#ap economics

[kimblestudies]

january 22, monday

-> it hasn't stopped raining all week. forced myself to take a lot of government and economics notes.

🎧the metamorphosis, franz kafka

[unicornwithachainsaw83]

I’m not good at economics, but damn this class is fun.

[handweavers]

sorry it's still so funny that crypto and nfts like exploded and died after all that nonsense pyramid scheme scam shit and superbowl ads and bitcoin mining rigs ruining everything including the environment and it was all for nothing, it didn't change the world it didn't revolutionize anything it was all a complete scam and what remains of it still is. like blockchain tech isn't going anywhere it's probably going to exist in some capacity for the foreseeable future and crypto in general still exists (and existed before it became mainstream popular) but the vast majority of nfts, cryptocurrencies, etc are completely and utterly worthless now, shut down services, crashed markets and exchanges, etc. the only sad things are the people left holding the bag whose lives were ruined bc they got sucked into the scam and there's no justice or recompense + the sheer amt of environmental damage caused by this whole thing

[sweetchotimochi]

how to study for social studies subjects

I’d like to think that one of my strongest focuses is social studies. I love learning about history, economics, government, e.t.c. and I do well on tests! I thought that most people had it easy when it came to these subjects, but throughout working with peers and friends, I realized that wasn’t true, so here are some tips to get through those subjects: 

Memorizing will be your friend: This is one of my biggest tips that I still use for my social studies subjects. Memorize, memorize, memorize! Of course, you should first understand a concept or term before memorizing it, but it helps so much to know words. I use quizlet and knowt.io to help me memorize, but you can use a variety of ways to remember. This is especially helpful for tests, as you can help fill in the blank when reading through questions and other readings.

Trick your brain: One of the reasons I was so good at social studies subjects was because I was interested in politics and government. I’m really interested in the controversial aspect of politics, which helped me understand forms and branches of government, how the economy works, e.t.c. I’ve recently heard this tip on the internet, where people trick their brain into thinking that the subject they are learning is like lore for a tv show or novel, and it worked. Your brain will probably be more likely to learn if you make it enjoyable.

Use a variety of resources: A lot of social studies subjects will have more interesting and engaging resources to use, rather than like physics with a boring textbook and some reference videos. Topics like politics will have a wide variety of books, articles, news reports, movies, and even TV shows covering them. After understanding the concepts and things you may need to know, watching a political TV show can be a form of studying! You can learn to apply, discuss, and critique different forms and resources to apply to the thing you are studying. 

Find ways to connect to the modern world: Social studies subjects are one of the easiest to connect to the media and the news; you will often find articles and reporters speaking about the economy, what's going on in the supreme court, and who is voting or pushing for what agenda. If you ever need to find examples to help you learn and study, just watch the news! It’s a great resource, and can help you apply what you are learning to the real world. Oftentimes, test-makers will give a question set in a scenario, where a country is going into a recession and you may have to explain ways to solve or help it e.t.c. so the news is a great resource to see it real time.

[lesbiten]

i truly didnt mentally prepare myself for this result and idk what ill do if its not different by tomorrow lol

[wonder-worker]

"Among their complaints [in 1460, the Yorkists] specifically blamed the earls of Wiltshire and Shrewsbury and Viscount Beaumont for ‘stirring’ the king [Henry VI] to hold a parliament at Coventry that would attaint them and for keeping them from the king’s presence and likely mercy, asserting that this was done against [the king's] will. To this they added the charge that these evil counselors were also tyrannizing other true men* without the king’s knowledge. Such claims of malfeasance obliquely raised the question of Henry’s fitness as a king, for how could he be deemed competent if such things happened without his knowledge and against his wishes? They also tied in rumors circulating somewhat earlier in the southern counties and likely to have originated in Calais that Henry was really ‘good and gracious Lord to the [Yorkists] since, it was alleged, he had not known of or assented to their attainders. On 11 June the king was compelled to issue a proclamation stating that they were indeed traitors and that assertions to the contrary were to be ignored." - Helen Maurer, "Margaret of Anjou: "Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England"

Three things that we can surmise from this:

We know where the "Henry was an innocent helpless king being controlled and manipulated by his Evil™ advisors" rhetoric came from**.

The Yorkists were deliberately trying to downplay Henry VI's actual role and involvement in politics and the Wars of the Roses. They cast him as a "statue of a king", blamed all royal policies and decisions on others*** (claiming that Henry wasn't even aware of them), and framed themselves as righteous and misunderstood counselors who remained loyal to the crown. We should keep this in mind when we look at chronicles' comments of Henry's alleged passivity and the so-called "role reversal" between him and Queen Margaret.

Henry VI's actual agency and involvement is nevertheless proven by his own actions. We know what he thought of the Yorkists, and we know he took the effort to publicly counter their claims through a proclamation of his own. That speaks louder than the politically motivated narrative of his enemies, don't you think?

*There was some truth to these criticisms. For example, Wiltshire (ie: one of the men named in the pamphlet) was reportedly involved in a horrible situation in June which included hangings and imprisonments for tax resistance in Newbury. The best propagandists always contain a degree of truth, etc. **I've seen some theories on why Margaret of Anjou wasn't mentioned in these pamphlets alongside the others even though she was clearly being vilified during that time as well, and honestly, I think those speculations are mostly unnecessary. Margaret was absent because it was regarded as very unseemly to target queens in such an officially public manner. We see a similar situation a decade later: Elizabeth Woodville was vilified and her whole family - popularly and administratively known as "the queen's kin" - was disparaged in Warwick and Clarence's pamphlets. This would have inevitably associated her with their official complaints far more than Margaret had been, but she was also not directly mentioned. It was simply not considered appropriate. ***This narrative was begun by the Duke of York & Warwick and was - demonstrably - already widespread by the end of 1460. When Edward IV came to power, there seems to have been a slight shift in how he spoke of Henry (he referred to Henry as their "great enemy and adversary"; his envoys were clearly willing to acknowledge Henry's role in Lancastrian resistance to Yorkist rule; etc), but he nevertheless continued the former narrative for the most part. I think this was because 1) it was already well-established and widespread by his father, and 2) downplaying Henry's authority would have served to emphasize Edward's own kingship, which was probably advantageous for a usurper whose deposed rival was still alive and out of reach. In some sense, the Lancastrians did the same thing with their own propaganda across the 1460s, which was clearly not as effective in terms of garnering support and is too long to get into right now, but was still very relevant when it came to emphasizing their own right to the throne while disparaging the Yorkists' claim.

[stargirlloveaddie]

welcome to my new blog!

- sixteen

- pinterest: fourteenfoxes

- have had previous tumblr/twitter blogs but was feeling uninspired by my other accounts

- currently in six AP classes (us history, calculus ab, lang, micro, psych, precalc)

some things I love:

design, vs angels (specifically taylor hill), loveshackfancy, economics, moodboards, fashion, studying, hockey, football, poetry

[iwantsushiii]

gonna kms❤️

[vamptastic]

i genuinely don't understand what capitalist countries stand to gain by fighting each other instead of collaborating economically. like why does the us warmonger against china when we would benefit more from trade? ostensibly it's for moral reasons, but regardless of the veracity of any given claim i think the united states has shown itself to prioritize economic success over human rights on a number of occasions especially during the cold war. i suppose i assume most wars are waged on the grounds of economic gain (natural resources, global political power, straight up money in the form of the military-industrial complex) but you could make an equally solid argument that just as many are waged over purely social and political issues- ethnic and religious conflict, blind nationalism, the whims of a dictator. it just confuses me at times, i guess. i have a hard time believing that the united states is bound and determined to wage war against china over human rights abuses, infringing on other countries sovereignty, and neo-colonialism in africa when we've propped up fascist dictators in many a country who've done far worse. is it literally just the association with communism? because surely whatever evil fuckers actually want war know that china is very far from communist right now. is it just nationalism? the idea that we must be on the top of the totem pole, even if our economy would stand to gain from trade? because i suppose i could believe that, but i think if that was true we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today in the first place. blegh. at the end of the day i am also ignoring the fact that many many different groups of people want war against china for reasons ranging from sinophobic jingoist nationalism to a genuine belief that the united states is a global moral watchdog determined to establish ~democracy~ worldwide. but there is a definite slant to media coverage on china right now, genuine attempts at disinformation, and given that the media in the us is so deeply tied to corporate interests it leads me to believe that there has to be some economic motive here, and it frustrates me that i can't figure out what it is.

[skrunksthatwunk]

I'm about to be so tired ghejeje

[kimblestudies]

09.22 - 09.25

-> my academics have been,, disturbingly chill, actually.

-> taking econ notes. aggregate demand baby.

-> art ! painting + studies if you can call them that

[solace-seekers]

love looking at micro vocab cause it’s like “huh i wonder what the income effect is”

income effect: poorer people want to pay less for shit they need

it’s just. such a time

[attemptedacademia]

i signed up for my senior year ap courses today… god i hope i made the right decisions

[yisanged]

i walked into world hist today to hear my teacher talk about pronouns like ?? he was talking to some kid from his period before and they were like arguing and he was like i'll use they/them but i draw the line at using it for a person... it's dehumanizing. and my friend they/it user that sits in front of me turned and looked at me funny.

[summerof336bc]

life would be so much better if i didnt have to take 2 years of us history