#ECON

[dipperdesperado]

Notes Toward Finding Community, Or, How to Find Community When You Feel Isolated

Neoliberalism sucks for a ton of reasons. From the enclosure of every common, to the commodification of every creation, it feels like a muzzle on humanity that gets tighter and tighter. One of the most underexplored aspects of neoliberalism is the way in which it creates and reinforces isolation. People don’t really have communities outside of consumption or compulsion. This is problematic for a ton of reasons, namely that it prevents us from fulfilling our basic needs. Humans are social creatures. People need to have connections with folks. People may not all need the same levels or intensity of connections, but connections are important nonetheless. To lack in the ability to socialize meaningfully is to ensure worse health outcomes, mentally, emotionally, and physically. But, I don’t mean to freak you out. I think that there are steps we can take to star building community, bridging gaps with the people around us.

Think About What You Want

When folks feel very isolated, it can be easy to accept anything. If we’re in a vulnerable state, that could leave us open for ending up in precarious situations. One way to fight against this is to start from the position of imagining what community looks like. Is the type of space we want to occupy based around interests (fandom, hobbies)? Religions, spiritualities, social issues? If we are able to list the things that excite us, we have a good idea of what to look for, and can focus our efforts towards finding those spaces.

Find the Watering Holes

With the spaces we’re interested in on hand, youcan find where folks gather. Every community has virtual and/or in-person spaces. For example, if you’re a film fan, you can look for indie cinemas, folks putting on screenings, or look into film societies where you live. For activism, I’ve written a whole guide on how to get started. Looking for those spaces will allow you to start getting integrated in the space. Really think about how you can occupy the same physical and digital spaces of people who are into what you’re into.

Go Meet Folks

Now, this may be difficult, depending on your disposition. The quickest way to meet folks is to put yourself out there. It’s always vulnerable to put yourself on the line in this way, but it’s super necessary. When you’re in spaces with similar folks, you have talking points built in! You don’t have to worry if the folks around you will like movies at film club. If you are enjoyable to be around, through being nice, interesting, and/or being an active listener, you’ll be making connections in no time. If you’re not willing to talk to folks, it’ll be hard to make connections. Being open is an asset towards the end of getting connected. At the very least, consistently go to events and spaces in your interest area(s). Maybe you’ll bump into an extroverted person that can show you the ropes.

Be the Change You Want to See

As you get out there, think about how you can start catalyzing community. Maybe you host a dinner for neighbors. Maybe you start a book club. Or even a neighborhood garden, or cleanup event. In this way, you’re flipping the issue on its head. You’re creating the space to meet folks yourself. It’s like being a magnet, drawing others to you.

We need community. It’s a necessary thing, you know? So, hopefully, keeping these things in mind helps in that regard.

[brightgoat]

JJBA x my addisons, because it's simply too obvious

Link and Interlinked Co belong to @/PUKESEVEN

[artthoufruity]

Hate it when people say “it’s not that simple” in regards to politics, capitalism etc like it could be though? We make it complicated

[willhelp-exe]

osha man callout post 🤔

@osha-official-the-sequel

[caprice-nisei-enjoyer]

If I were less lazy I would be really curious what the market monetarists think about the covid shock and resulting inflation

[nenelonomh]

Do you think that a major in economy is worth doing nowadays?

hey love,

assuming that you're talking about economics - majoring in this (like everything) has ups and downs.

personally, i've considered leaving physics for economics (as a subject) since economics is easier to achieve a high ib score in than physics.

but it depends mostly on you. your strengths, your interests, and what you are interested in for the future

here are some benefits of an economics degree:

develops your locical and analytical thinking abilities

it is an interesting blend of mathematics and social theory

many employers seek economics graduates

career economists often end up in well-paying positions

here are the negatives:

requires substantial mathematical concepts

the field can be competitive.

it's not up to me to make big life decisions for you. so, here is some further reading (my sources for the pros and cons):

Economics Degrees: Worth it or Useless for Getting a Job? (helpfulprofessor.com)

Is an economics degree worth It? Find out why. - Degreechoices.com

Majoring in Economics: Pros and Cons? | CollegeVine

What You Need to Know About Becoming an Economics Major (usnews.com)

Careers with an Economics degree (thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk)

Top 15 Highest Paying Jobs For Economics Majors 2024 (Inc Salaries) | Nexford University

i hope this was helpful! ❤️ nene

instagram | pinterest | blog site

[weil-weil-lautre]

The waiter or waitress who serves the food, the grocer who sells the articles, the bus driver who is in charge of transport, the whole civilization takes tempo and method from the basic economic structure and the relations it brings with it. And finally the whole of social arrangement of life bears the stamp of this mechanization.

CLR James, American Civilization, 116

[di--es---can-ic-ul-ar--es]

Bribg me ratfic grinch NOW

[latte-studies-sometimes]

21/08/2024

Finished some economics notes today night.

Our facility holds a mandatory study session which is actually burning me out, because I'm more used to studying alone than with a lot of students in one room. The lights, noise, and people are overwhelming.

But today I decided I would study in our pantry from now on. The pantry is where everyone comes to eat, and a few people study there during the study sessions too. I'm also going to bring some fruit to eat there as I get hungry and I haven't been eating very healthily lately.

I'm trying to put in as many hours as I can to study without compromising on my sleep. I started studying an extra hour at night and I'm trying to study an extra hour in the afternoon.

A good thing today was that my math teacher was absent, so there were no math classes today morning and there won't be for the next few days. So I can get extra time to study if I wake up early :D

[olden-towne]

It annoys me that one of the main reasons people are thinking about voting for Trump is the economy when they can't offer an analysis deeper than "correlation = causation"

[er-cryptid]

Introduction to Economics Vocabulary

Economics -- study of how people satisfy their needs and wants -- people must make choices

Scarcity -- there are limited amounts of goods and services -- people have unlimited wants

Factors of Production -- abbreviated FOPs -- resources used to make goods and services -- includes capital, labor, and land

Capital -- manmade resources -- used to produce goods and services

Physical Capital -- manmade objects

Human Capital -- knowledge and skill of a worker

[dipperdesperado]

Get Organized!

I recently made a post about how to get started in doing radical stuff. Said otherwise, that post was meant to answer the question, “Where do I go, when I know the world is fucked?” This post covers similar ground, but is more interested in the theoretical side of things. Not to say it won’t be practical. It’s just saying that if you’re not the kind of person that can read a little bit and feel confident to act, or you like having a little bit more scaffolding, that you also deserve a resource. I’m hoping to contribute to that today. As the title says, we’re going to be focusing on organizing. This is one of those things that is said a lot, but is actually defined much less often. Tangentially, you should be aware and ready for this for literally everything relating to politics. Any word that you hear used, you should always ask for a definition. Many a movement would have gone differently if folks spent more time trying to find semantic alignment. Anyway.

When I say organizing, I mean catalyzing the energy of folks, acting from a specific theory of change. A theory of change is a thought process or method to create some kind of social impact in a particular context. When the world sucks in some particular way, and you want it to stop sucking, the answer is to organize, in the way defined above. By organizing, we lean on the idea of collective power to create changes that are currently only afforded to those with authoritarian power. It’s a game of evening the odds.

I will also note that this assumes that you are going to be framing your work around broad-based movements, that have (mostly) aboveground (as in “legal”) tactics. This is not necessarily a statement of what is correct; small groups that are in concert with larger movements are also able to be successful, even when doing more confrontational tactics.

So, to organize, I’d say it would be useful to be involved in movements already. You can look at my radicalism 100 post to see how that could look. Either way you have to know what your where your niche(s) lie. In other words, what sits in the middle of the intersection between what you like to do, what you are good (or can become good/have a willingness to become good) at, and what is needed in your context. I tend to center the local level, because that is the area where influence is more tangible, and fits into how I see a resilient world coming to fruition. So, you have to ask yourself, “What can I do, that I would enjoy doing, in my community?” Then, you should find some other people who are in that same vibe. Depending on your approach, this may take no time at all, or a lot of time. I listed some ideas for finding folks in radicalism 100, but to reiterate: look for social medias and IRL presences of people who are into the same topics, and connect with them. See where you can plug in, and see where the contours of organizing in your local contexts are. Ideally you can see places where gaps can be filled.

Once you find an issue that you think has potential, and you have a couple of people to do some organizing with, you have what I think of as a catalyst group. This group is meant to start (or assist) in a certain kind of reaction, but not lead it. Trying to control movements is both futile and antithetical to liberation. So, to ground us, we have two very important ingredients: a topic/issue/area of focus to organize around, and a group of folks to work with. Once this is in place, you can co-create a strategy with your organizing team. I’d recommend employing an encircling strategy as your long-term or meta strategy, where multiple sub-strategies and campaigns happen within this frame. Essentially, this allows you to employ campaigns across a matrix of tactics. Within the encircling frame, you can create a campaign (what I consider a “short-term” strategy). Campaigns are a series of actions over time. Strategies are a series of campaigns over time.

A useful way to think of strategic planning is by separating the process into stages, grouped by movement size.

Small: Organize small actions/protests, figuring out ways to build movement visibility and interest

Medium: Focus on scaling up the participation, through mobilizing efforts. Promote your actions, get people involved, and encourage meaningful action.

Large: Create a movement. The kind of thing people hear about.

To organize on the smallest level, the easiest thing might be to just do plan actions that are well within your team’s capacity, organize those actions, and execute. If you can swing it, I’d really recommend to not lean too much into symbolic actions. There are risks with every action, no matter what legal frameworks your locality has. If you’re going to do something, you have to be very intentional with:

what you hope to accomplish through the action

a high likelihood of success for the action

doomsday planning in case something goes wrong

If you’re able to do this, then you will be leagues ahead of a lot of other folks. This is not to make it a race or a competition, but it is moreso to say you can symbolically represent and catalyze action without becoming a martyr.

As you’re doing actions, you should be refining your idea of who’s impacted by the issues more and more. As that picture gets clearer, you should spend more and more time understanding and listening to those folks. Ideally, you get to a point of co-creation, where you are enabling people to fight for themselves and build their autonomy. That is the kind of thing that prevents movements from dying. Organizers should be trying to put themselves out of business, in a sense. Catalysts should be able to come from anywhere.

To scale up, I’d recommend a focus on meeting folks. Take the ideas of deep canvassing, where you empathetically have conversations with whoever is impacted by the issue you’re responding to, through the lens of giving power to those people. Rather than asking them to feed into some established system of power, encourage them to take action into their own hands, as a collective.

I’d also recommend that as capacity grows, build a “positive” or “constructive” power. This can look like a lot of things. Whether it is a block club, neighborhood pod, community council, or community assembly, dedicate energy into creating spaces where people can start building their democratic and consensus muscles. These can simultaneously act as the training ground and alternative governance structure that allows folks to start making decisions for themselves in a very specific way.

This will ideally allow the movement to really start to be intersectional. It should be intersection minded from the outset, but that can be difficult to meaningfully actualize in the early stages of the movement. since single-issue movements are inherently brittle (if your movement revolves around getting something on a ballot, winning or losing just ends the movement)—there are throughlines that connect all movements, and those lines should be made visible and traveled. Environmentalists should fight for housing rights, LandBack, Reparations, and a host of other things. The more developed our networks, the stronger our movements will be.

[decaf-nosebleed]

im econ ive been assigned a project where i have to write about an article relating to economic policy. i already have the topics in mind, but im struggling to choose. help pleas

feel free to send any articles you recommend about those specific topics my way :)

[omnifuneral]

Passive investing seems like the sensible choice for the average American. Active investors are crucial to keeping the market efficient. Index funds are quickly ascending and show no signs of slowing down. I now believe all of these things. What I don’t know is whether they can all continue to be true together.

[urupotter]

What should a society's goals be? Arrow's theorem and the problem of social choice

Social choice theory is the field of study devoted to the question of what society as a whole should have as its goals.

A way to start thinking about this problem is from the point of view of individual preferences. If an individual prefers the world to be in state A over state B, then it can be said that an individual is "better off" in state A over state B. This isn't entirely uncontroversial, we can imagine scenarios where it's at least questionable that an individuals preferences being satisfied doesn't make them better off, (think of alcoholics or other addicts for example. They might prefer to have a drink today, but it's reasonable to question whether that actually makes them better off (economists call phenomena like this discontinuous preferences)), but for the moment we're going to ignore other sources of information aside from individual preferences to determine societal goals. As a way to start to solve the problem of social choice: finding and achieving the state of the world that society most prefers, starting from individual preferences is reasonable. What are a society's preferences but a combination of individual preferences, after all?

To do start doing this we'll first place two basic restrictions on individual preferences. First, when presented between two options, A and B, the individual must prefer one or the other, or be indifferent (call that completeness). Second, if an individual prefers A to B, and B to C, then she will also prefer A to C (call that transitivity). The problem of social choice is about finding the combination of these types of preferences that society most prefers.

The economist Kenneth Arrow in the 1950's had as an objective the discovery of a social choice function, or rule. Something you could feed a specific set of societal preferences into that would produce a ranking of the states of the world for society as a whole. Of course, there's an infinity of possible rules, so what he tried to do first was set up some reasonable conditions that such a rule should have, so as to narrow things down. They are as follows:

universal domain: as long as they're transitive and complete, we don't want to put any other restrictions on the preferences individuals are allowed to have.

non-dictatorship: the rule shouldn't let a single individual impose their preferences on everyone else (you could rephrase the previous condition to include this one, but it's worth separate them for salience)

Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA): If I prefer A to B, the inclusion or removal of another preference C shouldn't change that preference. An example of why this matters: say there's an election and there's 3 candidates, Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Jill Stein, and I prefer Biden over Trump. If IIA holds, then Jill Stein suddenly dying and no longer being an option shouldn't change that preference. If it doesn't, then it can.

Pareto Principle: If at least one individual prefers state A over state B, and no one prefers state B to state A, then the rule should respect that preference. This is about making the rule respect decisions over which society is unanimous.

Finally, the final ranking of societal preference over states of the world that the rule spits out should also be transitive and complete, so as to give a total ordering over all feasible states of the world

Read over each of these conditions individually. They're all pretty reasonable no? None of them are too crazy, and seem to be a good thing for a decision making procedure to have. Sadly, Arrow didn't find a rule that satisfies all those conditions. Couldn't have in fact, due to what he actually ended up finding:

Arrow proved, mathematically, that as long as a society has at least 3 individuals, it is logically impossible to construct a rule that satisfies all five conditions. Can't be done. This result is now known as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Any social choice rule you happen to design, must either: A) violate one of the conditions or B) incorporate more information than individual preference rankings.

Are there non controversial ways around this problem?

One possible social choice rule would be to just use the Pareto principle described above: state A is preferred to state B if and only if at least one person prefers state A to state B, and no-one prefers state B to state A. If that's the case, moving to state A makes at least one person better off and no-one worse off; this is called a Pareto improvement. If there are no states that are Pareto improvements on state A, then state A is Pareto efficient. This is based on the unanimous judgement of society, and so is a pretty non-controversial way to try and make social choices. So what's the problem? the pareto principle violates 5) total ordering. There are many possible pareto efficient social outcomes, and this gives us no way to decide which is better. Additionally, some of these possible pareto efficient states clearly aren't desirable. Suppose society can only produce 1 million dollars and that's its limit. If only one person has those million dollars then there's no way to change that outcome without making that individual worse off. The state is pareto efficient sure, but it's dogshit. The pareto principle is thus non controversial and useful, but also very limited and won't take us all that far. There are problems it cannot solve

What about if we make the Pareto principle less strict? This is known as the Kaldor-Hicks criterion: it states that state A is a K-H improvement over state B, if it's to be possible to redistribute goods in state A in such a way that no-one is worse off than in state B. Some people may be worse off in state A than state B, but as long as it would be possible for the people who are better off to give some of their resources to the people who are made worse off and fully compensate them for their loss, A is a Kaldor-Hicks improvement over B. The redistribution of resources from the winners to the losers is called Kaldor-Hicks transfers. We can compare many more social states using the Kaldor-Hicks principle than the Pareto principle, but Kaldor-Hicks still doesn't give us a complete social ordering. Additionally, it has problems when considering non monetary costs, since it makes it so that it's not really possible to truly compensate the losers since they care about different things than the winners "win".

How does voting fare?

Stuff like majority rule, where everyone choses their favorite over a set of preferences, and whoever gets the most votes wins, is in many ways very attractive, but fails transitivity (you can get situations where society prefers A>B>C>A). Plurality rule violates IIA. And so on. Every system has cost. Additionally, voting is not easy in practice to apply, and has limited applicability. While it can occasionally be used, society is faced with too many decisions to have individuals vote over each one.

What if we used more info?

Arrow's theorem relies on the only information available to an individual for use in their social choice rule are individual preference orderings. What if a government relaxes that assumption? We've been assuming so far that a government knows if you prefer A to B, but nothing about the magnitude of such preferences. It can know that I prefer A to B, and that you prefer B to A, but it can't say anything about the strength of such a preference.

If we relax the assumption, if instead we assume that the government knows how much each individual likes each possible state - that they know the "utility" each person gets from each state, as a number (for the more math inclined, this is going from ordinal comparisons to cardinal ones), and can compare that number between people - then it's possible to produce a social choice rule that satisfies all of Arrow's other conditions. There are lots of possible social choice rules of this kind; probably the most commonly used one is a utilitarian rule, where A is preferred to B if the total utility in state A is higher than in state B. But there's no need for the government to only maximize total utility, and it can use any function of the utilities of all the different individuals that it likes. It could instead rank states based on average utility, or a weighted average that puts more weight on worse-off individuals than better-off ones, or more.

This is the approach that economists tend to use, but be aware that it has its problems. For one, the assumption that we can know magnitudes can be quite strong. I know that I prefer strawberries to bananas, but by how much? I don't know if I could put a strict number on it. If it can be hard for me to discern the magnitude of my own preferences, it's even harder to discern the magnitudes of others. How the fuck would I know if my preference for strawberries is stronger than someone else's preference for bananas? Are we really justified in saying the government can do that? Often enough we aren't but still, cardinal utility remains one of the few ways to analyze policy in areas where we need to go beyond pareto improvements (basically any policy that has winners and losers, which is the vast majority).

Most economists use various utilitarian approaches, but that isn't without criticism (though I myself tend to approach these problems in this way). That said, I hope this post at least gives you an idea about why they tend to do that, and the problems alternative approaches should be trying to deal with if you're going to criticize it.

[caprice-nisei-enjoyer]

The difference between nominal and real money is really interesting and useful! Which makes it all the more disappointing when people complain about inflation affecting, like, fast food. Food is so damn cheap! The rent is the thing that's too damn high!