Oh, I see.

We both agreed that the late 20th century – broadly, the period from the early 1990s onward for a decade or so – had mostly been one of fairly steady improvement.

Ah yes, a famously bubble-free period. /s

Talking to old-timers, and reading history, it sounds more like revolving hype cycles have been around for the whole industrial age. TBF they do touch on that timeline later and correct themselves a bit.

Some were dumber than others. Foo-as-a-service wasn’t even a new concept, that’s just called renting shit out!

First, Caesar had a policy of extremely generous mercy towards his opponents in the civil war - he wanted to avoid appearing as a tyrant, and pardoned almost all of his enemies without preconditions, not even a pledge of support. This was an extremely powerful tool to exercise, as it made resisting Caesar less appealing than surrendering - if you lose nothing by surrender, not even your honor, and your cause appears hopeless… why not?

TBF, he also pretty famously found out why a little bit of terror and keeping enemies down could have been a good idea.

Yup. If I had better things to do, would I be posting here?

Curiosity kills this cat. I’ll go with being rich but miserable.

Food staples. I know cans are old technology, but they fucking work. They’ll last at least as long as they’ve been around, and depending on the item come surprisingly close in quality to the fresh or homemade item. Dried beans and pasta are also a great deal.

I can attest to this for older models. It’s really hard to know if standards have slipped in their luxury product era, though.

The MacBook I’m typing on (in Linux) is closer to 15.

Oh I see, you want to die get downvoted to hell.

Fun fact, aside from the fluoride, you actually don’t need a paste at all. Just the friction does the important part.

Wait, what? They’re not putting diamonds in there. Charcoal is softer than graphite, which is a soft mineral to start with.

Really? I would have thought that by the easy-to-deal-with metric, anything RISC would win.

Yeah, as much as I’m situationally on my own country’s side right now, I probably would have been a Patriot.

What is the reason, besides finacialization, that restricting supply makes sense?

It sounds good to voters. Zoning is basically a promise to keep the neighborhood free of things you don’t personally care about under the guise of thoughtfulness. Current owners like that, and it’s too abstract for most of the people who lose from it to care about.

Same reason they scream bloody murder when it goes away. Calgary’s zoning just got forced back in.

How could I possibly be quoting out of this article if I didn’t read it? They divide housing stock by number of (thousands of) adults for the upper line of the second graph. If the average number of adults in a household changes, that line is misleading. They make an effort by not including children, but it’s not enough.

That’s my guess why the 20th century looks that way, anyway. If you crop at 2000, suddenly it shows exactly what mainstream analysts have been saying - lots of immigrants came in all at once, and the housing supply tightened. Otherwise it’s close to flat.

Beyond housing itself, they inject (current, Canadian) numbers about debt, but that connects to a lot of things, and the ratio of home price to median income. Median household income has diverged from the mean, and yes the finance system has changed. They really haven’t made an argument for their version to dissect. It’s all innuendo and appeal to the authority of other people they agree with.

They start with “the CMHC is recommending too much construction”, which is defensible, but “housing is all a huge bubble” is a more extraordinary claim, and “actually there’s plenty of houses” is a non-sequitur.

And yes, I have a minor in Economics with a Math major. FWIW.

I’m surprised at the language you’re using, then. ECON101 is a phrase you see from people who think Das Kapital is a current textbook.

Ah yes, European history, famously full of compromise and tempering. /s

Nationalistic tensions. As in, they’re locked in a long-term military rivalry with Algeria. Only Greece really falls into that category as far as I know.

Household, not house.

In 1900, people in the West lived with extended family members, like in essentially all other cultures. By 2000, not so much. In between it varied by socio-economic class. Your 1970’s family might include grandpa if they’re not rolling in it.

Most likely, that’s what you’re seeing on the bulk of this graph.

It’s not as simple a story, but it actually offers a reasonable explanation for the observed data,

No, no it doesn’t. I’d explain why, but that would be the exact same comment again.

ECON101

What, do you have an economics degree?

You can’t shit on other people’s education unless yours is better.

That’s good of you. I can’t imagine every accountant is so flexible. Lawyers straight up have to charge most of the time, I think.

It could also be a technical expert, or the government (in which case, refer to the lawyer).

I haven’t seen gourmet yet.