#poor economics

[brunhielda]

Personal pet peeve- use the end of the roll of toilet paper.

Yes- it is stuck to the roll, pick at it and pull it off.

Yes- it is ripped and scraggly. Tuck all those pieces inside a fold, or maybe inside two sheets from the next roll. They are still paper that will absorb liquid. They will still do their job.

And for goodness sakes! Don’t leave the end there and stack a new roll on top. That is the most cowardly way out. Either use it or don’t, but in any case remove and replace!

I know it’s a tiny piece of paper that will easily decompose but wasting even that straggly end eats at me.

I may have some issues from being poor my whole life. Eh.

[dreamyintersexouppy]

"man, every trans woman i meet has a shitty bed and small apartment and no money let's make fun of them for that, let's get self congratulatory assfaces in the reblogs saying they'll buy her a blanket, let's all point and laugh at the poor girl who is systemically discriminated against and therefore more likely to end up poor, unemployed, and homeless, isn't that so funny?????"

you guys talk about our poverty the way conservatives talk about iq

[econrenuka]

Mini Book Reviews

Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty (2011)

★★★★☆

By: Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo

This was actually a fantastic read. I thought it really hit the sweet spot between being a pop economics book and being quite academic. For each topic, I really liked how the authors clearly stated their opinion but also acknowledged the other side of the argument in each case. The studies cited were also clear, and if there were any weaknesses in the analysis, the authors always stated them while arguing that there are still good conclusions to be drawn. I could tell that Banerjee and Duflo are true researchers. I didn't have to agree with every one of their arguments, but I understood their points clearly and could reiterate their arguments. I thought the titles of many sections were eye-catching, and enjoyed the overall organization of the book as well. However, it didn't feel boring, and like a laundry list of development papers. Each section had a cohesive theme, which made it an exciting and fulfilling read. I can see why it's a must-read for any student interested in development economics.

2. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (2005)

★★☆☆☆

By: Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner

I know I'm the last person on earth to read this, but I just put it off. Reading it now, I was actually very surprised to realize it had not aged well. I think the chapter on the link between abortion and crime could be particularly interesting now, as Roe v. Wade has been overturned, but generally I found the arguments tenuous and not very academically grounded. It didn't feel like each chapter had multiple papers that could support the arguments. It felt like often, the authors were making some big leaps based solely on their own research with no sense of the literature as a whole. I also think it felt incredibly disorganized. The authors state in the beginning there is no unifying thread throughout, but I think that the randomness of the topics wasn't satisfying to read. They introduce a lot of their findings in the introduction and then repeat many parts later. They also jump between topics quickly. I found myself getting confused at times as to whether I had accidentally skipped parts of the book. Lastly, I thought all the snippets from the New York Times and other papers talking about how "ah-mazing" Levitt is as an economist and a thinker were a little awkward. It felt a bit self-indulgent although I know it was likely Dubner's take on Levitt as a person. I felt it was unnecessary and awkward.

I think it was a good book in 2005 to introduce readers to the breadth of economics. I know many probably still think of economics as solely focused on business and finance. I think this book probably did a great job of disabusing people of that notion. However, I think it potentially made it seem like economists just draw connections based on correlations when that is exactly what I think we strive not to do. This is obviously a personal opinion, and I think the book is great in terms of what it did do: getting people interested in broad questions.

Next up for mini-reviews!

Bottle of Lies: The Inside Story of the Generic Drug Boom by Katherine Eban

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein

[alwaysbewoke]

[yeoldenews]

A mother's word for word transcription of the imaginary phone call her four-year-old made to Santa Claus in 1911.

(source: The Harbor Beach Times, December 22, 1911.)

Through some outrageous case of serendipity I found a recording of another phone call this same child made 60 years later. Though I have to say his choice of conversational partner is a definite downgrade from the first call.

[tomurakii]

I kind of hate all the comparisons between kipperlily and like. Those fuckass "affirmative action fucks me over I wish I was [minority] so it would be easier" people because none of that. Is what she said. She said the bad kids already had more experience with adventuring before they got to augefort and it meant they had an advantage. Which is true. Yeah Riz was lower-class but his mum was a COP. Riz, Kristen and Fig had parents who were heroes (Sandra-Lynn is an active ranger, Kristen's parents are paladins, Sklonda is a rogue), Adaine's family was super rich and politically influential, Fabian had both. Gorgug's the only one who wasn't actively at an advantage [IN THE CONTEXT OF HAVING PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HEROISM] and she didn't have shit to say about him. Kipperlily was the first person in her family to try heroism, the bad kids are largely legacy admissions.

Additionally to the people comparing it to the "anti-affirmative action" crowd: do you know what affirmative action is. The bad kids didn't receive special consideration on their admissions to aguefort or scholarships or additional financial support or extended assessment times or anything. How could she be mad about affirmative action if none of these people received affirmative action. What they DID have was knowledge about their classes that started much earlier than high school, which is what Kipperlily said in her file that she thought grading should be adjusted for because she did not have that.

To me it's less like affirmative action and more like augefort is like an IQ test. They pretend that it's fair and objective, but you can be taught how to do those things from a younger age, and if your parents took the time to teach you pattern recognition and shit then you'll do better on an IQ test than someone who wasn't trained for it and everyone will act like that makes you innately smarter when it doesn't. It just means someone taught you how to do that earlier.

Barring Gorgug, every one of the bad kids had access to information about heroism and their class at a younger age than Kipperlily did, which primed them for success in their classes. Every one of them got additional information about mysteries from their families (and even direct battle-tactics training from Bill), Riz especially with getting classified info out of his mum. Kipperlily does not have hero relatives. She's the first in her family line to attend a hero school. She knew nothing about it before her first day, meanwhile Kristen was already the chosen of Helio, Adaine had already been attending the best wizard school in the country, Fabian had already spent his whole life training with his father, and Riz was already involved in solving mysteries using info and tactics he got from his parents.

They aren't necessarily "privileged" (except Fabian and Adaine), but Kipperlily didn't say they were, she said that in the specific context of attending a hero school they had a prior-knowledge advantage. Saying they didn't is like comparing the grades of a kid who's academic career started with preschool with a kid who didn't attend until middle school and acting like one of them wasn't better prepared.

[3liza]

I think it must be for the lack of going outside of your room on this website that debates about personal presentation and appearance literally never have any material analysis. sorry it's counterrevolutionary to shave my legs or wear makeup or a bra or style my hair in certain ways or "worry" about visible signs of aging but have some of you just never encountered real world situations where those things caused measurable problems dealing with other people, jobs, money, respectability, access to resources, or the ability to influence important situations? this starts happening when you go outside a lot. there's a debate on my dash rn about balding and finasteride in which not a single person has mentioned the potential negative social outcomes of losing your hair and how that can affect socioeconomic status and personal risk. maybe someone doesn't need to be "vain" to care about keeping their hair and consider the risks of medication for it. maybe they've seen how bald people get treated and referred to and made a cost benefit calculation that they can't afford, sometimes literally, to eat that cost, with everything else they've got going on. maybe I wear makeup when I have to go talk to doctors and other gatekeepers because people make assumptions about your class and mental status when you have "bad skin" and "eye bags". maybe a lot of women who wear uncomfortable restrictive bras and shave whatever and buy skin products and do gua sha have already been sharply punished when someone saw leg hair or a mustache or puffy greasy skin or god forbid their nipple through their shirt. not everyone can just say "fuck it, I can afford to eat one more social cost that will measurably impact my ability to get medical treatment or pay rent". sorry this sounds like an economics lecture, that's because it is

if you are about to tell me a long story about how you personally have not been affected by perceptions of your appearance actually so you can conclude it never happens at all, please don't. sometimes you get lucky, that's it. and on this website I think it's less likely that you're lucky and more likely that you're oblivious

[davidaugust]

[balkanradfem]

So, it's chestnut foraging season again! And I'm having some moral struggles about it. Let's discuss.

Few years back, while roaming the forest, I found an excellent chestnut foraging stuff; it was so good I found I could gather 10 kg of chestnuts a day if I appeared there at the brink of dawn. I gifted a lot of chestnuts to the plant lady, who was impressed, and asked me to show her where I found them. I took her to the spot, and she said 'we could sell these. I can put out an add'. And that sounded daunting, but I said okay!

At first she was doing the administrative part of work, finding customers and managing the communications, and I was collecting and delivering chestnuts, but then she grew tired of it, so I took over completely, made my own add and was able to sell them just fine.

Then, the market prices of all food, including chestnuts, rose high up, as in, doubled. The plant lady urged me to up the price of my chestnuts, because they were now dirt cheap in comparison to anything else on the market, and I thought about it, and decided, no. I hate rising in prices, this little chestnut thing is the only price I can control, and I can decide for it to stay the same. It was a bit insane business-wise, because I am impoverished, but I am not letting poverty control my moral standing! The price stayed the same.

The year after, prices rose again, and I still remained stubborn, and the plant lady was trying to convince me that I am not doing a good deed; chestnuts are a luxury item, they're not being bought by people in poverty who would benefit from cheap food, what I'm doing is only going to attract resellers and other people will capitalize on my work. To this I said, well, I'm refusing to sell any quantity over 10kg to a single person, so they won't be able to capitalize that much. And I knew people who I was taking the chestnuts to were just taking them home to their families, or even asked me to split them in multiple bags to give to their neighbours and cousins. So I kept the price low.

This year, I'm sickly, having financial issues that are worse than before, still having pain in my arm and can't walk for long, and I thought, ugh. Maybe I should up the prices a little and it would make my life slightly easier. It would still be the cheapest thing on the market but I'd be less stressed. But then I went into the forest, and I forgot all of my struggles. It felt so good to hunt around for the first fallen chestnuts. I climbed a hill. I discovered a new secret spot. I found a chicken-of-the-woods mushroom. I saw a salamander. Tiniest frog ever was letting me see her. And I got a message from someone who bought chestnuts from me last year, asking if I had them again. And I didn't have whatever it takes to tell this person I've upped the price. I was like 'yeah I can get the chestnuts to you. They still cost the same amount'.

So then I had to tell the plant lady my decision, and she is SO disappointed. Her vibe was like 'you are putting yourself in situation where only resellers will benefit from this!' and I'm laughing like, don't worry about it, I'm at peace with my decision. But now I feel bad because she thinks I'm dumb T_T.

And I don't know what the right decision is. I hate capitalism, I hate the idea that the price of something can change even though it's the same item, it hasn't changed, it isn't worth more, it doesn't cost me more to gather it, so just because the state of economy is worse, and the world is going to shit, now it's going to cost more? But it is also ridiculous that on the market, the price of the chestnuts is not only double, but 4 times of what I sell them for. It feels so silly! How are people selling them for such a high price? But from their standpoint, it is me who is silly, for giving them away so cheaply.

So I'm going to see what is your collective opinion! I'm curious.

oh and btw what I'm doing is 100% illegal, we're discussing the morality of me doing illegal black market shit. Other foragers are doing it illegally too so we're equals.

[amid-fandoms]

once again rewatching the soup video and im obsessed with phil, certified soup hater, enjoying a cup of sainsbury’s boujee ass soup and dan calling him out on that he truly is the people’s spoiled princess

[bitchesgetriches]

Share this post with someone who needs to hear it and read more at BitchesGetRiches.com!

[lastcatghost]

The most absurd propaganda shit I see is when some magazine or newspaper runs an article of money management advice from someone who's wealthy.

The ultra rich, especially those born into excess wealth always seem to be the people with the worst money management skills out there.

I want grocery shopping tips to save from a single parent with many dependents and yet don't qualify for stamps, let them tell me their tips for stretching the buck, not some mf who's never actually had to work and worry trying to tell those they exploit to just cut out all luxuries, and somehow being more miserable will magically save enough to buy a house

[eaglesnick]

“You know you’re priced right when your customers complain—but buy anyway.” — John Harrison

Dynamic pricing is not new but it has not been widespread up until recently.

We all know about train fares being more expensive during peak times and parents know that holidays cost more during school breaks than at any other time of the year. Airline tickets are subject to dynamic pricing and there was a trend towards off-peak electricity tariffs at one time. This summer we saw tickets for Oasis concerts subject to dynamic pricing, resulting in massive spikes in the cost of a ticket.

Dynamic pricing is when a company changes their pricing to match demand and supply. Hence train journeys are more expensive during the rush hour than in the middle of the day when demand is lower. Holidays are more expensive during school breaks because demand is higher from families with children.

Few of us like this traditional method of dynamic pricing but we have accepted it as part of our way of life. The old fashioned dynamic pricing model was fairly unsophisticated and based on the time of day in the case of rail and airline tickets and specific weeks and months of the year in the case of holidays.

This is no longer the case. Artificial Intelligence allows companies to literally change prices in line with changes in demand every second if they so want. Some of the companies using AI to set prices are Amazon, Uber, Airbnb, Tesco, Ocado and Sky. Amazon is said to reset prices every ten minutes.

The days of “fixed pricing" are fast disappearing. Long gone are the days when a company added up all of its production costs to work out the cost per unit and then added a little bit more in order to make a profit. This was basically what is known as the objective or labour theory of value. This has been supplanted by the "subjective theory of value" (STV).

According to the subjective theory of value a products worth (price) is not determined by how much it costs to produce but by how much people are willing to pay for that good at any given moment. At its worst this means that ALL goods and services should be sold for maximum monetary return regardless of the cost of production. No wonder supporters of neo-liberal economics favour STV.

At one level this doesn’t really matter. Oasis concert tickets may have doubled in original price due to dynamic pricing but not being able to afford a concert ticket is not a matter of life or death. It is however, symptomatic of a growing social problem.

The assumption of neo-liberal economists and their support of STV pricing is that individual choice is paramount in all economic transactions. For the neo-liberal societal values do not exist, there is only individual choice. Mrs Thatcher, the woman who championed neo-liberal economics in the UK, famously said: “There’s no such thing as society”. Many Tory's still believe this to be true but they are demonstratively mistaken.

During Covid we all stood at our doors every Thursday night clapping and banging pots to applaud the bravery of our dedicated health professionals. Yes, we did this as individuals but also as a society. When the England football team were progressing through the stages of the European cup we watched each game as individuals but also as a nation. The same is true of the recent Olympic and Paralympic games.

Ironically, some of our most ardent neo-liberal Tory MP’s have been recently admonishing us for not being proud of our English identity. Robert Jenrick, a contender for the leadership of the Conservative Party said yesterday that English identity had “started to fray” due to mass immigration and public institutions “dismissing our history”.

Sorry, the neo-liberals cannot have it both ways. Either there is an entity called English society, with its own history and set of values, or we are just individuals all acting according to our own individual needs. The fact that latter view is obviously mistaken does not deter the advocates of dynamic pricing. For them the goal is maximisation of profit regardless of social cost.

A thousand reasons why dynamic pricing is good for the consumer will be rolled out as more and more companies adopt this system of pricing, but the bottom line will always be making more profit. And in a system where pricing is determined by what price the individual is willing to pay rather than the actual cost of production, in the end it is only the rich who benefit.

South West Water has recently introduced the cruder form of dynamic pricing to their customers. They will be charging more for water use in summer than in winter. Consumers were given no choice about this and they have yet to be told what the charges will be. This “trial" will last for 2 years.

This is the spin:

“These pioneering trials are designed to make sure that water bills are fairer and more reflective of individual consumption patterns and are part of our wider commitment to making customer-first decisions in everything we do.” (CornwallLive:19/09/24)

Note the emphasis on “individual consumption". To my mind water is a public good, a societal necessity. As such I want to see pricing evened out over the whole community. Under dynamic pricing  the rich can consume as much water as they like because they can afford to pay, while the poorer members of society will have to suddenly become use conscious. While the rich fill their swimming pools and have the lawn sprinklers on day and night, the poor will have to think twice about how often the toilet is flushed, how often the washing machine is used and can they afford to shower everyday. The poor pensioner will be calculating whether or not they have enough money to water their beloved garden.

Ok, my pensioner being unable to afford to water the garden is a hypothetical scenario. The cost of music venue tickets isn’t, neither are the prices you pay for an Uber, a holiday let from Airbnb, the food you buy from Tesco or Ocado. Even the price of a pint is now affected by dynamic pricing.

“A campaign group representing pubgoers has criticised the move by Stonegate, Britain’s largest pub company, to raise the price of pints during its busiest trading hours in some of its venues by 20p..."  Financial Times: 12/09/24)

If the price of a British pint of beer is now subject to dynamic pricing then nothing is sacred!

More seriously, when the market economy becomes the market society, when those in power promote the value of maximising profit for the few at the expense of the happiness and well being of the many, then, as a society, we lose all sense of humanity, morality and common decency.

There has been much theoretical discussion of late about the threat of Artificial Intelligence to humanity. I would argue that maybe we should be more concerned about those  humans using AI to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us.

[thedupshadove]

A question for those among my followers who were alive and passably politically-aware in the 1980s; was there at all a sense that Reagan might try to stop the 1984 or 1988 elections from taking place?

[crimeronan]

Had a very random string of thoughts about the princess AU Luz that ended with "Huh, she also didn't go to summer camp but unlike in canon she probably learned a lot about taxes and mortgages"

YELP OF LAUGHTER. oh god. do you think there are mortgage companies on the boiling isles. that thought is Harrowing.

the real reason luz can't kill odalia has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with how the private banking mortgage subsidiary of blight industries owns nearly all the property from, like, the hips to the toes....

[woodsfae]