#economic criteria

[indizombie]

Various surveys have confirmed that the other backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are over-represented in the proportion of poor. The forward caste groups are considerably better off as a class or group, even if there are poor individuals amongst them. Therefore, the reservation has always dealt with class poverty. By determining a class on the basis of economic criteria – income below Rs 8 lakh per annum of a family or individual – the EWS quota, ex facie, infringes the principles of constitutional equality and renders the concept of reservation, as known to the Indian Constitution, virtually unrecognisable. In short, EWS is ambiguous, arbitrary and alien to the established principles of constitutional equality.

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram, ‘EWS judgment is a setback to social justice, India’s constitutional scheme’, Indian Express

[townpostin]

Savarna Youth Form 'Savarna Sena' in Baridih

New Organization Aims to Unite Savarnas and Address Their Concerns Savarna Sena established to advocate for Savarna rights and push for economic-based reservations. JAMSHEDPUR – A meeting of Savarna youth in Baridih led to the formation of ‘Savarna Sena’, a new organization aimed at uniting Savarnas and addressing their concerns. On Monday evening, representatives from Brahmin, Rajput, Bhumihar,…

[melancholia-ennui]

Every time I see people worrying about students using chatGPT to cheat assignments I despair a little more at the state of modern academia because like.

Chat GPT essays suck. They're so bad. They get basic facts wrong, they make up references that don't exist, they jump from one argument to the next without any throughline or coherence or objective. They are very bad essays.

So if your students are "coasting" through your course using chatGPT, if you're not failing every essay that chatGPT produces, that is a real indictment of how abysmally low the standards on that course are.

Like yeah, I get it, the idea that there could be nurses and engineers and other people in specialist roles where human lives are on the line who didn't engage with their training at all because they used generative AI to write their essays is really scary but like. If they were able to pass their courses using chatGPT that just shows that those courses were also going to pass someone who made shit up, had no real grasp of the subject matter, and failed to critically engage with the set material at all and at that point it's just like. I mean is machine assisted incompetence really that much scarier than entirely human incompetence? Surely the problem here is that incompetence is being let through at all???

[aimlayblogs]

BA in Economics Course: Admission, Duration, Eligibility, Practical Aspects, Career Opportunities

Are you fascinated by the intricate workings of economies, the forces that drive financial markets, and the policies that shape nations? Pursuing a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Economics might be your ideal academic journey. In this comprehensive guide, we will delve into the depths of BA in Economics, exploring crucial details, eligibility criteria, admission processes, course variations, fees, and top colleges in India. Whether you’re a prospective student or simply curious about this field, fasten your seatbelts as we embark on this enlightening expedition.

BA Economics Course Details 

The BA in Economics is a multidisciplinary program that equips students with a profound understanding of economic theories, statistical methods, and policy analysis.  

This course offers a diverse curriculum, ranging from microeconomics and macroeconomics to econometrics and developmental economics. Students delve into topics like market structures, international trade, public finance, and economic history, gaining a holistic perspective on economic phenomena. 

If you want to understand the detailed form of a BA Economics program, you’re at the right place: 

BA in Economics Course Duration: 

Duration: 3 years (6 semesters) 

Full-Time or Part-Time: Usually offered as a full-time course. 

BA in Economics Eligibility Criteria: 

Educational Qualification: Candidates should have completed their higher secondary education (10+2) from a recognized board or institution. 

Minimum Marks: Some universities might require a minimum percentage in the qualifying examination for admission. 

BA in Economics Course Curriculum: 

The curriculum for BA in Economics can vary slightly between universities, but it generally includes the following subjects: 

1st Year: 

Principles of Microeconomics 

Principles of Macroeconomics 

Mathematics for Economics 

Statistics for Economics 

Introductory Microeconomics 

Introductory Macroeconomics

2nd Year: 

Intermediate Microeconomics 

Intermediate Macroeconomics 

Econometrics 

Economic History 

Development Economics 

Indian Economy 

International Economics

3rd Year: 

Advanced Microeconomics 

Advanced Macroeconomics 

Public Economics 

Environmental Economics 

Financial Economics 

Political Economy 

Dissertation/Research Project

BA in Economics Practical Aspects: 

Internship/Practical Training: Some universities incorporate internships or practical training programs where students gain real-world experience in economic research, policy analysis, or related fields. 

BA in Economics Assessment: 

Examinations: Students are assessed through semester examinations, which include theoretical papers and practical assessments. 

Projects and Assignments: Students may be required to submit projects, assignments, and presentations as a part of their coursework assessment. 

BA in Economics Specializations: 

Some universities allow students to specialize in specific areas of economics during their BA program, such as: 

Financial Economics: Focuses on the application of economic principles to financial markets. 

Development Economics: Concentrates on economic issues related to developing countries. 

International Economics: Emphasizes global economic issues, trade, and international finance.

BA in Economics Career Opportunities: 

Economist: Conduct economic research and analyse data to predict market trends and behaviour. 

Financial Analyst: Evaluate financial data, study economic trends, and provide investment guidance. 

Policy Analyst: Analyse economic policies, assess their impact, and make recommendations for policy changes. 

Market Research Analyst: Study market conditions to identify potential sales opportunities for a product or service.

BA in Economics Further Studies: 

After completing a BA in Economics, students can pursue postgraduate studies (MA/MSc in Economics) or opt for professional courses like an MBA with a specialization in Finance or Economics. 

BA Economics Admission 2023 

Admission into BA Economics programs varies across universities. Some institutions conduct their entrance exams, evaluating candidates based on their academic performance and performance in the entrance tests. Application deadlines, required documents, and other essential details are often available on the respective university websites. 

BA Economics Entrance Exams 

Several universities and colleges conduct entrance exams for BA Economics.  

These exams assess candidates’ analytical and quantitative skills, along with their knowledge of economics. Some renowned entrance exams include  

DUET (Delhi University Entrance Test) and JNUEE (Jawaharlal Nehru University Entrance Exam). 

BA Economics Fees Details 

The tuition fees for BA Economics programs vary widely depending on the university, location, and facilities provided. It’s advisable to research different institutions and their fee structures. Additionally, many universities offer scholarships and financial aid programs to support meritorious and deserving students. 

Types of BA Economics Courses 

BA Economics programs come in various forms, such as regular full-time courses, part-time evening classes, and online/distance learning programs. Distance BA Economics courses cater to individuals who are unable to attend traditional classes due to work or other commitments, offering flexibility and convenience. 

Top BA Economics Private Colleges in India 

India boasts several prestigious institutions renowned for their BA Economics programs. Some of the top private colleges include St. Xavier’s College, Loyola College, Christ University, and Narsee Monjee College of Commerce and Economics. These colleges are known for their academic excellence, experienced faculty, and state-of-the-art facilities. 

BA in Economics Syllabus and Subjects 

The BA Economics syllabus is designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of economic theories and their real-world applications.  

Subjects covered include Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Mathematics for Economics, Statistics, Econometrics, Public Economics, International Economics, and Development Economics. The syllabus is crafted to prepare students for diverse career paths in economics and related fields. 

Distance BA Economics Course 

Distance education has become increasingly popular, offering flexibility to students who cannot attend regular classes. Distance BA Economics programs provide study materials, online lectures, and support, allowing students to pursue their academic goals at their own pace. In conclusion, a BA in Economics opens doors to a world of opportunities, shaping individuals into analytical thinkers and decision-makers. By understanding the intricacies of economies, graduates can contribute meaningfully to society, making informed policy decisions and driving economic progress. As you embark on this educational journey, keep these insights in mind, and remember, knowledge is the key to unlocking a future full of possibilities. Source Url: https://www.aimlay.com/ba-in-economics-course-admission-duration-eligibility-practical-aspects/

[educationpostnews]

UPSC IES Exam 2024 Solved Papers

The UPSC IES Exam 2024 is a pivotal examination for those aiming to enter the Indian Economic Service. This prestigious exam, conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, tests candidates on their knowledge in economics and general studies. It comprises multiple stages, including a written test and a personal interview. Preparing for the UPSC IES Exam 2024 requires a deep understanding of economic theories, current affairs, and analytical skills. Candidates are advised to follow the latest syllabus and previous years' question papers to enhance their preparation. Successful candidates gain entry into a rewarding career in the Indian Economic Service, shaping economic policies and contributing to national development.

[allaboutforexworld]

Forex Trading Plan: Why Is It Important?

A well-structured forex trading plan is essential for achieving consistent success in the forex market. Trading without a plan is akin to sailing without a map; while you may occasionally reach your destination, you’re more likely to encounter unforeseen obstacles and lose your way. In this article, we will delve into the importance of a forex trading plan, its key components, and how to create…

[techminsolutions]

Pradhan Mantri MUDRA Yojana

Pradhan Mantri MUDRA Yojana Introduction The Pradhan Mantri MUDRA Yojana is a government initiative aimed at providing financial support to small and micro-enterprises in India. It was launched to promote entrepreneurship and generate employment opportunities. Objectives Facilitate micro-enterprises to access credit Promote financial inclusion Encourage entrepreneurship among the economically…

[lotus-tower]

Mask recommendations for ordering online (NA)

Note: for consistency, practicality, and simplicity all prices are listed in USD.

masknerd has a comprehensive data set on hundreds of masks he's tested according to his own criteria and methodology (pinned tweet). find his recommendations on his youtube channel. many of the following are on his list as well!

DISPOSABLE MASKS

3M Aura and Vflex: one of the most commonly recommended brands of N95. Where to buy?

- US: see here - Canada: see here - Multiple sizes per model. These suppliers are good for bulk ordering. If you aren't sure if something will fit you, check out the sample kits in the next recommendation - Price point: varies from $1-1.3 USD per mask depending on supplier

Breatheteq (US):

- KN95s that come in small, medium, large, or XS (kids) - Offers sample kits so you can test out what your size is - Comes in a few different colours. shoutout to the lavender - Earloop only - Price point: $69.75 USD for a 50-pack (~1.4 USD per mask)

Canadastrong (Canada):

- The Canadian equivalent to Breatheteq, but also carries N95s of other brands such as 3M Aura and Vflex, Vitacore, and Drager X-plore

Vitacore (Canada and US):

- N95 certified, but actually has 99% filtration - Both earloop and head strap versions (warning that the head strap seems to fit considerably smaller) - Regular and small adult sizes offered, also a kid's size - Price point: $33.99 for a 30-pack (~1.1 USD per mask)

Wellbefore (US, ships to Canada):

- N95s, KN95s, and KF94s - Head straps, normal earloops, or adjustable earloops depending on model - Kids/petite size available for certain KN95 models - Wide range of colours (excluding N95s) - Price point: varies per model, from $0.79 USD to $2.09 USD per mask - Also sells Covid tests, over the counter medication, and medical supplies

Masklab (US):

- This is an indulgent option for if you want to go out and look good, while still staying safe. These are masks that are part of your outfit - FFP2 certified, equivalent to KF94s - Standard size and slim fit series - Many beautiful patterns - Price point: $24.44 USD for a 5-pack ($4.88 per mask) for the patterned KF ones, ~$3.4 USD for the plain KF ones, ~$3.3 USD for the slim fit series, including patterns.

ELASTOMERIC MASKS

Flomask (US, ships to Canada):

- Reusable elastomeric mask (with replaceable filters) that meets KN95 standards - Two adult sizes (low/medium nose ridge and medium/high nose ridge) and a kid's size - Adjustable straps - Price point: $122 USD. 50-pack replacement filters: $81.46 (filters to be changed after 20-40 hours of use, depending on filter type)

A humble P100 elastomeric respirator from your local Home Depot or similar store! Magnitudes cheaper than the Flo mask (both the respirator itself and the filters)--however, I can't offer estimates for how often filters should be replaced. May not look pretty, but the most economical option for the highest degree of filtration if you aren't self-conscious.

General advice:

N95 or higher are the most reliable. They normally come with head straps, which offer better protection by making a tighter seal around your face.

But fit and comfort are the most important! Find a mask that fits your face and leaves the least amount of gap possible. KN95s are often more comfortable and breathable--find what's right for you.

You can wear different masks for different situations depending on risk level!

If you're hesitant to buy online, here's advice on how to tell if your respirator is legitimate.

A SIP drinking valve can be installed on any disposable mask to allow you to drink in public with less risk.

If anyone has other recommendations, please feel free to add!

[mostlysignssomeportents]

There’s no such thing as “shareholder supremacy”

On SEPTEMBER 24th, I'll be speaking IN PERSON at the BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY!

Here's a cheap trick: claim that your opponents' goals are so squishy and qualitative that no one will ever be able to say whether they've been succeeded or failed, and then declare that your goals can be evaluated using crisp, objective criteria.

This is the whole project of "economism," the idea that politics, with its emphasis on "fairness" and other intangibles, should be replaced with a mathematical form of economics, where every policy question can be reduced to an equation…and then "solved":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/28/imagine-a-horse/#perfectly-spherical-cows-of-uniform-density-on-a-frictionless-plane

Before the rise of economism, it was common to speak of its subjects as "political economy" or even "moral philosophy" (Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, considered himself a "moral philosopher"). "Political economy" implicitly recognizes that every policy has squishy, subjective, qualitative dimensions that don't readily boil down to math.

For example, if you're asking about whether people should have the "freedom" to enter into contracts, it might be useful to ask yourself how desperate your "free" subject might be, and whether the entity on the other side of that contract is very powerful. Otherwise you'll get "free contracts" like "I'll sell you my kidneys if you promise to evacuate my kid from the path of this wildfire."

The problem is that power is hard to represent faithfully in quantitative models. This may seem like a good reason to you to be skeptical of modeling, but for economism, it's a reason to pretend that the qualitative doesn't exist. The method is to incinerate those qualitative factors to produce a dubious quantitative residue and do math on that:

https://locusmag.com/2021/05/cory-doctorow-qualia/

Hence the famous Ely Devons quote: "If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’"

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

The neoliberal revolution was a triumph for economism. Neoliberal theorists like Milton Friedman replaced "political economy" with "law and economics," the idea that we should turn every one of our complicated, nuanced, contingent qualitative goals into a crispy defined "objective" criteria. Friedman and his merry band of Chicago School economists replaced traditional antitrust (which sought to curtail the corrupting power of large corporations) with a theory called "consumer welfare" that used mathematics to decide which monopolies were "efficient" and therefore good (spoiler: monopolists who paid Friedman's pals to do this mathematical analysis always turned out to be running "efficient" monopolies):

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/20/we-should-not-endure-a-king/

One of Friedman's signal achievements was the theory of "shareholder supremacy." In 1970, the New York Times published Friedman's editorial "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits":

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html

In it, Friedman argued that corporate managers had exactly one job: to increase profits for shareholders. All other considerations – improving the community, making workers' lives better, donating to worthy causes or sponsoring a little league team – were out of bounds. Managers who wanted to improve the world should fund their causes out of their paychecks, not the corporate treasury.

Friedman cloaked his hymn to sociopathic greed in the mantle of objectivism. For capitalism to work, corporations have to solve the "principal-agent" problem, the notoriously thorny dilemma created when one person (the principal) asks another person (the agent) to act on their behalf, given the fact that the agent might find a way to line their own pockets at the principal's expense (for example, a restaurant server might get a bigger tip by offering to discount diners' meals).

Any company that is owned by stockholders and managed by a CEO and other top brass has a huge principal-agent problem, and yet, the limited liability, joint-stock company had produced untold riches, and was considered the ideal organization for "capital formation" by Friedman et al. In true economismist form, Friedman treated all the qualitative questions about the duty of a company as noise and edited them out of the equation, leaving behind a single, elegant formulation: "a manager is doing their job if they are trying to make as much money as possible for their shareholders."

Friedman's formulation was a hit. The business community ran wild with it. Investors mistook an editorial in the New York Times for an SEC rulemaking and sued corporate managers on the theory that they had a "fiduciary duty" to "maximize shareholder value" – and what's more, the courts bought it. Slowly and piecemeal at first, but bit by bit, the idea that rapacious greed was a legal obligation turned into an edifice of legal precedent. Business schools taught it, movies were made about it, and even critics absorbed the message, insisting that we needed to "repeal the law" that said that corporations had to elevate profit over all other consideration (not realizing that no such law existed).

It's easy to see why shareholder supremacy was so attractive for investors and their C-suite Renfields: it created a kind of moral crumple-zone. Whenever people got angry at you for being a greedy asshole, you could shrug and say, "My hands are tied: the law requires me to run the business this way – if you don't believe me, just ask my critics, who insist that we must get rid of this law!"

In a long feature for The American Prospect, Adam M Lowenstein tells the story of how shareholder supremacy eventually came into such wide disrepute that the business lobby felt that it had to do something about it:

https://prospect.org/power/2024-09-17-ponzi-scheme-of-promises/

It starts in 2018, when Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett decried the short-term, quarterly thinking in corporate management as bad for business's long-term health. When Washington Post columnist Steve Pearlstein wrote a column agreeing with them and arguing that even moreso, businesses should think about equities other than shareholder returns, Jamie Dimon lost his shit and called Pearlstein to call it "the stupidest fucking column I’ve ever read":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/07/will-ending-quarterly-earnings-guidance-free-ceos-to-think-long-term/

But the dam had broken. In the months and years that followed, the Business Roundtable would adopt a series of statements that repudiated shareholder supremacy, though of course they didn't admit it. Rather, they insisted that they were clarifying that they'd always thought that sometimes not being a greedy asshole could be good for business, too. Though these statements were nonbinding, and though the CEOs who signed them did so in their personal capacity and not on behalf of their companies, capitalism's most rabid stans treated this as an existential crisis.

Lowenstein identifies this as the forerunner to today's panic over "woke corporations" and "DEI," and – just as with "woke capitalism" – the whole thing amounted to a a PR exercise. Lowenstein links to several studies that found that the CEOs who signed onto statements endorsing "stakeholder capitalism" were "more likely to lay off employees during COVID-19, were less inclined to contribute to pandemic relief efforts, had 'higher rates of environmental and labor-related compliance violations,”' emitted more carbon into the atmosphere, and spent more money on dividends and buybacks."

One researcher concluded that "signing this statement had zero positive effect":

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/companies-stand-solidarity-are-licensing-themselves-discriminate/614947

So shareholder supremacy isn't a legal obligation, and statements repudiating shareholder supremacy don't make companies act any better.

But there's an even more fundamental flaw in the argument for the shareholder supremacy rule: it's impossible to know if the rule has been broken.

The shareholder supremacy rule is an unfalsifiable proposition. A CEO can cut wages and lay off workers and claim that it's good for profits because the retained earnings can be paid as a dividend. A CEO can raise wages and hire more people and claim it's good for profits because it will stop important employees from defecting and attract the talent needed to win market share and spin up new products.

A CEO can spend less on marketing and claim it's a cost-savings. A CEO can spend more on marketing and claim it's an investment. A CEO can eliminate products and call it a savings. A CEO can add products and claim they're expansions into new segments. A CEO can settle a lawsuit and claim they're saving money on court fees. A CEO can fight a lawsuit through to the final appeal and claim that they're doing it to scare vexatious litigants away by demonstrating their mettle.

CEOs can use cheaper, inferior materials and claim it's a savings. They can use premium materials and claim it's a competitive advantage that will produce new profits. Everything a company does can be colorably claimed as an attempt to save or make money, from sponsoring the local little league softball team to treating effluent to handing ownership of corporate landholdings to perpetual trusts that designate them as wildlife sanctuaries.

Bribes, campaign contributions, onshoring, offshoring, criminal conspiracies and conference sponsorships – there's a business case for all of these being in line with shareholder supremacy.

Take Boeing: when the company smashed its unions and relocated key production to scab plants in red states, when it forced out whistleblowers and senior engineers who cared about quality, when it outsourced design and production to shops around the world, it realized a savings. Today, between strikes, fines, lawsuits, and a mountain of self-inflicted reputational harm, the company is on the brink of ruin. Was Boeing good to its shareholders? Well, sure – the shareholders who cashed out before all the shit hit the fan made out well. Shareholders with a buy-and-hold posture (like the index funds that can't sell their Boeing holdings so long as the company is in the S&P500) got screwed.

Right wing economists criticize the left for caring too much about "how big a slice of the pie they're getting" rather than focusing on "growing the pie." But that's exactly what Boeing management did – while claiming to be slaves to Friedman's shareholder supremacy. They focused on getting a bigger slice of the pie, screwing their workers, suppliers and customers in the process, and, in so doing, they made the pie so much smaller that it's in danger of disappearing altogether.

Here's the principal-agent problem in action: Boeing management earned bonuses by engaging in corporate autophagia, devouring the company from within. Now, long-term shareholders are paying the price. Far from solving the principal-agent problem with a clean, bright-line rule about how managers should behave, shareholder supremacy is a charter for doing whatever the fuck a CEO feels like doing. It's the squishiest rule imaginable: if someone calls you cruel, you can blame the rule and say you had no choice. If someone calls you feckless, you can blame the rule and say you had no choice. It's an excuse for every season.

The idea that you can reduce complex political questions – like whether workers should get a raise or whether shareholders should get a dividend – to a mathematical rule is a cheap sleight of hand. The trick is an obvious one: the stuff I want to do is empirically justified, while the things you want are based in impossible-to-pin-down appeals to emotion and its handmaiden, ethics. Facts don't care about your feelings, man.

But it's feelings all the way down. Milton Friedman's idol-worshiping cult of shareholder supremacy was never about empiricism and objectivity. It's merely a gimmick to make greed seem scientifically optimal.

The paperback edition of The Lost Cause, my nationally bestselling, hopeful solarpunk novel is out this month!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/18/falsifiability/#figleaves-not-rubrics/a>

[dostoyevsky-official]

this a view of someone who's ignored european developments since 2007, opting for a rosy, outdated view of european politics, i.e. the exact type of american committing the exact type of mistake i'm warning about.

to address this point by point: not only has inflation been a global issue, but the US has consistently enjoyed the lowest inflation of any developed economy. american CPI has remained below the british, polish, and eurozone average numbers. european economies have to deal with fallout from the russian invasion of ukraine that the us can ignore: notably, in energy prices, as the US became self-sufficient in energy (and never imported any from russia to begin with, something squeezing the german economy). america is also not hosting millions of ukrainian refugees.

when discussing european instutions—and "europe" in general—one has to be more specific. do you mean the overarching institutions of the EU, criticized for a democratic deficit that many have pinpointed as one source for euro-skepticism and the rise of the far right? the EU Council, widely ignored and headed by charles michel, an incompetent, blatant nepobaby appointment whom everyone grinds their teeth over? the EU parliament, recently filled with a fresh batch of far-right hooligans, which functions more or less as a rubber stamp for the commission? the EU commission itself, headed by VdL, the latest in a string of failed local politician commissioners (who remembers the alcoholic swindler juncker?) masquerading as technocrats? the ECB, which smothers the monetary (and through the maastricht criteria, the fiscal) policy of eurozone members, thereby fueling resentment, far-right movements, and economic disparity? and all of this held hostage by the veto of one orban or fico, —or the german supreme court, when it decides it's had enough with public investment. those institutions, which remain so opaque that even educated americans—and europeans—aren't entirely aware of their function?

or do we mean the institutions of individual countries, ranging from undemocratic autocracies like hungary to the fief of the jupiter king, who called elections in june, lost them, refused to nominate a prime minister from the winning coalition, didn't name any for over a month, and then appointed a rightwing politician from a party that scored dead last, sidestepping his own centrist party? the UK, where sir keir is handing out five years in jail time to climate protesters, raising tuition fees, relying on private investment companies, and through rachel reeves' plan to fix the alleged budget hole left by hunt before further investment, again enacting austerity? this is all front-page headline news from the last half year.

european countries indeed have cheaper healthcare costs, better pensions, and other public goods that the united states does not. when considering "quality of life," remember, however, that most european countries have unemployment rates considered astronomic in america, especially for under-35s:

to focus again and again on european social democracy is to ignore that it has been steadily eroded since the end of the cold war and especially since the great recession by neoliberal political forces that crush the left and open the door for the far right. in the most blatant example, beside's macron's legislative politricks, the IMF-ECB-EC troika cut off euro cash liquidity flow to greece when syriza was trying to undo austerity under varoufakis. the greek collapse consigned a generation to economic failure, killed seniors, and curtailed possibilities for the youth. this erosion happened even in the nordic model, long imagined by americans as nothing short of a utopia:

In part due to the scrapping of wealth and inheritance taxes and a lower corporate tax than both the U.S. and European averages, Sweden has one of the most unequal distributions of wealth in the world today: on a level with Bahrain and Oman, and worse than the United States. Perhaps most dispiriting for Sanders, Sweden also now hosts the highest proportion of billionaires per capita in the world. Many of the country’s trademark social services are now provided by private firms. Its private schools even benefit from the same level of state subsidy as public schools—a voucher system far more radical than anything in the United States and that Democratic politicians would be crucified for advocating. Both here and there, right-leaning commentators in 2020 decried Sanders’s portrait as little more than what Johan Norberg, Swedish author of The Capitalist Manifesto, has called a 1970s “pipedream.” On this, Swedish observers on the left gloomily agree: despite official rhetoric, the “Nordic welfare model” is now more nostalgic myth than reality. (x)

to problematize further, there's an unadressed first world perspective: who's getting the good quality of life, why are the main economies of the EU so wealthy, and how does the EU continue to enrich itself? there are certainly many living outdoors today, drowning in the mediterranean, or dying of exposure in białowieża. fortress europe is a crime against humanity—and it doesn't beat back the far right. it weakens civic and human rights, undermines legal oversight, and criminalizes humanitarian engagement, allowing an authoritarian creep.

you shouldn't understand the political and the historical as a snapshot in time, but as a moving train. this is the state of europe today. all of the above is necessarily a simplification and an abbreviation, but there's a trajectory you can begin to trace out: given all of the above, where do you think europe is headed?

[sreegs]

gonna start this post upfront by saying tumblr's fuckin up bad with moderation right now, regarding the wave of trans people being targeted. but i'm not here to discuss that issue, i'm going to talk about the nature of large and small social spaces on the internet

as this post rightly points out, examining our existing social network structure reveals the crux of the problem: we are tenants on someone else's service. extrapolating from that, we're the source of revenue for someone's business. under that model, there is no incentive whatsoever for a social network to apply a "fair" or "just" moderation scheme. their goal is to maximize the number of people using the service and minimize blowback from advertisers regarding "what goes on" on the site

there will not be an alternative social network that gets this right at scale, unless it meets the following criteria:

1. Has ample moderators to thoughtfully deal with user moderation cases

2. Has terms of service that you agree with

3. Has a moderation team that understands how to apply moderation according to the terms of service, and amends it when necessary

4. Does not rely on external income source to pay for the site

Number 1: An ideal social network is one that has numerous, well-treated moderators who are adept at resolving conflict. Under capitalism, this is a non-starter, as moderation is seen as a money sink that just needs to be barely enough to make the site usable.

Number 2: An ideal social network has terms of service you agree with. Unfortunately there's no set of rules everyone will find fair. While this is not a problem for the people who want to use the site, it will inevitably create an outgroup who are pushed away from the site. The obvious bad actors (nazis, terfs, etc) are pretty straightforward, but there are groups that do things you might find "unpleasant" even if you support their right to do it. Inevitably this turns into lines drawn in the sand about how visible should that content be.

Number 3: An ideal social network has moderators who have internalized the terms of service and consistently make decisions based on the TOS. If a situation comes up where there's no clear ruling in the TOS, but users need a moderation decision regarding it, the moderation team must choose how to act and then, potentially, amend the TOS if the case warrants it. Humans, though, are not robots, and no, AI is not the solution here jesus christ. There will always be variance in moderation decisions. And when it comes to amending the TOS, who's the decision maker? The sites' owners? The moderation team? Users as a whole?

Number 4: An ideal social network does not rely on an external income source to pay for the site. The site pays for itself, and its income flow covers the costs necessary with reserves for unexpected situations. Again, under capitalism this is a no-go, because a corporate social network's only goal is to maximize money. Infinite growth, not stasis. A private social network paid by members requires enough paying members to be sustainable, and costs will generally go up over time, not down. A social network that has some lump sum of cash just generating wealth is also unreliable because, first you need a large lump sum to begin with, and that mechanism is tied to the whims of the investment market. And, again, costs of the site will go up, not down.

As you've read through these you're probably reaching the conclusion: making a large-scale social network that is fair and sustainable is very, very difficult, if not impossible with our current culture and economic systems. There might be a scale where you can reach "almost fair" and "barely sustainable", but then you have to cap its growth.

So the "town square" social network is rife with problems and we need to abandon it's model as the ideal network. Should we go small instead? We have a model already for that with message boards and forums. Though they weren't without their problems, they didn't have the scale that exacerbated those problems to crisis levels. Most of the time.

If you're thinking maybe you need a small network like this, free from a corporate owner (like Discord), the tools are out there for you to accomplish it. However, before you try, keep the above points in mind. Even if you're not out to create a large-scale social network, an open network will run away from you. And all of those points above are guidelines for a good online community.

You and your network of 50 friends and friends of friends might all get along together, but every single person you add increases the risk of creating moderation problems. People also change, or simply have episodes of irrational behavior. You need a dedicated team of moderators who are acting coherently for and agreeably to the community.

And you absolutely must keep this in mind: inevitably, as you add more people, someone will do vile shit. CSAM and violence type shit. You have to be prepared to encounter it. You have to have a plan to see and handle that, and the moderators who are part of your moderation team must be prepared to see and handle it too.

There's been a steady trickle of new alternative social networks (or social media networks) popping up, but you cannot expect those to be perfect havens. Tumblr was once the haven for weirdos on the internet. Now it's hostile to its core members. This is not trying to rationalize staying here because "hey, it could be worse". This is just trying to warn you to temper your expectations, especially because new networks that suddenly get a huge influx of new members hit a critical point where many falter, change, or fail.

Examine who's running those networks closely. Think critically about what they're touting as the benefits of those networks. And if you decide to join them, do not, under any case, expect those new homes to be permanent.

[transmutationisms]

How do you feel/think about euthanasia as an option provided by medical care for mentally ill or disabled people?

As much as I want to support bodily autonomy in an absolute way and think ultimately it’s a persons choice whether they want to live (i also have first hand experience with the “care” after suicide attempts, which is punishment, not care) and comfortable effective options should be available for that. it also is deeply, deeply upsetting to me, as someone who probably would have chosen to die years ago but found out i want to live — and infuriating, since they make it so fucking hard for disabled people to live, i don’t think making it easier for us to die is the answer.

being disabled feels like a death march from the start. we are isolated, have very little community, were tortured, neglected until we want to die. then it’s like “ok if that’s what you really want :)” as if that wasn’t the plan from the start? it’s just eugenics. not even with extra steps. but they make it think it’s our idea.

how would you reconcile these 2 ideas in like, a grounded materialist kind of way ? if that makes sense. or whatever i am asking your opinion

i actually answered this before but now i can't find it. i agree with everything you've said about the potentially eugenic function of physician-assisted suicide under capitalism; however, i think the problem is the capitalist context and its attendant ableism, not the PAS itself. people will and do kill themselves regardless of the legality, and i believe it's important to offer them as painless and controlled a method as possible, while simultaneously toppling the capitalist ableism that makes this fraught from a disability justice perspective. since we are in the context we are in currently, for now i do also support laws forbidding PAS from being suggested to patients (ie, they must be the ones to bring it up and pursue it) and i think there are ways to build in some checkpoints to the system without excessively restricting people's ability to end their lives. but i do not support making suicide illegal, whether by physician or otherwise.

incidentally, this would also be an issue where you can see how the biopolitical remits to make live and to let die exist coterminously to one another: though the state is more than happy to let disabled people die on the grounds that it views them as economic liabilities, legalising suicide is still not exactly a slam-dunk from its perspective because in general its interest also lies in promoting the continued existence of its healthy [wealthy/white/abled] labouring population. this is the actual material reason why in most jurisdictions PAS is still strenuously objected to by openly ableist, otherwise eugenically motivated reactionaries, and why it's often proposed only for terminally ill patients or with other such extremely narrow eligibility criteria.

[dross-the-fish]

I keep seeing gifted kid discourse pop up on my dash and honestly being a gifted kid is not nearly the flex some of you guys think it is. Obviously I can't speak to everyone's experience but I can tell you pretty firmly that my was all but pointless. For relevance I was in the US. I was a gifted kid. I wasn't actually smart, by the time I hit middle school I was mostly just bullshitting my way through assignments because my dyslexia made it hard to do the work the normal way at the same pace as everyone else. I got called lazy a lot before I keyed in that the game was to score well on standardized tests and knowing the material was less important than giving the right answers. Half the time I would read summaries rather than the whole book and look at future questions on tests to answer earlier ones. When in doubt I picked answer "C" because that was the most common correct answer. Being multiple choice also helped a lot because some of the answers were super obvious even if you'd never read the material. I cannot stress enough that I wasn't smart, I was borderline cheating. A teacher decided at random out of all the kids her class 5 of us were smarter than average and we were picked to take a cognitive assessment. I scored high enough and immediately got placed in a gifted program. That was all it took, one teacher singling me out as "exceptional" and a passed simple cognitive test and I wouldn't be shocked if that teacher had biases because the school was something like 80% minority enrollment, 60% of the which was hispanic/latino and a lot of them were struggling just to learn English. Most of the student body were economically disadvantaged. I wouldn't be at all shocked if I got picked because I was white and more proficient with the English language than my peers. Seeing grown adults in their 30s and 40s cling to their gifted kid status is so weird because it's such a hollow brag. Even if you were from a good school I can't imagine that the process for getting picked was THAT different or the criteria that stringent.

[educationpostnews]

UPSC IES Exam Preparation

The Indian Economic Service (UPSC IES Exam) Recruitment 2024 has commenced with the release of the official notification. This highly anticipated recruitment drive by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) presents an excellent opportunity for aspiring economists and statisticians to secure prestigious positions within the government.

[she-is-ovarit]

I am really beginning to take the position that in order to fully understand women's oppression, women's liberationists need to learn in detail certain areas of psychology. How does trauma actually function and manifest on a psychological level? In what ways is it expressed? How do trauma responses work? What, really, is co-dependency? What diagnostic criteria is flawed versus fairly sound, and how is diagnostic criteria applied or misapplied to women? How do women heal?

I've come to find that the fawn-freeze trauma response as posited in a framework by Pete Walker in 2003—and probably the most understudied of the responses—seems to overwhelmingly apply to women and also seems to greatly share characteristics with certain behaviors that feminists often consider a result of female socialization.

Learning about co-dependency on a deeper level helped me to realize exactly how the psychological power dynamics manifest between men and women that are at the heart of female oppression and women's behavior—why and how women align with our oppressors to such a degree, why and how women do the legwork of activism for men, why and how women stay, why and how women put his needs before hers. It also opened my eyes to the ugly side of women's behavior in codependent relationships—because not setting boundaries is enabling, and enabling him will go on to harm any children in the home, other women in his life, and other men she herself may cross paths with.

The Body Keeps The Score, Why Does He Do That?, etc. are all great books. But Sci-Hub may also be used to access psychological scientific literature. Some of this material, such as Pete Walker's trauma framework, exists right on his website. To speak for a moment as a former biologist, you don't have to be a scientist or an academic to read or understand these papers to obtain a general understanding. It just takes looking up words you don't know. Learning these things on a deeper level enriches other conversations with women and forming analyses, especially when connected to other disciplines of knowledge (economics, law and policy, other human studies, etc.).

[mariacallous]

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump claims to have ideas for quickly settling the Russia-Ukraine. Whether or not that’s true—and there’s plenty of reason to think it’s not—it’s likely the Trump administration will soon halt its bankrolling of Ukraine’s war effort. On the campaign trail, Trump derided U.S. funding of Ukraine, which currently amounts to more than $60 billion—around half of Ukraine’s total military support from abroad—and has given every indication that he would discontinue it.

This would plunk the problem of support for Ukraine squarely in Europe’s lap. The continent is still not prepared for that reality. The fear of a Russian rout of Ukraine, however, could motivate Europe to try assuming responsibility for supporting Ukraine on its own—beginning with a recognition that ramping up its support is not beyond its ability.

The possibility of U.S. disengagement from Ukraine hasn’t caught Europe completely by surprise. Although Trump didn’t disclose specifics while on the campaign trail, he presented an outline of a plan to end the war: U.S.-led negotiations would stop Russia where it is on the battlefield, cede the territories that Russia occupies to it, and then lift international sanctions against Russia in exchange for the termination of military hostilities toward Ukraine. There would be no NATO or other Western security guarantee but rather, according to Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, a demilitarized zone along Ukraine’s new borders with defensive fortifications robust enough to prevent another Russian invasion. Most important to Trump seems to be jettisoning the U.S. financial commitment to Ukraine.

Europe’s own contribution to Ukraine’s cause so far should not be underestimated. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the European Union is the largest provider of aid to Ukraine, having allocated a total of $133 billion since Russia’s full-scale invasion. (In total, the US has shelled out nearly $91 billion in combined military, economic, and humanitarian assistance.) The EU states have come up with more than $45 billion in military aid for Ukraine’s defense, including large volumes of weaponry and munitions. The bloc’s offer of membership to Ukraine and money for reconstruction and recovery—all directed toward fulfilling membership criteria, as well as rebuilding—buttress the country’s resilience and fuel its democratic aspirations. And at home, member states are accommodating 4 million refugees and have dramatically cut their fossil energy imports from Russia.

The losses, however, should the United States really step back, would be egregious in terms of leadership, money, and weaponry. Europe’s leaders remain convinced that maintaining Ukraine’s independence and halting Russian aggression is vital to the entire continent’s security. But there’s also a recognition that Europe’s effort alone is likely not enough to hold Ukrainian lines on the battlefield, much less serve Russia a knockout blow.

Germany was never a convincing candidate for leadership on the military front, and now that Chancellor Olaf Scholz is heading up a minority coalition until new elections early next year, it will enjoy even less clout. In France, even though President Emmanuel Macron has aspired to leadership—and obviously understands what is at stake for Europe—he is politically weak and facing tough elections soon, too. And the United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer, is fresh in office and already engulfed in struggles.

Thus, the task could fall on the shoulders of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, if they accept it. Even though she doesn’t command a single battalion, von der Leyen has already shown what she can do as point person when the occasion demands it: When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in Europe in 2020, she organized the EU-wide response like a seasoned field marshal, and then immediately on its heels, the quick pivot of Europe’s energy imports away from Russia. Simultaneously, the EU wasted no time imposing sanctions on Russia. And though only by a hair’s breadth, the EU recently outbattled Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moldova, where it helped fend off an onslaught of Russian disinformation, thus helping to reelect a liberal-minded president who is committed to democracy.

If the United States really bows out of the Russia-Ukraine war, however, von der Leyen is going to have to assume an even greater burden—leading a truly global military effort. The EU has allies beyond the bloc in countries like the UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea—all of which are pitching in for Ukraine but require a point person to look toward and to coordinate their support. This war was internationalized long before Russia put 10,000 North Korean troops on the ground, and the maintenance of a global pro-Ukraine front is vital to success.

Von der Leyen’s first hurdle, though, will be rallying the entire EU to the cause, and two members—Hungary and Slovakia—are pushing Trump-like “solutions.” Moreover, Russian-friendly populists are surging just about everywhere in the bloc.

At the recent European Political Community summit in Budapest, von der Leyen and Europe’s other top officials seemed to grasp the urgency of the task at hand but stopped short of offering specific plans for a way forward. “It is in all our interests that the autocrats of this world get a very clear message that there is not the right of might, that the rule of law is important,” von der Leyen said.

One thing appears absolutely certain: Europe will have to dig much deeper into its pockets. This means domestic politicos have to make the case to their populations much more bluntly: This war is about Europe, and Ukraine’s defeat would throw into jeopardy much of what decades of integration has accomplished—and cost their countries dearly in many ways.

EU leaders have already begun shifting monies to defense-related priorities.  Nearly a third of the bloc’s common budget, over $400 billion for 2021 to 2027, is allotted to cohesion funding, namely for the reduction of economic inequality between members. But, according to the Financial Times, nearly 95 percent of this budget goes untapped. This spending cannot go toward traditional military hardware but it can buy “dual-use products,” such as drones, global positioning satellites, night vision technology, thermal imaging, and some lasers. Germany, for instance, which is a transportation nexus for western Europe’s shipping for military goods to Ukraine, could call on its more than $40 billion in cohesion funds to repair its badly aged roads, bridges and trains.

A first step will have to involve pushing the third of NATO members who don’t even bankroll the alliance with the stated goal of committing 2 percent of their output to military spending. But maintaining Ukraine’s war effort will demand far more than that.

A proposal by Estonia, made before the U.S. election, deserves serious consideration. It calls for all NATO members anteing up at least 0.25 percent of their GDP for Ukraine’s defense, as the Baltic states already do. That would net   for ensuring Ukraine can still purchase weapons to check Russia. The EU could also consider pursuing raising funds in this way on its own, outside of NATO.

Whether these armaments come from the production facilities of European or foreign arms-makers is beside the point. Europeans’ procurement of weaponry is already happening beyond Europe’s own defense industries. The Czech Republic, head of a multinational arms-buying initiative, tapped markets in a number of non-EU countries to supply Ukraine’s armed forces with 800,000 million artillery shells.

Denmark is trailblazing direct investment in the Ukrainian defense industry. The Danish contribution and frozen Russian assets managed by Denmark on behalf of the EU pay the Ukrainian defense industry $600 million to produce attack drones, artillery, anti-tank weapons, missiles, and naval missiles. Belgium is also working in this direction, with the idea being that every euro buys armaments (more cheaply than on the international market) and establishes a more sophisticated defense industry in Ukraine itself.

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) recommends the creation of a law similar to the U.S. Defense Production Act, which grants the U.S. president powers to bolster the nation’s defense by fast-tracking the production of materials and services. It would, according to ECFR, “provide European policymakers with the tools to use the collective power of EU institutions, member-state governments, and European development banks to respond faster and more effectively to crises.” This would allow Europe to more efficiently use any additional money it commits to Ukraine, accelerating production of defensive armaments such as artillery shells and air-defense missiles, as well as medical supplies. The key would be for Europeans to do all this as one unit—not 27 separate states.

One key item that Europeans will not provide is the advanced surveillance and reconnaissance technology that the United States excels in. “All precision weapons systems today depend on this technology and no industry does it like the [United States],” said Christian Mölling, deputy director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

Certainly, part of the European strategy must be to talk sense to Trump. A scenario to avoid at all costs would be the United States canceling sanctions or just ignoring them in return for nothing but Russian business. Europeans might point out to Trump that Russia’s two main allies are Iran and North Korea, countries that he disfavors. And perhaps, if the United States can’t be convinced with political arguments, they can find a way to interest Trump in the form of a bargain: The Europeans could agree to spend big specifically on U.S. weapons in exchange for Washington holding the Western line on Russia. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggested Europe’s NATO members offer Trump the carrot that they raise defense spending to 3 percent by the end of his tenure in 2028.

Whatever happens, even in best case, it is highly unlikely that Trump will lead an alliance against Russia the way the Biden administration did. This means that Europe’s hour has arrived: It can grab the initiative and set the agenda rather than allowing the Orbans, Putins, and Xis of the world to do it their way.