this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
210 points (99.1% liked)

politics

24487 readers
3165 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Nobel Prize Winning Economist defends Zohran Mamdani against 'hysteria'

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 55 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Oh, and centrist Democrats often urge leftier types to rally behind their nominees in general elections. I agree. Anyone claiming that there’s no difference between the parties is a fool. But this deal has to be reciprocal. Mamdani will be the Democratic nominee, and anyone calling themselves a Democrat should support him.

I think the problem is the Dems have generally made sure this wasn't an issue previously. That has evidently cracked and we need to learn everything we can from this candidate to help establish the precedence and playbook for ensuring future success and requisite selection of similar candidates in spite of the existing problematic political machinery or framework

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel winning economist. There's no such thing as a Nobel Prize In Economics, and economists were upset by this and made their own prize with a complicated name that the media would shorten and muddle with a real Nobel Prize.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I still haven't forgiven Krugman for arguing for bailing out the banks in the 07/08 crisis/crash...

(We could have say, done that, but put all their boards in Federal Prison, maybe put them into some kind of mandatory recievership/government control, restructure, maybe break em up a bit anti trust style, then let em go a few years later... with new boards, and strings attached... or just let them all implode back then, no Bernanke put, yeah it would have sucked but hey, look at where we are now, the entire corporate world ~20 years down the road of being insanely mismanaged, hyperprofit seeking, unable to function without very low interest rates... and now the debt is much worse, the economy is going to crash much harder, and we're done being the workd reserve currency, and we'll be lucky not to hyperinflate/default on our debt and basically have no substantial FDI for a generation...)

But it doesn't matter, because any even semi-reasonable economist who isn't a complete free market extremist ideological wacko can point out what Paul's pointing out here.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

If Nobel winning economists could convince the average voter we’d have luxury gay space communism already.

People are too stupid for it.