#because it is about economics

[maddie-grove]

My Top Twenty Books I Read in 2022

I haven't had a ton of time or concentration available to write book reviews this past year, or even to read nearly as much as I usually do, but I thought I would post my top 20 from last year.

Mexican Gothic by Silvia Moreno-Garcia (2020)

The Testaments by Margaret Atwood (2019)

Unmask Alice by Rick Emerson (2022)

Ghost Wall by Sarah Moss (2018)

Wahala by Nikki May (2022)

Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson (2014)

Secrets of a Summer Night by Lisa Kleypas (2004)

Dune by Frank Herbert (1965)

Isabel: Jewel of Castilla by Carolyn Meyer (2001)

Maddaddam by Margaret Atwood (2013)

We Sold Our Souls by Grady Hendrix (2018)

Summerwater by Sarah Moss (2020)

Through the Woods by Emily Carroll (2014)

The Mirror and the Light by Hilary Mantel (2020)

Scandal in Spring by Lisa Kleypas (2006)

Devil in Winter by Lisa Kleypas (2006)

Devil House by John Darnielle (2022)

The Nineties by Chuck Klosterman (2022)

Normal People by Sally Rooney (2018)

Horrorstör by Grady Hendrix (2014)

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

Has anyone asked George what's the tax policy of any of the asoiaf kings (and queen)?

You haven't read the books, have you. Does the dwarf's penny mean nothing to you? Bran in ACOK and Manderly's silver? Littlefinger and his embezzlement? Cersei in AFFC and the Iron Bank? Dany in ADWD and the olive trees and the fighting pits? Tywin and his relationship with Aerys, who raised taxes and tariffs despite Tywin's objections, then blamed his Hand when lords and merchants complained and lowered the taxes so that they would praise him? Alton Butterwell and Edwell Celtigar, hugely unpopular masters of coin because of their taxes? King Jaehaerys and his "Lord of Air" Rego Draz? Rhaenyra aka "King Maegor with teats" and Bartimos Celtigar, murdered horribly for his taxes? No, seriously, have you read anything at all?

[keepyourpantsongohan]

Meaningful Highlights from Kakashi Retsuden:

Minato catching Kakashi before he falls, the same way Kakashi always does for his students. And Kakashi, even at eight or nine years old, straight out of his father's funeral and before being his student, immediately relaxing when he runs into Minato: His feet tangled beneath him and he pitched forward. Into someone’s back. “You were really strong back there,” a voice told him, and he suddenly saw bright golden hair. He felt his breathing become a little easier. The Yellow Flash of Konoha. Namikaze Minato.

Kakashi describing his current feelings about his father: Now he felt proud from the bottom of his heart to have been born the child of the White Fang of Konoha.

Kakashi wanting to help the people of Redaku in a way that they can sustain themselves, even as he actually is providing a great deal of support through the process: The people of this country had to learn how to stand up and walk under their own strength. Give a starving person bread or teach them how to grow wheat. As Hokage, Kakashi had always chosen the latter.

Kakashi reflecting on his time as Sixth Hokage he eschewed tradition to build something that developed beyond shinobi: A never-ending peace. That was what Kakashi had sought as the Sixth Hokage. An orderly society that would go on and on even when he was not the Hokage, even when the day came when the role of Hokage disappeared. To create a framework so that they would never again fall into the quagmire of war.

The way Kakashi shows that he still views all of the former students taught by him and his friends in a parental and protective way: They had long since reached adulthood, and some were now parents while others were active on the front lines as shinobi. Even so, no matter how many years passed, to Kakashi, they were his precious students and the next generation who needed to be protected. Seeing them having so much fun was enough to ease his heart.

[chronically-ghosted]

day before a 5 day holiday weekend. office empty. got me thinking thoughts.

[theminecraftbee]

today on hermitcraft: joe attempts to help oli understand the economy!

[tomurakii]

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

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

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

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

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

[ethicsaesthetic]

Lockwood: You’re not Marissa Fittes.

Lucy: Why? Because you can’t handle being my Tom Rotwell?

Me, who had not read the books and had only a vague sense of who Marissa Fittes and Tom Rotwell were: Oooh, burn.

[3liza]

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

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

[maybe-boys-do-love]

A Tale of a Thousand Stars answers the age-old question: What if Hallmark movies were good?

[artifeast]

bisexual lighting ily

[vyeoh]

You know i wasnt expecting to catch strays watching a smallishbeans video but I guess that's what I get for getting a minor studying history of law

[slyandthefamilybook]

I think we need to have a serious re-evaluation of what "leftist" means bc there ain't no fuckin way authcoms are on the same left as me lmao

[enha-stars]

okay this has nothing to do with enha (i should shut up) but i have to tell SOMEONE. basically, this guy, a friend of a friend, has been hanging out with my friend group a lot more. he’s cool and funny and okay looking ig (lie) except, one of my friends is interested in him but he is not interested in her. as in, he makes it pretty obvious. he avoids being alone w her (by inviting others) and he often dodges questions about relationships. however…. today… after my midterm, we were all in the library and my friend asked him if he wanted to go with her to get food, and he respectfully declined. but then, after a bit, when i got up to get food, he offered to come with me. i’m not reading too much into it but my other friends have claimed that he’s more inclined towards me than my friend because he’s always the first to invite me and he genuinely has conversations with me. the issue is that this friend is very insecure when it comes to men and IF anything between me and this guy happens, she’s going to end my life probably

[welcometoteyvat]

as a chinese person yall need to stop blaming the ccp for everything (read: hoyo is capable of making colorist design decisions and not everything is a result of censorship pls)

[hanzajesthanza]

when sapkowski is all “i don’t believe in absolute evil” like he didn’t write like vilgefortz and leo bonhart and birkart grellenort likeeee okkkk but those guys were preeeetty evil though

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

I will be curious to read the vituperative denials of the validity of this article's analysis, which is pasted below the cutoff:

“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” That question, first posed by Ronald Reagan in a 1980 presidential-campaign debate with Jimmy Carter, has become the quintessential political question about the economy. And most Americans today, it seems, would say their answer is no. In a new survey by Bankrate published on Wednesday, only 21 percent of those surveyed said their financial situation had improved since Joe Biden was elected president in 2020, against 50 percent who said it had gotten worse. That echoed the results of an ABC News/Washington Post poll from September, in which 44 percent of those surveyed said they were worse off financially since Biden’s election. And in a New York Times/Siena College poll released last week, 53 percent of registered voters said that Biden’s policies had hurt them personally.

As has been much commented on (including by me), this gloom is striking when contrasted with the actual performance of the U.S. economy, which grew at an annual rate of 4.9 percent in the most recent quarter, and which has seen unemployment holding below 4 percent for more than 18 months. But the downbeat mood is perhaps even more striking when contrasted with the picture offered by the Federal Reserve’s recently released Survey of Consumer

The survey provides an in-depth analysis of the financial condition of American households, conducted for the Fed by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Published every three years, it’s the proverbial gold standard of household research. The latest survey looked at Americans’ net worth as of mid-to-late 2022 and Americans’ income in 2021, comparing them with equivalent data from three years earlier. It found that despite the severe disruption to the economy caused by the pandemic and the recovery from it, Americans across the spectrum saw their incomes and wealth rise over the survey period.

The rise in median household net worth was the most notable improvement: It jumped by 37 percent from 2019 to 2022, rising to $192,000. (All numbers are adjusted for inflation.) Americans in every income bracket saw substantial gains, with the biggest gains registered by people in the middle and upper-middle brackets, which suggests that a slight narrowing of wealth inequality occurred during this time. In particular, Black and Latino households saw their median net worth rise faster than white households did—though the racial wealth gap is so wide that it narrowed only slightly as a result of this change.

A big driver of this increase was the rising value of people’s homes—and a higher percentage of Americans owned homes in 2022 than did in 2019. But households’ financial position improved in other ways too. The amount of money that the median household had in bank accounts and retirement accounts rose substantially. The percentage of Americans owning stocks directly (that is, not in retirement accounts) jumped by more than a third, from about 15 to 21 percent. The percentage of Americans with retirement accounts went from 50.5 to 54.3 percent, a notable improvement. And a fifth of Americans reported owning a business, the highest proportion since the survey began in its current form (in 1989).

Americans also reduced their debt loads during the pandemic. The median credit-card balance dropped by 14 percent, and the share of people with car loans fell. More significantly still, Americans’ median debt-to-asset, debt-to-income, and debt-payment-to-income ratios all fell, meaning that U.S. households had lower debt burdens, on average, in 2022 than they’d had three years earlier.

The gains in real income (in this case, measured from 2018 to 2021) were small—median household income rose 3 percent, with every income bracket seeing gains. But that was better than one might have expected, given that this period included a pandemic-induced recession and only a single year of recovery.

The picture the survey paints, then, is one of American households not only weathering the pandemic in surprisingly good shape, but ultimately also emerging from it in better financial shape than they were going in. And that, in turn, points to the effect of the U.S. policy response to the crisis: Stimulus payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, the child-care tax credit, and the moratorium on student-loan payments boosted household income and balance sheets, helping people pay down debt and increase their savings. In the process, these policies mildly narrowed inequality.

The U.S. government’s aggressive response to the pandemic, including Biden’s stimulus spending, also helped the job market recover all its pandemic-related losses—and add millions of jobs on top. The resulting tight labor market has been a huge boon to lower-wage workers. In fact, because the Fed survey’s income data end in 2021, it understates the income gains for the bottom half of the workforce, and the shrinking income inequality they’ve produced.

Hourly wages for production and nonsupervisory workers (who make up about 80 percent of the American workforce) rose 4.4 percent year-on-year in the third quarter of 2023, for instance, ahead of the pace of inflation. And this was not anomalous: Arindrajit Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, crunched the numbers and found that real wages for that same sector of workers are not just higher than they were in 2019, but are now roughly where they would have been if we’d continued on the upward pre-pandemic trend.

The reason for this is simple: Low unemployment has translated into higher wages. As a recent working paper by Dube, David Autor, and Annie McGrew shows, the tight labor markets of the past few years have given lower-wage workers more bargaining power than in the past, leading to a compression in the wage gap between higher-paid and lower-paid workers. Of course, that gap is still immense, but the three scholars found that the wage gains for lower-paid workers have rolled back about a quarter of the rise in inequality that has occurred since the 1980s.

So what should we take away from the Survey of Consumer Finances data, and from Dube, Autor, and McGrew’s work? Not that everything is fine, but that public policy and macroeconomic management matter a lot. Enhanced unemployment benefits, the child-care tax credit, the stimulus payments—these things materially improved the lives of Americans and helped set the economy up for a strong recovery. If the policy response had been less aggressive, the U.S. economy would be in worse shape now. This is something you can see by looking at Europe, where economies are growing far more slowly and unemployment is higher, while inflation is no lower.

Key to this story is the fact that lower-wage workers in particular would be worse off, because they have been among the chief beneficiaries of the low unemployment created by the robust recovery. It’s a useful reminder that stagnant wages are not an inevitable result of American capitalism: When labor markets are tight, and employers have to compete with one another for employees, workers get paid more.

So, even allowing for the high inflation we saw in 2022, no one could really look at the U.S. economy today and say that the policy choices of the past three years made us poorer. Yet that, of course, is precisely how many Americans feel.

Although that pessimism does not bode well for Biden’s reelection prospects, the real problem with it is even more far-reaching: If voters think that policies that helped them actually hurt them, that makes it much less likely that politicians will embrace similar policies in the future. The U.S. got a lot right in its macroeconomic approach over the past three years. Too bad that voters think it got so much wrong.