Recent submissions

Comment · 9 months ago
Comment · 11 months ago
I really wish microeconomics was a high-school or secondary school required course. It's one of the most applicable to life and voters well-studied disciplines that describes the effects of certain actions towards or away from a competitive market, market elasticity and barriers to entry, explains positive and negative externalities of government action, and how those actions affect consumer pricing and supply (a lot of the topics here and below). Without studying this topic we view words with different underlying assumptions or definitions and it's a lot more effort / time / replies to not talk around each other. It's like two people who only use Windows for Instagram trying to argue about why Apt requiring Rust is good or bad. I'm not weighing in for or against the topic in this thread or its replies, just a plug to study Microeconomics if this stuff interests you!
Comment · 1 year ago
That’s a fun topic. The US government pays just over 19k per person. This means you need to make 100-150k (I came up with 126 with a standard deduction and normal credits) to “break even.”
Comment · 1 year ago
You do not understand microeconomics. No economist would ever advocate for free trade in an academic environment. Competitive markets are the goal. The older I get the more I think microeconomics should be a basic course for voters. All the things you list “production capacity, efficiency, cost, and technical know-how” are well studied.
Comment · 2 years ago
While I agree the conclusion of the article is likely accurate, the arguments lack warrant.

“Since the eyes are directly connected to the brain, Loeffler encourages us to think about our eye health to ensure overall brain health.”

My arm is also connected to the brain. We can argue the definition of direct. Warrant connects the evidence to the claim. This article lacks warrant in many places.

Comment · 2 years ago
"We should properly tax/negate negative externalities" in accordance with microeconomics. It's at the core of basic economics and both conservative and liberal economists would agree with this statement. It's a well studied field. The problem is policy. I often post this, but I really wish microeconomics was a required course in high school or primary. I find it to be one of the least understood of the well-established fields, and one that matters when we get older and vote or debate on these topics.
Comment · 2 years ago
"We should properly tax/negate negative externalities" in accordance with microeconomics. It's at the core of basic economics and both conservative and liberal economists would agree with this statement. It's a well studied field. The problem is policy. I often post this, but I really wish microeconomics was a required course in high school or primary. I find it to be one of the least understood of the well-established fields, and one that matters when we get older and vote or debate on these topics.
Comment · 2 years ago
Comment · 2 years ago
Comment · 2 years ago
I think microeconomics is an under appreciated class / study. Thanks for that point. If more people understood those concepts we could skip some of these basic arguments which is why I think people love HN. You can get to the meat of tech discussions without wasting time on the basics. And I wish we could do that with economic discussions.

But to add on - congestion is not just a negative externality problem - it’s a policy problem to get a throughput of people to a location that the road infrastructure cannot support and therefore must incentivize people to a new transportation method which I’m not sure has a solution outside of economic incentives (New York’s solution) or strict regulation (Beijing with no drive days based on license plate number). No solution is perfectly equitable or efficient. But it’s a fun policy academic discussion with a lot of data! I am biased towards the economic incentives based on studies of the two.

Comment · 2 years ago
It does state as the only fix:

We recommend you use a different browser or disable the “EasyList Cookie” filter from your “Content Filtering” settings (found under “Settings” -> “Shields” in the Brave Browser).

That would lead one to believe it is Brave specific. But I can verify I’m getting this on Safari without a content blocker.

Comment · 2 years ago
No, I’m receiving this same block notice from Safari on mobile with content blockers disabled in Italy by visiting cnn.com.

I found this page by googling the Brave block message on the website that had nothing to do with my browser. I was happy to see the first link was here.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton