oscillator gain

Well, there's not much to say, is there? All she does is laugh like a hyena and pull funny faces. It seems the MSM are giving her an easy time of it (not surprisingly). She'll make an excellent puppet for the Globalists to give orders to; won't query anything and will do exactly as she's told without complaint.

And pigs will grow wings.

Smart people can work out how not to have babies, if they don't want them. Most of the smart people I know have two or three kids.

They used to. The rest of the world has learned how to bribe their best and brightest to stay at home. The US with its over-priced health care and gross social inequality, is a much less attractive destination for clever people than it used to be, so the bribes don't have to be all that generous.

Except that it isn't super productive or super multi-cultural any more.

Australia would work just as well for him, but you wouldn't have read his essay if he lived in Sydney.

Pretty much everybody can speak English in countries that do secondary education. They tend not to speak it at home.

The US has a lot of racial and language-based tribalism, so it has got a long way to go. It's military-industrial complex needs wars to keep it's turnover high, in the same way that the fossil carbon extraction industry needs to sell a lot of fossil carbon as fuel, despite the unfortunate side effects of burning it.

As prophet, John Larkin sucks.

Rupert Murdoch's newspapers print the propaganda of people who have enough money to bribe Rupert Murdoch.

The bias is what Rupert is selling. Essentially the WSJ is complaining that the NYT isn't printing the propaganda that the WSJ is paid to print.

With Fox News running as Donald Trump personal propaganda machine, you've got a fairly direct measure of Rupert Murdoch's journalistic integrity.

She's tediously sane and normal. Trump is a depressingly example of the defects of American "democracy" - a somewhat unnatural disaster - and reporters love reporting disasters.

She did react sensibly to Trump's more absurd outburst during the debate. She did laugh, if not much like a hyena.

Somebody more susceptible to rational argument than Cursitor Doom might have noticed that she offered quite a lot of it.

It seems the MSM are giving her an easy time

If there were any actual Globalists to order her about, I doubt if she would pay much attention to them. She had a fairly impressive career as a prosecutor, which suggests that she isn't all that biddable.

Cursitor Doon does seem to believe all the right-wing nonsense that the Murdoch media throw at him, so he may well be projecting.

Regulating an economy with pouring government money into crucial sectors and infrastructure, seems vastly more effective. China does this, and remember Trump-level corruption can get you a dead penalty.

Groetjes Albert.

China has been playing catch-up until recently, as Japan did earlier.

When you've got foreign examples of what does work, it a lot easier to pour the investment into sectors that you know can use it, because other advanced industrial countries did it first and demonstrated that it could work.

Once you've caught up, you got to make your own developments decisions, and that's a lot more difficult. The rule of thumb I heard was that about 30% of development projects developed something useful and profitable, and the remaining 70% didn't earn anything out of the effort put in,and many got cancelled before they'd got anywhere at all.

People don't fly pigs. They use airplanes.

Economists don't even agree on which direction to pull, but they do mostly want to pull hard. It's the power thing. Just Powell's body language slams a trillion dollars around nowadays.

It's not a good career path for an economist to say "leave it alone and the market will work."

I cite the morons who forced interest rates to zero for years and didn't think what might happen.

So let 300 million people decide.

Native speakers of English are aware that "pigs might fly" is an expression of scepticism about a statement being responded to, rather than any kind of literal statement.

I was more verbose in my deprecation of your claims (which were remarkably silly).

They also call the flying machines "Aeroplanes".

One could name names.

Most economists do agree about the direction to pull. It's a quantitative science so - while there are differences about the size of the pull required - there's a measure of concensus about that too. Theatrics do come into it, but mostly from the lunatic fringe.

That approach leaves the economy cycling between boom and bust. Bang-bang control sort of works, but it doesn't work well.

That was a reaction to the Covid-19 epidemic,and avoided a recession. They were thinking very carefully about what might happen, even if you couldn't.

This is the same group who hasn't rejected Donald Trump decisively enough. It's hard to keep them well informed about complicated subject, and even harder when there's a lot of self-interested propaganda flying around. You have been totally suckered by climate change denial propaganda, and your opinions on economics are evidently equally susceptible to lying propaganda.