paultimate14

Is this an argument that humans did not evolve to eat meat? Because those teeth... Well let's just say the teeth shown aren't what you expect from an herbivore now, is it? Put those on a cow and they would look just as strange.

Economists are pretty famous for fighting amongst themselves. The vast majority of economists don't agree on anything with each other.

The loudest economists tend to agree with each other. The ones whose views and supported policies happen to result in more wealth being funneled to capital holders. For some reason those people are the ones who get interviews on TV and articles published by major outlets. I wonder why that could be?

I'm not saying every "indie" economist on the Internet is valid as there's plenty of bad ones too. But the idea that deflation is terrible certainly deserves scrutiny. Just look around... Is the populace happy with the results of the current systems and policies?

To quote one of the most famous economists, Hayek, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design"

How many people can afford to keep their money under a mattress though? According to studies last year, 57% of Americans could not afford a $1,000 expense.

Why is saving such a bad thing? There's so many articles about how people aren't saving enough for retirement (especially with pensions disappearing as a concept over the last several decades). I know it's been a couple of decades, but just a couple generations ago consumers used to actually benefit from the interest on their savings. My mom likes to talk about how she used Certificates of Deposit to slowly get low-risk, passive income that exceeded the rate of inflation and her mortgage rate and helped to pay off her house. I check every few years and even now CD's just aren't worth bothering with because the rates are so low.

"Savings lowers spending, that's the paradox of thrift. Keep that money in your pocket and the growth will never lift" has some truth to it, but why do we need to perpetually grow on a planet constrained with finite resources? When will our hunger be satisfied?

A lack of savings creates more volatile markets and a worse quality if life for everyone because of it. Toyota famously led the way with their "just in time" business model- reducing inventory down to the absolute bare minimum to operate (savings is not just limited to money). Pretty much every manufacturer in every industry followed suit. Toyota learned it was a bad idea when Japan was hit by an earthquake and they struggled to get parts to make cars- they then reversed course and kept a modest supply of parts on-hand. Most other companies saw this during Covid when "logistical issues" (really the greed of these businesses leading to inadequate insulation from supply chain disruption) led to shortages of almost every consumer good.

Economists seem to forget sometimes that money needs to be used for things other than passively making more money.

That's a gross oversimplification of consumer behavior. Consumers react differently to market changes for different types of goods.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart

Only compared to recent prior rates. The full picture is that rates are final normalizing after being held absurdity low.

Cool story. Not sure how it's relevant.

I would disagree with you on the pedantry. There would be two separate transactions: a buy buys the property from the seller, and the borrower borrows from the lender.

The property is treated as collateral, but the buyer/lender is the owner of the property. Mortgages are a bit special different from most common consumer debt because of the timing- the transactions need to be simultaneous because you need to have the collateral to get the money, and you need the money to get the property, but afterwards you still have ownership of the property.

Whether it's a mortgage, a car, putting a latte on your credit card, or a multi-billion dollar corporate acquisition it's the same.

That aside, the rest of your comment I agree is good advice to consider, but it's just part of the equation. You're assuming the mortgage is actioned as plan throughout it's lifetime. However, the borrower has options. They might want to pay early and will save a lot of interest that way (maybe more than just interest if they have PMI). There's also the option to refinance out of a higher rate later on.

Also... You're comparing two different things by asking if a house listed for $300,000 is worth $700,000. In order to do a fair comparison, you need to do the same calculation for every house you consider and for the entire market you're basing your expectations around. The only houses worth $300,000 when you factor in the interest of a 30 year mortgage would be a fraction of that cost. Or if you're comparing to the alternative of not buying, then what you really need to compare is the cost of renting vs the interest you expect to save in whatever period you expect to defer buying for.

Except even then you can plan to refinance. There's tradeoffs- it's a pain and you have to pay additional costs, but if the rate is that much of a problem it's usually worth it. Plus the additional history of a few years of mortgage will likely help your credit score.

And there's even more context. You're talking about buying today- my parents had immaculate credit and a huge down payment when they bought their house in the 80's. Their interest rate was 15%. The US has had artificially low rates for decades, to the point where people are considering 6% and 7% to be "high".

Rates will certainly impact who can or cannot afford to buy a home of course, but the only ones who are deferring purchasing at all for that reason are people viewing their home as a financial instrume that needs return on investment. If you need a home for shelter, a slightly higher rate is still a way better financial decision in the long-run than renting most of the time.

people put off buying homes and other big purchases because they know it will be cheaper later

What absolute drivel. This myth was obviously formulated by some wealthy economist who had only ever worries about purchasing vacation homes.

People put off buying homes UNTIL THEY CAN AFFORD IT. How many people does the author think are currently in the streets or renting for years just so they can save a bit on their mortgage? Completely garbage.

I feel the same and I think I've narrowed it down to a handful of things, in no particular order.

1. The environment design. Fallout is mostly wastelands, with just a few settlements scattered around. Everyone is fighting each other, plus the monsters that are encroaching on civilization. Everything is a shabby remnant of the past shoddily cobbled together. Even the entire settlement system in Fallout 4 is based on gathering scrap and taping it together. In Skyrim, you can mine and process the minerals to make the nails to put your house together. Skyrim has ruins and remnants of past civilizations, but a lot of the buildings and infrastructure are still in good condition, and there's fresh growth. The wilds of Skyrim are much more diverse than the wastes of Fallout. Fallout 3 in particular has the annoying green filter on everything unless you mod it out. It doesn't feel like there's really a world left to save- it seems like everything is doomed to chaos and anarchy.

2. "Survival". I would not put Fallout in a list of survival games, but it does borrow a lot of elements from the genre. I understand what they're going for, but I don't like the resulting gameplay. Constantly scrounging for weapons, ammo, and resources getd really boring really fast for me. Managing health and Rads too. Every combat effectively takes twice as long when you factor in the time you spend to recover the resources you used.

3. Guns. I know there's a schism in the Skyrim community between those who mod in guns and those who don't. I see a few problems with guns in Skyrim, and most apply to the vanilla Fallout games too. BGS just isn't great at gun play. The feel of the weapons, the environmental design, ammo distribution, enemy AI, physics engine, the sound design... BGS isn't particularly great at any of it. When the ranged combat is a supplemental element of the gameplay that's fine- Bioshock has 2 great games despite mediocre combat mechanics, and the Elder Scrolls games are similar with their bows and ranged magic. Fallout puts the ranged combat front and center, and it falls apart.

4. Progression. I think this is why I love Skyrim, and the source of it's commercial success. I was no stranger to RPG's before Skyrim (both videogames and tabletop), but the ones I enjoyed were imusually in spite of the leveling systems. Usually a lot of grinding and overly complicated systems with points, skills, abilities, etc.

Fallout uses one of my least favorite systems- general experience gained (mostly through combat) that leads to an overall character level increase, which then grants points that can be used to improve specific skills. You want to get better at lockpicking? Go kill something. Barter, speech, science, repair, medicine... The answer is to kill something. Improve the Energy Weapons skill? You can kill something with Small Guns or Melle and it's just as effective. It completely disconnects the actions you take as a player from the development of the character.

Skyrim is the opposite. To get better at lockpicking, you pick locks. To get better with a shield you use a shield. It's both intuitive and satisfying. Other RPG's boast more complexity, flexibility, or realism, but I think Skyrim really hits the sweet spot between accessibility, realism, and customization.

This also ties back to the survival aspects I mentioned earlier, because I also felt like equipment was much more important in Fallout. Your damage there is often more about what gun you're able and willing to use than anything to do with your character. In Skyrim, a character with a high one-handed skill and perks can have pretty good damage with just about any one-handed weapon. There's variance of course- you can tell the difference between an iron sword and dragonbone. But the smithing and enchantments mitigate a lot of those differences. If you haven't focused on enchanting yet you might choose a lower-pedigree weapon with a better enchantment.

5. Lore. This is subjective of course, but I think Skyrim and the rest of the Elder Scrolls just has better lore. The alt-history of Fallout isn't terrible, but it's hard to compete with thousands of years of over a dozen races, various factions, and pantheons of gods interacting with each other. I love reading the books, listening to the dialogue, finding carvings and paintings in the textures or on the item models. Fallout's lore is mostly either "where were you when the bombs fell?", "that asshole leading a group of roughians is being a real jerk", or "Wow Vault-Tex was really unethical ". My wife and I have spent dozens of hours watching YouTube videos breaking down ES lore- everything from speculation about the godhead and very nature of the universe to the one NPC who is vaguely connected to a faction thought extinct.

You think most adults were 100lbs heavier than me at 18?

No. I never said that. I have no idea why you think I did?. According to Guinness, the heaviest baby ever birthed was 22lbs in 1879 (and only lived a few hours). I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you were born weighing less than that, and spent a considerable portion of your early years weighing less than most adults.

I think you're construing this into specifically abusive and destructive people. Those do exist, but my comment was referring to a broader scope. Anger can be a valid emotion, and there are healthy and unhealthy ways of handling it.

Ultimately, my point is that the original comment I replied to was ridiculous.

I straight up don't believe that you were never in a room with an angry adult as a child. Personally I was never sexually or physically abused, but I know plenty of people who have been. A lot of strides have been made over the last several decades to improve parenting, but no one can be perfect for 18 years. Plus you add in teachers, coaches, or other community leaders that might be trusted with children.

The most important part of my comment was just pointing out the absurdity of the comment I was replying to. I could also point out the extent of hyperbole they used- the average American adult male is ~30 lbs heavier than the average American adult female, per the CDC. Or... Well, I could dive deeper into it but ultimately this whole conversation is based in bigotry and isn't worth looking at much more closely than that.