Liquidated
116 posts
So much extreme doom posting. Historically, things always work out. The good times last longer than the bad. The truth is always a bit more in the middle. Certainly more than we will ever see on x regardless of your beliefs For weeks people have called for limit downs at the weekly open and none have come. There have been hundreds of big market events like Iran, Ukraine, Covid, US China Trade war in 2018, 2013 Taper tantrum, the GFC etc. Everything always returns to its standard programming. Governments will continue to be irresponsible, and grow their debt. Nothing ever changes
and jet fuel even if you have all the light sweet in the world. you would still be faced with a refined product famine, while you wait for the infra to be rebuilt(No one can finance this today). But what about Venezuela, don't they have heavy sour crude and the infra for it?
I'm not sure if Cremieux is stupider than I thought or if I'm stupider than I thought for ever thinking that he was smart. Oil is a fungible product. China doesn't need "Iranian Oil". It needs some kind of oil. And if it is willing to pay there's just no way the US can lock down all the supply. If anything, China might end up inadvertantly being in a better position again a la war in Ukraine. The truth is when your rival goes to war, you win. This is especially true if the war turns out to be sticky. As for Iran, all the world is a partner for China and none (except possibly for Pakistan) is an ally.
Between 1974 and 2014, only 0.1% of publications in the top 50 economics journals were replication studies. That's 40 years. Thousands of papers. Almost none replicated. We've built careers on findings no one has verified. When economists finally replicate studies, 40-67% fail depending on the study. Federal Reserve (2015): Only 49% of 67 papers from top journals successfully replicated — even with the original authors' help. Most papers? Never checked at all. Here's the worst part: Papers that don't replicate get cited MORE than papers that do. And after a failed replication is published, only 12% of subsequent citations mention it. The profession rewards interesting findings, not true ones. Remember Reinhart-Rogoff (2010)? "Debt above 90% GDP kills growth." Herndon, Ash & Pollin found a spreadsheet error. Results didn't hold. But by then, it had shaped austerity policy across Europe and the US. How many other canonical papers have Excel errors? We replicate recent papers, but canonical findings from the 1970s-90s? Nobody touches them. Too famous. Too foundational. The older the paper, the less scrutiny it gets. Yet these are the studies we cite most. Maybe we should replicate backwards. Start with the most-cited papers from 1975-2000. See what holds up. federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/i…
Ishow Speed's Africa tour should have never included Arab countries, those guys don't really like black folks Just look at how boring the stream in Egypt was and then how he was attacked in Algeria, with bottles thrown at him They see themselves as mini Europeans, just look at how they've been behaving at the Afcon tournament towards black folks
