We have previously discussed, in these lonely pages, how economics is the eugenics of our time, a neatly fraudulent epistemology that serves principally to permit all the inhuman varieties of psychopathy to flourish in the all-permissive cannibalistic abattoir of pseudoscience. Thus, Yglesias:
In support of his view, Ferguson marshalls two arguments. One is to quote a constituent from a town hall meeting who reportedly said that the falling price of iPads doesn’t offset the increased price of food because “I can’t eat an iPad.” Which is true. But you also can’t send email from a banana or watch streaming video on a bag of rice. When electronics, communication technology, and entertainment get cheaper then you have more money left over for bananas.Well, there you have it. I sort of envision a world in which all children are in possession of a digital device that allows them to watch with keen, malnourished intensity as Sally Struthers pleads for their very own lives.
119 comments:
The best part is the first commenter, who generously grants the possibility that somewhere, "down the scale," there may be people who spend most of their money on gas and food.
LOL LP Steve. I'm reminded of a friend's observation (back in the struggling post-college days) of "the novelty of spending money on something I won't eat or wear."
And the comments keep getting better!
"Ferguson's world - where inflation is high and rising and real economic output is plummeting - sounds like the reality not of America as a whole but of Detroit."
Not of America as a whole.
Not of America as a whole.
Not of America, a-hole.
BANANA RICE PUDDING
THIS is an old recipe my mother used. With seven children in the house, she made larger quantities, but I adjusted the ingredients to be just right for the two of us. Its "snowy" look makes this a perfect dessert for the winter months. -Ruth Ann Stelfox, Raymond, Alberta
Ingredients
1 cup cooked long grain rice
1/3 cup sugar
1/3 cup heavy whipping cream, whipped
1 large firm banana, sliced
Fresh mint, optional
Directions
In a bowl, combine rice and sugar. Cool completely. Fold in whipped cream and banana. Cover and refrigerate until serving. Spoon into serving dishes; garnish with mint if desired. Yield: 2 servings.
Nutrition Facts: 1 serving (1/2 cup) equals 431 calories, 15 g fat (9 g saturated fat), 54 mg cholesterol, 17 mg sodium, 73 g carbohydrate, 2 g fiber, 4 g protein.
That's a staggeringly stupid graph Matty gives us, based on the USDA data, a fine example of the philistinism of aggregates. It's derived by taking *total* national disposable income as the denominator and *total* national expenditure on food as the numerator.
Some very different individual predicaments are predictably, perhaps deliberately, concealed this way.
Reminds me of the proverbial statistician who drowned in a creek with an average depth of six inches.
Deep thoughts, with Jack Handy
Jesus, IOZ, I know I ought to be desensitized to such things, but that picture is making me want to vomit up my organic feta and spinach pasta salad.
I don't see the problem here. The price of an iPad drops, giving Yggy money to splurge on Morton's, allowing a waitress there to subsist on bananas.
Sounds like a win-win situation to me.*
* Unless she can't afford gas and has to hitchhike to work and is picked up by a serial killer. But other than that ...
6,916,728,402 people liked this.
Transhuman Yggie has finally attained The Singularity. Of stupid.
-- sglover
That Yggles is a visibly fat man should not sway us against his argument.
Thank You, I've been waiting for a post like this.
I remember reading a report from the World Health Organization laying the blame for the famines in Ethiopia during the 80's precisely on the increased cost of Pac Man from $.25 to $.50.
Grotesque as yggles and his post are, surely what he's doing there can't be called "economics."
WTF is Wiggles talking about? Is he starving to death for lack of streaming video?
So long as he's starving to death, who gives a damn about why?
I sort of envision a world in which all children are in possession of a digital device...
You are aware there is an actual effort to do just that?
Is the Missus a sockeypuppet for Foodie Friday? Can I eat a recipe?
IOZ, do you actually not know how the income effect of price changes works, or are you just pretending to be stupid?
Because the income effect is exactly what Matt was talking about. Price changes shift not only the consumption curve for that good, but also for all other goods in the consumption basket as a result of altering real income, which results in a parallel shift in the income-consumption curve.
Is there a Consumption Bunny who delivers that basket?
Well duh! Everyone is aware of the curves and baskets.
Real Income Baskets Have Curves. Preach it sister.
Yo, Myles, do you actually not know what a consumption basket is?
Well MattY has also pointed out that Olive Garden is actually a pretty good meal for the price, so why don't they all just eat there?
Ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) of economics is not a basis for claiming superior economic judgment.
I'm sure that's news to you, but it is on the back of economic theory that the Industrial Revolution was achieved.
Maybe MattyIce is on the double-take from both APPL and the G-SACHS commodities trading desk
I've read that. Those brave, stout economic theories shoveling coal into the burners, getting black lung down in the mines, building the great factories in places like Manchester and developing the production line. Why steam didn't even exist until there was a theory!
James Watt, our greatest economist.
That's a Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Business Achiever award, which is given--not necessarily given every year! Given only when there's a worthy, somebody especially--
OMG I love the industrial revolution!!
No, Watt's on second.
Matthew Boulton hunched over his actuarial tables, scratching out calculations, until he slams his hand on the desk. "Yes! Now is the time! Let us alter the Consumer Price Index by introducing new goods to the consumption basket, thereby forestalling the pace of inflation!" Only in an incomprehensible Scottish brogue, and while smoking.
Yes, but absent an economic system where correct economic theory is applied to allow for the flourishing of industrial development, James Watt's invention would never have gone anywhere and would not have helped catalyze the Industrial Revolution
He could have lived in Qing China, for example, and if he had invented the steam engine there, and it wouldn't have developed into anything; it would have just remained a curiosity, perhaps constructed in boutique numbers for the amusement of the emperor.
I would argue that the contribution of the greatest economic theorists to human welfare is greater than that of Watt, because it is their contribution that allowed Watt's invention to assume the importance and have the effects that it did.
I know it's verboten, but I'd like to claim my economic judgment superior based on my ignorance. PLEASE!!!
on you, maybe
MYLES WE KNOW YOU FAKE BAKE
It's amazing that the Great Wall was ever built without the Ricardo's Theory of Value! Why that's like performing brain surgery in a dark closet!
Qing and Qin are not the same dynasty.
Now be careful mo-fuckahs, WE DON'T WANT TO SCARE HIM OFF.
-- course, my money's on friday afternoon gift from IOZ's sock drawer. Myles u r so cute though if 4 real.
Also, let's not forget - let's *not* forget, Dude - that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either.
but absent an economic system where correct economic theory is applied to allow for the flourishing of industrial development
Wow, you're serious, aren't you? You think the members of the House of Lords who allowed Boulton to extend Watt's patent were ardent fans of a macroeconomic theory of consumption ("consumer basket", etc) that was still a century away from being invented? You think they were motivated by academic theory? Is that honestly where you're coming from?
You can come clean; you're in a safe space.
Myles has been busy evangelizing neoliberal idiocy at anti-neoliberal blogs where he doesn't think that anyone has actually thought about, considered, and rejected with great force the intellectual framework he espouses.
This has nothing with neoliberalism, which is a political preference. This is sheer rejection of economic facts.
Even though I believe that postmodernist critique is often valid, in economics at least facts are not the construct of subjective experiences, just as gravity is not a construct of the Newtonian-minded.
Okay, now you're just funning us.
Hey look! SZ is back! And the fish are jumping into the boat.. But he's not foolin me for a second
oh... wait... how come the water feels so dry all of a sudden?
in economics at least facts are not the construct of subjective experiences
Because the starvation resulting from the direct application of 'economic theories' is so subjective...
But what about the Mickey D's value menu?
Your economic "facts" are merely ideology that is repeatedly debunked by experience.
This post has been removed by the Invisible Hand.
Oh Myles, if only you'd ever taken a physics class. Gravity is a construct of the Newtonian mind.
never stop posting about Yglesias, it brings out the best in you
Myles: Both you and Yglesias miss the point:
"the falling price of iPads doesn’t offset the increased price of food"
Even the man here knows intuitively about the income effect and he sees that it can go both ways.
next IOZ is going to try to convince me that in the absence of Thucydides the Peloponnosian war would have still happened. fucking anarchists.
peloponnesian even
myles, please. I am the dumb shit here, and you're making me look good. That shall not stand.
Tee it up, caddy.
-The Real Donny
Myles,
(1.)What were the subjectively experienced facts of the Enclosure Movement?
(2.) Did utilitarian preference theory come before or after this event?
(3.) Map the indifference curves of those nourishment and ipod challenged kids. What is the first derivative of the curve(s)?
....and I thought I was clueless.
-the real donny
I'm going to side with Myles here. If food makes up a small portion of people's expenditures (and in modern first world countries, that tends to be the case) and food prices go up while prices of larger portions of budgets go down, that leaves an overall increase in disposable income. I was implicitly assuming there that income stays constant, and you may wisely object that income is not staying constant but has gone down (perhaps not per hour worked, but you need to account for the reduction in employment). But that in no way helps Ferguson's inflation-hawk point. A strong recovery from a recession (like the one that took place early in the Reagan years) tends to be accompanied by significantly higher inflation than we've got now, because more money is going out to people who are buying more goods/services. Of course Yglesias quotes Ferguson as saying that low-cost high-frequency items are more salient in perceptions of inflation, which is an entirely separate issue from the non-psychological aspect of inflation we're discussion here.
Laugh if you want at the minimizing of inflation-victims as just Detroit residents, but if you think the aggregate data is not representative of enough Americans, you really should cite some data to the contrary. Anyone can offer an assertion, which is why they're worth so little. Here's some data, broken down by income and other variables, have a blast.
Kids are too fat these days anyway.
Would the starving eat Yglesias?
http://xkcd.com/895/
There's always a budget constraint attached to that basket.
TGGP, I've seen your comments around these here internetz. just in case no has said it yet, your internet persona thing is insufferable. STFU
PS - your bullshit stuck in my craw. tell me what has gone down in price that is important to people. seriously. the cost of healthcare is increasing. the cost of education is increasing. the cost of energy is increasing. the cost of food is increasing. the only thing that comes to mind is fucking housing and that really hasn't come down because people are in over their heads in debt payments they can't shake without destroying their credit and thereby their ability to get new non-shitty housing.
in other words, fuck your parsing and equivocating and meandering non-sense.
What do you get if you cross a soccer player and a commenter at IOZ?
Thank you all for an evening of fine entertainment.
What do you get if you cross a soccer player and a commenter at IOZ?
The flopper supreme and a killer goalie.
Come on IOZ, back in my parents' day, most people didn't even own a car, because their computers took up the entire garage.
But nowadays, necessities like computers have fallen so low in price that even the poorest people can afford luxury goods like food and medical care.
MattY really irritates me, because he has this uncanny ability to stake out incredibly defensible, reasonable positions, and then fail utterly to actually defend them.
I mean, I'm working on 2 hours sleep and am basically an idiot, but as I understand it, Matt's point is that while inflation is calculated in a way that doesn't really reflect the cost of certain important goods like milk and gas, it isn't meant to measure those things, and the calculation we do use is useful in other ways. It's just important to use the right measurment for the right thing.
Keeping in mind the part about me being an idiot, that sounds pretty reasonable!
But then he goes and defends this by almost literally saying "Let them eat iPods".
The annoying thing is that whenever you call him on this, his fans attack you for responding to the crummy argument he actually made instead of the good argument he should have made.
It drives me up the damn wall.
i'm starving, and i can twitter about it! o brave new world, w/such apps in it!
to lucid at 0350:
it's pretty remarkable in a telepathic kind of way that you reponded, because the answer I had in mind was
Pele-lucid.
Like "pellucid" !
Get it?
Anonymous, could you elaborate on "internet persona thing"?
Perhaps no goods are going down in price and they're all being rocketed upward by madman Bernanke. Then the core vs all-goods issue is a complete red herring.
Christopher, from what I'd heard, "core" inflation excludes certain goods because their prices are more volatile and better predictions have been made of future prices using core inflation measures than that of all goods. I find Steve Williamson annoying, perhaps as much as others find me, but he does a decent job here of presenting arguments for focusing on core inflation (and then himself criticizing those arguments).
"I don't have enough RAM."
"I don't have enough to eat."
Christopher, you make a lot of sense for only two hours of sleep. I also haven't slept for 4 days.
Pickin da nits:
"Economics...is a neatly fraudulent epistemology" is both confusing and wrong. Epistemology is separate from the theory. There's knowledge and there's a theory of it. Official economics HAS a fraudulent epistemology (i.e., basis). No branch of study apart from epistemology IS (an) epistemology.
But as for the main point, nailed it.
take the four dollars! i'm gonna hit you w/the fuckin' ball, man!
Win nonny 1:17!
Anytime someone uses the phrase "economic facts" or "human nature" or "common sense" or "free will", assume that they are intellectual charlatans.
i've always loved the idea of "core" inflation. it suits my theory of my own incredibly high core IQ.
As IOZ says, Gravy is a construct of the Newtonian mind.
I guess I'm late to this party, but holy shit, I have to quote this again:
...in economics at least facts are not the construct of subjective experience...
AT LEAST.
I seriously don't understand the objection here. Indifference curves do exist. The job of economic is to maximize the budget line such that it reaches the highest indifference curve. This isn't just academic blather like, say, much of sociology; this is the world as it is.
Mocking economics does not make the marginalist model go away. Mocking Einstein does not make special relativity go away. Mocking quantum physics does not make quarks go away.
This is no better than when religious fundamentalists claim that there has been no evolution and that the Earth was created in six days. Nearly all of the economic progress since about the 1980's, except for some due to information technology, is due to the application of economic principles. How are you going to have that craft beer, had Jimmy Carter not liberalized the beer industry?
Myles - if economics is so set in stone and fact-based, how do you explain economists always being fucking wrong? How do you explain the fact that they're constantly arguing with one another, largely on partisan political grounds? Almost 1 in 10 Americans are unemployed! If economics was such an awesome, scientific discourse, then why aren't we living in some kind of economic utopia where unemployment ISN'T rampant?
It's not actually getting any fucking better. It is, in fact, just academic blather. Sorry you wasted your life.
On the other hand we wouldn't have such a breathtaking range of Mountain Dew flavors without technology
Rowan, economists agree with each other on a great many things. Disagreements are just going to be amplified more by the media. Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter" has percentages on how economists agree with each other and disagree with the general public (I think immigration might have had the widest divergence between economists and public).
Myles, the fact that you think the "success" of the Inductrial Revolution was based on sound economic policy rather than on imperialism and violent state repression of the underclass demonstrates how clueless economists are. After the Bengal textile industry was destroyed by a combination of protectionism and thuggery those Manchester mills dominated the world by weaving what? Cotton? And how was that grown?
Slaves
@TGGP - so...you're saying that in general, economists (such as perhaps Alan Greenspan) did predict the disastrous course the economy was taking, but the media accented arguments among economists which meant that nobody listened to them anyway?
Gotcha.
Example of Republican & Democrat economists agreeing.
Rowan, I don't recall saying that. I would say that crashes in general are hard to predict. If you could predict them, you could make a lot of money selling short. There were some economists who were giving warnings, but as is often said about Austrians, predicting 13 of the last 2 recessions is not a great track record. David Levine made some claims about the increased precision & accuracy of macro predictions, I'm really not qualified to judge.
weaver, the wages of empire were often rather lousy. Germany stayed out of the empire game for longer (Blackadder Goes Forth had a good quip on the "German empire") but became an industrial powerhouse.
I'm intrigued by Greg Clark's theory in "A Farewell to Alms" (focusing on the radical change introduced by the industrial revolution) that policies/institutions have nothing to do with economic success in the long run.
Shoot, forgot to give link on Levine.
After the Bengal textile industry was destroyed by a combination of protectionism and thuggery those Manchester mills dominated the world by weaving what? Cotton? And how was that grown?
I presume you haven't actually studied the history of British India.
Because that is just about the pop-history thing I have ever heard about it. Please go read your Oxford History of the British Empire, which is the authoritative text.
In any case, it's a curious thing: lots of people do reject the marginalist model, but so did I when I initially began studying economics. (yeah, I know exactly how easy it is to smirk about how the models are oversimplifications that don't correspond to reality, but you'll lose that smirk when you actually get to understand how they even out.)
The formal model of what you are trying to say with regard to iPads and food is the corner case. Except the corner case applies to the MRS curve, not the income-consumption curve, and it is the income-consumption curve that Matt is talking about here.
Fundamentally, we live on a specific indifference curve, and the spot we live on the curve is determined by the budget line. That's all Matt's saying. He's saying that the changing prices of electronic goods and food goods alter the slope of the budget line, and thus alter the indifference curve and our position on the particular indifference curve. He is saying that we might end up on a different, possibly higher, indifference curve given the adjusted budget line.
This is only incomprehensible if you deliberately refuse to comprehend.
Thanks, nony. Good catch.
Oh, sorry, nony, according to Myles neither slavery nor the British Empire existed.
Teej, a cite in relation to the late 19th century isn't entirely relevant to the matter at hand.
Remember, slavery didn't exist until Adam Smith wrote about it.
If only Nero had been discussing economic policy while Rome burned, we'd all be driving Ferraris and using the shit outta the Dominoes apps on our I-Phones.
@Myles - I don't know about protectionism, the decline of Indian textiles seems to have taken place at a time when the East India Company was the equal of its domestic rivals. But I thought a pretty good case was made by Hameeda Hossein that the decline of the weaving industry in the late 1700s was a side effect of the Company's attempt to set up proto-maquiladoras. That would certainly fall under "thuggery." I wouldn't call it pop history at any rate.
Crushing poverty...where marginal utility theory goes to die.
"I presume you haven't actually studied the history of British India."
"The English conquered Bengal and became sovereign of the country, the plunder of the country caused a revolution in the nature of their trade, instead of importing bullion for the purchase of investment, the investment of Indian and China was considered as the vehicle of advantageously remitting from Bengal costs and the fortunes of individuals. Bengal supplied bullion, goods, stores and credit to Mardras, Bombay, Bencoolen and China and the investment to Britain. The great difficulty of the (English) individuals in Bengal was to remit their fortunes to England. When unable to do this their alternative was to lend money to the company for the purchase of the Company's India and China investments, the proceeds of which met their bills."
Oxford History of the British Empire, Volume II, 516
Note this is before the advent of the British Raj
Nearly all of the economic progress since about the 1980's...
That you think there has been economic progress since the 1980's pretty much sums it all up.
Germany took part in the industrial revolution, and did so rather successfully. I've never heard anyone attribute their industrialization to a small sausage factory in Tanganikya, so I'd say it's relevant to the relation of the I.R to imperialism. There's a good quote from Timur Kuran I can't find now, but he makes the point that people often get the causality backwards from development to imperialism. A richer country is generally going to have more military capability than a poorer one. If you want more pacifist countries than Germany, there's Sweden & Switzerland.
@TGGP - Being able to predict massive economic collapses is arguably the most important thing that economists should be able to do.
It's like saying "Oh, Hannibal is the greatest general in history, except when he starts wars he can't possible win" or "Boeing is the most precise airplane manufacturer around, other than when their wings suddenly fly off midair."
Nothing is certain until someone declares a text upon it to be authoritative.
I think Henry Popenbower made a good point re economics when in his discussion of textiles and postwar London's relation to the southern states in the late 1800s he said speaking of the linear curves of the so-called "golden basket" that if one were to measure (simply by adding up) the rate of influx goods against the odds of outgoing shipments, and divide that by the mean, what you get is not so much a divided viewpoint as the sum total of a people's particular view of industrialization, the poor, technology, the arts, and so on, resulting in a sort of triangulated paradox the nature of which Kierkegaard dealt with extensively in a letter to his aunt. I.e., the simplicity with which, I'm just astounded.
It would be great if physicists could create a perpetual motion machine, but they assure us that can never be done. It would be nice if solar power could completely displace non-renewable fuels, but we aren't there yet. Neither of those cases suggests rejecting fields of inquiry which don't pass the given bar as empty.
If you want to argue that economists are given too much pay and status, and their advice taken too seriously (particularly for macro), I'm not going to dispute such claims. The difficulty of experiments and correlation among the small amount of data points makes it difficult for it proceed in the normal way of science. Its inherently human aspect pushes it down the hierarchy of the sciences. Social factors result in the popularity of paradigms because folks at the Fed use them, while independently derived theories remain irrelevantly academic. Then there's the political aspect I referenced with the crooked timber link.
One might make an analogy to medicine. Doctors have attained semi-sacred status, and literally get away with killing people through negligence. On the margin, medicine does not appear to make us healthier (as shown by the Rand health experiment) but doctors keep recommending more and we keep buying more. But is medicine itself bunk? I wouldn't go that far.
TGGP - you are right. Economics is akin to medicine. Except economics is obviously still in the bloodletting stage of its development. Hence, like 16th century medicine, Ponnuru's, Yglesias' and apparently the Fed's belief in the perfect substitutability of iPads for food does more harm to actual human beings than good.
Medicine? Fuck that, yinz. I'd compare it to phrenology: it does, occasionally, spot a criminal forehead.
A friend used to compare economics to astrology, but this is unfair to astrology: astrologers could, after all, predict when stars and planets would rise and set with reasonable accuracy, even if they failed to understand what it was they were tracking. Comparisons to eugenics and phrenology are apt: crackpot pseudosciences whose real functions were to reinforce the prejudices and bigotries of the ruling class.
I suppose I have an atypically low regard for medicine. I think it is still in the bloodletting stage. Even something everybody knows since Semmelweiss, that doctors should wash their hands, isn't followed. The estimates given for how many lives would be saved if they all did are pretty ridiculous and depressing.
Shoot, I had forgotten to link to Jared Diamond on hard & soft science. Relates to the hierarchy of sciences bit.
It would be great if physicists could create a perpetual motion machine, but they assure us that can never be done.
What's your point? We're not working on it; we know it can't be done and we can prove it. This isn't analogous to economics' failure to provide any useful predictions - in fact, it's the exact opposite. It nicely illustrates the point that everyone else is making.
And for the sake of not getting distracted by some bullshit, let's assume you're right about medicine. How does that help your point about economics?
Jared Diamond is a bullshit artiste of the first water, by the way.
Category error
Hahaha, that Jared Diamond piece is a peach.
If you agree with it, here's an easy cheap shot: try comparing your reaction to his quotation from Lang with his explanation of foliage height diversity index, then check out the second-to-last paragraph.
That aside, the guy completely ignores any idea of rigour. There's nothing wrong with fields where we need a lot of assumptions and we don't get a very precise answer - check out astronomy, for instance. The difference is that you have to recognise the weaknesses inherent in your work and try to improve them, rather than pretending your just-so story is a fine explanation of the world because it happens to fit your prejudices.
TGGP is as full of shit as a Navy SEAL latrine.
So many swings at the ball, so many whiffs.
But a lot of syllables and false profundity, I'll grant him that.
Nice feces, TGGP.
There are still tribes today with number systems too rudimentary to settle the argument. For example, some Gimi villagers with whom I worked in New Guinea have only two root numbers, iya = 1 and rarido = 2, which they combine to operationalize somewhat larger numbers: 4 = rarido-rarido, 7 = rarido-rarido-rarido-iya, etc. You can imagine what it would be like to hear two Gimi women arguing about whether to climb a tree with 27 bananas or one with 18 bananas.
What adorable savages!
Still, it doesn't do to believe everything Diamond says about his time working in New Guinea.
Hey, fellas, you are never gonna beat Myles or TGGP. As Seeds pointed out, you keep attacking their imaginary friends and they keep defending them.
Seeds, I stated earlier that it's hard to predict crashes. I try to avoid making absolute claims, so I didn't reference the economists who claim that the EMH means you really can't predict them in anything like a reliable & timely manner. So that's the analogy with the perpetual motion machine. Rearranging things to make crashes less likely and/or more easily endured seems more feasible, and might be considered analogous to the solar power bit (although once something was designed it would have to actually be implemented, which is harder than just selling short).
I'd just repaste my first paragraph on medicine, but I suppose rephrasing wouldn't hurt. Medicine has very high status and its experts make a lot of money despite not doing all that much good and often causing harm. But nevertheless I do not regard the field of medicine as empty, equivalent to voodoo (admitting that voodoo may be underrated relative to medicine). I think they actually know some things and over time may learn some more things.
There are a number of islands Jared Diamond is wrong about, the New Guinea case sounds like one of gullibility. Nevertheless, I recommend reading his books. With a side of salt of course.
Yeah, I can't think of anything that medicine has contributed to society. Except 30 years or so of life expectancy. Still, "add life to your days, not days to your life" and all that.
What have the Romans ever done for us?
Myles is doing a brilliant trolling job -- one of the greatest pieces of deadpan humor I've seen on the net. Way back when he said economic theory was responsible for the industrial revolution everyone would be on to the joke, but no...now he just keeps pushing into more and more straight-faced absurdity.
Post a Comment