#Real versus nominal value

[courseyoulovemeyoudontknowme]

Fantasia (1940, Sam Armstrong, James Algar, Bill Roberts, Paul Satterfield, Ben Sharpsteen, David Hand, Hamilton Luske, Jim Hadley, Ford Beebe, T. Hee, Norman Ferguson and Wilfred Jackson)

23/03/2025

[tavtime]

One of the things I've been thinking a lot about (as I very, very slowly write my longfic about it) is this theme in BG3 of conflict between gods or godlike authorities versus ordinary people. I think the things it has to say about how "the Great and the Good" treat people they consider their inferiors, and where real power is actually located in that dynamic, are very interesting.

Like. Ok. Literally every full companion's personal arc is concerned with that companion being used as a pawn by an actor with greater scope of influence than themselves: Karlach is on the run from Zariel; Lae'zel finds herself in direct conflict with her people's god-queen; Shadowheart's entire relationship with Shar is dependent on her compliance to being bent to Shar's purposes at the expense of all other connections; Mystra tells Gale to blow himself up to earn her forgiveness and derail a competing power. Even Astarion and Wyll, who aren't beholden to gods per se, are struggling against being manipulated by those who hold sway far beyond the scope of their own (Cazador is not just powerful as a vampire but implied to be socially powerful as well, and Wyll's conflict is not just with Mizora but also his father in his capacity more broadly representing the needs of Baldur's Gate).

And the interesting thing with each of these, what gets brought up time and again, is that these gods and betters aren't actually the ones exercising power over the situation. They're trying, via manipulation of those in service to them, but they aren't actually exerting influence directly in most cases. The implication is of indifference, impotence, or being themselves beholden to a greater power (Gale does make an offhand comment re: how willing Ao would be to overlook Mystra's interference in mortal affairs). The people who actually end up exercising power in this situation are the little people, the ones nominally being used.

Which, Thing One, I think this is a very intentional storytelling choice that yields fantastic contrast to the interactions between the controlled party and the antagonists. The Dead Three are a threat in large part because they were willing to get their handa dirty and operate on the material plane. The first real boss the player faces, Ketheric, is not just chosen of Myrkul directly wielding some of his power, but transforms physically into his avatar. Orin and, to a lesser extent, Gortash as well, can be analyzed along similar lines.

But Thing Two, which I think is really the thing I want to spend the most time turning over, is that the story takes a pretty clear position on moral and personal value in this situation. Basically, in the conflict between the ordinary people of the world and its gods and paragons, the narrative comes down very firmly on the side of the people who are considered pawns or disposable. The protagonists are the ones winning this fight, not their gods, and every time a character gets the opportunity to rise above their "station" to be on equal footing with those powers it's framed negatively. Durge embracing Bhaal, Astarion completing the Ascension, Shadowheart becoming a Dark Justiciar, Gale reforging the crown, Karlach becoming a mind flayer, any Tav or Durge choosing to dominate the brain - all of these involve the character gaining a large amount of power, and all of them are framed by the narrative as "bad endings" (though whether you as the player personally feel differently about them is left up to you, of course). The sole exception to this might be Wyll, who has the opportunity to step into his father's shoes, but even then, there is some aspect of power only being framed as "good" when it is used in service of the people.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that there is an allegory here about class conflict and the power inherent to ordinary people which I think is worthwhile to examine, and is a crucial part of any thorough analysis of BG3's themes.

[paintedscales]

What makes your OC feel most welcome when visiting somewhere for the first time? Do they have specific cultural beliefs about how guests should be treated? Have they ever travelled somewhere with different social practices? How did they respond to this?

Hihi, and thank you so much for the ask! • w • ) /♥

Autumn Symbolism OC Questions

Honestly, letting Nomin just kind of explore and observe for herself is a great way for her to feel welcome while with other people. She doesn't necessarily like being held by the hand at first. She likes exploration, she likes watching things, and she generally keeps her hands to herself unless she's at a market (and even then, she's actually very gentle with goods and wares, knowing the value of things that are there to be traded and sold).

Since she never really ingrained herself too deeply in any one tribe's daily culture versus their defining cultures, she has no real preference on how she should be treated as a guest. She does appreciate the hospitality by anyone that offers it, though (Mother Miounne, Haurchefant, Lord Edmont, Crystal Exarch, Chai-Nuzz & Dulia-Chai...as examples).

I think the one thing from the Steppe that Nomin really takes into account when visiting others is that she's always interested in what drink they are to offer her to welcome her to their home / shelter / sanctuary / etc. It's considered rude to not at least take a sip of drink offered to her, and this has led to finding more drinks to appreciate (especially the myriad of teas she has been introduced to since leaving the Steppe!).

As for places with different social practices, the first place that comes to mind is Ishgard. I mean, technically, it's any place outside of the Steppe. But Ishgard is definitely one of those places where it was actually very hard to learn the social etiquette and compose herself to speak freely with anyone outside of Haurchefant and Lord Edmont. Things are very hard when many people look at you as not even just an outsider, but a monster because of what the Ishgardians believe about Dravanians and heretics that would align themselves with such.

The response to weathering Ishgard emotionally, mentally, and physically was to not engage with the populace as much as possible for a long time. If Nomin needed to do shopping or get things from the Jeweled Crozier, she had Tataru or Alphinaud do that for her in her stead. While she stayed at the Fortemps Manor, and as Emmanellain and Artoirel warmed to her through her actions and deeds, she learned more about Ishgardian culture and high house etiquette that allowed her to compose herself respectfully -- at least among the high houses -- that could show that she is not some 'monstrous heretic' as people believe she is because of her Dravanian-like features.

[anthonybialy]

A Republican Bad Buy

Republicans bust stereotypes by not caring about economics.  It’s nice to feel surprised.  A party once dedicated to freeing markets now makes regrettable choices within them.  The squanderer faction can only blame themselves, which at least shows a roundabout commitment to personal responsibility.

Repeating a ghastly purchase is not the only way Donald Trump’s sycophants are liberals.  But condemning markets because they make such terrible choices offers a red flag of the same type that they ignore.

An atrocious economic decision may as well have been made by Democrats.  The enemy of trade’s political manufacturing concern got the opposing product they wanted.  Republicans can’t claim to serve as an alternative as long as they can’t be trusted to measure prices.

A longtime member of their alleged rival who promises to retain every bit of country-crushing spending has pre-empted the case of differentiation.  The regrettable nominee is afraid to confront unfathomable debt like a truly fearless financial expert.  They’ve refused to avoid nominating a lecherous scumbag for a couple elections.

Weighing costs versus benefits is as obsolete an occurrence as full shelves.  It would help if they had someone who had ever done that once.  Trump thinks he embodies financial success when he’s nothing but a living ad pitch.  Republicans completed the shift from commerce to commercials.

The easiest election possible will end with the toughest result.  The only way to blow it would be to nominate the sole individual capable of being miserable enough to make Kamala Harris inspire hope by comparison.  So, Republicans did just that.  Competitors shouldn’t pursue parity.

Everyone already knows how his term would go on account of enduring just that.  Republicans can’t claim they’re dedicated to market efficiency as long as they stick with a financial satire.  Spot the difference by how they endorse unfathomable debt while standing in front of an American flag.  And you thought there wasn’t a real choice.

Doling out entitlements makes both parties poor, which is why a business and presidential genius aspires to keep doing so indefinitely.  Enough Republicans merely wanted their own bully.  The whole bit of constitutional fidelity that leads to prosperity went out with Mitt Romney.  Government running every aspect of a formerly free nation is treated as a matter of style, which makes nominating someone without any that much more appalling.

The greatest winner already lost once.  Trump hates hearing that, so make sure to mention it again.  It seems like a rather obvious thing to announce.  But so is noting that Trump isn’t a conservative any more than he is a business king.

Winning the most electoral votes is irrelevant.  Does that alleviate woe?  Both candidates will still suck it hard, so whoever stumbles into a slight majority will exacerbate whatever misery has become commonplace.  

Flaunting no principle other than winning is the only thing rich about the nomination.  A misunderstanding of every last thing comes naturally from an oaf playing a character.  Trump represents pursuing power without authority, loyalty without values, anger without righteousness, confrontation without cause, mouthiness without muscle, and preening without integrity.  He’s authentic otherwise.

Praising any dictator who flatters him reflects a principle of sorts.  As a companion, the resentment list surely displays grace.  Damning anyone who refuses to comply offers a break from drawing hearts around the names of lickspittles.

Backing everything they claim to hate is the perfect way for Trump to despise his flunkies.  Their disrespectful messiah embodies why they’re irritable in the first place.  Telling submissive worshipers what they want to hear is as worthless a consolation prize as any of his other daft promises.  Trump is officially an insider.  The only reason he wasn’t before was due to personal ineptness.

It’d be hard to conclude that business was swell if your primary example is a perennial presidential candidate who keeps announcing he’s the richest without producing two dimes to rub together.  Trump embodies the precise opposite of what dealing is actually like.  As how corporations aligning with government is the opposite of capitalism, he has as little to do with profiting as purple-haired baristas.

Suckers crave grifts.  Victimhood is their secret turn-on whether they realize it or not.  The only thing that matter to rubes is labels, which like their boss is the opposite of results.  Trump embodies the worst sort of choice as candidate just like he does the worst of entrepreneurship.  It’s hard to find someone so consistent.

An aspiring second-time executive is setting up another divorce.  Treating the presidency like marriages disrespects both.  Creating things customers want is as elusive as respecting vows.  Putting his name on generic bottled water and subpar steaks is the process of duping enough marks into thinking anything carrying the Trump name epitomizes class.  Record another unimpressive conquest.

One can’t be prosperous just by a ridiculous notion like fulfilling needs of others.  How would you know who won?  Create an election that confirms it.  Study impending dreadful results to finally learn how to avoid them.  Seeking better options is is a goal that’s as obvious as it elusive.

There’s quite a toxic mess to clean up in 2024, so let it keep bubbling.  Ever-astute voters are either giving the least deserving incumbent his sole chance of napping on the same desk for twice as long or providing the least deserving erstwhile incumbent with a chance to pout instead of doing anything useful.  The choice is vast.

Fearing change is the ultimate Boomer move, or lack thereof.  Comfort of routine means putting on The Office yet again instead of experiencing a new story with unheard jokes.  Another Trump nomination is like watching the Will Ferrell episodes.

Schemers should at least have something worthwhile planned to achieve with deviousness.  The atrocious calculation from calculating people is an emblematically terrible economic choice in honor of the debt enthusiast who couldn’t turn owning slot machines into a thriving enterprise.  Both parties are officially separated from true exchange.  As usual, the lesson is unwitting.

[walialawfirm]

Fremont Divorce Lawyers: Navigating Your Divorce with Professional Support

Divorce is often a complex and emotionally draining experience, and having the right legal representation can make all the difference. In Fremont, California, the legal landscape surrounding divorce can be challenging to navigate alone. This is where experienced Fremont divorce lawyers step in, providing essential guidance and advocacy during one of the most critical transitions in life. Whether you are dealing with issues related to property division, child custody, or spousal support, a skilled divorce lawyer can help you protect your rights and interests.

In this blog post, we will explore the key aspects of hiring a divorce lawyer in Fremont, the common legal challenges in California divorces, and why securing the right attorney is crucial to achieving a favorable outcome.

Why You Need a Fremont Divorce Lawyer

Navigating California’s divorce laws without the guidance of a lawyer can be overwhelming, especially with the emotional toll a divorce takes on both parties. Here are several reasons why hiring a Fremont divorce attorney is a smart decision:

1. Understanding California Divorce Laws

California is a no-fault divorce state, meaning that neither spouse needs to prove wrongdoing to get a divorce. However, this doesn’t mean that the legal process is straightforward. California’s laws around community property, spousal support, and child custody can be difficult to interpret. A knowledgeable divorce lawyer in Fremont will have a deep understanding of local and state laws and will be able to explain how these laws affect your unique situation.

2. Navigating Complex Legal Procedures

Filing for divorce involves a significant amount of paperwork and strict deadlines. From filing a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage to serving divorce papers and negotiating settlement agreements, each step of the process requires careful attention to detail. Mistakes or missed deadlines can lead to delays or unfavorable rulings. A Fremont divorce attorney can ensure that all legal documents are properly prepared and submitted on time.

3. Protecting Your Financial Future

California is a community property state, which means that all assets and debts acquired during the marriage are typically divided equally between spouses. However, determining what constitutes community property versus separate property can be complicated, especially when dealing with high-value assets like businesses, retirement accounts, or real estate. An experienced Fremont divorce lawyer will work to ensure that your assets are fairly divided and that your financial future is protected.

4. Advocating for Child Custody and Support

One of the most contentious issues in any divorce is child custody. California law prioritizes the best interests of the child when making custody decisions, but this standard can be interpreted in different ways. A Fremont divorce lawyer can help you negotiate a custody arrangement that allows you to remain an active part of your child’s life while protecting your parental rights.

Additionally, your attorney will help you calculate child support according to California’s guidelines, ensuring that your child’s financial needs are met without placing an undue burden on either parent.

What to Expect When Hiring a Fremont Divorce Lawyer

Hiring a divorce lawyer is a critical step in protecting your rights and interests during the divorce process. Here’s what you can expect when you work with a Fremont divorce attorney:

1. Initial Consultation

Most divorce lawyers in Fremont offer an initial consultation, either for free or for a nominal fee. During this consultation, you will have the opportunity to discuss your case and ask questions about the divorce process. The lawyer will assess the specifics of your situation, including the length of your marriage, financial assets, debts, and child custody concerns, to provide preliminary advice on how to move forward.

2. Filing for Divorce

Once you decide to move forward with the divorce, your attorney will help you file the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage with the Alameda County court. This document outlines the basic details of your marriage and the grounds for divorce, which in California, typically involve irreconcilable differences.

3. Service of Process

After filing the petition, the next step is to serve your spouse with divorce papers. This must be done by someone other than yourself and can be arranged through a process server or law enforcement. Your lawyer will handle the logistics of serving the papers, ensuring everything is done according to California law.

4. Negotiating Settlements

Many divorces in Fremont are settled out of court through negotiation or mediation. Your lawyer will work to negotiate a settlement that addresses key issues such as:

Division of property and debts: Ensuring a fair distribution of assets according to California’s community property laws.

Child custody and visitation: Crafting a parenting plan that serves the best interests of the child while protecting your parental rights.

Spousal support: Calculating and negotiating fair spousal support payments, if applicable.

5. Court Appearances and Trial

If you and your spouse cannot reach a settlement agreement, your divorce case may go to trial. In this situation, having an experienced Fremont divorce lawyer by your side is critical. Your attorney will represent you in court, presenting evidence and arguing on your behalf to ensure the best possible outcome.

Key Issues Handled by Fremont Divorce Lawyers

When going through a divorce in Fremont, there are several key issues that your lawyer will help you navigate:

1. Property Division

California’s community property laws can be difficult to interpret, especially when it comes to distinguishing between marital property and separate property. Marital property, including assets like real estate, cars, and income earned during the marriage, must be divided equitably. A skilled Fremont divorce attorney can help ensure that all assets are identified and valued correctly, and that your financial interests are protected.

2. Spousal Support (Alimony)

Spousal support, also known as alimony, is often a contentious issue in divorce cases. The court will consider several factors when determining whether to award spousal support, including:

The length of the marriage

The income and earning potential of both spouses

The standard of living established during the marriage

The age and health of both parties

An experienced divorce lawyer in Fremont can help ensure that spousal support is calculated fairly and advocate for your financial well-being.

3. Child Custody and Support

If you have children, custody and support will likely be the most emotionally charged aspects of your divorce. California law encourages joint custody arrangements whenever possible, but this isn’t always feasible. Your Fremont divorce lawyer will help you create a custody plan that works for you and your children while ensuring that child support is calculated according to state guidelines.

4. Mediation and Collaborative Divorce

Some couples prefer to settle their divorce outside of court through mediation or collaborative divorce. In these situations, both parties work together with the help of their attorneys and a neutral mediator to reach a mutually beneficial settlement. This approach can save time, reduce legal fees, and minimize conflict. Your Fremont divorce attorney can help facilitate these discussions and guide you toward a successful resolution.

How to Choose the Right Fremont Divorce Lawyer

Choosing the right Fremont divorce attorney is one of the most important decisions you will make during the divorce process. Here are a few tips to help you find the best lawyer for your case:

1. Experience Matters

Look for a lawyer with experience in family law, particularly in handling divorce cases in Alameda County. An experienced attorney will be familiar with local judges, court procedures, and the intricacies of California’s divorce laws.

2. Communication is Key

Your divorce lawyer should be someone you feel comfortable talking to, as open communication is essential throughout the divorce process. Make sure your attorney is responsive, listens to your concerns, and keeps you informed about the progress of your case.

3. Reputation and Reviews

Take the time to research potential Fremont divorce lawyers by reading online reviews and testimonials. Positive feedback from former clients is a good indicator of a lawyer’s effectiveness and professionalism.

Conclusion

A divorce can be one of the most challenging experiences in life, but with the help of a skilled Fremont divorce lawyer, you can navigate the process with confidence. From understanding complex property division laws to negotiating child custody agreements, a knowledgeable attorney will be your advocate every step of the way, ensuring that your rights and interests are protected.

[testbankprovidersell]

Test Bank For Macroeconomics Tenth Edition N. Gregory Mankiw

Table of Contents

Contents   Prelude: Celebrating the 10th Edition Preface Media and Resources   Part I Introduction Chapter 1 The Science of Macroeconomics   - What Macroeconomist Study   Case Study The Historical Performance of the U.S. Economy   - How Economist Think   Theory as Model Building FYI Using Functions to Express Relationships Among Variables The Use of Multiple Models Prices: Flexible Versus Sticky Microeconomic Thinking and Macroeconomic Models FYI The Early Lives of Macroeconomists   - How this Book Proceeds     Chapter 2 The Data of Macroeconomics 2-1 Measuring the Value of Economic Activity: Gross Domestic Product Income, Expenditure, and the Circular Flow FYI Stocks and Flows Rules for Computing GDP Real GDP Versus Nominal GDP The GDP Deflator Chain-Weighted Measures of Real GDP FYI Two Helpful Hints for Working with Percentage Changes The Components of Expenditure FYI What is Investment? Case Study GDP and Its Components Other Measures of Income Seasonal Adjustment 2-2 Measuring the Cost of Living: The Consumer Price Index The Price of a Basket of Goods How the CPI Compares to the GDP and PCE Deflators Does the CPI Overstate Inflation? 2-3 Measuring Joblessness: The Unemployment Rate The Household Survey Case Study Men, Women, and Labor-Force Participation The Establishment Survey 2-4 Conclusion: From Economic Statistics to Economic Models   Part II Classical Theory: The Economy in the Long Run Chapter 3 National Income: Where it Comes From and Where It Goes 3-1 What Determines the Total Production of Goods and Services? The Factors of Production The Production Function The Supply of Goods and Services 3-2 How Is National Income Distributed to the Factors of Production? Factor Prices The Decisions Facing a Competitive Firm The Firm’s Demand for Factors The Division of National Income Case Study The Black Death and Factor Prices The Cobb–Douglas Production Function Case Study Labor Productivity as the Key Determinant of Real Wages FYI The Growing Gap Between Rich and Poor 3-3 What Determines the Demand for Goods and Services? Consumption Investment FYI The Many Different Interest Rates Government Purchases 3-4 What Brings the Supply and Demand for Goods and Services into Equilibrium? Equilibrium in the Market for Goods and Services: The Supply and Demand for the Economy’s Output Equilibrium in the Financial Markets: The Supply and Demand for Loanable Funds Changes in Saving: The Effects of Fiscal Policy Changes in Investment Demand 3-5 Conclusion   Chapter 4 The Monetary System: What It Is and How It Works 4-1 What Is Money? The Functions of Money The Types of Money Case Study Money in a POW Camp The Development of Fiat Money Case Study Money and Social Conventions on the Island of Yap FYI Bitcoin: The Strange Case of Digital Money How the Quantity of Money Is Controlled How the Quantity of Money Is Measured FYI How Do Credit Cards and Debit Cards Fit into the Monetary System? 4-2 The Role of Banks in the Monetary System 100-Percent-Reserve Banking Fractional-Reserve Banking Bank Capital, Leverage, and Capital Requirements 4-3 How Central Banks Influence the Money Supply A Model of the Money Supply The Instruments of Monetary Policy Case Study Quantitative Easing and the Exploding Monetary Base Problems in Monetary Control Case Study Bank Failures and the Money Supply in the 1930s 4-4 Conclusion   Chapter 5 Inflation: Its Causes, Effects, and Social Costs 5-1 The Quantity Theory of Money Transactions and the Quantity Equation From Transactions to Income The Money Demand Function and the Quantity Equation The Assumption of Constant Velocity Money, Prices, and Inflation Case Study Inflation and Money Growth 5-2 Seigniorage: The Revenue from Printing Money Case Study Paying for the American Revolution 5-3 Inflation and Interest Rates Two Interest Rates: Real and Nominal The Fisher Effect Case Study Inflation and Nominal Interest Rates Two Real Interest Rates: Ex Ante and Ex Post 5-4 The Nominal Interest Rate and the Demand for Money The Cost of Holding Money Future Money and Current Prices 5-5 The Social Costs of Inflation The Layman’s View and the Classical Response Case Study What Economists and the Public Say About Inflation The Costs of Expected Inflation The Costs of Unexpected Inflation Case Study The Free Silver Movement, the Election of 1896, and The Wizard of Oz One Benefit of Inflation 5-6 Hyperinflation The Costs of Hyperinflation The Causes of Hyperinflation Case Study Hyperinflation in Interwar Germany Case Study Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe 5-7 Conclusion: The Classical Dichotomy   Chapter 6 The Open Economy 6-1 The International Flows of Capital and Goods The Role of Net Exports International Capital Flows and the Trade Balance International Flows of Goods and Capital: An Example The Irrelevance of Bilateral Trade Balances 6-2 Saving and Investment in a Small Open Economy Capital Mobility and the World Interest Rate   Why Assume a Small Open Economy? The Model How Policies Influence the Trade Balance Evaluating Economic Policy Case Study The U.S. Trade Deficit Case Study Why Doesn’t Capital Flow to Poor Countries? 6-3 Exchange Rates Nominal and Real Exchange Rates The Real Exchange Rate and the Trade Balance The Determinants of the Real Exchange Rate How Policies Influence the Real Exchange Rate The Effects of Trade Policies The Determinants of the Nominal Exchange Rate Case Study Inflation and Nominal Exchange Rates The Special Case of Purchasing-Power Parity Case Study The Big Mac Around the World 6-4 Conclusion: The United States as a Large Open Economy Appendix: The Large Open Economy   Chapter 7 Unemployment and the Labor Market 7-1 Job Loss, Job Finding, and the Natural Rate of Unemployment 7-2 Job Search and Frictional Unemployment Causes of Frictional Unemployment Public Policy and Frictional Unemployment Case Study Unemployment Insurance and the Rate of Job Finding 7-3 Real-Wage Rigidity and Structural Unemployment Minimum-Wage Laws Unions and Collective Bargaining Efficiency Wages Case Study Henry Ford’s $5 Workday 7-4 Labor-Market　Experience: The United States The Duration of Unemployment Case Study The Increase in U.S. Long-Term Unemployment and the Debate Over Unemployment Insurance Variation in the Unemployment Rate Across Demographic Groups Transitions Into and Out of the Labor Force Case Study The Decline in Labor-Force Participation: 2007 to 2017 7-5 Labor-Market Experience: Europe The Rise in European Unemployment Unemployment Variation Within Europe The Rise of European Leisure 7-6 Conclusion   Part III Growth Theory: The Economy in the Very Long Run Chapter 8 Economic Growth I: Capital Accumulation and Population Growth 8-1 The Accumulation of Capital The Supply and Demand for Goods Growth in the Capital Stock and the Steady State Approaching the Steady State: A Numerical Example Case Study The Miracle of Japanese and German Growth How Saving Affects Growth 8-2 The Golden Rule Level of Capital Comparing Steady States Finding the Golden Rule Steady State: A Numerical Example The Transition to the Golden Rule Steady State 8-3 Population Growth The Steady State With Population Growth The Effects of Population Growth Case Study Investment and Population Growth Around the World Alternative Perspectives on Population Growth 8-4 Conclusion   Chapter 9 Economic Growth II:　Technology, Empirics, and Policy 9-1 Technological Progress in the Solow Model The Efficiency of Labor The Steady State With　Technological Progress The Effects of　Technological Progress 9-2 From Growth Theory to Growth Empirics Balanced Growth Convergence Factor Accumulation Versus Production Efficiency Case Study Good Management as a Source of Productivity 9-3 Policies to Promote Growth Evaluating the Rate of Saving Changing the Rate of Saving Allocating the Economy’s Investment Case Study Industrial Policy in Practice Establishing the Right Institutions Case Study The Colonial Origins of Modern Institutions Supporting a Pro-growth Culture Encouraging　Technological Progress Case Study Is Free Trade Good for Economic Growth? 9-4 Beyond the Solow Model: Endogenous Growth Theory The Basic Model A Two-Sector Model The Microeconomics of Research and Development The Process of Creative Destruction 9-5 Conclusion Appendix: Accounting for the Sources of Economic Growth   Part IV Business Cycle Theory: The Economy in the Short Run Chapter 10 Introduction to Economic Fluctuations 10-1 The Facts About the Business Cycle GDP and Its Components Unemployment and Okun’s Law Leading Economic Indicators 10-2 Time Horizons in Macroeconomics How the Short Run and the Long Run Differ Case Study If You Want to Know Why Firms Have Sticky Prices, Ask Them The Model of Aggregate Supply and Aggregate Demand 10-3 Aggregate Demand The Quantity Equation as Aggregate Demand Why the Aggregate Demand Curve Slopes Downward Shifts in the Aggregate Demand Curve 10-4 Aggregate Supply The Long Run: The Vertical Aggregate Supply Curve The Short Run: The Horizontal Aggregate Supply Curve From the Short Run to the Long Run Case Study A Monetary Lesson from French History 10-5 Stabilization Policy Shocks to Aggregate Demand Shocks to Aggregate Supply Case Study How OPEC Helped Cause Stagflation in the 1970s and Euphoria in the 1980s 10-6 Conclusion   Chapter 11 Aggregate Demand I: Building the IS–LM Model 11-1 The Goods Market and the IS Curve The Keynesian Cross Case Study Cutting Taxes to Stimulate the Economy: The Kennedy and Bush Tax Cuts Case Study Increasing Government Purchases to Stimulate the Economy: The Obama Stimulus Case Study Using Regional Data to Estimate Multipliers The Interest Rate, Investment, and the IS Curve How Fiscal Policy Shifts the　IS　Curve 11-2 The Money Market and the　LM　Curve The Theory of Liquidity Preference Case Study Does a Monetary Tightening Raise or Lower Interest Rates? Income, Money Demand, and the　LM　Curve How Monetary Policy Shifts the　LM　Curve 11-3 Conclusion: The Short-Run Equilibrium   Chapter 12 Aggregate Demand II: Applying the　IS–LM　Model 12-1 Explaining Fluctuations With the IS–LM　Model How Fiscal Policy Shifts the　IS　Curve and Changes the Short-Run Equilibrium How Monetary Policy Shifts the　LM　Curve and Changes the Short-Run Equilibrium The Interaction Between Monetary and Fiscal Policy Shocks in the　IS–LM　Model Case Study The U.S. Recession of 2001 What Is the Fed’s Policy Instrument—The Money Supply or the Interest Rate? 12-2 IS–LM　as a Theory of Aggregate Demand From the　IS–LM　Model to the Aggregate Demand Curve The　IS–LM　Model in the Short Run and Long Run 12-3 The Great Depression The Spending Hypothesis: Shocks to the　IS　Curve The Money Hypothesis: A Shock to the　LM　Curve The Money Hypothesis Again: The Effects of Falling Prices Could the Depression Happen Again? Case Study The Financial Crisis and Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 The Liquidity Trap (Also Known as the Zero Lower Bound) FYI The Curious Case of Negative Interest Rates 12-4 Conclusion     Chapter 13 The Open Economy Revisited: The Mundell–Fleming Model and the Exchange-Rate Regime 13-1 The Mundell–Fleming Model The Key Assumption: Small Open Economy with Perfect Capital Mobility The Goods Market and the　IS* Curve The Money Market and the　LM* Curve Putting the Pieces　Together 13-2 The Small Open Economy under Floating Exchange Rates Fiscal Policy Monetary Policy Trade Policy 13-1 The Small Open Economy under Fixed Exchange Rates How a Fixed-Exchange-Rate System Works Case Study The International Gold Standard Fiscal Policy Monetary Policy Case Study Devaluation and the Recovery from the Great Depression Trade Policy Policy in the Mundell–Fleming Model: A Summary 13-4 Interest Rate Differentials Country Risk and Exchange-Rate Expectations Differentials in the Mundell–Fleming Model Case Study International Financial Crisis: Mexico 1994–1995 Case Study International Financial Crisis: Asia 1997–1998 13-5 Should Exchange Rates Be Floating or Fixed? Pros and Cons of Different Exchange-Rate Systems Case Study The Debate Over the Euro Speculative Attacks, Currency Boards, and Dollarization The Impossible Trinity Case Study The Chinese Currency Controversy 13-6 From the Short Run to the Long Run:The Mundell–Fleming Model With a Changing Price Level 13-7 A Concluding Reminder Appendix: A Short-Run Model of the Large Open Economy   Chapter 14 Aggregate Supply and the Short-Run　Tradeoff Between Inflation and Unemployment 14-1 The Basic Theory of Aggregate Supply The Sticky-Price Model An Alternative Theory: The Imperfect-Information Model Case Study International Differences in the Aggregate Supply Curve Implications 14-2　Inflation,　Unemployment, and the Phillips Curve Deriving the Phillips Curve from the Aggregate Supply Curve FYI The History of the Modern Phillips Curve Adaptive Expectations and Inflation Inertia Two Causes of Rising and Falling Inflation Case Study Inflation and Unemployment in the United States The Short-Run Tradeoff between Inflation and Unemployment FYI How Precise Are Estimates of the Natural Rate of Unemployment? Disinflation and the Sacrifice Ratio Rational Expectations and the Possibility of Painless Disinflation Case Study The Sacrifice Ratio in Practice Hysteresis and the Challenge to the Natural-Rate Hypothesis 14-3 Conclusion Appendix: The Mother of All Models   Part V Topics in Macroeconomic Theory and Policy Chapter 15 A Dynamic Model of Economic Fluctuations 15-1　Elements of the Model Output: The Demand for Goods and Services The Real Interest Rate: The Fisher Equation Inflation: The Phillips Curve Expected Inflation: Adaptive Expectations The Nominal Interest Rate: The Monetary-Policy Rule Case Study The Taylor Rule 15-2 Solving the Model The Long-Run Equilibrium The Dynamic Aggregate Supply Curve The Dynamic Aggregate Demand Curve The Short-Run Equilibrium 15-3 Using the Model Long-Run Growth FYI The Numerical Calibration and Simulation A Shock to Aggregate Supply A Shock to Aggregate Demand A Shift in Monetary Policy 15-4 Two Applications: Lessons for Monetary Policy The Tradeoff Between Output Variability and Inflation Variability Case Study Different Mandates, Different Realities: The Fed Versus the ECB The　Taylor Principle Case Study What Caused the Great Inflation? 15-5 Conclusion:　Toward DSGE Models   Chapter 16 Alternative Perspectives on Stabilization Policy 16-1 Should Policy Be Active or Passive? Lags in the Implementation and Effects of Policies The Difficult Job of Economic Forecasting Case Study Mistakes in Forecasting Ignorance, Expectations, and the Lucas Critique The Historical Record Case Study Is the Stabilization of the Economy a Figment of the Data? Case Study How Does Policy Uncertainty Affect the Economy? 16-2 Should Policy Be Conducted by Rule or Discretion? Read the full article

[southeastasianists]

The persecution of minority groups.

The celebration of ancient heritage.

Muslim communities driven from Rakhine state and forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh.

Buddhism’s sacred landscapes and living traditions recognised by the international community.

Human rights and heritage – two issues that appear so unrelated as to be irreconcilable. In the face of human suffering, heritage can feel like… an indulgence. How can we think about visiting historic monuments when hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced? Why protect and preserve old temples when homes and places of worship are being deliberately burnt down? Why worry about the effect of natural disasters on heritage sites when manmade disasters enacted upon real people are equally destructive and – theoretically anyway – more easily avoided?

The usual response to such questions is that access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage is a human right, one that is guaranteed by international human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and protected from destruction during times of conflict through international instruments like the 1954 Hague Convention. So central is heritage to human rights discourses that scholars have used the term ‘cultural genocide’ to describe the intentional vandalism of heritage sites. Such destruction has been framed as part of ‘a systematic attempt to scrub away the identity, history and memory of entire peoples’. Not only can heritage tell us who we are and who we were, but the ways in which we manage it – whose stories we choose to tell, and whose are elided – also tell us about who we want to be.

This approach, in which heritage is a human right, is a valid response. Heritage – including intangible and underwater heritage – does have a place in the discussion of priorities and resources, even in countries that are dealing with past or ongoing human rights abuses.

In fact, these discussions are even more important in such countries. Rather than limiting ourselves to the idea of heritage as a human right, I am increasingly interested in using human rights as a productive methodology for thinking about heritage. This is because the different ways a state manages human rights issues and heritage issues can tell us about how that state understands diversity and identity, and about the effectiveness of international engagement in achieving desired outcomes. Cultural tourism of heritage sites can also improve livelihoods when undertaken judiciously.

There is no better place to bring these issues into conversation with each other than Myanmar, where the Government has been grappling with the transition from military to civilian rule for the past decade. In the past year alone, the Government has been accused of genocide on a massive scale at the same time as it has been recognised on the world stage for the ancient and sacred landscape of Bagan.

Just last month, State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi appeared at the International Court of Justice in The Hague to defend Myanmar’s human rights record amidst allegations of genocide against its Rohingya minority in 2017. In what Amnesty International has described as the biggest human rights catastrophe in the region, up to 1 million people are believed to have been affected by ‘cleansing’ operations undertaken by military and security forces in 2017. A report delivered by the International Independent Fact-Finding Mission in Myanmar in September 2019 drew attention to the situation of ethnic minorities in not only Rakhine but also Chin, Kachin and Shan States, all of whom ‘have suffered human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law at the hands of the Tatmadaw [armed forces of Myanmar].’ The Report’s authors noted with regret the failure of Myanmar to engage or respond to communications.

Sitting in contrast to this reluctance to engage were the celebrations in Naypyitaw that accompanied the inscription of the ancient city of Bagan on the UNESCO World Heritage list in July 2019, in the process becoming Myanmar’s second World Heritage property (the other being the Pyu Ancient Cities, recognised in 2014). The inscription recognises the significance of Bagan’s landscape, material evidence and continuing religious and cultural practices, which together create a site of ‘outstanding universal value’.

At stake here is nothing less than the question of Burmese identity. This is exemplified by Aung San Suu Kyi’s framing of Bagan as a ‘hub of diversity of cultures, people and ideologies of the world’.She also highlighted the role of heritage in bringing people closer together and generating mutual respect. These remarks pay lip service to diversity but are at odds with the human rights violations experienced by many of Myanmar’s ethnic minorities. They also gloss over the way in which Bagan has been used as a powerful symbol of a deep historical and ethnically-based nationalism. What remains unclear, therefore, is how Bagan’s ‘outstanding universal value’ at the macro-level can accommodate diversity at the micro-level. Indeed, some scholars have drawn attention to how such universal valuations are ‘a means by which local stakeholders and communities with a particular interest in heritage places can be excluded from having a role in making decisions about managing them’ (Rodney Harrison, Heritage: Critical Approaches, p. 110).

In Myanmar, issues of diversity and inclusion have been ‘at the heart of Burmese politics since the start of modern Burmese politics a hundred years ago’, resulting in ‘an identity crisis that has not yet been resolved’ (Thant Myint-U, The Hidden History of Burma, p. 256). Hence the UNESCO inscription of Bagan, a Buddhist site in a majority Buddhist country, is used by Myanmar’s leaders to demonstrate diversity at the same time as it reaffirms the centrality of a certain type of (religious, racial and cultural) identity within the national narrative. In embracing the opportunities presented by the world heritage inscription, we must move past these prevailing narratives and towards a new imagining of Myanmar as a country that is profoundly multiracial and multicultural, in which ‘race, ethnicity, and identity [are] mutable, evolving and contingent’ (Thant Myint-U, The Hidden History of Burma, p. 188).

The juxtaposition of human rights and heritage in the context of Myanmar can also tell us about the efficacy of isolation versus engagement in global relations. The inscription of Bagan suggests that carrots work better than sticks. From Myanmar’s perspective, the inscription is affirmation that the international community remains willing to engage despite decades of self-imposed isolation, external sanctions and a deteriorating human rights situation. Furthermore, the inscription is indicative of Myanmar’s ability to respond to international expectations. Myanmar began the Bagan nomination process in 1994-5, but it was not progressed by UNESCO due to a lack of appropriate heritage legislation and reservations about Myanmar’s ability to manage the site in accordance with international heritage standards. UNESCO is now sufficiently convinced that such concerns have been addressed, although evidence of earlier mismanagement can be seen to this day in the water-hungry golf course, unerringly straight road laid across archaeologically-rich areas and many tourist hotels that populate the templed landscape, including in the Bagan Archaeological Zone.

The takeaway message here is that Myanmar is willing and able to respond to international pressure in the field of heritage governance and protection. We must continue to hope that positive engagement in relation to human rights remains a possibility.

Finally, bringing human rights into conversation with heritage can help us think beyond the knee-jerk travel boycotts that are already beginning to affect local communities and tour operators in Myanmar. When the inscription was announced, President U Win Myi expressed high expectations that ‘Arrival of tourists to the Bagan region would surely increase, helping the economic development of the local people’. But instead of seeing an increase in visitors as is often the case following a World Heritage listing, tourist numbers have dropped. Anecdotal evidence suggests that local tour operators in Yangon and Bagan have declined by up to 70% in the past twelve months, affecting what was a burgeoning tourist economy. For many would-be visitors, it has been difficult to reconcile visiting heritage sites in a country where significant human rights abuses are occurring.

But now is not the time for tourists to boycott Myanmar. Instead, visitors should visit Myanmar’s acclaimed heritage sites, and should foreground human rights as they do so. This creates the opportunity to learn: about the dominance of Buddhism in the national narrative, about Myanmar’s complex histories, about the racial, linguistic and religious diversity of this country, and about its competing internal nationalisms. And about the ways that ethical and sustainable tourism can benefit those who rely on such income for their livelihoods, for better health outcomes, and for their education. In this way, the message of Bagan’s preservation sits not in juxtaposition to, but alongside, the destruction that is taking place in other parts of the country.

Note: I am grateful to participants of the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre’s Workshop on Human Rights (September 2019) and to the Master of Human Rights students who presented at the Land of a Thousand Pagodas event (October 2019) for encouraging me to integrate human rights more deeply into my research and teaching practices.

[alexsmitposts]

Sinking Ships Deserting Rats Before They Are Eaten Away We have all heard the phrase, “like rats deserting a sinking ship”. It signifies that when a cause is failing, the least committed members of it leave very quickly to protect themselves, leaving others behind to face the consequences. We do not often hear that “the sinking ship is deserting the rat.” But that is what we are seeing right now. One ship is the US Republican Party, and the other the UK Conservative Party. It is therefore blindingly obvious who the rats are, which is why their ships are deserting them—and why now! Rats versus Goats Political parties always look for scapegoats. It is always someone else’s fault if things go wrong, not theirs or their supporters. If they have to face the fact that they mucked up themselves, one or two individuals are identified as “rogue operators” and the rest disassociate themselves from these to try and limit damage to the organisation. Think of the vilification still being heaped on Richard Nixon, by those who were happy to profit from his crimes in various ways until he was caught. But this process occurs when the party, the ship, thinks it can remain in power. By throwing out the king rat before the rest jump, it thinks it can save itself. It rarely happens that the ship is happy to scuttle itself and leave the rat in place, in the hope that the rat will drown without the ship and the ship can rise again from the bottom of the ocean. But that is what we are seeing now – wilful sabotage of great political parties, because that is the only way that they can be saved from their rats. Many Republicans and Conservatives are now quite happy to vote against, undermine and destroy their own ships because they are rapidly being left with no other option. They have to get out and build another ship because the rats have taken over the old one so completely that it has become impossible to sail. Throwing the rats out is no longer an option, because the ship cannot get rid of the smell they leave behind. Rats versus Elephants It has always been known that a lot of Republicans, including some senior figures, do not agree with the presidency of Donald J. Trump. Not only do we know this, we should all be grateful that we know this. The US system of primaries means that party divisions are examined in public, in elections, until the candidate most suitable to most party members emerges, at least in theory be held in secret, and then become subject of secret deals, are aired in public in the US, so the US electorate has a much better idea of where politicians actually stand than those of most countries. Nevertheless, the primary system generally results in losing candidates declaring their support for the winner and their platform, or keeping silent. It is unusual to find a leading member of the same party criticising its candidate, whatever their private opinions are, and even more so when the candidate is a sitting president. There is now quite a litany of prominent Republicans who have taken their distaste for Trump so far that they intend to vote for his opponent in November. George W. Bush, the previous Republican president, is widely believed to have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. John McCain didn’t vote for Trump either, or Jeb Bush, or Mitt Romney, if you believe reports. Since then we have had a stream of lies, stunts, scandals and mishandlings which have further eaten away at Trump’s internal supporter base. It is not so much that Republicans disapprove of what Trump has done, but that they feel targeted by it. Trump won the 2016 Republican nomination, and subsequent presidential election, on an “us and them” platform. But the “swamp” he promised to drain wasn’t simply a Democratic one, but contained the whole political establishment. A prominent part of it has always been occupied by more traditional Republicans, and often are ones who don’t agree with Trump. Initially it was Trump himself who largely made this distinction to garner support from voters who felt disenfranchised. But as time has gone on, “Trumpism” has become a thing, a term of abuse used by members of his own party. A “Reaganism” was either an unintentional reference to the Third World War or a grandfatherly reassurance, such as that heard after the Challenger disaster. A “Bushism” was a mangling of the English language such as “They misunderestimated me”. “Trumpism” is a whole raft of policies and positions which the US State Department defines as “racism” or “fascism” when they are applied in countries the US doesn’t like. He calls Covid-19 either the “Chinese virus” or “foreign virus,” institutes travel bans on black and brown people fleeing the very governments he is objecting to, violates the Constitution daily and wilfully discriminates whenever he can to draw distinctions between “good” and “bad” people, which equate precisely with whether he thinks those people will vote for him or not. Many Republicans feel that Trumpism is alien to them, a disfiguring of what their party and they as individuals stand for. Former General Colin Powell, who is probably more popular than any politician and served as Secretary of State under George W. Bush, has announced he will be voting for Democratic nominee-presumptive Joe Biden in November. Two former House Speakers a former Defense Secretary and a former White House Chief of Staff have also joined an anti-Trump faction. This is now so significant that Biden’s campaign is considering establishing a specific “Republicans for Biden” group nearer to polling day. What will turning on Trump achieve? It is unlikely that these dissident Republicans will regain control of their party. Those who do stay loyal, out of conviction or reluctance, will not welcome traitors, as they would see them, to leadership positions once the dust has settled. Dissident Republicans are not seeking to save their party but to destroy it – by leaving it purely in the hands of the Trumpists and then making it unelectable. Then they will have the basis of a new organisation, perhaps calling itself the Republican Party and perhaps not, which will unashamaedly reject its current President and candidate to reflect the views of those who feel wounded by his appropriations of their values. The US has changed its party system before – though there has always been a binary choice at the highest level, the Federalists of George Washington and Whigs of Abraham Lincoln are long gone. The Federalist colour was black. The Republican ship is now, almost unthinkably, quite happy to desert its rat in order to remove the blackness covering it and reveal its natural red, or red white and blue, again, even if this means building a new ship out of the battered driftwood of its planks. Rats versus Snakes The UK Conservative Party has some claim to being the largest and most successful political party in the democratic world. With Theresa May, who regarded herself as “liberal” as leader, it came fifth in the 2019 European Parliament elections, by far its worst performance ever in a national election. Yet Boris Johnson led it to an unexpected and mould-breaking victory in the parliamentary election a few months later, and led the UK out of the EU, the issue which had hurt Theresa May’s premiership the most. The victory was mould-breaking because the Conservatives actually fell back in their traditional areas of support, the better off suburbs and rural areas. BoJo the Clown owes his large majority to capturing many traditional Labour seats, some of which had never elected a Conservative before, but contain large numbers of Brexiteers spooked by the “intellectual elitist radicalism” of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Johnson makes the same pitch as Trump – people versus politicians. He has also conducted ruthless purges of his own party, whose traditions long predate his own unfortunate arrival in its midst. Soon after taking over as Prime Minister he removed the party whip from 21 of his own MPs, whilst running a minority government, because they would not back him over Brexit. Many of these then left parliament at the subsequent election, enabling BoJo to fill his new Cabinet with what one of his own senior party members calls “the nodding dogs,” who will support him come what may on the most controversial issues. So far BoJo has largely got away with recasting the Conservatives as the anti-political party. But like Trump, he has delivered a blustering and inadequate performance when confronted with the Covid-19 crisis, and indeed many other things. Even then he has retained much support, partly due to opposition weakness. Now however that very majority, obtained by wooing non-Conservatives, is turning into the biggest threat to the Conservative ship. Like Trump, BoJo first tried to make out that Covid-19 wasn’t real, another establishment conspiracy. With death rates mounting, and scientists contradicting his claims that he was being guided by their advice, he belatedly adopted a lockdown strategy, at a time when the British economy was already reeling from Brexit. Nevertheless, people in serious danger of losing their livelihoods and homes, and more danger of losing their lives than in any other country largely did as he told them to. They stayed at home, not able to visit sick relatives or attend weddings and funerals if that meant travelling more than a few miles away. Then they were treated to the sight of Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister’s unelected spin doctor considered the true architect of these rules, driving over 200 miles with his family to find childcare when he should have been in isolation and then making another trip of 30 miles to “check his eyesight” and see if he was fit to drive back to London. All in direct contravention of the rules imposed on the rest of the population. This was explained away by both BoJo and Cummings himself as “what any father would have done.” Thousands of others would, had they been allowed to, but felt obliged to obey the rules. Naturally and rightly, they expected Cummings, as a government insider, to do the same. Ministers have been ordered to defend Cummings, and either resigned or been forced out if they don’t, even when they are ardent Brexiteers Every current minister owes their job, and their parliamentary seat, to being a Johnson loyalist, and had to agree to support him, rather than the party as a whole or its principles, when they stood for election in 2019. But now BoJo is pushing his own acolytes into the opposite intra-party camp, over an unelected adviser, both he and they have nowhere to go. Traditional Tories have given up on saving their party. Most have either left parliament or resigned altogether. Johnson loyalists owe their seats and survival solely to him. But with Johnson rapidly becoming more toxic than Covid-19 and chlorinated chicken, they will have to find a new ship, unassociated with this rat, to come out of this self-inflicted national tragedy in one piece. UK parties don’t change much either – the same big two have held those positions since 1918. But Johnson has so successfully remade the Conservatives in his own image that most of his own supporters will have to become something else to have any future, and can only do this and retain credibility by scuttling their existing ship, deliberately, and constructing a new, ratless one. Rats versus Humanity There are always those who disagree with the leaders of their chosen political party. Generally they try and win internal arguments. If they can no longer support their leader, they either opt out or vote for, or join, another one. It is very rare that we see a situation where members of a party feel they are better off destroying it and starting a new one. It happened to the United Australia Party, once the main party of the centre right in Australia, and the Progressive Conservatives in Canada in more recent times. But in these instances the whole party had become moribund, too many rats having already left. They were not run by rats, for rats, and left with no other members but rats who were unable to connect with people any more. It was always inevitable that populism would fail when led by billionaires and Old Etonians. The only question is what comes after it. Thanks to Covid-19, the whole world is now being faced with this question. But very few will want to the “new normal”, whatever else it may be, to be run by rats rather than people determined to forget they have ever seen a rat. People need to start smelling a rat too!

[writemarcus]

Watch This Space: Playwrights Train for All Media

As dramatists begin to write for all media, the nation’s playwriting programs are starting to teach beyond the stage.

BY MARCUS SCOTT

In 2018, a record 495 original scripted series were released across cable, online, and broadcast platforms, according to a report by FX Networks. And with the growing popularity of streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon (not to mention new players like Disney and Apple), a whopping 146 more shows are up and running on various platforms now than were on air in 2013. So how does peak TV relate to theatre?

Once a way for financially strapped playwrights to land stable income and adequate health insurance, television has since emerged as a rewarding venue for ambitious dramatists looking to forge lifetime careers as working writers. Playwright Tanya Saracho is the current showrunner for “Vida” on Starz. Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa is the series developer of “Riverdale” and “Chilling Adventures of Sabrina.” Sheila Callaghan is executive producer of the long-running black comedy “Shameless.” Sarah Treem, co-creator and showrunner of “The Affair,” recently concluded the Rashomon-esque psychological drama in November.

To satiate demand for more content, showrunners have sought to recruit emerging playwrights to fill their writers’ rooms. It’s now common practice for them to read plays or spec scripts penned prior to a writer’s graduation.

Many aspiring playwrights have caught on, enrolling in drama school intent on flirting with virtually every medium under the umbrella of the performing arts. Several institutions around the country have become gatekeepers for the hopeful—post-graduate MFA boot camps bestowing scribes with the Aristotelian wisdom of plot, character, thought, diction, and spectacle before they’re dropped into the school of hard knocks that is the modern American writers’ room. Indeed, since our culture has emerged from the chrysalis of peak TV, playwriting programs have begun training students for a career that includes not only the stage but multiple mediums, including the screen.

Playwright Zayd Dohrn, who has served as both chair of Northwestern University’s radio/TV/film department and director of the MFA in writing for screen and stage since 2016, said versatility is the strongest tool in the kit of the program’s students.

“We offer classes in playwriting, screenwriting and TV writing, as well as podcasts, video games, interactive media, stand-up, improv, and much more,” he explained. “There’s no one way to approach the craft, and we offer world-class faculty with diverse backgrounds, professional experiences, and perspectives, so students can be exposed to the full range of professional and artistic practice.”

Dominic Taylor, vice chair of graduate studies at UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television in California, also agrees that multiplicity is the key to the survival of a working writer. “In the industries today, whether one is breaking a story in a writers’ room or writing coverage as an assistant, the ability to recognize and manipulate structure is paramount,” Taylor said. “The primary skill, aside from honing excellent social skills, would be to continue to study the forms as they emerge. Read scripts and note differences and strengths of form to the individual’s skill set. For example, the multi-cam network comedy is very different from the single-cam comedy—‘The Conners’ versus ‘Modern Family,’ let’s say. It’s not just the technology; it is the pace of the comedy.”

Taylor, a distinguished multi-hyphenate theatre artist working on both coasts, said that schools like UCLA offer a lot more than classes, including one with Phyllis Nagy (screenwriter of Carol). UCLA’s program also partners with its film school, and hires professional directors to work with playwrights to develop graduate student plays for productions at UCLA’s one-act festival, ONES, or its New Play Festival. Taylor also teaches four separate classes on Black theatre, giving students the opportunity to study the likes of Alice Childress, Marita Bonner, and Angelina Weld Grimké in a university setting (a rarity outside of historically Black colleges and universities).

Dohrn, a prominent playwright who is currently developing a feature film for Netflix and has TV shows in development at Showtime, BBC America, and NBC/Universal, said that television, like theatre, needs people who can create interesting characters and tell compelling stories, who have singular, unique voices—all of which are emphasized in playwriting training.

“Playwrights are not just good at writing dialogue—they are world creators who bring a unique vision to the stories they tell,” Dohrn emphasized. “More than anything else, a writer needs to develop his/her/their unique voice. Craft can be taught, but talent and creativity are the most important thing for a young writer.”

For playwright David Henry Hwang, who joined the faculty at Columbia University School of the Arts as head of the playwriting MFA program in 2014, success should be a byproduct, not a destination. “As a playwright, I don’t believe it’s possible to ‘game’ the system—i.e., to try and figure out how to write something ‘successful,’” he said. “The finished play is your reward for taking that journey. The thing that makes you different, and uniquely you, is your superpower as a dramatist, because it is the key to writing the play only you can write. Ironically, by focusing not on success but on what you really care about, you are more likely to find success.”

Since arriving at Columbia, one of Hwang’s top priorities was to expand the range of TV writing classes. This led to the creation of separate TV sub-department “concentrations,” housed in both the theatre and film programs. All playwriting students are required to take some television classes.

“We are at a rather anomalous moment in playwriting history, where the ability to write plays is actually a monetizable skill,” said Hwang, whose TV credits include Treem’s “The Affair.” “Playwrights have become increasingly valuable to TV because it has traditionally been a dialogue-driven medium (though shows like ‘Game of Thrones’ push into more cinematic storytelling language), and playwrights are comfortable being in production (unlike screenwriters, some of whom never go to set). Once TV discovered playwrights, we became more valuable for feature films as well.”

Playwrights aren’t the only generative theatremakers moving to the screen. Masi Asare is an assistant professor at Northwestern’s School of Communication, which teaches music theatre history, music theatre writing and composition, and vocal performance. The award-winning composer-lyricist, who recently saw her one-act Mirror of Most Value: A Ms. Marvel Play published by Marvel/Samuel French, said that the world of musical theatre is not all that different either; it’s experiencing a resurgence in both cinema and the small screen: Lin-Manuel Miranda, Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez, Justin Hurwitz, and Benj Pasek and Justin Paul have all written songs that were nominated for or won Oscars. The growth of YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter have offered new ways for musical theatre graduates to market and monetize their songs and build an audience.

“The feeling that a song has to ‘work’ behind a microphone in order to be a good song is really having an impact on young writers,” said Asare. “The song must sound and look good in this encapsulated video that will be posted on the songwriters’ website and circulated via social media.” She noted that in this case, the medium of video is also changing the medium of musical theatre itself. “Certainly it may lead to different kinds of musicals—who knows? New experimentation can be exciting, but I think there is a perception that all you have to have is a series of good video clips to be a songwriter for the musical theatre, a musical storyteller. I think that does something of a disservice to rising composers and lyricists.”

Some playwriting students, of course, are not interested in learning about how to write for television. But many who spoke for this story agreed that learning about the different ways of storytelling can be beneficial. One program in particular that has its eyes on the multiplicity of storytelling mediums is the Writing for Performance program at the California Institute of the Arts. Founded by playwright Suzan-Lori Parks in 2001 as a synergy of immersive environments, visual art installation, screenplay, and the traditional stage play, the program has helped students and visiting artists alike transcend theatrical conventions. Though Parks is no longer on the CalArts faculty, her spirit still infuses the program. As Amanda Shank, assistant dean of the CalArts School of Theater, puts it, “Every time she came to the page, there was a real fidelity to the impulse of what she was trying to communicate with the play, and the form followed that. It’s not her trying to write a ‘correct’ kind of play or to lay things bare in a certain prescribed way.”

That instinct is in the life fiber of CalArts’s Special Topics in Writing, a peer-to-peer incubator for the development of new projects that grants students from across various departments the opportunity to develop and produce writing-based projects. Shank defines the vaguely titled yearlong class, which she began, as a “hybrid of a writing workshop and a dramaturgical project development space.” A playwright and dramaturg, Shank said her class was born of her experience as an MFA candidate; she attended the program between 2010 and 2013, and then noticed her fellow students’ lack of ability to fully shepherd their projects.

“I was finding a lot of students that would have an idea, bring in a few pages or even bring in a full draft, but then they would kind of abandon it,” said Shank. “I wanted a space [that would] marry generative creativity, a place of accountability, but also a place that was working that muscle of really developing a project. Because I think often as artists we look to other institutions, other people to usher our work along. Yes, you need collaborators, yes, you need organizations of supporters—but you have to some degree know how to do those things yourself.”

Program alum Virginia Grise agrees. Grise has been a working artist since her play blu won the 2010 Yale Drama Series Award. She conceived her latest play, rasgos asiaticos, while still attending CalArts. Inspired by her Chicana-Chinese family, the play has evolved into a walk-around theatrical experience with some dialogue pressed into phonograph records that accompany her great uncle’s 1920s-era Chinese opera records. After developing the production over a period of years, with the help of CalArts Center for New Performance (CNP), Grise will premiere rasgos asiaticos in downtown Los Angeles in March 2020, boasting a predominantly female cast, a Black female director, and a design team entirely composed of women of color. Her multidisciplinary work is emblematic of the direction CalArts is hoping to steer the field, with training that is responsive to a growingly diverse body of students who may not want to create theatre in the Western European tradition.

“You cannot recruit students of color into a training program and continue to train actors, writers, and directors in the same way you have trained them prior to recruiting them,” said Grise. “I feel like training programs should look at the diversity of aesthetics, the diversity of storytelling—what are the different ways in which we make performance, and how is that indicative of who we are, and where we are coming from, and who we are speaking to?”

As an educator whose work deals with Asian American identity, including the play M. Butterfly and the high-concept musical Soft Power, Hwang said that one of his goals as an educator is to train a diverse body of students and teach them how to write from a perspective that is uniquely theirs.

“If we assume that people like to see themselves onstage, this requires a range of diverse bodies as well as diverse stories in our theatres,” Hwang said. “Institutions like Columbia have a huge responsibility to address this issue, since we are helping to produce artists of the future. Our program takes diversity as our first core value—not only in terms of aesthetics, but also by trying to cultivate artists and stories which encompass the fullest range of communities, nationalities, races, genders, sexualities, differences, and identities.”

The film business could use similar cultivation. In March 2019, the Think Tank for Inclusion and Equity (TTIE), a self-organized syndicate of working television writers, published “Behind the Scenes: The State of Inclusion and Equity in TV Writing,” a research-driven survey funded by the Pop Culture Collaborative. Data from that report observed hiring, writer advancement, workplace harassment, and bias among diverse writers, examining 282 working Hollywood writers who identify as women or nonbinary, LGBTQ, people of color, and/or people with disabilities, analyzing how they fare within the writers’ room. In positions that range from staff writer to executive story editor, a nearly two thirds majority of this surveyed group reported troubling instances of bias, discrimination, and/or harassment by members of their individual writing staff. Also, 58 percent of them said they experienced pushback when pitching a non-stereotypical diverse character or storyline; 58 percent later experienced micro-aggressions in-house. The biggest slap in the face: When it comes to in-house pitches, 53 percent of this group’s ideas were rejected, only to have white writers pitch exactly the same idea a few minutes later and get accepted. Other key findings from the report: 58 percent say their agents pitch them to shows by highlighting their “otherness,” and 15 percent reported they took a demotion just to get a staff job.

But there was more: 65 percent of people of color in the survey reported being the only one in their writers’ room, and 34 percent of the women and nonbinary writers reported being the only woman or nonbinary member of their writing staff; 38 percent of writers with disabilities reported being the only one, and 68 percent of LGBTQ writers reported being the only one.

For Dominic Taylor, the lack of diversity and inclusion in TV writers’ rooms can be fought in part by opening up the curriculum on college campuses, which he has expanded since joining the faculty at UCLA. “Students need a comprehensive education,” Taylor pointed out. He noted the importance of prospective playwrights being as familiar with Migdalia Cruz, Maria Irene Fornés, James Yoshimura, Julia Cho, and William Yellow Robe as they are with William Shakespeare, and looking at traditions as vast as the Gelede Festival, the Egungun Festival, Shang theatre of China, as well as the Passion Plays of Ancient Egypt.

“All of these modes of performance predate the Greek theatre, which is the starting point for much of theatre history,” explained Taylor. “It is part of my mandate as an educator to complete the education of my students. Inclusion is crucial to that education.”

After all, with the growing variety of platforms for story and expression, why shouldn’t there also be diversity of forms and voices? Whatever the medium of delivery, these are trends worth keeping an eye on.

Marcus Scott is a New York City-based playwright, musical writer, and journalist. He’s written for Elle, Essence, Out, and Playbill, among other publications.

[schraubd]

I Watched a Debate!

I normally am not a big fan of political debates, and that goes triple when there are still approximately sixty-seven candidates in the field and maybe five with an actual chance of winning. But I was invited to a debate-watch party tonight and, deciding to be a sociable sort, I went. Here's my thoughts:

Everybody played nice. There weren't a lot of sharp shots or jabs between the candidates; there seemed to be a real desire amongst everyone to keep it positive. As someone who very much values "no fighting", I liked to see that.

It also seemed to be the case that the candidates all converged around a pretty similar progressive vision. We saw minor skirmishes around, e.g., abolishing private insurance outright versus retaining it alongside a public option -- but if that's the "debate" in the Democratic Party, then we really have seen a major progressive victory.

That said, one consequence of this general positivity and agreeableness was that there often weren't clear differences between the candidates, or opportunities for anyone to really stand out. I didn't really see much reason to reshuffle my preferences. And so I suspect and worry that this nice-nice won't last, as candidates realize they need to take swings in order to differentiate themselves.

For the most part, then, my sense was that all the candidates did "fine". "Fine", of course, is much better for a candidate polling well like Warren than it is for a candidate who needs to break out of the pack, like Ryan.

Elizabeth Warren: Defined "fine". Surprisingly vague on policy details given that she "has a plan" for that. B+

Cory Booker: While I liked the "identity politics" focus -- special shoutout for specifically giving mention to violence facing Black trans individuals! -- I can see how others might view it as pandering. It did sometimes seem calculated. But I thought he was pretty good. B+

Julian Castro: A lot of people are saying he had a particularly good night. I didn't think he really stood out, but he was treated like he was on the A-list tier, which might ultimately be more important. Probably benefited most from this debate having only one of the true top candidates (Warren) on stage. B+

Amy Klobuchar: Seemed a bit shaky to me. On the one hand, she's clearly the "moderate" voice of the group, on the other hand, it still was a pretty emphatically progressive vision -- we're talking a narrow band here. B

Beto O'Rourke: Of all the (broadly defined) "top tier" candidates, seemed to have the worst night. Nothing abut him stood out, he felt very generic and empty suit-ish. Just run for Senate already. C

Bill De Blasio: Probably the most pugnacious candidate on stage, and not coincidentally also the candidate who I shifted most on -- alas, from "not thinking about" to "actively disliking". I guarantee you put this guy in a room with five women and he'd never let any get in a word edgewise. He really tried to steam-roller the moderators. Had a bunch of lines that I suspect would've been bigger applause lines if the audience wasn't already primed to hate him. D+

Jay Inslee: Second to De Blasio on the "pugnacious" quality. Somewhat volatile -- on the one hand, did a very good job emphasizing his progressive record as Governor. On the other hand, he's running a campaign based on climate change but went for the cheap-shot applause line on the "greatest existential threat facing America" question. C+

Tulsi Gabbard: No less terrible than she was before, but now I also think she might be a robot. Her first answer, nominally replying to a question about women's equal pay but entirely about her record of military service, certainly won the award for least responsive answer of the night. Got real lucky that the genocide/responsibility-to-protect question wasn't directed her way (which it absolutely should have). D+

Tim Ryan: Seemed to have those Michele Bachmann eyes. Rails against coastal "elitals", though I suppose I'm outing myself as one for pointing it out. Still, boo for being a divider. C-

John Delaney: It's really impressive how this guy is from my home state, has been running for President since approximately the Iron Age, and yet I still can't remember anything about him. I didn't recognize him when they first cut to him for an answer, and then, five minutes later when they returned to him, I had already forgotten who he was again. Poor guy. D+

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2XcKkQw

[douxreviews]

Aliens (1986) Review

[This review contains spoilers.]

Aliens is a perfect sequel, if there is such a thing. It's bigger, glossier, a bit longer, and it did an exceptional job building on the original story.

There are a number of parallels to the original. The story begins with Ripley waking up, and ends with the survivors going into cold sleep. The characters are again only known by their last names; even Newt has a very non-little-girl nickname. There's a huge explosion at the end, but the alien still manages to make it aboard the "lifeboat" to wreak more havoc. There's an android on board who ends up in pieces. Best of all, like Ridley Scott did in the original, James Cameron spends an entire hour setting up the story, and successfully pays it all off during the rest of the movie.

There are a number of differences, of course. Instead of "truckers," we have a crew of badass marines. There are many aliens instead of just one. The cast is twice as big and the stakes are higher, too, since there were sixty-some families on the "shake-and-bake" colony.

But we still have Ripley, and she is several levels of awesome. This is the movie where Sigourney Weaver proved to the world that a woman could be an action hero. She was terrific in scene after scene, from her tirade in the conference room at the beginning, to the pulse-pounding Ripley-in-the-loader versus the alien queen battle at the end. I've always loved the way she took over and drove the tank to the rescue, and the sequence in the lift where she loaded up with many, many, many weapons on her way into the queen's lair to rescue Newt. Sigourney Weaver was nominated for best actress for this movie, and she absolutely deserved it.

I also loved Michael Biehn as Hicks. He and Ripley were on the same wavelength throughout the movie. I particularly enjoyed the "nuke the planet" exchange, and the one where he showed her how to use that massive assault rifle. Ripley and Hicks were made for each other. I really wanted Ripley, Hicks and Newt to end up together as a family, maybe with Bishop as the weird uncle who sleeps on the couch. Maybe in Alien fanfic. Is there Alien fanfic?

Paul Reiser gave a wonderfully slimy performance as the Company rep. Very smart, casting a comedian, since this is a character that we expect to be evil, but the fact that it's Reiser makes us think we might be wrong. Bill Paxton is wonderfully annoying as the cowardly Hudson, and I loved that he went out in a blaze of glory. Newt is likable and has courage; she's not a cutesy kid at all, and Carrie Henn certainly had a greater acting range than Jonesy the cat. And I always liked that Bishop turned out to be the opposite of Ash, since we expected him to be just as bad. Especially since he was played by the master of evil, Lance Henriksen.

My favorite supporting actor in this one, though, is Jenette Goldstein, who is a standout as Vasquez. Hard to remember so long ago, but when this movie came out, women didn't serve in combat. Vasquez made a very strong impression on me. And I loved that Gorman redeemed himself by going back for Vasquez. Their scene in the air duct always gets to me.

Unlike most of my favorite movies, I saw Aliens in the theater. It was an unforgettable movie experience, literally edge of your seat. I remember actually feeling mildly nauseous. (That's when you know they got you – when your audience wants to throw up.) Aliens doesn't hold up quite as well as Alien does, in my opinion, but it's still an outstanding movie. I always watch them together. Like I said, pretty much the perfect sequel.

Bits and pieces of androids:

— The action takes place 57 years after the original. The planet got a name, or more accurately, a designation: LV426.

— Alien and Aliens always makes me think of two of my other favorite movies, Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day. It's not surprising, since the two franchises share James Cameron and some of his favorite actors: Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, Jenette Goldstein and Bill Paxton.

— Bishop explained that Ash was a Hyperdyne Systems 120-A2 model, and a bit twitchy. (You'd call what Ash did in the original movie "twitchy?") And that the more recently manufactured androids are subject to Asimov's rules. Hyperdyne always makes me think of Cyberdyne.

— There are several shots of Ripley's feet and she's wearing Reeboks. Really fun product placement that didn't detract from the story at all. I usually hate product placement.

— James Horner's music is memorable, and effectively heightens the tension. Like it needed more heightening.

— Dan says that Alien is a cold movie, and Aliens is a hot one. I thought that was an interesting observation.

— While looking up quotes, I discovered that James Remar (Dexter's father) was originally cast to play Dwayne Hicks, and was later replaced by Michael Biehn. I hadn't known that. I can't imagine this movie without Michael Biehn. I absolutely loved him in the first Terminator movie.

— As with Alien, there is an extended version. I prefer the theatrical release. But the extended version gives more weight to Ripley's need to save Newt; Ripley had a daughter.

— For me, the story ends with this movie. I'm not fond of the other sequels. One of our writers has offered to review them, though, and if he does, I'll very much look forward to reading them.

Quotes:

Ripley: "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"

Gorman: "Look, we can't have any firing in there. I want you to collect magazines from everybody." Hudson: "Is he fucking crazy?" Frost: "What do you expect us to use, man? Harsh language?"

Ripley: "I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." Burke: "Hold on a second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it." Ripley: "They can bill me."

Ripley: "Look. No bad dreams there." Newt: "Ripley, she doesn't have bad dreams because she's just a piece of plastic." Definitely Carrie Henn's best line. And she delivered it beautifully.

Newt: "My mommy always said there were no monsters, no real ones. But there are." Ripley: "Yes, there are, aren't there?" Newt: "Why do they tell little kids that?" Ripley: "Most of the time it's true."

Ripley: "You know, Burke, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage."

Ripley: "Get away from her, you bitch!" I remember the audience cheering that one.

A worthy sequel to an excellent movie. Four out of four M41A pulse rifles, ten millimeter with over-and-under thirty millimeter pump action grenade launchers,

Billie Doux loves good television and spends way too much time writing about it.

[factorinvestor]

Why Do Markets Go Up?

Stock markets are the greatest compounders of wealth the world has ever seen. The key objective of any investor is to get more than $1 back for every $1 invested. Sadly, most introductory investment courses and literature do not begin with an explanation as to why markets go up. It’s such a fundamental question, but it is often overlooked. With greater understanding as to why, it may well prove easier to stay invested when “Mr. Market” goes on a binge and lops 20% off the value of your portfolio.

Think of the U.S. stock market as one holding company named USA, Inc.[1] that holds a portfolio of businesses. If you were the CEO of this holding company, you would have two jobs. First, ensure profits are generated by the underlying businesses. Second, reinvest those profits in the best interests of the company’s owners. To do so, you would seek investments that grow USA, Inc.’s future earnings—like starting, expanding, acquiring, and/or selling businesses. If opportunities for those activities weren’t enticing, you might offer a dividend or repurchase shares outstanding (an implicit bet on the portfolio companies of USA, Inc. itself).

USA, Inc. has done a remarkable job of all this over time, but not in the ways you might expect. First, the reallocation of capital via dividends is more important to return than the underlying earnings generated themselves. Second, demographic and long-term economic forces drive earnings persistently higher.

Let me explain.

 Earnings Growth, Dividends, and Valuation Multiples

Since 1871, the earnings of USA, Inc. have grown by 3.99% annually.[2] We can think of earnings growth as the first of three sources of return to the investor.[3] Keep in mind that this growth is for the entire portfolio of USA, Inc.’s businesses. Some businesses within the portfolio grew at dramatically higher rates and some at much lower rates, but they averaged out to 3.99%.

Dividends account for the second source of return. If we assume that shareholders of USA, Inc. reinvested their dividends, that reinvestment would tack 4.55% annually onto the 3.99% of earnings growth, bringing total return to shareholders at 8.54%. Note that the contribution of dividends is greater than from underlying earnings growth. That seems strange. How can reinvestment be more important than the underlying earnings upon which dividends are generated?

One potential reason is that dividends, when reinvested, represent a redistribution of underutilized capital to firms that may have higher earnings growth rates. Dividend payers tend to be more mature firms, while non-dividend payers may be growing at a pace that requires all capital to be ploughed back into the business. Here’s an example. In a hypothetical two firm market, firm A is a young Technology company growing earnings at 20% per year. Firm B is a mature Consumer Staples firm growing earnings at 3% per year. Firm A is in growth mode and offers no dividend. Firm B offers a 3% yield to entice investors. Firm A is smaller and has a market capitalization of $5 billion. Firm B has a market cap of $10 billion. When Firm B issues its 3% dividend, $300 million gets paid to shareholders. Those who choose to reinvest do so pro rata—~33% to Firm A ($100 mil) and ~66% to Firm B ($200 mil). Because Firm B paid a dividend, $100 mil more is now invested in Firm A than would have otherwise been if no dividend were paid. $100 million has been reallocated to a more efficient use—a higher earnings growth firm.

The third component of return, which is more transient, is directly related to the valuation placed on the stream of earnings and dividends generated by USA, Inc.’s portfolio of businesses at different points in time.

The value of any company should theoretically be the combined value of 1) its existing business persisting into the future, and 2) a speculative component that represents the market’s guesstimate of the present value of future growth. That’s a mouthful so let’s dig in.

The simplest valuation measure is the price paid for each $1 of earnings generated by the company, commonly referred to as the Price-to-Earnings, or PE, ratio. In 1871, the PE for the market was 11.1x. At the end of 2018, it was 22.3x, which means the multiple “expanded” 0.47% per year. Unfortunately, multiples don’t always expand in linear fashion; we have simply smoothed the impact by annualizing the change.

Valuation multiples oscillate between expansion and contraction for the very reason that they are attempting to value the future, and the best guess of the future is constantly evolving (see chart below). It should be noted, however, that except in extreme circumstances like the tech bubble on the high end and the 1970’s on the low end, the PE ratios tend to revert to the long-run average of about 15x. Forecasting is an inherently difficult exercise for obvious reasons. It is unknown. The ability to do so would require a forecaster to accurately predict future cash flows, interest rates, and inflation—among a suite of other variables.

Add multiple expansion to the 8.54% generated via earnings and dividends, and we arrive at 9.01%, the annualized total investor return for the market (USA, Inc.) since 1871.

So, why do markets appreciate over time? Because earnings have grown over the very long term, dividends are paid—and when reinvested—are powerful additional contributors to return that implicitly reallocate capital. Finally, markets value the stream of earnings and dividends from the market differently at various points time. Changes in this valuation result in multiple expansion or contraction, which makes up for the balance of total investor returns.

The Three Components of Growth

Though we’ve broken down total investor return to show why markets go up, we have not addressed the second-order question— “what causes earnings to grow?”[4]

To answer this, we will assume that the S&P 500 Index is a decent proxy for the overall economy. This turns out to be a pretty good assumption, as the business sector represents 75% of GDP.[5] We also need to invoke three economic forces—inflation, productivity, and demographics.

Inflationary forces result from increases in costs—i.e. labor or raw materials—when demand overwhelms supply.[6] Over the very long term, these get passed along to the consumer via price hikes. The classic analog being too much money chasing too few goods. A little bit of persistent inflation can be good—it encourages consumption that fuels the economy, and it diminishes the future burden of debt repayments. Conversely, demand can decrease, resulting in deflation. Deflation is bad because it deters spending in favor of excessive saving (see Japan), and it increases the future burden of debt repayments.

Productivity generally results from either efficiency gains or value creation.[7] If a technological advancement allowed a worker to increase output to two widgets per hour from one, that’s a measurable doubling of productivity. Value creation would be the invention of something totally new, i.e. the internet. Productivity is amazing because more value is created with the same or fewer inputs than would otherwise have been possible. For the most part, productivity tend to be a gradual force. Productivity, defined as Real GDP per Capita, has grown consistently in the 2% range for many decades.[8]

Inflation tends to be more volatile—with a notable decade-long spike in the 1970’s—but has increased at around 3% on average. Inflation often lays the foundation upon which productivity induced innovation creates value, and so the two are interlinked forces. Inflation drives up costs, which necessitates a more efficient means of production, which increases profits, which attracts competitors into the market, which lower profits, which drives investment out of the space until a new, more efficient means of production is discovered and the cycle repeats.

Here is an example where this plays out in the real world—education. Until the advent of online classrooms, there were no noticeable productivity gains in education over the last several decades (I suspect longer, but don’t have the data!). The only way to increase educational productivity was to hire more teachers to teach more students in a physical space at a time. There are practical limits to this endeavor. In the last two decades, more students with loan-fueled pocket books have been attending school than ever—increase in demand without a commensurate increase in supply, resulting in inflation. Since 1947, higher education costs in the U.S. have grown dramatically faster than across the rest of the economy (5.7% versus 3.0%).[9] Enter online classrooms, which have no physical constraints, and they are contributing to lower educational inflation in recent years.

Demographic trends, though boring due to their glacial pace, are important because labor is often the most expensive component of production. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it represents more than 60% of the value of economic output.[10] Labor means workers. Workers are a part of the population. Growing populations will have more eligible workers in the future. Workers earn wages which they spend to support their growing families and lifestyle. Demographic headwinds and tailwinds can be identified by simply understanding the change in the overall population, or a subset—like workers employed.

Using these three forces, we can break down GDP into its component parts. I have shortened the time frame here to 1947-2018 for ease of access to Federal Reserve data. Over this period, nominal GDP has grown by 6.36% per year. That can be broken down into our three forces—Inflation 3.25%, Productivity 1.95%, and Population Growth 1.16%. When combined Productivity and Population Growth constitute Real GDP, which has grown at 3.11%.

 We can then recategorize the drivers of market return in economic growth terms. To level set, here is the table from above but with a shortened timeframe of 1947-2018 and adding a column for inflation-adjusted data.

The data point we seek to explain is real earnings growth of 3.42% using the forces of Productivity and Population Growth. Notice that it is relatively close to the 3.11% real GDP growth number above.  Productivity in the business sector differs from that of the overall economy in that the labor force is smaller than an entire country’s population. Here again, demographic trends play a role because the working age population ebbs and flows with generational birth trends. For business Productivity, we look to real corporate output relative to nonfarm payrolls. Over our time frame, business Productivity has grown at a 1.64% clip, accounting for slightly less than half of real earnings growth of the S&P 500.

The Population Growth component of real earnings has grown by 1.73% over this period, slightly more than half. Though I haven’t dived into it extensively, I suspect that the higher contribution for business versus real GDP is due to women entering the workforce in the latter half of the twentieth century.[11] The women’s labor force participation rate nearly doubled from 35% in 1950 to 60% in 2000, which means the labor force grew at a greater rate than the overall population.

At our firm, we spend a lot of time thinking about the characteristics of stocks that predispose them to outperform over time. We’ve found that attempting to predict first order results—like returns—is generally a fool’s errand. There are too many variables. However, if you can identify characteristics that are more stable—like underlying earnings—you can increase your odds of laying proper wagers on one or a portfolio of stocks.

When I look at the previous table, the stable and more predictable measure that jumps out at me is population growth. As noted before, its glacial and persistent. Given birth rates today, one can fairly reasonably predict what the labor force will look like in 10, 20, 30 years. Which is also to say that one can also potentially predict, with reasonable confidence, one major contributor to real earnings growth.[12]

Snow fall, Navigation, and Grinding Higher

I grew up in New Orleans. Besides being the Mecca of everything music, food, and culture, it happens to sit near the mouth of one of the greatest commerce thuways on the planet, the Mississippi River.

Kids love big, fast stuff, and I was no different. Watching the tanker ships glide by was a favorite pass time when we went downtown. There’s something pretty magical about hundreds of thousands of pounds moving in complete silence and seemingly effortlessly. What makes it even better is when those big tankers move fast. Naturally, I asked how all this was possible.

I learned a few things about rivers, navigation, and delayed gratification at a young age. First, the water tends to be higher in spring because all the snow from winter up north melts and fills the river. Second, more snow = more water = faster current = faster ships = cooler to watch.

At some point I realized that the cool factor was predictable. When it snowed an inordinate amount in January, the river was higher and the current moved faster. And the icing on the cake, a ship can only steer when it is moving faster than the current. So if the current was moving quick, ships moved even faster in April. This was a predictable cycle. It didn’t repeat every single year, but thematically, it has persisted since time immemorial.

Markets do tend to go up over time, but in cycles. While I think there is a decent portion of the population that still thinks markets are unpredictable casinos, there are fundamental trends at play that justify the continued rise of markets for decades to come—demographic trends and productivity gains.

Though imperfect in many ways, capitalism generally works. Businesses generate profits. Successful businesses employee people. Employees earn wages. They spend those wages to support their lifestyles, often raising a family. Inflation persists at a low rate, but periodically crops up as generational waves (i.e. Baby Boomers) stress the capacity of an economy. As new trends take shape, preferences change. Technological innovation occurs, resulting in disruption to the status quo and new value creation. Hopefully, in their quest for maximizing shareholder return, businesses continue to allocate to these new innovations, spurring relentless productivity gains over decades, and pushing markets higher.

  —

[1] I use the S&P 500 Index as a proxy for USA, Inc.

[2] Irrational Exuberance [Princeton University Press 2000, Broadway Books 2001, 2nd ed., 2005]

[3] This approach was developed by my colleagues in a research paper titled “Factors from Scratch”.

[4] https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/default-source/memos/2015-09-09-its-not-easy.pdf

[5] https://www.bls.gov/lpc/faqs.htm#P01

[6] In economics there are the paradigms of financial markets and goods markets. Though the requisite balance of demand and supply apply in both markets, the mechanism by which inflation/deflation occurs is different. For example, in financial markets, inflation (deflation) can be generated via excess (deficient) monetary supply with no real change in the goods market. For the purposes of this piece, I refer primarily to the goods markets.

[7] http://reactionwheel.net/2019/01/schumpeter-on-strategy.html

[8] How the Economic Machine Works

[9] Federal Reserve Economic Data

[10] https://www.bls.gov/lpc/faqs.htm#P01

[11] https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/women-in-the-workforce-before-during-and-after-the-great-recession/pdf/women-in-the-workforce-before-during-and-after-the-great-recession.pdf

[12] The BLS offers a report every two years which lays out their projections for growth of the labor force. The most recent projection can be found here.

[crimethinc]

Kavanaugh Shouldn’t Be on the Supreme Court. Neither Should Anyone Else.

Last week, millions watched the dramatic hearings pitting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh against Christine Blasey Ford, who courageously narrated her experience of being sexually assaulted by him decades ago. Once again, Americans were confronted with the brazen entitlement of the male power establishment. The hearings stirred up traumatic memories for countless survivors, ratcheted up partisan tensions, and catalyzed furious responses from feminists and progressives in view of the implications of the court shifting further to the right. With Roe v. Wade hanging in the balance, critics point out the horrifying irony of an unrepentant sexual predator potentially casting the deciding vote to block abortion access to millions of women and others across the country.

We applaud the courage of Christine Blasey Ford and everyone who has supported her through this ordeal. We don’t want to see Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, either. But should any man be able to wield that much power over the lives of millions?

What if the Trump administration manages to find a judge with the same views, but with no history of sexual assault? Would that render the confirmation process legitimate and their decisions of the Supreme Court beyond question? Should people of conscience accept the sovereignty of a nine-person elite over the most intimate spheres of their lives?

If you don’t think so either, you may already be an anarchist.

What does it look like to resist the nexus of rape culture and far-right power that Kavanaugh represents? The usual suspects propose the conventional solutions: calling representatives, canvassing for Democrats, taking to the streets to hold signs indicating our displeasure. But even if these efforts forestall Kavanaugh’s nomination this time around, they won’t disrupt the relations of power in which hundreds of millions are held hostage to the machinations of a small, mostly male elite. A victory against this particular nominee would only reset the clock; eventually, Trump will force through a new candidate who will rule the same way Kavanaugh intends to. And even if Trump is impeached or a Democrat is elected and a progressive nominee is sworn in—we’re still in the same place we started, vulnerable to the whims of a judicial aristocracy and alienated from our own power and potential. We need an approach that challenges the foundations of the system that put us in this situation in the first place.

Meanwhile, progressive critics such as Amy Goodman have demanded an FBI investigation as a way to give official weight to Ford’s testimony and hopefully discredit Kavanaugh as a candidate. Goodman points out, reasonably, that Trump’s claim to be in favor of law enforcement while hesitating to order the FBI to look into Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct reveals his hypocrisy. This logic positions progressives and feminists as the honest proponents of law enforcement—and police as protectors of women. Have we learned nothing from decades of rape crisis organizers explaining how the police and courts so often serve to retraumatize survivors, putting them on trial rather than those who attacked them? Can we ignore the feminists of color from INCITE to Angela Davis who call on us to remember that police and prisons do not stop rape but rather intensify poverty, racism, and injustice?

Democrats are trying to recast themselves as the real “law and order” candidates. This is not so much a change in strategy as a revealing of their true colors. Between the blue of “blue states” and the blue of “blue lives matter,” it’s only a matter of tone, not content.

In TV newsrooms and around water coolers across the country, the discussions about this case have focused on how “believable” or “credible” Ford’s testimony is versus that of Kavanaugh. Taking this approach, we become an entire nation of judges and juries, debating evidence and scrutinizing witnesses, choosing whose experience to legitimize and whose to reject. This adversarial framework has always benefitted those who wield privilege and hold institutionalized power. Even if we rule in favor of Ford, we are reproducing the logic of a legal system based in patriarchal notions of truth, judgment, and objectivity, a way of understanding reality that has always suppressed the voices and experiences of the marginalized, preserving the conditions that enable powerful men to sexually abuse others with impunity.

Unfortunately, calls for FBI investigations reinforce this logic and legitimize the murderous regime of surveillance, policing, and prisons as a means of obtaining justice rather than a source of harm. Rejecting the rape culture that Kavanaugh and his supporters represent necessarily means rejecting the patriarchal institutions through which they wield power. If we legitimize any of those institutions in the course of trying to be pragmatic in our efforts to discredit specific officials, we will only undercut our efforts: one step forward, two steps back.

This has broader implications for how we address rape culture in general. When we reduce the issue of sexual violence to the question of whether specific men have committed sexual assault or abuse, we frame these as crimes carried out in a vacuum by deviant individuals. As a result, entertainment corporations and government agencies can pretend to solve the problem by finding men who do not have sexual assaults on their record rather than addressing the misogynistic dynamics and power imbalances that are inherent in government, the workplace, and society at large. This confuses the social question of addressing sexual violence with the matter of finding candidates and nominees who can present a clean résumé; should they later turn out to also be implicated in doing harm, they can be replaced, just as the electoral system replaces politicians every few years without ever giving the rest of us self-determination.

Rape, abuse, and other forms of violence are a systemic problem within our society, not a matter of individual deviance. We need a way of addressing rape culture that cuts to the root.

So is a woman’s place in the government…

…or in the revolution? Can we have it both ways?

Are there other ways that we can think about how to respond to the threat that a judge like Kavanaugh poses to our bodies and communities?

As anarchists, we reject the idea that judges or politicians deserve the authority to determine the course of our lives. Rather than only trying to pressure leaders to vote one way or the other in a winner-take-all system that reduces us to spectators in the decisions that affect us, we propose solutions based in direct action: taking power back into our hands by enacting our needs and solving our problems ourselves, without representatives.

As long as legislators and judges can determine the scope of our reproductive options, our bodies and lives will be subject to the shifting winds of politics rather than our own immediate needs and values. Instead of validating their authority by limiting ourselves to calling for better legislators and judges, we should organize to secure and defend the means to make decisions regarding what we do with our bodies regardless of what courts or legislators decree.

In practice, this could mean networking with health workers who have the necessary skills, and sharing them widely; stockpiling and manufacturing the supplies we need for all sorts of health care; defending spaces where we can operate our own clinics; fundraising resources to secure access to health care and birth control options for all, regardless of ability to pay; and developing models for reproductive autonomy that draw on past precedents but address our current problems. We can do our best to render the decisions of would-be patriarchs like Kavanaugh irrelevant.

All this has already happened before. For example, from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, the Jane network, a vast clandestine effort centered in Chicago, provided illegal abortions to thousands of women. The fact that abortion was already accessible to so many women was a major factor in compelling the US court system to finally legalize abortion access in order to be able to regulate it. The most effective way to pressure the authorities to permit us access to the resources and care that we need is to present them with a fait accompli. Unfortunately, when it comes to standing up to elites like the Supreme Court and the police who enforce its decisions, there are no shortcuts.

We can extend the logic of direct action to every area in which a right-wing Supreme Court might inflict harm, from environmental destruction to indigenous sovereignty to labor organizing. All of the rights we have today are derived from the grassroots struggles of ordinary people who came before us, not from the wisdom or generosity of powerful officials.

FBI investigations and court processes will not end sexual violence or bring healing to survivors. To strike at the root causes that enable the Kavanaughs of the world to do harm, we have to tear up patriarchy and toxic masculinity by the roots. This involves a process of ongoing education around sexuality, consent, and relationships, developing strategies to intervene when we see violence of any kind in our communities, creating culture that models alternative visions of gender and intimacy, and reimagining justice as restorative and transformative rather than adversarial.

We can see how pervasive the problem is when we look at the narratives that underpin support for Kavanaugh. Leading up to the hearings, supporters focused on portraying Kavanaugh as a devoted family man. As multiple allegations of sexual assault surfaced, many commentators framed the question as a contradiction between Kavanaugh the loving husband and father and Kavanaugh the callous rapist, implying that these roles are mutually exclusive. Yet gendered violence continues at epidemic levels within proper heterosexual families; shocking rates of spousal rape and domestic violence permeate American marriages, while statistics on child sexual abuse indicate that family members make up a substantial proportion of abusers. Bill Cosby, the archetypical television husband and father, was recently sentenced to prison for drugging and sexually assaulting numerous women. The false assumption that a history of sexual assault is somehow incompatible with adhering to the conventions of heterosexual family life reflects the persistence of patriarchal norms and homophobia, as well as a refusal to honestly address the extent of gendered violence in our society.

No Supreme Court could solve this problem, even if it consisted of the nine wisest and gentlest people in the world. When it comes to social change, there’s no substitute for widespread grassroots action.

Family men and rapists are not mutually exclusive.

Some American feminists have drawn parallels between the Kavanaugh case and the #NotHim movement in Brazil, in which women are rallying against a Trump-esque misogynist politician running for president.

The struggle of Brazilian feminists to resist the extreme-right threat deserves our attention and support. Yet as anarchists, we can take that model further in responding to the Kavanaugh nomination. Rather than Not Him, we can assert Not Anyone—no man, rapist or not, deserves the power to decide the reproductive options for millions of women and others. Perhaps the more appropriate slogan for the struggle against patriarchy and the Supreme Court would be the rallying cry of Argentina’s 2002 rebellion: “Que se vayan todos!”—get rid of all of them. They all must go.

The sooner we can do this—the more we can delegitimize the authority of Supreme Courts to shape our lives, and the more powerful and creative we can make our our alternatives—the less we will have to fear from the Trumps and Kavanaughs of the world. Let’s build a society that enables everyone to engage in genuine self-determination—in which no man can decide what all of us may do with our bodies—in which no state can take away our power to shape our future.

Further Reading

Fuck Abuse, Kill Power: Addressing the Root Causes of Sexual Harassment and Assault

[justbenice00]

Nuances and the Right/Left Paradigm

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment from Zeph at Quillette. This is on the comments of the article that I just linked to on my previous post.

@d It would be good if you were right that “[leftist]  it’s used as a short hand to mean something quite specific, at least by most people: I’d say “leftist” refers not to Dems or liberal or left of center but to the woke collectivist version of self-proclaimed progressivism”

Alas, I think if you reread the comment threads empiracally, you may find that that it’s used much more broadly by a large portion of those commentors right of center.  But K. Dershem’s point was not only about stereotyping of “leftists” but of “liberals” and “Democrats”, which is almost as rampant here as the stereotyping of whites, males, etc by the PC fringe of the liberals.  In the first few comments of this sub thread we find:

“To democrats there are no individuals, only whites, blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, gays, lesbians, ect…”

“To Democrats there are no individuals, only oppressors (whites, males, Christians, Jews, rich, Republicans) and victims (blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, gays, lesbians, females, poor, Democrats, etc.).”

“Democrats and leftist only see groups. Democrats and leftist fear and despise individuals and prefer group think.”

I suspect you may not notice how ubiquitous this is.  I notice because I have been a lifelong “liberal” and have voted for Democrats for 50 years (sometimes not whole-heartedly).  The large majority of my close friends are liberals and vote Democratic (or Green).  I suspect some here would more quickly recognize stereotyping of conservatives, being human.

And yet, these characterizations of liberals do not fit the large majority of those liberals & Democrats I know.  The folks I know are largely very caring, thoughtful people who are not deeply into identity politics. (There are also SJWs in our extended circles, but we find them problematic people, not examplars to emulate). They are not evil people who despise individualism and see only groups, they don’t hate all white people, they don’t want to throw open the borders, etc. Of course, to some degree that’s because we all filter our friends, but even among generally liberal groups I spend time with, I find the ourright SJWs to be a noisy minority, not  representative of the community.

So the characterizations I see in the comments here are constantly striking me as overly broad brushes at the best, self-soothing caricatures at the worst.  I sigh and move on – I’m here to find the gem comments that are unusually prevalent in this ore (compared to most sites), so I try to mostly ignore the “mine tailings”.

I’m here, tho, because I do find Identity Politics and Political Correctness extremely troubling.

Even if the SJWs are a minority in many or most liberal communities, in some areas they have become dominant – parts of academia, some corporations, etc.  And yes, some of the Democratic party.

And despite what I have said about my liberal friends being very decent people, I do find that most of them frequently stereotype conservatives, and prefer to live in their liberal bubble.  (Just as I see conservatives do; this is a sickness of our society, not of just one party).  I see politically correct framings of reality creeping in, and it concerns me.

I see political correctness as an memetic virus (in the Richard Dawkins sense of “meme” as a self-replicating unit of cultural transmission, not more recent the captioned picture usage).  It preys on good intentions and kind feelings, but then distorts perceptions and seduces the well meaning.  As folks go deeper into that framing of the universe, it covertly offers “moral high ground” payoffs, which are like candy or cocaine to the ego (for all sides, but here I’m talking about liberals).

I see that “moral high ground” dynamics as the single largest core problem; it justifies selective empathy and selective numbness that allow nominally progressive people to act in ways that are inconsistent with their professed values.

And it’s becoming a real problem with infiltrating the cultural elites.  I don’t see any good outcome from that; instead I have a baad feeling about this.

One difference between me and the typical commenter here is that I am seeing it from the inside, with understanding of how it works.  I don’t impute projected bad motives on the liberals who are slowly succumbing to it – I can see that PC’s initial appeal is to their good motives, actually.

But at heart PC is very corrosive, it’s based on shaming and blaming, on asserting that moral high ground that corrupts and transforms.  It’s deadly for classical liberalism, and for what I consider the necessary “metaculture” contanier within which any hope for a multicultural society must exist.

I really do see it as a cultural pathogen, adapted or evolved to get past the defenses of liberalism and take root before spreading itself.

So my goal is to help with the immune response to this pathogen of the body politic.  It’s most prevalent among liberals because this mind virus is customized to appeal to them – but I see some very related victimhood dynamics on the conservative side as well, so believe that the right is immune to this cultural dynamic at your own peril (our own peril).

In that regard, we can be allies.  You might call me a philosophical liberal with a STEM background and a desire of politics that have a good impedence match with reality.  As such, I can respect philosophical conservatives, as to my best understanding both (traditional) liberals and conservatives have blind spots and are better at seeing each other’s blind spots than their own.  But I’m less impressed with what I call “tribal conservatives” and “tribal liberals”, who are less interested in converging on an every better approximation of the truth, than in “winning for our side at all costs”.

“A Harvard-Harris Poll survey showed that 55% of those polled said Google was wrong to fire [James] Damore, including 61% of Republicans, 56% of independents and 50% of Democrats.”- wikipedia

That’s only 11% difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Half the Democrats were against it.

Those of us on the side of reason and sanity are not all sitting on the Republican benches.  We need a broad movement including classic liberals as well as moderates, conservatives, and libertarians to oppose the many excesses of Political Correctness.

I have the experience that when I speak my perspective (strategically) in some liberal venues, a number of people tell me how it helped them put their finger on something which was bothering them too.  There’s a lot of discontent with the PC strategy building from within liberals, but it’s often unfocused and diffuse.  One of the strengths of PC as pathogen is that it makes opposition difficult.

But when opposition to the PC infection is mixed with heavy doses of opposition to everything left of center, unsurprisingly liberals feel pushed to join ranks; maybe the PC crowd isn’t that bad, compared to the attackers anyway.

It’s encouraging to find other liberals and moderates who can see the problems with PC.  But it would be good to join with reasonable conservatives who can distinquish between the PC infection and liberalism in general – and who are willing to help take down PC without expecting everyone to become an arch-conservative as a precondition.

Anyway, as part of this, I would like to encourage the folks here to be more nuanced than lumping all “left of center” folks as one hive-mind, and to avoid conflating the struggle against the PC infection with the permanent struggle between left/right.

That means being willing to work with sane liberals to resist the PC mindset, without expecting that means they will have to agree with every tenet of conservative philosophy.  I see Poliical Correctness as making civil and meaningful debate impossible and that’s a bad thing – but my goal is to restore that healthy debate, not to cede it entirely to conservatives.

So, how about we come up with a name for those infected with “PC” specifically, and aim our joint criticism at that.  (You probably wondered when I’d get around to your final question, no?).

I mean something neutral on the left/right spectrum.  Like I refer to most on the anti-AGC sides as “contrarian” versus “mainstream” scientific view, as the most neutral terms I’ve found.

Maybe “cultural absolutists”?  “social justice wing”?

In the meanwhile, how about just using “SJW” when you mean the crazies on the left, rather than all liberals, or all Democrats?  (The problem with “progressive” is that nobody knows which political subgroup it really means today, so it’s mostly just confusing).

The only minor disagreement I have is that, instead of using the term “social justice warrior” or “SJW” - I would, instead, use the term “social justice dogmatist”... simply because there is no single agreed upon definition of “SJW”. In fact, people on the alt-right will even use “SJW” synonymously with “liberal” or “leftist”.

[eng2100]

blog 04 - avatar (the one with the blue people not the last airbender)

preface

I went into this with absolutely no feelings about this movie beyond the absurdity of how many sequels it’s apparently going to get. As an artist, I find the visual effects extremely impressive even to this day, but as a storyteller, I thought this story was almost so inoffensive that it’s offensive. 

However, I think that engaging with things in good faith is a good way to find ways to expand your horizons and thoughts, and I like to enjoy things despite my dad’s insistence that I like to not enjoy things. (It’s not that I like to not like things, it’s that it’s easier to entertain people when it’s a bad review. Tough crowd.) I’m a firm believer in the idea that cerebral analysis of media adds to the joy of consumption rather than takes away from it, so let’s dive right in.

I like structure, so we’re gonna layer it like a delicious theme cake. 

1. the elephant in the room

Everyone has seen Pocohontas. Everyone has seen Dancing With Wolves. I’m not really here to rehash arguments, but I think getting into this movie without addressing what first comes to everyone’s mind when they think about it is pretty much impossible. The “White Savior” trope is more or less a narrative cliche in which a noble white person will take a stand against the Bad White People on the side of a sympathetic oppressed people-- Native Americans see this plotline probably the most, but black people still see it today every now and then (Green Book got nominated for a lot of Oscars, after all. The hunger is there for easily digestible feel-good race relation drama.) Wikipedia sums up the White Savior trope better than I could, so here it is:

“At the cinema, the white savior narrative occupies a psychological niche for most white people, as an expression of their latent desire for interracial goodwill and reconciliation. By presenting stories of racial redemption, involving black people and white people professing to reach across racial barriers, Hollywood is catering to a mostly white audience who believe themselves unfairly victimized by non-white ethnic groups, because they are culturally exhausted with the unfinished national discourse about race and ethnicity in the society of the United States. Hence, films featuring the narrative trope of the white savior have notably similar storylines, which present an ostensibly nobler approach to race relations, but offer psychological refuge and escapism for white Americans seeking to avoid substantive conversations about race, racism, and racial identity. In this way, the narrative trope of the white savior is an important cultural artifact, a device to realize the desire to repair the social and cultural damage wrought by the myths of white supremacy and paternalism, regardless of the inherently racist overtones of the white-savior narrative trope.“

Native Americans factor into this most significantly in the case of Avatar-- aliens in movies are hardly ever just aliens. Whether they represent an oppressed underclass (District 9), childhood innocence (E.T.), or fear of foreign invasion (War of the Worlds), aliens are an easy vessel to carry almost any idea you want them to. So if the Na’vi are more or less an ideological stand-in for Native Americans during the conquest of America, our protagonist Jake is the future space cowboy to the Cowboys and Indians In Space.

Both Jake and Grace sort of fall in and out of the White Savior space-- ultimately Grace condescends to the Na’vi a little more and she has a more complete character arc that ends with her transcending this trope, but Jake is whole hog in it. He’s like, the legendary prophecy warrior. He’s The Guy. 

(Pictured above: The Guy)

James Cameron grapples pretty hard with the White Savior trope-- he never truly goes one way or another about it and the concept of Avatars-- as in the Na’vi bodies that Jake and company jump into-- significantly...well, complicates the idea of race relations in this movie. There are certainly some uncomfortable ideas about identity wrapped up in the concept of body swaps (if this idea interests you, Altered Carbon is a really good read), but re: the readings and lectures, the concept kind of works towards what is ultimately the broad takeaway of the movie.

In summary: no, we’re not doing this whole review about White Guilt in Space. Now that that’s out of the way...

2. james cameron predicted late stage capitalism

Imperialism

"The policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies."

Avatar is about imperialism. This is as broad and pointed a theme as you can get from a movie that draws such heavy inspiration from Native American and Aboriginal cultures. Interestingly enough, the movie’s futuristic setting goes hand in hand with the commentary about the military and Western Imperialism. 

The company in Avatar, and all the almost comedically evil military men, are very brazen about their lack of ideological purpose. They are on Pandora for money. They are being paid to go to Pandora to take its resources-- the delightfully named “Unobtanium” in specific. As mentioned in the reading, Unobtanium is valuable for its properties as a superconductor, and I’m not a STEM kid, so I’ll leave it at that for simplicity’s sake. 

That the mercenary force on Pandora is so open about their exploitative intentions draws an interesting parallel to the world of today that’s maybe a touch haunting, considering that Avatar came out some years ago. In politics, at least up until now, you notice the use of a few common euphemisms as smokescreens for more extreme ideas-- for example, the Right’s: “protecting American jobs”. 

Protecting American jobs is a euphemism for racism against Mexicans-- it was the most common smokescreen reasoning for the border wall pre-Trumpian politics. Trump and company have since dropped the euphemism all together. The death of a euphemism usually means that the euphemism is no longer culturally or socially required-- you can just come out and say whatever horrible thing you mean. In Avatar’s universe, it’s clear that the political-economic climate has come to a point where they can just say that they’re there to steal the Na’vi’s resources whether they like it or not.

The movie and the lecture both draw specific attention to the parallels the film draws explicitly between military tactics used in the movie, and real-world events. “Shock and Awe”, a tactic coined by the Bush era, is referenced in exact terms-- it being a display of overwhelming force intended to break the fighting spirit of the enemy. The commander character whose name I just read but I can’t remember now says that he is a veteran of both Venezuela and Nigeria-- both real world locations in which the U.S. has invaded and destabilized for material interests under the guise of American ideology. 

In Avatar, we see the thin veneer of “freedom and democracy” as the driving forces of U.S. intervention stripped away explicitly. The opening narration of Jake’s arrival to Pandora has him say that “on Earth, these men were soldiers fighting for freedom...but here, they’re mercenaries”, however, the line between a supposed freedom fighter and a mercenary is borderline nonexistent. 

3. western scientific objectivism sucks

Another current running through Avatar is the juxtaposition of what is “real” with what is “unreal-- aka Western objectivity science versus belief systems. This is embodied in the character of Grace, a scientist and anthropologist who has been researching Na’vi culture for some time. The reading characterizes her as “the happy face of liberalism” that tries to put a nice coat of paint over the same imperialist ideas that the more blunt military types embody-- she is kinder to the Na’vi and sees their culture and planet as worth preserving, but she is ultimately dismissive of their beliefs and of Eywa (”pagan voodoo”) the same as the other mercenaries.

We’re gonna put on tinfoil hats for a little bit here to make a relation between Western culture (imperialism and colonialism) and capitalism and paganism. Are you ready?

Okay.

So you know how they burned witches at the stake at the onset of the Industrial Age in America and the pagan practices of “hedge magic” were pretty much obliterated? I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Capitalism is a system that can only operate materialistically-- people aren’t “people” but “workers”, and the concept of magic and belief exists in terms that capitalism can’t define, and more importantly, can’t exploit. So witches were burned and women were placed with great reinforcement back into domesticity, where their function in capitalism was to give birth to and rear new workers.

You can see this dichotomy between the science of objectivity (what is “real”) and belief systems (what is “unprovable”, “unobservable”) in the way Grace uses scientific terms to justify the Na’vi’s spirituality. A very powerful through-line can be seen in the way that imperialism, capitalism, materialism, and objective science intersect. Their interconnected natural collective consciousness is like the raw function of a brain to her, likened to a network. It isn’t until Grace is mortally wounded and experiences the Na’vi’s healing ceremony that she is able to transcend the capitalistic, materialistic terms for definition for Eywa to have a spiritual experience, and to become one with Eywa herself (”she’s real.”)

In a plot that hinges on the material (Unobtainium) interests of a capitalist mercenary force, the ultimate refutation of this is the Na’vi’s spiritual values.

4. avatar: endgame

So what is this all working towards? Well, the idea of an interconnected spirituality like Eywa. The idea takes root in geomantic ideas, more commonly known as “feng shui”-- it’s sort of the concept of an earthly energy, a flow that moves through and connects the Earth and its people and creatures. The strange braid cord things that allow the Na’vi to interface with certain points and other creatures is a very straightforward metaphor for that concept of feng shui and geomancy.

Here we come back around to the concept of Jake as the White Savior/chosen one/The Guy. It’s kind of obtuse, but the general theory is that Eywa chose Jake as a sign that all peoples must needs transcend their boundaries and become one with the larger concept that Eywa represents. This of course comes packaged with an urgent environmental message-- our life is that of the planet, and to exploit and sacrifice one is to sacrifice the other.

Pandora, Eywa, and the Na’vi represent the polar opposite of everything that capitalist imperialism is. Thus, James Cameron, ironically, used a huge budget Hollywood endeavor to refute everything that Hollywood is. Now he’s making Alita: Battle Angel. 

Funny how that works. Oh, I made myself sad.

[propertyexperttips]

5 things you must consider before renting out your property (Hindi)

If you have inherited or bought a house, or upgraded to a bigger property in the last few years and continue to own the old house for investment purposes in the hope that real estate prices will only increase, you may have been disappointed by now. In the last few years, prices have either remained stagnant or decreased in major markets across the country, and there are no signs that the trend will change anytime soon. In this scenario, there are only two choices: selling the property or putting it on rent. If you want to sell the house, read what experts suggest should be your exit strategy here.

However, in the current market situation, chances of capital appreciation are very low, and renting out a property does make sense. It allows you to make a little money (typically 2-3% of the property value annually) every month, which could help you in paying off a certain portion of your equated monthly income (EMI), if any, or enhance your return from the assets.

The first question to ask yourself is whether you want to rent out or not. Making decision to rent out your house is not always easy. Say, if you have inherited a house or lived in a house before, renting it out could be tough on you emotionally. Also, it’s time-consuming. To start with, before looking for tenants, you have to look into repairs and maintenance aspects of the house. A house you bought a few years ago may not be in the condition to be put on rent. Then there is advertising or dealing with agents in order to find a tenant. It doesn’t stop at that: there is rent to be negotiated and legal and other formalities to be completed before the tenant finally moves in. 

Even during the tenancy, you may have to interact with your tenant regularly for rent and other issues, handle maintenance and repairs, and deal with any emergencies that may come up. 

If you are ready to do all that and more, here are five things you should consider before renting out your house. 

The first thing you need to decide is how much rent you should expect. “The rental market is, almost by definition, price sensitive," said Anuj Puri, chairman, Anarock Property Consultants Ltd, a property broking firm. A landlord should research rental rate trends for the given location and property typology and ensure that the property has not been priced off the market, added Puri. 

Remember, there are various factors which determine the rent of a house such as its location, amenities, neighbourhood and infrastructure. But the most important factor is the condition of the house itself. 

“Newer homes will rent out for more, but renovated flats in older projects can earn almost as much as a new one," said Puri. But before you decide to renovate the house, see if it makes sense for you. “You need to weigh the cost of renovation versus the potential increase in the rent amount," said Puri.

Another thing you should have clarity on is the type of tenant you want. Simultaneously, you need to figure out how long you want to let out your property. “It’s important for a landlord to understand whether they have bought the property as an investment or for personal use. This helps them in identifying the kind of tenants they would like to engage," said Saurabh Garg, co-founder and CBO, NoBroker.com. 

For instance, homeowners who have purchased properties in high-growth areas purely from an investment standpoint are more willing to let it out to students and/or working professionals for a couple of years, while people who view their property as a home for personal use generally prefer renting it out to families for longer durations, explained Garg. This is also true if you are renting out a floor in the house in which you live yourself.

Many home-owners are reluctant to put property on rent because they don’t want to put their asset at risk for a nominal return. Typically, rental yield from residential property in India is between 2% and 3% of the property value per annum. “Letting a house on rent to a complete stranger has certain inherent risks, such as property damage, delay in rent transfer or complete non-payment, and refusal to vacate the property after the expiration of the pre-established timelines," said Garg. 

To avoid problems and mitigate the risk, landlords should draft a robust rent agreement. “A lot of the risk can be reduced by an air-tight rental agreement which clearly enumerates the rights and responsibilities of both the landlord and the tenant," said Puri.

“Landlords should include relevant clauses into the rental agreement and collect a security deposit," said Garg.

Once you find a suitable tenant, discuss the terms and conditions, and insist that she goes through the clauses mentioned in the rent agreement you have drafted. If need be, make the changes as per mutual understanding and draft a final rent agreement for registration. Remember, “rental agreement should always be registered with the local authorities in order to become a valid legal document," said Puri. 

In case the tenant starts troubling you by not paying rent or not agreeing to vacate the house when you need it, a registered rent agreement would be the only weapon that will help you. 

Besides, even if you conduct detailed background check of the person taking your house on rent or the tenant was referred by a known person, it is wise to go for police verification. 

Your work is not over as soon as you let out the house. You should visit the house once in a while (monthly or quarterly), to inspect whether the tenant is keeping the house properly or not. 

It also works to interact with neighbours and take feedback about the tenant. You should also keep an eye on whether the tenant is paying utility bills, society maintenance charges and other expenses on time