gmtx725

I think the point is people disproportionately tsk tsk about the harms of drug use compared to the harms of alcohol.

Personally I think most substances in moderate quantities taken only occasionally are no big deal. Yes there is probably some minute health impact visible in long term longitudinal studies but it's probably dwarfed by other lifestyle factors. I would rather be someone who exercises regularly, eats a healthy diet and uses MDMA or cocaine a few times a year than a sedentary obese teetolar who's never touched drugs.

it was just called "Kingdom of Great Britain" before 1801 when it only included England Scotland and Wales

The ancient Egyptian god is fuming

not 100% disputing what you're saying and im sure more automatics/EVs etc will gradually filter in. BUT it's not just an affordability thing lots of people just prefer cheaper cars and would prefer to put their disposable income elsewhere.

There's still a big demand for manuals here, not just from petrolheads either. They're popular generally but in particular with newly qualified drivers, and people who live in urban areas and drive only infrequently. They're just cheaper and more economical.

That being said it is shifting (haha) slowly- I think in the last couple of years the majority of new cars sold have been automatic. But most people buy used anyway so manual is going to be around for a long time yet.

In the UK manuals are still significantly cheaper, so the bottom end of the market prefers them as well as the petrol heads

What about the cost factor? In the UK manuals are still significantly cheaper than automatics.

I'm UK based and still drive a manual. The main reason being cost. I'm a super infrequent driver (maybe once a week for bulky shops or long weekend trips) and don't want to be paying through the nose for something that is a convenience not an essential. I drive a second hand 2013 Toyota aygo which was super cheap, is zero rated for road tax, incredibly reliable and ultra fuel efficient.

I'd be willing to bet I'm quite representative of other city based drivers who have the option of public transport, walking or cycling. That's why I don't see the demand for manual dropping any time soon.

Manuals are still ubiquitous where I am in the UK so I don't agree with that assessment. They are still vastly cheaper than automatics as well.

> So, just like almost everybody else

Projection?

Sorry I just don't agree with this. I run 50 miles a week and mix in some cycling too, and I actively have to make an effort to eat enough to maintain weight. Endurance cardio doesn't trigger hunger or cravings for me unless it's a long (90 mins plus) effort.

It's not completely an illusion. You had for example Leicester winning the league only five years ago.

you say that but a complete minnow (Leicester) won the league only five years ago putting all these 'big' clubs to shame. Yes the odds are stacked in their favour but the only thing that keeps it exciting is the (small) chance of a big upset.

What even is a "true price", ontologically speaking?

> This claim is false. If you can empirically support a result which shows that something most other economists believe is likely false and can do so convincingly

It's almost impossible to do that though isn't it? Economics isn't a hard science, it's not like you can run RCTs or experiments. And all actually-existing economic systems are situated within an actually-existing political, social and historical context, meaning we only ever observe a tiny fraction of the possible universe of economic systems. There is no possibility to explore counterfactuals.

> This demonstrates a misunderstanding of how economics departments are funded. Grant funding is a very small part of the departmental budget everywhere

I never mentioned grants, departments still have to be funded somehow, whatever that process is, it will introduce selection biases.