constitutes a modern president to you? -Paul paul:  for what it's worth, i think the odds are pretty even.  maybe 50/50.  ~a paul:  "the costs of borrowing"  most voters are not concerned with the cost of borrowing.  but, the cost of borrowing is also very low, and has also dropped in the past year. (10-year borrowing rates, ^TNX, in the 90s and 2000s were much higher than they are now, and mortgage-rates are on par with the 90s and 2000s).  ~a paul:  "Sure, but... so?"  it means that the average inflation you linked for biden is strictly wrong.  they are old, and wrong numbers.  "Are you trying to say inflation hasn't been significantly higher under Biden's administration than the previous few administrations?"  you know that's not what i'm saying:  i'm saying it's not above average for the modern presidents.  you also know that harris != biden.  and so do the voters.  ~a a: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1362236/most-important-voter-issues-us/ I mean, just look up what are the primary concerns of voters this election and I'm sure you'll see inflation near the top. -Paul a: And I think for those people, that is going to cause a significant hesitation or resistance towards voting for Harris. -Paul a: People under 40 (an important voting block for the Democrats) haven't really seen this level of inflation during their adult lives. They are not accustomed to seeing such sharp increases in the prices of things OR the costs of borrowing. -Paul a: And yes, I understand if you roll numbers back further you can find instances of higher inflation, but that's beside my point. -Paul a: I'm not trying to argue it's Biden's fault, but it seems pretty undeniable that inflation was noticeably higher the past four years than it was under Trump, Obama, or GWB. -Paul a: And I really doubt most people have noticed or care that prices haven't increased much lately. I'm a little surprised you're arguing this. Are you trying to say inflation hasn't been significantly higher under Biden's administration than the previous few administrations? -Paul a: "You know the inflation has been super low since December" Sure, but... so? There hasn't been deflation. The simple fact is that prices of many things are significantly higher now than they were during Trump's admin. -Paul paul:  "Over the past ~20 years" this is a lie by omission:  over the past 20 years, the inflation rate has been unusually low.  change 20 years to 40 years, and your whole logic evaporates.  ~a paul:  "inflation was chewing through their paycheck" i do, 100% follow this logic.  any time you have a raise smaller than inflation, then you actually got a salary decrease.  get this dude a raise.    ~a paul: "that's not how inflation works" I'm pretty sure it is how inflation works.  "Data is the seasonally-adjusted Consumer Price Index for all items and is current as of Dec. 2023.". You gotta get some new numbers, man.  You know the inflation has been super low since December.  5.0% puts him much closer to Reagan and also puts him barely above the average of 4%.  ~a a: So I guess I disagree with the idea that only biased people are noticing inflation. There were a crap ton of articles about it. Everybody learned what iBonds were. Elizabeth Warren was blaming corporate greed for inflation. -Paul a: I had another person, unprompted by me, randomly mention to me today that inflation was chewing through their paycheck. Gurkie and I have had probably a dozen conversations over the past year about how expensive certain groceries have gotten. -Paul a: So a large percentage of the voting population is seeing rates of inflation that are significantly higher than any other period of their life where they have been buying things. -Paul a: Over the past ~20 years, Biden has seen inflation rates that are at least twice of any rates seen during any other presidential administration, and 3x Trump and 4x Obama (the two administrations immediately preceding his). -Paul a: https://www.investopedia.com/us-inflation-rate-by-president-8546447 That's not the right way to think of it, though, because that's not how inflation works. It's not a smooth and consistent increase every year. -Paul unemployment rate is the same story (4% is well below the historical average of 6%).  ~a "groceries are like 30%+ higher in some cases". i feel that, if inflation was 5% per year, there were way more cases where groceries we not 30%+ higher.  ~a your example is crazy:  $5 in 2008 (time of the commercial) to $7.08 in 2023 is 2% inflation per year.  the inflation during bidens presidency is 5% ((314.121÷262.518)^(1÷(3 + 8÷12))), when the historical average is 4%.  nobody taking an unbiased look at inflation is going to be saying inflation is too high.  ~a a: Just like it's an open question on whether or not crime is worse, people seem to THINK it's worse. I don't know what unemployment numbers are but my LinkedIn feed is filled with doomsday stories which make me think unemployment is bad. -Paul a: And again, this is less about what I think is right and proper and more about what I think the majority is perceiving. I know lots of left-leaning people who are still shocked and annoyed by higher prices. -Paul a: I'm sure some people, to some degree, are looking at their 401(k) balances and are pleasantly surprised, but I'm sure more people are upset that their $5 footlong is now $7 and groceries are like 30%+ higher in some cases. -Paul a: Uh... I think it's relevant but is just a small part of a larger picture. Inflation levels are lower now than previously but prices are still, to many people, shockingly higher than they were during Trump's administration. -Paul I spelled emojis wrong there at least once.  Just to increase my odds that I spelled it right once. (Nah, it was a typo). -- Xpovos a: 5 "El Reistas" emojies and 5 "Skill Issue" emojis.  Not exactly a high-brow conversation area.  Though the discussion there did devolve into 200+ messages about whether or not gag/parody anime's ruined one's ability to say they liked all anime.  So, anything is possible. -- Xpovos ha.  what were the replies?  ~a A random internet quote that I think might amuse here. “> I tried to hit a cyclist and they perfect parried the impact and wrecked my car. Can I sue for damages? The first lawyer I called told me "skill issue lmao" and hung up.” — Xpovos paul:  i know the stock market != the economy, but i noticed the s&p500 and the dow jones industrial average were all at all-time-highs *today* (and nasdaq's all time high was only a few months ago).  do you think that's at all relevant to what you mentioned last night about people thinking they're worse off today than they were four years ago?  inflation is VERY low.  ~a mig: are you a snowflake?  ~a https://x.com/theonion/status/1833679768929112431 is this supposed to be a reference to the guy who died at the assassination attempt?  If so, thats a yikes from me dawg. - mig did anybody watch the debate?  it was very hard to watch, but not even close to as bad as the last one.  ~a But that might be too late to where he could successfully use half the number of units to defeat my numerically superior force. Heck, I shudder at the amount of damage those two adepts did early on. -Paul a: Yeah, I know this is obviously with the benefit of hindsight, but I don't know if I would bother proxying and instead just go for either some zergling rush or two base roach timing or a four-gate or 4 rax or something. -Paul It was a fun video and instructive. The less skillful player just couldn't micro enough in multiple areas to the same extent.  Harstem just has a much better intuitive understanding of the flow of the battle, and where his attention has to be at each microsecond.  Pretty remarkable. -- Xpovos in fact i think the second game he found the proxy too, but had a harder time punishing the proxy unlike the first game.  ~a