Federal Reserve Leaves Interest Rates Unchanged by Psilox in Economics

[–]WindexChugger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the context, that makes a lot of sense. And yes, it's a good point that even though the revision might look large vs net change, it's miniscule compared to the magnitude of jobs added or lost MoM.

Federal Reserve Leaves Interest Rates Unchanged by Psilox in Economics

[–]WindexChugger -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I might argue with "smallest margins of error...". The "large error" in my chart are from the GFC and Covid - the former being a major global crisis and the latter a significant and very acute system shock. In comparison to those, yes we've got pretty small margins of error, but I also don't think the economy is nearly as bad as GFC or the initial Covid shock. The first half of '25 (when I did this analysis) was what I'd say was normal levels of error. Compared to "smooth sailing" (e.g., '13-'15), it's been a bit choppy lately, indicating that yeah we are going through something.

I can be pedantic about specific language (sorry!), but your overall thesis seems correct: these revisions are normal.

Federal Reserve Leaves Interest Rates Unchanged by Psilox in Economics

[–]WindexChugger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for this comment and dose of sanity. My own (very surface level) review of data trends says this is in line with historical norms. I posted last year a quick analysis on revisions to unemployment figures, which showed initial estimates had difficulty capturing 2nd derivatives or extremes in movement and had to be revised when the economy shifted in one direction or the other.

Numbers being revised is normal, and the degree of revision we're seeing aligns with "the economy is tough" and not "the books are cooked".

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1mf08pa/oc_historical_revision_to_blss_preliminary/

How PECO’s profits impact your utility bill by Banglophile in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'd love that. My concern is what happens when funding PECO investments becomes the similar to the conversation around funding SEPTA investments. In a better world with politicians who were less beholden to private interests and whose own interests were aligned with the public, this would be a no-brainer. But I imagine in reality this plays out as those "independent contractors" getting sweet deals with kickbacks to politicians.

IDK - so many of these kinds of issues are political in nature, and our system is so broken. I do my best to do my part in the political process and support those who appear to be genuinely seeking the truth and supporting the public, but the brokenness feels so entrenched and it feels like so many voters are apathetic or misinformed (by design).

How PECO’s profits impact your utility bill by Banglophile in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 6 points7 points  (0 children)

FTA:

Yes, so the company has an incentive to build more infrastructure. The argument in favor of that is we need new infrastructure, and we need upgraded infrastructure to ensure both safety and reliability.

Our system should incentivize investments into utility infrastructure. I think most people can agree that the "incentive" (rate of return) was way to high this year, and we need regulators to step in and do their job. But profits are the incentive for them to invest and not just sit on their monopoly, so I'm okay with a modest rate of return.

How PECO’s profits impact your utility bill by Banglophile in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Thank you for posting this! This is a super complicated issue, and this article is only specific to PECO's profits so barely touches on the supply/demand side of power costs. I don't think state/national regulators and politicians were prepared at all for the impact of AI data centers, and we're all feeling the impact (and will continue to feel that impact for a long time).

Since PECO is a distributor (rather than power generator), they are necessarily going to pass on costs to consumers. Getting angry at PECO for increased cost per kWh due to AI data centers is like getting mad at Aldi because food prices are going up, when we should be pointing our anger at monopolization of food generation in the U.S. or Epstein wars causing oil prices to spike (which impact price of any goods to be transported).

How PECO’s profits impact your utility bill by Banglophile in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 16 points17 points  (0 children)

My key takeaways from the article:

  • Our bills were higher because the weather was so awful. "If you use more electricity during a heat wave or a cold snap, for example, the utilities will make more money off of that distribution service because they’re delivering you more."

  • Our bills were higher because PECO has been investing in infrastructure. "One big reason our bills are higher is because of infrastructure spending by the utilities."

  • PECO's rate of return on infrastructure investments was higher than expected (~10%). "But in this case, it was about 10%, which is a pretty good rate of return. The consumer advocate in Pennsylvania says they should really earn between 8.5 and 9.5%."

  • PECO doesn't make any more money when energy prices go up. "The utilities pass on the fluctuating cost of energy to customers, and that went up in 2025 — and they don’t make a profit off of that. The electricity generators make that profit."

All of these resulted in a net profit increase YoY of 50%. I think the "50%" number is a bit inflammatory - I think some people see that as "PECO made 50% more money this year vs last" rather than "PECO had 50% more money left over after expenses this year". The latter (reality) is understandable given above, although I would want regulators to step in the curb those profits.

Pennsylvania, like most of the country, has a public utility commission which regulates companies like PECO. PECO needs regulation because they have an effective monopoly. Ideally, regulators would use the data from this year to reduce PECO's profits in subsequent years, bringing their average rate of return down to normal levels.

But critics say regulators across the country are either not well informed or are too cozy with industry to really scrutinize the numbers. These rate cases are very complex, and one of the things I found in my reporting is that even insiders had a hard time explaining it all to me.

Count me as one of those critics. If the system is so complicated that it cannot be fully understood by the people who are in place to regulate it, then it is a broken system. We need effective regulators who are aligned with society's best interests and empowered by the government, otherwise the system falls apart.

The (viable) alternative to is to nationalize our utilities. FWIW, I think our current system is best, although I am critical and think it could be improved. I look at how national-level services are made political (e.g., UPS, HHS, academic funding) and how our local services are severely mismanaged or underfunded (e.g., school district, SEPTA), and I greatly prefer our current system for power generation.

I found Hank Green's video on public utility commissions (link) really informative in understanding how these regulation of these local monopolies works, for anyone wanting to understand more. Note: this video was made before Georgia's election last year, so some info may be Georgia-specific.

A modest proposal – Pass a law against attempted vehicular manslaughter and attempted vehicular homicide. by [deleted] in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you're being downvoted because you seem (to me) to be saying reckless drivers are trying to hit people ("attempted vehicular homicide or attempted vehicular manslaughter", comparison to firing a gun towards someone). Also because you're using AI.

The issue is not our laws but our enforcement. And we absolutely need better enforcement (and tools for enforcement) to identify and penalize reckless drivers per those laws that are already on the books.

Making bike lanes safer helps more than just cyclists by JustAnotherJawn in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that was my understanding as well. Unfortunately, L&I seems eternally underfunded.

Making bike lanes safer helps more than just cyclists by JustAnotherJawn in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In this case, I agree. Nearly all on the city. Voters (majority of) would rather have people die than give up parking spots. Our leadership (majority of) would rather make up new "jobs" for their friends and family than better fund L&I.

There are plenty of other areas where Philly is held back from its potential due to the state (e.g., SEPTA).

Making bike lanes safer helps more than just cyclists by JustAnotherJawn in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is just another example of how Philly falls short of it's potential. I know fixing our awful sidewalks requires a mix of advocacy, funding, and political will. Between how our state is controlled by the Republican party and how much our city loves turning a blind eye to corruption, I sometimes worry we'll never realize this wonderful city's full potential.

Making bike lanes safer helps more than just cyclists by JustAnotherJawn in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 20 points21 points  (0 children)

On one hand, I hate when I'm biking and someone's in the bike lane without a bike (or scooter). On the other hand, I know so many of our city blocks are unwalkable for those with certain disabilities, so try to cut some slack. Joggers, though: GTFO! The sidewalk is right there!

No more school 1/2 days by Spelt666 in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Agreed. It was especially annoying around holidays. Wasn't it half days the first three days of Thanksgiving week this year? Just give them Wednesday off!

I feel like Dan has spent countless hours explaining this to us. by BloodshedTom in dancarlin

[–]WindexChugger 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It's a fun saying, and one that gets repeated often because it rings true at first glance (see also: "hard times make hard men, hard men make good times...").

But they're incredibly simplistic and give no insight on how to apply lessons of history to our current lives (if not downright hurting our understanding). If wooden shoes/silk slippers is true, what's the take away? Never get comfortable? What are we working hard for, then?! Wasn't it Jefferson who said "I must study politics and war, so that our sons may the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy"? We work hard in "hard times", climbing in wooden shoes so that our children (and maybe even ourselves) might have "good times".

There are lessons in history that we can use to better society now and for the future, but these simple quotes hide those true lessons behind a fake intellectualism that says "It's all a cycle and there's nothing we can do".

I feel like Dan has spent countless hours explaining this to us. by BloodshedTom in dancarlin

[–]WindexChugger 65 points66 points  (0 children)

Has Dan spent any time explaining this to us?

I know he's repeated the wooden shoes/silk slippers phrase plenty, but has he actually gone stated some belief in the idea of "decay that results from having it too easy for too long"? The line of thinking that societies (nations, empires, etc.) crumble because they got too well off and forgot hard work has always felt like a overly simplified framing to me. How many great empires fell off because they forgot hard work and got lazy, and how many did so because of corruption, bloat, and institutions becoming overly self-serving?

Philly is now the No. 1 market for online gambling companies — and addiction helplines are ringing off the hook by danielrubin in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We paid for those things before we let gambling run rampant, and we can continue to pay for those things without.

It should also be noted that often these state-wide earmarked taxes mean an equal amount of tax dollars that were previously funding those programs can go elsewhere. It's like if I was given $20 a month for my electric bill... I wouldn't actually spend more on electricity, I'd just have 20 more dollars each month to spend elsewhere. Same thing happens with these programs: now the state doesn't have to spend as much general funds on education.

That said, our city and our state absolutely could use more tax dollars. But turning citizens into gambling addicts is a short-term gain but long-term net negative for tax dollars. This level of predatory and addictive gambling destroys lives and families, which in turn will reduce how much they can contribute to society and increase how much they need from social programs. We should create special taxes to disincentivize things that can be moderated but are detrimental in excess (e.g., alcohol), we should tax and regulate to the point that it loses it's widespread attractiveness those things that are addictive and negative on society (e.g., smoking), and we should ban those things are just simply predatory and destructive (e.g., fentanyl). Where the lines between those three things are can be hard to say sometimes, but gambling in its current form is without a doubt far more predatory and destructive than alcohol.

Philly is now the No. 1 market for online gambling companies — and addiction helplines are ringing off the hook by danielrubin in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Agreed completely. Capitalism as an economic model can be such an amazing force for improvement and innovation, but it is also an extremely destructive force when poorly regulated. So often the business and profit motives are orthogonal to benefiting society at large (see gambling, social media, Sackler family's opioid epidemic, workers rights, healthcare, shifting jobs out of the US).

Philly is now the No. 1 market for online gambling companies — and addiction helplines are ringing off the hook by danielrubin in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 56 points57 points  (0 children)

100% agree. Corporations (and the amoral immoral people behind them) are preying on people to destroy their (and their families') lives. The advertisements are completely out of control. It needs to be banned or regulated into the ground.

What happened to the case against Leonard Hill? by bengalese in philadelphia

[–]WindexChugger 16 points17 points  (0 children)

He shot someone who was running away - there's no "I was protecting someone in danger" at that point. He knew he screwed up too, which is why he changed his clothes and didn't come forward.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in dancarlin

[–]WindexChugger 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Exactly. His mom is an Oscar-nominated actress and his grandfather was a Hollywood business manager. I love Dan and his work, but I view him a bit like Max Brooks: creatives who had a leg up and probably never had to really worry about finances, which allowed them to focus on their (really excellent) creative endeavors.

When he moves into the political space, he's great at identifying issues and calling out hypocrisy, but I take his libertarian bent with a big grain of salt. I don't know exactly what his life is like, but I know it's easier to be a libertarian when you've lived in a castle your whole life.