yall I just wanna say, if you haven’t studied very far into economics, you shouldn’t really lmao be saying much about it like as a field … because everything they teach you in the beginning of economics is … mostly if not completely discounted later on. 

They teach you basic algebra pretty much in the first steps of economics … and from there you can build on it. But like …. everything you learn in the first parts of economics, even into like junior year economics in undergrad is still fucking decimated once you learn more advanced mathematics. 

And some universities like literally don’t even require enough math in your undergrad econ degree for you to do masters in econ at other schools, like if you wanna talk economics, you aren’t going to get very far without at least knowing multi-variable calc, linear algebra, and differential equations, which are like ~sophomore~ ish level math classes for a math major usually. 

But like all the professors I had for econ were math majors in undergrad because you literally can’t do most economics without a pretty decent understanding of mathematics. I’ve even seen straight up topology used in econ works. 

just whipping out things like “lol heres supply meeting demand” no one fucking uses that, it’s not realistic, it’s not even like … appropriate math you’d use for econ lmao, it’s just bad. 

And there are so many different fields of economics that you can’t and shouldn’t make blanket statements about it except fuck george mason’s econ department, it’s total shit. you can make that blanket statement lmao. but that’s about it. 

I honestly, to my core, don’t know why they teach some of this shit in the first place. I guess for ~pure theory~ but honestly it’s a goddamn tragedy getting all these edgelords out of their 200 level econ classes thinking they know how the world works.

Reproductive freedom is not a “social” or “cultural” issue—it is critical to women’s economic security and social equality. As the Supreme Court noted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

anonymous asked:

How come dairy milk is usually cheaper than plant milks given how expensive nimal agricultura is? Is it because of supply and demand? Thank you for your dedication btw

It’s due to artificial pricing and government subsidies. The government heavily subsidizes animal agriculture, to the extent where around half of your average American farmer’s income comes from taxes, and this is the case throughout most of the world, too. This has created all sorts of problems, recently the government had to buy up vast quantities of dairy as producers were continuing to produce high quantities despite a drop in demand, meaning massive resources were wasted for a product that no one even wanted to buy.

All of this means that the milk market is not competitive, so while plant milks cost significantly less to produce in terms of time, resource, water and land use, they are still not usually able to compete with dairy milks because their prices are kept artificially low by subsidies. If the full cost of meat and dairy were included in the price, it would cost almost triple.

How much land would the faith own?

It’s hard to say, because the historical context by which the Faith of the Seven came to Westeros is entirely different than the context by which the Catholic Church became hegemonic across Western Europe. A very quick example: there’s no Westerosi equivalent of the Donation of Pepin and thus no equivalent of the Papal States.

Notably the Faith seems to have relatively little political authority even where it has physical structures - the Hightowers rule the land on which the Starry Sept is located, and the Kings of Westeros rule the land on which the Great Sept of Baelor stands, but we can see this even on a more modest level. Despite the fact that Stoney Sept’s economy is probably based around it being a religious center, the septons don’t rule the town - rather, there’s a knight of Stoney Sept. This suggests that the Faith’s landholding hasn’t extended to lordship, which is an important point.

On the other hand, if we look at the septries we encounter in the series, they do have property, both real estate and otherwise: the Quiet Isle has “terraced fields, with fishponds down below and a windmill above…sheep grazing on the hillside,” and has orchards and vineyards besides; the sept where the Brotherhood Without Banners corners Septon Utt was quite large: “Before the war we were four-and-forty, and this was a prosperous place. We had a dozen milk cows and a bull, a hundred beehives, a vineyard and an apple arbor.” And given this is a feudal society, there has to be some sort of formalized relationship that underpins it - but whether that tenure is freehold or something else, we don’t know.

Finally, there is a cryptic comment in WOIAF that “many lords complained of
unscrupulous septries and septons making free with the wealth and property of their neighbors and those they preached to,”
prior to the Reconciliation of Jaehaerys. So it may well be that the Revolt of the Faithful and the Reconciliation severely curbed the position of the Faith compared to the medieval Catholic Church. 

gingerthesnap  asked:

My econ teacher started our first day by ranting about how inaccurate the neoclassical was, and everytime he tells us something from the model he always disputes it.

lmao fuckin me if i was forced to teach that shit. jesus christ. like… i literally i cannot understand why they teach it. i literally can’t understand it.

Aside from the issue of making the lives of sick and disabled people a misery, I think we’ve just discovered the perfect example of how much the Conservatives can be “trusted” with the economy!!! Austerity is about nothing more than channeling as much money as possible into the private sector while ruining the lives of the disabled, the unemployed and the underpaid: which is MOST of us. 

anonymous asked:

isnt economic theory bogus anyway since it starts with the assumption that all people are rational actors

theres different types of economic theory, not all assume this. You can do economics and account for peoples unpredictability to an extent. Like yeah if you first start out in econ thats all they’ll teach you, but once you actually learn how to do economics and more advanced mathematics you can do a lot more with it.

anonymous asked:

Question about your views on discussing economics: Do you think it's okay for people not studying economics academically to discuss and promote ideas through independent research and speak from an authoritative position? For example, I like to read about and discuss socialist style welfare programs and Keynesian employment programs and their effects of GDP, wages, and standard of living but I study political science. Is that kind of cross over a no go in your mind?

You can do whatever you want, some theory doesn’t need the math. citing other people and shit who already did the work is probs fine. but like if someone was to come at you for it, which is unlikely, you’d have a hard time backing up a lot of what you’re saying without the math. 

social sciences really need a stronger math background tbh … imo but like the way our academic system is structured that just ends up excluding a bunch of people from being able to have a voice on issues they face. BUT IN A PERFECT WORLD a lot more math would be included.

But like, no one’s going to take you seriously anyway, so it doesn’t matter what you do. Like until you’re already a respected academic no one cares what you’re saying usually. and even then if what you’re saying is too far from the norm they’re still not going to give a shit. So go wild. 

Which is shitty because you miss out on hearing from a lot of the people who actually face issues being discussed, for instance my sociology department was like 80% rich white men? lmao… who taught classes on like … race, gender, class ……………………… you can see the problem lmao. 

What I meant about the economics thing though is just edgelords pretending to use math to discredit people when they’re discussing ideology, when they don’t know what they’re doing and the math they’re doing is fucking preschool compared to real economics.

25/2/17 • 15:24

it’s the end of another hectic week at school!! bless my soul it’s only the second week of JC and i already feel so drained 😢 sos pls send help 😂 press on everyone 💪🏼💪🏼 sorry for being inactive too hehe life’s tough i have training 4 days a week 😭😭😭
Why Hollywood’s writers are on the verge of a strike — and what it could mean for the industry
By Alissa Wilkinson

In a nutshell:

– Writers get paid by the episode and most TV shows have gone from 22 episodes a year to 10.

– Production companies/studios want writers to work exclusively on one series for the duration of the series, meaning a writer on hiatus from 10-episode Series A isn’t allowed to write for 10-episode Series B.

– Writers could once count on residuals from syndicated broadcast re-runs of episodes they wrote to supplement their income, but ratings for syndicated broadcast shows are down. Meanwhile, residuals from streamed views of episodes are substantially smaller than those from broadcast TV.

– The WGA’s health plan is running a huge deficit and is about to implode. Since the Big Six studios (Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, and Warner Bros. Pictures) have seen record profits over the last 10 years, the WGA wants them (and the other 344 production companies and studios that make up the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) to pay more into the plan.

The strike is slated to start May 2nd if an agreement can’t be reached. It will not only delay the Fall 2017 TV season but affect Saturday Night Live and all late night TV shows immediately, as well as sideline production crews.