Hansel Krankepantzen

My impressions is many professional economists are in the storytelling business. They're not trying to elucidate anything. Indeed, they're more often trying to obscure, hide, suppress real economic issues that conflict with the simplistic stories they're using to promote their own normative views.

When someone says things like that, it should be a big red flag for reasonable, rational, mature people wanting to discuss anything. Special forms of logic, special "ways of thinking," belong at best to philosophical research, at worst, to chicanery and religious claptrap. Maybe just think better?

I'm saying that because a common conceit in economics among economists trying to dominate policy discussions or indeed deflect criticisms of their policy suggestions is they're employing special logic or a special way of thinking, which is where I suppose "economic guru" comes from.

I saw a celebrity economist talking about how he uses "economic logic" to make sense of the world. Just to be clear, there is no special logic nor indeed way of thinking peculiar to economics. Not real economics, anyway. Maybe for false, rhetorical bad economics in the conservative style.

Try to distinguish in your mind risible claims that certain economic policies are better or best for "everyone" from an awareness of distributional issues and an explicit endorsement of the ethics supporting the winners and losers of any economic policy. The latter is the real issue.

One of the rhetorical objectives of bad economics in the conservative style is to suppress awareness of such issues, to portray "everyone" doing better, or indeed often even as best as they can, by following particular, as market utopian, policies. In reality: good for some, not so much for others.

Speaking of distributional or equity issues in economics, Marc Jacob called out an interesting use of the word "we" in conservative, Republican Lord Dampnut's claim that oil prices going up is good because when oil prices go up, "we make a lot of money." Some people may make money, but "we?"

I mean honestly, I've never actually heard anyone propose any such thing before, and I'm hardly what one might call a spring chicken. Are conservatives, Republicans just saying whatever random nonsense pops into their little heads at this point? Remarkable.

The funny thing about living through this era of radical, extremist, conservative, right wing, fascist lunacy is one hears the most amazing things one has honestly never really heard before, such as that the US Constitution has as a goal the compelling of citizens to "appreciate their sex." Really?

I hope that's the case. The GOP adds nothing of value. Only poison, lies, chicanery, corruption, crime. It can go as soon as it's ready and perhaps then a new pro-democracy conservative / "neoliberal" party may arise as liberals and conservatives in the Democratic Party agree to part ways.

The court hears appeals from three southern Neo-Confederate provinces in Magatonia: North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia, and only two states of the USA: Virginia and Maryland. With all the judges being fascist or Christo-fascist Republicans, the Magatonian influence prevailed.

Wait, what now? All-Republican 4th Circuit panel professes to think "encouraging citizens to appreciate their sex" by banning care for trans people a "constitutional goal?" Which constitution is that? Oh, they must be constitutional conservatives, so the one in their heads, not the US Constitution.

This is the post I referenced earlier. Being the fascist Leader and personally doling out rewards, pardons, tariffs, wars, deals seems to be working out quite well for establishment elite conservative, Republican Lord Dampnut. One supposes he'd be sorry to see it go.

Did you see according to Forbes 2026 Billionaire's List that fascist Leader / crime boss / conservative, Republican president Lord Dampnut is now sitting on $6.5 B worth of personal economic power? Up from $2.3 B in 2024? That establishment elite bigwig seems to be doing quite well for himself.

Yes, well. I'm hardly one to argue the fascists didn't intentionally target civilians for whatever reason, given their well-know stance on the significance to them of other people's welfare. I just did that post because I read an awkward exchange that seemed to hinge on word play, not real issues.

Dropping a bomb on a facility in error, due to bad or outdated intelligence, laziness, incompetence, whatever suggests one may say in retrospect targeting the facility was not "intentional" in another sense. Two senses of the word. No sense playing word games. If discussing the issue, disambiguate.

Just calling out a bit of terminological equivocation I saw recently. One may bomb a facility "intentionally" as opposed to accidentally dropping a bomb on it willy-nilly. "Double tapping" a facility suggests intentionality in that sense. However, one may have targeted that facility in error.

Why? They're conservatives, Republicans. Fascists. They don't mind stupidity, incompetent malice, or buffoonery. As long as Lord Dampnut is on track to end democracy, terminate the US Constitution, end the rule of law, they will cheer him on as best they can.

Conservative, Republican voters hate democracy because they have no respect for the voters, but they love plutocratic fascism because their worshipful adoration of and respect for the establishment elite, the rich, billionaires and so on, knows no bounds.

Yes, by design. Conservative, Republican voters wanted the establishment elite, big money, corporations, CEOs, bankers, Wall St. to have much more power relative to voters than they had. That's why they were so concerned to get justices on the Supreme Court to give rulings like Citizens United.

All I can say is that it's lucky for them conservative, Republican voters are as stupid as they are; otherwise, they might well get fed up with that endless self-serving elitist nonsense and start voting for Democrats.

For decades, Republicans were all about screwing the poor and working class to enrich the establishment elite via tax, regulation, program cuts, and the relatively well-off investor class via goosing stock prices. However, these days they seem rather more selective: just deals for the one percent?

Fascist Leader / crime boss / conservative, Republican president Lord Dampnut didn't really name his military operation against Iran at Israel's behest Operation Epstein Fury, did he? I think that must be a joke. Give top billing to someone else? Possibly Operation Trump-Epstein Fury.

Did you see conservative, Republican voters acting through their representative, fascist Leader Lord Dampnut, blew through $5 B of munitions over the first two days of their Iran War? Well, at least they prevented anyone spending it on “Democrat programs” to help the people, am I right?

I mean, he's right, isn't he? Corrupt crime boss / conservative, Republican president Lord Dampnut will pardon anyone for cash. Any criminal. Any crook. Any terrorist. It's why conservative, Republican voters love fascism / gangsterism. They hate the rule of law as much as they hate democracy.

Fun thread on General Bonespur's (aka Lord Dampnut's) military and strategic thinking relating to the Iran War. Basically, destroy some things, presumably as part of some deal with Mr. Netanyahu and other conservatives, right wingers in Israel.

I was confused for a moment because he was talking about "Maga" thoughts on the subject, so I thought he was talking about some odd, radical, extreme group of right wing nutters. I didn't know he was just talking about mainstream conservatism, Republicanism. He must be one of the complacent sort.

Oh, he's talking about conservative, Republicans rhetoric of Western Civilization? That's just typical Nazi claptrap. What's "Western Civilization" then? Just whatever random bits they like, usually certain conservative economic policies, a certain religion, maybe some racism or slavery, whatever.

Presumably one reason war mongering conservative, Republican fascist voters are so interested in terminating the US Constitution.

Stop being so damned complacent. Conservative, Republican voters want war if they think they might make a buck off it.