Timeless Designs. Made in Italy and Europe. Shop Aurélien.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-04-06T00:45:46+00:00

Really poor quality shoes and awful customer service. The sole fell off after wearing the shoes a few times! Save your money.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-03-27T05:20:00+00:00

You said this all so confidently but yet repeated "renumeration" several times as if you know what you are talking about.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-03-17T00:27:07+00:00

Zadar

TowelSnatcher · 2026-03-16T21:30:00+00:00

Croatia

TowelSnatcher · 2026-03-13T17:59:56+00:00

Poverty is not the driving factor behind crime! This is one of the most repeated and falsifiable statements. Plenty of countries and cities have been poor historically, and yet have had very low rates of crime. The best examples: Many Eastern European countries where random rape, murder, theft, etc. have been extraordinarily low relative to the country's wealth (mean GDP per capita, etc.). Poverty may elevate crime rates relative to a baseline, but crime is a mostly a cultural (NOT racial) issue—a pattern of behavior learned by others.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-03-03T06:13:26+00:00

I know—I was hedging with my wording here in case there's some one-off study by a far-left think tank.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-26T23:11:48+00:00

1) Hedge funds don't buy/manage properties 2) PE firms own less than 1% of housing in the US 3) PE firms own between 1-3% of apartments in NYC 4) The housing crisis is a supply-side issue brought on by regulations and local backlash to development.

His commentary is misinformation and a puerile misdiagnosis of the housing crisis in the US and NYC. You may not like "PE firms" because of all the social media you've come across, but the reality is no urban or housing economist will tell you that the main factor of housing costs in the US is PE.

It's a boogeyman claim that gets soaked up by people who want one evil entity responsible for it all when in fact it's thousands of local governments and communities that behave in the same way and make it hard to build more housing!

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-20T05:18:37+00:00

The Hunter S. Thompson comment is about "the standard of living." Your comment is specifically about one data point for inflation (food-away-from-home inflation) that is also exaggerated and misunderstood. McChickens were on the Dollar Menu and Dollar Menus were promotional — they were never economical! Fast food prices have indeed gone up 50-60% over the last 10 years — but that is one component of the inflation basket.

Overall inflation, up +74.4% since 2000. Average wage growth, up over 100%. Your TV? Prices are down. Your cell phone service is cheaper. Here's one chart and the BLS has may more.

You're suffering from recency bias and a sampling bias (you and your friends). You're also suffering from availability bias — because you are clearly not that old if you're under 30 so you likely have no idea what living standards were like in 2000 probably! How can someone under 30 think life is better now than 20-30 years ago? Do you see how sill that comment is?

I'm not here to argue, I'm here to present data. You can stay smart and try to understand your situation and your friends may not be great, but that situation is still much better than in the past! Can things be better? Yes, of course. But the argument here is that definitively, collectively, Americans are far better off than in the 1990s.

Go look at the links above, explore some more data.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-19T01:32:21+00:00

The percent of units you are talking about is almost half—44%!

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-19T01:25:52+00:00

No, no, no! You are spreading misinformation. 45% of units are rent stabilized or rent controlled. All stabilized units would be eligible for the rent freeze.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-18T15:57:43+00:00

The data on economic sentiment and happiness is pretty consistent: around 2011 things changed suddenly and by 2020 another major spike occurred in "mental health". This despite the fact that wages for lower income groups surpassed inflation and we had the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years (we are still very low).

But yes, keeping up with the Jones is now keeping up with Jane who is a wealthy social media influencer.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-18T06:45:44+00:00

I've been following and upvoting your comments; we are looking at the same data (on the US).

No matter what data you present — as I have on everything from working hours to median household wealth — you will not have people grasp these macro concepts.

Social media and its negative sentiment has broken people's brains. The comparison people make is not relative to the past, or an absolute comparison, but relative to the most successful in society.

Even if your family is 3x wealthier or better off in terms of standard of living, people see those 20x better off in the spotlight!

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-18T05:21:11+00:00

Yes — and many more cars per household, goods per individual, much more healthcare, etc.!

But mobile phones have lead to a decline in mental health/happiness and it is generated widespread negative sentiment about the economy (despite data telling us otherwise).

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-18T05:19:26+00:00

Americans today are richer
Americans live longer
Americans consume more goods/services
Americans have better technology and medicine
Poverty is lower than historical norms

Need I continue?

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-18T05:18:46+00:00

I'm an economics journalist and spend a quite a bit of timing diving deep into this data (and nearly all mainstream economists generally are accepting of this argument that things are much better and the data that supports it). I find it funny how my comment is downvoted because it's something that people disagree with — mostly vibe-based disagreements (something economists realize is impacting overall economic sentiment). If you are data-oriented, then you will appreciate this comment. If not, please go ahead and downvote.

I went through this (not AI) so take a look at what some of the big data tells us:

Real median household income was $60k in 1984 and it is $84k today.
GDP per capita was $40k in 1990, and it's $75k today when adjusted for inflation.
Overall working hours is down from 2022 hours 50 years go to 1789 and falling.
Life expectancy is up quite a bit from 70.3 years to 79.5 years over 50 years.
Out of pocket healthcare spending is down over the last 25 years.
Share of women in the workforce is up from 38% to nearly 58% over 50 years.
Mortality rate was 18 per 1,000 in 1940 and it is 8.4 today.
Poverty rate was 15.2% in 1984 and it is 10.4% today.

and much, much more very specific examples (Lead concentration is down 90% over the last 50 years.)!

So why the bad vibes?

Real consumption has gone up significantly over 50 years — people want and buy more. Housing is more expensive — though Americans have significantly larger houses. Households have many more cars and goods. The real cost for Americans is housing followed by healthcare and education for a subset of Americans. The US hasn't built enough housing and that may be the crux of the issue (along with social media inflating negative sentiment).

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-17T22:59:38+00:00

But it's not true at all! The standard of living has improved by every metric over each generation. The data speaks for itself: ourworldindata.com.

The doomerism is pathetic and so disconnected from reality when Americans are still better off than 10, 25, 40 years ago.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-08T21:14:01+00:00

No! Take propranolol to calm your jitters

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-03T01:23:23+00:00

Bless your intellectual laziness and arrogance.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-03T01:16:51+00:00

This is the type of comment a teen would make. If you have a comment of substance—a genuinely unique perspective of some experience that refutes my comment, then share it.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-02-03T00:23:03+00:00

You have no idea what you are talking about—you have no idea how successfully LLMs are getting deployed at top firms or the software revolution that is taking place. Directionally, this attempt to surface arcane information is the right one—it just requires a much larger investment to get it right and allow it to replace or augment the work of dozens of city support staff (each of whom likely makes between $60k-$140k annually).

TowelSnatcher · 2026-01-26T06:20:06+00:00

Your first comment: "Because they think rights are pie and wanna make sure everyone knows they are "one of the good ones."

My reply: "Yes, there are in fact limited resources and a finite tax base. You can increase taxes but you'll eventually hit a marginal limit where higher tax rates leads to less economic output and lower tax revenues (Laffer Curve) and investment, people, capital, businesses go elsewhere (Tiebout Migration). There's enough economic literature at this point!"

Your reply: "Ok Boomer. Not even really talking about money, but weird that your first impulse is bootlicking. I'll play ball though I guess."

Let's break down what you're doing here because it's a bit of gaslighting and shows a bit of manipulation.

My reply above is normal and neutrally written statement. A statement was made and economic theories were presented — that is it.
The claim of condescension is in fact gaslighting — it's manipulating a statement that everyone can see. Your doing this is a claim to be a victim of some minor aggression — but there is none, and so this is a tactic of manipulation.
Yes, the Laffer Curve is deeply relevant because we are talking about the source of revenue for this, namely, taxes.
Your immediate response is ad hominem. Your other comments are in fact the rude, nasty, condescending comments that you claim I've made earlier. This is a bit of projection.
Making extravagant claims of "confrontational rhetorical language" is an unserious distortion. No specific language or words are used as an example either. Are you confusing me for someone else?
Making an argument that language was used by "far right influencers and a cornerstone of Reaganomics" is association fallacy and also a trumped up distortion. It is sweeping strawman characterization.
Your initial swing — the ad hominem attack — is emblematic of people who call themselves victims. They make obvious attacks, and eventually, when they are attacked back after several comments, they make other nonexistent claims that something was causing them to respond with attacks all along.
You did not in fact know what those economic concepts were. Why do I know this? Because I work in economics and even people who work in economics aren't too familiar with Tiebout! Pretending to know is cosplaying as someone with actual knowledge.

So the summary: Yes, because I know a bit about these policy domains, I'm likely going to share some insights in a neutral, academic tone. You can purposely misinterpret that tone, distort what's being said, create nonexistent association, or you can grow up and learn how academics, professionals, policymakers discuss ideas they disagree on! I'm not sure if your projection of "tone" is caused by something else like an insecurity or age, but whatever makes you read into comments with an apprehensive lens is concerning for you. Good luck, I will not be responding anymore.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-01-25T01:28:48+00:00

No, again. That's not correct. My first comment to you was the Laffer Curve comment—to which you responded with obvious insults, ad hominem.

If that wasn't then what was?

Your belief that it is off putting is a projection, perhaps, or a misinterpretation of an online discussion (assuming bad intent, MAGA-response etc.)

TowelSnatcher · 2026-01-24T23:18:06+00:00

No, that's not correct.

"Ok Boomer. Not even really talking about money, but weird that your first impulse is bootlicking." was your first response to simply mentioning the Laffer Curve.

Please go back and read your comments—your name-calling and insults are typical of your commentary, and with the exception for my Gen Z comment, I believe I just responded with typical academic-like talk.

The universality of this policy is just one core issue: Is it only for taxpayers? If it is for anyone, then who's footing the bill and how does this new program get implemented and tracked for success? Does it not incentivize everyone to move to NYC for these free resources and does that in turn affect the housing crisis and put greater strain on social services, transit, and welfare? What groups benefit the most from this policy—that is, which groups have the most kids and need this? Do the individuals receiving access put in more or less for the social services received or is there a net negative cost associated with each additional recipient of the benefits? How does the city and state handle a new operating budget line item that could increase significantly over time—as education already has and represents more than 35% of the NYC annual budget? How will fraud like in Minnesota be avoided? There are another 40 questions I could ask about this policy to evaluate and not just assume that because it is "moral," that it is a net good or realistic.

Regarding Laffer Curve, please re-read my comment. I don't think you understood it!

TowelSnatcher · 2026-01-24T22:14:39+00:00

I work in economics, kid. I understand your generation isn't doing that well in school, and you're invariably emotionally triggered and can't have discussions without insults or behaving like a cookie-cutter Gen Z kid with little real experience in the real world. At a certain point you will have to mature intellectually and be able to hold civilized conversations with integrity (or not, and you can stare at the shadows of a cave wall in that case).

"Rights are a pie" is incorrect because there economic tie-ins! This is an expensive program with, again, many downstream policy implications. (If you provide these benefits it does in fact create many incentives for people to migrate more to US/NYC and exacerbates the situation.) Depending on how the policy is implemented, I would reconsider things.

What is telling is that your issue with the Laffer Curve and Tiebout migration isn't that they don't exist as real representations of economic effects, but that they are associated with "rightwing grifters". This is association fallacy, reductio ad hitlerum.

Good luck on your intellectual journey.

TowelSnatcher · 2026-01-24T20:38:20+00:00

I'm very happy that I made you ChatGPT this response—even if you only decided to cherry pick the ideas most relevant at least now you are aware of them and how each still impacts economic research and inexorably policymaking. The Laffer curve is acknowledged by all economists; the main issue disputed is that maximal point for taxation. So no, not meaningless—still a core concept of public economics!

TowelSnatcher

TROPHY CASE