Monday assorted links

1. Drone deliveries start in Virginia town.

2. “All the US politicians and pundits and social media virtue signalers who are quick to windbag opine on Hong Kong protests are quiet on Chile and Barcelona this week where brutal rioters are destroying their cities and police are aggressively cracking down.” That is from Sameer Chisty.  Not exactly how I would frame it, but a perspective worth hearing.

3. Sweet beverage taxes had no impact in three of the four major American cities studied.

4. Particulate matter has been rising in the U.S. since 2016 and that is bad.

5. New Kleiner and Soltas results on occupational licensing.  As a side note, if you think quantity restrictions on labor entry are so bad, are you also committed to thinking the dual of price restrictions — minimum wages — must fail too?  If not, what is the exact difference between those two cases?



What if all these Thiago incarnations are Ray Lopez?

He seems to have disappeared.

He carried on with one too many Filipino 20-somethings ?

What is Lebron's opinion on Santiago, Chile?

“All the US politicians and pundits and social media virtue signalers who are quick to windbag opine on Hong Kong protests are quiet on Chile and Barcelona this week where brutal rioters are destroying their cities and police are aggressively cracking down.”

The issue is not whether people should have opinions on HK or Barcelona or whatever. The issue is whether a totalitarian government of a huge country can be allowed to bully US citizens, permanent residents, or companies to do their bidding. Have either the central government of Spain or the Catalan separatists worked to bully US citizens or businesses to not talk about their issues?


Oh, the irony. :) And here we thought that bending over (forward) for the Chinese would make them more liberal and democratic. Instead, the US is turning into a well behaved slave of the Chinese. Of course, we can say whatever we want so long as we don't mind losing our business or our jobs or ...?

If your customer makes you feel like a slave, don't work with them anymore.

Reading for comprehension is not your thing.

Is Spain a belligerent, aggressive, communist central committee (and president-for-life) led rival superpower? No.

Spain just put people into prison for exercising their right to free speech. Having a different political opinion is oddly risky in a supposedly liberal democratic country.

LOL. Any secessionist movement of that magnitude in lots of places, including in the United States of America, would be turned into a pink mist. They should be grateful it's just jail time. Sovereignty is serious business.

How many Texas or California secessionists were thrown in jail? None. Puerto Rican independence? None. Freedom of speech is weak in a former fascist dictatorship like Spain. God Bless America.

In the Civil War we killed 600,000 of each other to settle the issue: States can't leave the Union.

Texas, California, even the militant Puerto Ricans from the 1950's are just LARPing. If a million people hit the street in a serious effort to take a State out of the Union, the Air Force would do bombing runs.

A multi-trillion dollar economy is riding on US Treasuries trading at face value. You seriously think the US government and its pension-drawing soldiers would just say goodbye and good luck?

So we are allowed free speech except when others disagree? Captain Bolsonaro disagrees.

President Captain Bolsonaro, in his magnanimity, allows such debate, lest the undisciplined, temperamental Brazilians run amok burning their own infrastructure.

I can not imagine Brazilians engaging in vandalism.

"In the Civil War we killed 600,000 of each other to settle the issue: States can't leave the Union."

The example of the Civil War undermines the comparison. The U.S. government ultimately wound up pardoning just about every political and even military leader involved in secession. The first show of military force by the U.S. government was only when secessionist forces in South Carolina engaged in violence to prevent the army from supplying its base in Fort Sumter.

Holding a referendum on independence and for a cause that has none of the noxious qualities of pro-slavery secession isn't even in the same moral universe. A conviction for the equivalent of contempt of court or disobeying lawful orders may be justified but charging them with sedition almost by definition turns them into political prisoners.

Sovereignty isn't about morals. The Spanish government knows it can't let Catalan go without the current Spanish state dissolving. The US government can't let Texas or California go without its bonds tanking. If you want to be a sovereign you better be prepared to fight like hell.

Query: in what prevailing style recognizable to Chinese citizens is American economic or political discourse going across and being perceived?

Much/Most of what US companies succeed in communicating might conform a bit too closely to traditional Confucian expectations of social conformity and deference to the state.

How much, though, is cast in terms of Zhuangzian skepticism, individualism, and "studied provincialism" (fleeing to remote parts, disaffection with apparatuses of state, disaffection with careers of state)?

What do Chinese citizens (not the CCP) hear Americans saying? How nuanced are Americans in communicating to and across Chinese society?

The US pols, pundits, virtue signallers were opining on HK long before the recent NBA stuff, while being largely silent not just on Barcelona and Chile but on the Gilets Jaunes in France, which has been going on for a long time now.

The difference is that China meaningfully challenges US relative power and status. Part of the thrill and psychic compensation for pundits and virtue signallers is that their ideological and moral preening is backed by US power and status.

Correct me if I am wrong, but neither France, nor Spain, nor Chile operate large re-education camps, nor have they massacred protesters anytime in the past 30 years. People have complained about Burma as well (genocide of the Rohingya) and about Sudan and Yemen and Turkey and Syria, etc., etc.

Worse. They don't have money for food. Chile is in a similar situation as Venezuela. In HK, one could argue, they are losing their freedoms but at least they eat well enough.

No. Some opportunist politicians _want_ to take Chile down the same road as Venezuela, taking advantage of the current "panic". As of today (monday evening) their success seems less and less likely by the hour.

Chile's sky high prices will still remain regardless of what happens. That is fuel for the next round of civil unrest.

According to economists unions, licensing, and the minimum wage all reduce the supply of labor and bid up the cost of labor. Yet, they all claim that wages won't fall due to mass migration because it's an "exception".


It's motivated reasoning - they can't help believe something that is going to make THEM richer. They love cheap gardeners, housekeepers, babysitters, handymen, etc. Besides, their kids will not be going to school with the children of THOSE people. THOSE people will not be living in THEIR neighborhood. This, they believe it's good for the economy, a riding tide lifts all boats, and they can conjure up the numbers to prove it. After all, look how good they are at predicting the future, like they predicted 2008 in 2005.

Because increasing the number of people in the country also increases demand for products and services. If you have 10 people on an island, and a new person comes, there's no reason to intuitively expect that the cost of labor will be pushed down. If you have 10 people on an island, and you say that people can only work if they produce the equivalent of 10 pineapples a day, there is reason to intuitively expect the cost of labor will be pushed up. Certain sectors of the economy definitely seem to have their wages pushed down by higher immigration, such as low-skilled immigrants who don't speak English. But there's no reason to expect total wages to be pushed down, and empirically, they seem to go up, if anything.

It changes the calculus if the immigrants send 80%+ of their wages back to the home country to be spent on local goods and services.

Over $150 billion a year flows out of the US via remittances. So about 0.8% of GDP every year.

Many of those workers are paid cash, so their US citizen offspring are eligible for social welfare. The lower and middle class get f*cked , losing employment opportunities, lower government services, while paying more in taxes.

If unskilled workers want better opportunities, they should get skilled.

Half the population will be on the left side of the bell curve. Tautologically.

If we import millions of men on the left side of the bell curve who will accept $6 an hour to send the money back to a third world country...

A good percentage of those on the left side of the bell curve have personal issues to put politely. The remaining should be able to get a job where speaking English is a hard requirement like a call center or government services or admin work.

So it's ok to put low skill people out of work to accommodate low skill immigrants, even illegal immigrants? BTW, construction is not a low skill industry.

....are not low skill

Of course it's more complicated than my example. But my point was that it isn't at all inconsistent to expect labor costs to be pushed up by the minimum wage but not pushed down by immigration. Sending US dollars back home can also obviously push wages up in the US. So economists have to rely on the empirical data, and that data suggest that immigration does not push wages down, and probably pushes wages up.

I love econometrics as much as the next data nerd, and yet am utterly unconvinced as to the reliability of macro modeling. And that’s an understatement.

The truth is we cannot say with any confidence that mass illegal immigration from the third world does not reduce the return to low or unskilled labor. We have models yes, but what we usually point to is the Mariel boat lift study. Color me skeptical.

A quick thought experiment.

If unlimited numbers of doctors could immigrate to the US without a redundant residency requirement, would that lower or raise wages for native doctors?

If unlimited numbers of nurses could immigrate to the US would that lower or raise wages for native nurses?

If GM could instantly shed its union contract and open the gates to non unionized labor would that lower or raise wages for GM workers?

Supply curve shifts to the right, what happens? Macro is becoming a data mining exercise in attempting to refute obvious theoretical implications.

Cheers. I still support unlimited immigration. But I won’t support spurious evidence to prove my point. Immigration is not Pareto improving, but it helps desperately poor humans at the expense of incredibly wealthy humans.

Sure, I completely agree with all of that. I mentioned in my first comment that some groups definitely seem like their wages are pushed down by current immigration (unskilled, non-English speaking laborers). On unskilled labor in general, the results seem mixed, but I agree it's entirely possible that it is pushing their wages down.

But Luka said that "all" economists were saying wages wouldn't fall. I took that as a bit of an exaggeration on the majority opinion that immigration doesn't lower wages in general. If he was referring to *any subgroup*, then the majority opinion of economists is the opposite way, it definitely can hurt some subgroups (

Immigration is not Pareto improving, but it helps desperately poor humans at the expense of incredibly wealthy humans.

"At the expense of incredibly wealthy humans" how, exactly? My impression is that the incredibly wealthy get incredibly wealthier. Their homes in affluent, good school districts with rich white neighbors get pricier, they sell more gewgaws to more people, etc.

I'm told this is fine--a rising tide lifts all boats, supposedly--but like a lot of things it doesn't seem to have a limiting principle. So if a million immigrants are good, then 10 million immigrants are doubleplusgood, and a billion immigrants would be heaven on earth--right? We'd all just buy toilet paper rolls at Costco and sell them to each other and get rich off the spread.

We know that can't be the case because plenty of places with over a billion people are so bad that people are spending thousands of dollars to get away from them; India, for example. So it's not just quantity.

"Because increasing the number of people in the country also increases demand for products and services. "

Agreed, and if the average immigrant had a skillset equal to the average American, and didn't have large remittances, this would probably be true. However, that's not the case in the US.

You first agreed and then disagreed. You can't do both.

You seem to be confusing "increasing demand for products and services" with "increasing demand for products and services by the pay of the average American". There is no way that immigrants being in the country does not increase demand for products and services to some extent, unless if they are living in the woods. And so the argument for immigration does not conflict with the argument against the minimum wage, occupational licensing, etc.

The real wage of the unskilled falls because the capital stock is fixed in the short run. Now, if the immigrants came with machines or training, things would be different.

2 Harvard influence again? The Chinese protests have no personality. The latin protests are far more interesting and and are a better fit.

Let us be blunt. Castilians will be Castilians.

It took entertaining black NBA players to make Americans pay attention to the HK protests. But that says more about American attention than anything else.

Some of us were already paying attention. It took some extremely wealthy African American athletes telling us we hadn’t thought things through (less nuanced version: weren’t sufficient pro regime) to get more people interested, yes. So?

#1 Based on what I've seen of the apex of the technology, I remain unimpressed. I could see a future where it's slightly different, but even then with limitations and inherent disadvantages.

#2 Two things stand out to me. 1) the rapidity of the Chile protests. It literally went from 0 to 100 overnight. 2) Politicians everywhere are getting worse at perceiving where, how, and why their constituents are willing to make a stand. They're getting worse at measuring the discontent and getting worse at measuring their ability to foist a compromise. I see this more as a distinct problem of an 'elite' losing touch with the day to day reality of the people they govern, and history shall not look favorably on outcomes for them.

#3 Duh.

Against what are they taking a stand? The country has had three recessions in the last 30 years (the last one quite mild), has seen ample improvement in per capita income over that time, isn't suffering much inflation (annual increases in price indices < 4%), and doesn't have a hypertrophied state sector. It's labor market isn't the best (unemployment rates at 7% and employment-to-population ratios at 0.55), but there are many many worse. What gives with burning down factories and the like? (These fires account for at least 8 of the 11 deaths recorded thus far).

They are tired of being slaves. They want to take their country back.

Except they're not slaves and their country hasn't been appropriated by anyone.

They are slaves of the Chilean regime. Everything was taken from them but their chains. They live under the boots of foreign speculators. Even their pensions were taken from them. They are mad as hell and won't take anymore.

"foreign speculators" ? that is so 70's .... you should really update your discourse. Nowadays the left doesn't say "foreign" because it smacks of xenophobia.

So you think Chile shold remain a cash cow for rootless malefactors of great wealth.

Their economy is mismanaged like most of Latin America. The funny thing is that the government isn't run by Venezuelan socialists but American backed billionaire conservative capitalists. I'd like to see the US establishment/media try to spin that one!

Chile is the most successful Latin American country. They run a government surplus.

The metro fare increase is based on a CPI-like metric. It was 4 cents.

This is the remnant of communist activity in Chile. Apparently people who refused to work in the formal sector are furious that their pension is low.

Well no shit. You did not want a job, and your pension is low.

"Apparently people who refused to work in the formal sector are furious that their pension is low."

Chileans have been promised decent pensions when the private pensions system was installed. Now they are told they must get almost nothing. They have betrayed. They hqve a right to get their country back.

No, they were "promised" a pension proportionate to their savings, and that no one would steal theirpension money (like they did in Argentina). And the "promised" is a bit misleading since it was created during a non-democratic government. And it has been improved (lower commissions, subsidies for lower pensions, etc...) by several democratic ones.

Again, they were promised pensions comparable to their wages. I still remember Piñera Brother singing the glories of the Pension system he helped to implement. It is a disaster. Chile has first world prices a s fourth world pensions.

If they are so successful, why are they lining up for food?

"Andres Abregu, an Uber driver who complained he is still paying a student debt and cannot provide a decent life for his family."

How many Chilean communists drive for Uber?

Their economy is mismanaged like most of Latin America.

In your imagination only. There is simply no indication of that in the metrics.

My point was less about the validity of legitimate vs. illegitimate gripe and more about - regardless of its legitimacy - the deafness an inability leadership to predict an outcome.

The reason I'm hearing thrown about is 'bus fare increases'. I have no standing to affirm or deny this is true, but my Bayesian prediction model tells me that leadership - any leadership - ought to be prescient enough to realize whether or not 'bus fare increases' will or will not agitate this kind of outcome.

Clearly something is wrong here. Leadership's job is to know what. They clearly have no idea.

And my point is 'why would they have any idea'? You can't tell me to what these rioters (that's what they are) are responding. The country isn't suffering in any peculiar way.

“Where’s OUR suffering!? The writings of Karl Marx promised us suffering!”

No, they’re rioting because they either didn’t work or worked in the informal sector.

They don’t have social security, they have the AFP which is a nationwide mandatory 401k system.

The mandatory system doesn’t pay for people who refuse to work or only work 10 years of their life.

So they’ll burn buildings.

"They don’t have social security, they have the AFP which is a nationwide mandatory 401k system."
They have been robbed by greedy business and scrupleless politicians. They are taking their country back from merciless oppressors.

I looked at some video. The protesters look fairly young, as is the wont of protesters.

2. Does TC identify with the "social media virtue signaler" term?

2. Seems like Mr Chisty shares their view by referring to HK "protests" and Chilean and Spanish "brutal riots" all in one sentence.

Its an accurate semantic different.

The HK protestors are peaceful with only a few scattered incidents of violence, half of those are likely CCP agents.

The rioters in Chile burned down a tall privately owned building among other bad things.

I guess you wanted them to overthrow their oppressors very gently.

Thank you, finally you get to the point. The riots are being manipulated by certain parts of the opposition in the order to overthrow (read: do away with the constitutional order) the current government.

They are trying to free Chile from slavery.

They are civil unrest.  Calling them riots versus protests displays the interpreted bias.   With regard to the methods used, I submit that governments get the unrest they deserve. 

5. Quantity restrictions are meant as a guide: as population has grown and life has become less personal, recommendations from friends is less of a guide. Web sites as guides for everything from contractors to message therapists help, but many if not most of the guides are little more than paid advertisements. When I entered the work force the minimum wage was a buck thirty. Now that's a minimum . . . . wage. Back then low paid labor was provided largely part by black people, adult black people. Was the minimum wage meant to protect those people. Hardly. Thus a minimum . . . . wage. When the minimum wage was a buck thirty, I got a job at a buck ninety, well above the wage paid to those people. Today, the minimum wage protects black people, brown people, recent immigrants, and young and unskilled white people. Thus, a minimum wage (as opposed to a minimum . . . . wage).

3. Great, so we shouldn't listen to economists warning us against distortionary taxes!

Correct, as all elasticities are zero, except in Philadelphia! :-)

Or they could just raise the tax until there is an effect.

That would be silly.

#4: yes, that certainly is bad, but I'm not sure I'd put much faith in their $89 billion impact. That seems absurdly high.


It’s gated for me. Do the authors discuss the origin of the particulates?

Gated for me, too. They do mention wildfires and Trump in the abstract, though.

Particulates have an IQ impact.

That's huge right? It shapes future growth, and the whole area under the curve.

I mean if you're the kind of guy who cares about IQ.

That's a long term effect. We're talking about a 5.5% increase in particulate matter from 2016 to 2018.

They mention 9,700 premature deaths as a result. Australia values life at close to $3 million US a pop, so that's about $30 billion there. Need more info to estimate if 3 times that makes sense.

But what of the cost of people living decades while disabled from pollution harm, even at the margin?

The cheapest option is often death, like in the Civil War instead of today's wars where high numbers of those killed in past wars continue to live in sometimes nearly nonfunctional ways.

#1) "Susie Sensmeier received a purple winter vest she ordered from Dicks Sporting Goods delivered by a drone to her front yard. The 81-year-old said she never thought she'd see something like it.

"I didn't think I would live that long or it wouldn't come in my lifetime, I'm thrilled," she said."

Maybe the Great Stagnation is overrated.

Why not a fixed wing drone, takes off in your backyard, flies itself to Walmart for a bag of groceries? Lands in the parking lot, saddle bag loaded by clerk and it returns home. Fixed wing, good for 15 miles and back.

quoted just before her husband blasted the drone with a shotgun.

"get off my lawn"

3. How are purchases measured, just in-city? Would an offsetting increase in NJ to Philly's decrease be captured?

1) If the 12.2% decrease in purchases corresponds to a 5 calorie individual intake decrease, then individuals are only drinking about 41 calories of sugary drinks per day. Doesn't seem like a large problem in that light.
2) How much was raised in tax dollars? Isn't increased revenue part of the point as it is with other 'sin' taxes?

#3 cites both consumption and increase of tax revenue as reasons municipalities added the tax. They seem to suggest no impact as to the first reason, but what about the 2nd?

#2: Typical suited Western businessman with Chinese characters in his twitter tagline behavior: "All protests are the same contest between the forces of 'stability' and 'chaos' and if you back the HK protesters while being indifferent to the Gilets-Jaunes (or whatever), you're a hypocrite who is hurting the feelings of the Chinese people".

#5 I did my Master's thesis under Kleiner on occupational licensing.

"As a side note, if you think quantity restrictions on labor entry are so bad, are you also committed to thinking the dual of price restrictions — minimum wages — must fail too? If not, what is the exact difference between those two cases?"

This is not the right question to ask. The correct question to ask is: which problems are you trying to solve for, and what are your policy options. in the case of occupational licensing, we found that labor migration was significantly restricted between states depending on the type of sector and license. This resulted in a deadweight loss to the economy. This is due to the disparate state licensing requirements which prevent an ease of transition for licensed workers. Similar to the open EU market(though they may have different country to country requirements, I only use this as as example), a mobile economy is an efficient economy. An efficient economy is a happy economy.

The question of minimum wage and its effects on job growth is still a matter of debate. Show me a paper which says that minimum wage drives jobs down and I'll show you another that shows jobs increase over the mid term. Minimum wage is a policy decision which is made to benefit the lowest rungs of the economy, not necessarily spur job growth - though I would argue again that it does over the mid-term. Licensed workers are not often making minimum wage anyway, so this comparison is of little use I think.

From basic theory it is pretty obvious that a price floor is going to restrict transactions, just like a binding quantity constraint. Its negative welfare effects are identical.

There are empirical studies that argue that minimum wage increases employment. How about empirical studies with the purpose of showing that occupational licensing decreases wages?

"How about empirical studies with the purpose of showing that occupational licensing decreases wages?"

My work was mostly on interstate labor migration among licensed workers, but if I remember correctly, there was a statistically significant decline in the wages of non-licensed workers in the same occupation - that is, if they were even allowed to practice at all. I think a more interesting question, and one that we didn't get to answer would be: If a local economy is majority licensed workers, what effect, if any does it have on non-licensed workers of any variety? In other words, let's say that a community labor force is over 50% licensed plumbers, electricians, hair stylists, and nail salon technicians. The remaining portion of the workforce is unlicensed workers in factories or service industries. Does the majority status of workforce licensure raise the community median wage, or lower it? To that, I have no clear answer.

3. From the link: "We find that an increase in the beverage tax rate of 1 cent per ounce decreases household purchases of taxed beverages by 53.0 ounces per month or 12.2 percent." That seems like a big percentage decrease in purchases for such a small tax. What does it take to modify consumer behavior? In the case of deposits on bottles and cans, a deposit of at least ten cents a bottle or can is required to marginally affect consumer behavior, and a deposit of at least twenty to thirty cents a bottle or can is necessary to significantly affect consumer behavior. Alcohol, being addictive, likely requires more than what's required to induce consumers to return a bottle or can. I recall many years ago (50) a six-pack of Busch beer in returnable bottles ("long necks") cost $.89 plus the deposit. We consumed large quantities of Busch beer and paid lots of deposits. Did we return the bottles? Yes, we collected them and when we ran out of milk money, we cashed in the bottles to buy milk for our baby. That's right, returnable bottles were a form of savings for poor people. Research that!

Five years before then I used to collect empty returnable beer bottles at the beach, and get the two cents per bottle deposit. Kept me in ice cream for the week. :-)

It seems to be roughly 1:1, i.e. a 12 cent tax on a can of soda reduces consumption by 12%. That's a pretty far cry from Cowen's claim of "no impact". In any case, it's a Pigouvian tax, so either you reduce the public harm or your raise public funds. The true criticism is whether there is economic harm done, which again seems not to have been an issue since producers can pivot to non-soda alternatives. Seems like the policy is working as intended and for the general good.

The bottle deposits have the great feature of both taxing the polluter and rewarding the cleaner. It's disappointing that so few places actually have those policies (

We need to know the per cent change in the can-of-soda price, not the absolute price increase. That's not in the abstract, and it damned well should be.

I was assuming a 12 oz can of soda taxed at 1 cent per oz. Most sodas will be in 12 oz or 16 oz. Probably priced at $1 or $1.25. Hence my estimate.

Right, the article seems to be mis-interpreting its own results. That's a pretty substantial change, ie. the demand for soda seems to be elastic, who'da thunk?

OTOH, their results seem very unreliable: three cities have basically no elasticity of demand, and all of the change in quantity demanded happened only in Philadelphia? Or we can conclude that their results are too unreliable to be believed.

And if we do believe their results, 5 Calories a day and half a pound of body weight seems like a substantial change in health behavior to me. It's like a half degree change in global temperatures: a seemingly small change at the margin can have a big effect globally.

They seem to be demanding that the soda taxes caused people to lose 5 pounds of the like; that ain't happening. Maybe if the cities could force every single resident to run 3 miles per day, then they'd lose those 5 pounds. But unless the cities are run by the Khmer Rouge, there are no (reasonable) public policies that can cause that large a change in behavior.

2. More interesting was another (re)tweet from the same guy, which gave a list of the most startup-friendly countries in the world in 2019, per CEOWorld Magazine.

India in fifth place worldwide, ahead of Germany?? Can this possibly be for real? No licence raj anymore?

There is a huge group of Indian expats (many in Silicon Valley) who return to help start up companies.

I don't question the talent pool, I just wonder about the regulatory environment and the mentality of the bureaucrats. Suddenly they've become friendly and helpful to startup companies?

I'm sure not every bureaucrat is helpful, but yes there has been a change in the overall tone. India is no longer a socialist state in the way it was in the 1970s, because the expats are coming back rich and with startup know-how.

All the pious pundits quick to opine on how all the US politicians and pundits and social media virtue signalers who are quick to windbag opine on Hong Kong protests are quiet on Chile and Barcelona this week where brutal rioters are destroying their cities and police are aggressively cracking down, are quiet on the tractor protests going down in The Netherlands.

I guess it kind of works as a car game. The point?

"brutal rioters are destroying their cities and police are aggressively cracking down."

Polie are expecteto crack down on rioters.

The HK protests are peaceful, not riots at all. The Chinese police are not justified in their use of violence.

As a further explanation for US indifference, most Americans could not locate Chile on a map if you gave them a map only of Chile. {Same for Catalonia which is of course not even a country, just a region of an obscure [to Americans] country.}

"Wing partnered with Walgreens, FedEx and local gift shop Sugar Magnolia to perform the tests in Christiansburg, Va. Walgreens customers in the town will be able to order from a list of more than 100 items and get them delivered to their doors by drones."

Don't put opioids in those drones. It will be like a skeet shooting tournament.

More like a Pinata party.

2. "brutal rioters destroying their cities," and merely "aggressive" police dutifully restoring law and order..

'nuf said; i can stop reading there.

If you want to understand media bias, you have to look at the words.

Yes, if editors approve of the cause, the "riots" turn into "uprisings" by "the resistance"

And so begins the final drama/In the streets and in the fields/We stand unbowed before their armour/We defy their guns and shields!/When we fight, provoked by their aggression/Let us be inspired by life and love/For though they offer us concessions/Change will not come from above!

2. None of the Hong Kong protestors mentioned the Dancing in the Street protests in Australia, so clearly they hate democracy.

2. south asian sociologist slips
in sophistry of false equivalencies& straw men!

Comments for this post are closed