girl with 97 tabs open at a time with different articles and sites on every different subject because there is so much Knowledge to be Absorbed
I get a lot of ignorant comments & tags on my posts about antisemitism, and I’ve already spent way too much time & energy engaging with them. So to preserve my sanity, I’ve made the decision not to engage too deeply with any commenters who haven’t at least read all of these in their entirety:
“Jewish Space Lasers” by Mike Rothschild
“People Love Dead Jews” by Dara Horn
“Jews Don’t Count” by David Baddiel
"More Than a Century of Antisemitism", GEC Special Report
If you’re not Jewish, please read all of this literature before adding anything to my posts about antisemitism.
Jews, please add any books you think should be on the list!
the swagful magistrate ⁉️
Say what you like about opening paragraphs. Meanwhile, Agatha Christie:
The fact that slaves had a different legal status from free men was not considered particularly outrageous: women and minors shared diminished status. In reality, minors still do today.
Now there's an uncomfortable parallel to sit with.
I like that Vivenza included it, though. It made me stop and think for a moment about my own beliefs.
I agree that kids and teens are treated unjustly in my culture. So, what freedoms should minors have that they currently don't? How do you draw the line between protection and suppression? How much child abuse occurs because children are inherently more vulnerable, and how much occurs because we put them in situations ripe for abuse, and don't take their feelings or demands seriously? I honestly don't know.
It also made me look up the children's rights and youth rights movements, which are apparently two different things. And one is much more radical than the other.
I'm gonna have to think on this one for a while...
(Gloria Vivenza, “Roman Economic Thought,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, ed. Walter Scheidel.)
These are amazing — and shockingly accurate. Did you know there’s a “Bechdel test” for female scientist biographies?
Follow @the-future-now
There lived a certain man, a proconsul of Gaul He was lean and sharp and his head was almost bald Most people looked at him with envy and awe But to Cato, he thought himself above the law He had conquered Gaul and asked the Senate For a triumph through their town And to run for consul - he could win it But they said "Stand down."
Ra ra Julie C., Nicomedes' teenage fling There was a man who couldn't let go Ra ra Julie C., really wanted to be king It was a shame how he stole the show
He crossed the Rubicon, invaded his own home But the Pompeians had already fled from Rome With hardly any fights he captured Italy Though Spain and Greece didn't come so easily He got nearly slaughtered by Dyrrhachium And the next four years of strife But he won and had the Senate make him Dictator for life
Ra ra Julie C., Cleopatra's Roman fling There was a man who couldn't let go Ra ra Julie C., really wanted to be king It was a shame how he stole the show
But as his bogus elections and his hunger for power Became known to more and more people The conspiracy to assassinate This man became bigger and bigger
"This Caesar's gotta go," declared his enemies But a new war loomed and he'd soon go overseas No doubt this dictator was difficult to harm And within Rome's walls, they couldn't carry arms Then they thought, a meeting of the Senate Fit just right, for on the Ides He would be alone for just a minute And Caesar would die
Ra ra Julie C., every Roman woman's fling They had him cornered, took out their knives Ra ra Julie C., really wanted to be king He grabbed a pen and fought for his life Ra ra Julie C., emperor foreshadowing They didn't quit, they wanted his head Ra ra Julie C., Brutus jabbed his ding-a-ling And so they stabbed him till he was dead
Oh, those Romans…
Saw this in my Roman economics book and I just had to sit there stunned for a moment. The fastest growing economy in the 1600s hit 0.2%. For comparison, the average country's growth last year was 2.7% (in real GDP), or thirteen times as much. A huge portion of that is thanks to improvements in human capital: public schools, healthcare, improved access to nutrition, and social safety nets. Another big part, the rate of technological progress, increases in proportion to human capital. I suspect that reduced prevalence of war also plays a role.
Like shit, man, if I were a rational capitalist, I should want higher taxes if the money would go to public education, mental health and addiction recovery programs, low-income assistance, and universal healthcare. I should be more anti-war than the goddamn Pope. The slight increase in my tax rate would be plenty offset by the improved skills and productivity of my workers, the disposable income of my customers, and decreases in my personal cost of healthcare and education.
But that's a rational, impartial capitalist. Someone who isn't beholden to shareholders, or trying to win votes. One of the weirdest things in economics is how individuals trying to do what's profitable for themselves can produce less profitable outcomes for everyone, including themselves.
(From "Human Capital and Economic Growth" by Richard Saller, in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, ed. Walter Scheidel.)
I just learned about this passage from The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (book) I'm so sick
I'm enjoying The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy so far, but it's rather high level, and it's been a few years since I last studied economics. So, I picked up a little refresher. And read the whole thing in a day.
The Cartoon Introduction to Economics, by Grady Klein and Yoram Bauman, is very, very good.
Graphic novels are great for bringing dry subjects to life. Klein and Bauman's examples show that economics is about people making choices, and their choices affecting each other's lives:
And it helps put abstract concepts into concrete terms:
The text is funny and easy to follow, even if you hate math and know nothing about economics. I think it's a very good introduction to how capitalism is supposed to work, in theory. You can certainly criticize capitalism - I do - but these books will show you the nature of the beast that we're up against.
It's very difficult for an economics book to be politically neutral. But Klein and Bauman's work is factual, avoids strongly right-wing or left-wing slants, and they acknowledge systemic problems like colonialism, exploitation of poor communities, and climate change. They also offer a few suggestions for addressing these problems. The books are USA-centric but include examples from other countries, too.
Oh yeah, there's actually two books. One for micro-economics, and one for macro-economics.
Microeconomics looks at a single individual, business, or market. So volume one covers:
Marginal utility and cost
Supply and demand
Cost-benefit analysis
How markets self-organize and stabilize
Auctions
Risk
How interest rates work
Present vs. future value of a good
Information asymmetry
What makes a market competitive or not
Game theory, including the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons
How taxation affects markets
Price and demand elasticity
Macroeconomics looks at an entire economy, or multiple economies, and how they interact. Volume two explores:
Gross Domestic Product
How to measure quality of life
Monetary policy and fiscal policy
Unemployment
Inflation and deflation
Classical vs. Keynesian economics
Free trade vs. protectionism
Aging populations
Currency exchange
Foreign aid and exploitation
Climate change and pollution
Addressing global poverty and inequality
Strategies for mitigating economic crashes
However, these books do not cover:
Marxist and socialist views of economics
Effects of colonialism and discrimination
The role of unions
Social safety nets
Indigenous and traditional societies' economics
Behavioral economics
Personal finance
Stock markets
What causes economic bubbles and crashes
And probably more things I forgot
They're not a substitute for a real textbook or college course. But they're a great starting point, and a fun read.
The basic reason for this sad state of affairs is that marriage was not designed to bear the burdens now being asked of it by the urban American middle class. It is an institution that evolved over centuries to meet some very specific functional needs of a nonindustrial society. Romantic love was viewed as tragic, or merely irrelevant. Today it is the titillating prelude to domestic tragedy, or, perhaps more frequently, to domestic grotesqueries that are only pathetic.
39 posts