#macroeconomic modeling

[airwavesdotblog]

Navigating Turbulent Waters: What to Expect During a Global Economic Collapse.

April 28, 2024 Based on a recent article titled “Realistic Things to Expect During a Global Economic Collapse” from MSN. Here’s a concise summary and analysis: Stock Market Volatility: During an economic collapse, stock markets can experience extreme fluctuations. Investors may witness rapid declines in stock prices, leading to panic and uncertainty. Currency Devaluation: The value of national…

[probablyasocialecologist]

A comprehensive new review by experts in the sustainability science field, published in The Lancet Planetary Health, is challenging the long-held assumption that economic growth is necessary for societal progress.

The review, led by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) and titled "Post-growth: the science of wellbeing within planetary boundaries," explores the rapidly advancing field of post-growth research and presents a compelling case for prioritizing human well-being and ecological sustainability over endless economic expansion.

[...]

Key findings from the review include: The Limits to Growth: The review revisits the findings of the 1972 report "Limits to Growth," noting that the world is currently tracking the "Double Resources" scenario, where collapse is driven by pollution rather than resource scarcity. This aligns with current concerns about climate change and biodiversity loss. Decoupling is Insufficient: While relative decoupling of GDP from resource use is common, the review finds no evidence of sustained absolute and sufficient decoupling, and models suggest that it is unlikely even with optimistic assumptions about technology. Social Limits to Growth: The review finds that above a certain level of income, economic growth does not improve human well-being, and the costs of growth (e.g., pollution and social upheaval) may offset its benefits. There are diminishing returns for social outcomes such as health, education, and poverty reduction as GDP increases. Post-Growth Policies: The review highlights the development of ecological macroeconomic models that test policies for managing without growth. It discusses a range of policies to reduce growth dependencies and promote well-being, including universal basic services, working-time reductions, job guarantees, and carbon and wealth taxes. Well-being within Limits: The review emphasizes that high levels of well-being can be achieved at lower levels of resource use. It argues that focusing on public services, income equality, and democratic quality can meet human needs with much lower energy use. North-South Dynamics: The review acknowledges the unequal exchange between the Global North and the Global South, where richer countries appropriate resources and labor from poorer nations. It suggests that post-growth in high-income countries might benefit low-income countries by reducing this exploitation. However, the review notes that post-growth could also negatively affect low-income countries that are dependent on exports to high-income countries, unless low-income countries implement policy interventions towards monetary sovereignty, industrial policy and effective delinking from high-income economies.

17 January 2025

[hms-no-fun]

Hi! I just read your post about your opinion on "AI" and I really liked it. If it's no bother, what's your opinion on people who use it for studying? Like writing essays, solving problems and stuff like that?

I haven't been a fan of AI from the beginning and I've heard that you shouldn't ask it for anything because then you help it develop. But I don't know how to explain that to friends and classmates or even if it's true anymore. Because I've seen some of the prompts it can come up with and they're not bad and I've heard people say that the summaries AI makes are really good and I just... I dunno. I'm at a loss

Sorry if this is a lot or something you simply don't want to reply to. You made really good points when talking about AI and I really liked it and this has been weighing on me for a while :)

on a base level, i don't really have a strongly articulated opinion on the subject because i don't use AI, and i'm 35 so i'm not in school anymore and i don't have a ton of college-aged friends either. i have little exposure to the people who use AI in this way nor to the people who have to deal with AI being used in this way, so my perspective here is totally hypothetical and unscientific.

what i was getting at in my original AI post was a general macroeconomic point about how all of the supposed efficiency gains of AI are an extension of the tech CEO's dislike of paying and/or giving credit to anyone they deem less skilled or intelligent than them. that it's conspicuous how AI conveniently falls into place after many decades of devaluing and deskilling creative/artistic labor industries. historically, for a lot of artists the most frequently available & highest paying gigs were in advertising. i can't speak to the specifics when it comes to visual art or written copy, but i *can* say that when i worked in the oklahoma film industry, the most coveted jobs were always the commercials. great pay for relatively less work, with none of the complications that often arise working on amateur productions. not to mention they were union gigs, a rare enough thing in a right to work state, so anyone trying to make a career out of film work wanting to bank their union hours to qualify for IATSE membership always had their ears to the ground for an opening. which didn't come often because, as you might expect, anyone who *got* one of those jobs aimed to keep it as long as possible. who could blame em, either? one person i met who managed to get consistent ad work said they could afford to work all of two or three months a year, so they could spend the rest of their time doing low-budget productions and (occasionally) student films.

there was a time when this was the standard for the film industry, even in LA; you expected to work 3 to 5 shows a year (exact number's hard to estimate because production schedules vary wildly between ads, films, and tv shows) for six to eight months if not less, so you'd have your bills well covered through the lean periods and be able to recover from what is an enormously taxing job both physically and emotionally. this was never true for EVERYONE, film work's always been a hustle and making a career of it is often a luck-based crapshoot, but generally that was the model and for a lot of folks it worked. it meant more time to practice their skills on the job, sustainably building expertise and domain knowledge that they could then pass down to future newcomers. anything that removes such opportunities decreases the amount of practice workers get, and any increased demand on their time makes them significantly more likely to burn out of the industry early. lower pay, shorter shoots, busier schedules, these aren't just bad for individual workers but for the entire industry, and that includes the robust and well-funded advertising industry.

well, anyway, this year's coca-cola christmas ad was made with AI. they had maybe one person on quality control using an adobe aftereffects mask to add in the coke branding. this is the ultimate intended use-case for AI. it required the expertise of zero unionized labor, and worst of all the end result is largely indistinguishable from the alternative. you'll often see folks despair at this verisimilitude, particularly when a study comes out that shows (for instance) people can't tell the difference between real poetry and chat gpt generated poetry. i despair as well, but for different reasons. i despair that production of ads is a better source of income and experience for film workers than traditional movies or television. i despair that this technology is fulfilling an age-old promise about the disposability of artistic labor. poetry is not particularly valued by our society, is rarely taught to people beyond a beginner's gloss on meter and rhyme. "my name is sarah zedig and i'm here to say, i'm sick of this AI in a major way" type shit. end a post with the line "i so just wish that it would go away and never come back again!" and then the haiku bot swoops in and says, oh, 5/7/5 you say? that is technically a haiku! and then you put a haiku-making minigame in your crowd-pleasing japanese nationalist open world chanbara simulator, because making a haiku is basically a matter of selecting one from 27 possible phrase combinations. wait, what do you mean the actual rules of haiku are more elastic and subjective than that? that's not what my english teacher said in sixth grade!

AI is able to slip in and surprise us with its ability to mimic human-produced art because we already treat most human-produced art like mechanical surplus of little to no value. ours is a culture of wikipedia-level knowledge, where you have every incentive to learn a lot of facts about something so that you can sufficiently pretend to have actually experienced it. but this is not to say that humans would be better able to tell the difference between human produced and AI produced poetry if they were more educated about poetry! the primary disconnect here is economic. Poets already couldn't make a fucking living making poetry, and now any old schmuck can plug a prompt into chatgpt and say they wrote a sonnet. even though they always had the ability to sit down and write a sonnet!

boosters love to make hay about "deskilling" and "democratizing" and "making accessible" these supposedly gatekept realms of supposedly bourgeois expression, but what they're really saying (whether they know it or not) is that skill and training have no value anymore. and they have been saying this since long before AI as we know it now existed! creative labor is the backbone of so much of our world, and yet it is commonly accepted as a poverty profession. i grew up reading books and watching movies based on books and hearing endless conversation about books and yet when i told my family "i want to be a writer" they said "that's a great way to die homeless." like, this is where the conversation about AI's impact starts. we already have a culture that simultaneously NEEDS the products of artistic labor, yet vilifies and denigrates the workers who perform that labor. folks see a comic panel or a corporate logo or a modern art piece and say "my kid could do that," because they don't perceive the decades of training, practice, networking, and experimentation that resulted in the finished product. these folks do not understand that just because the labor of art is often invisible doesn't mean it isn't work.

i think this entire conversation is backwards. in an ideal world, none of this matters. human labor should not be valued over machine labor because it inherently possesses an aura of human-ness. art made by humans isn't better than AI generated art on qualitative grounds. art is subjective. you're not wrong to find beauty in an AI image if the image is beautiful. to my mind, the value of human artistic labor comes down to the simple fact that the world is better when human beings make art. the world is better when we have the time and freedom to experiment, to play, to practice, to develop and refine our skills to no particular end except whatever arbitrary goal we set for ourselves. the world is better when people collaborate on a film set to solve problems that arise organically out of the conditions of shooting on a live location. what i see AI being used for is removing as many opportunities for human creativity as possible and replacing them with statistical averages of prior human creativity. this passes muster because art is a product that exists to turn a profit. because publicly traded companies have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to take every opportunity to turn a profit regardless of how obviously bad for people those opportunities might be.

that common sense says writing poetry, writing prose, writing anything is primarily about reaching the end of the line, about having written something, IS the problem. i've been going through the many unfinished novels i wrote in high school lately, literally hundreds of thousands of words that i shared with maybe a dozen people and probably never will again. what value do those words have? was writing them a waste of time since i never posted them, never finished them, never turned a profit off them? no! what i've learned going back through those old drafts is that i'm only the writer i am today BECAUSE i put so many hours into writing generic grimdark fantasy stories and bizarrely complicated werewolf mythologies.

you know i used to do open mics? we had a poetry group that met once a month at a local cafe in college. each night we'd start by asking five words from the audience, then inviting everyone to compose a poem using those words in 10 to 15 minutes. whoever wanted to could read their poem, and whoever got the most applause won a free drink from the cafe. then we'd spend the rest of the night having folks sign up to come and read whatever. sometimes you'd get heartfelt poems about personal experiences, sometimes you'd get ambitious soundcloud rappers, sometimes you'd get a frat guy taking the piss, sometimes you'd get a mousy autist just doing their best. i don't know that any of the poetry i wrote back then has particular value today, but i don't really care. the point of it was the experience in that moment. the experience of composing something on the fly, or having something you wrote a couple days ago, then standing up and reading it. the value was in the performance itself, in the momentary synthesis between me and the audience. i found out then that i was pretty good at making people cry, and i could not have had that experience in any other venue. i could not have felt it so viscerally had i just posted it online. and i cannot wrap up that experience and give it to you, because it only existed then.

i think more people would write poetry if they had more hours in a day to spare for frivolities, if there existed more spaces where small groups could organize open mics, if transit made those spaces more widely accessible, if everyone made enough money that they weren't burned the fuck out and not in the mood to go to an open mic tonight, if we saw poetry as a mode of personal reflection which was as much about the experience of having written it as anything else. this is the case for all the arts. right now, the only people who can afford to make a living doing art are already wealthy, because art doesn't pay well. this leads to brain drain and overall lowering quality standards, because the suburban petty bouge middle class largely do not experience the world as it materially exists for the rest of us. i often feel that many tech CEOs want to be remembered the way andy warhol is remembered. they want to be loved and worshipped not just for business acumen but for aesthetic value, they want to get the kind of credit that artists get-- because despite the fact that artists don't get paid shit, they also frequently get told by people "your work changed my life." how is it that a working class person with little to no education can write a story that isn't just liked but celebrated, that hundreds or thousands of people imprint on, that leaves a mark on culture you can't quantify or predict or recreate? this is AI's primary use-case, to "democratize" art in such a way that hacks no longer have to work as hard to pretend to be good at what they do. i mean, hell, i have to imagine every rich person with an autobiography in the works is absolutely THRILLED that they no longer have to pay a ghost writer!

so, circling back around to the meat of your question. as far as telling people not to use AI because "you're just helping to train it," that ship has long since sailed. getting mad at individuals for using AI right now is about as futile as getting mad at individuals for not masking-- yes, obviously they should wear a mask and write their own essays, but to say this is simply a matter of millions of individuals making the same bad but unrelated choice over and over is neoliberal hogwash. people stopped masking because they were told to stop masking by a government in league with corporate interests which had every incentive to break every avenue of solidarity that emerged in 2020. they politicized masks, calling them "the scarlet letter of [the] pandemic". biden himself insisted this was "a pandemic of the unvaccinated", helpfully communicating to the public that if you're vaccinated, you don't need to mask. all those high case numbers and death counts? those only happen to the bad people.

now you have CEOs and politicians and credulous media outlets and droves of grift-hungry influencers hard selling the benefits of AI in everything everywhere all the time. companies have bent over backwards to incorporate AI despite ethics and security worries because they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, and everyone with money is calling this the next big thing. in short, companies are following the money, because that's what companies do. they, in turn, are telling their customers what tools to use and how. so of course lots of people are using AI for things they probably shouldn't. why wouldn't they? "the high school/college essay" as such has been quantized and stripmined by an education system dominated by test scores over comprehension. it is SUPPOSED to be an exercise in articulating ideas, to teach the student how to argue persuasively. the final work has little to no value, because the point is the process. but when you've got a system that lives and dies by its grades, within which teachers are given increasingly more work to do, less time to do it in, and a much worse paycheck for their trouble, the essay increasingly becomes a simple pass/fail gauntlet to match the expected pace set by the simple, clean, readily gradable multiple choice quiz. in an education system where the stakes for students are higher than they've ever been, within which you are increasingly expected to do more work in less time with lower-quality guidance from your overworked teachers, there is every incentive to get chatgpt to write your essay for you.

do you see what i'm saying? we can argue all day about the shoulds here. of course i think it's better when people write their own essays, do their own research, personally read the assigned readings. but cheating has always been a problem. a lot of these same fears were aired over the rising popularity of cliffs notes in the 90s and 2000s! the real problem here is systemic. it's economic. i would have very little issue with the output of AI if existing conditions were not already so precarious. but then, if the conditions were different, AI as we know it likely would not exist. it emerges today as the last gasp of a tech industry that has been floundering for a reason to exist ever since the smart phone dominated the market. they tried crypto. they tried the metaverse. now they're going all-in on AI because it's a perfect storm of shareholder-friendly buzzwords and the unscientific technomythology that's been sold to laymen by credulous press sycophants for decades. It slots right into this niche where the last of our vestigial respect for "the artist" once existed. it is the ultimate expression of capitalist realism, finally at long last doing away with the notion that the suits at disney could never in their wildest dreams come up with something half as cool as the average queer fanfic writer. now they've got a program that can plagiarize that fanfic (along with a dozen others) for them, laundering the theft through a layer of transformation which perhaps mirrors how the tech industry often exploits open source software to the detriment of the open source community. the catastrophe of AI is that it's the fulfillment of a promise that certainly predates computers at the very least.

so, i don't really know what to tell someone who uses AI for their work. if i was talking to a student, i'd say that relying chatgpt is really gonna screw you over when it comes time take the SAT or ACT, and you have to write an essay from scratch by hand in a monitored environment-- but like, i also think the ACT and SAT and probably all the other standardized tests shouldn't exist? or at the very least ought to be severely devalued, since prep for those tests often sabotages the integrity of actual classroom education. although, i guess at this point the only way forward for education (that isn't getting on both knees and deep-throating big tech) is more real-time in-class monitored essay writing, which honestly might be better for all parties anyway. of course that does nothing to address research essays you can't write in a single class session. to someone who uses AI for research, i'd probably say the same thing as i would to someone who uses wikipedia: it's a fine enough place to start, but don't cite it. click through links, find sources, make sure what you're reading is real, don't rely on someone else's generalization. know that chatgpt is likely not pulling information from a discrete database of individual files that it compartmentalizes the way you might expect, but rather is a statistical average of a broad dataset about which it cannot have an opinion or interpretation. sometimes it will link you to real information, but just as often it will invent information from whole cloth. honestly, the more i talk it out, the more i realize all this advice is basically identical to the advice adults were giving me in the early 2000s.

which really does cement for me that the crisis AI is causing in education isn't new and did not come from nowhere. before chatgpt, students were hiring freelancers on fiverr. i already mentioned cliffs notes. i never used any of these in college, but i'll also freely admit that i rarely did all my assigned reading. i was the "always raises her hand" bitch, and every once in a while i'd get other students who were always dead silent in class asking me how i found the time to get the reading done. i'd tell them, i don't. i read the beginning, i read the ending, and then i skim the middle. whenever a word or phrase jumps out at me, i make a note of it. that way, when the professor asks a question in class, i have exactly enough specific pieces of information at hand to give the impression of having done the reading. and then i told them that i learned how to do this from the very same professor that was teaching that class. the thing is, it's not like i learned nothing from this process. i retained quite a lot of information from those readings! this is, broadly, a skill that emerges from years of writing and reading essays. but then you take a step back and remember that for most college students (who are not pursuing any kind of arts degree), this skillset is relevant to an astonishingly minimal proportion of their overall course load. college as it exists right now is treated as a jobs training program, within which "the essay" is a relic of an outdated institution that highly valued a generalist liberal education where today absolute specialization seems more the norm. so AI comes in as the coup de gras to that old institution. artists like myself may not have the constitution for the kind of work that colleges now exist to funnel you into, but those folks who've never put a day's thought into the work of making art can now have a computer generate something at least as good at a glance as basically anything i could make. as far as the market is concerned, that's all that matters. the contents of an artwork, what it means to its creator, the historic currents it emerges out of, these are all technicalities that the broad public has been well trained not to give a shit about most of the time. what matters is the commodity and the economic activity it exists to generate.

but i think at the end of the day, folks largely want to pay for art made by human beings. that it's so hard for a human being to make a living creating and selling art is a question far older than AI, and whose answer hasn't changed. pay workers more. drastically lower rents. build more affordable housing. make healthcare free. make education free. massively expand public transit. it is simply impossible to overstate how much these things alone would change the conversation about AI, because it would change the conversation about everything. SO MUCH of the dominance of capital in our lives comes down to our reliance on cars for transit (time to get a loan and pay for insurance), our reliance on jobs for health insurance (can't quit for moral reasons if it's paying for your insulin), etc etc etc. many of AI's uses are borne out of economic precarity and a ruling class desperate to vacuum up every loose penny they can find. all those billionaires running around making awful choices for the rest of us? they stole those billions. that is where our security went. that is why everything is falling apart, because the only option remaining to *every* institutional element of society is to go all-in on the profit motive. tax these motherfuckers and re-institute public arts funding. hey, did you know the us government used to give out grants to artists? did you know we used to have public broadcast networks where you could make programs that were shown to your local community? why the hell aren't there public youtube clones? why aren't there public transit apps? why aren't we CONSTANTLY talking about nationalizing these abusive fucking industries that are falling over themselves to integrate AI because their entire modus operandi is increasing profits regardless of product quality?

these are the questions i ask myself when i think about solutions to the AI problem. tech needs to be regulated, the monopolies need breaking up, but that's not enough. AI is a symptom of a much deeper illness whose treatment requires systemic solutions. and while i'm frustrated when i see people rely on AI for their work, or otherwise denigrate artists who feel AI has devalued their field, on some level i can't blame them. they are only doing what they've been told to do. all of which merely strengthens my belief in the necessity of an equitable socialist future (itself barely step zero in the long path towards a communist future, and even that would only be a few steps on the even longer path to a properly anarchist future). improve the material conditions and you weaken the dominance of capitalist realism, however minutely. and while there are plenty of reasons to despair at the likelihood of such a future given a second trump presidency, i always try to remember that socialist policies are very popular and a *lot* of that popularity emerged during the first trump administration. the only wrong answer here is to assume that losing an election is the same thing as losing a war, that our inability to put the genie back in its bottle means we can't see our own wishes granted.

i dunno if i answered your question but i sure did say a lot of stuff, didn't i?

[lockes-woods]

Kinktober '24 Day 10

Request: modern au, professor shanks( his topic of teaching is up to you) college student afab reader, dom shanks, sub reader. reader starts falling behind in his class and nobody has time to help her because its near exams n stuff ( im not 100% familiar ) so shanks offers to help her out. i guess kinda semi public, in a library, use of vibrator reward system, fingering, degradation when she gets stuff wrong, that kind of thing if you catch me drift, totes cool if it ends with sex. ( for kinktober )

Warnings: PIV, Shanks teasing, vibrator, cockwarming, desk sex.

A/N: Will edit tomorrow when more coherent

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Aw, sweetheart we just reviewed this model today, this should be easy.” Shanks chastised you. You didn’t even need to turn your head to see his smirk; it was clear in his voice. You whined as he clicked the vibrator he was holding against your clit up to the next speed of vibration. You had been cockwarming him for the better part of the last hour and it was driving you crazy. All you had to do was answer five questions in a row correctly and then he’d let you cum without punishment. When you got a question wrong it not only ended the streak, but it also meant that the vibrator he was holding flush with your clit would go up a vibration setting. If you came before then he was gonna see that you wouldn’t cum until exam season was over. The main problem was, you’d get four down, before he’d quiz you on a model you had no idea how to interpret.

While you had gotten better since the midterm, there was no way you were going to excel at macroeconomics. You knew reasonably that it was one of those classes that, while it technically applied to your major, you would never use in the real world. Fuck the midterm was the only reason you were sat here, with the tip of your professor’s cock kissing your cervix. While you knew you didn’t need this class to excel at your career, you did need to keep and maintain a high enough GPA to stay in the honor’s program. That program qualified you for scholarships and grants that allowed you to study your passion at all. When you came close to failing the course with your pathetic midterm grade you started to go to every single office hour session your professor offered.

Over the past six weeks you two have gotten close. You were almost always the only one attending office hours, if others did attend, they didn’t stay for the entire session. It had been roughly three weeks since there was a shift in your professional relationship. It was at his latest office hours he held on Friday nights. You had come in an actually put together outfit, not your normal comfy clothing. Your friend was planning on setting you up on a date that you would never get to. You had been going over one of the dozens of economic models you needed to not only memorize the effect of, but also interpret and apply the information given when you became acutely aware of how close you were to your professor. You sat shoulder to shoulder as you leaned down to get a better understanding of the graph, unaware of the perfect angle of cleavage you were unintentionally showing your very attractive professor. You don’t remember exactly how, but you quickly switched from him teaching you, to you straddling his lap in a heated make out session. You had only given him head that night, but since then he had incorporated a sexual element to each of your study sessions. The most embarrassing part was that you were genuinely doing better in the class since your relationship had turned unprofessional. It wasn’t from him giving you extra grace while grading, if anything he had gotten harsher, you just needed that bit of motivation to keep your focus.

“Fuck, please Sir,” you whined, you were getting desperate at his unintentional edging. It was always at this point in the night that you questioned if he had purposefully made it harder for you to complete his challenge, or if you were just really that dumb.

“I’m sorry baby, you know the rules I set for tonight. You can always give up, but you won’t cum if you don’t play.” He gently reminded you, before adding, “And if you succumb and do cum without my permission you won’t be getting any more relief for the next week and a half. Though that option seems to be more and more likely.”

You let out a groan, clicking on the next set of questions he had set up for you. Now fueled by proving him wrong. You got through the first two in a breeze, the third one was hard, but you had just answered right enough that he counted it, the fourth had you stumped but the pulse of him deep inside of you kept you determined. It was now not just about cumming it was proving him wrong. After a moment you went out on a limb and were thankfully rewarded with the correct answer. Now came the fifth question. Fuck you could feel him pulsing and twitching against you; he was so deep inside of you that you felt like you could cum on the spot. You took a deep breath through your nose and keyed into the last question. You recognized it as information that you had just gone over earlier today. Fuck, you groaned internally. He had you wear a remote operated vibrator today. He had kept it on low the entire class, but it garnered almost all of your attention regardless.

Okay, Fuck, Focus; you chastised yourself.

“Aw, baby you’re wasting your time. Why don’t you just cum? It’d feel so good.” He taunted you, “I’d love to make a mess of your pussy” he grunted as you involuntarily clenched around him, “It’s only a matter of time, you can give up now or be forced to give up when I turned up the vibrator. We both know how sensitive your little clity is.”

You took a deep breath his taunting only lit a fire under you. While it wasn’t always a good thing, your stubbornness kept you strong throughout his comments. You reread the question, taking time to break down each component. You slowly worked your way through the problem before leaning back against his chest. After a cursory checking you hit the submit button. A smile broke across your face as the green checkmark glowed on the screen.

“Fuck, good girl,” he said, rewarding you with a sweet kiss.

A gasp escaped you as he pulled back and quickly slammed his laptop shut and moved it to the side. He covered your mouth with his hand as he shifted you position so that you were now bent down over his desk; vibrator lost somewhere in the process.

“Be a good girl and be quiet, okay?” he said, before you were even able to give a response, he slammed into you hard. He was as desperate if not more desperate than you to get to yours, and his inevitable release. Your eyes widened as you took in the light still on across the hallway to his office mates’ area. He had never taken you before with someone else in the vicinity. He only ever fucked you after hours. You were left stunned for a moment, before the steady hard drags of his cock took all your attention. You could feel all the stress of the last hour melt away as he quickened his pace and began to fuck you with intent. You gasped against his hand, clenching down on him hard.

“Fuck, just like that, good girl.” He groaned, picking up his pace as you only tightened more.

“Fuck, Sir I’m going to-” you started,

“Fuck, go ahead baby, you’re doing so good,” he groaned. You let out a silent scream under his palm as you pulsed around him. He grunted, as he continued to thrust into you well past your release. You were a whimpering mess on his desk, as he used you how he pleased. His hips stuttering was the only warning you got before his grip became bruising. His final thrust was hard and purposeful as he came deep inside you.

You could only whimper as he eased out of you, pulled up your underwear and flipped your skirt back down.

“You okay baby?” he asked, tucking himself back into his pants before pulling you back down so that you were flush against him. You could only whine, still coming down from your high.

“I’m okay,” you said in a small voice, once you finally felt back home back in your body.

“Good,” he said kissing you temple, “I’m excited to see what you get on the exam.”

“Really?” you asked, tilting your head slightly to the side.

“Mmhmm,” he hummed, “You’ve come so far since the midterm, and I don’t just mean that in the literal sense.” He said with a smirk. You only rolled your eyes at him.

“You’re such a dork,” You said, sharing a laugh.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MASTERLIST

A/N: Thank you as always for taking the time to read! Stay tuned for Fatgum x AFAB! Reader

[theabigailthorn]

Piggybacking off of your last answer; does the fact that the lids on the secret projects coming off at least help with new roles you’re aiming for?

I’m wholly blind on how casting works truthfully, but I would think that now you could share what other projects you have been a part of that it would help in some ways when going for new parts?

I appreciate everything you do. I’ve had to watch your most recent video a couple of times because of how much it has me thinking about the myriad of topics it touches and I thank you so much for it.

Cheers~

That's always the hope, haha.

But macroeconomic forces play a huge role: when interests rates went up streaming became a less viable business model so now there's a lot less stuff being made. Between that, the strikes, ad-spend being down cause advertisers are pivoting to social media, and the COVID backlog, the industry is in a major crisis. 76% of creative freelancers in the UK are out of work right now and in the USA it's not much better. Not all of those jobs are going to come back and I don't think there's going to be a 'return to normal.' We're living through an extinction level event in entertainment.

On the downside that means there's less work. On the upside it means there's suddenly everything to play for and things that would have been impossible a few years ago are suddenly doable if you've got the courage and the resources. "When there's blood on the streets, buy property!"

[yourdailykitsch]

Taylor Kitsch Was Sleeping on the Subway Before He Was Cast in 'Friday Night Lights'

Taylor Kitsch, 43, is a Canadian actor best known for his roles in "Friday Night Lights," "Savages" and "American Assassin." He stars in the Netflix Western miniseries "American Primeval," which starts Jan. 9.

Beginning in the fourth grade, I loved talking in front of my grade-school classes. We had public-speaking contests, and I'd get up and tell improvised fictional stories.

Some kids spoke about penguins or polar bears, but I made up funny stories about nightmares. Classes often voted for me as their favorite, sending me on to compete on the assembly stage. If the audience there voted for me, too, off I'd go to compete against other schools.

I was a class clown, always trying to make people laugh. While I had zero interest in drama in school, public speaking planted a seed for acting years later.

My family first lived in Kelowna, British Columbia, but I don't remember much about it. My parents divorced when I was 1. My father, Drew, had been a race-car driver and then worked in Guyana diamond mines before going into construction.

Following my parents' separation, my two older brothers - Brody and Daman - and I lived with my mother, Sue. When I was 5, we moved to Anmore, a rural area north of Vancouver. My mom held a few jobs to pay the bills.

Three years later, my mother had a serious boyfriend, Peter, who was older than her. We moved into a double-wide, ugly blue mobile home with four bedrooms in a trailer park.

The surrounding area was forested, so I often played in the woods with my best friend, Paddy. All those trees and quiet provided me with a sense of calm and wonderment. The woods were an adventure and an escape.

Peter was a gentle soul and taught me to play soccer. When I was 12, he and my mom split up. I was a mess, angry, and not totally understanding. I was emotional when Peter and I had to say goodbye.

I insisted my mom drive me a half-hour to his house so I could spend weekends there. This continued for several months until I was told he'd died.

Peter was a big guy and incredibly athletic. He never yelled, and he taught me it was acceptable for guys to express their feelings. That was a huge help. As a kid, I was so freaking insecure. I didn't know where to put my energy when I felt things.

In high school, I was good in subjects I liked - English and history. The rest was a mystery. At the University of Lethbridge in Albert, someone told me to major in finance. I took a semester of macroeconomics, which was ridiculous for me.

After a year, I left. I was lost. I'd hoped hockey would be my ticket, but an injury at age 20 ended that dream.

Then my mom tricked me into meeting a modeling agent in Vancouver. He sent my pictures to IMG Models in New York. They signed me, and I moved there in 2002. While acting wasn't part of my grand plan, it seemed like a logical offshoot.

I took classes, but I was super cocky at first, which angered my acting coach, Sheila Gray. She kicked me out of class, and said, "Come back when you're ready to listen and study." That was the nudge I needed.

I returned to Sheila a few weeks later and dug in. My passion for acting grew as I uncovered my love of a challenge, leading to self-discovery and belonging. That's when I realized acting was more than just a craft. It was a career.

Most helpful were sheila's classes on improv and scene study. Chris Forberg, my friend and modeling agent who knew I was studying, saw that I'd stuck with it and thought I would make a better actor than model. He offered to introduce me to a few acting managers, and that's how I found Stephanie Simon, who is still my manager.

Though Sheila let me take classes for free, I didn't have a visa so I couldn't work. I lived on friends' couches, slept on the subway and coached clients on nutrition for cash.

Eventually, I went to Barbados and worked construction with my dad for nearly two months before returning to Vancouver. I bought a small car and drove to Los Angeles but had to live in the car. I soon returned to Vancouver again.

In 2005 I auditioned on tape for the TV series "Friday Night Lights" and was cast. The studio got me a visa to work in Austin, Texas, where the series was shot. That was my big break.

Today, I live in a wood-and-steel contemporary house in Bozeman, Mont. I also have a 22-acre property outside of town on top of a mountain that I'm developing into a foundation and a drug-and-alcohol healing retreat for veterans and kids.

Three months ago, one of my brothers was on Facebook and came across a photo of Peter at his 93rd birthday. I was shocked. Just before Christmas, we paid him a surprise visit and stayed for two hours. He was grateful. I left him a card thanking him for his influence on me. And for teaching me about kindness.

Taylor's Hike

"American Primeval"? I play a weathered loner who helps a woman and her son fleeing their past cross the violent West in 1857.

Your dad and mom? He passed last year. My mom lives outside of Vancouver.

Fireplace? It's a long, contemporary, black steel gas model. I turn it on every morning when I have my coffee.

Home splurge? I recently bought a nice Breville Barista coffee machine.

Bozeman too chill? If you're bored up here, it's your fault. I just went on a 7-mile waterfall hike. It helped clear my head after a long stretch on set.

[centrally-unplanned]

The Swing Won't Save You

The "mainstream" account of the election results is one I generally endorse. Elections are thermostatic in the sense that they bounce around an equilibrium - these days the incumbent has a disadvantage, being blamed for the problems but not credited for the successes. Democrats lost because of things like the 2021-2023 inflation spike, or the immigration surge, and the next administration will be blamed for whatever problems the cycle of history throws upon us on top of the consequences of their own actions. That is just How It Be, and it isn't something internal reform can change.

This account is probably true, but this does not lead to some of the conclusions one is hoping it will. I see many taking this as a sort of dismal c'est la vie, assuming that you can just ride it out and win next time, then do good when you do. That therefore there really isn't any need to change all that much in the Dem party structure.

The miss here is that there are fundamental inequalities in the two parties. We just went through, quite handily, the most progressive democratic administration in decades. One that was maximally committed to the idea of "FDR reborn". And it did some good stuff! But I don't really think it lived up to the name, not even close. The democratic "win" - which occurred at the peak of the Covid Crisis in an era of nigh-unprecedented discontent against an incumbent president who was deeply unpopular - delivered a razor thin margin in the House and a literal tiebreaker Senate, itself only after a series of special elections.

The Biden administration spent its political capital on macroeconomic stabilization, one authentic Dem priority in the IRA bill, and then otherwise spent much of its time on a series of rearguard actions and failed attempts to appease coalition partners like unions (who broke away from Dems in record numbers in 2024). Bad policy ideas like student debt relief were themselves undone by the courts. They had four years to prosecute Trump for a blatantly obvious mountain of crimes, and could not get a single one of them across the finish line. And meanwhile, due to awful polling numbers, they felt forced to pursue a number of policies they didn't even really agree with to stave off future defeat. Which they, of course, did somewhat badly, for many reasons but "not really believing in them" is certainly a factor.

Meanwhile surveying the Republican Party's incoming administration, I of course cannot say what they will do with their probable quadfecta, so this is speculative. But through the dice of death they handily control the courts. More importantly, they play the dice to control the courts - we already have discourse on getting the two oldest Republican jurors in the SC to retire. Republican plans include debates around say abolishing the NLRB as unconstitutional, or mass scale deportations, and more you have certainly heard of. They will not do all of them, of course not. But "winning a court case to dismantle a regulatory capacity" is far, far easier than passing a congressional bill to reinstate it. You are not "un-deporting" anybody. The entire Republican agenda is structurally easier to pursue - tearing down is just easier than building up.

And meanwhile, the levers of power are themselves biased. The Supreme Court, of course, but more importantly the Senate, which has an awful map for the Dems. Even when you give Dems their best case scenarios where they win every competitive upcoming election, you are talking 52-48 seats up through ~2032. Meanwhile, the Republican ceiling is 60-40, and is not likely to dip out of the majority.

No one can predict the future of course - I just don't think this scenario and reality is getting the proper attention. A "swing" model where Dems win in 2028 at the same margins they won in say 2020, and then it swings back and so on, is a defeat for Democrats. Republicans will likely achieve X% of their agenda over the next two years, solidify court control, and then Dems will achieve X/2% or worse and otherwise play defense on their turn. It almost certainly isn't the apocalypse, it most likely is not the end of democracy - if you don't wanna care about politics, you don't have to, go live your life. But if you are trying to win at politics, if that is your goal - which for a political party it should be - this just ain't it.

The debate I see is over whether or not this election should be a "wake-up call" for Dems. Which is the wrong question, to me - the Biden administration should be a wake up call for Dems. Even if Harris squeaked out a win, it is a defeat to the party that they found themselves running a decaying man with sub-40 approval ratings for President, or found themselves taking a former senator in the top 1% of the leftwing voting record and running her as a centrist. It should be shameful that they took literally years to act on a "border crisis" that once they did act they found themselves perfectly capable of addressing, not because they authentically believed in increasing immigration and wanted to spend capital on that agenda (which they did not do), but because they were scared of the blowback that happened anyway. It is beyond the pale that Trump is not in jail because they think "politicizing the judicial branch" is somehow not their literal jobs as political actors. It is embarrassing that solidly blue Democratic cities are hemorrhaging population to purple and red states because the Democratic party is failing to govern them.

And I know, I am in the grand, august, tiresome tradition of using an election to repeat the same shit I always say. I have been on this beat since at least 2019. But it being tiresome doesn't mean it's wrong. It might not be right! Maybe Republicans will truly collapse into squabbling infighting and get nothing much done beyond tax cuts, their truest love. I don't know. But I think the odds matrix here is pretty ruthless - the opportunities to be a better party barely have downsides. They implement bad policy half the time even when they win! There is a fundamental disconnect between "what do we want to achieve as a party" and "how are we going to achieve that", a strategy void that infighting, paralysis, and special interest spoils-grabbing fills.

I am less confident on the solution for all this - at minimum we don't even have all the post-election data, that will take time. But the problem such solutions should be solving is that the Dems have been losing for 8 years. "Thermostatic swing in 2028" is not going to change that.

[hoboblaidd]

Anything personal hidden in Solas' study in the Lighthouse? We find the Anchor research notes, but anything else? Like unsent letters kind of thing? Hypothetically, for no reason.

Irving's head.

Kidding (probably). The problem is that finding any of his stuff is difficult. You can only call his study an "organized mess" if you're being charitable. It's a chaotic cataloguing system that only makes sense to him.

But with enough time, patience, knowledge of ancient Elvhen dialects, and uninterrupted access to his study, you're likely to find the following:

I've talked before about how he has dossiers on everyone, probably dating back to the early rebellion days. Some of these are written down, others just exist in his head. All of these are under specific artifacts, which function as super complex and highly volatile paper weights.

He has every letter Varric sent him tucked into a book about macroeconomics in the Free Marches. He has newspaper clippings about Magister Pavus and the Lucerni interspersed throughout the complete volumes of Tevinter High Fashion magazines. He has the back and forth hit piece articles on the College of Enchanters versus the New Circles of the South in an old Tevene children's book about how to do certain spells. He has records of Montilyet trading transactions in a shipbuilding book from the Storm Age.

He has an inventory of every single eluvian June made and a list of its corresponding key in a very, very ancient book about glassware in southern Elvhenan. He has extensive and exhaustive notes on 'Those Across the Sea' stuffed into several rolled up and equally ancient geological maps. He even has reports on Ghilan'nain and Andruil, but these are slipped behind the tiles of the ceiling (Ghilan'nain) or the floor (Andruil). Under the right conditions - Veilfire + a specific incantation + lemon juice - one fresco on the wall has a fine line connecting his entire network of eluvians and even finer dots indicating the location of every Fen'harel altar and safehouse across the continent. Somewhere in here he also has a list of his agents in both Elvhenan and the Dragon Age, but he buried them so well that he can only find them on a new moon.

Finally, he does have unsent letters. So many unsent letters. These are all within the pages of just about every book on his shelf (or his desk, or under the cot, or between artifacts, etc. etc.). Unsent letters from the Dragon Age, mostly to Dhavi, Nanna, and Varric. Unsent letters that are barely legible anymore to Mythal, Landalen, Ghilan'nain, and even Elgar'nan.

There's also all the models he made during the rebellion. Several of them are burnt to a crisp (looking at you, Suledin Keep), and most are secreted behind bookshelves, vases that are also stuffed with maps, stolen paintings, as well as behind artifacts, etc.

[darkmaga-returns]

The CBO seems to cherry-pick results either to create headlines or to justify its existence with elaborate reports that make them appear credible. But they aren’t.

On June 3 we read an article by Jay Davidson that the CBO thinks Trumps “Big Beautiful Bill” will increase the deficit by $3.8 trillion over 10 years. Color me skeptical. The CBO has absolutely zero inkling for how this bill will actually change the economic landscape of America over the next 10 years. Sure, a high-schooler can do the math of estimated federal income versus proposed spending, ignorantly assuming nothing else changes over the next 10 years, and come up with a number. After all, growth in the deficit is simply the result of cumulative spending more than cumulative receipts.

But now the CBO thinks the tariffs will decrease the federal deficit by $2.5 trillion. So, in a matter of days, we went from $3.8 trillion addition to the deficit to $2.5 trillion reduction of the deficit? How can that be?

The CBO arms itself with all kinds of really cool charts, graphs, and tables that are probably morphed into a computer simulation because no one person (except those with the last names “Trump” and “Musk”) could possibly reduce all these variables into a single prediction model. The CBO references such things as the “Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model,” “Input-Output Accounts Data,” “A Simplified Model of How Macroeconomic Changes Affect the Federal Budget,” etc.

But all they have proven recently is they’re just guessing. All those “climate scientists” also justify their predictions using complex computer models that no mere peasant could possibly understand, so we are to “trust the science.” Except none of us have notice the oceans swallowing up coastal cities yet.

[math-bitcoin-price-prediction]

Math Bitcoin Price Prediction: 2030, 2040, 2050 by Andrey Ignatenko

In 2030, Bitcoin's maximum price is anticipated to reach approximately $100,000, with some projections indicating it could rise to $1 million between the 2060s and 2080s. These insights are thoroughly examined in Math Bitcoin Price Prediction: 2030, 2040, 2050 by Andrey Ignatenko (on Amazon), which delves into a variety of economic elements.

The book provides a detailed analysis of key factors influencing Bitcoin's price, including supply and demand dynamics, historical market patterns, and macroeconomic influences. With a total supply capped at 21 million coins, Bitcoin's scarcity plays a crucial role in its valuation, particularly as interest from both retail and institutional investors continues to expand. Furthermore, the book discusses how advancements in technology and the growing acceptance of cryptocurrencies in mainstream finance are likely to further elevate Bitcoin's price.

The reliability of these forecasts is strengthened by the contributions of experts with PhDs in Economics and Computer Science, ensuring that the mathematical models used are both robust and scientifically valid. This rigorous approach not only adds credibility to the predictions but also provides a deeper understanding of Bitcoin's potential price trajectory over the next several decades.

Readers can explore reviews and feedback about the book at the book’s page on author’s website. This resource offers additional insights into how the analysis resonates with both enthusiasts and skeptics in the cryptocurrency community. The comprehensive nature of Ignatenko's work allows it to serve as an invaluable guide for anyone interested in the future of Bitcoin and the broader implications for the cryptocurrency market.

[batfleckgifs]

Host: Um I want to uh as we kind of wrap up here I do want to come back to AI. Jerry you mentioned it but you know Ben how did you know uh-earlier you guys weren't here we did a demonstration my colleague, Andrew Sorkin and I recreated ourselves and our voices how do you see it I mean - is it a benefit or is it a real threat? Is it possible that uh - Netflix could say you know we're going to do our own, excuse me James Bond thing out there with a bunch of actors that are completely recreated for this Market or that market I-?

Ben Affleck: A) that's not possible now. B) will it be possible the future? Highly unlikely. C) Uh-Uh Movies will be one of the last things if everything gets replaced to be replaced by ai. AI can write you excellent imit-imitative verse that sounds Elizabethan, it cannot write you Shakespeare. The function of having two actors or three or four actors in a room and the taste to discern and construct that is something that currently entirely eludes ai's capability and I think will for a meaningful period of time. What AI is going to do, is going to disintermediate the more laborious less creative uh and you know Co-more costly aspects of film making that will allow cost to be brought down, that will be lower the barrier to entry that will allow more voices to be heard, that will make it easier to for the people want to make Goodwill huntings to go out and make it. Look AI is a Craftsman at best Craftsman can learn to you know make stickly furniture by sitting down next to somebody and seeing what their technique is and imitating. That's how large video models large language model models basically work a library of vectors of meaning and Transformers that interpret context right but they're just cross-pollinating things that exist. Nothing new is created or-

Host: Not yet.

Ben Affleck: Not yet. Yeah, not yet. And-and really the - in order to do that - look Craftsman is knowing how to work (and) Art Is knowing when to stop. And I think knowing when to stop is going to be a very difficult thing for AI to learn because it's taste and also lack of consistency.lack of controls. lack of quality. AI for for this world of generative video is going to do key things more me-I wouldn't like to being in the visual effects business,they're in trouble, because what cost a lot of money is now going to cost a lot less. And it's going to hammer that space than it already is, um, and maybe it shouldn't take a thousand people to render something but it's not going to replace human beings making films. It may make your background more convincing, it can change the color of your shirt, it can fix mistakes that you've made, it can make it - you know you might be able to get two seasons of House of the Dragon in a year instead of one and if that happens according to macroeconomics in you know, uh ,cultures where there are basically Oligopolies competing what should happen is with the same demand and the same spend is they they should just make more shows which should you know you should have the same spend and now you can just watch more episodes. And eventually AI will allow you to,uh, ask for your own episode of succession where you can say I'll pay $30 and can you make me a 45 minute episode where like Kendall gets the company and runs off and has an affair with Stewie and it'll do it. And it'll be a little janky and a little bit weird but it'll know their Stats it'll know those actors and it will you know Mix-remix it in effect and it will do that. That's the value, in my view, long term of AI for consumers which is eventually - My Hope for AI is that it's an additional Revenue stream that can replace DVD which took 15 to 20% out of the economy of film making which is and-and there should be negotiated rights and-

Host: And that's the key part of it.

Ben Affleck: And the right to say if you want to - because what do people want to make 5 minute 30C Tik Tok videos where they look like The Avengers well great, you can , you know just like you used to be able to buy your Iron Man costume at the store you're going to buy your Iron Man pack and you and your buddies are going to look like Iron Man and Hawkeye like you know on Twitch that's that's what's going to really happen.

[sergiosimptellitto]

Sincerely, F.P.

A Frank Patérno x Fem!reader Pilot chapter, please be kind, this is my first ever fic and as mentioned, it is a pilot, I am willing to take feedback and criticism. Use of "reader" Although I tried to be as non-specific as possible, reader still has clear moral standards and is heavily implied to be latin-american but it is absolutely up for interpretation. Please let me know in the comments if you enjoyed this fic and if you have any ideas/requests. Depending on how well received this oneshot is I might consider doing a part 2. Ah! And just as a warranty quality stamp: English is not my first language.

1994 Panel room for PhD Candidates.

The room smelled faintly of old wood and older men. A faint sunbeam sliced across the paneled wall, catching the motes that hovered like an audience of their own. The floor creaked under the weight of old institutions and newer ambitions. She stood behind a podium that was too tall, her fingertips just brushing the edge of the worn mahogany as she glanced down at her notes—typewritten, triple-checked, with the last sentence underlined in pencil.

“If we compare the rise in irregular labor activity in Naples post-1973 to the state-led economic restructuring across Southern Italy—”

Her voice was soft but firm, clipped with formality learned at a Private school and refined in upper-middle-class drawing rooms. Her vowels carried a crisp foreignness, neutral but not quite European, softened by effort. The charts on the projector flickered faintly, pale blue against the whitewashed wall.

“—we begin to see a pattern in the informal sector’s expansion that contradicts the prevailing assumption of cultural inertia. In fact, the data suggests—”

A man cleared his throat.

Not politely.

“—that macroeconomic volatility—”

He cut in.

“I’m sorry,” said the professor in the pale blazer, shifting in his seat. “But your model doesn’t account for the local cultural variables. You assume rational actors in a context that is, historically, anything but rational.”

She blinked.

Just once.

Her mouth closed mid-sentence. The pointer she had raised slowly returned to her side, a white knuckle pressed into the plastic.

She did not reply. Not yet.

The professor’s voice thinned into the background like smoke in a closed room. Somewhere near the edge of the panel, someone shuffled their papers. Another sipped coffee from a white porcelain cup, the kind that clinked when it was set down too hard. The light on the wall shifted slightly, catching on the brass buttons of someone’s blazer. She felt her hands trembling.

Her eyes landed on her own slide—clean graphs, sharp numbers, and a careful citation in French. She had translated that footnote twice to be sure.

Still, none of it felt real. Not the room. Not the rejection nesting beneath the professor’s tone. She felt the floor slip.

And in the silence behind her forehead, memory opened like a door.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A month ago, she had arrived in Quebec with two suitcases: one full of clothes pressed flat with lavender soap tucked inside the folds, and the other packed with books and a box of dark, crumbly coffee her mother insisted she bring, “for emergencies.”

Her plane landed in sleet.

The air had smelled like frost and jet fuel. She’d smiled stupidly at the immigration officer when he welcomed her in lilting, crisp French, and she’d stumbled through a reply that sounded more Parisian than it should. At the university office, the secretary had frowned at her paperwork, flipping the folders with a frown.

“No record of your scholarship being approved,” she had said. “But the director has signed off your temporary housing and academic entry.”

Strange. Her funding had been confirmed weeks before departure. But she’d nodded—always nod, never complain—and taken the keys.

And that was the first time she saw him.

A tall man in a dark coat exiting the director’s office with a folder under his arm. His shoes clicked on the polished stone. He didn’t glance at her, but the secretary had.

Twice.

Back in the panel room, her breath caught as the pale-blazered professor finished his tirade with a satisfied smile. She hadn’t heard a word.

Her hands were still on the podium, knuckles pale.

She opened her mouth. Nothing came.

Then someone spoke from the far end of the table.

A voice like poured wine.

“If I may.”

And just like that, her heart remembered how to beat.

He was not extremely tall, but he was imposing, people immediately went silent as he came in. Salt and pepper hair, perfectly trimmed, neat moustache and...that nose...was definetely something...

Perfectly tailored suit enveloping him beautifully, but then again, things seemed to adjust to him, not the other way around.

It wasn’t loud, but his voice caught everyone’s attention the way a dropped glass might. Measured. Rich. Just slightly amused. The man leaned forward, fingers laced on the table, sleeves pushed back enough to show a watch—something tasteful but not modest.

She recognized him before she understood why.

Same coat. Same gait. The man from the director’s office.

“Doctor Sarratore,” he addressed the panelist. “Your critique presumes the candidate is applying moral judgment to economic behavior. She’s not. She’s describing patterns.”

Silence settled in like dust.

The pale-blazered professor’s mouth twitched. He adjusted his collar, nodding, “Of course, yes, but—”

“If the panel wishes to question the validity of her model, I suggest they first understand its scope.”

Frank didn’t raise his voice. He didn’t need to. Every syllable was slow, deliberate, with the quiet cadence of someone used to rooms falling silent when he began to speak.

She looked at him. Really looked.

His face was older than she’d thought—early forties, maybe—but sharp. Clean-shaven. His eyes flicked to her once, just enough to acknowledge her, before returning to the panel with something that might have passed for politeness.

Might.

“You invited her here,” he added, as if reminding them. “You reviewed her proposal. If you find yourselves unprepared for the rigor of her findings, that is not her fault.”

A pause.

Then the chair of the panel cleared his throat and offered a tight smile.

“Thank you, Mr. Patérno. We’ll allow the candidate to conclude.”

Her throat was dry.

She managed a nod, her hand still resting on the pointer like it might anchor her to the floor.

“As I was saying,” she murmured.

But it wasn’t her voice anymore. Not quite. Something in her had cracked open—not broken, just��� shifted. She kept speaking. The last few minutes of her analysis came out steady, maybe too steady, as if they had been memorized by someone else.

When she finished, no one clapped.

The chair offered a polite thank you. They would deliberate and inform her in due course. She was dismissed.

She gathered her things quietly. Slipped her notes into the manila folder. Nodded to no one in particular.

As she turned toward the hallway, Frank Patérno was already there, waiting near the door with one hand in his coat pocket, watching her the way one watches a chessboard.

“You held your ground,” he said. “Mostly.”

His voice was lower now, nearly casual. The corner of his mouth curved.

“Let me buy you a coffee. You look like someone who drinks it black.”

She let out a quiet, startled giggle before she could stop it.

Something about the sudden silence in the room—no more throat-clearing, no more side glances or slow, patronizing interruptions—made her aware of just how loud she’d been in their heads. Now, it was him they looked at. Not her.

She straightened her collar.

“Thank you, sir, but I don’t hate myself,” she said crisply. “I’ll have a cappuccino, if you’re so kind to finance it. After all—my speech was free of charge.”

He laughed. Not in that brittle, intellectual way the academics did, but low and amused and real. As he extended a hand to help her down the narrow podium steps, she hesitated for a split second, then let her hand rest in his—cool skin, firm grip, old-world manners.

“Trust me, piccola, after your little speech, I’ll be financing much more than a coffee.”

Something about the way he said it—offhand, intimate, too familiar—made her flush. But she ignored it. Of course, he was on the university board. Probably connected to a scholarship committee. Maybe a patron of one of the research centers. She felt the thought soothe her, like a sip of warm broth.

“He must be a member of the chair,” she thought hopefully. “Maybe he can help sort out the funding issue.”

He glanced at her again as they moved through the marbled corridor, lit with frosted glass windows that turned the outside snow into pale gold.

“May I know your name, bella?”

She gave it automatically, first and last. He repeated it slowly, as if rolling each syllable along his tongue, tasting it like wine.

“Mmm. And what field are you in, [Reader’s Name]?”

“Economic sociology.”

Her mouth answered before her brain could catch up.

He chuckled again, murmured something to a man by the door, and just like that, a black car rolled up in front of the university entrance. Glossy, silent, absurdly out of place among the patchy campus Hondas and snow-crusted bikes.

That’s odd, she thought, blinking. I don’t remember telling him my last name...

But the thought fluttered away as quickly as it came—replaced by the abrupt fact that he was holding the car door open for her now.

“Please, cara.”

She hesitated.

“Oh. I thought we were having it in the lobby… I—I wasn’t—”

“Cappuccinos taste better away from eavesdroppers.”

He smiled, just enough to make her skin prickle.

She looked at the open door. Then back at him.

And still—she got in.

The car smelled faintly of leather and something sweet and herbal, like old cologne and pipe smoke that never quite left. He closed the door behind her with the care of someone who had never rushed a single movement in his life. Then he slid in beside her, his coat folding neatly, his presence too large for the narrow luxury of the backseat.

“Dio mio,” he muttered in perfect irritation, as the engine hummed to life, “quel caffè dell’università è una tortura medievale.” (God almighty. That university coffee is medieval torture.)

She blinked. Then covered a sudden smile with the back of her hand.

“I thought it was just me,” she said, smoothing her skirt. “I genuinely wondered if I’d offended someone.”

“Only your taste buds,” he said dryly. “Though perhaps the intention was political.”

That made her laugh, really laugh, which surprised even her.

He turned slightly, watching her with that lazy sort of interest she associated with men who never worried about time. Or consequences.

“So,” he said, “you’re not just good. You’re clever.”

She lifted an eyebrow, recovering.

“And you’re not just rich. You’re dramatic.”

That earned a slow grin from him—one dimple, only one, and the unmistakable sense of someone enjoying himself.

“Touché, signorina.”

Outside, the snowfall turned to sleet against the glass. The city blurred into slate and soft amber, winter-bitter and lovely. And somewhere between the gravel in his voice and the warmth of the heater, she realized she hadn’t actually asked where they were going.

She opened her mouth.

And then shut it again.

She didn’t want to ruin the silence just yet.

The café was tucked behind an antique bookstore, the kind of place you wouldn’t find unless someone told you about it in a low voice and with a meaningful look. The sign outside was carved wood, no name—just an old crescent moon and a cup.

Inside, it smelled like cinnamon, orange peel, and roasted beans. The light was amber-hued, diffused through hanging fixtures of smoked glass. People spoke in murmurs. The tables were spaced generously apart, the chairs velvet and heavy. A pianist played something slow and minor in a corner.

The hostess recognized him. No name needed. Just a nod, and suddenly they were seated at a table near the fireplace. She wasn’t sure how it happened. He moved like someone who always had people clearing paths for him.

He didn’t look at a menu. He just said in a low tone to the waiter,

“Due cappuccini. E la selezione di dolci, grazie.”

Then he turned back to her like the room had ceased to exist.

“I thought you deserved something more refined after surviving that espresso sludge they serve your colleagues.”

She tried to gather her poise, which had crumbled somewhere between the door and the first waft of bergamot in the air.

“Well, thank you. That’s… generous.” She glanced around. “It’s very nice. And very not student-budget.”

“And yet here you are,” he said, pleased. “A woman who knows how to walk into a place without flinching. That’s rare.”

She shifted, embarrassed.

“I—don’t actually do this. Ever.”

“Do what?”

“Get picked up by a stranger. In a black car. After an academic panel, I was raised to know better than that.”

That made him smile again—lazily, like a man amused by her phrasing more than anything else.

“How were you raised then, piccola?”

Her fingers curled slightly on the porcelain cup.

“The right way, I assume,” she said. “With rules. With books. With things that start early in the morning and don’t include this.”

She gestured vaguely to the velvet chairs, the biscotti, the jazz piano like something from a different planet.

He didn’t speak for a moment. Just regarded her—like she was something rare on the menu, something that didn’t usually walk into rooms like this without flinching.

“And yet,” he said at last, “you’re not afraid.”

“No,” she admitted. “Just… aware.”

“Of what?”

“That this isn’t normal. That you aren’t.” Her eyes flicked to his. “And that everything you do is deliberate.”

He gave a small nod, slow, like a man giving quiet credit where it’s due.

“Good girl,” he said simply, and lifted his cup to his lips.

The phrase should have bothered her.

It didn’t.

Not exactly.

It stayed there, suspended in the steam of espresso and the sound of someone’s knife clinking against a saucer. She wasn’t sure if it was meant to compliment her upbringing or mock it—but either way, it made her spine straighten just a bit more.

She took another sip, matching his pace. Outside, snow had begun again. White lace on the windows. Time folding quietly in on itself.

She didn’t cry when she got the letter.

She was already dressed for the day—neat slacks, her least-wrinkled sweater, and hair pulled back with a barrette she hadn’t worn since undergrad. It felt like superstition. Like it could tip the odds.

But it hadn’t.

The committee thanked her for her interest, for her time, for her “passionate presentation.” They regretted to inform her that no scholarships had been made available to international students in her category that cycle.

She stared at the page for a long time, rereading that one line.

No scholarships had been made available.

Not you didn’t make the cut. Not your research lacks rigor. Just: there was no room at the table.

She folded the letter with shaking hands and sat down on her narrow twin bed. For the first time since she’d arrived in Québec, the apartment felt like what it was—cold, spare, borrowed. Her parents couldn’t afford tuition without the grant. She certainly couldn’t. This had been it.

Her chest hurt. The kind of slow, pressing hurt that comes not from panic but from the collapse of something you held upright with both hands for too long.

And then—hours later, after she’d stopped pacing and started looking up flights home—a knock at the door.

She opened it to find no one there. Just a box.

Elegant. Heavy. No card.

She brought it in, peeled the lid back.

Inside: A letter, thick cream paper, embossed initials. No salutation. No signature.

“Some things aren’t awarded. They are purchased. I suggest you accept that—and stop trying to apologize for being exceptional.”

Beneath the letter was an envelope from the university. Different paper. Different tone.

It informed her that a private benefactor had funded her full tuition and living expenses—non-scholarship basis. Her student status had been reinstated, effective immediately.

She blinked, hand over her mouth, heart pounding in her throat.

And under the envelope, folded with immaculate care:

A dress.

Black velvet, soft as breath. Long-sleeved, cinched at the waist, with gold embroidery along the cuffs and collar. Ornate, baroque. The kind of dress that turns every head in a room and doesn’t apologize for it. Inside the tag, stitched in gilt thread:

Sincerely,

F.P.

[mariacallous]

The Trump administration’s first 100 days in power signaled a sharp and dramatic reorientation of the U.S. relationship with Africa. Public health forecasting models estimate that the administration’s grave cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief will result in 26 million additional HIV infections, 15 million preventable AIDS deaths, and 14 million more children orphaned by AIDS by 2040, with more than 60 percent of these impacts concentrated in only six African countries.

Macroeconomic projections from the University of Denver similarly warn that cuts to U.S. foreign aid programs will push an additional 19 million Africans into extreme poverty by 2030. The imposition of sweeping tariffs against all African economies, large and small—should they last—will only make African livelihoods more precarious.

Beyond the cuts to aid and trade, a steady stream of leaked predecisional documents portend a deeper U.S. retreat from engagement in Africa. On March 14, the New York Times and other media outlets reported on a draft “travel ban” that would impose more stringent travel requirements on 43 countries, 22 of which are African. Four days later, NBC News reviewed internal Defense Department proposals that would result in the elimination of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) as an independent geographic combatant command of the Pentagon.

In mid-April, African headlines were dominated by a leaked draft executive order that would close embassies across the continent and perhaps even completely eliminate the Bureau of African Affairs, which oversees U.S. relations with 49 countries. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent announcement of his department’s reorganization plans indicated that the Africa bureau will remain in place for now, but it offered little clarity on the broader strategic vision for U.S. engagement with the continent.

Though perhaps too early to tell, the Trump administration’s foreign policy toward Africa shows clear signs of being driven by transactionalism. Through this lens, Africa is not likely to be judged by its long-term potential or the future strategic risks of disengagement. Instead, under the “America First” approach, relationships are likely to be measured by their immediate benefits and the potential to offer tangible, clear, and easily messaged “wins” that show a return on investment to U.S. audiences.

This approach means that partnerships and interests will become increasingly conditional. Whether via security cooperation or economic investment, U.S. policy toward Africa is unlikely to be framed as part of a broader global effort to protect the rules-based international order, promote democratic norms, or advance development and human rights. Many African states, especially those facing internal instability or lacking the capacity to reciprocate in strategic or economic terms, are likely to find themselves on the outside looking in.

But instead of retreating from Africa, the Trump administration should embrace a smarter form of transactionalism. U.S.-Africa policy can still prioritize tangible returns, but those returns should come through investments that build enduring partnerships, not through quick exits or short- or one-sided gains. Those may seem seductive, but they risk strategically crippling the United States at the exact moment when adversaries are looking to capitalize.

To do so, U.S. policy toward Africa should refocus around four strategic priorities: supporting resilient and self-sufficient regional organizations; curbing threats to U.S. security at their source; fostering African support for U.S. positions in international institutions; and co-developing a positive economic vision for the continent that promotes economic development and integration while resisting the extractive and abusive economic practices of rival global powers.

Pursuing this approach would preserve an “America First” strategy while respecting an “Africa First” vision built on partnerships, not dependency.

When President George W. Bush went on a five-nation tour of the continent in 2008, he claimed that rather than establish a significant military presence around the continent, the mission of the new U.S. Africa Command would be to “help African leaders solve the continent’s crises.” Today, African states remain plagued by enduring conflicts in several regional conflict zones, but important Africa-led, U.S.-supported security cooperation efforts have been successful and provided valuable lessons for further investments around the continent.

In the Gulf of Guinea, for example—a comprehensive interagency approach involving the U.S. departments of Defense and State, USAID, the Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among other agencies—has contributed to a robust regional maritime security architecture. With U.S. and other international support, African states and regional security institutions have been the primary designers and implementers of new frameworks for coordinating regional efforts to combat piracy, trafficking, fisheries crimes, and other maritime threats.

Significant security gains have been made in the gulf, including a roughly 90percent drop in piracy and armed robbery incidents between 2020 and 2024, despite Washington and other international partners having a minimal military footprint in the region. Effectively, this Africa-led, U.S.-supported effort has improved so-called security burden-sharing with African partners and allowed the United States to allocate more resources and attention to counterterrorism, an outcome that is certainly in line with the Trump administration’s “America First” priorities.

Successes such as the Gulf of Guinea security architecture should shape future U.S. efforts to support African-led solutions. Organizations including the African Union and Africa Standby Force, alongside regional economic communities such as the Economic Community of West African States and Southern African Development Community, are critical actors for intracontinental relationships. These organizations have played essential roles ranging from economic cooperation to crisis response and prevention. Washington’s Africa policy should focus on providing support and expertise to these initiatives.

Critics of increased U.S. engagement in Africa are sometimes eager to criticize Washington for dominating responses to supposedly African problems, but this critique ignores the transnational nature of the continent’s most pressing security challenges. Problems such as civil war, terrorism, military rule, public health crises, and black-market economies will not be solved without African leadership—but these problems, if left unchecked, will undermine U.S. security whether or not Washington chooses to remain engaged.

Consider the global drug trade and the Trump administration’s clear concern over narcotics trafficking. Parts of Africa have been integral nodes in the global drug trade—particularly in West Africa, which has historically served as a key transit hub and corridor for narcotics trafficking to Europe and beyond. But there is no reason that this threat will remain confined to Europe as criminal syndicates evolve, mature, and expand.

The Sahel region’s deteriorating security situation, brought on by an intricate web of terrorism, domestic conflict, coups, and corruption, has also raised alarms among analysts who warn of an emerging nexus between organized crime and violent extremist groups. There is a real risk of the region evolving into a hub of narco-terrorism where al Qaeda and Islamic State affiliates benefit.

In addition, migrant smuggling and trafficking has remained a persistent issue around the continent and has shown no signs of slowing down. Europe’s efforts to quell and crack down on migration flows through North Africa have pushed many migrants to pursue alternative destinations. Thousands of African migrants, for instance, have opted to make the trek to the United States, often via routes leading to the U.S. southern border with Mexico.

And as the COVID-19 pandemic showed, disease outbreaks do not respect geography. The best defense comes from proactive engagement to develop resilient health systems—not reactionary policies. Reconsidering aid cuts and investing in early detection, rapid response capabilities, and basic public health infrastructure in Africa is a smart investment..

Addressing these problems closer to their source, through targeted and selective engagement, can advance U.S. security while minimizing the need for costly interventions later.

Despite the Trump administration’s skepticism toward international institutions, organizations such as the United Nations remain essential arenas for advancing U.S. strategic interests. China and Russia use the U.N. and other intergovernmental bodies to win favor for their actions, legitimize their views of a post-U.S. global order, and amplify their narratives. They also recognize the importance of African votes, as they form a voting bloc of more than a quarter of the world’s sovereign states.

Africa represents the largest regional voting bloc in the United Nations General Assembly, with 54 member states. That gives African countries significant collective influence. That influence is seen in the bloc’s voting behavior over the war in Ukraine. In a General Assembly vote condemning Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, African countries accounted for nearly half of all abstentions. Later, some countries that have grown increasingly close to Moscow (e.g., Mali), shifted their voting on Ukrainian issues in favor of Russia.

Beijing and Moscow are only likely to increase their diplomatic onslaughts at the U.N. in an effort to win friends and allies in addition to courting partners via African leaders’ summits. If the United States continues to treat Africa as a peripheral interest while strategic adversaries do not, its indifference risks being reciprocated in international institutions.

Trump’s first term saw the establishment of the “Prosper Africa” program, an effort aimed to boost U.S.-Africa trade through increased private sector investment across the continent. The initiative was designed to align with the America First approach by opening African markets to U.S. businesses—it was a way of positioning the United States as an economic counterweight to China.

It was also heralded as an important pivot away from simply delivering development aid or humanitarian assistance, which had come to define U.S.-Africa relations. Foundationally, the program’s design aligns with the transactional approach that is likely to define the Trump administration’s Africa policy this time around. But the status and future of that program, which was primarily housed under USAID, is unclear.

Moreover, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), enacted in 2000, has given more than 30 African states access to U.S. markets without import tariffs for certain products. The payoffs have been significant for several African states. For instance, Deutsche Welle reported that under the program, Kenya’s apparel exports to the United States grew from $55 million in 2001 to $603 million in 2022, comprising nearly 68 percent of Kenya’s total exports to the United States.

Despite such successes, the Trump administration’s preferences for tariffs as a bargaining tool suggest that AGOA is unlikely to be renewed when it expires in September. Letting this legislation lapse would not only damage bilateral economic ties and create opportunities for China to consolidate its trade dominance, but would also undercut the value of long-term economic partnerships.

Arguments about the geostrategic importance of Africa are not new, and talking points about future economic potential, rapid population growth, strategic geographic positioning along vital sea lanes, and deposits of critical mineral resources have been echoed for decades. This belief in the long-term strategic value of the continent is exactly what motivated the creation of Africom nearly 20 years ago and inspired the Biden administration’s “Africa Strategy” in 2022.

Even as the new administration shifts the focus to short-term transactionalism, this is not the time to turn away from strategic priorities in Africa. Retreating from the continent risks sending signals of unreliability at a time when credibility and commitment are precious commodities. Pursuing these four objectives would provide Washington the opportunity to realize tangible, near-term gains that are mutually beneficial. They would also reduce the costs that would surely arise for any future intervention and would improve prospects for support of U.S. priorities globally while blunting the influence of China and Russia.

Through commitment, not retrenchment, the Trump administration can protect U.S. interests, reinforce American leadership, and secure tangible returns on investment in a region whose global significance is only set to grow.

The views expressed are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Naval War College, Defense Department, or U.S. government.

[regina-bithyniae]

An analysis of the effects of imposing sanctions on a large economy with a comparative advantage in energy production in a model of international trade and macroeconomic dynamics,

Gee, who could they have in mind?

[warsofasoiaf]

What's you're opinions about Bernie Sanders? He's the only modern day politician who i can resonate with along with on the wild fields of American politics, even when I as a person isn't American itself.

Overwhelmingly negative. I'm already distrustful of solidarity-based politics in general and find socialism to be a failed economic system, so it's perhaps unsurprising that I'm so negative.

Sanders largely provides superficial readings of economic woes and has largely ineffective proposals for dealing with them. Modern populism on both sides of the fence is long on style and short on substance, and Sanders is no exception. Sanders can shout "billionaires" and "capitalism" until he turns red into the face, but his policy proposals are flimsy and unlikely to help the working class that he purports to fight for.

While progressive economic policy is largely a contradiction in terms at best, in recent times the progressive movement has largely been dominated by intellectual pseudoscience movements like MMT, which I've spoken before about the failures of here and here. The theory lacks a credible theory of inflation and relies instead on a vibes-based greedflation thesis, which is intellectually exhilarating because it foists the blame on those evil businesses, but factually false. When the MMT'ers were given broad control over monetary policy, their large-scale printing of money helped precipitate the 2021 inflationary crisis, and they ignored every single conventional economist saying that this was precisely what would happen. Worse, the proponents of the theory are not cognizant of the inflationary effects of their theory despite the empirical evidence both historically and recently - and their policy proposal to reinstitute broad price controls as a solution to the 2021-2023 inflationary crisis simply shows a lack of effective and workable policy solutions to economic problems (and was a chutzpah defense if I've ever heard one). So with a refusal to create testable models and a stunning lack of receptivity to empirical data, it's not likely to produce rational or effective policy. Contrarily, conventional macroeconomic wisdom proved effective in taming inflation while avoiding recession - it's actually quite remarkable how effective it has been.

However, if his economic policy is bad, his foreign policy is downright atrocious, and even among Bernie supporters, most of them tend to gloss over his foreign policy failures (and during 2016, he largely directed people to ignore foreign policy questions). I've repeatedly made the joke that Sanders is the most enthusiastic supporter of Latin American autocracy since Henry Kissinger, but it's actually not hyperbolic. Sanders has routinely gone to bat for dictators in Latin America provided they're left-wing and repeats their talking points regardless of how true they are. He's gone so far as to raise money for Daniel Ortega even after it was made clear that the money was going toward his campaign of shooting and bombing Native American populations and openly celebrating Ortega's jailing of opposition journalists. He's made mention of reconsidering our relationship with the Saudis due to their human rights violations, but when the dictator is left-wing, suddenly Sanders's firmly-held principles and "moral foreign policy" go out the window.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[lovelanguageisolate]

Reading the introduction to von Neumann's Games and Economic Behavior. He's very in touch with the poverty of the state of economics, the huge challenges involved, and the need to focus on making a difference where differences can be made.

His portrait of how physics and mathematics coevolved is crisp and beautifully motivates how difficult applying the mathematical tools of the day to social problems is. I think he's after something like the Asimovian dream of psychohistory—of actually being able to predict human behavior on generational timescales and engineer societies based on those predictions. That same dream has drawn cybernetics nerds into econ for generations.¹

One thing that stands out: he smacks down so many criticisms of microeconomics still bandied around today. He does it very well, moving fluidly from one point to another, always hemming the opposition in. I'm happy, because he puts these arguments in such wonderful context. I'm sad, because people still make them now and don't seem to overcome his responses when they do so.

"Why does econ focus on these toy problems?" Because they're tractable and let us compare theory with both observation and intuition, which is unskippable foundation-laying (compare probability theory, which was first used to characterize obvious problems before we got things like Buffon's needle).

"Why doesn't sprinkling math on economics work?" Well, applying calculus works when doing marginal analysis, but most of the time, we mostly don't know what's happening. There's often no setup—no ansatz—we can do to gain new insight. When economists do this, they're often just putting fancy mathematical clothes on their verbal arguments, not discovering anything new. And calculus itself emerged from the need to solve kinematics problems in physics, and the kinds of problems we want to understand in economics often seem pretty different from this. Von Neumann really hopes that we'll discover new kinds of math to better understand economics, and Games is meant as a step in that direction.

"Why bother with math at all? Trying to reduce humans to a bunch of numbers is foolish!" Well, we can observe humans exhibiting preferences and making choices, which immediately suggests there's quantitative data (ordinal utilities) we can work with. And studying the impact of ordinal utilities at the margin using calculus is no more problematic, von Neumann argues, than studying clumps of atoms and other indivisible quanta as continuous bodies.

"Why don't we try to understand more important and complicated systems, like the US economy?" Because the system is complex and the data is pitifully sparse for that complexity²—and there's nothing to be gleamed from very complex data that we cannot theorize about. "Observation is theory-laden" isn't language von Neumann had, but he seems to be reaching for this idea. Von Neumann even does a David Deutsch-esque maneuver of saying, "we scanned the heavens for millennia in vain before it gave us ideas, which made all the difference."

---

1. The boldest form of this vision has a serious problem, which Karl Popper elucidated: as long as new knowledge is being created, and as long as predicting human behavior depends on understanding the state of human knowledge, prediction will always be limited, because the discovery of new knowledge is unforeseeable by definition.

2. I think a dynamicist breaking this point down further would talk about things like the number of parameters (and the enormous phase space that the economy must live in), the lack of stationarity on the timescales we can look at, and how few of the driving processes can be observed. As of 2023, my understanding is that most macroeconomic models taken seriously need to capture both behaviors we know must happen (like capital costs reflecting technology efficiencies) and strongly suspect must happen (like hysteresis in labor markets leading to sustained unemployment). Just capturing those behaviors makes the models so capacious that falsifying them, never mind fitting them to reality, seems hopeless. What's amazing is that von Neumann must have known much less about these things when he was writing, but he understands this phenomenon of data poverty extremely well.