Cool, so the US students will be able to read school banned books ?
Or US state banned research papers ?
Or US state banned historic books or photos ?
Or soft banned late night shows - so Colbert will continue ? Kimmel ?
Or domains of shadow book libraries banned by FBI/corporate requests ?
And it will circumvent geoblocking enforced mostly by US companies ?
Cool, such a heroic effort to remove censorship from theinternet that US enforces on us :-)
Ooh, almost forgotten there also some porn and media pirating sites blocked in the EU that will surely get also unblocked. But who cares, there are thousands of theese....
Btw. did Putin and Xi allowed this ? Or their `free` internet will remain free as before.
And, I know those shadow libraries are banned because of copyright, but that's just an excuse. If someone pushes such a broad understanding of Freedom as US does, than copyright should maybe not be the one exception that's ok. People should have freedom to publish anything and other should have freedom to read/play/watch anything. If US can ban something because of so abstract as copyright, why can't EU ban something because of so abstract as `its all lies and state sponsored propaganda` ?
NOTE: just playing devils advocate here, to show the hypocrisy of it all...
Those book "bans" are just librarians' decision on what to use finite shelf space to stock. Students are 100% free to bring any of the "banned" books to school and read them. By this logic, when a librarian changes out an older set of YA novels with a newer set, those older novels are being "banned". So to answer your question:
> Cool, so the US students will be able to read school banned books ?
The answer is "whenever they want."
Furthermore, the CDC's calls for retraction don't prohibit anyone from reading the retracted papers.
Sure, librarians wouldn't know how to do they work, if they didn't get a list on 'not approved' books from the school boards. /s
It's something else if something can't be bought or placed on the shelf because its on some school provided list, and if you (librarian) decide you don't buy it because of (whatever reason).
The same with research, if something is not published, or funding on research is stopped because `we know climate change doesn't exists`, that no one can read it, because its not even created.
But who cares, its useless debate...
Or as some 'uknown' VP would say: We will protect freedom of speech until the last journalist is behind the bars. That is the price we are willing to pay.
As the Democrats reminded us regularly back when they had total control of social media, freedom of speech as a legal principle only applies to government actions.
Yeah, it looks like when everything is now hyper effective and all unnecessary spending was already cut, thanks to DOGE and BBB, there is no problem spending few millions on Shuttle moves, Ball rooms etc... /s
btw. Where is DOGE now ? Was it self-optimized to 0 employees now - like when there is no cost cutting needed anymore - than cost cutting agency is the most ineffective part of the government ;-)
> YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump and other plaintiffs after he was suspended from the platform in 2021, according to a court filing.
> According to the filing, $22 million will be used to support Trump’s construction of a White House State Ballroom and will be held in a tax-exempt entity called the Trust for the National Mall.
> According to the filing, the settlement “shall not constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Defendants or their agents, servants, or employees, and is entered into by all Parties for the sole purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of further litigation.” Google/YouTube also did not agree to any product or policy changes.
There are many concurrents? How do you figure? There has never been as little choice and alternatives, let alone actual competition than today.
A few corporations control most of the food you eat, even less control the food you eat in restaurants. Very few media companies control the "content" you can consume and you cannot even own it, let alone sell or even trade it, and it seems everyone just pays more whether they keep raising their prices.
That is measurably untrue and it took me about ten seconds of searching to find it. https://www.billmeridian.com/articles-files/inflation.htm and many others. Historically I know you tend to argue pretty dishonestly but this was pretty easy to find and so either you're lying or didn't bother doing any research past reading Ayn Rand.
Also, prices spiking up from incompetent threats of tariffs and not coming down are categorically different than regular inflation. This is obvious and shouldn't need to be explained to you.
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.
I am harsh on Walter because he tends to argue in bad faith in order to support some weird pro-business libertarian world view. He's super active on HN (as am I) so I have argued with him and there are multiple times he has said things that are outright dishonest (like once claiming that incompetent workers immediately get fired from corporations, a post I can't find quickly but is in my history somewhere, or trying to paint me as some alien-believing UFO fanboy which I am not).
So when he makes absolutist statements like "there was no inflation in the US before 1914", which is a typical springboard for libertarians to start complaining about the federal reserve and propose some idiotic Ayn Rand nonsense, I have trouble not being literal here.
There is nothing wrong with being a UFO fanboy - anyone that is not these days is psychotic. There have been so many leaks at this point, if you don't believe that's dangerous.
You're all waiting for Trump to claim it or something? It's already been announced.
Kind of off course for this convo, but no I do not think that recent "evidence" of UFOs is very compelling. Feel free to believe what you'd like but I do not think it's extra-terrestrials.
Even if we do some phenomena that we cannot explain as of right now, that does not imply aliens, it only implies that there's something we can't (yet) explain. A lot of the videos that were being hailed as smoking guns seemed to be a combination of camera artifacts and just optical parallax and stuff like that. It doesn't pass my metric for aliens yet.
The thing is, I would absolutely love to be wrong on this. It would be insanely cool to be part of the first humans who found extra-terrestrial life, so if anything I'm biased in favor of these things being aliens, but as of right now I am not convinced.
Can you quote where Friedman says “inflation [in America] started the year after the Fed was created”?
What you may be trying to say is until about 1900 there was little secular (i.e. fundamental long-term) inflation, given price levels oscillated more than they moved [1]. But the change to steady inflation pre-dates the Fed. And the secular shift to constant inflation starts in WWII, not 1914 or 1976.
The chart I showed did not show "steady inflation" before the Fed. The Depression is a bit of a special case, the deflation there was also caused by the Fed and their misunderstanding of how to adapt to changing conditions.
"The Federal Reserve System therefore began operations with no
effectiye legislative criterion for determining the total stock of money.
The discretionary judgment of a group of men was inevitably substituted
for the quasi-automatic discipline of the gold Standard." pg 193
"The stock of money, which had been rising at a moderaterate through-out 1914, started to rise at an increasing rate in early 1915, rose
most rapidly, as prices did, from late 1915 to mid-1917, and then resumed
its rapid rise before the end of 1918, rather sooner than prices did.
At its peak, in June 1920, the stock of money was roughly double its
September 1915 level and more than double the level of November 1914,
when the Federal Reserve Banks opened for business." pg 198
"The Reserve System was thus in an asymmetrical position. It had the
power to create high-powered money and to put it in the hands of the
public or the banks by rediscounting paper or by purchasing bonds or
other financial assets. It could therefore exert an expansionary influence
on the money stock." pg 213
"The large federal government deficits, totaling in all some $23 billion,
or nearly three-quarters of total expenditures of $32 billion from April
1917 to June 1919, were financed by explicit borrowing and by money
creation.30 The Federal Reserve became to all intents and purposes the
bond-selling window of the Treasury, using its monetary powers almost
exclusively to that end. Although no "greenbacks" were printed, the
same result was achieved by more indirect methods using Federal Re
serve notes and Federal Reserve deposits. At the beginning of U.S.
participation in the war, Federal Reserve notes accounted for 7 per cent
of high-powered money and bank deposits at Federal Reserve Banks for 14
per cent" pg 217
"The Reserve Board was aware that Bank discount rates were below
current market rates throughout 1919, that this was contributing to
monetary expansion, and that monetary expansion was contributing to
the inflation." pg 222
> Friedman quotes attributed inflation to the actions of the Fed
Then this is a lie:
“Inflation started the year after the Fed was created.
See ‘Monetary History of the United States’ by Milton Friedman” [1].
> for inflation through the history of the US, see
I’ve already pointed out how that source lies about the data it cites [2].
I will assume you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading. But it’s too close to willful dishonesty for me to continue to engage if you’re just going to double down.
Sorry, didn’t mean to convey that. Just perhaps mild frustration.
I don’t believe you meant to speak inaccurately. But the chart clearly misquotes its source data. That was pointed out and yet we couldn’t get past it across multiple threads.
I pulled the source data and recompiled the true rates; they partly support your hypothesis (but not the chart’s). There was inflation before the Fed but, if those data are to be believed, very little of it was secular. The balance of inter- versus intragenerational stability (and how that may have changed with industrialization and computers) is a genuinely interesting question, and not one I’d have stumbled across in this context were it not for you.
Visualizing Economics cites this source [1]. VE seem to lie about what it says.
Measuring Worth shows 1774 CPI at 7.8; by 1912 it is 9.4 [2]. That’s a low, low inflation rate of 0.1% per year, 20% over 138 years. But it’s not zero and it’s certainly not negative.
If we take 1790 (8.86) to 1914 (9.69), MW shows 0.07% annual inflation. That is the statistic you should be pointing to.
But! Within the 1790 to 1914 era we see inflation from 1790 to 1814 (2.75% annually; prices doubled over 20 years). During the Civil War, prices doubled in just five years; inflation 1860 to 1865 was over 14% annually. (CPI inflation goes to 2% annually between 1914 and 1944, 3.7% ‘44 to ‘76, 4.2% ‘76 to ‘08 and 2.4% from ‘08 to ‘24.)
We had inflation in America before the Federal Reserve. It was lower, long term, than it has been post Fed. But the common factor to our inflation is war. To the extent there is a link in these data, and I’m saying this having not noticed this before, it’s between inflation and war.
> That’s a low, low inflation rate of 0.1% per year,
See where I quoted: "-0.2% Average Annual Inflation 1774-1912"
BTW, inflation measurements before 1900 are a bit difficult, as how does one compare prices from 1774 with 1912? Not only are records poor, but the goods being compared are wildly different.
I.e. I don't know what the error bars are on the aggregate statistics, and neither do you. 0.1% and -0.2% are realistically well within the error bars. In fact, even today, 0.1% is likely within the error bars, as measuring inflation is fairly difficult, and there's always going to be noise as market prices are a chaotic system.
> where I quoted: "-0.2% Average Annual Inflation 1774-1912"
You quoted VE. They misquoted MW. If VE is adding error bars to MW’s data, they—one—should not. But if they do, they should show how they manipulated the data.
There is no legitimate source showing negative annual inflation between 1774 and 1912; your source’s own sole citation disagrees with its claim.
> 0.1% and -0.2% are realistically well within the error bars
What error bars?! They’re the same data!
Your chart on VE says it is showing data from MW. I took those same data and calculated the same number your chart claims to calculate with the same data they link to. The answer is different. And this isn’t, like, I used CAGR and they did simple growth because the sign flipped!
> inflation measurements before 1900 are a bit difficult, as how does one compare prices from 1774 with 1912?
You really can’t. Not meaningfully. You’re integrating data covering the pound sterling, Continental Congress, eras with no federal currency, eras with state and wildcat currency, and a civil war to boot. You’re also trying to compare a basket of wooden teeth and suet with one holding smartphones, gasoline and antibiotics.
But you brought the data and made the claim, and while VE is lying about what their source says, the actual data at MW is actually a legitimate attempt at the problem.
I think they will. If they don't see this as gross breakage of the Constitution, then we're cooked no matter what. Clearly there is no "national emergency" like a war or economic depression, so he's breaking the law, either that or the law doesn't mean anything in a legal or common sense interpretation, just the imaginings of a tinpot orange dictator.
I think this won't be the last thing up Krasnov's (well the Project 2025 lawyers anyway) sleeve, I do think the SCOTUS will shoot down the tariffs though.
