ayngg

The cards I played with decades ago when I was a kid in school have appreciated in value many multiples of times over.

The thought of just going slightly off the path and basically being covered by them made me shudder.

If the problem is that people don't know how to talk to each other anymore, and that isn't solved by creating more insular communities.

Yeah just go build your own platform they will say as if it had not been attempted numerous times only to be censored off every hosting/ payment/ app platforms they could use or hacked to have all the personal information of their users doxxed because they had "bad opinions." Even the ones that actually exist just become hiveminds of their own because they become populated by people who have been censored everywhere else, as if having every community devolve into hive minded safe spaces is actually desirable.

Focusing on full employment meant wage growth was persistent since it was always in high demand, which worked because it was paid for by the gains in innovation from those workers, and the rest of the world was catching up and created demand creating a cycle. The cycle eventually became unsustainable because at some point innovation gains could not keep up with inflation and the world became more competitive as everyone caught up. Labor had a lot of power in this regime but if it was not worth it for capital to invest since there was no return, they would stop investing because the scales of power tipped too far in the favor of labor, which led to unemployment and stagflation.

The response to this was to shift monetary policy towards taming inflation and creating price stability. The pendulum swung hard in the other direction against labor. Interest rates were jacked up and the financial system was liberalized to entice lending, women are entering the workforce and immigration is taking off and capital (and labor) was going international to where it got the greatest return. Inflation was crushed, the power of domestic labor was gutted but interest rates were still high, which led to the financialization of the economy because lending became so incredibly profitable. Everyone wanted money because they were previously credit starved, and everyone wanted to lend money because it was so profitable. Since price stability and taming inflation were the goals of policy and liberalized credit gave the gains that traditionally went to the working class to the developing world, wage stagnation was inevitable, which put a hard limit on growth unless growth was to be increasingly fueled by more debt. Inequality shifted dramatically because gains on capital were very high and gains in labor were very limited, and limited to those who interacted with the financialization of the economy (finance that ran the system, technology that innovated the system and the other industries that worked in tandem like big law).

This led to 2008 when everything was so levered that things started to fall apart, but instead of letting it fall apart, governments wanted to keep the sinking ship alive, and so central banks stepped in to provide the liquidity to keep things afloat. Keeping things afloat exacerbated the problems that the system perpetuated, only now it is being pushed to the extreme because the only way forward is even more debt which creates even more inequality which is where we are now where we have crushed interest rates to keep the party going and can barely raise them without blowing up the economy, and the rise of working class populist movements across the developed world.

This is basically a summary of a lecture given by Mark Blyth on the subject which can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJoe_daP0DE

For those that benefit from AA to get into elite institutions, this can paradoxically end up being harmful as they are often thrown into the deep end where they have to compete with peers that are the brightest in the world since they have had to go through all of the supplementary development necessary to compete with the best of the best to get accepted [2].

[1] https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/city-student... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-pai...

At the end of the day, Russia isn't this big bad world power that is capable of starting a war on a global scale, they are a declining power that also happens to have a lot of nukes. So realistically the most they can do is limited to what they are doing now, which won't start a world war and will most likely conclude in a way that causes no change to the lives of most people outside of the affected region. On the extremely small chance that they do go nuclear, worrying about it is pointless since it will change society so dramatically that there simply would be no way to prepare for it. Its like how you don't worry about getting hit by a car and becoming a paraplegic in your day to day life.

This isn't a justification for actions, it is about understanding the situation through the chaos.

Makes me wonder why the west thought the third time would be the charm in this case. A big difference may be domestic politics in the west, things are pretty tenuous both socially and economically, which could benefit from this grandstanding far from home.

I suspect Canadians aren't concerned because for the most part Canadians have lived a very comfortable existence for a very long time due to the nature of our geopolitical privileges. I think the hyperbole tossed around regarding the convoy and blockade illustrate this.

People are so preoccupied with the audacity of x doing y that dominates the news cycle, but nobody seems to actually care why x is doing y. They just slap some shallow explanation like they are white supremacists, or they are mad George Floyd was killed because of police brutality and consider that level of understanding to be satisfactory while simultaneously being concerned about how increasingly divided, populist and radicalized western society is becoming.

Academy art was very expensive because it took a long time to make (so artists only made a hand full of work), and there were fewer artists at that level because it took so much training to get to the level of a Bouguereau or Sargent. Up until this point the people buying this kind of art were wealthy or powerful enough to afford it.

At the turn of the century, there was an increased demand of art from the new burgeoning middle class, however there simply was not enough supply, and it was all expensive academy art. Because of this, art dealers were incentivized to promote impressionists because they were already academy rejects so they were outsiders with chips on their shoulders, and the work they did was by design easier and quicker to make, so they were able to produce way more art that dealers could sell to the middle class who were less discerning than the traditional art world.

The new mass market ended up being far more profitable for dealers, the demographic so much larger, that it really just drove what kind of art was created and marketed afterwards. Bouguereau died at 80 and made less than a thousand works over his lifetime, Picasso made tens of thousands. Picasso's true genius is in his ability to produce and market his works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G8UfISpb0I

Did a google search and also searches on ethereum and ethdev subreddits listed as part of the community, the stack exchange and research board from the link above. There were a couple legitimate discussions about it, none of which really came across as described by the OP.

I did do a search on twitter and also greater reddit, but those posts were in the same vein as wallstreetbets memestock investor posts which I assume people aren't using to base their opinion on this subject.

Unless you are talking about cryptobros on twitter or something, but I don't think anyone considers what they say important.

It is sort of like if Valve actually made Half Life 3 now, most gamers don't even know what Half Life is, let alone why Half Life 3 would be such a big deal outside of being a meme.

Climate change policy will always incur asymmetrical costs, and the people who it effects wouldn't willingly enact them, and others would rarely share that burden in a meaningful way. Outside of innovation, any other policy will most likely incur economic cost which politicians are hesitant to do, especially now with how stretched lower classes are.

I think the only way out is to make non hydrocarbon based energy production cheaper and as dependable as hydrocarbons.

I just think in America it is too car centric and not dense enough to line the incentives up for it to happen here. Land is cheap enough that malls will just build outwards and create giant moats of parking lots around them to kill walkability, and public transit ridership is too low because everyone is driving cars so service can never reach the standards in Asia. Its a shame because feels so much worse than what has been achieved in Hong Kong.