(Part 2) Best business & money books according to redditors
We found 42,093 Reddit comments discussing the best business & money books. We ranked the 12,862 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
I suggest reading A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America.
It goes over a lot of detail on this subject. How they took plurality power of the government in 1982, majority in 1992, and even now, still hold 2/3s of all government positions such as federal senate/house members, governors, and state house/senators (that number may have been lowered in the 2018 election, but they still hold the majority).
That we find it horrifying that the rich have too much control with the money in this country, yet, if you look at it, the Baby Boomer generation controls 70% of the disposable income & wealth in this country.
They're a generation which changed laws to help the young when they were young at the expense of their parents. They changed the laws to help the middle aged when they were middle aged at the expense of their children and parents (e.g. wanting to get rid of the estate tax when their parents generation started dying, and no way to declare bankruptcy for student loans anymore). And now that they're old, laws are being changed to help the old at the expense of the young (not so surprisingly, a lot of state government problems are due to pension issues, which just so happen to grandfather their generation into the huge pension payouts causing all the issues).
I got about 25 minutes into the video; I'm not wasting more time. If you want to know serious data about the dangers of central planning of the monetary system, there are vastly better sources that talk in real, economics, and not lofty, sensationalist terms.
The International Role of the Dollar: Theory and Prospect by Paul krugman
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
The Creature from Jekyll Island by Griffin
Milton Friedman's Free to Choose videos
--------
My main objections in the first 25 minutes of this "documentary" are:
1) They're not correctly defining or using the terms currency or money and not identifying their economic role. Money is not the center of an economy, it is the lubrication that permits economics to happen. Economics is the analysis of how scarce resources that have alternative uses are allocated by people (by markets).
Money doesn't create those allocations, money enables those allocations.
Even in an economic system without money, there would still be allocations of scarce resources that have alternative uses by people; whether that is choosing to use your time to cut down a tree for your neighbor in exchange for beef or choosing to use your time to mow a lawn for your mother in exchange for a smile and a thank you; your time is a scarce resource and you're choosing how to allocate it with zero money being involved.
Money is any medium of exchange and is created as a store of one's labor.
You receive a dollar in exchange for X minutes of your labor. That piece of paper stores those X minutes of your labor and you can use it in exchange for something you value.
So anyway - this video does a shitty job identifying what money is at the outset... I don't think it'll get better.
2) The banking system, monetary policy, and politicians making a killing off of those systems has not been hidden from anyone. As they admit, almost in a very quick juxtaposition with their incorrect statement, the bankers, academics, and politicians are very open about their systems.
The problem is that people are just happy with their lives and are safer than they've ever been throughout history.
3) A complete misunderstanding of what "interest" is and what fractional reserve banking is.
Interest is the cost of lending money... it is the price tag on a product just like on the coat or iPod you buy. The baker isn't going to give you all his bread for free; why should a bank give you money for free?
Fractional reserve banking can be done responsibly. Much like the interest rate, it should be done at the rate set by free markets. A fractional reserve rate of 90% almost completely guarantees that when you withdraw, you will always be able to withdraw all of your money. In exchange, banks will give you vastly lower of an interest rate than at a 10% fractional reserve rate because it is higher risk and lower reward for the bank.
Anyway - like so many other documentaries out there about extremely complex matters, this one is just trying to sell a product like every other good capitalist out there. They need to catch your attention and get you to talk about it to others to make money - so of course they're going to play to the 8th grade education market.
In terms of war, corruption, oppression, unnecessary deaths, and overall human well-being, this is by far the best time to be alive in human history.
It’s really not even close.
For those that are actually interested:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250107814/ref=cm_sw_r_oth_api_i_ujXXDbDQ5PDWJ
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143111388/ref=cm_sw_r_oth_api_i_0nXXDbKSSRGA7
There's a book called A Generation of Sociopaths that lays out a well supported argument that Baby Boomers carry that attitude more than other generations. Here's a crappy cell phone picture of one of the appendix charts that lists the favorable treatment Boomers have gotten from congress to the detriment of everyone else.
Our generation (I'm an early born millennial) has the environmental and fiscal mess the Boomers heaped on us to clean up, but we can and will do better.
It's partly a human thing, but I think it's gotten especially bad with the Boomers.
If you haven't already, I highly suggest you check out A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
Try to get past the title, since the author tries quite hard to build an objective, data-driven case for how Baby Boomers have stood out in a fairly bad way compared to both their parents and children.
You’re not wrong. Even in developing countries it’s better than at any time in history. Check out the book Factfullness if you like to read. It’s pretty amazing.
I retired at 55. Edit: This is how I did it. Your circumstances will vary.
Having said that you will need to hit up your post tax savings occasionally. Like when the car dies (I keep my cars for 10 years), the tv dies, you buy a house, you have a kid, etc... But only touch post tax, never touch pre tax savings or retirement accounts. But that doesn't mean this you can do whatever you want with it. You will need it to retire early so bear that in mind.
When you do retire you can use IRS regulation 72T to access money in your retirement accounts without penalties. Personally I am still living on post tax money, haven't had to touch the retirement funds yet. I do that for tax reasons, but my retirement kitty has gotten so huge that I will be screwed on taxes when I do. (I was lucky enough to work for a company whose stock price went up every year for 20 years, all that matching money skyrocketed.)
For more info check out Mr Money Mustache's website.
Actually... it is. At least during the ovulation window. Daily intercourse reduces sperm count... but not by half, which is what you'd have to believe for an every-other-day strategy to make more sense.
An example with somewhat arbitrary, very simplified numbers:
Factor in that you are guaranteed to the hit the perfect day in her cycle if you try everyday and the difference in effectiveness increases. Of course, there is lots more complexity e.g. being a day early isn't that bad b/c sperm hangs around for a while, but being a day late is more likely to be a deal killer.
Source: Meta study of dozens of medical studies on the subject, as outlined in Expecting Better. https://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702
Edit: Added source, words
The Creature at Jekyll Island does a good job at revealing the Fed's shady inception.
It's quite upsetting, to be frank.
Here's a quick review:
>At first glance The Creature from Jekyll Island is a huge book. While this may be daunting to some, once the book is actually started, it flows smoothly and reads quickly. There are so many fascinating tidbits of information here that the reader won't even be concerned about the size of the book. The title refers to the formation of the Federal Reserve System, which occurred at a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910. It was at this meeting, as Griffin relates, that the "Money Trust", composed of the richest and most powerful bankers in the world, along with a U.S. Senator, wrote the proposal to launch the Federal Reserve System (which Griffin calls a banking cartel) to control the financial system so that the bankers will always come out on top. The biggest problem in modern banking, according to Griffin, is and has always been the creation of fiat money. Fiat money is money that is "declared" money by the government. It is not backed by anything but promises and deceit. All societies were sound financially when they used gold or silver to back their currency. When the bankers finally get their way and install fiat money, the result is inflation and boom and bust cycles. Griffin gives numerous examples of this, such as repeated failures by American colonies and European states in using fiat money. The purpose of fiat money is so that the government can spend more then they take in through taxes. Without writing reams on this book, it is sufficient to say that this is a must read for anyone who is interested in learning how the money system operates. Griffin gives comprehensive accounts of how the Fed creates money, and how this affects everyday life. I would have to say these sections are better than Murray Rothbard's book, The Case Against the Fed, because Griffin gives himself more room for explanation. Griffin does believe in the conspiratorial view of history, and he believes that the bankers are working in concert with such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission to bring about a socialist-world system in which an elite composed of intellectuals and bankers will rule over the entire planet. Griffin even spends a chapter outlining how this system could come about, and the consequent results of this socialist system. These chapters are a bit unsettling, but even if you aren't interested in this worldview, you can still learn much about the economy from this book. Recommended --By Jeffrey Leach on July 29, 2001
The world bank and the IMF aren't organizations who operate in the best interest of the world. It does what the biggest funder tells them to do (= USA).
You can read about it in [The Shock Doctrine] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Shock-Doctrine-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999)
Apologies for being THAT Psych PhD student here, but there is this awesome pop-psychology book called The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell that basically describes in depth how trends happen (fashion trends, lifestyle trends, all of the trends). Its honestly a great read if you're into this kind of stuff! I'll summarize some of my fav points:
Gladwell describes three types of people that are essential for any trend:
Beyond these, he has great points about things such as the stickiness factor which describes something inherent about trends that is memorable and makes you continue thinking about the item/idea/etc. He talks about the context that allows a trend to flourish. There is a bonus awesome story about Paul Revere and how he was in a unique position to spread the word about the British coming. Awesome, right?
So a few off the top of my head:
"A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America" A relevant, well-written and researched book that was released in March.
edit: release date
Hitler didn't improve the German economy in any real sense. He and his henchman artificially stimulated the economy in order to produce arms and munitions, but their tactics had the country on the economic brink by the late 1930's. Many economic historians think he had no choice but to invade Poland in 1939 to keep the whole system propped up with new resources. See Adam Tooze's "The Wages of Destruction" for a very thorough and interesting discussion of the Nazi pre-war economic system.
Here's some advice you didn't ask for.
I retired early at age 54 in 2006. Had a military pension, life-long medical care, nice retirement accounts, owned a home, and so on.
Two things upset my calculus.
First, I didn't realize how boring it could be. And I'm a guy who's lived by the adage, "An educated man never gets bored waiting for a train." That's me. I had lists of things to do, books to read, hobbies to start, etc. But fundamentally it was boring, and after a couple of years I resumed working as a consultant, and now I'm back in graduate school.
Second, along came the 2008 crash. It did not have much of an effect on us financially, but that was just because we were luckily completely out of the market. It did, however, have a significant psychological effect. It made me realize that in the 30 or so years I hope to continue on, there's no telling what can happen. I mean, who ever dreamed the housing market would collapse? (A few people actually did, apparently.)
So I just toss it out there: don't burn any bridges. And by that I mean, don't get so completely divorced from work that you'll have a hard time getting back in the work force should you decide to do so. I was very, very lucky in that the stars aligned just right for my consulting gig, which led to other good things. But again, that was not planned for.
Anyway, good luck in whatever you decide to do!
> "Collectively, the world is more stressed, worried, sad and in pain today than we've ever seen it,"
I would contend that this statement from the article is contentious. Was the world less stressed during the major wars that have plagued it? What about the cold war?
Here are multiple counterexamples of things going better: https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814
Scroll down and have a look at the graphs
Lastly, this is a short time-span. Movement upwards could simply be regression toward/away from the mean
Expecting Better by Emily Oster offers some good perspective on what “they” tell you to avoid vs. real risks to your pregnancy.
Personally, listeria is something I didn’t want to risk. Unlike run-of-the-mill food poisoning, listeria can pose a risk to the fetus. I chose to avoid raw milk products, cold smoked foods, and certain raw fruits and vegetables unless I knew they were washed.
Well, I'm still having caffeine, sushi, deli meat and the odd glass of booze (god bless Expecting Better!), so definitely sleeping on my stomach, being able to walk fast, and not having to pee all. the. time.
This is the only one of these comments I'm going to respond to, because I wrote this three days ago, for ONE PERSON, and all you /r/bestof armchair jackasses can seriously take a flying fucking leap 'cuz I've got a shuttle to watch, but since I said one let's break it down:
>We face unique problems today, namely the fact that we've expanded pretty much to the limit of what the natural world can support, particularly in terms of energy.
This is not unique. This has been argued since Malthus 200+ years ago. The current world-is-ending fad dates to The Limits to Growth, a book published 40 years ago. Thing about LtG, though, is it used computer simulations and five scenarios to run some numbers and put some math to the problem. One of their models appears to be pretty close to what's happened but even the Club of Rome doesn't think it's spot-fucking-on. So while people who actually study this stuff think that there are conclusions to be drawn and problems to solve, they
a) are hardly settled on the scope of the issue or approaches to take
b) don't insist that high school kids worried about WWIII focus on it.
>This pretty much guarantees that the economy will stop growing and begin to contract in the near future
Economies have been expanding and contracting throughout history. Rogoff and Reinhart make a pretty compelling case that we're in uncharted territory but nobody - nobody is proclaiming the end of the world except wise-cracking Keyboard Kommandos such as yourself.
>Our currencies, which are now all but entirely fiat, are only designed to work in an expanding economy
This is a nonsensical statement unworthy of rebuttal. If you can HFT Forex, currencies are not "entirely flat."
>So the OP is right, I believe, to fear a financial collapse, as it is more or less a mathematical certainty at this point.
This isn't about whether or not the OP is right or wrong, this is giving OP tools to deal with his anxiety. As I hope is becoming clear, I feel myself qualified to do so. I cannot say the same for you.
>WWIII? Who knows.
Who knows? Most people. People who have studied the problem. My statement (no heavy combatants in 70 years) is factual. Your deflection is speculative and does not add to the conversation.
>I haven't even mentioned global warming, which is way more depressing if you follow the science to its logical conclusion.
GLOBAL WARMING WAS NOT LISTED AS A CONCERN BY OP.
We could talk science there, too. I've studied the problem to my satisfaction. Have you? Or are you just waving your hands?
>I don't advise the OP to lie awake at night worrying, but I don't think anyone should assume the future will be like the past just because it has been before.
Who are you making your point to? What I said is that by and large, the world is in pretty good shape. What you said is "WWIII? Who knows."
>If you wanna talk about history, though, remember that every empire in history has fallen.
OP did not say "I'm worried about my empire." He said "I'm worried about WWIII." I've worked with a number of talented and skilled ex-Soviet scientists and regime members. They're all doing fine, CCCP-be-damned.
>Don't waste your time worrying. Prepare for what you can prepare for and let fate handle the rest.
Got it. You just wanted to listen to yourself talk.
Hey, /r/bestof friend: This question was asked, and answered handily by a number of erudite people other than myself, three days ago. This is a quiet place, a respectful place, and the situation is handled. Now do everyone a solid and keep your muddy boots off this holy place. And tell all your friends. There's nothing quite like a default sub coming in and retconning a sensitive discussion because every worldly 15-year-old needs to hear himself type.
Shock Doctrine, people.
Don't have time to watch or read (read the reviews)? Naomi Klein on MSNBC explaining the basics in less than 5 minutes.
She literally wrote the book on the changing structure of the American economy and how it was affecting the American working class, spotting the problems long before most people were switched onto it. She predicted the financial crisis when nobody else did.
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907
While what you say is true, it is incomplete, and lets the banks off the hook for where they truly are at fault, namely in buying repackaged high-risk mortgages as if they were low-risk, but higher return. In the banking world, high return + low risk = too good to be true, but they bought them like mad anyways.
Basically, mortgage lenders package a bunch of mortgages into one group, then divide that group up by risk (and therefore varying interest rates paid) and sell the different pieces at different rates to financial institutions, like the bank the OP works for. What was new was taking a group of the highest risk loans from various different loan packages, bundling THEM together into a new derivative group, then ranking THOSE loans as being from low risk to high risk (surely not ALL of them would fail at once, right?), and lower to higher returns, accordingly. But remember, all of these loans STARTED as higher return loans already (they were high risk/high return to start with), so now you had a loan instrument that purported to be LOW risk, but with much higher returns than a normal low risk wedge. This made banks and hedge funds salivate.
When these high risk loans didn't default immediately (most were ARM or balloon payment loans and wouldn't become dangerous until the first major raise in rates a couple of years down the road), financial institutions like the bank OP works for started buying them up like mad. FREE MONEY!
This created a HUGE demand for the loans from the money side, not just the home-buyer side. So mortgage lenders started creating really risky and "creative" loans, and pretty much loaned you money to buy property if you had a pulse just to keep feeding the pipe to the banks and funds.
The fault from the banks' side was that they didn't have the financial sophistication to realize this was a bubble about to burst. And I use the term "sophistication" loosely. These are people who get multi-million dollar bonuses to be the "best of the best". Yet even a high-school econ teacher could have pointed the flaws in their reasoning out to them.
THIS is where they were driven by greed to make more money, warning signs be damned. If the bank next door is doing it and making money, it must be safe and we need to get some. They are guilty of being lemmings. Greedy lemmings (in the metaphorical sense, I know lemmings don't really jump off cliffs).
Read "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis (also author of "Liar's Poker", also about Wall Street). Very enlightening.
This greed and, frankly, stupidity, that continues to be rewarded, ignored, denied, and repeated, is what I find most despicable in "Wall Street's" behavior.
Nicely done. I think you did a great job illustrating some problems in medicine: clueless admin and excess paperwork.
Your speaking was clear and a good tempo. Content was detailed without being boring.
My only critique is to minimize your transitions, like "this is a quote that got me through..."; "so here it goes". While those transitions might add emotional impact or significance, I think it distracts from its own purpose which is to highlight the quote/joke. You're already significant by being on stage in a white coat (non-medical audience) and have impact from your topic. It's nitpicky but you asked. sidenote: as a rule, I hate intros and transitions so maybe it's just me. This is the book I used when learning effecting writing for reference. Surprisingly enjoyable read.
Well done OP!
You would love this book if you haven't read it. IMO, it's meant for the average joe to understand how paying anyone fees eats away at your future returns. It's fairly small and each chapter only takes 20-30 minutes to read. It's been well worth my time reading.
The Little Book of Common Sense Investing: The Only Way to Guarantee Your Fair Share of Stock Market Returns
by John C. Bogle
First, thanks for reading, man! I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I'm a fan of Noah, too.
To your point: I agree with a lot of what you said. Stussy and Supreme have both been around for a minute, and each weathered a trend shift or two in their own right (90's skate/surf -> 00's maximalism). Union LA is an especially great example - it's the same genetics (edgy, effortless, inaccessible "youth culture"), just a different expression.
However, I would add one thing: at the risk of sounding too "this time is different", I think the economics of this situation make it relatively unique in terms of past trend cycles. There's A LOT of fast money chasing overvalued assets for nothing other than arbitrage (sneakers, Supreme, etc) and that alone adds an element of risk past just "this shit's now wack."
Let's think about libertarians for a minute:
☑ Fundamental belief that only the strong should survive
☑ Weird beliefs about genetic superiority
☑ Movement that consists almost entirely of white men
☑ Advocate overthrow of democratically elected government
☑ Armed militias
☑ Prone to believing in conspiracy theories
☑ Cult adherence to philosophy
☑ Belief that truth may only be found in official party documents
☑ Dismissive of actual experts and empirical evidence
☑ Identification of racial minorities as scapegoats for societal ills
☑ Rabid protection of corporate power
☑ Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
☑ Rampant sexism
☑ Advocating the suppression of labor power
☑ Obsession with central banks laced with anti-Semitic undertones
☑ Disdain for human rights and the rights of children in particular
☑ Single-leader rule preferable to democratic rule (see Hoppe)
☑ Rabid defense of reactionary and racist thought.
☑ Unwillingness to compromise
☑ Inexplicable obsession with firearms and military-style uniforms
☑ Broad connections with other right-wing and reactionary sects
☑ Appropriation of nationalist language and symbology
☑ Persecution narrative among the privileged
☑ Placing money and power ahead of human beings
Let's face it. There is a lot in common here. It's all uniquely Anglo-America-flavored. And they'll deny it up and down. But there are too many signs to ignore it completely.
A Generation of Sociopaths: How Baby Boomers Betrayed America
Drink the wine! If you can trust yourself to drink slowly and stop at one, treat yo self girl!
[Expecting Better] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143125702/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_8L9.zbHZQZXAW)
Funny, reading about this exact same situation that happened in Chile and Argentina, The Shock Doctrine
He (David Graeber) actually came out with a book that expounds on the essay. Link
Milton Friedman speaks fairly eloquently on the topic of trade and tariffs. I'll post a mixture of his statements on the issue of free-trade and the promotion of it, as well as his thoughts on tariffs as a matter of protecting industries to allow it to gain a temporary advantage over other countries, thus creating employment in the process.
> Today, as always, there is much support for tariffs–euphemistically labeled “protection,” a good label for a bad cause. Producers of steel and steelworkers' unions press for restrictions on steel imports from Japan. Producers of TV sets and their workers lobby for “voluntary agreements” to limit imports of TV sets or components from Japan, Taiwan, or Hong Kong. Producers of textiles, shoes, cattle, sugar–they and myriad others complain about “unfair” competition from abroad and demand that government do something to “protect” them. Of course, no group makes its claims on the basis of naked self-interest. Every group speaks of the “general interest,” of the need to preserve jobs or to promote national security. The need to strengthen the dollar vis-à-vis the deutsche mark or the yen has more recently joined the traditional rationalizations for restrictions on imports.
As stated, trade tariffs which are often lobbied for and advocated by certain groups of people commonly make the argument that it is in the self-interest of the general population. The contrary is true: it is in the interest of a select group of people to have tariffs raised or implemented or have subsidies granted under the guise of competitiveness and efficiency. If a U.S. manufacturer is 2x less effective than a Japanese manufacturer at creating a certain good, is it the right decision to subsidize this manufacturer in order to raise its level of competitiveness versus the Japanese one? I would say no. As will be discussed later, jobs lost in export industry are gained in import industry, which is a point often forgotten. Americans will still desire cars or televisions even if there are no American manufacturers to produce said products. New jobs and business in import will appear to fill this employment gap and to provide for the consumer what they desire.
> One voice that is hardly ever raised is the consumer’s. That voice is drowned out in the cacophony of the “interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers” and their employees. The result is a serious distortion of the issue. For example, the supporters of tariffs treat it as self evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number–for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs–jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.
Countries should produce goods of which they have the comparative advantage in producing. This is low hanging fruit but a good example of this. Why should Canada outsource the production of postage boxes to Belgium when we could readily manufacture them in Canada? If it is inefficient for us to do so then we should not do so, if we can get the good for cheaper elsewhere then we should strive to do that and to produce goods at which we are more effective. If a lawyer is 10x more efficient than practicing law than his secretary and also 2x a faster typist, should the lawyer do both jobs? No, of course not. The lawyer should practice law as comparatively he has the advantage in doing so, and let his secretary do the typing. The argument should not be surrounding the "creation of jobs", but the creation of jobs that are meaningful and more productive and beneficial for our population to be employed in.
> Another fallacy seldom contradicted is that exports are good, imports bad. The truth is very different. We cannot eat, wear, or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports. As Adam Smith saw so clearly, the citizens of a nation benefit from getting as large a volume of imports as possible in return for its exports or, equivalently, from exporting as little as possible to pay for its imports.
Imports are not bad, and trade deficits are not (necessarily) bad. Nation A trades with Nation B, but Nation B also trades with Nation C, Nation C also trades with Nation A and thus Nation A's currency will return back to their country. Because of markets for foreign currency, it is desirable that we import goods and do not necessarily need large trade surpluses as an indicator of a strong performing economy. The worst case scenario in this example of three countries trading is that if Nation A's currency never returns back into the country. If you were to think of a country as a household, you would certainly wish to pay less to receive more than the other way around.
In fact, Friedman describes almost perfectly why people who believe that the reduction of tariffs will in fact hurt domestic industry are misguided:
> The fallacy in this argument is the loose use of the terms “high” wage and “low” wage. What do high and low wages mean? American workers are paid in dollars; Japanese workers are paid in yen. How do we compare wages in dollars with wages in yen? How many yen equal a dollar? What determines the exchange rate? Consider an extreme case. Suppose that, to begin with, 360 yen equal a dollar. At this exchange rate, the actual rate of exchange for many years, suppose that the Japanese can produce and sell everything for fewer dollars than we can in the United States–TV sets, automobiles, steel, and even soybeans, wheat, milk, and ice cream. If we had free international trade, we would try to buy all our goods from Japan. This would seem to be the extreme horror story of the kind depicted by the defenders of tariffs–we would be flooded with Japanese goods and could sell them nothing.
> Before throwing up your hands in horror, carry the analysis one step further. How would we pay the Japanese? We would offer them dollar bills. What would they do with the dollar bills? We have assumed that at 360 yen to the dollar everything is cheaper in Japan, so there is nothing in the U.S. market that they would want to buy. If the Japanese exporters were willing to burn or bury the dollar bills, that would be wonderful for us. We would get all kinds of goods for green pieces of paper that we can produce in great abundance and very cheaply. We would have the most marvelous export industry conceivable.
> Of course, the Japanese would not in fact sell us useful goods in order to get useless pieces of paper to bury or burn. Like us, they want to get something real in return for their work. If all goods were cheaper in Japan than in the United States at 360 yen to the dollar, the exporters would try to get rid of their dollars, would try to sell them for 360 yen to the dollar in order to buy the cheaper Japanese goods. But who would be willing to buy the dollars? What is true for the Japanese exporter is true for everyone in Japan. No one will be willing to give 360 yen in exchange for one dollar if 360 yen will buy more of everything in Japan than one dollar will buy in the United States. The exporters, on discovering that no one will buy their dollars at 360 yen, will offer to take fewer yen for a dollar. The price of the dollar in terms of the yen will go down–to 300 yen for a dollar or 250 yen or 200 yen. Put the other way around, it will take more and more dollars to buy a given number of Japanese yen. Japanese goods are priced in yen, so their price in dollars will go up. Conversely, U.S. goods are priced in dollars, so the more dollars the Japanese get for a given number of yen, the cheaper U.S. goods become to the Japanese in terms of yen.
> The price of the dollar in terms of yen would fall, until, on the average, the dollar value of goods that the Japanese buy from the United States roughly equaled the dollar value of goods that the United States buys from Japan. At that price everybody who wanted to buy yen for dollars would find someone who was willing to sell him yen for dollars.
The actual situation is much more complex than this overly simplified answer, but it gives a good explanation as to why free-trade and a reduction in tariffs is beneficial. We often ignore the presence and importance of currency exchange markets when it comes to trade.
Also, good book on subject:
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
>In A Generation of Sociopaths, Gibney examines the disastrous policies of the most powerful generation in modern history, showing how the Boomers ruthlessly enriched themselves at the expense of future generations.
>Acting without empathy, prudence, or respect for facts--acting, in other words, as sociopaths--the Boomers turned American dynamism into stagnation, inequality, and bipartisan fiasco. The Boomers have set a time bomb for the 2030s, when damage to Social Security, public finances, and the environment will become catastrophic and possibly irreversible--and when, not coincidentally, Boomers will be dying off.
I wonder how much of this has to do with the shift towards more women entering the workforce. Theoretically, wages may be suppressed as more people enter the workforce.
I'd bet the average household income and buying power have gone up.
edit: since this has gotten a small discussion going.. if you are interested in these concepts you might be interested in https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907
Not only that, their salaries are structured and referred to as "bonuses". It's just easier for people to repeat what they heard on TV.
I think almost everyone in this thread would benefit from reading The Big Short by Michael Lewis. I'm a former FA and Senate staffer, my dad was a banker now FA and we both learned a lot from that book.
While your overall point is correct, I wouldn't dismiss the commenter so quickly. You are correct that the pricing mechanism they describe is inaccurate, and that the firm's cost structure is hugely important. (Unless the firm had extremely effective price discrimination and a huge degree of market power). However, I believe that the cited comment is actually making (or could potentially make) two different arguments as its core claims:
First, arguing from a general "Keeping up with the Jones" principle. In particular,
> Because the more things people have, the more people expect you to have it.
While the nice things that people have surely provide utility in of themselves, part of the utility that these goods provide is in the signal of social status relative to those around you. Similar to the argument that Krugman puts forth, relative increases in wealth can matter more than absolute increases. In this case, the fact that people around you have nicer things exerts pressure on you to own those same goods. You can't extend this argument to say "people in the 90s aren't any better off than they were in the 50s", but dismissing OP out of hand seems unfair.
Secondly, we may imagine that some goods are zero-sum, or at least close to zero-sum. Elizabeth Warren makes this argument regarding dual-income families in The Two-Income Trap. While OP doesn't reference this specifically, a great example of this phenomenon might be access to high quality public schools. The best-quality public schools have a finite and relatively constant number of seats, such that they are accessible only to people in the top X% of income. If all families excepting yours begin sending both parents to work, and use that supplemental income to purchase property near these upper-tier school, the relative tier of school you attend will fall, even if your actual income remains unchanged. If everyone's income doubles, it may well be that the relative tier of school you attend is unchanged. The absolute quality of every school may increase, but ranking is often seen as more important. (Numerous thinkpieces describe this same phenomenon as being behind the increased competition in college applications, particularly for elite schools).
I believe they got this information from The Tipping Point, by Malcom Gladwell. It's a great read. http://www.amazon.com/The-Tipping-Point-Little-Difference/dp/0316346624
Grab the Phoenix book: https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
Look at some of the amazon reviews. His theory is that jobs that are beneficial to society are paid less while those that have no benefit are paid more. Also, there are entire industries that are bullshit jobs. He categories them into 5 different categories: Flunkies, Goons, Duct Tapers, Box Tickers, and Taskmasters.
Ultimately, he concludes that we have to shift society to a more free society when we incorporate something like UBI. People should be able to truly be free from wage labor. One shouldn't be tied to a job in order to survive in the world. Inequality is rampant. The average worker doesn't realize there is more to life than wasting your life at a job. A worker just busy toiling away their lives in a bullshit job means they are not going to rise up and do something about the rampant inequality we see today.
Read this.
The short version is that the Nazis essentially ran the German economy and infrastructure into the ground through truly epic mismanagement and faced complete collapse immediately before the war and could only barely keep it ticking over during the war years by looting and forcing "loans" off the occupied countries, their allies and their own population.
> I'm thinking of calling our parents out of safety (and excitement) but asking no one to come until my husband and I give the OK.
Just because you ask them not to come does not mean they will honor that. If I had family in the area, I personally would not call until after baby was born.
> What if I go into labor at work? Can you drive yourself to the hospital?!
It is very unlikely that you will go into labor and then be right around the corner from having a baby. It's more likely that you'll start noticing signs of labor and then not need to be at the hospital for several hours -- or even days. You will probably have a fine time driving yourself to the hospital.
> How soon after birth did you let people visit?
Totally personal preference. I didn't want people around me for a few days, some people want half their family in the delivery room with them while they're pushing. It all comes down to what you are comfortable with (and probably also what your hospital's policies are).
> Did you really sneak snacks into your bag?
I didn't. You should also try and do a tour of your hospital or birthing center to ask about their food policies -- not all places have a ban on food while in labor. I was actually aloud anything "clear" and was brought jello, lots of hot broth, etc.
> Did you have to be naked for the birth or did they let you keep a gown (planning on bringing my own light gown) or t-shirt on?!
I don't know of any place that requires you to be naked for birth... There is a good chance that they will prefer you to change into a hospital gown, as they are designed to have access to the back (for something like an epidural placement) and usually open at the shoulders so that once baby is born you can have an easier time with skin to skin and nursing (if you chose to do those things).
> I hate the idea of my tits hanging out, hah.
You will find that a lot of your sense of modesty sort of flies out the window when you're in labor. Once my son was born there were probably 12 people in the room and most of them had clear site of not only my tits but my vulva and everything else. They're medical professionals though, so you should be able to get over it.
I would recommend lurking around here for a while and reading as much as you can. The book Expecting Better will also do a lot for clearing up many of the outdated or confusing information that surrounds pregnancy as well as labor. I highly recommend reading it.
Scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds. Neoliberal foreign policy is one of torture, of both the people and the economy. Would you like to know more?
A small history of biological warfare and experiments:
Seems like it is irresponsible to rule out Disaster Capitalism type Shock Doctrine political tactics anymore especially after reading the book by Naomi Klein and studying historical events like Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension.
have you by chance read Bullshit jobs? it talks about this exact idea.
The scam of the federal reserve system is explained most clearly in the book from G Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island. This is an amazing book: if you don't believe me, look at the rating on amazon with 1400+ reviews.
If you're interested, here's a great book: "This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly." It's about exactly this phenomenon. The people who are getting rich always think that their success is because they are smarter than other people and they've figured out what went wrong last time. It's part of an essential fallacy wherein people attribute their successes to their own efforts/genius and externalize their failures.
Actually, nobody should be afraid of anyone.
Most politicians are good people, and they joined politics because they wanted to change the world for the better. But they got stuck in the debt-based system. Just like everybody else. This leaves very little room for real change.
Everybody wants out of this system. But most don't realise, or don't know how.
Perhaps you've seen Oliver Stone's Nixon. There's this scene where president Nixon meets a bunch of young people, and they give him shit for Vietnam etc. He then realises that he was just like those kids twenty years prior, but once in office he simply wasn't left with much choice - he had to act like he did, that's what the system required him to do. (Stone's message, not mine - although I agree.)
Nobody is out to get us right now, nobody is our enemy, everybody realises that the banking system is shit at best, or downright evil at worst. Including most politicians. All we need is a way out.
Recommended books:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Good-Evil-Economic-Gilgamesh/dp/0199767203
http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381395901&sr=1-1&keywords=debt
http://www.amazon.com/Currency-Wars-Making-Global-Crisis/dp/1591845564/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381395926&sr=1-1&keywords=currency+wars
And please read these articles:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/bitcoin-the-perfect-schmuck-insurance.html
http://rt.com/op-edge/bitcoin-money-future-fad-761/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/20125309437931677.html
I'm not sure if you're getting this from David Graeber or not, but he addresses the issue in Debt: The First 5000 Years. His answer is a very clear "no".
EDITED: Fixed the errors
I try to shut off the hysterics as much as possible. NEVER watch tv news and especially none of the dedicated news channels.
Also read and think about things like this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814/
> I don't get investments and never owned stock in my life.
Thankfully, it's not too complex or difficult. I'd recommend starting with John Bogle's "The Little Book of Common Sense Investing".
yeah wages of destruction by adam tooze really spells out in detail how wrong this is. highly recommend
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
pdf, epub, and mobi files are on libgen and also i have them, if anyone's really interested they can pm me
edit: also the last chapter in margaraet macmillan's paris 1919, which tells the story of the creation of the treaty of versailles, basically makes the case that it didn't really start wwii and the germans could easily have paid of reparations because their payments were literally scaled to their gdp or whatever. like they couldn't rearm and pay, but they could pay.
No, Hitler and the Nazis were not good for the German economy. Please read the actual history on this. The best book about it currently probably is The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze.
I am reading through this
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Right now, and it would disagree fully. There a number of trends associated with the boomers and how they lived their lives, things such as drug use, premartial sex, teenage pregancy, etc that spike up with the boomer gen when compared to generation before and after. Is it really hard to say that they are a bloc with coherent political positions when as soon as they came into power they elected the first true neoliberal president, Reagan, and haven't looked back for the last 40 years?
That's a general rule of all work, including paid work. If you're paying someone by the hour then you're bloody well going to get your hour's worth, even if the value of that work is zero or negative. That's what leads to the phenomenon of upwards of 40% of all jobs, public and private, being bullshit jobs.
Housecleaning isn't a bullshit job, but once you're in the zone you tend to want to keep going. It's the same as women from 'traditional' backgrounds and cooking: they end up with orders of magnitude more cooking experience than any professional chef, because their entire working day is centred around the kitchen.
Elizabeth Warren wrote a book about it:
https://www.amazon.ca/Two-Income-Trap-Elizabeth-Warren/dp/0465090907
>how this world is actually running
When you get on THAT level, almost every bit of public information is misdirection or propaganda. Powertalk. Nearly everything you learned about US and world history or economics is to keep you patriotic and complacent. It's all about power and control.
Where might one start, if interested in that red pill? Positivemoney is a start. Austrian economics is another. A couple of books are good. All Wars Are Bankers Wars is compelling.
The list goes on and on, long enough to make you feel like a conspiracy nutjob. Which is why it works so well.
If you liked this video check out the book The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffon
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499143974&sr=8-1&keywords=the+creature+from+jekyll+island
Great post OP! I haven't seen the video in question (sorry) but as an anarchist I do feel confident in giving some of my views. First off, there are no right answers to these questions. Even within the same school of anarco-socialism, you'll likely get different answers to these questions from different people (ask 10 anarcho-socialists and you'll get 11 different answers) and in my view, that's a strength, not a weakness. However because I haven't seen the video, I don't know how much of what I'm about to say is addressed by it. I'm sorry!
I personally don't believe that lazy workers are as much a problem as you believe they will be and I base this on my personal experience. I have visited anarco-communes and also "temporary utopias" like climate camps and anti-globalization convergences. And, no, they were by no means perfect. In anarchist households dishes often don't get done to the extent that it's kind of a running joke. But there are lots of reasons for that. Houses aren't designed with communal living in mind. Under capitalism most of us suffer from depression and anxiety and it's hard to be motivated with that kind of thing when you're worried about your next deadline at your unfulfilling job or paying the bills by the end of the month. A more collectivist society could do things like ensuring no one ever has to do menial jobs alone (even by the simple provision of bigger sinks and bigger kitchens--ever notice how classically houses in western society were designed for use by a single-occupancy gendered labour force; my kitchen is barely twice the size of my wardrobe, but the living room, where the man of the house was expected to spend his off-labour time, is huge). And ultimately I would expect that anarchist societies would not only have a good working understanding of the sexism of gendered labour (most menial jobs are traditionally performed by women) but also be more lenient around all labour. Like maybe you can skip the washing up for that day if it's your period or if you're nursing, both of which are labour neglected by capitalism, just to choose a stereotypical and thought-provoking example. Going back to my own experiences, there were plenty of problems with places like the convergences and anarchist camps, but they never actually suffered from not having clean toilets because people understood that cleaning them was as important an activity as any other type of labour which needed to be undertaken. Ultimately, I agree with the point raised by the WNDWU (youtube link--above): "So you're asking me, who will do the dishes when the revolution comes? Well I do my own dishes now and I'll do my own dishes then. Funny that it's always the ones who don't, who ask that fucking question."
There are a lot of different thoughts about how economics can work in anarchist societies at large-scale. Most likely there would be several different economic models, possibly even within the municipal area, but certainly within different ones. In the future, Kim Stanley Robinson describes a system where small consumptive goods are created in situ, then optionally exchanged as gifts with traders. Underlying this, potassium is used as an exchange of hard currency and reserve, regulating the flow of resources throughout for the production of goods the solar system. Meanwhile, Ursula Le Guin envisaged a society organised by collectives (syndicals) where work was undertaken out of a sense of duty. Less speculatively, David Graeber has done a lot of good work documenting the use of gift economies throughout human history and it's hard to believe there's nothing there, given the overwelming preponderance and importance of gift economies to advanced human societies so far.
But I myself am not an advocate of gift economies. Michael Albert and co. have done a lot of writing on how non-gift participatory or democratic economies could be run and I highly recommend checking out his work. Albert's work is pretty much the closest to what I would like to see myself, I think and he also talks a lot about the psychological benefits of job rotation, e.g. a system where doctors also clean toilets. There is also a form of anarchism known as mutualism in which productive work is carried out by coops instead of companies or conglomerates owned by shareholders or an owner or owners. A coop can be structured along purely democratic grounds, where every decision requires a consensus meeting from relevant workers, through the whole gamut to a system with middle managers and bosses basically being like a company except that the workers form and control the board instead of vice versa. After producing goods, they are exchanged through a free-market mechanism as under capitalism. I myself am not a mutualist but really even mutualism would be a huge step forward compared to what we have under the current system, where productive labour is essentially organized by unaccountable and undemocratic corporate oligarchies.
The invention thing is quite interesting, I think. Just as in an anarchist society you might get several economic systems, so today we actually have several economic models under capitalism as well. One which I am quite familiar with as a software engineer is the open-source model of software development. Last year I invented a new and pioneering method for installing Wordpress websites using a fairly obscure collection of deployment software. The mechanism I invented is so niche that even I struggle to develop the enthusiasm to explain its benefits even to people within the same field but I was excited enough to develop it that I spent three months of my free-time doing that, and now that it is done I am still pleased with the effort even though no one uses it. So basically I invented something and released it for free which was the very definition of a project for which I receive no thanks: no economic compensation, no fame within my professional circles, etc. And yet I was still happy to create and distribute it for free, even allowing others to modify it if they found it useful. So I think that when you are very invested in a particular problem field it's actually very easy to develop the enthusiasm to figure out an invention for a better way of doing something, even if you know you'll receive nothing for it but the personal satisfaction of having simplified a particular problem. And of course in an anarchist society you could expect that most techniques and methods are open-source, and able to be modified and improved upon for free by any interested party. Receiving fame among one's professional peer group, being invited to prestigious conferences within your field to talk about your invention, maybe even being interviewed by the news media--these are all extremely good motivations for creating something, arguably a lot stronger than money actually. (Considering most invention these days is IP-protected and ultimately owned by corporations, I'm kind of surprised the myth of the solo inventor made rich by his own success succeeds actually.) And this happens a lot in software. The most common operating system software globally across all devices? By far, Linux. Windows only leads in the desktop, and that only because of entrenched capitalist user lock-in paradigms.
\> "can't we just install Google Tag Manager" - it's just a block of code in the <head> tag
&#x200B;
Things your dev will probably be thinking of:
&#x200B;
What's the performance like for this? Will this block the page load? Is this important? What kind of info is going to collect? Is this complaint with our privacy policy and how we collect info on our users?
&#x200B;
"Iit's just a block of code in the <head> tag" ... hosted where? From Google? Do we operate in China? Will we ever? Will their CDN work? Can we afford to be reliant on their CDN / resource? Does it work in all the browsers we support?
&#x200B;
Depending on the scope and reach, this could have a lot of stuff.
&#x200B;
&#x200B;
\> "can't we install this countdown pixel on one of our servers? it's just a block of php code" link
&#x200B;
Do the servers run PHP? Should they? If not, would we need to install it? Who is going to keep that server patched? If it does, where do we put it? What are you using it for, emails?
&#x200B;
\> "can't we just have read only access to the database? just certain tables? such as a category data, so we can count/sum/group-by categories - what about a staging database - can't we use that?"
&#x200B;
Maybe a replica. As you've been told, you can't just run random queries since you could hurt performance without proper scheduling and permissions. This takes time. Privacy issues might prevent you from handling it without lawyers involved.
&#x200B;
Who now has to manage your access? How are the credentials issue? Are you machines secured enough to handle the data or is someone going to click a random link and now get backdoored and now some competitor has access to your info? Oops!
Aside from that...
\> To the marketing team, everything sounds easy "just copy paste this script"
&#x200B;
Sometimes it is. Often times, it is not. That being said, a lot of stuff can be very simple especially if it's a one off. You should organize time with your teams to get this kind of stuff. Where I work, we do help out with these requests but they are put in queue. However, you have to prove it's really going to help the business. You can't be wasting expensive resources chasing things that not going to return some kind of value for the business.
&#x200B;
If you REALLY want to understand, reach this cliche book: https://www.amazon.ca/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592 Judging by how you are talking, I am sure it will resonate with you.
Ideally we would have stayed Neutral during ww1 and mirrored our military like the Swiss's militia system. Iran is a problem because the CIA & British fooled around with Iran which blew up in their faces. We still feel the repercussions of their mess up yet the organizations who caused the mess in the first place say that things will be different this time.
https://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=different+this+time+stock+market&amp;qid=1567395501&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-1
I've noticed that this sub sees a lot of posts from students who want to go into social work but are resistant to social work values specifically and social justice practice more generally. The overwhelming impression I've gotten every time someone has posted to this effect is that they genuinely do want to help people, but they:
I'm not trying to be harsh or criticize; it's simply an observation of patterns I've seen emerge here (and also r/psychotherapy). And while I don't think that mentality means that you can't be a social worker at all, it does mean that you'll likely be fighting an uphill battle to be effective because, with that attitude, you're going to:
When you impose your worldview, social narratives, and beliefs on clients and try to dictate what they should and shouldn't be doing, you're going to have a bad time. I think the social work perspective is way less about some arbitrary set of rules developed by academics and internet armchair activists and way more about recognizing that other peoples' experiences are valid, meeting them where they are, and not imposing your own values or expectations on them. To me, that's beyond the scope of American liberal vs. conservative politics.
Anyway. Your paragraph examples are misinformed, so a handful of links, if you're interested:
Dude, buy a copy of this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548
It's not the be all, end all. But it will really help.
The US went off the Gold Standard with Nixon. Our currency is FIAT Currency, backed by nothing but our promise to pay. Not much when compared to a Gold Backed currency. Usually Fiat Currencies flame out fast, but it didn't this time, and that is because of the deals made with the Middle East that OIL can ONLY be PURCHASED with either U.S. Dollars currency or the British Pound. (Enter the PetroDollar) So you want OIL for your country? Guess, what? You have to exchange your currency into U.S. Dollars. This creates an artificial demand for our flimsy fiat currency, and this demand staved off its CRASH to date. There is always a demand for OIL, so there is always a demand for the U.S. dollar. Consequently the US Dollar has always been a traditional stable safe haven currency. (The last thing anyone wants, is, to have all their paper assets in in a currency that has crashed and is worthless.)
Enter former CIA asset gone rogue Saddam Hussein, threatening to sell his OIL with other currencies. Enter "Shock and Awe" invasion of Iraq......supposedly to find weapons of mass destruction, but they never found any.....oh yes, and 911 which Iraq had nothing to do with. IT WAS CURRENCY THREAT. This was the REAL reason for that invasion. invasion complete and Iraq is back to only accepting U.S. currency for their oil.
Daffy Qaddafi (Lybia) was going to do the same thing.....and he is GONE now! Remember Hellary's joke "we came, we saw ....and he's gone! Ha, Ha."
Message to the world??? You don't mess with the stability of the U.S. Dollar.
Enter China, now introducing the first GOLD Backed Currency. Now what? Will people flood to it and cause the U.S. fiat currency to crash??
Its a high risk move by China, who now has their own Million man army and subs, and satellites, and ships, etc.
The PetroDollar:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/petrodollars.asp
The Federal Reserve The Engine of POWER:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/63/
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
Youtube: The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k
Whoever hasn't read The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve - I can't recommend it enough.
>He keeps claiming that "there has been no better time for any human to be alive"
Completely wrong and modern brainwashing done well. Humans were better off as Hunter-Gatherers. Chronic diseases? Overwhelmingly unheard of. Mental health problems? Overwhelmingly unheard of. Physical fitness and proper bodily development? Impeccable. Leisure time? You'd be surprised. Social situation? None of the brutal and rigid social stratification that is so often ubiquitous among agriculturalist societies. Mostly all we have on these guys is modern medicine which grants us the ability to not die from simple infections or have to deal with infant mortality at an alarming rate.
This extends to women as well. Women were often better off when Humans were Hunter-Gatherers whereas they're almost always fucked over in agricultural societies; made to be submissive so they can keep being used as baby-making machines for the expansionist, world destroying way of life.
_________________
Also, to hell with your boyfriend, dear. He sounds like a tool. You can do better than him.
I wouldn't say it's the exact same, but I still lump it in a nice to read category:
The Phoenix Project
Yeah let me just finish re-reading my copy of Wages of Destruction then maybe i'll get to your Wikipedia link you fucking scrub
Exactly, this low level of exposure (1.5-2 drinks) is quite high. Most pregnant women are told to absolutely avoid any alcohol- even a sip of wine or beer. However, most research shows that the low exposure that you mention (.5 glass wine) especially late in pregnancy is not associated with negative outcomes. Emily Oster (an economist) does a good systematic literature search on this topic-Expecting Better Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702
If you're serious about it, The Professional Chef, the textbook of the Culinary Institute of America is available. It takes you from the very basics - the first recipe is 700+ pages into the book.
Back in the 1950s, certainly, some women who wanted to work in professional jobs were prevented from doing so based on a combination of social pressure and employment discrimination.
Today, as Elizabeth Warren extensively documented 15 years ago, many families struggle to make ends meet with two incomes, when their parents and grandparents made do with one. The result is that many women who would prefer to stay home with the kids instead are forced to enter the workplace due to economic pressure.
It's not at all clear to me that the feminist revolution has led to any decrease in the net amount of coercion exercised on women. It has simply changed who is getting coerced and what they are getting coerced into doing. It's entirely possible, depending on what percentage of women would prefer to be stay-at-home moms, that the net amount of coercion has actually increased.
"I just finished Rich Dad Poor Dad which seemed like a bit of a cheesy self help book written in a couple days to serve as another part of this guy's passive income"
You are already ahead of 95% of the population. Recognizing that most financial advice is intended to make money for the adviser is the first and most important step.
"Passive income generation" and "higher reward investments" are dangerous terms to use. They are the RDPD con artist terms that equate to get rich quick schemes. You are better off starting off by reading Jack Bogle's "The Little Book of Common Sense Investing" (http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101) as a start. Then you should educate yourself on what realistic investment returns are. They generally correlate with risk. Anytime you start looking at returns of 10% or more you must take on significantly more risk than the general market.
Well, I'm reading that book.
Link: https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290
My OB said that listeria is just an odds thing and that according to the CDC the same year soft cheeses had a listeria outbreak there was one in ICE CREAM - and you don't hear a single pregnant woman being denied their precious ice cream haha. So basically the moral of the story is that people latch onto some of these more than others for no particular reason. There have also been recent outbreaks in other foods that pregnant women aren't advised to never touch ever again. All of that to say listeria is very serious and we have to be vigilant but it's also important to educate yourself on what should truly be avoided. I recommend the book Expecting Better by Emily Oster who does a great job outlining what you really should or shouldn't do according to science and data - but makes it crazy easy to understand and you'll feel 1000x better and more comfortable navigating the world as a pregnant person after reading it.
Basically, I think this is about Deep Green REsistance. Edit: fixed the link, sorry 'bout that.
They are a hardline environmentalist group that believes in complete de-industrialization and the return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. They also believe that violence is an acceptable means to achieve this end. Lierre Keith, one of the group's founders, is a radical feminist who does not believe in transgenderism (which is where the "TERF" part comes from).
As for the "white veganism" part, it is not really accurate. DGR are actually critical of veganism (remember the hunter-gatherer part I told you about?). Keith authored a book called The Vegetarian Myth which, to her credit, I think actually had some interesting ideas.
There is a book on that generation showing how they used their voting power to benefit their own interest by screwing future generations. A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
If you want to read exactly how untrue that is here's a great book to start: https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087
You're absolutely correct. My answer was already long winded enough that I didn't really want to get into all of the causes. After all, there are many factors that went into the reduction of crime in the city, and I think Malcom Gladwell sums it up nicely in his book The Tipping Point:
> It wasn’t that some huge percentage of would-be murderers suddenly sat up and decided not to commit any more crimes. Nor was it that the police managed magically to intervene in a huge percentage of situations that would otherwise have turned deadly. What happened is that the small number of people in the small number of situations in which the police of the new social forces had some impact started behaving very differently… the second distinguishing characteristic is that in both cases little changes had big effects. All of the possible reasons for why New York’s crime rate dropped are changes that happened at the margin; they were incremental changes. The crack trade leveled off. The population got a little older. The police force got a little better. Yet the effect was dramatic… finally, both changes happened in a hurry. They didn’t build steadily and slowly. It is instructive to look at a chart of the crime rate in New York City from, say the mid-1960s to the late 1990s. It looks like a giant arch. In 1965, there were 200,000 crimes in the city and from that point on it begins a sharp rise, doubling in two years and continuing almost unbroken until it hits 650,000 crimes a year in the mid-1970s. It stays steadily at that level for the next two decades, before plunging downward in 1992 as sharply as it rose thirty years earlier. Crime did not taped off. It didn’t gently decelerate. It hit a certain point and jammed on the breaks.
So it was a number of factors leading to the decrease in violent crime, and effective policing was just a small part of the picture. The authors of Freakenomics controversially attributed the drop in crime to the legalization of abortion. However, as you pointed out, the decline in crime rates were not in any way confined to New York City, and many parts of the U.S. experienced a similar drop in these rates during the 1990s. At the same time, however, the number of incarcerations for drug-related and nonviolent offenses increased, which has clearly become a problem for aging and overcrowded prisons, not to mention the tremendous social ramifications.
Read The Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell it illustrates the Broken Window Theory beautifully. Essentially if someone breaks a window on purpose in a building and you dont fix it other windows will be broken. If you clean it up no others will be damaged. This is used as both a metaphor and an example of how crime epidemics can be started and ended. Taking care of petty crime like graffiti or jumping the turnstile in the subway leads to lower crime rates overall, less murder, robbery, assault etc. i.e. clean up the window and others wont get broken.
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America:
> In A Generation of Sociopaths, Gibney examines the disastrous policies of the most powerful generation in modern history, showing how the Boomers ruthlessly enriched themselves at the expense of future generations.
>
> Acting without empathy, prudence, or respect for facts--acting, in other words, as sociopaths--the Boomers turned American dynamism into stagnation, inequality, and bipartisan fiasco. The Boomers have set a time bomb for the 2030s, when damage to Social Security, public finances, and the environment will become catastrophic and possibly irreversible--and when, not coincidentally, Boomers will be dying off.
>
> Gibney argues that younger generations have a fleeting window to hold the Boomers accountable and begin restoring America.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
> Gibney shows how America was hijacked by a generation whose reckless self-indulgence degraded the foundations of American prosperity. Acting without empathy, prudence, or respect for facts-- acting, in other words, as sociopaths-- they turned American dynamism into stagnation, inequality, and bipartisan fiasco. ...
Libertarians, specifically ancaps, literally started /r/EndDemocracy and wrote books like Democracy the God that Failed and articles like A Libertarian Case for Monarchy.
Whether you personally realize it or not, libertarians really do hate democracy and want to replace it with strongman dictators, or monarchs in polite terms.
Lähteeksi on mainittu Hans Roslingin tuore kirja Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think
That was the first serious history book I loved. The rise in particular is amazing as a primary source, as Shirer was a journalist in Austria before and after the Anschluss. Just don’t put too much stock in what he has to say about teutons.
Also, my French exchange student just about had a conniption when he saw the swastika on the spine on my bookshelf.
Edit: while I’m here I’m going to recommend my current favorite history of WWII, The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze. I’ve never found economics so fascinating, or been more thoroughly convinced that Speer should’ve hanged.
Hey eggshellmoudling! I'm at work so I can't pull up many references, but I'll see if I can help with some of your questions here.
First, the question of income inequality being a threat, and how it relates to redistribution. I definitely agree with your assessment of the last answer. It was more of a condonement of wealth redistribution than an explanation of the problem we (saying that as a libertarian, but I don't speak for all of us) have with calling income inequality a threat. In and of itself, wealth inequality is simply a consequence of how society is working. I think that a good argument could be made that inequality IS a threat in a system like we find ourselves in now, because money is so closely tied with power and rich people can use their money to influence the government and get richer. However, a small percentage of a population being incredibly rich isn't inherently bad. As long as they have come across their money in a fair (loaded word) way, as in without coercing or tricking people, they have given enough to society to merit having that amount of wealth. The only potential threat, which is a pretty minor one really, is that they don't spend their money responsibly. If, for example, they use their money to pay every person in the world to stop working, they would disrupt every market and people would starve to death. A more realistic example might be hoarding it in a place where it isn't effectively invested. If they are using the money to invest in other industries or employ people for tasks that add wealth to the system, which almost every rich person does, they aren't hurting anyone by simply being rich.
As far as redistribution goes, we believe that the current amount of inequality is heavily aided by things like redistribution of wealth and government regulations. For an example of that, say a really poor person finds out that they have a knack for orthodontics (not sure how they found that out :p) and that they could help a lot of people and make a ton of money practicing it. It wouldn't matter at all in today's system because they would be restricted by the barriers of entry to that field established by the government. Like I said before, you can argue that wealth inequality is bad right now, IMO, because the rich are so easily able to use their wealth to keep the poor poor through government coersion, which is unfair to the poor.
Second, how do we address the problem of a tiny minority controlling the wealth and allow people like you to thrive? I don't think you'll like my answer to this one, but please understand that I'm trying to be respectful and if anything comes off as rude or condescending I apologize. One way to think of wealth is as a big pool. Production adds wealth to the pool, and by adding to the pool people are allocated a certain portion of the pool. It might help to say this simple truth: there is only as much wealth in the world as is produced. That sounds simple but has huge implications. Mainly, it means that if everyone is doing the thing that they do most effectively, society as a whole benefits from a bigger pool. Now, back to your question. I have addressed the first part already, but when it comes to people that are trying hard but aren't getting a big enough portion of the pool, the fundamental reason (in a market society) is that they aren't contributing enough to earn a bigger portion. They are contributing less to the wealth of the world so they don't get as much wealth themselves. The ways to fix that are to either (1) grow the entire pool or (2) find a new way to gain more of the pool, thereby contributing to (1). That being said, I would be willing to bet that your situation is entirely different from that. For example, I highly doubt that you would feel maxed out on effort, talent, and luck if there weren't so many boundaries set up in society today.
I rambled a bit there but hopefully it was helpful. Let me know if you have questions about anything. If you are interested in why we (or at least I) believe that our system would be the best for every individual on average, I would highly recommend reading Economics In One Lesson or Capitalism and Freedom (this one is a little more difficult). They lay everything out very logically and had a huge impact on my belief system.
Before 2008 spirits were high and low depending on where you were invested. Remember that the .com bubble had just popped a few years earlier, which stung a lot of people, but that the real estate run-up began right about the same time the .com boom ended.
After the downturn it horribly, horribly sucked except for people who were foresighted enough to get short real estate-related derivatives.
Which I wasn't, so for us the downturn sucked, sucked, sucked.
Read. All the famous investors started reading at a young age and read ferociously (ok maybe not all but most).
Go to the library if you can, they generally will have all the quality investing tomes, without some of the "get rich quick manuals" which only benefit the authors.
Here is a few books to start with:
Most of this stuff is investment theory. To be a successful investor as an average American, without a job in the finance industry, you probably don't have to read all of those books. If you really want to get into investing, that's a good place to start.
Also, the Bogleheads book is a great one to start with because you can decide if you really are interested in investing. If not, that book is good personal financial advice regardless who you're getting paid. It will benefit the regular American.
I'm just going to leave this book recommendation here
&#x200B;
A Generation of Sociopaths
&#x200B;
Edit: stupid "new" reddit can't deal with it's own link formatting
The side bar here is pretty good.
This is also a pretty fantastic and easy read: https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
It’ll cost you like 10 bucks and by the end, you’ll have the info needed to make a basic portfolio.
(Old, but still very true)
https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-Americas/dp/1589795474/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1482883577&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=millionaire+next+door
then this..
https://www.amazon.com/Total-Money-Makeover-Classic-Financial/dp/1595555277/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1482883314&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=total+money+makeover
AND then this...
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Thanks for your service and willingness to be a cop. Tough jobs.
-Air Force Vet, So Cal native, 7 digit nest egg.
>As a result, "the security situation in Afghanistan has worsened to its lowest point since the toppling of the Taliban a decade ago and attacks on aid workers are at unprecedented levels."
False.
I'm assuming that Chomsky hasn't been to Afghanistan. I have, multiple times. The peak of violence was in 2007. And the Afghan people agree. (PDF link, page 24)
>The people of Afghanistan, teetering on the edge of starvation in September 2001, were deprived of much of the food and medical assistance from international aid that was keeping them alive because Coalition airstrikes destroyed infrastructure and made travel unsafe for aid trucks.
False.
There are fewer babies dying now, more hospitals than since before the invasion, and the average life expectancy has risen by almost 20 years.
>Chomsky laments that the US government largely dismissed these human-rights problems in its quest to "secure our interests."
False.
Hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people have been sent to Afghanistan to rebuild the medical, telecommunications, energy, and civil infrastructures of Afghanistan. The US didn't destroy it, decades of war with the Soviet Union and its subsequent neglect by the Taliban did. The reason you didn't see "Shock n'Awe 2001!™" with the US invasion was because there was hardly any infrastructure left to destroy.
>Chomsky was one of the few people in the United States at that time to publicly talk about how deeply the Central Intelligence Agency was involved in arming and training the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s.
False.
This is, and was, common knowledge. It was widely reported in the press in the 80s.
And before anyone goes on about how the CIA created Bin Laden, let me just put out that both "The Black Book of Communism" (Courtois, ed, 1997) and "The Sword and the Shield" (Mitrokhin, 1992) note that most of the ideological underpinnings of the modern-day jihad were put into place by the Soviet Union's attempts to eradicate Islam through violence, and that any US aid (none of which went to Bin Laden) was merely a confidence-boosting side show to the main conflict.
Not to mention the fact that in addition to the US, almost all of Europe, Saudi Arabia, and China, also gave aid to the Afghan Mujahideen.
>For example, the United States recently risked a major international conflict with a nuclear-armed nation, Pakistan, by assassinating an influential figure in one of its major cities.
If you think we are not already engaged in an international conflict with parts of the Pakistan government, I have a bridge to sell you.
But I suppose I'm just pissing into the wind.
This is the glorious Chomsky, after all. He is trapped so many decades back in political reality that he is probably still writing checks to the Sandinista National Liberation Front .
http://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640
Spoiler alert: It was never different.
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/9jx6mb/i_thought_we_were_comrades/e6wclyf
People have always been treated like shit, though. As I understand it, what's changed is our exposure. With 24/7 media/internet, we're just seeing things we wouldn't have seen before. They were still happening before. We just didn't see them. It's also much easier to focus on specific types of discourse and information and that can make it seem like such information is increasing in amount. It's not. We're just exposing ourselves to more of it. If I started following r/Malta, it'd be tempting in a couple months to slide into the thinking that shit is "suddenly" heading south there. All the bad stories. All the abuses. In reality, it was always there because people are dicks regardless. Collectively, from what I understand, though, things are overall getting better in a lot of ways. I don't know how much bias is in it, but someone recommended the book Factfulness the other day. Haven't ordered it yet, but I'm going to because personally I'd like a little positivity in my geopolitical forecasts for once.
In my opinion, impossible. I'm taking advantage of a paleo lifestyle, but I don't think it's practical on a large-scale level. Like leevs11 said, the only reason there are 7 billion people is because of agriculture. While many were saved from starvation, the long-term outcome was more mouths to feed, and of course, starvation continues.
Lierre Keith is interesting talks specifically about this topic. You can download a speech by her here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?007hq967v7xy937
Her book:
http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804
Also, read this article, written in 1987, describing agriculture as, "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race":
http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html
For me:
Freakonomics <- Showed me a different level of problem solving, via thinking about the motivation behind things.
The Icarus Deception & Linchpin <- Helped me realize I hate doing the work of a cog in a machine and that I enjoy my work if I get to express myself via creativity.
Currently reading:
How To Win Friends And Influence People <- It may be old, but it's still a great resource for human relations, even today. I don't know about most people around here, but I don't like only staring at my monitor 24-7. You can kind of think of it as the start to social engineering. You learn the correct inputs so that you may get the outputs you desire.
Bonus: Not sure if this counts, since it could be considered "technical":
The Phoenix Project <- If you ever interact with non-IT folks, you should read this book. If you are a non-IT person and interact with them, you should read this book. It shows you there are more ways then simply supporting a business that IT should be utilized. I read this after I'd been "doing devops" for a couple years already, and it really solidified a number of points. It's also a great talking point if you ever interview with someone who HAS read it. The only feedback I've received has been positive when I mention this book (to someone who has read it).
edit: words
That’s just ignorant.
No we can’t function as a society without childcare, without nurses...
We can totally function without diamond miners... without marketing... without creative financial instruments...without gasp mid-level assistant managers...
Social workers do a helluva lot more for society than corporate HR or Assistant management does...
There’s far more male bullshit jobs than female and they are far more taxing on society as a whole
Hey, you should read the book "Bullshit Jobs", which is about the exact phenomenon of people being paid for (and required to stick around for) non-work or fake work.
Your body will thank you. Raised vegan, sometimes saw my parents “lapse” into vegetarianism, went to mostly vegetarian as an adult but rebelled by trying inconsequential quantities of meat. I had a myriad of mystery health problems that I couldn’t understand and neither could my doctors; I’m early 30’s. It was a horrible journey, but I feel like a new person on carnivore/zero carb and I’m only three months into it. Also everything is starting to make sense which is glorious.
I’ll be honest with you, changes in weight or muscles are not as visually dramatic for me initially. If your experience is like mine, your body will spend a lot of time nourishing deprived joints, bones and muscles in the beginning, but you’ll feel more energy and stronger. I also experienced extreme oxalate dumping which was tough. I wrote some of my experience here (kind of went on a tangent, tbh!):
https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb/comments/df5qdp/optimizing_my_way_of_eating_for_further_health/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=ios_app&amp;utm_name=iossmf
If you have more questions, feel free to message me. I’m still learning about meat (I didn’t even know what each cut was or how to cook it) but I hope you enjoy that first steak as much as I did!!!
Oh I suggest some good reading for recovering vegetarians/vegans, message me if you’re interested in a book list but “vegetarian myth” by Lierre Keith is a good primer:
https://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804/ref=nodl_
You're not alone. Menstrual problems are extremely common in vegetarians, and so are mental health issues. There's plenty of stories similar to yours over at the WAPF, Let Them Eat Meat, and Beyond Vegetarianism. Personally, I gained a whopping 55lbs, developed B12 deficiency (despite taking 1000mcg of methylcobalamin per day), and ended up with a bunch of other nasty things. I'm proud to say that I've lost all of that weight plus seven pounds. (Who would've known a slice of bambi's mom could be so satisfying?)
So, a lot of people have clearly experienced health problems as a result of a vegn diet. Why does the ADA still insist that a "well-planned vegetarian diet" (a clear oxymoron) is healthy and even beneficial? [Seventh-Day Adventists and vegns have so much influence on the ADA to the point that it's rage-inducing.](http://letthemeatmeat.com/tagged/American-Dietetic-Association)
The Vegetarian Myth, The Mood Cure, The Meat Fix, The Ethical Butcher, The Whole Soy Story, and Defending Beef are all worth giving a read. Were you tested for B12, iron, zinc, Vitamin A, Vitamin D, magnesium, and/or iodine deficiency during your vegn years? If you quit recently, it's very likely that you're still deficient in some of these vitamins and will need to supplement for awhile. DHA and EPA are also very important due to how poorly ALA (such as that found in flaxseeds) converts to these essential nutrients.
I was vegan for nearly six years. No cheats. I always had my doubts about it, but getting to learn what other vegns look like was my last call. Just keep in mind that some lifelong meat-eaters will insist that a vegetarian diet is healthier. And some people are really mean.
> My means are rules that allow voluntary relationships with minimal violence.
There are two problems with this model:
That said, I'm not going to claim Chomsky's solutions are necessarily realistic. However, there is a wider spectrum of potential community and social systems than what we have become accustomed to, and it is this history from which Chomsky draws. I recommend David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years for exploring the history of money and its relationship to war, slavery and the state, and the multitude of primitive currency-less societal systems for managing responsibilities and resources (spoiler: it wasn't barter).
While I have no illusions about the possibility or desirability of reverting to pre-industrial, small-scale social systems, I don't think we should be content with prioritzing the rights of capital as an end unto itself, and I am confident in our ability to create superior and more equitable post-state social structures.
Here is a play list for Free to Choose video series posted on YouTube, all 10 parts.
Free to Choose - Playlist
There was a follow up 5 part series posted 10 years later that I have yet to watch. This original series was amazing though, and the debate held during the second half of an episode is something that is sorely lacking in today's media.
Also follow the book that goes with it - Free to Choose - they serve to complement one another. Read through most of the book so far.
I haven't read this yet, but it has come to me highly recommended Capitalism and Freedom.
Milton Friedman was such a wise man. He and Friedrich Hayek were two people I would love to have on my side arguing the merits of capitalism.
Read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" sometime to truly understand what the other side wants to destroy. He even updated his book, I believe three times, as the landscape changed throughout history.
It's pretty fascinating.
> Sounds like more conspiracy bullshit with no actual proof
Dude, so many books and articles have been written about this. The fact that this is new to you does not make it a conspiracy theory. It's not even controversial.
Western economists at the IMF in the 90's prescribed a set of policies, now colloquially known as 'shock therapy', to emerging market nations. In Russia these were prescribed ostensibly to help clamp down on an incipient hyperinflation. The radical policies consisted of a simultaneous elimination of all price/currency controls, wholesale privatization of all state-owned industry, and trade liberalization. The results were devastating, and allowed for a looting of the Russian economy by Western capital and, later, by Russian oligarchs in collusion with Boris Yeltsin.
Jeffrey Sachs, who was one of Yeltsin's advisors, has written much about his role in the crisis, and still feels the need to defend his record. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate, has a chapter in his book Globalization and its Discontents called "Who lost Russia?" in which he lays the blame square at the feet of free-market economists prescribing economic shock-therapy. Some believe that Larry Summers lost his bid to become President of the World Bank because of his role in the Russian economic reform project(also see: How Harvard Lost Russia for more about Summers).
Other books:
Sale of the Century, by Chrystia Freeland(formerly the global editor-at-large at Reuters)
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein
You could get him a nice book as a make-up gift, this will cheer him up no doubt:
"A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America"
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
"In A Generation of Sociopaths, Gibney examines the disastrous policies of the most powerful generation in modern history, showing how the Boomers ruthlessly enriched themselves at the expense of future generations."
I'd like to recommend this to the author.
Free market to an extent.
Skimming the wikipedia page doesn't make you an expert on the economy. The markets were not planned, but the government stepped in when the health of the nation depended on it. Ebs and flows were common and expected. Subversion of the nation/the peoples would be dealt with.
Do actual research of the economy, don't be a retarded right winger who sees "socialist" and thinks "holy fuck nazis were left wing communists".
&#x200B;
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Revolution-Ideology-Programs-Foreign/dp/0988368234/ref=pd_rhf_se_s_cp_0_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0988368234&pd_rd_r=bd9c2c5d-283b-4811-bca8-9ac222f69ce3&pd_rd_w=nxQzY&pd_rd_wg=wBgVE&psc=1&refRID=PX3VCSQPKBMYN7FV82YS
If you have an interest in the topic, I'd encourage you to read Debt: The first 5000 years
Mr. Graeber argues that contemporary major religions: Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam were spiritual reactions to an increasingly material world -- which really didn't exist prior to the invention of money, and debt, debt peonage, and ultimately slavery. And indeed, into the middle ages, Christian thinkers were even questioning the godliness of private property itself.
Which is why "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" makes a lot more sense in the Lord's prayer.
Really fascinating book. He also debunks the idea of a barter economy you mentioned up thread.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
In short: they inherited cheap college, relatively new infrastructure, and low government debt to GDP ratio.
They left us underfunded college that requires massive debt to go to, $3.2Trillion gap in infrastructure, and highest peacetime debt to GDP ratio in American history.
Prove me wrong on that! No matter how you slice and dice it, the generations after the boomers have to pay for all this. America can't do things anymore because they've locked up so much of our future spending before my generation even had a chance to vote
> He says it's not really enough money to quit working permanently
That rather depends on a lot of other factors.
> I may not be able to get back to work above being a walmart greeter if I leave now.
Hyperbole, but not by much. The plain truth is that any time off will have major impacts on your career path. A few months is okay; a few years and your experience will no longer be relevant, your references will be useless, your contacts will have moved on. You'll be starting over from scratch, more or less.
> He said the money really belongs to our family, not just to me,
Depends where you live, but legally that's almost certainly incorrect. Morally, it's a bit trickier, but I'm not sure it matters hugely, because....
> we should make a decision about how to spend it as a unit.
You should make all major decisions (and deciding how to spend nearly a million dollars is certainly major) as a unit; otherwise you're not really married in any meaningful sense.
> My kids are the most important thing in the world to me and I can't think of a better way to use this money than to get more time with them.
How about saving for retirement? How about using it to buy a house in a nicer school district? How about a cushion to pay for unexpected medical bills? How about putting it in a college fund? (Your assertion that you and your husband paid your own way though and your kids can too is charming, but sort of ignores the reality of how college tuition has changed over the past 10-15 years.) How about spending it on a vacation with your husband?
That being said, I see in your comments you reckon your take home after tax and daycare is $8,400/year. That's absurdly low. You might want to look at the book The Two Income Trap, by Elizabeth Warren. If you are disciplined and frugal, it's very possible that you could save money in the short term, by staying at home, with or without the inheritance; don't forget the added costs for transport, professional clothes, cleaning, prepared meals, etc. that also come along with working outside the home.
Then again, remember that spending all day every day with kids will quite possibly drive you mad, and that once they're off living their own lives your career will be completely derailed. Throwing away a career to provide daycare to your kids may seem very sensible while they're in daycare. What will you do when they're in high school, or college, or have left home entirely? In 20 years you'll probably be making a fair bit more money, but your daycare costs will be 0. Taking off now impacts the money you'll make for the rest of your life.
Anyhow, don't think of this as "I can invest the money, live off the interest, and stop working for 'free'". If you quite working, it'll cost the $8,400/year you're giving up in salary; if you increase your consumption any more due to the inheritance, that's an additional cost. (If that doesn't make sense, look up the concept of "opportunity cost" and "sunk costs". If you go from making $8,400/year to spending $8,400/year of your inheritence, the total cost is not $0/year, not is it $8,400/year, it's $16,800 a year.)
Still, at the end of the day, you don't have a money problem, you have a communication problem. The fact that you got crosswise with your husband over how to spend this suggests to me that you need to really step back and work on your relationship. Draw up sample budgets with different options, and talk to him about what he thinks you guys should do, and what his concerns are. If you approach this as "it's my money, and I can do with it what I want", then your marriage is fucked.
>I think it's because society expects women to be childish and not men ,
No. You are basing your hypothesis on a flawed premise. You can't equate fashion with gaming in the manner you are doing.
For most women historically - and some women today - the only means of advancement was an advantageous marriage. Prior to the industrial age there were many means of making such a match because most households required economic input (work) from two genders to be viable. Our economy was set up to be "complementary" such that neither a man nor a woman alone was an economically viable unit. A simple example would be a shepherd boy who stood to inherit part of a flock. He would need a wife skilled in weaving/dyeing to be economically viable since clothe sells for enough to keep a household afloat while raw wool does not. Likewise the daughter of a shepherd would be trained by her mother in exactly those crafts and need a husband with a herd of sheep.
But we switched with the rise of the industrial age to a non-complementary economic system and for awhile in the last century to a single-earner model where the men still had trades and crafts but the women didn't. For those decades the only way for a woman to make an advantageous match was to be physically/socially attractive. You couldn't buckle down and be an amazing weaver or skilled in the stillroom or an amazing cook and attract a mate interested in a hardworking craftswoman as a wife. Meanwhile the guys no longer needed to evaluate potential wives by any metric other than attractiveness. They didn't need a wife who was also a business partner anymore. Heck, with microwaves they didn't even need good cooks.
So makeup became our mothers' trade. And fashion her craft. Not hobby. Not trivial amusement. People refer to lipstick and mascara as warpaint for a reason. It is/was economic warfare. And as such deadly serious as all the energy and talent that previously went to other forms of work got poured into these things for lack of any other outlet. Thankfully that time is past and the Two Income Normality has returned.
No amount of raiding in WOW will increase your standard of living. In fact, if you do it in excess it will probably stagnate or decrease your standard of living. Its a hobby/diversion. Letting the important things in life slide to do it is indeed childish. Meanwhile, The Miss America Beauty Pageant is the Largest Provider of Scholarships for Women and surveys show that physically attractive women consistently earn more money than less attractive women. It literally pays to accessorize well. And thats without adding the few remaining gold diggers into the equation.
>That's why there is no equivalent for term for women like women-child
Actually there is.
/shrug
You even guessed it. Its literally "woman-child". Its in urban dictionary. The Japanese call them "Parasite Singles". Happy googling.
Invest in index tracker funds rather than actively managed funds. Actively managed funds rarely beat the market over long periods of time, particularly when "middle-man" costs are taken into consideration. Read this book by John Bogle for an excellent and concise explanation of this.
I bet most Americans do not know the Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel (Its as "Federal" as Fedex) and your personal income tax was implemented around the same time in 1913... Must be a coincidence right?
This book should be mandatory reading in high school. Take the red pill... https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think
The Shock Doctrine. Pretty eye opening.
For a broader look at the military and economic coercion of Latin America from the 1950s to the 1980s, see The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. For her coverage of Argentina, she draws heavily on True Crimes: Rodolfo Walsh and the Role of the Intellectual in Latin American Politics, which provides a great feel for the economic and social changes resulting from the country's various coups and uprisings.
This is admittedly a very leftist point of view of the situation, and one based more in issues of populism vs. neoliberalism in general than in Argentina specifically. For more on your specific question, this seems like a great starting point, if you haven't looked into it already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Argentina
EDIT: Here's a solid primary source on US support of the Argentine military junta in 1976: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB133/
I don't have to...just read this.
It was in response to the Aldrich plan which preceded the Federal Reserve Act and failed. It was not the "current situation" at the time the cartoon was made. The cartoon was warning what would happen if the Aldrich plan passed.
The story of how the unpopular plan was essentially enacted as the Federal Reserve that we have today is an interesting story full of clandestine meetings. If you want to read about it here's the book.
The question is difficult to answer because one reads about impending collapse for a great many reasons, and why the economy doesn't actually collapse (or, rarely, it does) depends on what thing people are worried about and whether it really is a problem. There's no dogmatic answer to the question that I can think of. Sometimes it's right to worry about collapes (e.g. when we were at the high point of the financial crisis), usually it's not because the problems are over-stated.
You should read Reinart and Rogoff's This Time is Different if you're interested in this topic. They show that financial crises are a part of every market economy ever to exist, and they have strikingly similar properties across time and space despite the experts tendency to claim they're different from the past. That's reassuring in the sense that most nations--though not all--survive a great many crises and avoid complete collapse over the years, which is what you asked about. It's not so reassuring in trying to figure out how to actually prevent or moderate the crises.
A pretty radical thing to say but a thing that must be said.
Democracy is the worst form of tyranny. It fools the mob into thinking it has the might of power, when in reality that power is most concentrated and unaccountable in a democracy.
Many libertarians have already theorized on why Monarchy is even a better form of governance than Democracy. For those interested in reading more check our: http://www.amazon.ca/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Monarchy-Natural/dp/0765808684
Great video Jeff! Keep them coming please!
Only that the left out a few things! Like the ever-important establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 through a secret conspiracy you can find out in The creature from Jekyll Island and a ton of other instances of world Jewry collaborating against the world. However, it's a pretty great summation.
Fannie and Freddie made up less than 1/5 of the crisis.
source source source
You should read Elizabeth Warren's The Two-Income Trap. Consumerism is an easy scapegoat but it isn't actually as much of a problem that many people think it is. The reality is that many times people are forced into decisions because there's simply no other option - living in expensive, car-oriented suburbs where you have to drive 30 minutes to work just to give your kids some decent schools to attend.
Also, the amount of pollution by the average person is peanuts compared to large corporations.
I used to teach cooking classes (don't let my username fool you). My #1 piece of advice for all inexperienced cooks is to learn how to use salt (use kosher salt, not table salt). Taste your food, add some salt, taste again. Pay attention to the changes that you notice. You can learn as many techniques and fancy tricks as you'd like, however if your palette sucks and you can't season food properly then it's all for naught.
Secondly: liberate yourself from the slavery of recipes. (Unless you're baking). Learn TECHNIQUES, not RECIPES. Understand WHY you do everything in cooking and you'll be able to cook with intuition. Having good food intuition is what makes someone a good cook, not just having a memory bank of recipes. I'd suggest picking up the Culinary Institute of America's textbook's The Professional Chef. This is the textbook for one of the best Culinary Schools in the entire world.
>How did they ruin the economy?
Oh I dunno, maybe by forcing inflation on the country and then trying to shore it up by ransacking, pillaging and having many of the able bodied workers sent off to die.
>but the Weimar Republic had a torched economy.
It wasn't great, sure.
> Hitler brought unemployment from a high of 35% in 1932 to below 1% by the time Paul von Hindenburg died (1934).
Hitler and his cronies cooked the books on employment figures. That's Nazi Politics 101.
Of course, Global economic recovery was a pretty good thing for the whole world.
>. How does that qualify as 'ruining' the economy? Lol
Unsustainable industries
No ability to import goods
No ability to produce important domestic goods
Large numbers of people removed from employment record
Certain leaders, scientists and professionals barred from further work
>You have every excuse in the book.
Yes, [this book] (https://www.amazon.ca/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208)
Do your homework champ
>The Rothschilds: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
Where's the evidence?
>Ludwig Wittgenstein: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
Where's the evidence?
>You should know the Rothschilds. They are probably the richest family the world has ever known. Trillionaires. Of course, not so much anymore, but the story was different a few decades ago.
and?
Speaking on Germany, Hitler and other leading Nazis made a big point of not having women work outside the home to assist in the war effort as well as maintaining the idea that life would "continue as normal" even when it was apparent that life was anything but during the early stages of the war.
This meant mainly that German industry was not completely focused on assisting the German war effort, and the parts that were focused on war production drew heavily upon foreign and slave labor pools in order to free up German men for military service. Even then, Germany didn't officially enter a state of Total War until early 1943, and measures were still taken to ensure German women weren't prioritized to assist in the war industry when their assistance could have been useful. Slave and foreign labor were seen as the chief sources of labor to be capitalized before women were even considered a potential source of labor. This obviously began to change as the war closed in on Germany's borders.
Whereas in WWI, the German government did not have nearly as many reservations about employing German women in the war effort. I cannot speak as specifically about German industry and output during WWI (I'm not as well read there), but I do know that women were called upon to work in the industry without nearly as many reservations than the Nazi government had during WWII.
Further reading:
Germany At War by Richard Evans
Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze
The End by Ian Kershaw
The Tipping Point has a section explaining this process. Pretty good read.
Sociopathic even..
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
You might want to read The Phoenix Project. It's an IT fable of a guy getting thrown into a management position in an absolute cluster... mess, and how he clawed his way out via process improvements.
I'm very much enjoying The Pheonix Project right now. It gives you a good view of DBA's (as well as other IT professionals) in the context of an entire IT department.
Highly recommend you read this book:
https://www.amazon.ca/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
It details a fictional story around someone in a very similar situation to yours and is kind of a DevOps bible at the same time.
https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814
Please read a book like this. Wealth disparity might be getting larger but the world is getting better for people due to capitalism.
Wealth gaps are a red herring. Yes, we should tax rich people more and close loopholes and redistribute a bunch of it. However, rich people should exist and having billionaires is not a problem. Having rich people actually has made the world better in a lot of ways. We just need to have them provide more than they have already.
Hello! I am a social investment supporter. My journey started last year when I read Hans Rosling's book: Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World -- and Why Things Are Better Than You Think. According to Hans, the best investment opportunities are in the emerging markets of Asia and Africa. He described how we should look at statistics to make smart business decisions. I especially liked how he was optimistic about the future of the world and how countries are working hard to get out of poverty. It's not an investing book per se but it gives a good insight on where you might want to focus your attention if you want to make a difference in this world. It also solidified my rule to invest in the Philippines only and not be distracted by any foreign investment product (as I am currently based abroad).
Here's a TEDtalk as an intro to Hans Rosling: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty/
I further asked myself how could his ideas be particularly applicable in the Philippines, where a lot of my countrymen are still living in poverty? Fortunately, I found Vince Rapisura on Facebook and he constantly discusses being a "Social Investor." Before meeting him, I have never heard anything about Social or Impact investing. I thought investing was just to make my money work for me. But through him, I learned that investing can create more value than just mere profit. We can select investments that have a conscious goal of making a positive impact on society. Vince's company, SEDPI, is focused on such ventures and his presentations are on his website: https://vincerapisura.com/impact-investing-handouts/
I am still reading more books about the topic and my search got me to Banker To The Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty. It was written by Muhammad Yunus and he earned a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in Bangladesh. I think his concepts are pretty similar to what Vince is doing with his company.
Let me also share this episode about Tagum Cooperative (which Vince has been raving about recently) and I must say their work and mission are inspiring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQbtbORwUfE
Sorry, I am just blabbing about my recent reading/watching list but to answer your question, yes, socially responsible investments have been on my mind lately and I got excited when I saw your question. I admit that I still have an index fund and I know that some companies there don't have the best reputations, so I am slowly transitioning and studying more materials in order to invest in enterprises that I can understand and have the same principles as I do. It is a hard task but hopefully, I would get there. If you ever have a chance to attend a seminar by Vince, I'd say go for it.
I just posted this on another thread. Buy this book. Read it and show the fam. in a respectful way. It’s a very balanced view of the world based on facts. It has a cool website that shows graphical examples around the world.
Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250107814/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_.VDsDbTYESQV2
No, but, I have a lot of disposable income in terms of percentage of my net. I suppose you could argue I'm in the "two-income trap", but since I don't have kids it's less of a trap and more fancy lunches whenever I please.
This is going to be the opposite of what you want to hear. But, you asked for it and I respect that. I think that there's no substitute for going about this old school and traditionally. The good news is that you can mostly do this for yourself, by yourself.
If you're disinclined (due to time or for another reason) to enroll in a culinary program get yourself either The Professional Chef or Martha Stewart's Cooking School
I know what you're thinking, "Martha Stewart? What am I? A housewife from Iowa?" Fuck that. I've been fortunate to have met and worked with Martha Stewart she's smart enough to know what she doesn't know and that particular book was actually written by a CIA alum and very closely follows the first year or so that you'd get in a program like that. It starts with knife work and then moves on to stocks and sauces. This particular book has actually been criticized as being too advance for people who have no idea what they're doing so, despite appearances, it may be perfect for you. If you want to feel more pro and go a little deeper, get the CIA text but know that it's more or less the same info and frankly, the pictures in the MSO book are really great. Plus, it looks like Amazon has them used for $6 bucks.
These resources will show you HOW to do what you want and they follow a specific, traditional track for a reason. Each thing that you learn builds on the next. You learn how to use your knife. Then, you practice your knife work while you make stocks. Then, you start to learn sauces in which to use your stocks. Etc. Etc. Etc. Almost like building flavors... It's all part of the discipline and you'll take that attention to detail into the kitchen with you and THAT'S what makes great food.
Then, get either Culinary Artistry or The Flavor Bible (Both by Page and Dornenburg. Also consider Ruhlman's Ratio (a colleague of mine won "Chopped" because she memorized all the dessert ratios in that book) and Segnit's Flavor Thesaurus. These will give you the "where" on building flavors and help you to start to express yourself creatively as you start to get your mechanics and fundamentals down.
Now, I know you want the fancy science stuff so that you can throw around smarty pants things about pH and phase transitions and heat transfer. So...go get Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking THAT is the bible. When the people who run the Ferran Adria class at Harvard have a question, it's not Myhrvold that they call up, it's Harold McGee. While Modernist Cuisine always has a long, exciting complicated solution to a problem I didn't even know I had, when I really want to know what the fuck is going on, I consult McGee and you will too, once you dig in.
Another one to consider which does a great job is the America's Test Kitchen Science of Good Cooking this will give you the fundamental "why's" or what's happening in practical situations and provides useful examples to see it for yourself.
Honestly, if someone came to me and asked if they should get MC or McGee and The Science of Good Cooking and could only pick one and never have the other, I'd recommend the McGee / ATK combo everyday of the week and twice on Tuesdays.
Good luck, dude. Go tear it up!
What you're talking about is a culinary school textbook. But much of it is demonstrated in the classroom, and some things don't come through so well just verbally, you need a visual.
The problem with food is it is so eclectic. So if you're cooking Italian, your needs are different than if you're cooking Italian-American, and your needs are different if you're cooking American. Even then you're needs are different if you're Southwestern Tex-Mex, Midwestern Casserole, New England Seafood, Or Texas BBQ. Asian styles are not really comparable to European styles/tools/processes, despite cross over ingredients.
Any good chef will tell you, the more you know, the more questions you have. The beauty with food is that it is endless.
Look at the CIA textbook as a starting point: http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355
But stop trying to over simplify things.
>I would say that predicting an exponential trend will continue "forever" is usually not a good bet.
There is an excellent book that all investors should read on exactly this idea. The title explains it all:
This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly
They cover dozens of investment bubbles from all over the world and over the centuries.
Daily reminder that Democracy != Freedom, and is not even technically necessary for freedom to exist.
I will probably get downvoted for this unfortunately, but:-
Minimise (don't completely eliminate, but restrict) rice and all other forms of carbohydrates, such as potatoes and primarily starchy vegetables. Conventional opinion assumes (as the people in this thread have) that weight gain is caused by animal fat in the diet, but said conventional opinion is wrong. The lipid hypothesis is BS. Carbohydrates are the real problem; they get converted to sugar, and then directly to body fat.
The Vegetarian Myth. The author of this is a prototypical cultural Marxist, but she provides the best debunking of the lipid hypothesis (why animal fat in the body is supposedly destructive) that I've ever encountered.
Wheat Belly. This is an accompanying book about why wheat and cereals, rather than milk and fats, are the real enemies of weight loss.
Not quite my friend, as David Graeber reveals in his study, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, for the most part debt/credit create these incredibly high gaps only when there is an institutional attempt to artificially create wealth by the elite, for the sake of the wealth creation. In our modern times, it would be called speculation. In the past, it was fucking with the relationship between currency and precious metals.
The immediate response is to your last point.
> We are, as a rule, talking about corporate profits here, so the connection between profits and social good is tenuous at best.
First of all, many smaller enterprises, such as YouTubers and other smaller producers are hurt by infringements of copy right as well as corporations and 'The Man'. Additionally, when no third party is harmed by the creation or transaction (called an externality in economics e.g. burning oil is an externality because everyone's natural resources suffer), a profit means that you created a social benefit. Big companies don't get paid arbitrarily; they're paid because people saw merit in their creations and chose to view or purchase those creations, hence, a social good.
If companies, small businesses, and content creators were paid far less for their work, far less quality content will be produced. If Disney knew they would barely turn a profit with every new release, would they throw billions at each movie and really ensure that it is a quality production? While many people are motivated by their own sense of creativity and desire to contribute, a significant portion of creation is driven by the desire for profits (not necessarily a bad thing). Without that desire, there would be no content, no creations for the public to enjoy.
Sauces:
https://youtu.be/tk862BbjWx4
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211
PS: While I believe that copyright and defense of intellectual property is necessary, modern American copyright law is fucking insane. Don't get me started on the DMCA.
I'm currently reading a book called The Shock Doctrine that explores how the southern cone was forced into extreme free market capitalism. The book actually explores the forced free market capitalism on a global scale but the first third of the book is mostly about South America.
I usually stick to the fantasy genre but this book is really well written and has been eye opening for me.
https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999
Shock doctrine
You are better off reading The Shock Doctrine as it has more background and much better sources from several credible people.
Or of you are just literally challenged you could always watch the film of the book, but that is the lite version.
The IMF are gangsters and every where they go they leave a trail of debt and exploitation. Ukraine will be no exception.
>Ilman siionisteja slaavit olisi vapautettu kommunismin yöstä.
Ainoa asia mistä slaavit olisi vapautettu olisi ollut heidän omasta hengestänsä. Kannattaa myös lukea Adam Toozen kirja The Wages of Destruction jossa Tooze käsittelee sitä miksi Kolmas valtakunta oli vuonna 1939 tilanteessa jossa ainoat vaihtoehdot olivat puolustusleikkaukset tai sota ja velkaa oli suhteessa bruttokansantuotteeseen enemmän kuin Yhdysvalloilla oli sodan jälkeen vuonna 1945.
You might want to read this book and you might come to a slightly altered conclusion. Same end result yes, but the method emphasized more on absolute surprise on the German's part than the alleged French 'surrendermongering'.
Thought I would share that thought. It's quite an amazing read, especially if you believe the myth of Nazi Germany being an economic powerhouse.
Just get it toasted. Cooking kills listeria.
Eat all the lunch meat you want, just cook it first.
If he's still not convinced, make him eat the same diet he's demanding for you and see how quickly things change. I never empathized with the sheer quantity of "things that will kill you that you should not do/eat" until I actually got pregnant - I always just assumed it was alcohol and raw fish and that's it.
Also, have him read this book, which doesn't make decisions for you but does actually put some perspective on a lot of the panic/handwaving topics related to pregnancy.
My wife really liked this book. It's written by an economist who looked at what really needs to be avoided and what is hype, based on data.
I would personally ditch Strunk & White and add On Writing Well instead.
Thanks form making this.
Here is an excellent book that will help your scripting/writing tremendously. The book is written quite well :)
It would be impossible to study (as opposed to hypothesize), but waiting 10 years would almost certainly have been worse for Germany.
AFAIK, it's a commonly held view among historians that the Germans were only able to be as successful as they were because the timing was perfect for them. However, I am not a historian and I would love anyone who knows more than me to chime in (esp anyone from /r/askhistorians)
First, Stalin had just purged vast numbers of high ranking military officers (50% of the entire Soviet officer corps) and their replacements had not yet acquired the experience and knowledge necessary to be effective. The deep operation strategy that the Soviets used effectively later in the war had been developed by the 1930s. But almost everyone who was well versed in it was killed by Stalin and it was disregarded because no one wanted to be associated with the doctrines of people who were purged. In another ten years, the Soviet officer corps would likely have been better developed and the Soviet economy would have been stronger.
Second, the western powers were slow and late in preparing for war. The Germans had been preparing full-tilt since the mid-30s. If the UK and France had another ten years to prepare, I think their air forces would have been overwhelingly larger than Germany's (though they did overly rely on strategic bombers).
Third, the German economy would have collapsed by then. Germany went deep into debt to finance its military buildup, and it did not have the money to continue. Taking over Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, and Denmark allowed it to loot those countries successively and pay for more. A top source on the Nazi economy is Adam Tooze, The Wages of Destruction
Not a single Milton Friedman book? tsk tsk tsk
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211/
https://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607
https://www.amazon.com/Government-Problem-Essays-Public-Policy/dp/0817954422
It's a world class city / rich Chinese are moving here / 100k immigrants per year / the greenbelt
AKA: "It's different this time"
>even if the mob does graffiti up my website on occasion.
Or jump you and steal your money.
>A 230 year old legal document that has seen every President from Richard Nixon to George Washington wipe his ass with it when he finds it inconvenient doesn't protect people from anything.
Completely true.
>Democracy is - like it or not - the only real check on government.
Laughably foolish. Democracy is the God that failed, to quote Hans Hoppe.
>The American model – democracy – must be regarded as a historical error, economically as well as morally. Democracy promotes shortsightedness, capital waste, irresponsibility, and moral relativism. It leads to permanent compulsory income and wealth redistribution and legal uncertainty. It is counterproductive. It promotes demagoguery and egalitarianism. It is aggressive and potentially totalitarian internally, vis-à-vis its own population, as well as externally. In sum, it leads to a dramatic growth of state power, as manifested by the amount of parasitically – by means of taxation and expropriation – appropriated government income and wealth in relation to the amount of productively – through market exchange – acquired private income and wealth, and by the range and invasiveness of state legislation. Democracy is doomed to collapse, just as Soviet communism was doomed to collapse.
Source (translated from German).
Read this book - https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
http://www.amazon.com/The-Phoenix-Project-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
The phoenix project. it was a good book, not so much a reference book, but still has some valuable lessons in it.
Read The Phoenix Project. It's a very good high-level overview of all the things that live under the DevOps umbrella.
Also make sure to acquaint yourself intimately with either Linux or Windows, preferably both, from an ops point of view. Setting up systems, configuring them, deploying/installing things, all that stuff. This stuff is rarely if ever taught in traditional CS programs but is very relevant in the professional world.
For Linux, you can find some RHCSA/RHCE study materials on the high seas which should get you there. The certification is nice to have, but not required everywhere. The knowledge is the important bit.
For Windows, the Microsoft Virtual Academy is a pretty good place to start. Like this one for Powershell basics.
I like this EdX course for covering more of the "dev" side of DevOps with a sprinkle of "ops":
https://www.edx.org/course/devops-for-developers-how-to-get-started
It doesn't dive into the US ethnic divides, but the book Factfulness takes a stab at some other "situations everyone assumes are still bad even though they've gotten a lot better."
Estaba Leyendo Factfulness, y en verdad doy gracias a personas como el Doctor Monckeberg que lograron con su trabajo erradicar la desnutrición, combatir la falta de estimulación a edades tempranas, y en general disminuir la mortalidad infantil. También por impulsar un programa de salud que estuviera enfocado a suplir las necesidades de salud básicas más inmediatas de la población, además del programa integro para madres, lactantes, niños.
En las propias palabras del Doctor: Es el avance más trascendente en la historia de este país.
Have you seen the movie The Big Short? Based on this book http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Short-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827
The bailouts were a huge win for the banks. Our economy lost trillions. That's jobs, people's homes, huge amounts from their 401k. Americans killed themselves, because of what they lost.
Lot's of undertones of the theme of the "Two Income Trap" here (http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907/).
I have a coworker whose kid was accepted to some good school, but he has to move his family or get an address in a new school district. House prices in our area are on a Saturn V rocket to the moon right now (though that may change), and his hunt is going poorly. Every day he comes in, and is just dejected for any NUMBER of reasons: nice house went pending before he got in, wife couldn't decide, cost too much, he didn't like it but she did, she liked it but he didn't, she's mad about him not liking it, time is ticking... etc. etc. etc. Just seems completely unnecessary.
The wife and I recently purchased, and we had ample opportunity and discussion about purchase into the "two income house" range to get something closer to town, but... we opted against it ultimately. Just didn't feel safe... and we went for a house we could afford (barely) with just 1 income.
The part about parents reporting a higher level of overall happiness seems like garbage. I'll buy the "having kids was worth it" but I'm not going to buy the "no kids means unhappy" and "my kids are my retirement strategy" lines. It's always anecdotal, but everyone knows PLENTY of well educated, well brought up, rock stars in HS/College who are total EFF ups and can't be relied upon to do much, let alone fund your retirement.
It's not the only reason I do not want children, but it is in the mix somewhere: You can be the worlds best parent, literally impart your kid with the best genes and the best skills imaginable, and there is STILL a very high non-zero chance they will be a complete fuck up.
Wife and I are not having children (emphatic, relationship is based on it, snippage is scheduled for very soon), and we are always asked, "Who will take care of you when you are older and unable to care for yourself?" My wife's answer, always half a second later, is, "Morphine."
She, along with her daughter, wrote a whole book tackling this subject: The Two-Income Trap
Here's the video. She wrote a book as well.
In short: Regulatory capture in the US led to the US Government handing out large sums of money to US Companies for services that were never delivered.
See also: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Kline
Not sure if it's exactly what you mean but:
Malcolm Gladwell - The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
Edward Bernays - Propaganda
Walter Lippmann - Public Opinion / Phantom Public
Anthony Pratkanis - Age Of Propaganda: The Everyday Use And Abuse Of Persuasion
Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman - Manufacturing Consent
Noam Chomsky - Media Control / Propaganda And The Public Mind / The Propaganda System / What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream
Thomas de Zengotita - Mediated: How The Media Shapes Your World And The Way You Live In It
Jason Stanley - How Propaganda Works
Alain De Botton - The News: A User's Manual
> Legitimately, did you come up with this eloquence on your own?
Read a lot on the topic.
Recommend A Generation of Sociopaths for the details on tax breaks/regulations and empirical breakdown on how they flopped on things like marijuana, abortion, and immigration based on what was convenient and desired at the time.
For a good write up on how the meritocracy was hijacked and turned into a tool for inherited wealth transfer, How the Boomers Broke America, written by a Boomer no less who profited from the original meritocratic system they took over.
How America Lost Its Mind goes even beyond the Boomers and gets into the culture of "Democracy means my opinion is as valid as anyone else's facts" and how the young Boomers of the '60s tripping on acid, deciding all reality was subjective would eventually end up glued to Fox News & Rush Limbaugh being spoon-fed their desired subjective reality decades later.
The War on Science isn't written with a specific generation in mind, but shows how an ocean arose between the scientific community and Americans as a whole during the Cold War and guaranteed government funding for all things science to win it. Gets into the psychology of what happens when people aren't intimate with empiricism and become mistrustful of experts and facts.
If you look at demographic trends, such as Pew Global, you see a lot of interesting things: Longer working hours for us now than they grew up with, from the mid 70s onwards median wages stagnating as productivity grew multiple-fold as labor laws/unions were weakened, Millennials have lower rates of drug usage, teen pregnancy, abortion, pre-marital sexual partners, etc. yet still get bashed as being "bad" by their multiple divorcee parents.
If you have specific questions or whatever, feel free to ask.
Cheers
Edit: Note that this isn't a scathing indictment of every individual Boomer. My father inadvertently checks a lot of the more negative generational stereotype blocks without necessarily being a bad person for example, just how he was raised and the effects of living in a society dominated by his peers. There are plenty of good Boomers, this is an analysis of how their culture came to change the nation when they became a supermajority with over 50% of all votes by the early 80s, and were able to completely hijack public policy to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. It's a warning, as millennials will soon be the largest demographic, and barring a Black Swan type demographic event, will enjoy nearly that level of political power and potential for abuse in the decades to come as the Boomers die out.
That book has been debunked by several credible people (dieticians, nutritionists, the scientific community, etc).
Long story short, there is no research and Keith just cites her favorite authors as proof (at one point she cites Wikipedia). The fact that she is so heavily supported by the Weston A. Price foundation (and cites their information as proof of her claims) is enough to question everything in the book. She uses one book by two physicans with no background in anthropology or evolution and puts forth their ideas about dietary evolution and presents it as incontrovertible evidence. No, it's not incontrovertible...having one source say something and then presenting it as incontrovertible (especially when the authors have no expertise in the area) is dishonest writing.
Please, do your own research or at least further investigate her sources and consider making an appointment with a dietitian.
Edit: Here are some reviews on Amazon which include some of the more egregious problems with the book. Obviously, take both those and the book with a grain of salt. But some of the problems with the book are so glaring that you can do your own research after reading reviews (where errors are pointed out).
There are interesting theories about the beginnings of money where it wasn't really adopted until it was used as the sole way of paying tax before that everything was based on credit/debit. A state would pay its soldiers in 'x' currency but also would require their taxes to be in 'x', that drove adoption.
&#x200B;
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290
To understand money you need to first understand debt.
Read "Debt: The First 5000 Years"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1612191290?pc_redir=1409142733&amp;robot_redir=1
I can't recommend Debt: The First 5,000 Years enough.
>Completely agree, especially about anti-Semitic red herrings.
It's pretty effective because there's a number of different claims that get conflated, sometimes on purpose and sometimes out of ignorance. Some of these claims are:
(1) is pretty much true by any given metric, but doesn't necessarily mean much. (2) is arguably true as well, but not really surprising per se. Any community of people tends to work with others in their community for mutual benefit. Jews are likely more prone to this by the simple fact that they share a history of oppression from the larger societies they've lived in. Cooperation wasn't a luxury; it was necessary for survival.
(3) is the problem because arguments for (1) and (2) are often misconstrued as (3). Many people actually do seem to argue for (3) or a slightly less strong form of the position, either out of ignorance, but there's also documented cases of people pretending to hold this position specifically to discredit (1) and (2).
***
Check out The Creature of Jekyll Island for a different take on the history of the Federal Reserve, or James Corbett's documentary Century of Enslavement.
Make sure you checkout What is DevOps? in the welcome section of this subreddit.
If you have some time, get your hands on The Phoenix Project as well. It will give you some perspective.
I'm not sure if this would work or not, but I would try redirecting people who have conservative or right-wing leaning views at least toward better thinkers than Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and toward optimistic views of the future of society, to cull some of the us-vs-them and zero-sum thinking that plagues these discussions.
Sometimes it feels like men, especially, feel existentially threatened by other modes of thought, so being at least sympathetic to the good bits of their ideas and offering something similar but that promotes openness and liberal ideas may help.
Hans Rosling's Factfulness presents a pretty optimistic view of the world. It's all getting better! Seriously!
Jonathan Haidt (and Greg Lukianoff for the first book)
I had worried that the first book would be a reiteration of right-wing talking points around safe spaces, but I was surprised to find it a good listen so far. It mentions several cognitive distortions and how cognitive behavioral therapy can overcome them as well. The second book is sympathetic to conservative views and gives a good tour of moral psychology. Really recommend.
Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is also good. Seriously, the world is getting better! Pinker is heavier on the nature side that most lefties, so knowing that may make people more receptive if they won't receive an gender argument without some mention of biology.
One thing I would add as the submitter: This blogger sounds as though she has read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith, and while I don't fault her for that if so, I do think it would have been better had she been upfront about it.
Shirer for sure, Speer should be the tenth book you read about that subject, not the first or even second. Speer is simply full of lies and omissions.
May I suggest "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy" by Adam Tooze.
ps "Perhaps America will one day go fascist democratically." - William L. Shirer
Oh sweetie, I think this is something everyone thinks about, and I don't know if you ever really feel "ready" to have kids. I know that I didn't--but 2 healthy kiddos later, we figured it out. We wanted to wait until we both had jobs, had our living situation figured out, and had been married for at least a couple of years. We felt "ready" and we started to try. I was still terrified when I found out I was expecting. Only you and your partner can decide when you feel "ready", but realize that it will never be the perfect time to have kids. Also, as a woman, you do want to keep in mind that the older you get, the harder it might be to get pregnant. (Not for everyone, but statistically.) It's something to keep in mind as you plan.
If you feel like you might be almost ready, talk to your partner about it. Talk about your hesitations. Are they big giant roadblock? of just little speed bumps? Does he have any ideas on how to work through them with you? Are you scared about being pregnant? having the baby? caring for the baby? What are your (and his) concerns?
Once you feel like you have worked through your major concerns, maybe set a date to stop trying to prevent (you have been using something to not get pregnant, right? that's important too) or a date to start trying. We waited until after a big trip we had been planning. Then, keep talking. Share your fears with him. Talk through them together. Maybe do some research or learning. It helped me to read about what to expect. Some books that I enjoyed or found helpful were:
&#x200B;
Pregnancy Related:
Babies:
&#x200B;
If you like to read, maybe give one or two a shot. You can also check out /r/Parenting and/or /r/BabyBumps to see what real parents are saying. Try to find some local moms to talk to about their experience--they can be a good support group later too.
If you are a planner, do some checking on things that you might need to know about (daycare, pediatricians, etc) if that makes you feel better. Look at costs, locations, ratings, whatever you need to do to feel secure.
Realize that even if you decide you are "ready" you may still freak out a little bit once it happens. Having a baby is scary and life changing, but that's okay! You can do this! You are awesome!
Also, here's a little secret that no one talks about --no one knows what they are doing with raising kiddos, we all just fake it til we make it and muddle our way through the best we can. I still feel like I'm just pretending to be an grown up with kids.
Avoid unpasteurized cheese. I know there’s a long list of things pregnant women “shouldn’t eat,” but there’s not a lot of proof for some of those things (e.g., coffee, sushi). However, unpasteurized cheese, which is often used in Mexican cheese dips, should be avoided due to the risk of listeria. If you want to read more about data-backed pregnancy advice, check out this book: Expecting Better: Why the Conventional Pregnancy Wisdom Is Wrong--and What You Really Need to Know https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143125702/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_SHe4CbRWQ3VTA
Overall though, you’ll be fine! At 7 weeks, baby is tucked away safe. Have fun!!
Yeah, dad here. You know what's worse for everyone? Fucking fighting about shit.
A few parenting decisions are big: Should we have a child? (Only if you want one.) Should we have him vaccinated? (Yes.) Should we feed him? (Yes.) Should we talk to him? (Yes.) Should we have him sit in front of the TV for 5 hours every day? (No.)
But most of parenting decisions seem pretty marginal. (Which book should I read to the kid? Who gives a fuck!) There will be many, many food-related decisions. This is only one of many.
The question for him is "do I want my wife seriously uncomfortable, but breastfeeding," or "do I want my wife more comfortable, but using formula", the drawbacks from the difference between comfortable and not-comfortable (added stress, fighting, resenting the child) may well obviate most of the (limited) benefits from breastfeeding.
But---like all serious, even marginal decisions, this is the sort of question you can run by your pediatrician. They'll fill you in on some of the science. (And I like this book, which hints that most parenting decisions aren't yes or no, but grey scale.)
For the record: we breastfed (or fed the kid bottled breastmilk) until 6? months, then moved to formula & solids as quickly as possible. (PS: what about pumping and holding kiddo while she drinks from a bottle?)
Is this the same one?
http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355
May I suggest some reading for you, or anyone else interested in the matter?
The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression -- by Mark Kramer, Jonathan Murphy, Stephane Courtois, and Jean-Louis Panne
Let History Judge -- by Roy Medvedev and George Shriver
I don't have any connection to Amazon (for which there are alternatives) and don't get paid to shill for them.
Seriously, read some history. Claiming that the violence attributed to socialism is a reaction from capitalists who are attempting to preserve the system is a vague claim that is unsupported by history. Again, read some real history.
A better financial history type book is the Reinhart & Rogoff one.
As long as you are building a list, let me share my to-read list after I finish reading my current book:
You should also read Piketty's book and Bernanke's book but I didn't list them since I have read them and assume you have read them too.
I tend to only read and alternate between history and econ books for my pop/non-academic reading. I've only listed the pop-econ books since I assume that's what you are after.
Has anyone else read any of the books on my list? Are some terrible? If so let me know so I can avoid them.
It's not too hard to identify a debt-fueled asset bubble, which is what we have. The book This Time is Different does a good job of describing asset bubbles, where they come from and how they function.
Basically house prices are rising faster than wages are. The money has to come from somewhere so it's coming from increasing debt. Eventually servicing the debt will become impossible, some catalyst will occur, and house prices will revert to what the rent they can bring in justifies.
You could prove it's not a bubble by pointing to something like a commensurate rise in wages (which hasn't occurred), a population and demand explosion (which isn't occurring) or anything else that would justify the rise in prices beyond "they've been rising so they'll continue to rise so get in quick" group mentality.
As the title of the book sarcastically suggests, there isn't anything particularly novel about what's going on here. At some point interest rates will rise, or China or America will have a recession, or a newspaper scare campaign will happen, and then we'll revert. Predicting when that happens is tricky and could make you rich, but predicting that it will happen isn't and wont.
> Your morals in terms of what's fair and what's not are yours but in order to operate a democratic state people must abide by the laws even if some dont see them as fair
Why? In the US, Martin Luther King Jr rejected the laws regarding protest while speaking out against injustice. Rosa Parks rejected the laws about blacks riding in the back of the bus. Muhammad Ali rejected the laws on conscription. If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.
> The self determination right is an individual right
ONLY an individual right?
> includes infraeastructures, markets and territory that as of now are available to every European citizen, that the rest of Spain has contribute to sustain and create,
By that argument, the best approach would be a single, global govt. After all, why should the people of the US contribute to infrastructure ONLY they get to use. How can different countries POSSIBLY interact if they can't have shared infrastructure and markets.
No, what you're talking about is the cost of separation. It exists and is a discussion worth having once you recognize the group has the right to political autonomy. So hold the damn vote to see if you even need to get to that point. Maybe you're right and it will fail.
> the example of the job doesn't translate well.
Sure it does. After all, you quitting creates a cost on the company. They have to search and hire a new employee. They have to train them. The other employees will be less efficient and effective while they're finding someone new to replace you. So clearly there's a cost. You're trying to argue that there even exists a cost means that they shouldn't have the right to self-determination at all. That's a complete nonsequitur.
> Also since this is a nationalistic movement, they will drag the 49% of those who dont want that independence, even if huge chunks of them want to remain as spain or other free political organizations, calling for the unity of Catalonia (that by the way each year seems to be a bigger part of Spain for them). At the end of the day this is not about democracy or self determination, it's about nationalism
Maybe you're right. Maybe democracy is overrated.
Yes, please! Also, please include audiobook versions wherever possible as well. I love listening to audiobooks..
I'll start!
Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman
Audiobook
Online Book
Real Book (you know, that that thick rectangle thing with paper in it..
>Would you support an invasion of Syria? Iran? North Korea? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? China? Or just one where Americans can happily watch death and destruction from their living rooms while cheering for "Muh cuntry nd muh freedom"?
Syria, yes, Iran, not if iran deal holds up and liberalization continues, north korea idk, egypt no, saudi arabia no, china no
>Neoliberals in support of the murder of civilians by the state, classy.
https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999
Great book. link
> Personally, I think its just as annoying to see Boomers blamed for everything too. Yes, they're older, but a lot of them are just like you and me.
I'll just leave this here...
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
A Generation of Sociopaths
Read the book by Michael Lewis.
At the height of the subprime boom Fannie and Freddie's business was actually shrinking, while the large private lenders (Countrywide most notably) were expanding. It wasn't uncommon for them to push borrowers who could qualify for conforming 30s into the exotic types of mortgages. The selling, packaging, slicing, insuring and purchasing of loans was an enormously profitable engagement for everyone every step of the way.
Mortgage lenders won every time they handed out a nonconforming loan, which was a lot more valuable than a vanilla 30 year fixed. They did't care about quality because the banks were all but telling them straight out 'we'll buy anything'.
Banks profited on creation and sale of the collateral debt obligations and because the CDOs allowed them to hold less money in reserve to guard against borrower default. They didn't care about quality because they'd turn right around and package the loan into a CDO.
The insurance company AIG was winning on collecting premiums on AAA-rated securities that they thought had no chance in failing. Oh, and they got to be rated AAA because the agencies handing out the grades were paid by the banks. So if Moody's won't give Countrywide the needed grade, then Standard and Poor's across the street surely will.
Hell, even the man on the street profited by using the house's rising value as a piggy bank. Or they just speculated by buying investment property, waiting not too long of a time, and flipping it for a good profit.
If anyone wants to really understand the full extent of the crisis, pick up All the Devils are Here or Michael Lewis's The Big Short. For the tl;dr version you can read this
I think your idea of seeking assistance is an excellent one. Most people don't realize the impact of mental health in tackling intellectually challenging tasks. An athlete knows that to perform well, they must take care of their physical health by working out, controlling diet, etc... Similarly, one with intellectual pursuits need to take care of their mental health, but often they are unfamiliar on how to do so. Sleeping well, eating properly, etc. are very important, and instead of a coach, as in the case of an athlete, counselling services, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. can help in training for mental health.
Be honest when working with Counselling Services or psychotherapists. If CS hasn't been working well for you, explain to them why you think that is. They will provide you with a list of psychologists / therapists in the area. The University Health Insurance Policy (UHIP) covers 80% of the costs of a psychologist. CS will explain this to you in greater detail.
Other than that, I can recommend a few things to get in better (mental) shape.
And remember, this is exactly why you're here in University! This is part of your education, and as you tackle these challenges, you will grow as a person. Good luck!
>mutta vähänkään hyvän duunin syrjässä kiinniolevilla on Yhdysvalloissa aivan merkittävästi paremmat tulot kuin Suomessa koulutuksen, terveydenhuollon ja eläkesäästöjen kustannuksista huolimatta.
Mitä jos tulot muutetaan tuntipalkaksi? Amerikkalaiset tekevät kamalasti töitä. Olisi myös kiva tietää kuinka suuri osa tuotteiden halpuudesta tulee siitä, että Yhdysvalloissa on paljon erittäin pienituloisia ns. working poor talouksia. Lähes kaikissa tuotteissa työn osuus on merkittävä.
Kotitalouksien käytettävissä oleva mediaanitulo ostovoimakorjattuna verojen jälkeen (disposable income):
USA : 29,056
SUOMI : 24,035
83% usa:n tuloista
Keskimääräinen vuotuinen työaika 2012:
USA: 1790
SUOMI: 1672
94% usa:n työtunneista
Tuntipalkkoina USA $16.2 suomi $14.4, eli suomalainen tienaisi ostovoimakorjattuna 86% Amerikkalaisesta. Näistä sitten pitää maksaa välttämättömät menot kuten lasten koulutus, asuntovelka, vakuutukset, lääkelaskut, ruoka jne. jotta voisi selvittää erot harkinnanvaraisissa tuloissa (discretionary income). Elizabeth Warren on kirjoittanut kirjan, siitä kuinka Amerikkalaisten perheiden harkinnanvaraiset tulot ovat romahtaneet. http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents/dp/0465090907
>Today's two-income family earns 75% more money than its single-income counterpart of a generation ago, but has 25% less discretionary income to cover living costs.
---
lähteitä:
Is the two-income trap when you trap yourself in more income, higher living standards, a more efficient economy, and more freedom?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Book-Commonsense-Investing-Guarantee/dp/0470102101
Coming from someone who has a reasonable amount of experience investing, this is what I wish I were told when I was in your shoes.
Best of luck.
>i don't know much about savings/retirement accounts/401k's/ or anything of that nature :/ ... Any dummy guides for someone to learn more about this stuff?
Please read the r/personalfinance wiki.
Basically, you want to start with a budget. Figure out your average expenses and essentials. Get an emergency fund of money in a savings account that you WILL NOT touch unless it truly is an emergency. This fund should cover 6 months of expenses. Basically, if you lose all sources of income, this will keep you from hemorrhaging into debt immediately, and allow you to get on your feet again. Start with a small emergency fund if you have extremely high (e.g. Credit Card/payday loan) interest rate debt.
Then, contribute what the company will match to your retirement.
Then, pay off all of your high-ish interest rate debts (e.g. Student Loans).
Then, max out retirement contributions.
For info about investing, read up. (Get it from a library to invest that money wisely)
>My family was never one to be able to do any of that considering we were the paycheck to paycheck type.
Yeah, try to get out of that mindset quickly. Just because you have money now does not mean you should spend it.
> You are unlikely to happen upon an investment strategy by sheer luck as effective as those your advisor would use EVERY DAY.
That's why professionals beat the odds. Oh, that's right. They don't. They frequently lose to dart boards. That's because no one (except Buffett, apparently) can actually beat the market.
What on earth could a financial advisor do with $200K that she couldn't do herself for cheaper? If she sticks it into the S&P500 and leaves it, she's going to beat 95% of the professionals out there. What is an advisor going to do for her, other than charge fees to do what she can do at Vanguard.com for free?
Edit: OP, here are some books to read: 1, 2
A Random Walk down Wall Street http://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-Down-Wall-Street/dp/0393330338
Little Book of Common Sense Investing http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
are great reads.
But if you dont want to read those I can tell you what they all say.
tl:dr = Buy Index Funds, buy more index funds, hold forever. Be rich.
Aside from my book:), my favourite is Jack Bogle's Little Book of Common Sense Investing.
The Professional Chef. Tons of recipes, no fluff. Definitely more textbook than cookbook though.
Also, an Amazon reviewer of the book said this
>The biggest inconvenience is that the quantities are referenced by weight so it might say 2oz of sugar and I have no idea how much that is.
Which is just funny to me. The book has measurements in both imperial and metric for each recipe.
Not a direct answer to your question, but if this is a subject you're interested in I cannot recommend Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction enough.
Congrats!!
Tips and suggestions... you're going to get nausea... I kept peppermints, gum, and crackers in my purse for at least the first 8-10 weeks. You never know when it's going to strike! Oh, and ginger ale was my bff for a while!
What to Expect is a fantastic book! If your husband is looking for one, I would recommend The Expectant Father. My fiance is reading it at the recommendation of my brother (who has two kiddos) and they love it!
If you're wondering about the studies of drinking/no drinking, chances for birth defects or miscarriage, and all the crazy polar stuff you see on the web... I recommend picking up Expecting Better written by an economist who analyzes all these studies, just in laymen's terms! It's comforting to know what's what, etc.
Other than that, welcome to baby bumps! There's SO much info that gets passed around here that I have found so incredibly helpful. If you have questions, ask. If you have fun things to share, share it!
Taking Charge of Your Fertility, which describes in detail how changes in your cycle impact your body, allowing you to figure out your most fertile days.
Expecting Better, a book by a kick-ass economist. She goes through all the pregnancy recommendations and digs up the initial studies to say what the evidence actually says.
Pregnancy, Childbirth, and the Newborn - just what it says on the tin
"All Joy and No Fun" and "Why Have Kids?" are interesting reads if you want to examine parenthood in American culture, but are less relevant for the TTC process.
then I've got a great place for him to start
The Phoenix Project, explains it in a novel format. https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
Ok, ma prima di tirar fuori Mussolini, ascolta questa storia. A lei e' andata bene. Ad altri no.
Poi, vorrei fare un tentativo anche se in fondo non sono affari miei; ma qualcosa vorrei dirti.
Ti ripeto, non e' un attacco personale ma mostri sintomi inquietanti di dipendenza da Internet/Facebook, e si vede da come usi la lingua:
"piu' e piu' ", "disappunto", i medici "silenziati" .. spero che tu non stia perdendo il contatto con la realta'.
Se hai voglia, ecco un libro che ti consiglio.
If that's the case you should have plenty of time to read https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber/dp/150114331X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1539972593&amp;sr=8-1&amp;pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&amp;keywords=bullshit+jobs&amp;dpPl=1&amp;dpID=51WI7LXn1IL&amp;ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber/dp/150114331X
Absolutely not true. But you don't need a book to know that; have you ever worked in any kind of large bureaucracy? Tons of people are in commissions to set the names of other commissions and so on. This is one of the centrist dogmas that is most unbelievable to regular people. Of course huge numbers of jobs are useless.
Here is a good summary of the issue: The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability
http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640
> The financial crisis made the economy more vulnerable to other negative shocks.
Not entirely sure what you mean by that
> Trend growth may have been slowing down before the crisis
This is 100% true
> Financial crises lead to big drops in labour productivity that take a long time to reverse.
Not really? But financial crises have historically led to slower recoveries than other types of recessions (see This Time is Different by Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff).
One more factor that I would add is the severity of the recession. Normally we fight recessions through monetary policy; the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates to decrease borrowing costs and stimulate the economy. But this recession was large enough that interest rates hit zero and couldn't go any lower, so monetary policy ran out of ammo. You could fix that by augmenting it with fiscal policy (i.e. government deficits), but instead, after a short burst of deficit spending in 2009, the US and Europe turned to deficit-cutting fiscal austerity.
> I'm also a bit clueless as to how you would incorporate trade theory into this example
You wouldn't. The GFC and its anemic recovery had basically nothing to do with international trade. Trade theory impacts long run supply/productivity issues and income/wealth distribution, but not the business cycle (except VERY indirectly).
That's an awesome list. I'd echo that the two very best sources to learn about the exact crimes committed leading up to the financial crisis are The Untouchables and
Inside Job.
And I'd add a third:
Predator Nation (written by the guy who made Inside Job)
If people just want a single source, The Untouchables is where they should go. It shows how banks sold products they knew were defective. That is fraud, and it is criminal. Simple as that. The executives were knowingly selling those products (and there were many) should be in jail.
Here's a fuller list of selections I can recommend from a reading list at TooBigHasFailed.org. Any of these sources are good for learning what was going on leading up to the crash.
Podcasts
NPR: The Giant Pool of Money |
NPR: Return to the Giant Pool of Money |
NPR: Another Frightening Show about the Economy |
EconTalk interview w/ Simon Johnson
Documentaries
Addendum to Inside Job |
PBS: Money, Power, & Wall Street |
Aljazeera: Meltdown |
60 Minutes: The Speed Traders |
Quants: The Alchemists of Wall Street
Books
I.O.U. - John Lanchester |
Griftopia - Matt Taibbi |
Infectious Greed - Frank Partnoy |
All the Devils are Here - Joe Nocera & Bethany McLean |
Traders, Guns, and Money - Satyajit Das |
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report
ETA: I see that a moderator here is requesting academic sources. Here are three good ones: Fault Lines - Raghuram Rajan | Republic, Lost - Lawrence Lessig | This Time Is Different - Reinhart & Rogoff
To be honest, most of the academic sources I've read don't focus on criminality on Wall Street. I'd love to find more that do, though.
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Needs-Aristocracy-Peregrine-Worsthorne-ebook/dp/B0047DVIE8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539794329&sr=8-1&keywords=democracy+needs+aristocracy
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Perspectives-Democratic/dp/0765808684/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539794369&sr=8-1&keywords=democracy+the+god+that+failed+by+hans-hermann+hoppe
https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Equality-Challenge-Our-Time-ebook/dp/B0074B6T94/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539794438&sr=8-1&keywords=erik+von+kuehnelt-leddihn
Amazon link to the book for anyone interested. It's a fascinating read.
I wish everyone (supporter or not) would read this. I wish everyone would listen to the No Agenda show. I wish everyone would read The Creature from Jekyll Island.
I’ll recommend three books that have upped my research as a home cook; The Professional Chef by CIA, Techniques by Jacques Pepin, and Ratio by Michael Ruhlman.
Of course there are hundreds of books but I often reference these in particular for education.
Book recommendation
Just keep in mind, bubbles are not permanent. Corrections in the financial world are like forest fires. They clear out harmful debris and foster future growth. For you hodlers, if you're in this for the long haul, here's some things to keep in mind:
The thing about revolutionary new paradigms is that they don't do it without bumps in the road.
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Perspectives/dp/0765808684/
Geez, where to start?
First of all, since WWII there has only been one election decided by 10% or more, and that was Reagan. Every other election has been nearly 50/50 between the two parties. No matter the changes in demographics, which states voted what, which issues matter, etc. Always basically a coin toss as to who wins.
So to say "We are imploding as a country" is just hyperbolic idiocy. We are, as we have been for 70 years, divided in half. Seriously, just stop. If the election results on one hand or the "protests" on the other cause you to think anything real has changed, grab some smelling salts, grab your fainting couch, grab a Xanax, get a therapist, whatever, but seriously stop being such a drama queen. Half the county is Republican, as it has been for nearly a century, and the Democratic left is a bunch of cry babies, as they have been since 1969 at the latest. Just stop.
Second, this whole massive angst is, again, such a great example of why democracy is not a great idea. It takes EVERYTHING related to government - law, economics, foreign policy, war, whatever - and transforms it into an ideological statement about life, the universe, amd everything. It makes it such a bigger deal than it ever would otherwise be. As everyone, from democracy's supporters to its critics acknowledge. It's not that important. Just let it go.
You think Bernanke is concerned with income equality? His monetary policy is designed to keep the "too big to fail" banks as healthy as possible. He is the banks' #1 crony.
I highly, highly suggest you read a couple books:
End the Fed
and
The Creature from Jekyll Island
The second book is especially interesting. It was the banking elite that wanted the Federal Reserve. Binding money to a commodity like gold restricts any sort of control of monetary policy. That is why Nixon ended Brettan Woods in '71 as well.
If you enjoyed this short movie, and you'd like more detail, I'd recommend checking out this book as well. I read this 608-page book in 2005 and I loved it. This movie is very impressive because it condenses 608 pages of information into a 30-minute movie.
This book explores the histories of the various central banks and monetary policy in the US (yes there were central banks before the Fed, including when their was one in the Confedaracy). The author will sometimes get a little caught up in conspiracy stuff at points, but overall a very fascinating read.
They were intentionally created with the word "Federal" in them so people would think the government was running them.
EDIT: Anyone who wants to know more should read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" It is an in-depth exploration of the creation of The Federal Reserve, and is eye opening.
Oof, that's a tough one. I really like Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber, This Is Your Brain on Music by Daniel J. Levitin and Whipping Girl by Julia Serano.
Out of curiosity, the fact that you are vegan, is it a health life style choice, or are you not eating meat and animal products because of a moral objection?
If it is simply a health choice, i recommend reading the book Vegetarian Myth this might help. If it is a moral objection to eating meat, can't really help you, but solute your resolve.
Also, 40 min HIIT, either you are an animal or you are not giving the proper intensity. HIIT workouts shouldn't really last longer then 15 - 20 minutes. Tabata for example is ideal to only last 4 minutes.
Anyways best of luck to you.
Edit: spelling
> Dogecoin is up 75% in nine days. A nocoiner told me that's a reason why crypto is a complete joke. What do I say back?
Vitalik Buterin kept referencing this book in his tweets:
Debt: The First 5,000 Years
It's interesting throughout history what has been accepted and worked as money/currency. I think that we only have recent history as a reference so only trust government issued fiat which keeps having diminishing purchasing power because of its endless supply.
Basically it seems anything can work as a currency as long as there is network effect and trust is developed. There's even examples of silver that is stored but never ever even moved that act as a store of value while grains act the medium of exchange that are back up by silver in Sumerian civilization.
> Der Durschnitts Mittelklasse Amerikaner verdient 30 % mehr als Du und hat nen Häuschen mit zwei Autos.
Da arbeitest du halt aber auch 30% länger. Irgendwie muß auch finanziert werden, dass man in Deutschland umgerechnet mehr Freizeit und Teilzeitarbeit hat. Dazu kommt dann noch, dass das Leben zwar nicht unbedingt teurer ist, aber sich die Ausgaben doch recht sprunghaft ändern können. Wie Claire Lundbergh vor einiger Zeit in Slate über Frankreich schrieb: "But though we make less money and pay more taxes in France, we haven’t felt the hit as hard—in fact, with health care, child care, and education so affordable, our money seems to go further."
Zwar wird da auch viel übertrieben (so schlimm ist es in den USA nicht, wenn man nicht gerade in den teuren Städten wohnt) aber auch für meinen Mann und mich sind die Ausgaben in Deutschland doch deutlich berechenbarer und "geglätteter", und wir sind obere Mittelklasse mit unserem Einkommen.
Das mit den zwei Autos ist relativ. Das liegt auch mit daran, dass man halt in den USA halt zwei Autos braucht wenn man Doppelverdienerhaushalt ist (und wenn nur einer der Partner verdient, dann ist ein Zweitauto vermutlich nicht drin). Ich empfehle "The Two-Income Trap" (von Elizabeth Warren mit ihrer Tochter geschrieben). Drücken wir's so aus: wir könnten uns hier in Deutschland durchaus einen Zweitwagen leisten, aber schon das eine Auto, das wir haben, sammelt unter der Woche eher in der Garage Staub. Deutschland macht halt – bei allen Beschwerden – ÖPNV auf einem ganz anderen Level und die Städte sind viel Fahrrad- und Fußgängerfreundlicher, während der amerikanische "suburban sprawl" ganz gezielt auf Autobenutzung ausgelegt ist.
Das mit dem Häuschen ist auch etwas zu relativieren, weil das sehr stark davon abhängt, wo in Amerika du wohnst. Es ist relativ einfacher, weil's da mehr Platz gibt, allerdings geht da auch als "Haus" durch, was in Deutschland schon in den 70ern bauordnungswidrig gewesen wäre oder quasi ein alleinstehendes Apartment ist. Besonders wichtig ist, dass Amerikaner hier bereiter sind, ein finanzielles Risiko für ein Eigenheim einzugehen (es könnten sich viel mehr Deutsche ein Haus leisten, wollen aber keinen Kredit aufnehmen) und dass Hypothenzinsen steuerlich begünstigt werden.
Das heißt nicht, dass das Leben in Amerika schlecht ist; im Durchschnitt unterscheidet sich das Alltagsleben im Mittelstand nicht großartig zwischen den USA und den reicheren europäischen Ländern. Man muss sich halt darüber klar sein, dass man in den USA mit einem etwas höheren Lebensrisiko rechnen muss und insbesondere langfristig finanziell vorausplanen muß und mehr in Eigenverantwortung leben. Aber umgekehrt ist das Gras in Amerika auch nicht grüner.
John Bogle who started/pioneered index funds:
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Calculate out/project your monthly expenses and multiply them by 3-6. Then start saving that amount of money in a savings account. If for some reason you lose your job or something happens (your car breaks down, you have a medical bill) you can use this money to keep yourself from going into debt. When the emergency has passed, replenish the savings account.
Once that's established setup a Roth IRA and start contributing to it and investing.
If you're serious about trading, read these two books in this order before proceeding:
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Investor-Definitive-Investing-Essentials/dp/0060555661
First off, start a blog and force yourself to write 3 articles a week. It will get you in a routine, and after a month you will see drastic improvement. Getting hired through a traditional j-school program or an internship is highly improbable. I got hired at my first paid gig because I knew how to code in a few web languages. After two months I was writing features on international finance. Do not under any circumstance pursue graduate work in journalism or a JD. You are wasting your money. Most journalism work is trending towards specialization, while j-school prepares you as a generalist. Not only that, you can learn all of the tricks simply by writing and reading a few books. Four years ago, I was in your position. Now I write for a living.
I'd recommend the following books/articles for any person interested in writing
On Writing Well
On Writing
Malcolm Gladwell's Advice
Interview with Matt Taibbi
Best of luck
The first thing that I suggest is that you buy a reputable book that will teach you how to write. I'm not saying that you're a bad writer, but I would wager that most people write three times worse than they think they can (I am including myself). On Writing Well is a classic, and you might also want to read this one and this one, although I strongly recommend completing the first one. What's included is:
a) Keep it simple. Don't say it's going to be a turbulent precipitation, say that it's going to rain. A lot.
b) Study each adverb and adjective. Any words that aren't necessary should be cut. Is it really important to say that the violin was wooden? Probably not. What about the sentence "She smiled happily"? The "happily" isn't necessary, that's what "smiled" means.
c) Use specific verbs.
d) Consistency is key. Switching tenses or something similar in the middle of writing is generally a bad move.
e) Proofread. Duh. That goes hand in hand with editing.
So, yeah. You should
reallylook into thatstuffarea. One read-through will help significantly.Ok. So now that I finished preaching to you, let's move on. I didn't find any templates in my quick search, so that's of no use right now. What you can do, though, is study
verywell-written program notes. Are their sentences long or short? When are they longer or shorter, and why? Is the tone active or passive (psst. it's probably active)? What's the tone that they use, and what is your impression at the end? You get the gist. If you write downwhat you thinkyour thoughts for three of these, you'll have a good idea what you're shooting for. Other than that, it's all up to you, so go nuts.Anecdotes are also a nice way to make things entertaining. Search for stories, or impacts on the audience. Did you know there are at least six editions of the Rite of Spring? Why was the one your orchestra's performing (let's assume) created? Many people also don't know about the riot after its premier. Stravinsky escaped out the back entrance to avoid the aristocratic mob. Say fun things, win fun prizes, or something like that.
It's also important to know that stories tend to follow the path of one person. The Odyssey could have had its crew be the focus, instead it was Odysseus. Inside Out could have placed all the emotions front and center, but it was Sadness and Joy that saved the girl. Keep that in mind if you're going down a similar path.
Man, I went all out on this. Good luck with your program.
Historical inaccuracies in a Hollywood movie? Never!
>Germany controlled some 36 percent of European wealth by 1940, while the Soviet Union possessed about 28 percent (see Table 3.3). In the spring of 1940, Germany conquered Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Norway and immediately began exploiting their economies, adding to its wealth advantage over the Soviet Union.^65 The Wehrmacht then invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, and within six months Germany controlled nearly all Soviet territory west of Moscow, which was prime real estate. By late 1941, the Soviet Union had lost territory that held 41 percent of its railway lines, 42 percent of its electricity-generating capacity, 71 percent of its iron ore, 63 percent of its coal, and 58 percent of its capacity to make crude steel.^66 In the spring of 1942, the Nazi war machine further extended its reach by driving deep into the oil-rich Caucasus region. The Soviet Union lost roughly 40 percent of its national income between 1940 and 1942.^67 Germany appears to have held more than a 3:1 advantage in economic might over the Soviet Union by 1942 (see Table 3.4).
>Despite Germany's profound advantage in latent power, the Soviet war economy amazingly outproduced the German war economy over the course of the war and helped shift the balance of power in the Red Army's favor. As described earlier, the Soviet Union produced 2.2 times as many tanks as Germany and 1.3 times as many airplanes between 1941 and 1945. What is most astonishing is that the Soviets even outproduced the Germans in the early years of the war, when German control of Soviet territory was at its peak and the Allied bombing campaign was having barely any effect on the German war economy. The Soviet Union, for example, produced 24,446 tanks in 1942; Germany produced 9,200. The ratio of artillery pieces for 1942 was 127,000 to 12,000 in the Soviets' favor.^68 This asymmetry in weapons production eventually led to a significant Soviet advantage in the balance of ground forces. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviets had a slight advantage in number of divisions - 211:199 - the key indicator of military strength. By January 1945, however, there were 473 Soviet divisions and only 276 German divisions, and the average Red Army division was far better equipped with weapons and vehicles than the average Wehrmacht division.^69
>How did the Soviet Union manage to produce so much more weaponry than a much wealthier Nazi Germany? One possible answer is that the Soviet Union spent a larger percentage of its available wealth on the military than did the Third Reich. But in fact Germany devoted a slightly larger percentage of its national income to defense than did the Soviet Union. The German advantage in defense spending over the Soviets in 1942, for example, was 63 to 61 percent; in 1943, it was 70 to 61 percent.^70 The Allies' strategic bombing campaign might well have hurt German war production in the last months of the war, but as noted above, the Soviet Union was turning out greater numbers of weapons than Germany long before the bombing campaign began to have any significant effect on German output. The Soviet effort was also helped by the U.S. Lend-Lease program, although that aid accounts for only a small percentage of Soviet output.^71 The main reason that the Soviet Union produced so many more weapons than Germany is that the Soviets did a much better job of rationalizing their economy to meet the demands of total war. In particular, the Soviet (and American) economy was far better organized than the German economy for mass producing weaponry.^72
[Source.]
(http://books.google.com/books?id=lDzCD_C_ipoC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=John+Mearsheimer&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=EYHYU4PyFMKPyASh5YHgBA&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&amp;q=soviet&amp;f=false)
See also:
Accounting for War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defence Burden, 1940-1945 by Mark Harrison
The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze
>The Gross National Product had increased by ten-fold in 1938
GDP alone is hardly the measure of the health of an economy in this case. If you look at official numbers, about 10% of that GDP was tied into direct rearmament efforts. That doesn't include all the short-term borrowing that the Nazis had to do to push rearmament even further (ie: MEFO bills).
In addition to that, a lot of spending and investment was ancillary to the armament industry, for example while not counted as a direct military expenditure, the financing for expanding civilian truck factories. Or efforts in production of synthetic oil.
I also find it funny you used the GDP graph from the Economy of Nazi Germany wiki page, but clearly did not read the page. Let me help you out:
>The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[4] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[5] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[6] and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s.[7] This was funded mainly through deficit financing before the war, and the Nazis expected to cover their debt by plundering the wealth of conquered nations during and after the war.[8] Such plunder did occur, but its results fell far short of Nazi expectations.[9]
So why is this bad? Because weapons do not increase capital, they do not improve the standard of living, once they are produced, without a war, they do not create jobs. So tying a majority of your economy in military spending is really a dumb move.
Also there's a bunch of other issues like shortages of raw materials, the maintenance of the Gold Standard (lul), the terribad export policy of the Nazis, the mounting debt, the shortage of foreign exchange, etc.
If you really want to learn about the economy of Nazi Germany, read Tooze, who authored pretty much the best book on the subject, instead of a 2h30 Youtube video.
https://www.amazon.ca/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
This book. Read it.
I didn’t think I was spreading misinformation. All the evidence I’ve seen Expecting Better does a dive into the research. all evidence she found was that they weren't worth it in the end. my US based OB office agreed. reading up on r/BabyBumps and most women there also opt for the risk if tearing vs a cut.
fwiw Im happy to take interventions, i welcome my epidural and my priority is to minimize pain and healing time.
everyone is different and should talk to their doctor, do their research and decide for themselves. if you disagree thats okay, ill never change your mind. we will just need to agree to disagree and hope for safe deliveries all around.
edit: [HuffPo article as well](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/episiotomy-childbirth-guidelines_n_1799394.html. Maybe we're agreeing and don't realize it? I'm not saying never/ever, but that they were once routine in the US and now they're relatively rare. They were common place but now are reserved if the doctor thinks there are extenuating circumstances (super giant baby head, or a shoulder is stuck and there is no time to reposition the baby). Episiotomy rates in the US have been dropping over the past several decades. I have no idea what they are compared to NZ or other countries, maybe yall never had the over-eager doctors we had in the 50's who would cut too early, too deep and too often.
I found the advice in Expecting Better is super helpful, basically most of the medical literature indicates that you shouldn't stress about it! It's better to gain a little more than the recommended than not gain enough. Plus 90% of women return to their normal weight by 24 months postpartum. As long as your eating mostly nutritious, whole foods, and staying active, you're doing good!
So here's what "Expecting Better" by Emily Oster (I highly recommend the book btw) has to say on the subject. It's on pp. 128-130 (slightly abridged for relevancy to the question), emphasis is mine.
>...
> You are exposed to cosmic radiation all the time, but when you fly the levels of radiation are higher than they are on the ground because there is less atmosphere to protect you. In general, there is a recommended limit on radiation exposure over the course of your pregnancy (technically, it's 1 mSv, but that probably has no more meaning for you than it does for me).
> This is probably very conservative. Based on nonairline sources of radiation exposure (X-rays, for example), we do know that it can increase the risk of both miscarriage and birth defects, but only at exposure levels about 20 times higher than the recommended limit. There is some evidence, however, of an increased risk of childhood cancers at lower levels than this. One set of studies suggested that exposure to twice the recommended limit would increase the risk of offspring ever having a fatal cancer by 1 in 50,000.^10
> Unless you travel very frequently you are unlikely to reach even the most conservative limit for radiation exposure. One flight from Chicago to Boston would deliver about 1 percent of the limit. Long-haul international flights are worse: the longest available flight delivers about 15 percent of the limit. This might seem like a lot (if you take more than three round trips from New York to Tokyo you're over the limit), but it is worth noting that this is less than 1 percent of the level at which there is any actual demonstrated risk of birth defects or miscarriage.^11
> Consistent with this, at least one study that compared infant outcomes for women who did and did not fly during their pregnancies found no difference in preterm birth, fetal loss, or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission.^12
> ...
> What about the full body scanners at the airport? Again, those work with X-rays, and therefore entail some radiation exposure. These levels of exposure are quite small -- maybe on the order of 0.01 percent of the 1 mSv limit -- so they are probably not something to worry about. In practice, at least for the moment, most airports have normal metal detectors as well as the full body scan, and pregnant women are generally pointed toward the non-X-ray option. If you are worried, you can always opt for the pat down. It's not enjoyable, but it's radiation-free.
----------------------------------------
>^10. ^R. ^J. ^Barish, ^"In-Flight ^Radiation ^Exposure ^During ^Pregnancy," ^Obstetrics ^& ^Gynecology ^103, ^no. ^6 ^(2004):1326-30.
> ^11. ^Ibid.
> ^12. ^M. ^Freeman ^et ^al, ^"Does ^Air ^Travel ^Affect ^Pregnancy ^Outcome?," ^Archives ^of ^Gynecology ^and ^Obstetrics ^269, ^no. ^4 ^(May, ^2004):274-77.
I feel like this book realllllly helped me during this phase. It calmed my first time mom fears. Apart from normal FTM anxiety, it sounds like telling her to let her OB know what’s going on is great advise. My anxiety got so bad I was out on Zoloft around 20 weeks. Really helped.
Educated economics
Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life
http://www.amazon.com/Supercapitalism-Transformation-Business-Democracy-Everyday/dp/0307265617
Also:
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1215629427&amp;sr=1-1
My go to recs include a mix of articles, videos, and books. Check out Albert Einstein's Why Socialism? After that maybe watch Richard Wolff's Intro to Marxism. Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine is not a socialist book per se, but it illustrates the evils of capitalism and the real world consequences of historical atrocities committed in the name capitalist interests. Also, you should read primary texts. Read Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky. This Study Guide for Revolutionaries has essentially all of the canonized Marxist works categorized like a syllabus. If you haven't read the Manifesto yet, be sure to knock that one out too! Hope these suggestions help!
I wrote a paper analyzing Chilean politics last year. The thesis was that libertarianism, Friendmanite neoliberalism, etc., in pure form, can only exist under authoritarian or totalitarian (in the case of Ayn Rand's objectivist capitalism) regimes and are logically incompatible with democracy.
The conclusion was that if people are ever given a vote, they will by and large vote against purist constructs of these political theories, and I used Chilean politics to demonstrate the point. I presented the argument in class and the logic of it was accepted, even by the two libertarian leaning classmates, but sadly it didn't move them at all. They concluded essentially that political freedom is unnecessary for real freedom™.
EDIT: If anyone is interested in learning more about the very fascinating "libertarian" dictatorship in Chile, and how it was implemented with the help of Milton Friedman, I suggest checking out Naomi Kline's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. She's definitely a leftist, and so it should be read with her bias in mind, but she's a fantastic writer and journalist and there's enough factual information to form your own perspectives on the matter without relying completely on her analysis.
And read the Shock Doctrine. Some of Klein's arguments are iffy, but on the whole it is possibly the saddest book I have ever read.
The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat By Oliver Sacks is an amazing book about odd neurological disorders and what they do to people. It is a fascinating, well-written book that was very easy to read.
Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain By Oliver Sacks is another very interesting book about how music affects the brain.
The Definitive Book of Body Language is another good book that'll make you a bit more observant of people.
The Art of War is always a classic, good, and informative read.
Those have been my favorite. I have a friend who suggest The Tipping Point is a really good book, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
Hope that helped.
Edit: Me grammar wrongs
Recommended Reading:
(Those are just the ones I have sitting on my bookshelf... I have a dozen more on my Kindle that I can add to the list if you're interested.)
---------
Authors &amp;amp; Speakers (lots of TED Talks):
---------
Let's start a book club! :)
A couple I've enjoyed lately:
Rabid: A Cultural History of the World's Most Diabolical Virus
The Red Market: On the Trail of the World's Organ Brokers, Bone Thieves, Blood Farmers, and Child Traffickers -
They're both enjoyable reads, not especially boring or academic.
I also second /u/Createx's Freakonomics recommendation. That book was great. Along the same cause and effect theme is The Tipping Point.
I am not sure about any Canadian Forces specific books. But some standard military officer books that in my mind are good to read about leadership and wisdom would be:
(http://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316346624/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1342986110&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=The+Tipping+Point+by+Malcolm+Gladwell)
LOL this is a small Midwestern town, but no not San Francisco,I'd be homeless there. But it is like San Francisco, wealthy people from a huge metro city come here with their second vacation homes. Most of the populace is at the six figures level. I can't name where I am at, but think this place has the golf courses, expensive spas, etc etc. Yes many of these are very religious conservative wealthy people. I come out of a more well off family and know for a fact many got jobs via connections. I was the scapegoat so not allowed to share in the "wealth" so to speak. I have a few Baby Boomer friends, they get upset when I talk about generations, I understand, there are exceptions to all generational generalities, but I have to admit when I read this book, I agreed with a lot of it.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
I am working my way through this book. Highly recommend it.
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
Obligatory referral for reading the Phoenix Project.
https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
I'm going to second that recommendation. DevOps is a really versatile role and you'll want to make sure that you have a solid understanding of the scope involved so that you can confidently set expectations when applying for positions.
It's become a bit of a buzzword in the last year, but for a good reason since it is pretty much essential for agile development and overlaps strongly with architecture / infrastructure development.
There are two books by the same team of authors I strongly recommend reading, including non-referral amazon links below.
What you want to do is engineer your systems such that "Maintenance Windows" are not a thing. You might want to look into SRE and DevOps techniques.
First, go read The Phoenix Project. A quick read that novelizes process workflow concepts really well.
Personally, I use a Kanban board to make sure projects are moving along. In conjunction with a ticketing system (which is a great log but poor visual representation of how projects or long tasks are going) it works great and is visible enough that my CEO often walks in and takes a look at our "current status." Would be worth looking into as initial investment is low (mine is a whiteboard and some colored post it notes; more elegant and online solutions are plentiful).
I'm much more interested in Rosling's book, which I'm hoping will capture what's useful in Pinker's (most things in public health we can measure are getting better for most people in the world, while most people are incorrect in thinking they're getting worse) without having to create a religion around how all those (mostly) good things are inevitable as long as we believe in the same things Pinker does. I haven't read either book yet, but it doesn't sound like Pinker is wrong about what has happened, just overreaching on why as is his custom.
It's bullshit, in France it's much more complicated. Nobody but the racist and far-right are making everything they can to link and make a causality relation between the rise of rape reports and refugee crisis.
Right wingers love to interpret and use statistics as much as they can to make everyone believe their sick views on the world.
Even though, in general we are progressing, but that's thanks to the majority of humankind. There is a book I read that one of my old geopolitics teachers recommended us via email: check it out it's called "Factfulness : Ten Reasons We're Wrong About The World - And Why Things Are Better Than You Think".
While this won't reply to the rape questions, at least in France I can provide more links, if you're willing to right click > translate to English but it won't be perfect sadly. For a starter this is a decent article: https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2017/10/04/ou-peut-on-trouver-les-chiffres-annuels-de-plaintes-pour-viol-d-affaires-resolues-d-affaires-passees_1652544
As you will see it's complex, and whoever tries to come here and say otherwise is 100% bullshitting.
Also notice how the people who always push these views act like we should take their word for it, never trying to back up their arguments.
I would look at three things: what is the impact of my work, how connected am I to the impact of my work, and where else can I find meaning in my work.
Let's begin with an uncomfortable truth. Most jobs in our industry are just not very meaningful in terms of the impact of the work itself. Most of us are not working on something that might (say) cure cancer or reduce poverty. There just aren't enough meaningful jobs to go around, so some of us won't be able to find one for ourselves. (This isn't only true of software engineering, of course. Many of today's jobs are bullshit jobs.)
If we can't find meaning in the work itself, I think we have to look for meaning in other places. I look for meaning in contributing to the success and happiness of my coworkers, and I look for jobs where I can work with likeminded people. I've found that this more than anything else has had a big impact on my work satisfaction and has reduced my feelings of alienation.
Also, as you alluded to, regardless of how meaningful the work is per se, our connection to the work can be made more or less meaningful. Feedback of the sort you are asking about helps us understand the impact of our work. If you can't feel connected to the actual impact your work has, you might feel alienated even if you are in some way helping to cure cancer. You should absolutely look for and ask for this feedback, as it will improve both your work and your feelings about the work.
https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber/dp/150114331X
https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
People who - when finding out they get paid way less than they are worth - want to make sure no other job gets a fair pay instead of blaming themselves or their employer for lowballing their wage.
It's amazing that humans are so petty they are willing to work for shit as long as they can point at someone else and say 'I'm better than that'.
Also - see this book on bullshit jobs
> The most socially useful profession is medical research, which produces $9 in benefit for every dollar that goes into it. Finance workers produce -$1.80 for every dollar they're paid.
Jealousy is a bitch and the free market exploits it - which is why 'rational actors' is a bullshit assumption to make
It's the blog of the author, and that's the first chapter of his whole book where you can find references to further reading. The main issue is about the fundamental differences between animal fats and proteins versus vegetal fats and proteins and how they're metabolized in completely different ways by the body. This among hundreds of other bits of information, especially the critics upon ethical and social aspects of vegetarianism and ecological concerns like sustainability itself. Like I said in another comment, veganism is better than the average post-industrial world diet but is no better than a healthy omnivorous diet. Furthermore, vegan diet is extremely easy to mess up and end up hurting yourself and is mostly impossible to attain a perfect vegetarian diet without chemical supplements of nutrients.
EDIT: Further read: New York Times article can be backed up with this article.
Additional data
There's also the issue of what does a true vegetarian diet consist of. Eggs or milk count? yogurt? fish? bugs? Morally would you renounce to reading books, using plastics, wearing leather, and consuming certain medicines and other product produced out of farm animals? how does this would play out on an ideal Vegan world?
Go visit them before you eat them. See them being treated well and having good lives even though (because?) they're being raised to be our food. It's the cycle of life, they eat their food, we eat them--and, eventually we die and rot and become plant food and it starts all over again.
Edit: you might also want to take a look at Lierre Keith's The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability.
I'm a technical PM for two teams, as a well a contributing dev on both teams.
While the skills are definitely different from programming a few things I've found that helps:
A few books you should read:
In terms of sprint plannings, just remember it's a negotiation. You're not there to tell people what to do. Rather you have the stuff you would like done, but you negotiate with the team on what's possible and what's not. I've seen too many PM's get pissed cause their teams couldn't do 100% of what they wanted and that's not right. Rather a good PM, imo, brings options and lets the team decide how much they can handle. There have been times when I've gone into sprint plannings and non of items made it on the sprint, and that's ok.
Sorry for the long rant!
Change control issues automatically make me think of Phoenix Project.
A great read for anybody in IT.
Factfulness by Hans Rosling
https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814
You're not wrong. The timeframes vary based on what societal dimension you're discussing at a given point, but many aspects of global society are significantly better today than in the recent and distant past. Education levels, equality, access to food, mortality rates, life expectancies, literacy, and so on.
I'd you're not familiar with it, I'd recommend the book Factfulness. Pretty good book on this topic of perspective vs reality.
(Edit - fixed link)
May I recommend this excellent book to you:
https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814
:D
I believe this is from Factfulness.
https://archive.org/details/FactfulnessByHansRosling/page/n47
&#x200B;
https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814
OK boomer. https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Very succinct and efficient post!
I also suggest reading The Big Short (the movie helps as well, but comes across as very anti-wall street while the book helps you understand wall street decision making), as the 2007-8 housing market crisis really is still relevant and directly effective Fed Rev policy.
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827?ie=UTF8&amp;*Version*=1&amp;*entries*=0
The government is not innocent in this as well, as bond institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both equally culpable, hence why they no longer exist.
The Big Short, by Michael Lewis, does a great job explaining some of the causes of the financial meltdown. It's told from the perspective of investors who saw it coming, and put their money where their mouths were.
IMHO, the credit rating agencies, like Standard & Poor's and Moody's, are the primary source of the entire meltdown. They gave top ratings to mortgage investments regardless of the quality of the mortgages. This led investors to sink tons of money into mortgage investments, thinking they were perfectly safe. This drove demand for banks to get more people to sign up for mortgages, whether they were qualified or not. The whole system was based on the premise that housing prices always go up. As soon as they started going down, everything fell apart.
The Big Short, by Michael Lewis
Lewis has a gift for explaining complicated concepts. And before he became an author, Lewis actually started his career working on Wall Street (which he chronicled in the book Liar's Poker). In The Big Short, Lewis explains what caused the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
If you're looking for something a little shorter to give you an idea of how Lewis writes, here's Wall Street on the Tundra, which is an article about how Iceland apparently became one of the richest nations on earth . . . on paper. And how that led to its own financial meltdown.
The financial crisis was not caused by the CRA or anti-redlining litigation. As Wikipedia helpfully summarizes,
> The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that "the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans – a proxy for subprime loans – had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."[67] Critics claim that the use of the high-interest-rate proxy distorts results because government programs generally promote low-interest rate loans – even when the loans are to borrowers who are clearly subprime.[152] Several economist maintain that Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations.[2][27]
If you want to understand the behaviors that actually caused the suprime mortgage crisis, I suggest that you read The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. It is an account of the financial crisis from the perspective of a few people who made millions of dollars by shorting (i.e. betting against) the very mortgage-backed securities which caused the crisis. You can read it for free if you have a Kindle and Amazon Prime, or you can check it out from your local library.
Nobody forced these banks to make the terrible subprime loans that caused the collapse. The banks willingly gave mortgages to people that they knew would be unable to repay them. Why? Because the banks wouldn't be on the hook when the mortgages failed. They had invented a bunch of "mortgage-backed securities" (pools of mortgages, and later pools of pools of mortgages) specifically so that they could sell their mortgages (and the risk of people defaulting on those mortgages) to other unsuspecting institutions.
These "financial instruments" were like machines that could turn a pile of crap into 80% gold and 20% crap. The raw material for these machines were mortgages, which is why the subprime lenders wanted to make as many mortgages as they could. They didn't care about the quality of the mortgages that they made, because they were selling the (deliberately-misassessed) risk to other people.
You've probably heard of an insurer called AIG, which the federal government bailed out to the tune of $182 billion during the subprime mortgage crisis. AIG was one of the unsuspecting institutions that bought those bundles of crap mortgages. AIG bought them because the Big Three ratings agencies (Moody's, Fitch Group, and S&P) said the securities were safe investments (I believe they rated many of them as AAA, the same rating given to US government bonds). Of course, the securities weren't actually that safe. One reason for the incorrect ratings was that the investment banks deliberately manipulated their ratings criteria. For example,
> A pool of loans composed of borrowers all of whom had a FICO score of 615 was far less likely to suffer huge losses than a pool of loans composed of borrowers half of whom had FICO scores of 550 and half of whom had FICO scores of 680. A person with a FICO score of 550 was virtually certain to default and should never have been lent money in the first place. But the hole in the rating agencies’ models enabled the loan to be made, as long as a borrower with a FICO score of 680 could be found to offset the deadbeat, and keep the average at 615. [Source: The Big Short]
and
> Eisman learned that the rating agencies simply assumed that the borrower would be just as likely to make his payments when the interest rate on the loan was 12 percent as when it was 8 percent—which meant more cash flow for the bondholders. Bonds backed by floating-rate mortgages received higher ratings than bonds backed by fixed-rate ones—which was why the percentage of subprime mortgages with floating rates had risen, in the past five years, from 40 to 80. [Source: The Big Short]
There were other ways of deceiving the ratings agencies, too. The agencies paid too much attention to the FICO scores, and not enough to the actual credit histories that yielded those scores. So a California grape-picker with a sparse credit history making less than $20k per year could qualify for a very expensive mortgage, because he had never borrowed a lot of money and thus never had a payment to miss or a loan to default on. Worse, the grape-picker might actually be used as the "good" borrower in order to balance out a "bad" lender in the mortgage pool.
Part of the problem is that most of the smart finance people work for the banks instead of the ratings agencies. That's what happens when the banks will pay seven figures and the ratings agencies only five figures. But another issue was that the ratings agencies didn't want to look too closely at these mortgage pools. The ratings agencies were paid by the banks, and so an agency that rated the securities too harshly was an agency that would soon be out of customers. Some employees of the ratings agencies have attested that they were specifically discouraged by their superiors from strictly scrutinizing the securities that they were assigned to rate.
TL;DR: Banks were not forced to issue subprime mortgages. They willingly chose to, because mortgages were the raw material for a Ponzi-scheme collection of mortgage-backed securities. Blame for the subprime mortgage crisis rests primarily on the subprime mortgage lenders and the ratings agencies that enabled them.
edit: typos, removed unnecessary italics
>The end result of closing the wage gap is women spending more time working in corporations and spending more on consumer goods and the average couple spending more time at work than in the past - just to make ends meet.
This is also Elizabeth Warren's viewpoint, in fact she has a book on the subject, and essentially believes that having both parents in a family working is a huge problem. She thinks it's causing a drop in the quality of life across western civilization, and has been doing so since the 1970s. There's a long and plain spoken lecture on it. It's very statistics heavy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
As for "Cultural Marxism"; I find it interesting that The Frankfurt School were vehemently against propaganda and indoctrination - having seen the rise of Nazi propaganda in their home country - are targetted and blamed for that exact same thing. They called it "The Culture Industry" and believed it was used against the interests of the masses. To quote Adorno:
>"The Culture Industry not so much adapts to the reactions of its customers as it counterfeits them." -Adorno
>"this bloated pleasure apparatus adds no dignity to man’s lives. The idea of “fully exploiting” available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger." -Adorno, Enlightenment as Mass Deception.
...and yet they're blamed for creating this industry that they were so against! The targetting of this conspiracy theory seems to be on purpose. The creators of this theory have blamed the only group of western intellectuals who had studied the problem in detail. Effectively obscuring what The Frankfurt School were on about.
Luckily now, thanks to the internet - we make our own cultures.
Anyways - I agree with most of what you've written! Congratulations on coming through the thickets and seeing another side!
> Warren only recently has been saying the things she does
Here's her book from 2004 explaining all the issues with our economy before almost anyone else (Bernie excluded) had caught on.
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907
I'm in a very similar boat and I recommend staying with the target date fund. That's going to be the easiest way to almost guarantee a solid return.
If you want more details I suggest The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. For me personally it helped shine a light on why target date funds and index funds are so good.
The New Professional Chef
There is a newer version called The Professional Chef that Paul Bocuse calls "The bible for all chefs".
I agree with u/mirepoixmatt, I like the older versions a bit better. You can get an older version of the New Professional Chef for 75 cents
https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1486308362&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=cia+cookbook
It will save you an unreal amount of money. I’ve worked as a chef for going on 15 years now. If you’re interested in learning to cook and have the time you could get yourself a beginner culinary school textbook like On Cooking or The Professional Chef. It’ll teach you a ton and is chock full of beginner recipes with explanations of why everything is done the way it is.
https://www.amazon.com/Cooking-Textbook-Culinary-Fundamentals-5th/dp/013715576X
https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355
If you really want to learn to cook i would suggest getting the text book than many professional chefs use while in school, something like this:
The Professional Chef https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470421355
You dont have to read it cover to cover but you should use it ad a reference to learn the fundamentals and establish a basic set of skills that you can use as you continue to learn and try new things. Like many endeavors you can save a lot of time by learning the tricks of the trade in the beginning.
Also like others said youtube is an awesome way to learn, also check out Americas Test Kitchen on PBS.
Nå folkens, der er snart gået et år siden Skodbil sidst mæskede sig i fødselsdagskage, og det betyder at successen skal gentages. Fødselsdagsgaver er for lang tid siden gået fra at være Lego og våben, til at være sokker og bøger.
Derfor skal der nu nogle gode kogebøger på listen. Jeg er ikke så meget på udkig efter opskriftsbøger, men mere ude i at ville have kogebøger som jeg rent faktisk kan lære noget af. Jeg har allerede følgende på listen, men hvis DU kender en helt vildt god bog jeg bør læse, så sig til.
Sølvskeen
The Food Lab, Kenji Lopez
Chocolate at Home
Paul Bocuse Institut Gastronomique
The Professional Chef
The Flavour Bible
Mastering Cheese
Der er med vilje ingen vinbøger på listen, for det gør jeg mig ikke specielt meget i - endnu.
If you look at past years' primary polls from before February of the season, you see complete mess. Here's 2012. The polls are meaningless that far out, and in every past primary, establishment endorsements helped choose an electable candidate. Silver used endorsements as a big factor in his analysis. His site even has a tracker that states "endorsements have been among the best predictors of which candidates will succeed and which will fail" which in every other primary was true. Normally, you couldn't just rely on the polls.
In finance, they say the scariest words are "This time it's different" where previous models that accurately made predictions no longer apply. Well, this time it's different. The large, shifting field of candidates made a lot of powerful Republicans abstain from endorsing anyone, and the hatred toward the Republican establishment made endorsements almost worthless. Anyone who read the polls and saw it coming were lucky unless they could also predict why the normally accurate model no longer applied. If they just relied on the polls, any other year they would've been wrong.
EDIT: One analyst who actually did predict that the old rules no longer applied was Norm Ornstein. He even wrote an article back in August titled "Maybe This Time Really Is Different"
https://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640
Good book. This Time Is Different: 8 Centuries of Financial Folly
> this time it'll be very very different
https://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640
>this time it feels different.
What could possibly go wrong...
What I've posted.
Here you go: https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Perspectives/dp/0765808684
If you're actually ready to question our state religion of democracy, not just joke about it, you might enjoy this 1951 book by "ultraliberal monarchist" Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
Short summary: it's not true that the opposite of democracy is dictatorship. The opposite of democracy is the rule of law. Dictatorship, aka Caesarism, is the first cousin of democracy and generally its most stable endpoint.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed is also worth reading, but it's not on line as far as I know.
No, the fact that these people have German names doesn't mean they're Nazis.
The Law by Frederic Bastiat (awesome, short, soooo many quotable quotes)
Healing Our World by Dr. Mary Ruwart (old version available free)
Haven't read any of his books (have listened to many lectures and radio show), but something by Harry Browne should do quite nicely. I've heard great things about Why Government Doesn't Work
Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity - John Stossel (do check out his excellent Fox Business show "Stossel" on hulu.com, and look for his old 20/20 specials on libertarianism - they're fantastic)
good economists: Peter Schiff, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Walter Block
You might be better off waiting til you get more comfortable with libertarianism, but G. Edward Griffin's Creature From Jekyll Island is a must read. It's more about the monetary system and the Federal Reserve than libertarianism in general though.
I haven't read anything that makes a good argument against libertarianism, but can recommend a guy who makes a seemingly good argument against capitalism and for socialism - Michael Parenti. I haven't read any of his pro-socialist books (but have one on foreign policy called The Terrorist Trap which is quite good and very short. Libertarians and socialists tend to agree on not inviting war and not waging war). But I have listened to his pro-socialist lectures - they're well delivered and impassioned and a person who didn't know any better would easily be tempted. They're worth listening to to use his arguments and twist them to actually make the case FOR libertarianism. He'll use some faulty facts/data that leftists typically do such as "Hoover was an ardent free-market advocate and we can blame him and capitalism for causing the Great Depression" (we can blame him for the depression all right (prolonging it, to be specific), not b/c he was a capitalist but b/c he really started all the policies that FDR continued when he got into office)
Every major war started with a false flag or a lie; this includes the Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and 9/11. The only concern of the powers at be is to maintain control of the world’s resources and the implementation of the petrodollar to our debt holders. NATO is fighting to fulfill Agenda 21/The 2030 Agenda - the controlling of all land and resources, with a much smaller population. This is a 60-100(ish) year long initiative to create a world that is not "for the people".
This guy gives a quick summary of things - I don't necessary think he's completely legit, but research the things he talks about and the people behind them, and the history of the events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCzR7NCeMYA /
Most people here didn't see a YouTube video or not take their bipolar medicine, they saw some shit; or experienced something, and began to dig into it; the more they dug, the more their view of reality changed. The thing that kept them from feeling crazy, is they found a place like this with people that were drawing the same conclusions.
A few books...
Behold a Pale Horse
Dope, Inc
[The Creature from Jekyll Island](
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&amp;tag=duckduckgo-d-20&amp;linkCode=xm2&amp;camp=2025&amp;creative=165953&amp;creativeASIN=091298645X)
I'm a huge fan of JD; but this just doubles-down on my concern that he is ruining his health by being vegan.
Silly list of evidence;
Low energy - need to lean on things to stay up right.
Depressed - Lack of animal based nutrients and healthy fats impacts mental health. I note his older songs seemed to be dark, but on the average less morose. Saw a concert recently and have to admit that I was disappointed he played mostly "sad, relationship songs" and few of his more exciting songs. I really wanted to hear Autoclave and Michael Myers Resplendent but you can't please everyone I understand. Still - I left feeling really down in a way that I did not expect from listening to the albums.
His teeth are falling apart and he doesn't know why - this is often the warning sign that turns vegans into some version of paleo-type eaters. Happened to Robb Wolf, Lierre Kieth, and others.
When I see photos he just doesn't look well. This is what my vegan (not the fat ones that eat vegan junk food but the ones that actually eat vegetables) friends look like - thin but without that warmth in their skin, lines, wrinkles, etc.
Money is a debt obligation. So when we take care of each other we get money. It is not when we get money we will take care of each other. Cart before the horse
As I mentioned in my other comment, here's a breakdown of Bitcoin's security model. Before Bitcoin was created, everyone thought that it was impossible to provide such guarantees. Satoshi's solution to the Byzantine General's Problem was a breakthrough in Computer Science.
"Money" is just a collective agreement that something has value and functions well as a medium of exchange. If you think that money is something that must be provided by a government, I'd recommend that you educate yourself more about the history of money. A book I recommend is Debt: The First 5,000 Years
Great list! Let me add some more moderate titles:
17. That which is seen, and that which is not seen - Introduces the "Parable of the broken window" that underpins "Economics in One Lesson"
18. The Road the Serfdom - the case against collectivism, and prescient roadmap for collectivist failure
19. Free to Choose - in Print and Video
20. Capitalism and Freedom - and how they are linked
21. Civil Disobedience - Every other sentence is a poem to human liberty
Naomi Klein does.
The Chicago School - the people who brought you the bloody revolution in Chile. Nice.
Because making loose correlations between anecdotal observations is a lot easier than thinking about socioeconomic issues. Because humans are hardwired to be tribal, and most of our self selected tribes are monochromatic. Sapiens, Outliers, and The Tipping Point touch on these flaws in our wetware.
I hate to quote statistics without citing the source, but the source was a lecture in psychology and I don't have notes about the citation. About 4% of men and 2% of women (4% in women around the age of 40 due to a drug commonly taken by pregnant women at the time) are homosexual. Individuals can form close acquaintances with about 150 people (The Tipping Point), so there are good odds that about six people you personally know and regularly interact with are gay.
The boomers nominated and elected the people you are labeling overlords. They enabled their overlordship. They supported (even if tacitly) the policies that these overlords enacted. The overlords are, by and large, themselves boomers.
You're right that it's unfair to lay all the blame on one generation, but they do deserve quite a lot of blame--owing to their disproportionate political weight and cultural influence. I think the better argument is to consider that whatever changes took place, they weren't necessarily done with malice or necessarily differ from counterfactual speculations. That is to say, boomers aren't that unique, and even if their population wasn't so large, reality may have unfolded similarly or worse.
Books have been written on how boomers fucked things up, and I'm sure more will follow. My instinct is that populations of people tend to have similar distributions of personality types that tend to yield predictable patterns through time. Namely, authoritarian followers (representing some significant fraction of people), routinely prop up authoritarian leaders who work to undermine broadly democratic processes. It seems like we take 2 steps forward and 1 step back carrying the vestigial cultural baggage of this primitive instinct. That doesn't just disappear in a generation and won't disappear with gens X, Y, Z either.
Generational sociopathy.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1518204553&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=a+generation+of+sociopaths
"On Writing Well," by William Zinnser may help you out.
> Hitler was able to build a booming economy off the back of large internal deficits. He leveraged a strong manufacturing sector to build a self sufficient state.
That's not really true
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
> What does this book say that is different than what has gone before? Heaps. In recent years it has become clear that Germany lost the second world war because the Soviet Union was able to out produce them in the making of armored vehicles. Britain and the United States were able to produce huge numbers more aircraft. The conclusion has been that Hitler's gamble in invading the Soviet Union was the key behind the loss of the war.
>
> What this book suggests is that Germany had lost the war before it invaded the Soviet union and its success up to 1941 had been a lucky break. The author even suggests that Britain alone had some chance of over time developing a preponderance of military force. It also puts paid to what must be now seen as the myth of Munich. Previously it was thought that Britain and France failed to re-arm in time to fight Hitler effectively. What this book shows is that by 1940 Britain and France had armies that were superior in both numbers and equipment. Their navies were vastly superior to Germany's and their air forces at least equal. When France fell, although Britain lost its field army its air force was equivalent to the German in numbers and quality and its Navy vastly superior to anything the Germans and Italians could put to sea. More over the British were able to out produce the Germans in aircraft even prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union.
>
> The success of the German armies in 1940 was due to the allied command failing to respond to the German strategy. If the allies had been a bit more aggressive they could have fought it out to at least a draw and Germany did not have the resources to fight anything more than a short war. The idea of blitzkrieg was an invention of allied generals seeking to rationalize their defeat rather than a meaningful analysis of what happened. The French never even fully committed their air force to the struggle and most of it was captured on the ground.
>
> The problem was that although Germany had access to the industrial plant of Northern Italy, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands they were not able to use it to match either the Soviets or the British in war production. The reasons are complex but relate to the patterns of European trade and the success of the European blockade. If we take aircraft for example the French production which flowed to Germany was miniscule. France had access to manufacturing plant and supplies of bauxite but it was not able to produce. The reason was that it used to import coal from Britain for its electricity production. With the British blockade the main source of coal became Germany. However Germany was not able to increase its production sufficiently to overcome the short fall. In addition the amount of food produced in Europe fell. Previously the production of meat and dairy products in countries such as Denmark had been dependant on the import of grain and stock feed from South America. That was not available and the amount of food available for the dairy industry collapsed as did food production. In the rest of Europe food production had been based on the widespread use of chemical fertilizer. Apart from the issues of the blockade huge amounts of the chemicals used for fertilizer production was diverted to the making of explosives. In addition to the fact that French workers were moved on to subsistence rations and there was no power available the country had been dependant on motorized transportation. Again most of its oil imports came from abroad. With the outbreak of the war the only available oil products came from Romania or from synthetic oil made in Germany. This was barely enough for the needs of the armed forces (there was in reality not enough to keep the Italian Navy operational) and France reverted to a pre-petroleum transport economy.
>
> It is this economic background that gave rise to Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had the natural resources that would enable European industry to out produce Britain and America. Rather than rashly starting a two front war Hitler knew that he could never develop the naval might necessary to conquer Britain simply by the occupation of Western Europe. The conquest of the Soviets was a key step in Hitler's strategy and not irrational. Of course none of the German general staff thought that the Soviets could stand up to an invasion of over 3 million men. However the Soviets were able to do so and then they were better able to marshal their resources so that they could outlast the Germans.
>
> This is a very good book which will force everyone to re-think their attitudes to not only the second world war but the historical run up to it. It is unusual to have a book which is of such significance.
Read the best book on the German economy:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
It's a bullshit myth that the German Nazi economy was wonderfully efficient. In fact, the overlapping controls created huge inefficiencies that helped doom the nation when it went to war. Albert Speer's flair for spin during and after the war created a myth that the facts don't support.
Both Soviet Communism and USA capitalism (organized for war) probed MUCH more efficient and productive.
There is a book called Expecting Better that is precisely about this. It does not tell you what to do or what not to do. It tells you just HOW SAFE (or to put it another way, how risky) certain behaviors are during pregnancy, so that YOU can decide where your personal line comes in. It's written by a woman who works with statistics and analysis who was basically stunned by how unfounded all the advice she got during her pregnancy was - like how nobody could quantify or even elaborate on the risks they were asserting, etc, so she examined basically all the studies on all these things from all the freaking countries in the world that have ever done studies, and analyzed them as she would other statistical data, and she shares her findings. Sometimes she also shares her personal conclusions - what she does with those findings - but she always emphasizes that her conclusions are personal and that yours, even working with the exact same data, may vary and that's okay.
Fuck "better safe than sorry." I ate pretty much anything I wanted when pregnant - deli meat, sushi, etc. I had some beer here and there as well. I drank coffee and slept in whatever position I wanted to sleep in and I gained as much weight as my body seemed to want to without ever giving a fuck, whether it was a week where I was told I gained "too little" or a week where I was told I gained "too much." These were my personal decisions and they may not be the right decisions for everybody. But they were mine and I felt confident making them because I had 100000% more knowledge of the actual research and facts on any of these topics than any random fuck who gasped, "Don't eat that deli sandwich!!! You're pregnant!"
By far the most controversial part of the book is her analysis of drinking studies. It gets crazy down votes and bad reviews for that and I understand why. But even if you disagree with her personal conclusions on the topic, the rest of the book is pretty good - definitely a solid read for a rare injection of sanity.
But what is the real risk you'll go into emergency surgery where you're completely under? Expecting Better says that because of advances in anesthesia you're more likely to die in a car accident on the way to hospital than you are from aspiration from vomiting during surgery. It's a dumb rule and if my hospital tries to push it on me I'll be fighting it. What are they going to do, search my bag?
I'm going to catch some flack for this, but the total prohibition on alcohol is, under most circumstances, not justified by science. Read Expecting Better for a good summary. If you really don't want your families to know, it would be reasonable for her to sip a glass of wine over the course of the evening. If you really what to throw them off, when the two of you are alone, you take a pull off her glass so people notice the volume of her glass changing, her getting a refill, etc.
I'm going to go ahead and take the easy answers: On Writing Well and Elements of Style. Both a must for any writer.
*definitely learning on his time?
Or are you being defiant by learning on his time against his wishes?
--------
If you want to learn how to write things people will actually want to read (as opposed to just doing it because someone pays you), I'd suggest reading a book or two about how to write well.
On Writing Well by William Zinsser is a classic for non-fiction writers. It has lots of helpful guidelines about how to communicate effectively, even if you have no aspirations of being a magazine writer or book author.
However, there are probably some books about copywriting or some other areas closer to what you're doing.
Along those lines, look for other websites that have the kind of writing you or your boss are aiming for. Try to learn what they do well and what they do poorly, and emulate the good sites in your writing.
You and he could benefit from these [important] (http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth-William-Strunk/dp/020530902X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1465206715&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=strunk+and+white+elements+of+style) [books] (http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1465206715&amp;sr=1-9&amp;keywords=strunk+and+white+elements+of+style).
Writer here. That shit is definitely hard. My recommendation? Write down everything you want to say and don't worry about length. Then edit ruthlessly. Cut out anything redundant or that doesn't further your point. Look at every word and every sentence and ask yourself, do I need this word? Usually you can cut out adjectives in favor of strong verbs. E.g. "Earning a master's degree from your fine institution would be a great boon to my career." (16 words) becomes "A master's degree from X would catapult my writing career." (10 words) Or something. I've had some wine.
William Zinsser is way better at this shit than me. Everyone should read "On Writing Well."
It took me three "Next"s before I realized what was going on. Newspaper style, I'd make my point first: look for ways to start with the final chart and, if need be, introduce the four sources of delay in other ways. I suspect that the final bullet list beneath the chart will do the job (but see below for my note on writing). Maybe a short sentence within the hover thingie, rather than a name?
The top bullet points are is too specific to start out with. I lack context when I read them, and they are besides the point until the very end, or ever. I'd use that top space for more valuable stuff. (Also, super specific but nagging me: You mention 15 minutes required to be a delay, yet in the chart the bars go no higher than 8. I understand technically the difference, but it kills my intuition and put a doubt in my mind as to whether I really understand what's going on -- self-doubt often being a more potent source of fear or dislike than actual misunderstanding.)
Text: Simple words, short sentences, ruthless editing. Write like you speak. If you are the least interested, read https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548
To answer your questions (in case those are required for class):
What do you notice in the visualization?
What questions do you have about the data?
What relationships do you notice?
What do you think is the main takeaway from this visualization?
Is there something you don’t understand in the graphic?
Hope it helps!
Hi there, I like to read On Writing Well yearly to calibrate my writing (lhttps://www.amazon.ca/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548). It's a writing book that doesn't feel like a writing book.
That and of course elements of style... But that one feels like a writing book
Academics suck at writing in general. I highly recommend On Writing Well. There's a whole chapter on technical writing.
No problem. If you're writing in Turkish, I don't know how to help. However, for English writing, I've found the following book to be a useful one: https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548
Ah yes, you have On Writing. But do you have On Writing Well?
You're a graduate student, not an artist. There's so much "artistic freedom" in here that the paper is twice as long as it needs to be and it takes forever to make its point. That's why I'm not reading the whole thing. I don't mean to be insulting. Sorry.
In general, I think this is a really helpful book. More academics should read it.
Hello! Thought I'd try my first stab at DestructiveReaders on your story. Lucky you. Disclaimer: I'm a professional editor... of marketing materials--not fiction.
Here's what you requested be dug into:
1) Narrative Style
I think people are telling you it feels detached because it needs another heavy edit. I'd recommend reading On Writing Well by William Zinsser. I think his advice could help you clean your prose up a bit. I see what you're trying to do to add tension, but your sentences don't flow together as nicely as they could. Another suggestion would be to read your work out loud and assess where it doesn't sound right.
2) Worldbuilding
I can see that you're trying to give the story an ominous tone with your prose, but try to favor showing to set the tone. The dramatic language should be a second layer to back up what's happening in the story.
For example, your story begins with three paragraphs of what I'd called "preamble". More effective would be to open the story by starting with the Kalina looking out her window at the mourners. I feel like you're repeating the fact that the Czar's daughter is dying too many times. Readers will understand after you mention it once.
I'd also recommend not saying "the Czar's daughter" repeatedly in the beginning. Start with "Kalina, the Czar's daughter..." and the refer to her as Kalina beyond that. Even better would be making one of the mourners wail something like, "Kalina, our Czar's daughter! We mourn you!" to be more artful about the exposition.
Everything being "red" might be a little too on-the-nose of a metaphor for a book about communism, but maybe that's just my taste.
Overall, too much showing and not telling. Just one example of many: "...dying people should not speak, it is improper." I want to see an example of somebody chastising her for speaking (or something), not just be told that it's improper. Readers want to care for Kalina, and building tension by showing that she can't even speak, even though she's dying, would be more emotional.
The image of a mourning crowd outside the dying princess' room is and makes me want to know more. Why is she dying? Why do they love her so much? Good stuff.
3) Dialogue
Use your dialogue to drive the story and the amount that you're (again) showing. For example, in the scene where Kalina interacts with her mammoth, start with "I'll come back, Lyuba." And then describe what she does with the mammoth from there. There's a whole paragraph of telling above it that could be worked into the action after she first speaks to her pet.
I'm actually at work now, but hopefully I can do some line edits tonight.
Overall, I think it's an interesting concept that could be helped with some screw tightening.
Simple tip this is not, but I found that William Zinsser's "On Writing Well" is a fantastic read. It goes through basics on conciseness and writing factually, but also has specific guidelines on writing nonfiction (travel, humor, business, sports, arts, etc.) Also helpful on how to rid yourself of cliches and clutter.
Just do it. Just put it out there. Some of the worst stuff I have written, that I still call "trash fiction", is the stuff people loved best. Some of the best stuff I have written has gotten the harshest critiques. The point, here, is to be careful of becoming "married" to things, that is, being unwilling to change it if someone has a valid critique.
Basically, take everything that is said to you about your work, process it as feedback rather than attack, and use it to help your writing get better. If someone took the time to critique your work, rather than defending the work, thank them for the criticism. Take the criticim, apply it, and see if it makes your work stronger. If it does, keep it, if not ignore it. Rough criticim has helped me immensely.
I also cannot emphasize how much a few writing classes and good books can help. Check out On Writing Well by William Zinsser, and Sin in Syntax by Constance Hale. Worth their weight in gold.
Feel free to inbox me with your stories. I promise to be thorough, yet non-douchy! Here's my online portfolio , if you want to check out my stuff. :)
EDIT: A comma.
Specifically regarding the First World War: Germany's reparations obligations to the western powers - already amended by international agreements reached in the 1920s - were abrogated entirely by the Lausanne Conference in the summer of 1932. For more on this, you might read the first couple of chapters of The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze, which deals with interwar Germany's competing economic philosophies within the context of the transatlantic political economy.
From Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze:
"Even if the war had not intervened, developments up to 1939 made clear that the entire conception of the 'people's car' was a disastrous flop."
Wages of destruction by Adam Tooze
History of the Third Reich Series which include:
The Coming of the Third Reich
The Third Reich in Power
The Third Reich at War
Rise and fall of the Third Reich
Thats very good reading material right there.
>No I don't agree with Nazi ideology but their economic system was brilliant.)
astonishingly ignorant
> The economy under Hitler prior to the war, and in the beginning years of the war was a hell of a lot better than the Weimer Republic.
Only if you believe Nazi propaganda.
Standards of living had not risen, quite the contrary, as consumer goods demand had been massively shrunk, the State was running a colossal deficit, so that by 1938, the State had defaulted on all foreign loans, and on the internal loans, it was running a pyramid scheme with IOU's, just to keep the economy going without actually putting much wealth into it, had no foreign reserves to import direly needed supplies, and no way of acquiring wealth, save from plundering it from central banks of the countries they invaded. Even before the war, there was already rationing of a number of items.
The Nazis took power in a country that was finally improving the economy and its living conditions, and managed to spiral it out of control and straight into the ground, by a combination of:
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
Have fun dispelling the myths you've taken to be true about Nazi Germany!
Adam Tooze Wages of Destruction. https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
This is the magnum opus of the Nazi economics. Explaining and eye opening. If there is one book about the Nazi economy it's this. I won't be wasting your time but seriously, order it.
Here is the mobile version of your link
Your husband has good taste in books! I'm really enjoying Expecting Better right now.
Slight aside, Emily Oster (economist and TED speaker) wrote a book that examined advice given to pregnant women a few years ago. As I recall, she found a lot of flaws in the study on pregnancy and alcohol, concluding that moderate alcohol consumption is perfectly safe, and could even be beneficial. http://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1463255700346
Ehhh I've just been using common sense, and I really liked the book Expecting Better. She goes into they Whys and Statistics and Research of things we're told to avoid and then we can make our own judgement based on the Actual risk with percentages and numbers.
I've had non-heated lunchmeat multiple times so far - from the Amish market or busy supermarket deli, or from a super busy/known sub-shop. I will not have it from a hole-in-the-wall sub-shop and if I get it from the deli I won't eat it past like a day in the fridge. There's more risk of listeria from frozen veggies or produce than from lunchmeat but no one says anything about that.
I've avoided raw sushi because even the reputable places can carry parasites without knowing it, but I have no problem with the cooked kind (and would regularly get veggie sushi before even becoming pregnant - sweet potato rolls are amazing).
I'm not a caffeine/soda person Anyway, my body just doesn't like it and never has. I've had regular coffee maybe twice, but my doctor just said not to go over 200-250mg daily which I wouldn't think twice about if I actually drank it, heh.
As for alcohol.. my OB said no alcohol, just to be safe. I've had a few sips of wine or beer now and again because I personally don't believe it's an issue in small/sporadic amounts. I wouldn't have a mixed drink, but now that I'm in the 2nd trimester if I wanted a glass of wine I would have it. I was never a huge drinker so I'm completely satisfied with a few sips of other peoples. I Absolutely would not worry about wine/alcohol in cooking or in soy sauce.. it can't be a huge amount.
Basically, talk to your doctor and do your own thinking and use your common sense to figure out what you're comfortable with. The internet is full of fear-mongering and it gets a bit ridiculous :(
Congratulations, and good luck!
The book Expecting Better has really good information about morning sickness (including stats on likelihood of experiencing it) and multiple levels of intervention you can take with your doctor.
From what I remember, basically all the options for reducing morning sickness have extremely little/no risk to the developing fetus, but women can be very resistant to taking any meds during pregnancy so doctors don't always recommend them. In your case I would ask for them early and discuss this with your doctor so you can know the options you have available to you. Especially if the idea of vomiting is going to cause you lots and lots of stress, taking something preventative could help you remain more calm during early pregnancy.
You're fine. I didn't have my first visit until about 10 weeks, and then another 4 weeks until my first ultrasound.
Read some books, starting with Expecting Better. That one will help you cut through a lot of the crap you're going to hear from people in the next few months. Good luck!
woah, rude. everyone has the right to do what makes them feel comfortable. there's actually research that 1-2 glasses a week in first trimester and up to 1 a day after that is safe. there's a good book that talks about how these risks are likely wayyy overblown.
They're two different books of hers that she talked about in a podcast I love.
Cribsheet is about raising a healthy human puppy and Expecting Better is about the actual pregnancy itself and all the conventional wisdom that doesn't seem to be backed up by any hard data.
I stay under 200 mg per day but generally have a soda or coffee daily. When my oldest was in the NICU, she was given straight caffeine via ng tube to help regulate her nervous system, so I know that caffeine is not as dangerous to babies as some sources say. The book Expecting Better has a really good chapter with lots of research into caffeine.
Before you judge: https://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702
It's only trashy because the USA is fucking weird about things. They can't understand moderation or grey areas, so we have to resort to outright banning in order to get people to pay attention.
the fact is, MOST stuff in moderation is just fine. read the book, even things like "double the risk of autism" still has it down in the <0.0001% risk factor.
Seriously, it's a good book and pretty enlightening.
Zero is the only “acceptable” amount according to most of the medical literature. However, that’s mostly because it’s hard to commission studies that require women to drink heavily during pregnancy to study the effects! If you haven’t already, check out Expecting Better , it really helped me put all the “risks” in perspective.
In answer to your original question, the safest thing is abstinence. Anecdotally, my wife had the occasional single glass of wine, or a beer now and then once she got out of the first trimester.
I really like Expecting Better. It has eased so many worries I had - I'm even back to drinking a cup of coffee per day, and I'd been too nervous to do it before.
Stay away from http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Illustrated-Pregnancy-Companion-Week/dp/1592333583 though. It had me sobbing within the first 10 pages over (a totally overblown and overstated) fear of an ectopic.
Thanks for the suggestion. Just to be sure we're on the same page about the book is it this?
http://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong--/dp/0143125702/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1452546982&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=expecting+better
Expecting Better: Why the Conventional Pregnancy Wisdom is wrong - and what you really need to know, by Emily Oster?
Thanks!
Another vote for both of the Emily Oster books, and the best practical book I've read is Heading Home with Your Newborn. Also this one's not a pregnancy book but I would strongly recommend How to Talk so Little Kids Will Listen if you're at all scared of the toddler through kinder stage. It's an entertaining read that aligns well with developmental psychology and has all these really funny real life examples of using the strategies from the book.
If I had to only pick a handful, I'd pick those.
I also liked the Ina May book which people will recommend a lot, but keep in mind it really is exclusively about childbirth and it's a bit crunchier than the average (though this pertains to the birth stories included more than Ina May's actual writing IMO). There's a good interview with her on the Longest Shortest Time podcast that addresses some of the things I felt the book could have benefited from stating outright to avoid sounding a little preachy at times.
If you're looking for like a detailed read that starts with absolute basics that would be especially good for anyone who hasn't researched much on pregnancy before, I would recommend Pregnancy, Childbirth, and the Newborn: The Complete Guide. It's as thick as a textbook but it doesn't read like one. They have a page in most sections directly speaking to partners as well, which is neat.
Of course you should know the ins and outs and whys. Is anything stopping you from doing your own research? You shouldn’t trust your medical professional blindly, nor should you write off his/her advice without doing your own research. This book is great for that: Expecting Better: Why the Conventional Pregnancy Wisdom Is Wrong-and What You Really Need to Know https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143125702/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_XeC8Ab45EKKE1 written by a data analyst who had the same questions you do.
Some risk assessment is valid to protect mom, some is to protect the baby, some is overblown, and some is to protect the care provider. None of it is intended to “police your fun” which was my main point in responding. The job of the midwife has zero concern about your fun, changing your attitude about that could help your outlook on the whole pregnancy.
Capitalism and Freedom
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211
One of the most important books ever published by the greatest libertarian of the 20th century, Milton Friedman
Würde "The Professional Chef" empfehlen.
Steht unheimlich viel Hintergrundwissen drin. Und auch echte gute Grundrezepte (Fonds, Saucengrundlagen etc.).
Rezepte sind auch drin, die sind, und das ist der einzige Haken, etwas schwer zu lesen, weil sie aufeinander aufbauend geschrieben sind.
Jetzt als aus dem Kopf konstruiertes Beispiel:
Braten mit Sauce: Rezept für braune Sauce benutzen.
Rezept für braune Sauce:
Aber insgesamt wahnsinnig viel Hintergrundinfos und Kochen wirklich von grundauf und auf anspruchsvollem Niveau.
Wer wirklich Lust hat in der Küche auch anspruchsvoll zu kochen, dem kann ich das Buch voll empfehlen.
Ansonsten noch "Aroma - Die Kunst des Würzens". Ist von Stiftung Warentest und geht in Teilen fast in Richtung Lebensmittelchemie (aber wirklich nur grundlegend).
Das Buch erklärt, wie Aromen entstehen, auf welcher chemischen Basis, und wie sich Geschmack zusammensetzt bzw. wie unser Körper überhaupt Geschmack wahrnimmt.
Dann gibt es ein großes Kompendium aller möglichen Aromen, chemisch analysiert, so dass man dann genau weiß, welche Aromen man miteinander kombinieren kann. Gibt nochmal ein sehr gutes Hintergrundwissen, wie Geschmack funktioniert.
Außerdem lernt man wirklich interessante und neue Aromakombinationen.
~edit~ Deutsche Version von TPC kostet 200 irgendwas Euro. Ich weiß nicht mehr wo ich es gekauft habe (ggf. Amazon.com bestellt und mir schicken lassen), aber das ist natürlich zu viel. 50 Euro wird man aber schon dafür ausgeben können.
Buy this book! This is the exact book they use in schools. Very in depth and super easy to understand. http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355
Just a some that likes cooking alot here. Maybe pick one of these bad boys up and start playing.
http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355
http://www.amazon.com/Ad-Hoc-Home-Thomas-Keller/dp/1579653774/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1373677797&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=thomas+keller+cookbooks
http://www.amazon.com/Bouchon-Bakery-Thomas-Keller/dp/1579654355/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1373677797&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=thomas+keller+cookbooks
http://www.amazon.com/French-Laundry-Cookbook-Thomas-Keller/dp/1579651267/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1373677797&amp;sr=1-3&amp;keywords=thomas+keller+cookbooks
http://www.amazon.com/Bouchon-Thomas-Keller/dp/1579652395/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1373677797&amp;sr=1-4&amp;keywords=thomas+keller+cookbooks
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Pressure-Cooking-Sous-Vide/dp/1579653510/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1373677797&amp;sr=1-6&amp;keywords=thomas+keller+cookbooks
http://www.amazon.com/Momofuku-David-Chang/dp/030745195X/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1373677797&amp;sr=1-9&amp;keywords=thomas+keller+cookbooks
http://www.amazon.com/Ratio-Simple-Behind-Everyday-Cooking/dp/1416571728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1373678139&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=ratio
Cant beat The Culinary Institute of America The Professional Chef unabridged. The CIA does it right.
The Professional Chef. I think we were using the 6th edition while I was there, but they're up to 8th edition now.
I'd recommend learning how to cook, rather than learning how to make specific things.
Try The Professional Chef, which, misleadingly, is not just for professionals.
https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355/
Failing that, find a good Youtube channel which covers the basics, rather than just specific meals.
I should note, recipes and actual meals do become good resources, once you can interpret why they work, etc.
9th Edition Is newer, cheaper, and prime eligible.
Here you go mate, there seems to be a newer edition
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0470421355/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/184-9271667-0334449
Sorry of this shows up weird, I'm on mobile
>Dude, nu vreau sa apar pe nimeni in acez caz dar ai niste surse pentru "a ucis zeci de milioane de oameni"? Sincer, e prima data cand aud asa ceva si pe internet nu am gasit multe surse care imi zice cate a omorat el.
Desigur. Incepi cu Wikipedia.
>> In the 2008 Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism it was stated that crimes committed under communism were often crimes against humanity, according to the definition developed in the Nuremberg Trials, and that the crimes committed under communism and National Socialism were comparable.
O Declaratie a crimelor comunismului exista si ea, dar e mai putin cunoscuta, din pacate. Parlamentul European nu a condamnat niciodata nici crimele regimurilor comuniste (avem nevoie de China si Rusia) nici pactul Ribbentrop-Molotov.
Pentru a citi despre crimele comunismului in cifre, incepi tot pe wikipedia, aici, unde este data o estimare (destul de vaga din pacate).
>>The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.
Fiecare articol are zeci de referinte care pot fi consultate, pentru documentare mai adanca. Mai exista si o semi-faimoasa Carte Neagra a Comunismului, care ofera detalii referitoare la atrocitatile comise in variatele regimuri comuniste.
Pentru referinte literare, cred ca Arhipelagul Gulag ofera o imagine de ansamblu asupra modului in care comunistii identificau "dusmanii de clasa" si in care se faceau arestarile "la norma". Literatura e vasta, poti adauga si Vasili Grossman, Paul Goma, Augustin Buzura (Fetele Tacerii in special), pentru a intelege cumva efectele comunismului la nivel uman, emotional, al vietii de zi cu zi.
In fine, avem si un Institut pentru Cercetarea Crimelor Comunismului, pe situl caruia se mai gasesc oarece informatii, legate strict de spatiul romanesc.
> Apropo. Chiar daca Che Guevarra era un comunist, la fel de bine poti si spune "Nu inteleg cum microbul asta (Nixon, Georg Bush, etc.) asta capitalist poate infecta minti, chiar daca a ucis zeci de milioane de oameni".
Desigur ca poti spune, dar asta nu este un argument. Aici discutam despre comunism si impactul lui devastator atat la nivel social cat si la nivel individual. Nu a luat nimeni apararea capitalismului, nazismului, etc. Te rog sa nu aduci "argumente" de genul "da de ce numai pe mine ma vezi si pe ala nu ?" , pentru ca asa ceva nu e rational, e o forma de manipulare.
Mai este, desigur inca o diferenta intre Capitalism si Comunism / Nazism. In timp ce primul este un model pur economic, ultimele doua sunt socio-economice, au o componenta sociala extremista. Nazismul era mai degraba pur social, economic fiind capitalism in toata regula. Aici nu luam apararea niciunuia, discutam doar despre comunism. Si oricat de rau este capitalismul (si este), nu a lasat zeci de milioane de morti in urma, si razboaie mondiale, precum nazismul si comunsimul. Asta nu inseamna ca imi doresc neaparat o societate cu capitalism salbatic, asa cum e cea americana.
> Zic doar asta pentru ca lumea nu e impartita intr-o parte buna si una rea, nu e impartita intr-o lume comunista rea si una capitalista buna, etc.
Daca ai fi citit comentariul la care ai dat reply, ai fi vazut ca discutam despre tarile nord-Europene care au reusit sa imbine o doza de capitalism (economie de piata) cu protectie sociala (doctrina de stanga). Exact despre faptul ca lumea nu e in alb si negru am scris.
Rickrolling, but linking P_K here instead.
Here, try this. Let me know if you need help affording it.
> everytime purges, stalin, human nature, works on paper is mentioned we take a shot
This is actually how communists take care of dissenters.
Source
> what they've become, considering their Marxist leanings.
You shouldn't be surprised. Marxists have always been intolerant. Stalin, Mao, Khmer Rouge murdered ~100 million people (book). Modern western Marxists just don't have enough power (yet).
The economics in it is totally obsolete, still "labor theory of value", pre-marginal analysis, e.g. leaving as a mystery why diamonds have a higher price than water, even though they have a much lower value for staying alive.
For the "development of thought" it is significant, but you should read it in historical context, getting the thoughts that led into it, or you'll miss the boat in that regard. For that consider getting Mark Blaug's Economic Theory in Retrospect, which works through the entire chain of development of economic thinking. If you are a student it is in the library. (Or even if you aren't!)
Oh, and for the practical after-effects of the "masterpiece", do also read The Black Book of Communism.
Because that's how people think.
I think the majority of people in this sub need to read this book
So you're saying "this time is different?"
> Throughout history, rich and poor countries alike have been lending, borrowing, crashing--and recovering--their way through an extraordinary range of financial crises. Each time, the experts have chimed, "this time is different"--claiming that the old rules of valuation no longer apply and that the new situation bears little similarity to past disasters. With this breakthrough study, leading economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff definitively prove them wrong. Covering sixty-six countries across five continents, This Time Is Different presents a comprehensive look at the varieties of financial crises, and guides us through eight astonishing centuries of government defaults, banking panics, and inflationary spikes--from medieval currency debasements to today's subprime catastrophe. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, leading economists whose work has been influential in the policy debate concerning the current financial crisis, provocatively argue that financial combustions are universal rites of passage for emerging and established market nations. The authors draw important lessons from history to show us how much--or how little--we have learne
https://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640
https://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640/
Account of one of the first govt debt "crisis" (more for the lender than the borrower), Phillip II in the 16th century: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lending-Borrower-Hell-Princeton-Economic/dp/069117377X
The market has changed significantly since the 16th century but it is crisis are fairly common (there are several going on right now). Argentina, for example, is a serial defaulter (I think they have defaulted ~6 times) and they have just applied to the IMF...again, after exiting default completely a couple of years ago. It is important to understand that debt crises are dissimilar (for example, it matters whether your debt is owned domestically) but they are all damaging.
I'm not sure if I should be using the silver sticky for this but here goes. I took some basic macro and macro classes a while back as part of my minor and in one of them we had an extra credit reading assignment that I really enjoyed (http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640). I was just curious what the opinion of the book is on any of the people who are more more informed in general.
You still have to connect that problem with technological displacement. I mean Rogoff and Reinhart wrote a book saying that financial recession are long lasting and that the long term effects of it are well understood. http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640
Still you can clearly say that the Fed and the federal government did not do enough. Austerity was a problem and was counterproductive and the Fed should have pushed for a higher inflation target or go the market monetarist route and pushed for a NGDP level targeting.
The understanding is that unemployment is caused by friction in the market and when the economy shrinks due to a bubble bursting or what not, the wages are "sticky" so they do not adjust and instead people are laid off. That is a harm to the economy that we are experiencing right now. Governments doing nothing to boost the economy and the Fed not committing to a higher inflation target is keeping the economy underperforming.
Det finns garanterat mer än ett alternativ till en marknadsekonomi. Och gång på gång ser vi även marknadsekonomier fallera, men vi har inte ens en diskussion kring hur vi skulle kunna skapa ett bättre system, så vi kör på same old igen och väntar på nästa krash. Jag kan rekommendera This Time is Different som går igenom statistik och data från 1800 till idag och visar på hur ingen ekonomi i världen klarat sig från någon form av krash. Uppenbarligen är något fel med det nuvarande systemet, men det finns ingen som vill/vågar/orkar ta diskussionen om ett nytt system.
Democracy is the God that Failed, it's very unlikely that after the current Turkish revolution that anything will look any different in a decade or two regardless of the regime or who is in power.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-Economics/dp/0765808684
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CGGuZLjy1E
There are superior alternatives to democracy. Don't fall for the myth that "it's the best thing we've got".
No one mentioned dictatorships. A highlt individualistic society with a polycentric law system is far better than both dictatorships and democracy.
Democracy is the rule of the mob and a spiral towards communism. The reason you're paying that many taxes for all the "free" shit the government gives out to "needy" people is democracy. It's because women got to vote and voted for shit that women like.
Reading tip: https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Perspectives/dp/0765808684
> no, that would mean, there are market opportunities to improve something there
How so?
> That would be feudalism or maybe some sort of pure version of utilitarianism like Mill.
What I described is what many prominent right-libertarian thinkers, for [Rothbard] (https://mises.org/library/ballots-and-bullets) to [Mises.] (https://mises.org/library/mises-fascism-democracy-and-other-questions) Pretty much the entire [austrian school of economics really.] (https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Perspectives-Democratic/dp/0765808684) I can get you specific relevant quotes from any of the above if you need them.
I do agree with you though that a market completely free of government interference would rapidly turn into fuedalism, but that's not the baseline libertarian position.
Regarding the system you're describing, I would wager that the regulations you call for alone create a market that isn't truly free, but also where does the government obtain the funds to carry out this role? If it's through taxation then we're again drifting away from a free market and we bump into that taxation is theft bit too, if you believe in that. These not-for-profit government services as well, you're describing social services and or a public option, again, no longer a free market. Also, what's to stop especially rich companies from buying out the government and using these regulations and taxes that you're cool with for their benefit?
I mean, what you're describing is essentially just Keynesian social democracy.
> There is no social Darwinism here, govt ensures base survival and rights of people.
Social darwinism needn't be life or death, just a sorting of society through competition with the idea that the best folks would end up on top and the worst at the bottom, that the most innovative, intelligent, and productive companies will overtake the others. The wealth the CEOs of that company obtain is justified and right, and so is the poverty of those who go fail and go bankrupt. The market working as intended.
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Perspectives-Democratic/dp/0765808684
It's a pretty big tent. It's hard to point to one place.
There's a good community here in r/DarkEnlightenment. The learning curve for DE (AKA "neoreaction") is pretty steep, so perhaps a good place for the libertarian to start is From Mises to Carlyle.
There's also Hoppe. Many libertarians get skeptical about democracy and venture beyond libertarianism via him. Even Rothbard, in his later writings, started going in a somewhat Hoppean direction. Maybe try Democracy: The God That Failed. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is another along these lines.
Bertrand de Jouvenel is another gateway drug. He's a classical liberal whose description of how power works utterly undermines classical liberal ideas of sociology and anthropology. Try his On Power, and then follow it up with The Patron Theory of Politics for a tour through the illiberal consequences of his ideas.
Jonathan Bowden was a great English intellectual who gave a series of lectures on various illiberal thinkers such as Heidegger, Evola, Carlyle, Spengler, Pound, Nietzsche, and even Marx and other socialist thinkers. He functions as a sort of TL;DR for the illiberal right, and so makes for a very good introduction. His lectures are engaging and can be found on Youtube, but probably the best of them is a Q&A he gave about his own views.
I don't find this argument very compelling - he basically just tries to form a link between progressive taxation and concepts that he assumes will elicit a favorable response from the listener (democracy and free market thinkers).
The first link is to democracy. Let's grant that progressive taxation and democracy go hand in hand. Even then, you'd still have to prove that democracy is inherently good. Which is difficult to do.
The second link is to free market thinkers. Even if we ignore the fact that he misrepresents the support of progressive taxation by free market thinkers, such support doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Just because Adam Smith or George W. Bush (really?!) spoke favorably of progressive taxation, we shouldn't take those ideas as truth. Heck, Smith and Ricardo believed in the labor theory of value, but that doesn't mean that we should too.
>at the end of the day if you can convince enough people to think the way you do all the reasons in the world doesn't matter anymore.
And that's the issue with democracy. Well, one of them at least.
Recommended read
Sure.
Property rights include the right to own your self, your labor, real property and personal goods. Property rights mean that one has the right to sell, trade, buy, lease property with other consenting parties at their own discretion.
Democracy is a system where your neighbors claim to have the right to take your property or restrict your use of your property without your consent. To vote themselves into your pocket, and steal from you or place you into indentured servitude based on the arbitrary results of a popular vote.
Democratic government subjects free individuals to the tyranny of others. Persons holding no valid claim to the property of others vote to steal, appropriate or restrict the rights of free individuals and take their property without their consent.
Democracy in essence is a soft variant of communism. It is the belief that our property rights are subject the the whims of our neighbors, who can magically vote themselves the right to steal our property without our consent.
Edit: For the full breakdown, written by someone smarter than myself: https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Perspectives/dp/0765808684
You might enjoy Democracy - The God that Failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe
About the bankers and the creation of the fed. https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
I don't even know what this question means. Its clear you don't have enough understanding of all of the relevant content required to debate these topics.
2008 unprecedented central bank action drove the time value of money (interest rates) down to all time lows.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS10
This is allowing us to spend wantonly and basically have no consequence from it since the debt is nearly free.
If the US has to issue more debt, all else equal, they have to pay more in interest rates.
Once the amount of interest takes over an outsized part of the debt (See Detroit, Chicago, etc), investors stop buying it and it starts a death spiral as they cannot pay the already issued debt coming true. The problem with sovereign debt is we can just print more, which makes each outstanding dollar worth less.
Whether or not being the "reserve currency" does much for the US is a topic of debate as well. However, as a libertarian, you should hate the central banks most of all for allowing this mess to go on. A great book on the topic, if a little over the top:
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
Just like HSBC. That's how these banks roll. Hypocrisy to the Nth degree.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord
Anybody that knows anything about how the current monetary system was put into place knows it's the de facto standard of fraud.
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
https://www.amazon.com/dp/091298645X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_E.PdAb0FX3GJ2
The bankers just don't like what's happening and Jamie and Co. are realizing that they will become, in this analogy, the Blockbuster of banks to cryptocurrencies' Netflix.
The Fed Audit
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
End the Fed
Happy New Year to everyone at r/btc! May we finally slay the Creature from Blockstream Island in 2016! :)
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/
The creature from Jekyll Island
Just finished this. Also would recommend John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit man if you want something easier to read. Not sure if he is telling the truth about his life but its an easy way to get into the paradigm to understand more complex books.
Also the documentary Money Masters by Bill Still.
The Phoenix Project and The DevOps Handbook by Gene Kim would be the ones I know of.
https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
https://www.amazon.com/DevOps-Handbook-World-Class-Reliability-Organizations/dp/1942788002
Not itcher, but also recommend it. https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
The Phoenix Project sets its main villain as the manager of the security department who can't see the forest for the trees.
Spoiler alert: He shaves his head, achieves enlightenment and all is saved.
I highly recommend starting with The Phoenix Project. Don't pass by this book just because it says "DevOps" in the title. It quite specifically addresses the ideas of change management, why they are important for IT, and more importantly why they are important for the business.
Then once you're sure you're ready for Change Management, The Visible Ops Handbook is a more prescriptive book that will help you on the beginning stages of implementing Change Management.
Read this book
>Fast forward 4 months to the present, and I have had barely any time to work on any aspect of this certification during normal working hours (I mean within the 40 hours per week that is the traditional work limit for employees). I have had a little time to work on the certification in the office, but at least half of my work for this has occurred outside of the 40 hours.
Sounds like your problem isn't ISO certification, but an issue with workload management.
>Since this is a sysadmin job, I have also had to work outside of the 40 hours on other critical tasks (fixing crashed servers, patching servers, installing network devices, etc).
Sounds like your problem is really this. Do you have any sort of patch management systems in place? Do you have automation setup with stuff like puppet, chef, or salt, etc?
Do you have staff in your team that are wasting time, or could take work off you?
Are you just applying bandaid solutions where you really need to fix the underlying issue with faults, etc? What about preventative maintenance, etc.
If you haven't, I suggest reading The Phoenix Project; it is a fantastic read on how a fictional troubled IT department is required to meet a hard deadline, and the process they went through.
Available as an eBook or printed copy here: https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
I am, of course, saying this without knowing what your work environment is like, or what staffing levels are like, etc, but without doubt, the very first thing I think of when I see people talk about, or tell me that they've got issues keeping up with their workload, is that it's usually because they haven't taken a good look at what they really, genuinely need to do to get business outcomes.
Put another way, do you really need to put a TPS coversheet on every report?
Na verdade, cria-se muito mito em cima de nomenclaturas. O SRE veio da engenharia de software como bem aborda aquele famoso livro do Gene Kin o The Phoenix Project: A Novel about IT, DevOps... . O SRE hoje pela definição de onde se originou (o Google), e atuando dentro do Google propriamente, é o que seria em tese o nome que se dá erroneamente ao (Engenheiro DevOps)...que sabemos ser um nome de mercado...uma vez que na teoria não faz sentido algum.
&#x200B;
O SRE é o cara que compreende a arquitetura dos projetos, de lógica de programação (podendo atuar nas mais diversas linguagens), apesar de ter maioria em python e GO, mas que resolve todo tipo de problema relacionado principalmente a operações. É uma tentativa de mercado de resgatar o MacGyver , que consegue juntar um chiclete e um clips e produzir uma bomba, mas com a intenção de contratar um Chuck Norris . No fim das contas, na prática, é o profissional pau para toda obra. O foda é quando pagam mal por isto.
&#x200B;
Outra coisa também que atrapalha é o EGO e VAIDADE das pessoas em se entitularem tais coisas. Mal sabem da cilada que podem estar se envolvendo. A cilada de enganar o empregador que tem espectativa maior do que aquela que você anuncia, ou a cilada de cair uma porção grande de problemas no seu colo que muitas vezes não há maturidade e experiência para resolve-los. Essas coisas eu vejo com certa frequencia e claro, sempre me disponho a ajudar. Mas é bom dar este toque.
&#x200B;
&#x200B;
Sr. Director checking in - required reading IMHO:
Turn the ship around
and
Phoenix Project
You guys need to change how Dev works with you, I'll elaborate once I'm at a computer.
Edit:And I'm back
Where are these apps coming from? What's the driving need for them? Do they serve a business purpose? If so, do they drive revenue or productivity? You guys need to have a chat with the development managers or Director to figure out what their roadmap is for all these apps. They have an idea of their purpose but they're not involving Ops which is a major deficiency when we're looking at adopting a DevOps culture.
When looking at Ops being the constraint, what particular aspect is the constraint? A specific person or process? Isolate the constraint then protect it, if it's a person you're pulling off projects you need to figure out why they're getting pulled off them and remedy that.
As for a technology to look at for a solution, start using Docker. Create standard Docker templates and provide Dev with those as their platform, if they're creating apps for production then you need to provide the standards they deploy to/develop for.
Now go read The Phoenix Project, I'm deadly serious about reading that book as you have a major communication breakdown that is resulting in an insane amount of projects being thrown your way.
/u/HostisHumaniGeneris has a pretty exceptional definition.
The only thing I'd add is my own personal experience. DevOps is a philosophy -- not a team name or a position. For example, a developer can be a "DevOps developer" or a company can be a "DevOps company" as if it's a quality of their performance, but not a purpose. Your actual role shouldn't really include the word "DevOps" because at the end of the day you're still doing IT, or Operations, or Systems, or Development.
The reason being is that for DevOps philosophy to be implemented, all levels of the team need to be on board with the philosophy.
Read "the Phoenix Project" -- for example -- to get some ideas about what DevOps is really about.
I'm a software engineer and not in DevOps. However, one of the managers at the company where I work encourages all the developers to read The Phoenix Project, and if/when they finish that she gives them a copy of The DevOps Handbook.
I'm about halfway through the former and haven't started the latter. The Phoenix Project is a novel, but it's kind of like one of those novels with a message, in this case the message is how to be part of a successful IT department at a modern company.
One idea is reading more about soft-skills and process stuff, rather than nitty-gritty tech stuff. Books on Agile for example are great. I also listen to a lot of podcasts in that kinda scenario.
Some books that might be good for you:
- https://www.amazon.com/Clean-Agile-Basics-Robert-Martin/dp/0135781868
- https://pragprog.com/book/tpp20/the-pragmatic-programmer-20th-anniversary-edition
- https://www.amazon.com/Soft-Skills-software-developers-manual/dp/1617292397
- https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
Come prowl around in /r/ITCareerQuestions a bit. See what everyone is talking about.
There are lots of ways to build a successful career within IT.
I've been doing this for almost 25 years now.
Based on what I am seeing around me, in my opinion Linux Systems Engineering is the hot ticket.
A solid Linux foundation makes you ready to work in Information Security, Cloud Architectures, Data Center Tech, Automation and all kinds of other shit that has dollar signs all over it.
Take a damned class in Python and take that shit seriously.
Python as an automation tool is powerful stuff with all kinds of applications within any business environment.
Take a damned class in Information Security. Whatever you wind up doing within IT, you need to do it with an eye on security requirements and implications. Take that shit seriously.
GMU has a fairly well organized Competitive Cyber Security club.
Go check them out. If that doesn't quite feel like your area of interest, that's cool.
On your very first day on campus, after the insanity of move-in day, you go find Career Services on campus.
Be polite. These are the people that are going to help you get a job later.
Ask them when the next technology career fair is on campus, and you plug that shit into your Google Calendar.
Get your happy ass to each and every single career fair and you learn how those things work. Talk to some recruiters. And you see if you can get yourself a summer internship - EVERY YEAR. Don't be too surprised if you strike out Freshman year. Not many employers want to hire Freshmen. But you go anyway and learn from the experience of interviewing and being interviewed.
Go to the library at your High School. Look for or ask for this book:
The Phoenix Project: A Novel about IT, DevOps, and Helping Your Business Win
I encourage you to get it from the library because it isn't a reference book that you will read over and over. It's more of a read once, expand your mind, and move on with life with an enhanced perspective kind of book.
It isn't terribly technical. Anybody with the slightest interest in IT should understand it.
Good luck.
Read this, https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
relevant to the implied context.
Check it out if you want, or not.
Getting a bit off topic here - but despite the many things that are wrong with the US, its still a pretty great place to live - far from a dystopia. Highly recommend the book Factfulness, which although is really about the world as a whole - it can certainly be scaled to ones views of the US.
You should read the book Factfullness.
https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1540911747&amp;sr=8-2&amp;pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&amp;keywords=factfulness&amp;dpPl=1&amp;dpID=51tvugRSHKL&amp;ref=plSrch
You are overly pessimistic and you make an assumption that “Mother Nature is all about balance”. Where is there proof of this? There is no such thing as Mother Nature.
Irvon plays on public fears, bulding career on the controversial topic. That's all. He did not do the double-blind placebo studies. What he does it bullshitting.
https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber/dp/150114331X/
https://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804
It's written by a former avid Vegan, and covers what she's learned about how Vegtarianism/Veganism affects health, the environment, and animal rights. It's not a hard scientific study, but covers a wide range of topics to enough of a degree to possibly reshape your thinking. I suggest reading it as a overview, and then start digging into select areas that concern you more deeply.
She didn't go ZC, but instead is omnivore with a focus on fresh unprocessed food.
Absolutely, supporting farms who treat their animals well is an active vote against meat from a factory farm. Money talks.
Agriculture is also hugely deadly to animals and bad for the environment. There's a whole book about this written by a woman who was vegan for 20 years. The Vegetarian Myth
Reminds me of some of the material in this book
Krill, Shrimp, and Sardines are each one of the largest biomasses on the planet. They're actually more sustainable than most plant and vegetation which we have to actually actively grow to get enough of. Those farming practices actually help destroy the planet even worse than krill, shrimp, and sardine fishing do. This is because these three species are pretty much as the bottom of the food chain in the ocean. We couldn't actually wipe out any three of these populations from fishing practices if we actively tried to.
The same isn't true of salmon though, which is why it's often farmed (or because it's difficult to catch large amounts of in places like Alaska where there is still an abundance of it).
Have you ever heard of this book?
There are several reasons that many of us in the strength and conditioning field outright avoid all grains.
The primary concern with grains is the presence of lectins, which are proteins that are only present in grains and have unusual qualities. Normally, when you ingest proteins from a meat source, the enzymes in your stomach cleave apart the peptide bonds that hold the proteins together, and you then easily absorb chains of 3 to 10 aminos, which are used throughout the body. Lectins, however, are of a design such that they aren't readily digested and are absorbed in their full state. Now, here's where the science gets somewhat cutting edge, but from what I've read, here's what happens: Once floating around in the blood, the body has a hard time recognizing them for whatever reason. They then readily bind to all sorts of tissue, inhibiting cellular turnover, most especially in the intestines (keep in mind that the intestinal lining replaces itself very rapidly). Plus, while only about 1% of the US population has Coeliac's disease (a genetic disorder which produces a marked autoimmune response in the gut leading to pain and GI issues due to a sensitivity to wheat and other grains), there's evidence to suggest that a majority of people in the US have minor autoimmune reactions to wheat and other grains. Constant autoimmune reactions to what is supposedly the basis of our diet is certainly not conductive to good health, and after all, lectins are classified as an anti-nutrient.
Another aspect is that, to me at least, it's a junk carbohydrate. It provides almost nothing other than carbohydrates. The fiber in wheat isn't nearly as high-quality as the fiber in actual vegetables, and I believe the FDA is even moving to classify grain fibers differently than vegetable fibers for that very reason. Other carbs like sweet potatoes and white rice are much more superior, in my opinion. For those that just can't get away from bread though, there is an option called Ezekial bread, which is sprouted grain bread. Sprouting doesn't get rid of all the anti-nutrients, but it does eliminate many of them.
Last of all, the evolution argument is one I find interesting but one that is difficult to consider anything more than psuedo-science without more hard data. In short, agriculture has only existed for roughly 10,000 years. Humans have existed for around 200,000 years, and during that time, they thrived on a diet of meats and vegetables. Even before that, pre-human ancestors maintained a similar diet as well. While anthropologists do note that life expectancy increased with agriculture, general wellness decreased pretty drastically using a measure of pelvic depth and height of the human. Between humans that were hunter-gatherers and humans that were farmers that lived at the same time, the hunter-gatherers were on average taller, had greater pelvic depth, and lower body fat. Agrarian cultures saw a drastic reduction in quality of life based on those biological markers.
If I may suggest, there is an incredible book that talks at length on this subject called The Vegetarian Myth. I don't think I could do the author's work justice by trying to repeat it, but she's certainly done her legwork on the topic.
Your wife has done research slanted toward what she already believes. Check out these books:
The Vegetarian Myth
Nourishing Traditions
Yes until you die from malnutrition https://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804
On youtube, Cultivate Health and Beauty. It's targeted towards women and their channel is not about being anti-vegan, but they are pretty anti-vegan. Also Primal Edge Health. I watch Sv3ridge for the exvegan videos and the Epitomy of Malnourishment videos but be careful in venturing to anything outside of that. For podcasts, listen to Bulletproof Radio, Fitness Confidential, The Paleo Solution, Primal Blueprint Podcast. For books, The Vegetarian Myth and the works of Weston A. Price. Look for people with an internet presence who are paleo. Most a very educated about veganism. Nina Teicholz work is worth mentioning too. She did a great breakdown of all the problems with that piece of propaganda "documentary" What the Health.
You can always comment stalk him in the meantime ;) http://www.reddit.com/user/fatmalcontent - I think most of what you need to know is already there in his comment history.
About returning to my omnivorous ways: this was not an easy or quick decision, I had been thinking about this for at least a year now. I had ben a vegetarian for 15 years, it was a big part of who I was and I did not want to give it up. One problem were my iron levels (I'm female, from what I've heard males tend to have less problems with iron) that I barely managed to keep at a good level by using supplements. But since iron supplements tend to cause a permanent state of constipation that was just a temporary workaround but not a solution. But this was only what started to get me thinking, not the only problem, otherwise I would have done this years ago. Even with good iron levels I was still tired and pale. The fact that I was using a lot of carb heavy stuff (lots of grains and legumes) to make up for meat was not helping either. After noticing a couple of problems with supplements I started to be very suspicious about them, wondering how many other side effects they had that I did not even notice yet. So I decided that I did not want to keep taking various daily supplements, wanted to get most of the stuff mainly from my diet and started to have a detailed look at my vitamin and mineral intake (I use a software called "cronometer" for this; screenshots: http://imgur.com/a/YWUCk/cronometer_screenshots_2). I noticed after a while that I wasn't meeting many of my nutritional goals (mainly B vitamins and of course also iron) even though I was trying my best to do so.
Based on that I started to question my belief that being a vegetarian is a perfectly natural and healthy way for humans to live. I had always used the typical "no short intestine, no claws,.." arguments to defend my position. I did not want to see that you could also turn these around just as well (we don't have the long intestines of plant eaters either, but we lie somewhere in between which would make us an omnivore if you take this as a sign; we don't have claws and sharp teeth but an essential part of us being human has always been tool making so there was no need to keep wasting energy on building them).
Have you heard about the Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith? From the reviews I've seen that it is a bit controversial (veganism and vegetarianism tend to be very emotional subjects and I definitely understand why that is) but I've talked to quite a lot of people who found it very interesting and who stopped being a vegan or a vegetarian afterwards. To be honest I haven't read it since my decision was already made before I stumbled across it but if I decided to stay vegetarian I would have read it. I think it's always better to be able to consider aspects that one didn't know about before and then decide whether one wants to take them into consideration or not.
You might also have heard about the voraciouseats girl who stopped being a vegan: http://voraciouseats.com/2010/11/19/a-vegan-no-more/ she also links to a couple of other blogs of former vegans who made the same decision. In case you are interested in health related concerns I would at least have a look at these.
My personal compromise is that I am now even stricter when eating at a restaurant or party than I used to be (which is also a result of cutting out all grains). I still don't eat meat and most of the time I just have a salad, sometimes just water if I don't feel like eating (which is a completely new experience for me...). When I'm at home I cook meat for me but only when I know it has been grass fed and raised in the best way possible which I think is best for me but also the comparably best thing for the animal. There are a couple of local farmers who stopped producing milk and who instead let their cows live together with a bull on the pasture. Their calves are slaughtered at the farm and only afterward transported to a factory for processing. I also know where my eggs come from and I don't consume any dairy. This is of course more expensive but it's not like I eat nothing but meat now, it is just a small part of my diet. And I also eat much less than I did before. Upping fat & protein and cutting out anything that causes cravings (for me that unfortunately currently also includes fruits and nut butter) has helped me a lot already and so I need smaller amounts of food now. Sorry for the long comment. I've thought about this a lot and thus obviously like talking about it....
---
Edit: there was one thing that I forgot to mention. I've read this so many times and I remember when I first heard it: around 10 years ago when my doctor had checked my iron levels for the first time he looked me in the eyes and said "not everyone of us is born to be a vegetarian, you know". I did of course ignore him back then and only now remembered this. Not everyone might have the same problems when being vegan or vegetarian and as far as I know we have absolutely no idea why that is the case. So if being vegan works for you, you feel and look "alive" and if there is nothing that is missing or wrong with you then of course do whatever you believe is right. The question might however be how many people are indeed not having any problems and how many just ignore them. I always thought that I was "just pale" and that was just the way I am. Thinking about it, I have lots of pale, thin vegan friends who don't look very good but who are probably in denial just as I was. I do in fact not have a single vegan friend that looks really healthy but at least from what I've read online they might be out there.
I agree that those requirements were well-intentioned (at least from the perspective of the legislators) but fiscally foolish. Nonetheless, the crisis had more to do with collaterialized debt obligations (CDOs) and especially credit default swaps (CDSs) than with the home loans per se.
If it were just about the home loans, banks would have foreclosed, people who couldn't afford their house would lose them, and the broader economy would have been fine. The crisis was caused by many factors, but the dominant one was the huge derivative market that magnified the problem. Big banks don't fall because people can't pay their mortgage. They fall when they underwrite cheap, pseudo-insurance policies on risky / poorly-rated derivatives that generate orders of magnitude more debt.
So not only is there a debate, but the CRA stuff (laws requiring loans to unqualified borrowers) is considered a relatively small contributor.
Sources: Economist, Big Short, Wikipedia, This American Life
> Is there a comprehensive list somewhere of the loan types, lenders, loan amounts floating around?
Do you mean in general like kinds of loans and lenders, etc... Then I would start somewhere like investopedia or google.
Alt-A Loans, but it links to a number of other good definitions
Private Mortgage Backed Securities
CBO Report on GSEs
Banking and Finance Law Commons
If you mean in reference to the financial collapse there are lots of books and blog posts.
For questions 1 and 2.
Basically how the originator makes their money is by X amount of CDOs they sell. There was no incentive to pick and choose the best borrowers to sell a loan to because how the CDOs were sold they achieved the best rating regardless of the borrowers credit risk.
Due to this model, people are going to try and get as many people into the homes and sell the CDO asap. This caused questionable lending practices to result, NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans, manipulating borrowers income, assets, etc.
Things that could be changed to help not have this occur again:
a) Feds monetary policy was pretty meh during this period, due to low interest rates the banks had pretty much an endless supply of money and when all the reasonable ventures dried up they had to explore other opportunities to lend.
b) Ratings agencies need an overhaul in how they receive their commission, preferably they should be being paid by the investor not the person issuing the security. This will help to eliminate the bias that results.
c) Having X% (2-5) remain on the institutions books who created the CDO will help to make them responsibly lend. This is because if they are required to have it remain on their books, they will make better longer term decisions in who to lend to.
I'm pretty sure all of these issues are discussed in Nouriel Roubini's book Crisis Economics
Another Great book already mentioned in this thread is by Michael Lewis The Big Short
If your interested in the European Crisis Michael Lewis also just came out with Boomerang
The Big Short by Michael Lewis was an easy and interesting read
Same author. Guy also wrote The Flash Boys, a book on high frequency trading firms. The Big Short is what this movie is based on. Michael Lewis is really knowledgeable of the financial industry.
In no particular order, here are several non-textbooks that were either required or recommended for higher level economics courses that I have taken:
The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine by Michael Lewis
All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis
by Bethany McLean
Fool's Gold: The Inside Story of J.P. Morgan and How Wall St. Greed Corrupted Its Bold Dream and Created a Financial Catastrophe by Gillian Tett
Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk among Us by John Quiggin
ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism by Yves Smith
You might also have success looking through the "Customers also bought" sections for these books.
I recommend you read Warren's 2004 book, The Two Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Going Broke before questioning her longstanding commitment to idealistic and rational solutions to a broken system.
Bernie and Liz are both awesome, and both are bringing rational ideas to the mainstream. However, Bernie didn't invent these ideas. Baron Von Bismarck gave Germany Universal Healthcare in 1848. Free college in the US goes back as far as the Land Grants under Lincoln. Reducing money spent on bombs we blow up and instead on infrastructure that lasts 40 years just makes solid sense, and reminds everyone of The New Deal. Making sure greedy actors don't corrupt the free market and act like cartels is an idea from the late 1800s.
They have similar ideas because anyone with intelligence, critical thinking, the ability to read history, and a deep profound care for the future of their society and humanity at-large, will always land on these solutions. I am thankful that we have both of them in our political system, and as part of our society.
There's no correct answer, of course.
Over time, my wife and I have used combinations of a nanny, grandparents, and day care since my son was two months old, as we both had to return to work for various reasons. In terms of his health and development, we have no complaints: he is thriving. That doesn't mean much, as I'd probably say the exact same thing if my wife were working at home, or if I was. He is in a full-time day care that he loves. There have been plenty of tears along the way, but your husband's view of day care as something out of Dickens is just wrong. He cherishes his little friends, the teachers, and the lessons he gets each day.
For me, an important factor is the total cost to the parent who stays at home. Some people have mentioned depression, etc., but I would focus on career issues. I'm in my 40s. With one exception, the women I know who stayed at home to raise kids are simply erased from the work place. Whatever their level of achievement before --- these are women I know with PhDs, MBAs, etc. --- they never manage to find a full-time job again. The stories (excuses?) are different, but the results are the same, whether they tried in elementary school or later.
The parental choices you make include what your life will be like after the children have come and left the house. If you have an advanced degree, or work in an area that you love, I would urge you to consider full-time or part-time child care. I don't know you, of course, or your field, but your remarks about part-time projects struck me as probably unrealistic. I'm a hiring manager, and the vast majority of the resume I see with side-projects do not lead me to hireable candidates. Many people fool themselves; don't be one of them.
You also mention living in the SF Bay Area. You two should plan out some realistic budgets that go out to school age for your two kids. As you've noted, many of our public schools are simply awful, in part due to the lingering disaster that is Prop 13. You may well have to move or use a local private school.
Finally, I strongly recommend the book The Two-Income Trap, written by now Senator Elizabeth Warren and her daughter. As you may know, Warren is a bankruptcy specialist, and she came about the topic of the book from an unusual angle: she was looking at why couples got into financial straits. The book is too long to summarize, other than to say that every couple needs to look thoughtfully at their real risks and their actual obligations. Genuine love of children is one element of the two-income trap, as the book explains.
By the time you pay for daycare, gas, and all of the other crap that goes along with both spouses working, you'd better hope they're making a lot of money to make up for it. And then somebody else gets to raise your kids.
He did make his choice, but I think a lot of us assume that two incomes is always the best way to do a family. (The Two Income Trap) It can work, but we should check ourselves before we criticize families with stay-at-home moms.
The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke.
book description:
In this revolutionary exposé, Harvard Law School bankruptcy expert Elizabeth Warren and financial consultant Amelia Tyagi show that today's middle-class parents are increasingly trapped by financial meltdowns. Astonishingly, sending mothers to work has made families more vulnerable to financial disaster than ever before. Today's two-income family earns 75% more money than its single-income counterpart of a generation ago, but has 25% less discretionary income to cover living costs. This is "the rare financial book that sidesteps accusations of individual wastefulness to focus on institutional changes," raved the Boston Globe. Warren and Tyagi reveal how the ferocious bidding war for housing and education has silently engulfed America's suburbs, driving up the cost of keeping families in the middle class. The authors show why the usual remedies-child-support enforcement, subsidized daycare, and higher salaries for women-won't solve the problem. But as the Wall Street Journal observed, "The book is brimming with proposed solutions to the nail-biting anxiety that the middle class finds itself in: subsidized day care, school vouchers, new bank regulation, among other measures." From Senator Edward M. Kennedy to Dr. Phil to Bill Moyers, The Two-Income Trap has created a sensation among economists, politicians, and families-all those who care about America's middle-class crisis.
Well, to be fair (I think?), in the 1950's only the men worked. Now it's more typical that each house has two incomes. Elizabeth Warren writes in one of her books (see here, great book btw) that this fact is one of the causes of the higher inflaction to income rate. She doesn't make the accusation of course, but it seemed implied to me, and it seems like exploitation somehow.
**I say I think because it's not fair, lol. But it should be noted.
> the financial stability of a second income has value
It's a trap.
Oh so you are one of those about the fed and not something like "there arent enough jobs to employ every man and woman in most (if not all) countries"
Ok. Your links from some other subreddit don't do anything more scientific than i did. They just said things without any data models either. The first link says "declining union strength" as a reason. I agree that its a massive problem, but to play devils advocate I'll just say "correlation is not causation". It also mentions globalization. Again, I agree. But fun fact, adding 50% of the population of a country into the workforce IS a form of globalization.
And yes, "correlation is not causation" is becoming just some "lala cant hear you" or "i dont like it so shut up". Before social media took off it was used primarily for situations i explained above. And your "links that completely explain everything no questions" didn't do the same thing.
EDIT: These two books (written by two very different authors from an ideological basis) show what im talking about somewhat.
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907
http://suzannevenker.com/books/the-two-income-trap-why-parents-are-choosing-to-stay-home-ebook/
> am ineligible for Roth IRA due to higher income
If you do not have money sitting in a Traditional IRA, you can still contribute to a Roth IRA using the "Backdoor Roth" loophole. To do so, what you do is (a) contribute to a Traditional IRA (the income limit for contributions to a Traditional IRA is for deducting, not contributing--you can contribute but not deduct it from your taxes) and then (b) roll over the funds into a Roth IRA. There is no income limit for rollovers.
(If you have funds sitting in a Traditional IRA, this is trickier.)
> What do I do next in this market ?
Making decisions based on current market factors is difficult, and plenty of highly-skilled, very-studied, well-paid professionals are clearly not so good at it. Studies show among regular folk investors, those who try to react more to market conditions on average do worse.
One popular resource at a very high level is [https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Asset_allocation](this article). These people buy this guy's ideas.
> Would hiring a personal advisor be worth it?
You are not apt to find someone smart, especially without educating yourself a lot more first.
> I'm looking for long term returns and am comfortable with significant short term fluctuations. I've somewhat dabbled with individual stocks in the stock market over the last year but have seen mostly losses(yet unrealized).
Individual stock investing is usually a losing proposition. Unless you have an insight for why a stock will move that is more accurate than the people with the resources to keep buying/selling until the good deal is gone (prices move to balance supply/demand), you don't have an edge.
What you do have is (a) lots of exciting rides (either direction), and (b) lots of commissions.
Many people restrict their equities investment to low-expense-ratio index funds, on the theory that they have no edge, so their only goal is to have a broad portfolio. This broadness helps reduce the swings while, on average, following the movement of the market in general.
First up take your time, a few months to get comfortable with what you'll be doing is well worth it now. Although 2.9% isn't a fantastic return, be thankful you've got the money and you're not losing money. If possible, treat the money as if you don't have it, don't dip into it to help out with this thing, or that thing.
I'll echo the below items that talk about learning. learn what shares and stocks are, the little book of common sense investing is a pretty good book to read about index investing.
(edit: removed barefoot investor link as you've already mentioned it)
Before you do any investing, I'd suggest you check out the flowchart first: https://i.imgur.com/lSoUQr2.png
You should only start investing in your ROTH once you have a solid emergency fund and no high interest debt. And if you have any student loans, you might want to pay those off first depending on the interest rate.
If you have an efund and no high interest debt, then you can invest - but before you do, I'd recommend reading The Little Book of Common Sense Investing. It's a short read so it shouldn't take you long.
Read up on it and manage your own money. Read this book http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
I invest in the entire economy for the lowest rates available, with one of the most, if not the most, trusted company in the game. And I only do so with a small portion of my total net worth; I don't put all my savings into index funds. Despite what others say I put a lot of money into savings just like you. I could live for years off of savings alone and guess what I like it! I don't care what others say. I have a very unstable job situation, I'm actually self employed right now. I will keep growing that savings account at the same time I invest in index funds.
And yeah, I will never ever ever pay someone to "help" me with my money. Seriously, read that book, he talks all about these "helpers" we hate.
>Second of all, I appreciate that the DOL and IRS have made it easy for "shortsighted people" to save, but I don't appreciate the assumption you make about me not ever being able to save so much.
It was a deduction based on the facts presented.
>I don't have significant debt (less than $1,000 owed in total), and I don't have or use credit cards.
If you don't have CC debt then what is the $1,000? If it is mortgage, student loans or even a car loan then that is one thing, otherwise it probably is a bad sign.
>I just paid for a 12 day cruise with money I saved up over a couple of months. So, despite your assumptions, I assure you that I have the ability to save and am fiscally mature.
How much money do you have total? You just said that you have $1,000 in debt. You also have only listed $10,000 in retirement assets. I am glad that you could save up to go on a cruise, that puts you ahead of many people, but I still would wonder if you are saving enough for the future.
>Then the whole stock market mashup with guy who typed a b instead of an m made everything go tits up. I went from $7,900 ish to $7,000 ish.
Are you talking about the flash crash? You (almost certainly) did not lose 10% of your fund during the flash crash. When it happened the market recovered most of the loss before the end of the day. Since it is nearly impossible to do an interday trade in a 401(k), it is highly unlikely that you actually sold during the crash. In fact since 401(k) balances are typically updated at the end of the day you would not have even seen what the value of your account was at the low period.
If what you are talking about is the flash crash, then you are blowing a lot of smoke up my ass because it just didn't go down the way that you describe for a 401(k) participant.
>I realize that financial advisers tell us (me) that "it's not really money until you cash it out", except that's not entirely true. If I see a deduction from my paycheck for $110 per pay period, that's real fucking money.
They are generally right. The issue is that your time horizon is far too short for this money. You should not care what your 401(k) does in a month, in a year or even a few years. You should be investing with a time horizon of decades so these short term fluctuations will (probably) wash out in time. If your time horizon is really this short or you really are so risk averse then there are more suitable investments under your plan that you could move your money to.
>That's money I could have had in MY savings account NOT being arbitrarily messed with because some financial institution can't account for mistakes/fluctuations, etc.
Then you can always trade to an investment option which better suits your risk profile. Call your plan and find out what is available. They might think that your foolish for putting everything into a conservative investment at 29, but ultimately it is your choice.
>I find that I a) don't love seeing money I've earned through my hard work being put in an account and then disappear. I'd rather invest it myself.
It sounds like you would rather spend this money than invest it. In any case if you are so financially unsophisticated that you have to come onto Reddit to ask what would happen if you took a distribution from your 401(k) what makes you think that you will do any better investing your money than your current 401(k) plan? From your above attempt to (inaccurately) describe how the flash crash impacted you I get the feeling that you think you know a lot more than you actually do.
>I just wonder if I can find a better alternative than stocks that I don't understand in a mutual fund I share with people in my company.
What are you going to do, invest it in gold? What in the world makes you think that you know the first thing about investing. Do you realize that most of the people running those mutual funds have PhDs from ivy league universities and decades of experience? While there is some serious academic doubt that even with all of their knowledge that they can beat the market, what makes you think that you have the first clue about how to proceed?
I know that I may seem to be coming off as somewhat brash with my post. The reason for that is I really don't like seeing people throw their money away. I see a lot of terrible advice on Reddit by people that don't have any idea about how stocks actually work, but they are damn sure that it is all a scam and the only place to invest is (gold, property, tech stocks or whatever the scheme of the moment is).
There is a really good forum for educating yourself about investments here. You might also want to consider picking up some investment literature so that you can learn about the topic. If you really hate your 401(k) you could look at contributing, with future money, to a Roth IRA instead, which gives you more control.
Ultimately though it is your money and the decision is yours. No one on Reddit can give you personal financial advice because we don't know your full situation. Whatever path you take, I wish you luck and hope that it ends well for you.
you need to read the FAQ, wiki, or a book. You can start with https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Hey dude, kind of in a similar position as you. Started reading about PF a little more than 2 months ago and wish I had started 10 years earlier, haha!
Take some time and read before jumping into anything! Here's what I started with:
Wealthy Barber
then read
Millionaire Teacher
and now I'm working through
Guide to Investing
and
Random Walk Down Wall Street
You will learn a crazy amount about investing with these few books.
I also keep my eye on the RFD Personal Finance forum along with Canadian Money Forums, the latter being a lot more mature.
Cheers!
For reference, go to Mark Bittman's How to Cook Everything, or this book. For flavours, I'll usually go with the Flavour Bible or the Flavour Thesaurus.
An excellent book for you at this point would be Jacques Pépin's Complete Techniques. From the description:
"Jacques Pepin's Complete Techniques features everything the home cook needs to perfect: poach an egg, whisk a perfect hollandaise, knead a crispy baguette, or bake an exquisite meringue with the perfection and efficiency of a professional chef. Featured throughout the book, Pepin's classic recipes offer budding masters the opportunity to put lessons into practice with extraordinary results."
It also covers things like knife technique and other fundamentals, which you mentioned.
As far as French cooking goes, although they've been around awhile, two books that are still definitive on the subject are Mastering the Art of French Cooking by Julia Child, Volume One and Volume Two. All three of these books (Pepin plus these two) are foundational to learning about cooking. There are others, but these will give you a very good start, and will increase your cooking skills and knowledge exponentially.
If those aren't enough, you can also check out The Professional Chef, which is a fantastic book of recipes and techniques put out by the Culinary Institute of America. It's a bit spendy, but worth it if you want to learn. The Amazon links are provided for reference; if money is an issue you can quite easily find all these books used.
Well, on the extreme side, "The Professional Chef" textbook I believe is the one used by the culinary institute of America. I picked one up off Amazon for $36 just for the hell of it. It's really interesting and reads more like an academic text than a cook book. It can be quite intense though.
A much more popular choice and a much easier read would be "The Food Lab" by Kenji Lopez-Alt who is a writer for serious eats. The book has plenty of recipes but does an unbelievably amazing job explaining the science and reasoning behind the choices that are made as well as various "experiments" that kenji does to answer cooking questions. It definitely teaches technique and really helps put you in the right "mindset" for cooking without a recipe.
Here are links to both.
https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355
https://www.amazon.com/Food-Lab-Cooking-Through-Science/dp/0393081087
I wanted to cook but was unable to take time off to attend a school. I'd been enraged with a crap meal in an expensive countryside resto at a dinner for someone, so the next day I went up the High Street and found THIS.
I wasn't smart on cooking but I realized as I think you do that learning technique rather than reciting recipes is the way to a happier kitchen future.
After that, I eventually got an edition of THIS. It helped expand on, but not replace, the lessons from Cordon Bleu.
I went through those before this day of Internet videos and information sharing occurred; you are a beneficiary of more modern times being able to search for a solution to your problems.
I wanted to ask a question about your relationship, but hesitate. I mean, (blushing) how much stock do you put into your ability to please your husband with cooking? I only offer that as a point of consideration as a long-time married man. Restaurant-quality food at home won't make or break a marriage (although horrendous food at home can contribute to a break-up); other aspects of a marriage more than compensate for the quality of home-cooked food. Take it from a long-time married person. An offer of a PM stands, and best wishes in your journey to moving your already-good home cooking to a higher standard.
I started to make one a while back but didn't get too far. There are just too many great books to choose from.
Classics 1950-1970
What is Conservatism?
The Conservative Mind
The Road to Serfdom
The Constitution of Liberty
Ideas Have Consequences
The Quest for Community
Economics in One Lesson
Capitalism and Freedom
In Defense of Freedom
Age of Reagan 1970-1990
The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945
Modern Times
Knowledge and Decisions
A Conflict of Visions
Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Roots Of American Order
Modern Must Reads 1990-Today
The Clash of Civilizations
A History of the American People
The Vision of the Annointed
Intellectuals and Society
Illiberal Reformers
Restoring the Lost Constitution
How To Be A Conservative
OP, if you're seriously exploring libertarianism (at least to properly understand it) I would suggest watching and reading the work of Milton Friedman.
There are lots of youtube videos of Milton Friedman and I highly recommend Capitalism and Freedom. In that book, he lays out how capitalism and free enterprise works better than government systems, no matter how well-intentioned or thoroughly planned-out they are. Based on your initial post, I think you'd find many of his arguments interesting and compelling.
Edit w/ question: holybartender, why do you believe marijuana, or any drug, should be legalized?
I'm curious to hear your answer as I'd bet it echoes many libertarian themes...
Mmm... I have this but haven't gotten to it yet. Just started Sowell's Intellectuals and Society, but maybe I'll finally start this one next. But I also want to get through Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom and Free To Choose and F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Gah... so many books, so little time to read...
<sigh />
Capitalism and Freedom doesn't really leave much doubt as to his views on the subject. Heh.
Everything is so damn polarized these days.
Here's one for you.
And we don't have books because Communists burned them all.
Three books I'd suggest, in the order I'd read them:
Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman
The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek
Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick
Outside the libertarian canon, Rousseau's On the Social Contract and Rawls' A Theory of Justice should be on everyone's reading list. Rawls and Nozick are probably the two most influential political philosophers of the late 20th century and understanding their arguments about the justification of property rights and the original position are the ABCs of modern political debate.
Neo-liberalism's been an ecological and social disaster. IMO; Read Naiomi Klein's Shock Doctrine for a critical POV
I'm quite into reading politics related books so if you like I can recommend a couple that I'd buy myself :P
This book by Naomi Klein is FANTASTIC
I quite liked the look of this one as well
A really interesting book on Political Theory
If he doesn't like Chomsky, he doesn't like politics!
Can never have too much Chomsky!
Maybe a bit o' Lincoln too?
Way to plagiarize and spin Naomi Wolf's recent book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, into a right-wing screed.
What is both sad and laughable about this is that the basic premise may be sometimes true--that governments use crises (imaginary, real, or real but inflated) to motivate their citizens to support their policies--but attempts to suggest, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it is only those on the political left that use this "road map."
EDIT: Adding a link to Wolf's book on Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999
Reminds me of the 'The Shock Doctrine'. http://www.amazon.com/The-Shock-Doctrine-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999
The idea is that you push through unpopular reforms in a time of crisis, with minimal scrutiny. Apparently it doesn't even have to be a real crisis to work in Australia.
I did actually, back when I didn't pay attention to how the real world worked, and just thought that the general, vague concept of "more freedom" sounded good. Maybe I didn't go full tilt into internet Libertarian where the closest thing to a structural critique comes down to "taxation is theft!!" and "Dale gets it!" and all real analysis is predicated on thought experiments, hypothetical fantasy worlds, and have no real foundation in the reality in which we live. Like honestly, if you do any actual examination of how society is structured, and you STILL think that government and taxation, as a concept, are the most oppressive forces in the world keeping you from success rather than the moneyed interests that manipulate and fuel legislative policy, then your vicious meme takedowns are going to contribute nothing to discussion or understanding beyond giving yourself a temporary right-wing dopamine rush of 0wn1ng the l1bz.
If you'd like a chance to broaden your understanding of some of the structural concepts I am referring to, rather than just a general title of "liberal" or whatever, here are just a couple pretty basic reading options to get you started.
&#x200B;
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn (1980)
The Revolution of Everyday Life by Raoul Vaneigem (1968)
The Shock Doctrine: Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein (2006)
&#x200B;
&#x200B;
You have not been paying attention:
Read Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism".
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1214151920&amp;sr=1-1
You will read how Friedman's economic/political theories are implicated with current foriegn policy events starting with the assassination of Allende and the coup that brought Pinochet to power in Chile.
Friedman's theories and practices, taken together with Leo Strauss's political views of the world (neoconservativism), American foreign policy of interventionism, low-intensity conflict (dirty war) and Christian Zionism, Israel's Zionist Likud party's adoption of the Trans-Jordan Clean-break strategy has created a murderous toxic brew that has led to the current state of affairs both here and abroad.
Ultimately, 911 can be seen as an offensive counterintelligence operation (THE BIG WEDDING), an act of the deep state government that has run the United States since the JFK assassination, the purpose of which was to use the fear generated to create the security state, within which these criminal cabals have acted to carry out its agenda alluded to in my original post above.
You might be interested in the books of Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine and her latest This Changes Everything
It's the "shock doctrine".
He was really upset when he "came of age" and realized that our "wars" have little to do with being the leader of the free world and more about conquering new consumer markets.
My daughter said that one of the most popular languages in college today is Arabic. We are going to need people who speak Arabic to run those Mc Donalds and Starbucks one day, in the Middle East.
A good book if you have time: https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=shock+doctrine&amp;qid=1573402046&amp;sr=8-1
Read that series on private equity the NYTimes has been doing that I linked earlier.
Shit's more of "nefarious plot" than I realized. Another good read is "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.
That will come with time! I suggest reading some books that will help you on self-improvement:
The Tipping Point and The Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcom Gladwell
Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
like how we shut up and let the Sackler family create the opioid epidemic, killing tens of thousands of people a year for the last few decades.
let's not listen to those doctors that tried to warn us that they were very addictive and deadly, because most doctors and scientists didn't agree yet. let's just wait and do nothing, because that works.
sike
it's called a grassroots movement. the minority has to keep voicing or nothing will change, the powers in control will keep thinking nothing is wrong and not change anything
i suggest reading or looking into Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point to understand why it doesn't work the way you think it should.
&#x200B;
I can go on and on with more cases of drugs that ended up recalled, many tens of years after they were in the market before enough damage happened the FDA was forced to act, but here's a link
https://web.archive.org/web/20190604093229/https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528
3 great books to read, in descending order of importance:
The Mousedriver Chronicles (Couple of kids out of Wharton starting a company around a mouse shaped like a golf driver)
The Art of the Start (Guy Kawasaki- Entrepreneur's instruction manual.)
The Tipping Point (Malcolm Gladwell- good explanation of how to select the few important things to do to make your snowball into an avalanche.)
Hit me up via pm if you have any further questions. You're where I was about 2 years ago.
Oh boy, have I got some stuff for you. There's endless information about how to market your podcast. Here's some stuff to get you started.
There's tons more on this topic. Let me know if you want more. I'm also curious to hear what you do yourself to grow your show and what's worked.
You may enjoy this book detailing the sociopathy of the boomers
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Possibly related A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
Besides the eye-catching title, the author, Bruce Gibney one of the guys that made it big off of paypal, goes into some interesting aspects of policies that have directly favoured the boomers at the expense of everyone else. This article goes into some details
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/02/26/how-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/lVB9eG5mATw3wxo6XmDZFL/story.html
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316395781/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_3Kl8CbG4JW3ZT
Oh wow lots of cool info about how the current generation sucks but nothing about how the boomers have left the planet in shambles and have pissed away any morality that the greatest generation gave them. Any decent psychiatrist will tell you narcissism peaked in the 80's/90's - when greed was good and celebrated - and we're in the age of the schizoids now. That said, where do you think people got the idea that who they are is connected to what they own? Where do you think this really took off? And who do you think let it grow unfettered to profit it off it every chance they could with no consideration about the effects down the road. Your argument is akin to throwing a can of tear gas into a room and then blaming people for tearing up. We were brought up with this shit. You'll need to give the young ones some time to realize their parents had fucked up values and forge their own paths...which they are actually starting to do.
Here, I can link articles explaining why the boomers pissed away everything and are clutching their gold watches to their graves with no consideration for future generations, only their own kids hoarding wealth for them and fucking up any sense of meritocracy for up and comers.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2018/01/15/a-generation-of-sociopaths-rich-barlow
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/gene-weingarten-millennials-maybe-youre-right-about-us-baby-boomers/2016/11/16/a1e1a394-9d14-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html
https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/people-who-stole-the-world-alvarez
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-the-boomers-are-the-most-hated-generation/276368/
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-baby-boomers-became-the-most-selfish-generation-2016-11
See, totally describes every boomer right? Nah, course not...but easy to assemble a bunch of generation bashing material that has some basis in...what's happening.
I'm sorry you're so miserable with the next generation, luckily you won't have to deal with us for as long as we'll have to deal with ya'll. I don't entirely blame you, coming of age in a time of material wealth, not having any morale building, unifying war experience, embracing consumer capitalism and perpetuating it like the world has never known before that - looking at the mess left behind, the current political environment, environment environment, rising income inequality - yea, that has nothing to do with governmental and corporate leadership of the past 40 years lolol.
Mortgages on houses are a special situation, and treated differently then all other debts here. And what you are saying about just walking away from houses is only the law in a few states, and in those states, the worst of the housing bubble happened (Florida, Nevade, etc.). So I agree with you on that count. Here in New York, if I stopped paying my mortgage and walked away, the bank would sell my house, and if they didn't get all their money back, they would sue me for the rest.
With regard to other debts however, it isn't that you just walk away, and they are gone. You file for bankruptcy, and then a judge takes over your money situation to settle debts the best way possible. So the court will sell all your stuff to pay you creditors, and then they will work out a reasonable payment plan where a reasonable portion of your income goes to pay more of your debt. You will also not be able to borrow any money for at least 8 years. If there is just simply too much debt, some of it will get discharged. But since lenders are aware that this is how the system works, it should make them be careful who they lend to, so that they don't lose money.
So it isn't that you just get away with not paying, it is just worked out so you can not end up homeless and a permanent debt slave. Think about someone who bought a house in Spain a few years ago, and now their house is worth 1/3 what is was. The economy is terrible, and you lose your job. You want to do the right thing, and try to sell your house to pay the bank back, but you still end up owing them hundreds of thousands. Because you can not get a good job again, you end up cleaning toilets for very little money. The bank will keep taking your paychecks for the rest of your life, and you will never recover. Your family will have no future, your kids will be screwed and the whole lot of you will end up on welfare, costing the government money. The whole time this is going on, the bank barely gets paid anything, because you make so little money, so it isn't like they will ever get paid back.
In this scenario, everyone loses, the bank, the family and the government. And it isn't like this person did anything wrong, they bought a house for their family, and then the economy went terribly bad. This person would be much happier being employed and paying his mortgage, but he just can't.
This permanent indebtedness is what gave birth to the feudal system, where people ended up trading their lives and land to the lord of the manner. If you would like to read up on it, I suggest this http://www.amazon.com/dp/1612191290
I also should have mentioned that the bankruptcy court will take into account if someone did try to just walk away or commit fraud, and will impose very harsh terms on them. The whole point of American bankruptcy is not to punish people literally forever, who were making sounds choices, and taking reasonable risks in good faith. It has really prompted entrepreneurship, and been very benfical to us.
I think you would get a lot out of reading Debt: The First 5,000 Years... It speaks to "nation that is built on money that I will never be able to make" and your feeling of defeat being by design... I found the conclusion surprisingly hopeful/helpful.
I like this book by David Graeber where he talks about whole economic systems are necessary to support civilizations with technologies. The pattern has been that they unwind on a multicentury cycle when too many people get into deep debt to the point that they can't support themselves enough to efficient work or participate. Rome is just one example - there were a striking number of advanced technologies during that time, but after the empire fell apart, society couldn't use them even though they were still described in books. So during Rome they had technology but also slavery, debt etc. During the middle ages they were illiterate but there was less prostitution and slavery. https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290
Here's a book from an anthropologist who has studied the evolution of economies throughout world history. Humans are actually much more likely to simply use a debt-based system instead of bartering for exchanges when they do not have money to represent transactions. Bartering never happens in real time as you described. You don't wait for me to actually go get the roof fixed before you fix my PC. You just do the favor, and I owe you one.
https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290
Read this: "Debt: The First 5,000 Years." The model of efficiency that you mention is pretty new to the scene and pretty much a big illusion.
http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000-Years/dp/1612191290
This history is actually false. For a good accounting of why, see David Graeber's excellent "Debt: The First 5000 Years."
There actually isn't any evidence whatsoever that economies operated on barter initially. Barter appears to only arise in societies have had money but then do not have enough access to it for some reason. In other words, Barter is what money economies are reduced to when money becomes scarce or worthless. It appears this whole myth of Barter, then commodity money, then commodity backed money, then credit money can be traced to Adam Smith, who appears to have simply deducted back in time that it must've been barter because if you take away money, what do you have? However, we do not have any evidence of barter based economies in actual historical or anthropological studies.
Current anthropology suggests that credit came first, then money, and only barter in situations where money cannot be found. Really, read Mr. Graeber's book, it's really interesting.
It's also worth noting David Graeber's argument that the historical record actually shows that debt existed before currency did.
LOL, no, its a good book but there are many better recommendations.
For example, if you wanted to understand the tools of state/religious oppression and its consequences in modern context I may recommend; Why Nations fail
Or if you desired to have greater understanding of the consequences of inventing money; Debt, the first 5000 years
Or if you felt that religion was cool but the idea of God was wrong you could read; Change Your Thoughts - Change Your Life: Living the Wisdom of the Tao
Or if you wanted to read about the decline of world wide violence; The Better Angels of our Nature
Read The Vegetarian Myth. Make sure that you are doing this for the right reasons.
Anemia and vegetarianism don't mix very well. You will want to see a doctor/nutritionist so you know exactly what you need to be eating. It might feel more moral, but being a veggie is more work to make sure you eat right and more odds of things going terribly wrong with anemia. This is doubly so since you say that you aren't going to have people supportive of your choice who you still have to feed. If you can't afford to eat so that it won't kill you, don't do it.
I had a friend in high school who almost killed herself being a veggie because she's anemic. It wasn't until she had the chance to be out of her house and got some extra income to be able to eat so it wouldn't kill her.
tl;dr: Anemia and vegetarianism don't mix very well, see a doctor instead of asking the internets.
Governments can and do invent money (in their own currency) at will. There's a rather long winded chat about it here https://www.amazon.co.uk/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290. Venezuela demonstrates quite nicely what happens when they invent too much compared to how much they collect.
definitely, but the cycle of infinite growth in capitalism seems to be coming to an end. it seems pretty unlikely that developing countries now will ever reach UK standards of living
if you'd like to read more here are some good books:
The End of Growth - Adapting to Our New Economic Reality
The Limits to Growth
Debt: The First 5000 Years
The Vegetarian Myth
Well, the idea is that if the whole world went vegan, or even vegetarian, that it would be even more unhealthy for the earth than the mixed diet we eat now.
The basic premise is that crop production of that kind, enough to feed a fully vegetarian human population worldwide, would actually destroy much more land than we already do now. Many of the world's great deserts have grown because of farming practices that denuded the land and sped desertification.
There are also smaller ideas like the fact that we'd probably just lose many species that we've domesticated. The cow, the chicken, etc. would go extinct within a few generations in the wild with no human intervention.
The real problem is human population. If the world's population was much, much smaller, we could all live like North Americans and West Europeans. That's unlikely to happen voluntarily.
The ideal solution if we aren't going to reduce human population is to start transitioning back towards a hunting/gathering model -- but combined with small acreage/high yield organic farming techniques that have been mastered over the last century. There's a "farm" in Los Angeles that is just the back and front yard of an average LA one story ranch house. It has broken world records of yield/Sq Ft using organic permaculture principles. It can produce hundreds and hundreds of pounds of produce every year using these principles, all organic, all sustainable using output from plants synergistically to reduce and eliminate inputs needed for the system. There's about 7 people in the house who tend it full time.
Now imagine if every neighborhood had one or two of these houses?
The industrial farming system is unnecessary and a crime against the earth. Whether produce or animal. They all need to go, we can do far better.
Find farms that are local to you. I buy grass fed beef direct from the farmer. (I even get to pet my dinner during their happy, but short lives on the farm.) It's like $5 a lb, but I have to buy in bulk.
The same farmer though also sells individual chickens. They are TRUE free range. Not like CAFO chickens - these birds literally could leave if they wanted too. There is no fence or gate preventing them from just heading out and walking down the road. The meat is incredibly dense and the birds are huge. I am a big eater and single breast is more than a meal for me; while I could pretty much eat an entire Publix chicken on my own.
Also - buy a slow cooker and find a source for quality meats in the cheaper cuts, like a roast.
You may like to read this book; The Vegetarian Myth. The title is a bit confrontational but most of the book is about the author reexamining her relationship with food and the earth. I am not a "spiritual person" but I found it quite moving and it really changed who I think about my food. The first chapter was free on her website - google it.
TL:DR: You can afford good meat; you need to buy it from a farmer not from Whole Foods.
>Why we shouldn't complain that meat eaters use 10 times the land resources.
Red herring alert.
I believe that agriculture uses more land, and is more ruinous to the environment than pastoralism[1]. Animals can be grown on marginal land, which incidentally is all that is left after agriculture's done with it. Just because your food does not bleed does not mean it is more moral. Forests were destroyed and animals displaced/killed to create your fields. Look at a historical map of Europe and see the historical extent of forest that was destroyed.
Fuel and nitrogen fertilizer are used, pesticides that poison the food chain, agricultural machinery that destroys topsoil, irrigation systems that lower the water-table. Unfortunately agriculture as without pesticides will simply not sustain the current population level (not that I think it's a bad thing). I have great hopes for things like micro-ponics though, small self-sustainable systems, but again, it will not support anywhere near the current level of population unless we, say, farm the seas or something. And that hasn't really turned out well at all, has it?
>Living things that feel pain, can be mutilated, maimed, abused, tortured. Then consider how carefully we construct and pack iPods, computers, TVs, and cellphones that nobody needs and will discard in a year or two. Then tell me why vegans and vegetarians should shut up[3].
While I sympathize that it is a painful issue (I once threw the picnic lunch for 7 people into a river because someone shot a pigeon) as evidenced by the apparent non-sequitur in this quote, I agree that animals should not be "treated like crap".
I completely agree about humane, ethical and conservational. You know what's interesting? Where animals can be freely hunted in the wild (USA) is where they're preserved in the wild in their greatest number. That is conservation. Why have leopards and lions disappeared from all over Europe and up to Iran? Why are there pumas in North America, but virtually none in Argentina (except for a small range in the south?).
Get a government to mandate that animals be protected and not hunted, and people will displace animals from their native habitat. The evidence is there all around the world. Regulated hunting keeps habitats and animals alive. Photo safaris do more to damage the African bush than hunting safaris. Hunting safaris save the future of African wildlife and have almost zero impact on the environment compared to hordes of tourists in their safari jeeps. The animals that are killed in a hunting safari are those that would naturally die in the near-term. Nobody hunts a 1 year old male lion. I am sorry if this upsets you, but it is true. It seems paradoxical, but remember the anteater is not the friend of the ant, but of the antheap. Where hunting is perversely not allowed the Forest Service must cull animal numbers (eg, elephant herds in South Africa).
>Consider, for a moment, that those animals are living things. Living things that feel pain, can be mutilated, maimed, abused, tortured.
It often seems to me that vegans have not thought their policies out to the very end (I am not accusing you of this since you said you will accept eating meat, grudgingly).
What happens to the animals we don't eat? What happens to wild animals? Either they get old and die, or more likely they get eaten in the wild. Watch a wildebeest being killed by lions, not a pretty sight. If they get old and die without predation, they will desertify their environment. If they are wild animals, human pressure will push them out of their habitat.
The role of Man at the apex of the predatory chain means that if animals do not serve our purposes they will die. All that you are recommending is that the only purpose they serve for us is a sense of wonderment that they exist, a benign pleasure on our part at watching them. And we should protect them for this. I am not opposed, I fully support natural parks, wildlife and habitat preservation etcetera. Unfortunately it doesn't work. Consider the huge stock of domestic/agricultural animals: Who would keep and feed cows and chickens if they were not eaten? [2] The same thing would happen to them that happens to stray dogs: they would have to be put down. Or allowed to live out their lives on land, and be made not to reproduce (if they did reproduce, under human protection, they would displace wildlife).
In sum, the only logical ending to "stop their suffering" is to make a species extinct. If animals do not serve us, we will destroy them (I don't mean personally, I mean as a species. Nothing you can do will change this, no legislation, no government policy) or displace them. It's not just us in the West, it's the 4 billion people in the rest of the world (who incidentally, do not have time for such moral hair-splitting).
Also, I am not making the argument that because lions kill animals it is moral for us to do so as well. I merely posit that everything is part of our economic system and must find a role in it. It seems that for you, animals should fulfil that role merely by being cute, watchable things that it makes us happy to protect for their own sake. That they should eat and live for no other reason. While I am not opposed in principle, in practice I do not think it will work. It may work for us here in the western world, but certainly not in the rest, and certainly not for long, only while we have disposable income to use for this purpose.
>By sticking your fingers in your ears every time a vegn complains, you're just ignoring the evidence in front of you.
I don't do this at all. Where what they are saying goes against my libertarian philosophy I merely point that out. Fascism is still fascism, even when done with the best of intentions. What evidence do you mean, specifically?
>Perhaps you don't care about the rights of the animals, the environment, or the future of this planet; but don't bitch about the people that do.
I actually care a lot about the environment and the future. If it weren't for agriculture I do not believe humans would have put the pressure on the environment they do today.
If you care too, and have an open mind, may I recommend this?
Also you also say animals have rights. Here I must completely disagree with you. Rights come with responsibilities, and are an exclusively moral and human construct. An animal cannot have rights, it can only have a human champion* who demands certain privileges be accorded it. You are that champion in an all-encompassing way. I am merely more limited in the privileges that I demand be accorded to animals, a "limited-rights for animals" campaigner, if you wish. Do you understand the distinction I am trying to make here? It is not a distinction without a difference. You could loosely use the word "right" for privilege, or if privilege sounds condescending think "we owe them humanity", or "we owe them a duty".
A common problem I have with PETA-sympathizers (and I was one myself, once) is they fail this test: "A puppy dog and a homeless, snotty beggar-child are both about to be run down by a car. The puppy is yours, the child is (say) an abandoned, dirty thing. If you could save just one, which would it be?" I used to think they were morally equivalent. Now I do not.
Interestingly PETA believes animals should not be "pets". How many dogs does Ingrid Newkirk have? Saying they're not pets is like saying Catholic priests did not molest children, they just educated them in the ways of the world. Do you know how many animals PETA puts down every year? In a world without human champions (dog-owners) dogs would die out, or become feral and ultimately wolves. Whereupon their habitat would get destroyed over time, as has happened all over the world, or they would end up living with us, in which case how is the situation any different?
Please note: I bring up PETA only because on many of these issues people who feel the way you do (and as I once did) agree with them. And their example shows the logical outcome of such a philosophy.
Well, this has become too long already. You can PM me if you wish, but I don't think I'll be following through in this discussion.
Cheers.
[1] (there's plenty of evidence, but rather than debate the evidence, which I've no time for, I'll just say it's a belief. Google is your friend)
[2] (If they were not eaten but we use their milk and eggs, how is that more moral? Eating fetuses and depriving calves of mother's milk? In this at least I understand the vegans, they have a principled approach.)
[3] I don't want to be rude, but humans are naturally predatory and meat eating. Evolution supports this hypothesis (google Efficient Tissue hypothesis) and so do morphological and behavioral differences between humans and primate relatives, not to mention the archaeological record. I can accept the argument that "I have become morally enlightened enough to go past that" though, and to that extent I am fine with vegans, of which there are a few in my immediate family. Also, as far as "what to eat" is concerned, I am ok with locally grown, sustainable vegetable farming. I do believe that humans (again, biologically speaking) are not meant to eat grasses since we are not ruminants, that large scale agriculture will destroy (and has destroyed in the past) soil-health through desertification (Nile valley comes to mind, and all of the Euphrates).
realmente, não há exatamente um consenso sobre o que é devops, mas a meu ver é mais um filosofia do que realmente uma função. é um modelo de trabalho que procura quebrar os silos funcionais dentro de uma empresa e trazer uma maior integração entre elas, trazendo maior agilidade e resultados mais rápidos. Tudo isso permeado com bastante automação e melhoria continua sempre focado nos beneficos que isso vai trazer pro negocio. Sei que falando desse jeito parece um conceito bem vago, mas é algo que envolve coisas como:
Esse link aqui pode te dar uma boa introdução no assunto: https://theagileadmin.com/what-is-devops/
Além disso, te recomendo fortemente que leia um livro chamado The Phoenix Project, que conta a historia de uma empresa fabricante de auto-peças que precisava ganhar agilidade para enfrentar a concorrencia ou estariam fadados a fechar as portas.
https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
I agree with you, in a way.
In my experience an entire IT team may be 50-60% effective but it's because of a single person doing 100% their own capacity. There seem to be alot of people who slack off while their colleagues pick up the slack. This isn't always laziness. It could be that they don't have the proper skill sets, may have apprehension in working with some technologies, or aren't familiar with the entire environment enough to do things themselves. This is sort of like the scenario presented in the phoenix project
Work doesn't get done because of the single person working at capacity and other people "blocked" on that person. This gives the illusion of a very busy IT team and lack of staff but in reality management just needs to address the underlying issues... again, kind of like in "the phoenix project" :)
QBQ. The Question Behind the Question
The Phoenix Project: A Novel About IT, DevOps, and Helping Your Business Win
Rework
Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In
Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense, Low-Cost Approach to Management
Time Management for System Administrators
By its very nature, DevOps roles are typically not "junior", and you'll have to have earned your mid-level stripes in systems/operations/cloud engineering to graduate on into DevOps.
Read [0] "The Phoenix Project" and [1] "Leading the Transformation" for an introduction to what DevOps theory/philosophy is all about. It's really worth taking the time to study these books, even if what is in them may not be something you're going to apply at your current job.
Get an [2] AWS certification. As a difficult and rare exam, companies looking view those who hold the DevOps Engineer certification in high esteem.
[0] http://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Leading-Transformation-Applying-DevOps-Principles/dp/1942788010
[2] https://cloudacademy.com/learning-paths/devops-engineer-professional-certification-AWS-13/
Doesn't matter the year, The Phoenix Project is a must.
I'm a software developer with about 5 years of experience , and I used to have the same sorts of problems where I would over-commit to getting work done and under-deliver. To summarize, I changed to where I only commit to tasks that will take 1-2 days or less at a time, and I make it very very public what I'm working on in order to manage both my and my team's expectations. Here are the gritty details (ymmv of course):
Side note: in general I limit my work in progress (WIP limit) to one large task and one small task. If there are production issues or something I break my WIP limit by 1 and take on a third task (it has to be an emergency like the site is down and we are losing money), and I make sure that whatever caused the WIP limit to break gets sufficient attention so that it doesn't happen again (usually in the form of a blameless postmortem ) . If someone asks me to work on something that will break the WIP limit by more than one, then I lead them to negotiate with the person who asked me to break it in the first place, because there is not way one person can work on two emergencies at the same time.
Here's some books I've read that lead me to work like this
As you may notice, the latter 3 books are mostly about how to quickly and reliably ship software. Developer workflow is a big part of getting that to happen, and many people have some of the same problems we do.
I could go on like this for hours because I fucking love kanban. Feel free to PM me if you want to chat about your specific problems. There is figuratively nothing that I would rather talk to internet strangers about.
As an Enterprise Architect, i believe you would need to have a great understanding of the nature of your business.. Around asset depreciation (in effect does it make sense for you to close down your datacenter?), how outsourcing contracts affect your P&L etc. Also around what the outlook of the business is - is your business looking at net new business models or possible adjacent markets? If no, then a cloud migration/transformation probably doesn't make alot of sense (also, if the answer to that question is no - do you think your organisation will survive in the next 5 years?).
Reason being is a cloud migration/transformation will never be cheaper than running things on-prem/outsourced, not unless your workload was purpose-built for the cloud - from an architectural PoV, this is what the industry calls "cloud-native".
Now, if you're still with me - then that means that you have good reasons for moving to the cloud. I would advise to start small - never, ever do a big-bang. Approach this like you would a scientific experiment. Form a hypothesis, have a controlled group and variable group, then evaluate, learn, and adopt. If you're wrong, pivot, then try something else. If you're right, build on top of that then scale.
You will probably realise that doing things this way sound alot like Agile - and they are similar. You might also feel that existing tooling and your organisational structure doesn't allow for that kind of work - as you will optimize for speed and getting quick feedback from your stakeholders (or customers). This is the fundamental problem of cloud adoption within enterprises - enabling a large organisation to work in this way, while making sure that you're not breaking any laws or regulation. Organisations who fail at this simply move their costs to the public cloud provider, then complain that it's too expensive without achieving real value, then decide to move back on prem (costing millions again).
This will require : a) Organisational change - grouping people not by function, but by the value they deliver towards a company goal or outcome and b) Cultural change - a culture that embraces change, and the failure that comes with it. And not resting on your laurels once you achieve success; and lastly, c) Architectural changes - towards decoupling, independence, and resilience.
There's alot of content out there (including the ones you mentioned) that will help out for C - Architectural changes, but not much for the first two.. It is, arguably the easiest part of the three, unfortunately.
Oh, and one more thing - there's this thing called DevOps as well - not the tools surrounding it, but rather the discipline and culture that comes along with it. I'd recommend you to read https://www.amazon.com.au/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592 before anything else.
&#x200B;
&#x200B;
&#x200B;
DevOps is broad - very board. Some say it's not even a "thing".
Your request is quite broad.
I'll do my best, and feel free to ping back any specific questions as all DevOps requirements are conditional based on your working context.
Considering your background, and your current approach to DevOps, I'd suggest reading up on DevOps culture, generic tooling (in various classes), amongst various other topics (apologies for the ambiguity here, but there is too much without more specific context).
DevOps Tooling Classes:
(Naming a minuscule fraction of the available tooling.)
Ask yourself these questions to help you with your Google'ing:
If I had to sum it all up, and give you the best vectors to approach this:
Think of DevOps as being able to deliver a business requirement using reliable and reproducible techniques:
As I mentioned before, DevOps is very broad.
Read https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
Ping back for help! That's what DevOps is all about!
Software engineering is different than many other things. It takes a lot more than just wanting. It also can't be accomplished with just money.
I can't tell you how big of a role that leadership and vision play in the equation.
But it is then the process. That is where Google has really been a leader. Google basically invented the entire SRE/DevOps space.
Wrote the canonical book on the subject. Well the latest one.
To me it is The Goal and then Phoenix Project and then you finish with the Google SRE book.
You read in that order. If a software engineer it will change your perspective if not yet read. Google just read them a lot earlier than others.
Here is a link to the books I am talking about if do not work in the field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_(novel)
https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
https://landing.google.com/sre/sre-book/chapters/introduction/
Here's your homework:
Then start looking into individual technologies. Docker, Drone, Kubernetes can work together on the same stack, for example. Start there, then figure out what's interchangeable.
You'll need to establish awareness of the business needs and full stack context before DevOps will make proper sense.
The Phoenix Project (https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592)
Whilst it's not primarily about security, it does play a major role in the story.
It's important as a security professional to see where the industry is headed, and how security can adapt.
I found it a great read from a security perspective.
The Phoenix Project
https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
Phoenix Project
HIM is the core of all badness in healthcare. I assume you know this but the fact that it's a total disaster in general is responsible for my income. Have you read the Phoenix project?. To me that's a must read for anyone in IT management. It literally changed how I saw things. You can read it in a day. Trello for Kanban, with slack integration can be amazing.
When I interview I talk about the 4 types of work and how they handle flow. I'm a consultant so I need to understand what sort of a disaster I'm getting into. You need that info to especially since you're early in the year and course is somewhat laid in.
For interview questions I'd be prepared to answer MU, HIPAA (Cfr 164), HITECH (13410d). Budgeting, team management and find out if you gel with the CIO. Most of them aren't morons but some are simply incompetent.
I wish you the best!
Ok! Here’re a few:
http://www.gallup.com/press/176069/first-break-rules-world-greatest-managers-differently.aspx
https://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Leadership-Steps-Transforming-Performance/dp/0060835915
http://www.jamesshore.com/Agile-Book/
https://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Project-DevOps-Helping-Business/dp/0988262592
Your situation is remarkably similar to The Phoenix Project (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0988262592). I encourage you to check it out.
It sounds like your company doesn't believe its success is dependent upon a well-managed IT infrastructure. Which business goals are jeopardized by this behavior? How can you effectively communicate that 1) without properly planning capacity the IT team might as well be a gulag, and 2) without controlling what work is released to IT, it is destined to be perceived as a cost center instead of contributing to the company's value stream?
...have you ever been able to say no to a business/development proposal that got dumped on your team?
At the very least, the book might provide some consolation that your IT pains are not unique :]
Here is a book on that topic.
https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814
You should read the book Factfulness.
Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250107814/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_jyCYBbN7HD2TP
Bill Gates bought it for all graduating college seniors in the US. It's basically about how we have antiquated views of the world, and things are generally much better than we think. In other words, it's worth it to make the world a better place because it's actually helping.
This stuff is not easy, I'm not expecting to change your way of thinking with this one comment.
But maybe it could help you with exploring a different angle and realising that not all things are bad and that there's also a lot of good in the world.
I'd say:
Yes there is a lot of dumb and awful things in the world, but it is easier to focus on the bad than the good, there's also many amazing advancements humans are making every day by working at it diligently:
Worldwide poverty is lower than it has ever been in history and keeps dropping.
People are finding cures for awful diseases all the time.
Nations are becoming more and more developed, child deaths and births are dropping, there's no endless growth happening, it's all dropping off to a stable level.
Companies have always done shady shit, but we are getting better at calling them out and improving people's lives.
More people have the right to live happily, to marry who they love.
There's no widespread slavery anymore, there's not even a real war between nation states, just some terrorist dudes in a desert somewhere, and yes that is in the news all the time but compared to even the balkan wars in the 90s there's nowhere near as much suffering in today's world.
For every "bought" artist there's lots of people and groups making their own music and having success with it, it's easy to look at most listened to lists on youtube or spotify and dismiss all of those artists but take a look at smaller artists, browse bandcamp or something to find people that do what they love and support them with it.
There's a great book that puts a lot of these fallacies of thinking the world is getting worse to the test but I forgot the name of it, you'll have to take my word until I can find it again.
Edit: found it, check it out for another perspective on things if you wish:
link
Extreme poverty is actually the lowest than it has ever been, and it's getting better everyday.
We are not perfect yet, and there's still a lot to be done, but I do have a lot of hope for the future.
This book will possibly change how you view the world:
https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814/ref=nodl_
http://factfulnessquiz.com/
it's frustrating people are down voting you when your suspicion is correct. anyone who feels the urge to down vote would hopefully get a lot from reading a book like Factfulness.
Read Rosling's Factfulness. The book format is nice, but the .pdf is everywhere. Watch Hans' TED talks, too. They're the core ideas, condensed. Here's one of his earlier ones, but I think it's one of his best, too.
The data is real. When your cynicism pushes back, tell it to get bent and accept the factual truth that it falsely proclaims it has sole access to. That's what I did to mine, and it was pretty effective, too.
Recomendo fortemente pra você o livro Factfulness
techbros can be radicalized, everyone can, it's just a matter of finding the right talking point for them. go out for drinks with em, shoot the shit, build up a rapport. talk about how pointless you think product management is (never met a dev with a positive view of their nontechnical managers) and bring up some of the points from Bullshit Jobs. talk about how github banned iranian devs and how economic sanctions only cause collateral damage to the working class and how forcing people to starve is violence. there's an episode of chapo where the guest (@pisspiggrandad) talks about how he did it and unionized his workplace.
staying connected with like-minded people helps fend off the alienation (plug for the sci4socialism slack). i hang with a couple coworkers who are left-leaning and a few who are apolitical but fun to be around. loneliness and hopelessness just make it that much harder to organize outside of work where real material gains can be accomplished.
oh and take really long shits on the clock and steal office supplies.
In addition to others saying that downtime is normal, there is also the bullshit jobs theory - https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber/dp/150114331X
&#x200B;
Some jobs are simply unnecessary on the whole and filled with nothingness.
> I mean, if I hired someone to mow my lawn
If a feudal lord hired someone to mow a remote acre of his lawn and the mower, winking, reported to you that a wandering herd of goats had actually already got to it, who would you trust more to figure out whether the mower is worth what they're being paid - the mower, or the lord?
> I think the evidence is in their willingness to pay
Right, and that is the difference between our arguments and why it is wrong for you to try to analogize between them. I don't think the garbagemen know better than the mayor because they're being paid less: I think they know better because they collect the garbage. You however do think that a willingness to pay can be translated into knowledge about whether someone is worth paying.
> Maybe his book really does contain better evidence than he's alluded to in trying to promote it
https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber/dp/150114331X
Read pgs 1-2 (not i-ii in the intro)
How about read a book? See if the experience fits how you feel about your job.
I'm not sure I follow how the politics is affecting the education. You're saying we have a group that is revving up racist propaganda and manipulating the poor, but I think what's wrong with education is more some of the things you mentioned later: that funds are poorly distributed, that there are a lot of bullshit jobs (theres a book about this) that suck up money, and that the core education system has been chiseled in a fashion that kids aren't learning enough in high school so now college is much more important.
America has no reason to be so low in the world rankings for education, except that it's a huge country and it's hard to make one system to fit all - i.e. we should allow people to do different things and value trades where you don't need a masters degree so people don't fall to the debt trap.
Read Bullsh!t Jobs: A Theory for an interesting take on this. Depending on where you live and work, and what you job is, it could be really short. ;)
Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World
Bullshit Jobs: A Theory
The Moral Landscape
Team Human
Yep. And entire jobs and industries.
He's got a book coming out soon on this.
https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber/dp/150114331X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;linkCode=sl1&amp;tag=downandoutint-20&amp;linkId=a649cf087194a664820febc07e572d1b
Possibly relevant to your interests
> Graeber explores one of society’s most vexing and deeply felt concerns, indicting among other villains a particular strain of finance capitalism that betrays ideals shared by thinkers ranging from Keynes to Lincoln. Bullshit Jobs gives individuals, corporations, and societies permission to undergo a shift in values, placing creative and caring work at the center of our culture. This book is for everyone who wants to turn their vocation back into an avocation.
https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber/dp/150114331X
Mostly it's just general knowledge from various history courses as well as reading on Paleo, Keto and Traditional diet topics. The problem with living in the wild and eating only plants and fruits is that they are pretty low calorie. People tended to use up more energy looking for those foods than they would gain from eating them. Another problem is that before agriculture plants were way less productive. Here is a comparison of ancient vs more modern corn. Another problem is that you can't find wild strawberries in the middle of winter. Plant based food was much more reliant on seasonality and went bad very quickly. Meat on the other hand has tons of nutrients and can be dried or smoked and kept for the winter.
Nutrition Density Challenge: 5 lbs of Fruit vs. 4 oz Beef Liver
Here is the chart, the liver is on the bottom. http://imgur.com/k84944M
You might enjoy this book. The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability. PB has a torrent of it.
Isn't The Vegetarian Myth horribly sourced and full of bad science (example: author states there are no bacteria in the human stomach pg.142)? According to the top review on Amazon (follow that link):
The author cites 207 references in this book.
62 of those references are websites (~30%)
18 are newspapers and magazines (~7%)
32 are journals (~15%)
95 are other books (~46%)
I suggest this book: http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804
Vitamin D with calcium, cuts the overall general cancer risk between the lowest and highest quartile of people measured by about 75%. And cuts the overall general cancer metastasis risk by about 50%. See: http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/6/1586.short
Proper supplementation is around the 75 IU D3 per kg bodyweight per day mark. But actually you have to measure your 25(OH)D3 bloodlevels to be sure, is has to end up between 100-150 nmol/L (40-60ng/mL).
Vegetarians being healthy is myth, though in general they have to be more obsessed with foods so they tend to know how to balance it with special healthy supplemental foods that are not as well known by the general populace.
For bone health you may want to look into vitamin K (K1, K2:{Mk4, Mk7}) and other vitamin D cofactors.
https://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804
https://authoritynutrition.com/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants/
You should, it really showed me just what grains to the earth and where Veganism can ultimately lead to. Here's the link on Amazon
Give Good Calories Bad Calories a read first. Then try reading The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. She was a vegan for 20 years and it caused her some major health issues. She really points out the fallacies that the vegetarian lifestyle is based on very clearly. In the mean time you can watch all the videos found here, and this post from March 14 by Taubes is great, pay special attention to the second paragraph. Does she want you to watch Forks Over Knives? That movie fails entirely to address the weaknesses inherent in observational studies.
Not strictly technical writing-oriented, but On Writing Well by William Zinsser was a game-changer for me. I'm a grad student and I think about this book every time I write a paper, or anything really. I've also heard decent things about this course.
Thanks. I don't go for "self-help" books, but the more I read On Writing Well the more I realize that so much of that excellent writing advice is also excellent life advice.
I don't know how much advice I can offer in this regard, but I think you should practice writing just as you would practice programming. Find a mentor that will give you honest feedback on your writing, and run everything past them for brutal honesty. I have a circle of people I work with who's writing I admire, so I always send written stuff to them.
A blog is a good way of forcing yourself to practice writing on a regular basis. Don't be ashamed to force it upon people and ask them for feedback, most will be flattered you have high regard for their opinion.
If you're wondering if you've written something worth a damn, here is an approach I like to use, that has helped:
I found "on writing well" to be a great book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1321336616&amp;sr=8-1
Hope some of that helps...
On Writing Well by William Zinsser.
> TIA, and sorry for the bad english
A little secret here that I learned from the Ruby community... Knowing English well is what separates a good programmer from a bad one.
"On Writing Well" is an excellent book Link
Make all of your function names descriptive on what they return not what they do (there is a lot of debate about this).
Use namespaces (kind of ugly in PHP), classes, then functions. Procedural is awesome and I'm more of a C guy than a C++ guy. But, organization is key especially if the project involves more than one person.
I took several "creative nonfiction" courses in college, and two books that we used were Tell It Slant and On Writing Well. I remember Tell It Slant more vividly; it included several examples of various styles of nonfiction writing, several of which I enjoyed and used as inspiration for my own writing. I assume that On Writing Well is also valuable, though, considering how long it's been in print.
Since you asked for books, if you want a general introduction into scientific writing I really liked The Craft of Scientific Writing. It might be a bit much to read though, if you only want to write one paper for school. If you plan to write more papers especially at University, I definately recommend that book.
Another book which I liked even more was more generally on non-fiction writing. I wish I would have read that one years ago. It's called On Writing Well
Another great thing to do is to just read research papers. You could find real papers with Google Scholar though it might be hard in the beginning to get a grasp on it, since it might be pretty different from what you have read so far.
Lastly I found this blog really interested when I started out writing papers and theses.
I hope this helps
Read other technical documents, and really just practice. I recommend On Writing Well to many of my junior engineers who are just learning how to do this. It's not tech specific, but does give a lot of good best practices.
Dr. Jordan Peterson wrote a pretty good template on it. Also if you have have time you could read On Writing Well by William Zinsser.
https://www.scribd.com/document/317511611/Template
https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1497275862&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=On+writing+well
https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548
You seriously need to buy that, read it, and then implement the lessons.
Before transitioning into my current PM role I worked for a PR company. The CEO strongly recommended this book for general writing. It's not tech-focused, more general purpose but still a great resource.
http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0060891548
Honestly, though a lot of the information wouldn't be applicable to you, I highly recommend the book On Writing Well by William Zinsser. It helped me with my writing (across all uses) tremendously. My novels, non-fiction articles, personal letters, and even my reddit comments have improved! Hope I helped a little bit :)
And I have these in my list on amazon. Would love to get some opinions on them:
&nbsp;
How to Win Friends and Influence People
by Dale Carnegie
&nbsp;
Secrets of a Freelance Writer: How to Make $100,000 a Year or More
by Robert Bly
&nbsp;
Words that Sell
by Richard Bayan
&nbsp;
Tested Advertising Methods
by Caples and Hahn
&nbsp;
Writing That Works
by Kenneth Roman and Joel Raphaelson
&nbsp;
Confessions of an Advertising Man
by David Ogilvy
&nbsp;
The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing
by Al Ries and Jack Trout
&nbsp;
The Robert Collier Letter Book
by Robert Collier
&nbsp;
Nicely Said: Writing for the Web with Style and Purpose
by Nicole Fenton and Kate Kiefer Lee
&nbsp;
Letting Go of the Words
by Janice (Ginny) Redish
&nbsp;
Essential English for Journalists, Editors and Writers
by Harold Evans
&nbsp;
Can I Change Your Mind?: The Craft and Art of Persuasive Writing
by Lindsay Camp
&nbsp;
Writing Tools: 50 Essential Strategies for Every Writer
by Roy Peter Clark
&nbsp;
Read Me: 10 Lessons for Writing Great Copy
by Roger Horberry and Gyles Lingwood
&nbsp;
Hey, Whipple, Squeeze This: The Classic Guide to Creating Great Ads
by Luke Sullivan
&nbsp;
WRITE IN STEPS: The super simple book writing method
by Ian Stables
&nbsp;
On Writing Well
by William Zinsser
&nbsp;
The Wealthy Freelancer
by Steve Slaunwhite, Pete Savage and Ed Gandia
&nbsp;
Write Everything Right!
by Denny Hatch
&nbsp;
The Secret of Selling Anything
by Harry Browne
&nbsp;
The Marketing Gurus: Lessons from the Best Marketing Books of All Time
by Chris Murray
&nbsp;
On Writing
by Stephen King
&nbsp;
Writing for the Web
by Lynda Felder
&nbsp;
Everybody Writes: Your Go-To Guide to Creating Ridiculously Good Content
by Ann Handley
&nbsp;
This book will teach you how to write better
by Neville Medhora
Try:
http://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1309493214&amp;sr=8-1
In Economics, right wing is capitalism, left wing is a centrally planned government, and than there is mixed economy approaches which encompasses a large majority of economic systems. You said that the National Socialist Party was "inhereny right wing" economically. To anyone who studies economics and has taken beyond an introductory class, that means a capitalist system. Not a mixed economy. I have said this multiple times.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2597802?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This is Peter Temin's original paper on the topic which led to all the pushback your papers were referring to. While I don't stand by 100% of what he says in here, he is one of the top economists in the world for a reason. This is the basis of where the socialist vs communist discussion in the academic community is founded upon.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1830929?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This is a good paper analyzing the leviathan state and destruction of the free market and eventual civil liberties through Nazi Germany. This paper I have not combed through myself but a colleague of mine presented it's research at a conference I was at last year and this was the link on his LinkedIn profile so I presume it is the right one. I believe it also addresses the proposed inability to seperate social atrocities (in this case the Holocaust) and macroeconomics which while you didn't bring up, some people do. If this is the wrong paper, let me know and I will send him an email and ask for a link to the correct one.
The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143113208/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_QHH6CbMGJCNCQ
While Temin's paper focuses mostly on pre-war, this is the best research done into the wartime economy of Nazi Germany. It discusses in extreme depth the command economy of the party and how the seeds of the wartime command economy were planted in the centrally planned economy pre-war and how that transition came to be. It is extremely fascinating but is a slow read.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563068?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This paper goes through a lot of the misconceptions that you have presented and while isn't the best written, fits your particular view point quite well. It makes a few overreaches into modern day political times but if you take it for its historical analysis it is a decent article.
Listen dude or dudette. This is something I have studied a lot. Once I get my undergraduate, I likely will shift my focus towards microeconomics (if I don't end up in Law School) but this is something I have spent a sizeable portion of my life studying. I've given an academic presentation at a conference on this topic. I've heard every arguement possible. You can accept the fields opinions or not. It isn't as cut and dry as something like vaccines, but it's an issue with little wiggle room.
While the Nazi party may have claimed to be against socialist policies, they certianly enacted them. Even in the best light possible you can only really argue it is an extremely left leaning mixed economy. Vox tried to make this arguement quite well earlier this year for what it's worth.
If research by some of the best economists in the world, that has been defended for decades at this point, doesn't convince you, than I can't conceive of what possibly could. As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over. You can remain unconvinced but these are the conclusions people much more versed than you or I have reached.
Edit: Grammar
But they also seized, for example, a big aircraft company. Source, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, very highly recommended, especially about exactly what they ended up doing.
I was lurking in the backlogs of r/history when I saw this.
Make sure to read The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze. It is absolutely amazing.
> I suggest one of the reasons there was a WWII was to destroy Hitler for successfully challenging the private foreign Central Bank, for restoring economic prosperity to Germany through Germany being able to issue it's own currency.
Counter-suggestion.
There is a very informative book you might enjoy,
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
Recommended.
I don't have experience coming off BC before TTC, but prior to starting the TTC process, I read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702
It has a lot of great details on the author's experience coming off BC and very helpful (and promising!) statistics :)
Yea, Google is your best friend-- I'm not sure why they wait so long to tell you the do's and don't's, particularly because fetal development has the most vulnerability in weeks 4-12. Causes for concern are pretty much limited to: LARGE amounts of blood accompanied with cramping/pain. Little bit of spotting = usually pretty normal. LOTS of blood and pain = usually a very bad sign. Other than that you're not going to notice much aside from nausea if you're 'lucky' like me.
Typically their only recommendations on exercise is not to start something more strenuous than your pre-pregnancy baseline. If you were a dead-lifter/marathoner, you theoretically should be fine to continue your normal routine. If you were a couch potato like myself, now is not the time to pick up Cross Fit.
For the Zika stuff, sounds like you've done more research than anything the doctor's office is likely to tell you, and you should not panic about the trip. Enjoy yourself but be careful. Congratulations by the way!! If you're looking for a book about the wonderful world of pregnancy I think you'd like Expecting Better by Emily Oster, she's also a researcher and gives a statistical/data-driven look at pregnancy and everything to expect along the way. I skimmed 'What to Expect' and was not impressed, but I thoroughly read and enjoyed Oster's book.
This happened to me last week. It's sinking in slowly, and I'm trying really hard not to get ahead of myself.
My roommate/good friend is a doula so birth is a pretty regular conversation in our house. She's got lots of books lying around and this one caught my eye and I'm about halfway through:
https://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702
It's incredible in that it deconstructs a lot of the advice given to pregnant women using the actual studies and data those recommendations come from.
I guess I don't know what to feel yet, so I'm just trying to fill my head with knowledge so I can make wise decisions when the time comes. I've already got a few more books lined up!
I would suggest reading Expecting Better. It will help you understand the restrictions and what is really realistic and what is overkill. https://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702
We tried for two cycles this past fall (had a good timing window), and the very first cycle I had my cousin's wedding one week after O. DH and I had read Expecting Better and decided that prior to a positive HPT we'd be comfortable with me having a couple glasses of wine throughout the evening, but not more than that. Was a little weird, but didn't get any awkward questions!
All I've really given up is alcohol, and smoked salmon since there's a Listeria risk. I highly, highly recommend the book Expecting Better, it was hugely helpful in helping me understand where a lot of pregnancy advice comes from and deciding what's based on science and what I feel comfortable ignoring. I live in a country with a very low risk of Salmonella in eggs, so I still feel okay eating undercooked eggs or having a bit of raw cookie dough (I do wash the shells of the eggs before cracking them). I've kept with my usual work-out routine, running about 25-30 Kilometers a week. I'm continuing to play tennis once a week, but will stop after the summer season ends in a few weeks because I'm still a beginner player and don't want to accidentally fall while playing. That and googling every medicine or supplement before I take it - almost took some Melatonin for sleep before reading the back of the box and realizing there were a couple extra herbs thrown in, one of which wasn't safe!
I would recommend some reading - I liked Expecting Better since it explained things like nutrition and exercise in very scientific, data-driven ways, and explained the difference between things you absolutely should or should not do (there are very few of these, basically no crystal meth) and what's up to your interpretation of the data available. I've seen several OBGYNs before and since I started trying and was never given the kind of information I was looking for -- I had to do my own research.
On mobile so I don't know how to link, but
http://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702
Good luck!
Yup -- it's true. If we don't take the vitamins, baby will still draw what baby needs from our bodies. I didn't get GD or have any complications (and honestly had a relatively easy delivery; relative to the stories I've heard) -- most of my cravings came in the form of ice cream or pasta, I looked at it as 'more calcium, please!' haha.
Regarding the research -- this book "Expecting Better" (which I found out about in a comment on Reddit actually) -- http://amzn.to/2yksmeK explained all the current research and lets you make decisions for yourself. I didn't gain "too little" or "too much" -- right in the range of "appropriate" -- but I did worry initially when I was gaining very little weight, because though I wanted to stay fit, I also wanted what's best for the baby. I think baby did just fine with what I did (and the weight fell right off postpartum -- I'm already 20 lbs down). So, pros and cons on both sides, up to us to decide what works for our own lifestyles and choices :)
Whatever choice you make is the right one. Congrats and wishes for a good delivery!
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211
Mises.org - What I think of as the "default libertarian position", to which others are compared. Some minarchists, some anarcho-capitalists. Ranging from culturally conservative to culturally neutral.
Reason Magazine - Reformist libertarian magazine. Mostly utilitarian moderates opposed to cultural conservatism.
Bleeding Heart Libertarians - Culturally radical libertarians, mostly minarchists and moderates with a few anarcho-capitalists. Recently had a debate about the NAP. Some deontologists, some virtue ethicists.
Center for a Stateless Society - Culturally radical free-market anti-capitalist anarcho-capitalists, and a few left-wing anarchists.
EconLog - Blog run by libertarian economists, though the material is accessible to the layman. The related EconLib has libertarian articles and books, and a few non-libertarian books about economics.
Roderick Long - Quasi-Objectivist virtue ethicist, culturally radical anarcho-capitalist.
Lew Rockwell - Former Ron Paul staffer, cultural conservative.
David Friedman - Utilitarian anarcho-capitalist, son of Milton Friedman.
Capitalism and Freedom - Book arguing for moderate libertarianism on utilitarian grounds.
/r/Libertarian - Mostly minarchists, sometimes culturally conservative.
/r/Anarcho_Capitalism - Anarcho-capitalists, as one would expect.
/r/Objectivism - Objectivists, as the name implies.
/r/LibertarianLeft - Mostly left-wing anarchists, but there are some left-leaning anarcho-capitalists too.
If you want more, I still have plenty of resources.
>Is there any actual evidence backing this claim?
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0226320618
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211
http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx
> i know that extremely high taxes would be detrimental but im thinking about taxes like 30-40%.
30-40% taxes are extremely high. Michael Caine and many others have vowed to leave England if the top tax rate exceeds 50%.
Let me just fix that for you
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211
Not everything I'm going to list is really libertarian per se but I think they do give important context for the libertarian/broader right wing movement
Economics in One Lesson. It's repetitive but gets the point across
Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a philosophical perspective
IThe Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It's difficult to call Heinlein a libertarian but this book definitely is. Also where the 'rational' part of my flair comes from!
There is No Alternative. I'm not sure how many people would consider Thatcher a libertarian but she's an important part of the history of the modern struggle against socialism that I think is overlooked in the United States
The Fatal Conceit. One of Hayek's must read works. A much shorter one that is I think just as important, Why I Am Not a Conservative
Atlas Shrugged. I'm not saying it's a good book or that you don't know of it but it's worth thumbing through just to see what all the hubbub's about. Prepare yourself for a latent S&M fetish.
Capitalism and Freedom. Maybe reading this will help you figure out why Naomi Klein seems to hate Friedman so much. Also very good and much more digestible is his television series Free to Choose and the similarly titled book
The Communist Manifesto. Provides good context. And maybe a chuckle.
http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355/
http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Cooking-Wayne-Gisslen/dp/1118636724/
Here are a handful of books along the lines youre looking for. They hold a wealth of knowledge that should give you some direction on how to proceed.
https://www.amazon.com/Institut-Bocuse-Gastronomique-step-step/dp/0600634175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498046182&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=institute+paul+bocuse
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Good-Cooking-Illustrated-Cookbooks/dp/1933615982/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498046072&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=The+Science+of+Cooking
https://www.amazon.com/Food-Lab-Cooking-Through-Science/dp/0393081087/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498046072&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=The+Science+of+Cooking
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Cooking-Understanding-Biology-Chemistry/dp/1118674200/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498046072&amp;sr=8-5&amp;keywords=The+Science+of+Cooking
https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Spices-Herbs-Discover-Understand/dp/1623156289/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498046139&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=essential+spices+and+herbs
https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498046163&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+professional+chef
Assuming you're from the US and primary deal with US, English and French culinary styles, I think what you're really looking for is an in‐depth guide to the principles of cooking. Sure, it's good to have cookbooks/recipe books as well, but if you want to study theory a book on principles of gastronomy is more what you're looking for. The golden standard in US culinary schools are books by the ACI, such as: https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355/ref=sr_1_1
This textbook is used by the top culinary school in the United States. It is a steal at this price. The only problem I've had is the recipes our for serving a lot of people, so you have to scale them down. It's a good skill to learn anyways. The Professional Chef https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470421355/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_JB3Lzb3P564CZ
If you like learning from books I would highly recommend buying a used copy of a Professional Cooking book that Culinary colleges use.
New ones cost about $50-75 but older editions with 98% of the same content can get found for $20 and can be used as a culinary bible.
Amazon: The Professional Chef
For those who don't already know what this means, Pro Chef is referring to The Culinary Institute of America's textbook The Professional Chef.
Don't bother! They're too expensive, vs. just getting a job in a restaurant and working your way up. Buy the CIA's textbook, and work your way through that while you have a kitchen job. Make sure that it's for you before you spend the tens of thousands of dollars needed to get a culinary degree.
Wine:
Windows on the World - Kevin Zraly
The Wine Bible - Karen MacNeil
The World Atlas of Wine - Hugh Johnson & Jancis Robinson
Cooking:
The Professional Chef - The Culinary Institute of America
The Culinary Institute of America book page on Amazon
The Flavor Bible - Karen Page
Sounds like you're looking for a cooking school book. Not sure if there is a vegan one already.
The America's Test Kitchen Cooking School Cookbook
The Professional Chef
I would definitely recommend getting Professional Cooking or The Professional Chef, then. Either of them will give you the solid foundation you're looking for.
Most anything coming from the Culinary Institute of America is trustworthy, as is Alton Brown and Julia Child. America's Test Kitchen (and Cook's Illustrated/Cook's Country Magazines) is fantastic... they do a lot of recipe and product testing, which saves you the effort, energy & resources. They give you a recipe, but also go into a bit about WHY it worked.
Some of their evil stuff was even highly publicized by the Soviet Govt. The Western media was invited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
Some things were kept secret but transpired anyway. The Western left wing intelligentsia was ordered to attack and defame those who spoke about that. The very same intelligentsia wrote the history books and made the movies about that period and now those who were horrified seeing FDR supporting Stalin are branded as Fascists.
More here
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4758sBZLC5k&amp;feature=related
make sure you watch this documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQ2t5ix4Ug&amp;feature=related
http://www.sovietstory.com/
> It's about getting rid of the people who have actually robbed and killed people
So you admit it is about "getting rid" of people. Who determines guilt? Or should people be murdered for the mere "crime" of property ownership.
If you don't think communism is about mass murder you need to study up on your history. Start here
Read the Big Black Book of Communism.
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087
This UBI crap was posted to /r/Futurology a while back as Canada is dabbling with the idea. They act like Marxist redistribution of wealth is some new groundbreaking idea never considered before rather than the century old debunked economic model based on Marx; whose government model is responsible for more poverty and mass murder than any ideology in history before it. The author of that article seems to believe that adopting Marxism will reduce the size, scope, and cost of government. That's rich.
Over 100 million murdered by their own government detailed in the Black Book of Communism.
Buy the book here:
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087
Or download it here:
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/blackbookcommunism.pdf
[1 edit to add links]
Why on Earth should the hired help (cops, etc.) be armed but not their employers -- the mass of citizens themselves?
Given the long history of mass-murder and war by governments, it is the height of insanity to let a heavily-armed government disarm the people it supposedly works for.
Refs: Death by Government by R. J. Rummel (or see his website, with updated figures showing 262 million murders by government in 20th century, in ADDITION to war) and The Black Book of Communism (100 million murders by Communist governments in the 20th century; see p. 4) -- by a group of left-wing European scholars, not Rush Limbaugh.
is this a book?
it might not require a police state, but it sure does seem to enjoy having one
but it's okay, next time will be different!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640
This book looks like a good read; should I get a kindle I'll make sure to pick it up. But what about This Time Is Different? It seems like another good book to get some relative history on economic collapse and recovery.
It's Wikipedia but I'd start reading the real estate bubble article. You can go through the individual articles and read anout the more recent ones. Research on the older crashes are usually very academic. If you're into dry material then I'd recommend This Time is Different, which talks about financial crashes in general and goes back hundreds of years.
I will just suggest you to see an inflation graphic from the 70s. Back then, the dollar was the reserve currency of the world...
There is an awesome book called "This time is different" it goes on showing several times in history when people thought that debt/easy money was ok and backfired resulting in inflation, bank runs, or sovereign defaults.
But who knows, maybe this time really is different and the US can keep printing money to pay debt without any consequences.
Freefall and The Big Short are very good. While not exactly on the 2008 crisis, reading Reinhart and Rogoff is strongly recommended.
This Time Is Different has a good 100 pages on it: https://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640.
Also this Critical Review is more holistic: http://criticalreview.com/crf/current_issue21_23.html.
I think they did a book treatment on that as well haven't read it but my buddy who is an econometrician recommended it: https://www.amazon.com/Caused-Financial-Crisis-Jeffrey-Friedman/dp/0812221184
This Time it's Different: 8 Centuries of Financial Folly is pretty freaking awesome and is very detailed plus look at the cool cover.
book
Yeah it has, in the 19th century and during the 30s. Cool how history works like that. --source: This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly
Throughout history, rich and poor countries alike have been lending, borrowing, crashing--and recovering--their way through an extraordinary range of financial crises. Each time, the experts have chimed, "this time is different"--claiming that the old rules of valuation no longer apply and that the new situation bears little similarity to past disasters. With this breakthrough study, leading economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff definitively prove them wrong. Covering sixty-six countries across five continents, This Time Is Different presents a comprehensive look at the varieties of financial crises, and guides us through eight astonishing centuries of government defaults, banking panics, and inflationary spikes--from medieval currency debasements to today's subprime catastrophe.
Just what I want, Reddit running my life.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Monarchy-Natural/dp/0765808684/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1320015513&amp;sr=8-1
We have this in Germany where elections are financed by a fixed amount that is distributed to the parties based on the results of the previous elections.
I can tell you that this does not change much and our politics suck just as much.
As long as you OWS people think that corporations are the problem and it can be solved by changes in government nothing will get better in the long run.
For those willing to think for themselves and not follow the OWS hive mind I suggest reading Democracy: The God that Failed
We got where we are because of Democracy.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Monarchy-Natural/dp/0765808684
Sounds like you might be a libertarian-leaning conservative. (Old type, before the neo-con takeover.)
Some question you should ask yourself:
What is your definition of utility, and how can the worth of a utility be measured?
When is it moral for a government to do something that it is not moral for an individual to do? Why?
How do you know Democracy is the least bad system of government? There are good arguments against it. Some examples:
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Monarchy-Natural/dp/0765808684
http://www.amazon.com/Notes-Democracy-H-L-Mencken/dp/0977378810/ref=pd_sim_b_8
Without answering some of those questions, and many others like them, if only for yourself, you will be working with assumptions that you aren't even aware of.
Democracy: The God That Failed
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-Economics/dp/0765808684
Democracy: The God that Failed
Let's think about libertarians for a minute:
☑ Fundamental belief that only the strong should survive
☑ Weird beliefs about genetic superiority
☑ Movement that consists almost entirely of white men
☑ Advocate overthrow of democratically elected government
☑ Armed militias
☑ Prone to believing in conspiracy theories
☑ Cult adherence to philosophy
☑ Belief that truth may only be found in official party documents
☑ Dismissive of actual experts and empirical evidence
☑ Identification of racial minorities as scapegoats for societal ills
☑ Rabid protection of corporate power
☑ Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
☑ Rampant sexism
☑ Advocating the suppression of labor power
☑ Obsession with central banks laced with anti-Semitic undertones
☑ Disdain for human rights and the rights of children in particular
☑ Single-leader rule preferable to democratic rule (see Hoppe)
☑ Rabid defense of reactionary and racist thought.
☑ Unwillingness to compromise
☑ Inexplicable obsession with firearms and military-style uniforms
☑ Broad connections with other right-wing and reactionary sects
☑ Appropriation of nationalist language and symbology
☑ Persecution narrative among the privileged
☑ Placing money and power ahead of human beings
Let's face it. There is a lot in common here. It's all uniquely Anglo-America-flavored. And they'll deny it up and down. But there are too many classic fascist warning signs to ignore it completely.
> paper
u/tromp u/johnalan u/buqratis u/Hauch u/geezas u/PrivacyToTheTop777 u/DeviateFish u/JollyMort
Happy thanksgiving for all. Finally I got some time, so I am replying it.
I am listing the books that I think it is very useful for people who are designing new monies! The topics are like the history of money & theories, problems of the current fiat money system, the fractional banking system, plans after next financial crisis which the global elites are planning etc.
The most of books are from Austria school of economics, which is in my opinion only anti government and grassroots economic study in the current age. They support sound money policy.
Economics are very politically manipulated (or government manipulates) subjects especially, Macro economics- monetary policies are under the category. Government naturally love loose monetary policy because that give them free money to spend. They used to dilute gold coin with other cheaper metals to get some extra money you know. Nowadays they creates money from thin air through the fiat/ central bank system.
Macro economics are used to be called, Political economics. So please be aware. If we are challenging the status quo of government monetary system, to me it is very clear that which policy we should take.
Please people who think inflationary currency is good idea list some books or papers to back up your claim. Both side read them all and discuss one more time?
reference:
What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard
https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money
Good short book about theory and history of money.
End the FED by Ron Paul
https://mises.org/library/end-fed
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by Edward Griffin
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1511489201&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=creature+from+island
The Road to Ruin: The Global Elites' Secret Plan for the Next Financial Crisis by James Rickards
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Ruin-Global-Elites-Financial/dp/1591848083/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1511489318&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=road+to+ruin
little more balanced book, talking about the global elites plan about after the next financial crisis.
I think the key to understanding Bitcoin is knowing what is wrong with the current monetary system. This book will show you.
https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1511148287&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=the+creature+from+jekyll+island
I feel you. Though, I feel a reasonable counterpoint might be "how sturdy did you expect 1/1000 of an ounce of an extremely malleable metal to be?" FWIW, I can definitely commiserate. When I get a full set I'll update you on what I think.
Edit: I am also planning on getting several 1/1000 notes to use as bookmarks in the copies of The Creature From Jekyll Island That I give out to people I'm trying to save.
Edit, the second: Worth mentioning, however, as that last statement might give you the wrong impression, I am actually an advocate for the silver standard, not the gold standard, but could be convinced to embrace bimetallism at the right ratio, namely 16:1.
My wages are most certainly not below poverty levels. They were for a very short time when I was young, drunk and stupid, but then I realized that it was 100% up to me if I wanted to continue living like that.
I didn't, and I don't.
You say that the "large corporations" don't pay a "living wage". What do you believe a living wage is?
It did not take me very long at all to recognize that what I am paid is 100% based on the value I give to someone else, or the company I happen to work for right now.
You also mention "tax breaks" to corporations. You do, of course, realize that corporations do NOT pay taxes, and that any money that is funneled through the corporation to the Government (taxes) come directly out of the price the customers pay for the products? Every dime.
And that by adding uncountable levels of bureaucracy to the collection and distribution of money (taxes) it ends up costing far more than it otherwise would.
Jesus, kid, pick up an economics book and learn a little bit before you spout nonsense that you picked up in junior high school.
Start here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=wwwdineshdsou-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0226264211
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1355640/combined
DOCUMENTARY
An investigation of "disaster capitalism", based on Naomi Klein's proposition that neo-liberal capitalism feeds on natural disasters, war and terror to establish its dominance.
From yOU.tUbE description:
A documentary adaptation Naomi Klein's 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine.
www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999
Based on breakthrough historical research and four years of on-the-ground reporting in disaster zones, The Shock Doctrine vividly shows how disaster capitalism -- the rapid-fire corporate re-engineering of societies still reeling from shock -- did not begin with September 11, 2001.
You can start by finding out who your representatives are here.
Learn about what each office does and what they are responsible for.
What issues are you most concerned with? Taxes? Healthcare? Unemployment? etc. How has your represented responded to these issues (i.e. voting record)?
If you're a student in university, it may be helpful to take an intro political science class. If not, hopefully, some redditors can suggest some good reading for you.
Some websites or news programs that I find helpful in getting some info are NPR, BBC Worldnews, Al-Jazeera and Euronews. I'm not a fan of local news programming. I read a lot online for the local stuff.
You may enjoy The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report. They're comedy shows but they tend to show the absurdities of it all. You can a learn a lot too. Sometimes, I enjoy the roundtable discussions on Real Time with Bill Maher. I've gone as far as to purchase some books based on the discussions they've had.
I can't recommend books for "getting to know politics" per se, but a few in my collection include that I found informative:
The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria
The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein
Ghost Wars by Steve Coll
The Boys on the Bus by Timothy Crouse
Politics of the Veil by Joan Wallach Scott
Voices of Freedom vol. 1 & 2 by Eric Foner
Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken
The Parliament of Man by Paul Kennedy
I found them enlightening and some gave me a clearer look at the workings of government and politics in America. Some stuff you have to take with a grain of salt. Checking the references from anything you read is helpful imo. Hope this helps a little.
Read Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine. It explains these tactics perfectly. If you want to change a society's behavior, you create a false crisis and scare the shit out of people so they will accept something - anything - stable as soon as possible.
> Capitalism has been consistently proven to raise the standards of living wherever it has been tried.
Google the word neoliberalism sometime, and spend a day researching it.
> Meanwhile, every single attempt at socialism - the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, Venezuela, Cuba - has resulted in disaster, and has lowered the standards of living wherever it has been tried.
In what sense are these socialist, apart from what they call themselves in name? An anarcho-capitalist can have some actual, justified criticisms against socialism in practice (I've seen many), but when people like you plow forward with such an elementary misunderstanding, believe me when I say you look bad, even to your own camp.
The Zapatistas? The Paris Commune? The Ukrainian Free Territories? Revolutionary Catalonia? The Israeli Kibbutzim? That is your actual target.
> There is a reason why every single country that was once considered communist has transitioned towards capitalism...
Because they were bombed to hell in the interest of the capitalist class?
> ... and it should be no surprise to anyone that the standard of living has raised in these areas.
Like the four asian tigers did through State intervention? (And like the US did, also). Nothing even close to a free market prescription, albeit a quasi-capitalist one nevertheless.
(For context I'm a Democratic Confederalist basically a form of Anarchism)
&#x200B;
This shit is honestly tamed and creates connections of intuitions with forms of subversions without context ensuring his point is met across. Such as the situation of the bargaining of a worker saying bargaining power is taken away and given to the supposed lazy person who wants '$ 3.00' per hour compared to the "Hard worker" who can function for 2.00 or 2.50 without establishing the more complex implementations of why they need that extra dollar why ones perceived labor is seen different than another. Also, he misses that many of his arguments work against the power structures he agrees with such his arguments against mass consumerization and the profitable/ beneficial structural nature of the capitalist media. And his arguments of destabilization are correct to an extent but he is also underplaying the situations the 'other' groups had to deal with. Such as slavery, legal and social discrimination for black people, Wage, and cheap labor exploitation of Asians/Asian Ancestry, Dehumanization and chastising of Gay/GSRM individuals and many more situation of 'context' he misses. Such social animosity doesn't simply by the fact that the certain exploitative system has been done away with no the effects are already seen, they have come to past and the only way to subdue it or attempt to pacify is to seek amends or give compensation but such Abuses will be there as scar they will never leave. His criticization of bureaucracy misses why such systems were created and for what purpose. That purpose was the management of information and logistics to ensure the current order, without such a system it would have caused major destabilization among the order of the state or exploitation of individuals. And his critique of the media also serves as another failure of the capitalist system unable to bring unbias information in exchange for its profit and popularity. A better understanding of the study of subversion is Naomi Klien's well researched and detailed work of the Shock Doctrine. And his focus is more of the Soviet Union's actions of subversion which would be seen as anti-socialist for a reason but that doesn't matter to me considering Stalin wasn't committed to the ideals of communism or of the movement he was a thug made to help it in destroying the reactionaries but in turn took it over and did it his way. Also, he appears to miss the notion that the US has done such action for its own benefit long before and long after the creation of the Soviet Union. I find it laughable how much he is willing to give up his freedoms and the possible freedoms of minorities for a future under Fascism. I'm honestly disappointed how these people are slowly just being sucked into Fascist propaganda.
Read or watch the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein its magnitudes better than any more garbage this pseudo-intellectual has to offer
Shock Doctrine Book
Shock Doctrine Documentary
Lots. In fact, nearly every book I have ever read has changed my worldview in one way or the other, some more than others. But, the most recent books to change my outlook on the world are:
The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for The 21st Century by George Friedman
Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein.
Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark by Carl Sagan
The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
Who Will Tell The People?: The Betrayal Of American Democracy by William Greider
Yeah no problem. While Blum's work shows the effect of anti-communist efforts and policies by US, it's not really a guide on ideology; it's an account of what happened and why. If you are interested in leftist ideology i would recommend the ABCs of socialism which provides laymen's terms answers to questions of socialist government structure (e.g. how authoritarianism can find it's way into the fray) and economics.
Also, anything by Noam Chomsky, Mike Davis, or Naomi Klein are usually very insightful for modern day analyses of power, politics, and economics. I've got a long list if you want anymore suggestions, mostly from the perspective of critiquing power (from the right or the left) and it's effects on societies
edit: also check out the Chapo Trap House podcast for cathartic sessions of shitting on asshole politicians across the spectrum and highlights of funny/bizarre political takes
https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999
No problem. And, as /u/big_red737 said below, if you enjoy the People's History I suggest some Naomi Klein as well, especially The Shock Doctrine.
Ved ikke om det er godnatlæsning som sådan. Det er ikke for en god historie, men til at blive klogere.
Handler om den grimme side af ureguleret kapitalisme og om hvordan USA overlagt har fucket med flere lande i bl.a. sydamerika for deres egen benifit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999
Genial bog af Freuds nevø, som handler om public relations. Hvordan de magthavende styrer masserne. Hvordan man får en masserne til at følge ens overbevisning. Skyggeregeringen som bag facaden styrer. Hvordan medierne anvendes til at hjernevaske folk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)
https://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Edward-Bernays/dp/0970312598
Mangler stadig at læse den færdig. Den handler om Snowden, NSA og overvågningsstaten. Den indeholder mange data og information som Snowden lækkede.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Place_to_Hide_(Greenwald_book)
https://www.amazon.com/No-Place-Hide-Snowden-Surveillance/dp/1501215523
Fantastisk og skræmmende bog. Dette er virkelig en øjenåbner. Den handler om USA's droneprogram. Hvordan det fungerer, hvor stort det er, hvor mange mennesker som hvert år bliver dræbt af det (hovedparten uskylige), etc. Det er hård læsning for det giver ligepludselig et andet perspektiv på det hele - med så mange uskyldige dræbt må man stille spørgsmålstegn ved om dette egentlig ikke er statsterrorisme og om dette egentlig ikke skaber flere terrorister end det dræber.
https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-Complex-Jeremy-Scahill/dp/1781257728/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1482844644&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=the+assassination+complex
To allow companies access to cheap labor and resources. Low taxes & tariffs, minimal regulation typical neoliberal stuff. Access to financial markets bank loans, investments etc. Also to establish a network of military infrastructure to enable future conquest and prevent competing countries to do the same.
Some recommended reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1427577478&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=shock+doctrine
You can find PDFs of both, I just linked the amazon page because they're both good books and quite cheap.
Well there's the sequel of course: Superfreakonomics. And everything by Malcom Gladwell kind of falls into the same genre: The Tipping Point, Outliers, Blink... Then there's The Long Tail by Chris Anderson of Wired and Bad Science by The Guardian's Ben Goldacre....
A Short History of Nearly Everything is also absolutely brilliant 'popular science' but not as 'generation now' as the ones above.
That's just top of my head. All of these books are a few years old but still a great read. I'd say they're all typical Redditor reading if that makes sense.
Yes, protests ARE a great start! But there needs to be steps beyond that also that are in place. A plan to get to what you need.
Good book: http://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316346624
Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point is all about the phenomenon of how certain things become popular seemingly overnight. It's not a new phenomenon, nor is it limited to YA books, or books at all.
Books!:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tipping-Point-Little-Difference/dp/0316346624/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1370576210&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=malcolm+gladwell
http://www.amazon.com/Blink-The-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316010669/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1370576210&amp;sr=8-6&amp;keywords=malcolm+gladwell
A mental mind fuck can be nice
Are you thinking about The Tipping Point or Blink by Malcolm Gladwell? I don't know if he is entering the Obama Administration in any way, but I would not be incredibly surprised, and the books are similar enough in style and scope to be compared against Freakonomics.
Happy belated birthday. I finally have some time to respond to this when I'm at the office and have relevant things handy.
Books to read:
> In order to bring in enough money to live, I'd probably have to advertise […]
My main point is that word-of-mouth can be very powerful, viral advertising. I highly recommend reading The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell.
> […] and work with unknown clients. That's when things get stressful and annoying.
My secondary point is that if you're aquiring clients through closer connections such as friends, friends of friends, or even friends of friends of friends, yes, they will be progressively more "unknown" and "untrustworthy" but it's still (in my opinion) the best method of finding the most trustworthy first.
What have you got to lose? Not much, when you consider the flexible time schedule. That is, start with a full-time job supporting you financially, and do freelance work in your (little) free time until you reach a point where you can support yourself with a part-time job plus freelancing. From there you can try progressing to supporting yourself mostly or fully with freelance work.
> That's when things get stressful and annoying.
So, your present job is neither stressful nor annoying?
Truth Lies and Advertising by Jon Steel
Madison Valley by Leif Abraham
The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell
Otherwise you should set up an RSS feed with an app like Newsify that includes sites like Adweek, Ad Age, copyranter, KISSmetrics, etc. The industry is constantly evolving and it's worth it to keep up on what's going on now.
Actually...this reminds me the point of the book "Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. The whole book describes situations where a small change started a snowball effect and created a huge change. In fact many of the stories are about political situations with a conquering power and resistance where a small group of people where able to make such a difference where they eventually beat the big powerful controlling government.
One of the stories was about how the IRA was able to fight back against the British for so long even though the British army was so powerful. Another was in France when it was controlled I think by the Nazi's (don't remember exactly but sounds right). How a small group of locals where able to oppose the controlling power.
This is the description from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316346624
> The tipping point is that magic moment when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a threshold, tips, and spreads like wildfire. Just as a single sick person can start an epidemic of the flu, so too can a small but precisely targeted push cause a fashion trend, the popularity of a new product, or a drop in the crime rate. This widely acclaimed bestseller, in which Malcolm Gladwell explores and brilliantly illuminates the tipping point phenomenon, is already changing the way people throughout the world think about selling products and disseminating ideas.
On the flip side the book explains why so many dictatorships are so concerned about anti-government speech and want to control all the media.
Anyway I guess the point is...you just have to get enough of a momentum behind an idea so that it starts spreading and can topple entire regimes.
So I think that part is actually very realistic. Hitler understands that all of his subjects have to think that they are absolutely controlled and that there is no alternate way except death.
These films show an alternate way.
Game Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma
Also, the people making decisions are very rarely highly motivated 20 year old professionals who want to change the world. Unfortunately.
Reading that I found enlightening:
http://www.amazon.com/Vested-Outsourcing-Five-Rules-Transform/dp/0230623174/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1343969056&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=vested+outsourcing
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tipping-Point-Little-Difference/dp/0316346624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1343969137&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=tipping+point
http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1343969152&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=freakonomics
Read "The Tipping Point"
The salient point in there is that once you reach a certain IQ (around 130) it doesn't matter anymore. You've got all the faculties to do whatever, and it's no longer a measure of ability.
The Idea Writers - Tons of Case Studies, but they're all told excellently.
It's Not How Good You Are, It's How Good You Want To Be - Inspiration not to settl and to do great work.
Baked In - A lot like an updated Purple Cow. All about integrating product, management, and marketing.
Blink or Tipping Point - About the little things that cause shifts in culture to happen.
Also, some Seth Godin action never hurts. Definitely recommend his blog.
If you want more "How to make ads" type stuff there are more down that path, too. Just let me know.
Here are all the books with amazon links, Alphabetical order :)
---
A great book to highlight the utter destruction Boomers laid upon this country is "A Generation of Sociopaths". Well worth the read.
I think some deluded racist poor whites voted for Trump. All I have to do is go to my old town's [very rural and remote] FB message boards to see the conservative brain-washing is still intact even though the place is turning into a ghost town and no one has decent jobs. I know how the alt-right almost managed to brain-wash me though I fought against the Dominionism and racist BS. Fox news is a damn scourge.
But yes many Baby Boomers especially over 60 crowd who are well off and white voted for the guy, they still live in the past, and don't give a crap about younger generations. BY the way us Gen X are far poorer, and entering our late 40s and 50s, now. I told someone I am still creeped out that I am THIS OLD, and Baby Boomers still hold the arenas and institutions in just about every area. My well off mother who I am no contact with, voted for Trump along with other well off relatives too. [I wasn't the only relative on a fixed income or Social Security or who was poor either.
This book may explain why they have no empathy....
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
You should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Probably would like this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Michael Lewis The Big Short
Why don't you start with this.
The blame the government holds? In not being involved ENOUGH, not for getting involved in the first place. In not being aggressive enough with regulation, and not just assuming from the get-go that the big banks were flat out lying to them.
The banks, who thought they could make a killing better against bad mortgages, put pressure on lenders to create MORE bad loans to bet against. That's how you get Countrywide giving a sharecropper with 13K in income a 450K loan.
Hell, when they ran out of junk debt to bet against, they simply repackaged existing loans and sold them again.
Please tell me you're not blaming this on the Fair Housing Act. You know, that little piece of legislation that's been around since 1968? How the hell is that to blame for this? If you're referring to the adjustments to the CRA in the mid 90's, I defy anyone to find the sections of that bill that force banks to give bad loans, or even reward them for doing so.
When you're done, order The Big Short. Absolutely fascinating read. It goes into plenty of detail re: CDOs and the rest of the alphabet soup surrounding the meltdown.
If you get a chance, read The Big Short by Michael Lewis. Fascinating book about the people who saw the fiasco coming.
You know what is harming UFOlogy? Ignoring the damn evidence. There is enough evidence here for people to stand up and demand disclosure. And what happens? 'meh'.
Apathy.
> It seems that he has gone down the route of a conspiracy theorist.
Oh wow, gee whiz. He should be tarred and feathered, what a kook!
In this world where we watched billions upon billions siphoned out of the housing market, by a literal, fraudulent market in operation, which was covered up for a long time so more money could be made.
When the 'canaries in the coal mine' should've alerted people, Moody's and Standard & Poor refused to downgrade anything. They downgraded AAs before they would BBBs because they wanted the house to stay up. When it was entirely apparent it was collapsing, the banks again, siphoned money out, and the traders who should've been capitalism all stars for calling it out, 1 was audited 4 times and investigated by the FBI. Michael Lewis - The Big Short
Did anyone go to jail? No. Of course not. 1 person did. And a year later they went after the bottom rung, the poorest in the scheme who were being encouraged to take loans. Aka: the people, not the criminals in charge. (Like charging a street vendor or courier after busting the Mob Don)
We live in a world of corruption. There's enough on Hillary and The Clinton Foundation to implode the government, but no worries, no indictment.
If you haven't noticed, we live in a conspiratorial world influenced and run by conspiracies by rich influential people in back room meetings. And if anyone has put even a modicum of effort and actually looked over UFO files themselves, they'd see a documented cover up, and a shit load of evidence staring them in the face. Not to mention the whistleblowers.
Yes there is disinformation, and yes, even good-natured or honest people fall prey to it. But that is far more destructive, and so is "insta-debunking" and pathological skepticism-in-the-face-of-evidence.
The only positive, is maybe Basset is actually on to something this time and if this is an actual leak from an FBI analyst, then Hillary's info can "implode the government" and Trump may leak it. Apparently it wouldn't be the first time leaked to /pol/ or that Trump did it
If the info is as classified and 'world imploding' as they claim, Trump & Hillary will be indicted and about the only thing that will get America out of that slump is Aliens...so.
Note: An FBI analyst likely wouldn't have had the access the leaker is claiming. More likely ISOO or someone leaked it to Trump from ISOO and the guy venting is from the campaign.
You've probably seen the movie, but The Smartest Guys in the Room book is a cracking read. I was engrossed the entire time by how fucked up Enron was and what the wall street mania was like in the late 90's. Superbly written, richly detailed look into how corporations go off the rails and how accounting practices and corporate culture and ethics (or lack thereof) intersect. It's a total page turner - even though I knew Enron collapsed and Skilling and others went to jail.
In a similar vein, The Big Short is a great movie and an even better book. Probably less accounting stuff than The Smartest Guys in the Room, but an engaging, informative and personal look at the sub-prime housing clusterfuck of 2008. Anything by Michael Lewis is a good read generally.
Other random books I've enjoyed recently:
Actually He's right. The Bank has the right to lend It to other people, Invest It and pretty much do whatever they want. What you have is the promise they'll give you back If you ask for It.
What regular people don't know is that the Bank has the right to take a USD100,00 deposit and basically lend those USD100,00 to about eight (E-I-G-H-T) different people. The law only makes them actually hold like, 20% of the money they put around.
That's why Bank runs are so frightening. If everybody wants to take their deposits out of the bank, the whole house of card.... err.. Bank collapses.
That's the world banking for you, normal folk. They are too big to fail.
Lesson 1 - The world financial system is designed to fuck with people's money and let them pay if something goes wrong.
Lesson 2 - That's why they don't teach financial education to the people, they only teach spending and debt.
Recommended reading: Griftopia and of course The Big Short. Please don't be a lazy man and just watch the movie (also awesome btw).
> understanding mortgage backed securities
The Big Short
He's referencing, I believe, a Michael Lewis book, my guess being The Big Short. It's a narrative-style journalistic piece. Personally, I'd recommend looking to more sources than this if you want to really get into a Glass-Steagall (or other financial reform) debate, this one is very much told as a story.
The situations you mention were all fairly different. No short explanation will give a good sense of what happened. I don't know that much about Amarath, but there are good books written about the other two.
There's an excellent book about the rise and fall of LTCM.
I don't think the definitive book on the mortgage crisis has been written yet, but Michael Lewis wrote one I thought was pretty informative.
The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine by Michael Lewis. Fantastic book. Edited to add Amazon link.
This is a film adaption of the novel, which is excellent (amazon link) and worth a read. You'll learn more than you ever thought you'd know about the subprime mortgage crisis.
I'm not aware of a whole lot of books specifically about accounting, but here are a few recommendations of books about finance, economics, business or that I just think might appeal to /r/accounting.
Anything by Michael Lewis. Liar's Poker has been mentioned elsewhere, but The Big Short is excellent as well.
Ben Mezrich has written some good books about business, but not really accounting specifically. He's most famous for The Accidental Billionaires which is about Facebook (I believe it, along with The Facebook Effect were the main sources for the movie The Social Network) and Bringing Down the House which was about the MIT card counting team and inspiration for the movie 21. You might be interested in Ugly Americans or Rigged though.
Here's a few more that are a little less fiction-y:
Too Big to Fail by Andrew Ross Sorkin
Traders, Guns and Money by Satyajit Das
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay
Priceless: The Myth of Fair Value (and How to Take Advantage of It) by William Poundstone
EDIT: Now with links!
Actually according to the research done by Elizabeth Warren in the book she wrote we actually spend less on frivolous goods and the money we spend on housing is not that the houses are any fancier but instead it is those houses cost more mainly due to education in the local area combined with they are expensive to be expensive as a form of segregation. (most of this extra money spent on housing goes to the rich.) This combined with our dwindling wages compared to inflation, less job security, and higher medical bills has lead to the current situation.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents/dp/0465090907/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1371864909&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=two+income+trap
Women joining the work force combined with the lessening power of unions, changes in laws, automation/technology, skilled worker immigration, and capitalism's natural Darwinism leads to our current labor market. Obviously when women joined the labor force the labor force massively expanded this in turn drove the cost of labor down due to more applicants for jobs.
As far as what people spend money on yeah people buy a lot of stupid crap but when you look at it statistically they actually spend less now compared to in the past. Another large factor is a number of these things are now required either due to modern life or both partners working. A iphone? Always have to be on call and because you work so many hours you are trading money for a bit more free time in the form of convenience. Two cars? Kind of have to do it due to horrible public transportation and both people needing to be at work. Expensive cars partially keeping up with the neighbors and such but another part of it is the longer commute times compared to the past.
also:
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907
Saying that Warren doesn't see class is funny considering she wrote the book on the changing face of working-class and middle-class household finances.
I won't deny that Bernie is to Warren's left because he's an actual socialist (something Bernie supporters will openly celebrate now in the primaries, just as they will furiously deny it if he makes it to a general election) but saying that non-socialist candidates don't acknowledge economic class is ridiculous.
Someone should write a book about this....oh wait
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907
This seems intuitive, but is actually incorrect. These items are actually insanely cheaper WRT household income when adjusted for inflation. your things that are more expensive are Housing, Education, and Insurance (and healthcare). These are non-discretionary. If you cut out all of the "goodies" that you have that your parents didn't, your financial situation would still not be comparable in anything but a very rural area of the country. Jobs are now concentrated in urban centers as well. there's a great book on this from a huge study done by Harvard:
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907
If you think that he's talking about her shameless lie for personal gain about being Native American at the expense of other, actual Native Americans I've got news for you...
Warren is a moderate masquerading as a progressive for political expediency. She was the author of The Two Income Trap for fucks sake. She explicitly argues how foolish it would be to just black-check programs like childcare with the implications it would have for families. I like old, moderate Warren. I would encourage any Warren supporter to read it. It's actually a good book that dives into the seemingly nonsensical increase in bankrupt women as more and more entered the workforce. But clearly she's two-faced and an ideological slut willing to say or do whatever will get her into office if her base philosophy is able to do a 180 in a decade from classical liberal to full blown progressive.
I'm not convinced. The largest expenditure in the United States of America is on housing. The reason for this is radical urbanization, combined with competition for homes in the right neighborhood and school districts. Extra money handed out would likely go straight back into home ownership and rent.
For more understanding on this, take a look at (now Senator) Elizabeth Warren's and her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi's book The Two-Income Trap. In this they lay out a convincing case that life in the USA with two incomes at home barely scratches the living standards of yesteryear on a single income because of this environment which pits middle class Americans against one another in competition for a reasonable standard of living.
Firstly, if you look at income quintile growth in the 1980's, everyone was basically flat or falling behind but the top 20%. If the middle class did better under Reagan, it was because of deficit-financed tax cuts and more women going to work out of economic necessity.
What we have in this country are a corporate conservative party (Democrats) and a radical theocratic conservative party (Republicans). People in this country don't even know what progressivism is anymore, because establishment liberals sabotaged radical leftists. Elizabeth Warren is the closest thing we have to a nationally viable progressive politician in this country, and even she's not talking about things like a guaranteed minimum income, which was last put forth by Richard Nixon. Yes, if Richard Nixon were a politician today, he would be considered too liberal for the Democratic Party.
For an easy way to get started, I suggest you begin with one or two mutual funds, preferably index funds.
Bogel's Little Book of Common Sense Investing is short read and a great introduction to investing with index funds.
Collins The Simple Path to Wealth is another great read for someone getting started in investing. It's based on the Stock Series posts from his blog.
Here's a short summary.
http://www.fool.com/60second/indexfund.htm
They are dead easy to set up. Create an account at Schwab (or Fidelity, or Vanguard, or eTrade)
What kind of returns do you get? I don't know. You're buying the stock market. That may sound scary but it shouldn't. If you're young, it's way safer than anything else.
I hesitate to recommend a book, but I'm going to anyway.
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_z
If you've got $500K to invest, even a 1% swing is $5K a year. Take at least some time to understand investing even if you're not interested in it.
Your other stated options (bank, real estate) are actually quite risky. At your age putting your money in the bank is pretty crazy. And real estate does not always go up. Not even in Australia.
Yeah man. /r/personalfinance has a lot of great material. At the end of the day, there's no secret recipe for investment success. I also highly recommend Jack Bogle's book, "The Little Book of Common Sense Investing". It's pretty simple and short, and very logical.
The first two sentences of your advice were fine. The third is not good advice. This will get you familiar with the mechanics of investing. But unless you trade full time, you will most likely not be able to beat the market. Take advice from Jack Bogle, Founder of Vanguard, a firm that manages over $4 trillion. TLDR: Invest in a low cost mutual fund and beat everyone else who tries to "day trade." Read this: https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Highly recommend to check this book: http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1372096522&amp;sr=1-1
if you don't want to read it, just look at the summary left by amazon reviewers.
You don't mention your goals, age, attitude toward risk, sensiblities, etc.
The "TRP RETIREMENT XXXX" funds are intended for people who want someone else to make all the decisions for them. They are intended that people can allocate 100% into them and they take care of all the diversification that someone might want to have. The nearer dates tend to be lower risk. The further dates tend to be higher risk.
It pays to educate yourself. (Literally.) http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101 presents one philosophy and a good deal of context.
read this book:
https://www.amazon.ca/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
In Jack Bogle's book he's strongly against them. Basically the same reason you don't pick individual stocks... you're very unlikely to beat the market, and very likely to chase past performance, buy high, sell low, pay higher fees, etc.
When you do own broad US or International index funds, you DO own those hot sectors you're imagining or those hot countries... as well as the ones you never thought of that are going to go blow up in the future. And you pay lower fees. On this subreddit, you should only get advice to buy and hold the broad index funds with low fees.
If you're going to do research, start with The Little Book of Common Sense Investing. It's the book that got a lot of us started on the journey.
I'd suggest you start with a good book: The Boglehead’s Guide To Investing, The Little Book of Common Sense Investing.
That will give you a solid foundation and then you can ask questions here if you have more specific questions. The bogleheads wiki is also a good resource but I think that is hard to navigate if you don't know what you are looking for.
Index funds beat fund managers 80% of the time.
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Read this book
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Get this book. Short version - do low cost index funds and don't mess with them.
I can not stress enough how important this is to do. $600,000 is really not that much money in the long scheme of things. It's not even enough to retire on unless you have additional income. Get your self a treat and then put it away.
My family owned banks (we sold them to a bigger bank), my ex husband is a fund manager and everyone in my family is deeply involved in investing. We have built and lost and built several fortunes.
We would all recommend this.
Edit to add: This is an amazing accomplishment!
Millionaire Teacher is the book I wished that I had read before I started investing and that I like to recommend to beginning investors.
The Little Book of Common Sense Investing is the book that opened my eyes and set me on the right path.
The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. No one makes a better case for index funds. It's a quick read and lays out in basic language the obstacles faced by all investors.
you can also read the tl;dr version, http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Hi mirror-me!
The amount of time you want to spend dealing with this is directly linked to what path you want to take. I love this stuff, so I like to be actively engrossed in it. If you just want it to grow so that you have a stable and comfortable retirement, Graham is a great start, but also pick up James Bogle's The Little Book of Common Sense Investing. It's a very hands off way to grow your funds and has lead to great success for Bogle (the founder of Vanguard) and his followers.
> do you invest?
Yes. If you're looking for a recommendation, I'd suggest a low-fee index fund like this. If you're wondering why, I'd recommend reading this.
I also completely agree with /u/buttunz, The Professional Chef is a must have if you're planning on a career in the culinary field. What I like the most about the Cuisine Foundations text book is all the pictures of the knife cuts. It really helped me improve my knife skills.
I was excited by the Culinary Institute of America's The Professional Chef. http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355/ref=zg_bs_4254_20
This looks more creative and scientific. Congrats.
This book is amazing if you really want to learn the this and that of culinary arts. It's the place I learned about various starches for the first time.
The meme works because as a generation, the boomers are sociopaths who have acted incredibly selfishly at the expense of all other generations. Read the book below as it lays it out very well.
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316395781/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_teeWDbKWNQXG2
Well, Yes.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Highly recommend "A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America" for an in-depth exploration of this topic. The book goes a bit off the rails occasionally in an attempt to prove its thesis, but overall it's a well-done, eye-opening book about how the Boomers pillaged the wealth created by their parents and left nothing but debt behind for the rest of us.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
Let me throw some numbers at you. Currently the average baby boomer pulls in around $1.12 in benefits for every $1.00 paid in. The average Millennial will pull in around $.85 for every $1.00 paid in meaning that if you took that money you pay every month and stuck it under your mattress you’d get a better ROI.
I would spend my time roasting this guy but there a book that does it for me
It's Amazon so he'll have to get a millennial to figure out that darn computer machine for him to read it though. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316395781/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_IrLPCbHCV00PJ
Buy him this book titled "A generation of sociopaths: how the baby boomers betrayed America." https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America/dp/0316395781
I'm saying this to point out the irony, not to offend you, but that is a really lazy explanation. It's not like the people who blame the previous generation only say "wah old people", the arguments are fleshed out a lot more than that, including complete books, some as long as 500 pages. I mean, feel free to refute the points people make, but to dismiss it without it does not carry weight to me.
And I'm not sure how it helps divide the working class, or how you can really even know that, but I'd be glad to hear your explanation. Of course working class boomers are not likely to be compelled by these arguments, but I think that making people aware of how much more fucked up capitalism became while the boomers held power creates intra-generational and inter-generational solidarity for millenials and the next generation (whatever they are calling them). If nothing else people should at least be aware that there was a shift in economics and politics at the end of the 70s - whether or not you want to put a middle finger to boomers in there.
The Big Short. Although not necessarily about politics exclusively, this is a fascinating narrative of the 2008 financial crash.
It's a very dense read that I wouldn't recommend to anybody that's not an economist or studying the field.
These are some easier economic reads:
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=E0FCHYAXFXG28V0C15Q0
https://www.amazon.com/Debt-Updated-Expanded-First-Years/dp/1612194192/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=E0FCHYAXFXG28V0C15Q0
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1510621923&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=big+short+michael+lewis
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1510621964&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=basic+economics+thomas+sowell
Towards the end of this interview
Michael Greenburger says billions of dollars that the Fed gave to AIG for a bailout was simply turned around and sent straight to Goldman Sachs to pay off the same type credit default swap as Michael Burry "The Big Short" constructed (and probably with a LOT more money).
Maybe read the book if you want to learn more about the story? Maybe the plot synopsis even?
>It's a well documented fact that tons of "AAA" securities were in fact backed by shitty mortgages.
Jesus christ, are you literally brain dead?
Yes, you are right. unfortunately, it was not realized that this was happening until after the crisis was over, meaning that at the time, nobody knew the AAA's weren't actually AAA.
For someone that wants to send people back to school, you seriously lack even the most basic critical thinking skills that are acquired just by living.
>The whole point of the act was to prevent banks from investing deposits in securities.
No, it wasn't. Try actually reading the paper.
the seperation of investment banking and commercial banking by the glass steagall act would have done literally nothing to prevent investment banks from investing in mortgage backed securities.
Tell me, in 2008, when you found out about the crisis, were you still able to go to your bank and retreive your funds? Of course you were, because there was no bank run, thanks to the fed. Guess what the glass steagall act was originally intended for? Preventing bank runs. This clearly wasn't the problem, and thus, the act would do literally nothing to prevent it.
>This was the cause of the first great depression and reason the act was put in place.
Wrong again. Check out the first 2 paragraphs of the wiki entry. They have more knowledge than you do about economics at large, it seems.
Main stream economists widely believe it was due to under consumption, the exact opposite of what caused the 2008 depression, which was over utilization of appreciating home values to refinance, and thus, pay down mortgages.
Furthermore, your link actually doesn't agree with you either. The main cause of ratings agencies slapping AAA on things that didn't deserve it, was the deterioration of underwriting. Guess who created the model for underwriting a MBS? That's right, Goldman Sachs.
>In their book on the crisis — All the Devils Are Here — journalists Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera criticized rating agencies for continuing "to slap their triple-A [ratings]s on subprime securities even as the underwriting deteriorated -- and as the housing boom turned into an outright bubble" in 2005, 2006, 2007.
The big short movie is heavily biased against ratings agencies, and does a very poor job of showing the complete picture. "The devils are here," the book mentioned in your link, does a fantastic job of explaining why the final fault shouldn't lie with them, if you are picking only one player for wrong doing (there were several parties, in reality).
My degree is in financial economics, minor in behavioral studies.
You truly don't understand the 2008 financial crisis, and because you also don't understand 1929 or 1873, you are compounding even more wrong information on top of what you already don't know, and then questioning others education? That's scary.
>Go do some research on the subject matter.
Watching a movie, and reading a wiki article, is not doing research. If you want to do actual research, so you can start spreading information that is actually correct, here are some sources for you to read (NOTE: read, don't use cliffnotes or wiki)
Understanding the 2007–2008 Global Financial Crisis:Lessons for Scholars of International Political Economy
The economist
Themotleyfool (Best public returns on stock market in recent history)
All the Devils Are Here
The big Short (please actually read the book. It's very different from the movie)
That would be awesome. I loved The Big Short and Liar's Poker audiobooks but couldn't finish Flash Boys.
I don't have a Twitter. You should Tweet Joe/Michael and set it up! ;)
You could always read the book. You get a lot more detail, and no contortion of characters.
Pitt was also a key character in Moneyball which was written by the same author as TBS - Michael Lewis.
:D
I learned the word from Michael Lewis.
For investing and money management:
And for fun:
/r/SecurityAnalysis maintain a decent reading list.
The following is taken from it:
History
There's no margin call book, but the book I was recommending was the big short by Michael Lewis.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Short-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report
or alternatively for a more readable book (if more focused on the mortgage meltdown) The Big Short by Michael Lewis
After the financial crisis I read as much as I could about the subject, I read "All the Devils are here", The Big Short, Too big to fail, Crash of the Titans, The Chicken Shit club and many others. So I'm well aware of the culpability of the ratings agencies. But that doesn't excuse the big banks or their actions like you seem to be implying. The banks knew that the MBSs were stuffed with dog shit subprime loans, yet they also knew by getting a CDO from AIG they could get a Triple A rating. They deliberately gamed the system so individual bankers could make huge short term profits selling MBSs. Yeah, Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's were incredibly corrupt, but who was corrupting them? The big banks that were paying them. The Big Banks were not innocent players, who naively saw a short term advantage that they could use. They were an active participant, they gamed the system, then paid off the referees.
On your second point, I agree, the financial recession wasn't caused by bankers being malicious or evil, but I do think it was caused by short term greed, and willful ignorance. A see no evil, hear no evil, let's not rock the boat, while a good thing lasts greed.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Short-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827
His story has been corroborated.
Dude, read [this one] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393338827?keywords=the%20big%20short&amp;qid=1450542815&amp;ref_=sr_1_1&amp;sr=8-1) and [this one.] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393351599?keywords=the%20big%20short&amp;qid=1450542815&amp;ref_=sr_1_3&amp;sr=8-3) [The first one they already made a movie.] (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/?ref_=nv_sr_1) The second one I'm only starting but people say it's brilliant.
Edit: forgot to say that I really liked the first one, The Big Short.
Hard engineering is ee, bio, Chem, and so on. Easy is mech, civ.
While I know of one guy who is a CS phd, generally I normally see the more applied math guys.
As for things to read. I think you should start at the beginning and not worry about job titles ... Everything will change a few times before now and when it will be your time...
Some fun reads:
The black swan
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/081297381X/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1348162692&amp;sr=8-2
The big short:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393338827/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1348163015&amp;sr=8-1
My view of gender roles is... unconventional, subtle, and not necessarily that well thought out. I mean to embody the feminine role, but that isn't any of the following:
I dream of a world where conventional gender roles exist, are routinely followed, and, unlike the cracking-apart-and-fading-away gender roles we have in the real world, they don't suck.
I'd very much consider a girl who didn't want to be a stay at home mom, probably prefer one in this day and age, although there are some complications there -- mostly relating the the "two-income trap" (Basically, the parenting and housework still has to be done by somebody, and both parents working full time doesn't earn as much extra money when expenses are considered. So basically, two working parents becoming the normal standard leads to you being poor, insecure, and miserable, and if you can game the system you should.) An inflexible desire to focus narrowly on a career might not be that great. (and I don't have that inflexible desire either.)
This was tailing off by the early 1980s for sure, but it was very much the norm in the 1960s and 1970s for families to be single-earning.
As citation, I give you Elizabeth Warren's The Two-Income Trap.
Your experience with "primary breadwinner" and "part-time" is probably a good illustration of this. Such an arrangement allowed families to get that "little extra", like a swimming pool, or a better vacation, but was not necessary to pay the basic bills.
Keep in mind that the "telephone operator" job that your mother had is gone, and the best comparable job might be call-center worker, for minimum wage.
I would argue that some of the "living inflation" has taken place in direct response to the reduction in public service funding that took place in the late 70s/early 80s. The anti-tax movement was targeting local services. Where I live, in Massachusetts, they took aim at the public sector employees in a big way. What ultimately happened was that public services used to be pretty standard between communities before 1980, but after 1980, due to Proposition 2.5 which actually capped property taxes at 2.5% of the assessed property value in a community, many communities (usually larger urban) had to dramatically scale back services. What happened next was economic flight/sorting based on rationing of services - the people who wanted the good services (primarily schools) fled to the towns that were willing to pay for these services. That resulted in massive differences in property values between communities, which resulted in even more economic segregation.
In Massachusetts, that translates into communities which everyone wants to live in but can't afford, and communities which are very affordable but no one wants to live in them. Families wind up stretching themselves to the point where they are buying $500k houses, for which they need $150k in income to support - and they are unwilling to settle for a $150k house because those communities have lousy schools and copious amounts of poor people (plus brown people to boot).
The economic research Elizabeth Warren did found married middle class people are not wasting their money.
>Harvard Law School bankruptcy expert Elizabeth Warren and financial consultant Amelia Tyagi show that today's middle-class parents are increasingly trapped by financial meltdowns. Astonishingly, sending mothers to work has made families more vulnerable to financial disaster than ever before. Today's two-income family earns 75% more money than its single-income counterpart of a generation ago, but has 25% less discretionary income to cover living costs
>The number of families declaring bankruptcy or receiving a foreclosure against their house has shot up dramatically. Presenting carefully researched economic data to support their arguments, the authors contend that, contrary to popular myth, families aren't in trouble because they're squandering their second income on luxuries. On the contrary, both incomes are almost entirely committed to necessities, such as home and car payments, health insurance and children's education costs. When an unforeseen event such as serious illness, job loss or divorce occurs, families have no discretionary income to fall back on. The authors recommend a number of useful societal solutions to get families out of this trap, such as legally prohibiting credit card companies from charging grossly unfair interest rates and exposing banks that employ a loan-to-own strategy that steers minority customers to higher mortgage rates with an eye to future foreclosures. Warren and Tyagi point out that families buy homes they cannot afford in order to live in a neighborhood with better schools. Their proposed solution, however-to institute a public school voucher system with wider choice-is less carefully thought out. Overall, however, this is a needed examination of an emerging social problem.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents/dp/0465090907
I think it does strengthen some couples, especially if they make it through a brief period and can look back on it. Years of poverty with a lot of kids must be hard on everyone. I suspect you are right; if the couple have different ideas for where money needs to go having very little of it means you have to make tough choices. It's easier if you have enough to make you both happy. I found this book very fascinating and it gets into the stresses of finances in modern families. http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents/dp/0465090907
This is an interesting episode discussing Elizabeth Warren's book The Two-Income Trap which discusses how family incomes have mainly risen because of women's entrance into the workplace, not because of rising wages. The result is that many families' financial statuses have become more fragile, since households are now dependent on two-incomes, with little to no back-up/insurance against loosing one income. To combat this, it is suggested that US social programs need to be revised to better fit this new reality. While this episode mostly focuses on the monetary aspect of this idea, I think there are clear connections to time poverty.
You're talking about The Two-Income Trap - a great read written by Elizabeth Warren and her daughter Amelia.
Additionally, there's quite a bit of evidence that the "two income household" is financially far more "unstable" (i.e. at risk) than a two parent, single-income household... so much so that even E. Warren (hardly an anti-feminist) referred to it as a "trap". (Cf the title of her 2004 -- i.e. pre housing bubble/bust era -- bestselling book "The Two Income Trap", and her hour-long 2007 Berkeley lecture expanding on the same basic material.)
Basically a fat lot of nothing has been gained (for families) by wives entering the workforce.
And arguably things have been made worse for nearly all workers because of that.
Feminists, of course, have a hard time really accepting that -- and they nearly always seek (often in a highly contortionist fashion) to place blame on other factors. Doubtless there ARE other factors (trade policies, monetary policies, tax policies, etc) also at play, but one cannot ignore feminism's impact in that it is part of the supply/demand situation in regards to labor; it is an objective verified FACT that despite all of the aforementioned "policies", and despite the recent downturn, there are even still MORE adults in the US workforce NOW (and not merely in numbers, but as a percentage of the population) than there ever were prior to 1980, and yet the actual take home pay for the middle class has deteriorated.
Great advice, should have wrote a book
Everyone in here needs to the the Two Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren.
Absolutely you should invest and pay your student loan off as slowly as possible (provided you don't leave the country for an extended period of time).
The only time which this isn't the case is if your student loan debt is really keeping you up at night. If that's the case it might be better for your psyche to pay it off quicker. Doesn't seem like the case for you.
I second I Will Teach you to be rich. Ramit puts out a ton of great (free) content, and was a big reason why I started my own website that aims to teach young kiwi's how to invest.
I would also read / listen to the little book of common sense investing. https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
This has basically all you need to know about why low cost index-funds/etfs are really the only way for the average investor to go.
Depends on how old you are.
If you're really interested and you've got a little free time, I strongly recommend picking up Jack Bogle's Little Book of Common Sense Investing. As the title suggests, it's a quick read, and you don't need a finance background to understand it. It makes a more convincing case for index funds than I could ever post on Reddit.
My boss gave me this book, The Little Book of Common Sense Investing, a couple years back. I read it and really like what is talked about in it, but unfortunately I have not had enough money to invest at all (kinda ironic that my boss gives me a book about investing when he knows I am pretty much living paycheck to paycheck).
edit - typo
It's okay, have you heard the good word?
Edit: lol
>The Only Way to Guarantee Your Fair Share of Stock Market Returns
I'd research what ETFs are, what expense ratios are, and what securities actually constitute some of the ETFs people talk about a lot. You can do so online and read books like this one. If you'd just like to dip your toe into the waters, a target date fund might be a good place to start.
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Read these two books and then decide if your hypothesis is supported by data:
https://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-Down-Wall-Street/dp/0393330338
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Ps. You can thank me later
>What stocks are doing well?
Don't buy individual stocks. Invest in broad market index funds like VTI(total stock market), VFIAX(S&P 500 large company stocks), and VIOO(S&P 600 small company stocks). Read a few books about investing before jumping in. I recommend The Little Book of Common Sense Investing and A Random Walk Down Wall Street.
>What do you believe I should do with my access money?
Buy access? Sorry, couldn't help myself. You should keep a base of money in a savings account for an emergency fund. You're going to need a lot of money to start life after college (first and last months' rent, moving expenses, etc.) so think of that as well. Once you've got your cash savings set aside, start funding your retirement. You can contribute up to $5500 per year to an IRA. Start now and that money will have 46 years to grow.
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
I'll look into The Little Book, thank you.
Do you mean I won't be a stock picker because advisors don't tend to get that hands-on in terms of stocks?
Edit: Is this the book you're referring to?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470102101/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_zPZ7BbVAZSA0S
There is an answer to your question. The answer won't be an individual stock if you want "good and healthy" - by healthy I assume you mean low risk. If that is the case:
The answer is in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
TL;DR - If you just want my word for it: the answer is index funds. Here is one from Vanguard.
If you want something that you can buy from your broker/Robinhood, you can buy ETFs that index the full market. The ETF based off the Vanguard fund above is VOO. It will more or less give you similar results. Avoid ETFs in specific sectors - you lose diversification doing that - which is the whole point of index funds.
Again, I want to clarify you're asking a question where the quintessential answer is an index fund. Here is a chart for a $10,000 investment in index funds from 2000 to 2015. - over 15 years.
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Well if you get time, use it to read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
It's a short book but very good stuff.
Definitely requires a little finance vocabulary lesson first but it's worth it. $2.3M is worth dedicating your time to. If you invest it safely and leave it alone, you will have plenty to retire very comfortably on.
Yeah, if you're not going to conduct in-depth research (and i mean going way beyond glancing at P/E ratios and price charts), then you're best off with a low cost index fund. That's how I allocate 90% of my money. It's fun to pick a few stocks, but don't over-expose yourself.
If you have the patience, read this book by John Bogle (founder of Vanguard). It literally changed my life.
Check out VTSAX.
Also, STAY AWAY FROM ROBINHOOD. They fuck over retail investors with hidden charges (e.g., $75 transfer fee if you want to close your account and selling order flow, something that Bernie Madoff came up with, and they don't allow you to name beneficiaries).
EDIT: Index investing isn't sexy or fun to boast about, so by all means, have a little "play money" but please, please, please do the smart thing with the majority of your investment portfolio.
Read this. Understand you will.
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Common-Sense-Investing/dp/0470102101
Read The Little Book of Common Sense Investing. It will take you an afternoon and give you a pretty good understanding.
You can afford to be aggressive since you have such a long time until you retire. I am 28 and have my portfolio in 100% stocks, I would say anything above 80% stocks is good.
Long term average of the market is ~10%, and inflation is ~3%. So you are looking at an average rate of return of about 7% above inflation. Of course there are huge variations from year to year.
Do yourself a favor and read this book: The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle
I highly recommend reading The Little Red Book of Common Sense Investing by the founder of Vanguard. It makes a very plain case for why high-fee actively managed accounts are a horrible idea, and the probability that they will yield a high enough return to make up for their fees, their higher tax inefficiency, and make you more is extremely low.
I'm going to give you the pathway that I read that has me where I am today, its mostly going to steer you towards dollar cost averaging and passive management, but the easing of exposure to alternative strategies was invaluable and eventually brought me to value investing. Dollar cost averaging in low cost index funds is the training wheels of investing and should be the way every novice investor starts IMO.
At this point if you've taken a year or two or more to invest using what you learned in the above books you'll have a better idea of what you really want to start doing with you're money. Perhaps its value investing, and now it starts to get more technical.
By this point you'll no longer be an investment padawan and be well on your way to a master of the force. Do not be tempted by the dark side of day trading and penny stocks. Much fear there. There is no need for level 2 quotes with value investing because you're relying on your due dilligence from the previous years and quarters to take your portfolio higher, without worrying about the road bumps in the market today. You'll be able to happily live your life until the next quarter or two when its time to reevaluate and rebalance your portfolio.
Good luck.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Little-Commonsense-Investing-Guarantee-Market-Returns-Profits/0470102101/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1496833767&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+little+book+of+common+sense+investing
If you understand the difference between gross income, adjusted gross income, and taxable income along with the tax implications of different retirement accounts and deductions/credits then you're most of the way there. The rest is planning ahead, googling as needed to remind yourself, and reading the instructions.
Read the IRS instructions for the tax form you're using. Speaking for myself, I always use the 1040 these days since it has fields for all of the various credits and deductions we may be eligible for, while the 1040A and 1040EZ don't.
Look up the list of credits and deductions and check to see if you meet the eligibility requirements or if you can change things so that you do.
Read a book: I read The Little Book of Common Sense Investing and a book on retirement accounts similar to this. Any library should have at least a couple of books on the topic. While neither of those deals directly with filing taxes they provide a solid information baseline that you can fill out further. Also, while the second one may seem daunting you don't need to read most of it.
If you want to learn how to cook, as well as recipes you can grab a copy of The Professional Chef though it may be a little bit intimidating.
I could have swore I replied to this, but I guess my comment got lost because I keep like, fifty fucking tabs open at a time. My bad.
ahem Anyway, it's hard for me to say if my taste differs much from an NT's sense of taste. I do feel like I taste things with more complexity(?), but I don't have much to compare it to. I can say that I started learning to cook and bake after reading and memorizing large portions of [The Professional Chef] (http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-America/dp/0470421355) and people love my food. And I taste-test it throughout the cooking process to make sure it's good, so apparently there's nothing wrong with my sense of taste. Maillard is one of my favorite words.
I hate the taste of liquor in things. I like alcoholic drinks where the taste of alcohol is completely disguised.
My favorite food is ice cream. My least favorite food is caviar.
I'm picky about the textures of foods, and I can't eat anything that smells bad (like kimchi). My sister-in-law makes this Filipino soup with tamarind and cellophane noodles that absolutely disgusts me. The smell of it drives me from the house. (Don't tell her I said that.)
I have a very strong sense of smell, which I think makes my sense of taste stronger than the average bear, but I'm not sure. I do know that certain smells which bother other people (skunk, gasoline, burning rubber, a catalytic converter) do not bother me at all. I actually think they smell pretty good. Meanwhile, some things which people think smell good (like certain flowers and perfumes) smell awful to me. I CANNOT go near a Bath and Body Works store.
I love to try cooking new and exotic things, but I personally have very simple tastes. I could happily live the rest of my life taking in nothing but coffee with milk and sugar, iced sweet tea, iced water with lemon, plain turkey sandwiches on white, and Campbell's chicken noodle or tomato soup.
Cilantro tastes like cilantro to me. Not soap. :D
Syntax as Style by Tufte is the best for sentence level mechanics. By far.
On Writing Well by Zinsser is the best for non-fiction.
If you're interested in fiction, Story Engineering by Brooks is the one I usually recommend for structure. But you might use Knight's Creating Short Fiction for that purpose. Or Save the Cat by Snyder.
People often recommend Elements of Style by Strunk and White. It has the benefit of being very short and direct. It will make your writing better, if you're a beginner. Your essays will read more smoothly. But I don't like recommending this book because it lacks nuance and is sometimes wrong. If you just want to improve your writing as quickly as possible, get this book. If you actually care about language, get Virginia Tufte's book instead.
It's not specific to blogging but I think you'll be very well served by reading William Zinsser's "On Writing Well."
There are 1001 books on the subject. If you're looking for recommendations, I'll plug On Writing Well by William Zinsser.
If you're looking for one simple answer, it's this: get to the point. People get bored really, really, fast, especially on-line, so every sentence, every word, has to do something for you. Don't just write. Write with a purpose in mind, and fight for it.
Read good writing. The New Yorker is (arguably) the best magazine in the world. Read that. Read The New York Times. Read anything that seems exceptional to you.
Start small. Look for a volunteer position. People always need writers. If you're lucky, find someone to teach you. Work for someone else before you work for yourself.
William Zinnser's On Writing Well is indispensable.
I agree. OP should try reading these two books:
I'm by no means an expert, but here are some tips I've picked up over the past year or so:
Prep
The Interview
Some other Resources
Longer-Term, the Turnaround is a podcast about interviewers and their techniques.
The chapter about interviews in Zinsser's On Writing Well was helpful for me. If you are pressed for time grab it at your library and just read that chapter, it's short. Amazon Link
> Get people talking. Learn to ask questions that will elicit answers about what is most interesting or vivid in their lives. Nothing so animates writing as someone telling what he thinks or what he does -- in his own words.
Zinsser, On Writing Well
Okay, so I'm not home so these are the few off the top of my head that I can remember I've read and loved.
I hope one of these can help out!
I think I disagree, but guess I haven't read a ton of books about writing. In my experience, they can be helpful, especially to people who are just starting out. Maybe not as helpful as reading the types of books that you want to write (and reading the stuff you don't want to write—it's important to read widely), but I don't know if I'd call them a waste of time. King's book is great (but that might be because I got the impression that I'd like him as a person while I was reading that), Strunk and White Elements of Style and Zissner's On Writing Well are helpful for tightening beginners' prose, Writing Fiction: a guide to narrative craft has great exercises at the end of every chapter, and I'm reading Benjamin Percy's essay collection Thrill Me right now, and it's great. I feel like a large part of /r/writing would really connect with the first and titular essay in that collection, actually. He talks about reading a lot of so-called trash genre fiction before being exposed to literary fiction and how he kind of overcorrected and became a super-fierce advocate for that-and-only-that before he realized that you can take the good parts of both to create amazing stories. I've also never read any other respected literary person mention reading R. A. Salvatore, which was cool to see since I forgot I was a big Drizzt fan when I was younger.
First off, you've already made a good decision. It's good you don't write like an academic, because when most writers use that term, it usually means a writerly voice that uses big fancy words in order to project intelligence and education. It's a type of writing that may hide the real person behind the words, if done badly.
Of course academics will use big fancy words, because their chosen discipline may require them to do so, but the best academic writers will still write clearly, and with clarity.
My roommate in college was a T.A. (teacher's assistant) and he'd often ask me for second opinions while grading papers. You could tell the people who were trying to sound smart, over the ones who just tried to be honest. Almost always the ones who tried to communicate well, rather than the ones who tried to sound "academic," were the students who received better grades.
So, in your case, strive for honesty and clarity. If you need to use simple words, that's not only okay, but desirable. You want to reveal yourself in your words, as so often big words or using an academic-like voice will get in the way of that.
Having said that, if you need to write as a steam of consciousness. Go for it. Stream away. Then afterward you can edit, revise and reorganize your thoughts.
Because you haven't written in so long, your writing muscle, so to speak, is dormant and weak so the number one priority is to just write. Get words on the paper. That's the only way you'll know what you want to say.
After that, polish it up. Maybe start all over, but now you know where you are going with your writing.
Here are a few books that can help give you good writing advice for nonfiction writing.
https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548/) by William Zinsser
This first book by William Zinnser is a classic. He has basic advice on how to improve writing skills, and provides various examples for different types of writing, like memoirs, job interviews, science and technology, etc.
The second book goes even further exploring more disciplines like mathematics, art and music, nature, technology, liberal arts, etc.
I think both would help you not just with your application essay but also with your writing while at graduate school.
Lastly, you may already have this general writing advice book:
I hope that helped. Don't be afraid to write, and good luck!
These two books
If you want to write
and
On writing well
Keep a daily journal. Or check out 750words.com
What you want to do is get all the crap that's in your head out of the way so the real you can come out. I know you probably don't see it be the profile the way it's written now you're trying to appeal to people and not be polarizing. And it comes off boring. You want someone to imagine having a good time with you. It takes time so put in some work and come back for another critique. And to be honest it's not terrible but it doesn't stick out. And sticking out, in a good way, is the name of the game because online dating is frustratingly boring for most women.
On writing well,by Zinsser.
This book https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1485916478&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=how+to+write+well
when you have time
Could you be more specific on the type of magazine editing job you're looking for? (Headlines, features, etc. – it can also make a big difference in what type of magazine you want to work for.)
&#x200B;
This is a pretty great book on all around nonfiction writing and editing https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-Nonfiction/dp/0060891548 Check your library for a copy; if they don't have this one I'm sure they can recommend a similar book.
I would highly recommend reading this book On Writing Well
Books:
Websites:
If you really want to know what good writing is, read this: http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0060891548
On Writing Well
has a good chapter on technical writing.
Treat yourself to On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction by William Zinsser. It's not only one of the finest books on writing nonfiction, it's also a damn good read. That means the book itself is a case study in writing well. I see a previous person made this recommendation, too.
I don't think you're stupid. You're young and excited. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to be a writer, I suggest not only writing a ton of stuff, but reading a ton. Start here: http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0060891548
For punctuation, Eats, Shoots & Leaves. For grammatical style, On Writing Well, though it's less of a grammar book. Workbook, Schaum's Outline of English Grammar.
One of the things my grammar teacher did that really helped me grasp the different pieces of grammar (clauses, modifiers, etc.) was to have us each choose a 500-ish word piece of writing, that she would approve, and then for each grammatical element we were studying, we would take that piece and find every instance of that element, and have our small groups check each other's as well. Our choices for college (Chesterton, Lewis, Lopate, White) might not be appropriate for high school or middle school, but you could have them pick pieces from books and authors they love. Hunger Games. Harry Potter. Rick Riordan's books. That way, when you're in a small group, you can see how different authors utilize different elements more or less and what it looks like in first person vs third person, etc.
>Hitler kicked them out and put them in camps.
Who is Alfried Krupp? Stop getting your ideology from memes and read a history book. Here's a start: https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
>(i.e. he went to prison)
Actually just a few DWIs but no prison time.
>Doesn't sound like any sort of fascist at this point.
What is a fascist? I'm afraid that's the actual bulk of the movement. It's just bigoted morons with horrible taste and their politics are just wrapped up in worshipping the brute force of the state.
I have. You clearly haven't, because if you had, you couldn't possibly think there was anything capitalistic about it. As for Pinochet, fascism is not a synonym for "military dictatorship".
http://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
Read it. Its a long read, but if you are interested in the subject you will thank me later.
See Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction for a complete refutation of A and B.
Please educate yourself before spouting misinformation.
If you want an even better and more easy on the eyes book take a look at The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze. You can get it used for $10 and it's good for people who want an introductory book on the subject.
Interesting. Castles of Steel is on the top of my book stack I've had it for months just haven't gotten around to and I'll read it after I finish Wages of Destruction.
You mean the basically facade economy funded by mefo-IOU's, looting of whole peoples belongings and unsustainable and corrupt policies, and book cooking along with employment percentage scams by basically writing unemployed women out of the workforce?
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
i don't think the reich had an effective long-term strategy. it was very militaristic and essentially required the plunder of other nations.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, It's about ethics in archiving ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
Mods deleted my post, so, too briefly: Issue is whether or not the risk is worth insuring against. Re: precedents for Ps causing PROBLEMS when they perceive themselves to be imperiled:
From 2019 book Appeasement: Chamberlain, Hitler, Churchill, and the Road to War:
>Of course, the overwhelming responsibility for the Second World War rests with Adolf Hitler. Only he and his most fanatical henchmen desired it [my emphasis]. Only he willed the series of events that led to it. Yet while Hitler was uniquely responsible for the tragedy, the question remains: How was he allowed to inflict such misery? How was it that a country defeated in 1918, reduced in size, restricted in arms and surrounded by potential foes, was allowed to rise in twenty short years to a position where she was able to mount a challenge for global supremacy and almost achieve her objective?
Re: Hitler and said henchmen believed they were IMPERILED
From 2008 book The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy:
>Since 1938 Hitler had seen himself as locked in a global confrontation with world Jewry.
>
>. . . For Hitler, a war of conquest was not one policy option amongst others. Either the German race struggled for Lebensraum [i.e., territory] or its racial enemies would condemn it to extinction.
Precedent for resistance by IMPERILED Ps who have a large war chest and don’t govern a country
From a 2018 article titled “Los Extraditables, the Pablo Escobar-Led Gang That Launched a Bloody Campaign Against U.S. Extradition”:
>The terrorist group . . . claimed “we prefer a grave in Colombia to a prison in the United States . . .”
Escobar was a drug-trafficker whose net worth reached $58 billion (in 2018 dollars). The other leaders of Los Extraditables were wealthy drug-traffickers.
From 2001 book Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw (my emphases):
>“[Escobar] intended, he said, to use the public’s weariness with [Escobar-funded] violence to his benefit. He planned to turn up the violence until the public cried out for a solution, a deal.
>
>. . . A communiqué from the Extraditables not long after hammered home the point:
>
>We are declaring total and absolute war on the government, on the individual and political oligarchy, on the journalists who have attacked and insulted us, on the judges that have sold themselves to the government, on the extraditing magistrates . . . on all those who have persecuted and attacked us. We will not respect the families of those who have not respected our families. We will burn and destroy the industries, properties and mansions of the oligarchy.”
>
>“At his [Pablo’s] peak, he would threaten to usurp the Colombian state.”
>
>“Ever since Pablo’s men had blown that Avianca flight out of the sky . . .”
>
>“[A] total of 457 police had been killed since Colonel Martinez had started his hunt. Young gunmen in that city were being paid 5 million pesos for killing a cop.”
Completely agree. Surrounded in fact not just by smart people but some of the smartest on the planet, at least in the sciences and military. Here's a fantastic book by Adam Tooze regarding the ruination of the Nazi economy, that basically doomed Germany, if anyone's interested
As the blurb says 'an extraordinary mythology has grown up around the Third Reich that hovers over political and moral debate even today'. That mythology is one of competence.
I loved The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze. It's a great economic history of the Reich, and the role of monetary policy is discussed there as well.
Well, "the economic crisis" that Hitler rose to power in was quite unrelated to the hyperinflation crisis. The economics behind Hitler's rise was quite complicated, but at the root, it is driven by a feedback loop of deflation. The precise mechanics of it is a bit too complicated to explain in a post, but this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1292517108&amp;sr=8-1
Does a pretty good job of explaining everything.
Don't worry about it. The actual amount you may have inhaled is minimal at best if this was outdoors. As for the pregnancy rules, you must remember, most of these rules are literally written for the lowest common denominator (stupid people). Most of the things they outright tell you to avoid during pregnancy, are absolutely fine in moderation and small amounts, but stupid people will take being told "in moderation" or "in small amounts" as "do it as much as I want, doctor says it's fine". This is why they just outright tell pregnant women to avoid most of these things. A friend of my wife's cousin wrote this book, Expecting Better: Why the Conventional Pregnancy Wisdom Is Wrong--and What You Really Need to Know. She goes into detail analyzing the real risks of most of the things you are told to avoid. She gave my wife a copy when she was pregnant, and it really helped calm her down.
So far, I’ve really liked reading, “Expecting Better: Why the Conventional Pregnancy Wisdom Is Wrong--and What You Really Need to Know.”
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143125702/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_eYZDAbPJS2XWQ
I've heard this one is a good book
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143125702/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=HXZSNPPCZTS8&amp;coliid=I1S3TNA1OWULUF
This Pregnancy book written by a female economist who had children and decided to actually take a look at data vs. what we are “told”.
Info | Details
----|-------
Amazon Product | Expecting Better: Why the Conventional Pregnancy Wisdom Is Wrong--and What You Really Need to Know
>Amazon donates 0.5% of the price of your eligible AmazonSmile purchases to the charitable organization of your choice. By using the link above you get to support a chairty and help keep this bot running through affiliate programs all at zero cost to you.
First of all, congrats!
Some links for you:
https://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702
https://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-When-Youre-Expecting-ebook/dp/B01DCHZE3A/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1500708061&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=what+to+expect+when+you%27re+expecting
https://www.amazon.com/Be-Prepared-Practical-Handbook-Dads-ebook/dp/B000SEKFZI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1500708024&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=be+prepared
https://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-First-Heidi-Murkoff-ebook/dp/B00KVRDACW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1500708115&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=what+to+expect+the+first+year
http://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702
For the data minded, I recommend Expecting Better: https://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/0143125702
You are not crazy at all. I teeter between extreme elation and anxiety. A few things trigger my anxiety about this pregnancy:
Things that help:
I would recommend the book Expecting Better--she has a chapter in there about CVS/amnio that's very data-driven.
They're both important to me; I value all freedom, and won't just pick one over another.
EDIT: I forgot to add that Milton Friedman's classic work Capitalism and Freedom argues that in the long term the two are inseparable - either you have freedom or you don't. Countries can survive in the short-term with just economic or just personal freedom, but in the long-term one requires the other.
Ironically enough, ya you wasted your money. Sorry.
Try this instead:
https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1466197378&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=milton+friedman
He's only like the founder of modern economics though, so he's obviously full of shit.
>... what the imf did to the third world ...
Develop its industry? Build its infrastructure? Seed its capital markets? Bring its population from malaria-ridden jungles and into cities? Those heartless globalizing bastards!
But seriously though, get educated:
Niall Ferguson:
http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-Financial-History-World/dp/1594201927
Milton Friedman:
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211
Matt Ridley:
http://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-How-Prosperity-Evolves/dp/006145205X
Hernando De Soto:
http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016146
> I think you have trouble understanding that I know that Capitalism is a very effective way to drive innovation as long as it may generate profit.
Great, so now we agree on something... it's not much, but it's something.
> It is however a very bad driver for innovation when there is not much profit behind it.
I never said it was perfect! What I am saying is that overall, it's the most efficient way to drive innovation across the board. That is, overall, it will produce more innovative ideas than any other model out there.
> But even if it would be the most awesome innovation driver ever and have no downsides in that department, it is fatally flawed in its core. Now I could give you the work of Dr. Murray Low to read as well (https://www.amazon.com/Seventeen-Contradictions-Capitalism-David-Harvey/dp/1781251606/280-4905634-3720005)
If you're done trying to make the logical case for your position, then I'll start throwing books and videos your way too!
The fact is that good ideas stand on their own merits. I don't need to watch a 90 minute video from somebody with whom I can't have a discussion. If I don't agree with any of the premises he proposes, then I have no way to rebut them and get an answer.
> When a system is as flawed as Capitalism we must look out for alternatives. And that may be Communism (or for Marxists rather Socialism because that is the transition before Communism).
We already know which systems provides us with the fundamentals to consistently and efficiently produce the most good ideas and eliminate the bad ones:
Are all of these system perfect? Far from it, but they're the most efficient ones we have available. Now, I'm all for the proposal and adoption of better ideas, but we've already tried the bad ones (religion, dictatorship, communism, etc.), so we don't need to try them again.
> Also I am really interested in what "pure" Socialism is? There are multiple Socialist Systems: Anarchism, Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Planned Economy Socialism, and so on and on...
We start with a fundamental concept: effort and reward. When I place my effort into something, which system will allow for the most efficient and largest yield of reward? If any of those forms of socialism do, and they do so more efficiently than capitalism, then let's adopt them. And if you're claiming that they do, then please bring forth the evidence that demonstrates it.
cap·i·tal·ism
Yeah sounds like what I want. People voluntarily and spontaneously trading labor or capital for goods and services, unhindered by a coercive authority. A free market whose prices are reflected by consumers and production costs, uninterrupted by government protectionist policies, and so forth. It's obviously more complex.
Here are some good books for ya. Read up.
>Bill Walton ended his all-star career NBA by insisting on being vegan. He has since acknowledged it as something that ruined his health.
"Walton injured himself again the following season, but returned for the 1987 playoffs. He spent the 1987-88 season on the injured list. He attempted a comeback in February 1990, but injury intervened and he retired from the game. His ankle problems became so severe years later that he had both his ankles surgically fused. His saga of injury and failed rehabs was connected to the use of pain killers by the doctor who was assigned to his case.[citation needed] Walton has said repeatedly in his broadcasts that he is just as much to blame for taking the medication as the doctor was for giving it to him. Yet his experience with injuries and the circumstances surrounding them have come to serve as a warning for professional athletes who undergo major injury, as well as being an interesting case study for medical ethics." >
Veganism causes ankle injuries?
>Carl Lewis was juicing according to a few sources. He was the USOC's golden child.
Aren't we cynical.
>Brazier has won more marketing awards than triathlons.
http://www.brendanbrazier.com/raceresults/index.html
>Lierre Keith also just wrote a book about her turn from Veganism. http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804
This is an anti-civilization screed that is also based on straw-man arguments.
http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/vegetarian-myth-lierre-keith/
The meat industry drives the bulk of crop production and deforestation. What Keith wants would sentence billions to starvation, since we can't feed 6 billion people on subsistence hunting & gathering.
http://www.bonappetit.com/story/oldest-person-in-world-food
It looks like all the people on the list eat meat.
Check out Lierre Keith The Vegetarian Myth. She talks about the issues of being a vegetarian longterm and the issues/medical problems that it can create due to imbalances created by a diet deficient in different nutrients and fats.
>This is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism. You can see it when tabloids whip up resentment against tube workers for paralysing London during contract disputes: the very fact that tube workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people.
You'd probably like the rest of the article too, it's by Michael Graeber the author of Debt: The first 5000 years which is also well worth reading.
^The linked tweet was tweeted by @VitalikButerin on Apr 03, 2018 07:28:56 UTC (96 Retweets | 513 Favorites)
-------------------------------------------------
3. "Money always evolves in the following four stages, collectible -&gt; SoV -&gt; MoE -&gt; UoA" - no, no, no! Seriously, read David Graeber's Debt. Amazon link for the lazy: https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290
-------------------------------------------------
^^• Beep boop I'm a bot • Find out more about me at /r/tweettranscriberbot/ •
If you want an amazing (and often rage-against-the-world-inducing) book on this topic I would highly recommend David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years. It is in the top five books I recommend everyone to read.
Read Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years.
TL;DR: debt's relation to slavery.
herezeez:
http://www.thegreatcholesterolcon.com/The_China_Study.html
http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1255048634&amp;sr=8-1
I also agree veggies are the shizz, but not soy and all the imitation products vegans sub in for the food they used to eat. Fermented and sprouted foods generally have a better nutrition profile. Phytic acid and lectins are also things to watch out for.
I would highly recommend the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years if you want to think more about the topic in general.
First thing: find me a list of the billionaires who donate to real charities that aren't just tax shelters so you can stop using Bill Gates as the image of your idols.
Second: Read this book http://www.amazon.com/dp/1612191290
If for some reason you cannot find yourself able to check it out at your local library, or even purchase it for yourself, I'll ask you to consider the process of how your shoes were made. The entire process from where the rubber was harvested, or leather if you are so lucky, to the lacing, the fabric, even the tag. Also consider who you bought those shoes from, and from where.
And then I want you to think really hard about America's current healthcare situation. I'll give you a headstart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
After that, I want you to think about who lobbied the most against social healthcare not just during the Obama administration, but also the Clinton era. I'll give you a head start on that as well http://www.publicintegrity.org/2010/02/24/2725/lobbyists-swarm-capitol-influence-health-reform
Then, after all that, if you really wanna debate this, I want you to compare the list of billionaires that donate to charities to the companies they own and, most important of all, the lobby groups they are represented by.
If you still think that the 300 (299 since you want to keep singling out Bill Gates) deserve to keep all of their ill-gotten gains and that the poor are only poor because they choose to be, like gays choosing to be gay, you have my pity.
The problem is, this never actually happened. Anthropologists have been looking for this kind of barter society for a long time, and have never found it. The story really originates, in its modern form, from Adam Smith, who unfortunately wrote at a time when nobody could read anything that came before Homer (ca. 800 BC), and was doing the best he could at developing a history of money and debt. Once we could translate ancient languages and learned that nearly all ancient writing consisted of "Adad-Sin owes me four measures of barley," it became clear that debt predated money, which really predated organized barter. Barter is so horribly inefficient and dangerous (it's so clear that everyone is able and motivated to screw everyone else), it really only ever takes place between strangers (who might never meet again, lowering the certainty of debts), and among societies who have already used money but have lost a good money supply. In money-naive societies, that stranger barter is so dangerous and stressful, it usually has to happen in a highly ritualized context--first we dance and feast for two days, maybe trade female cousins around for a night, then start trading items, often with the language and motions of elaborate gift-giving.
Credit and debt come first. Then money. Then, in some places--or at the same time, on a limited scale between strangers--barter.
Source: Debt: The First 5,000 Years
> But that group of people who are tuned in and educated on the topics in depth with knowledge unavailable in the mainstream want the truth. That's their audience.
Except these sources do not provide in-depth knowledge; quite far from it. The video this thread is about is an excellent example of just how vacuous and shallow the "alternative media" is. The attorney, Beck, just lists a series of random facts with no analyses or conclusion, and the infowars guy just free associates with the term "organ transplants."
The strongest argument against the infowars and Sargons of the world is a comparison of them against actual books researched over years, like Debt: The First 5000 Years, Nixonland, or Capital in the 21st Century. These books are what "in-depth information" looks like, not super-secret conspiracies that only the blessed can discern.
> Because otherwise it is very hard to know who to trust and who not to trust.
You don't have to trust anyone. This is the main problem with conspiracy theorists: they have discovered that one source cannot be trusted, therefore another can be. But don't trust anyone; evaluate all the claims. In the case of this video, what claim is being made? There is no claim -- they want you to rely on your imagination to conjure up scary images.
that's a different way of looking at it than I thought you meant; I can see how we'd be talking past each other now.
traditionally, there's been a lot of debate of what aspects of human behavior are "nature vs nurture"; what do our genetics dictate (or influence) vs the environment we're set in.
the "natural environment" is a particularly thorny phrase... political theorists like Hobbes and Locke were very concerned about the nature of humanity in a "natural environment," i.e., one that would reflect only the genetic disposition of humanity, rather than the combination of that and society.
and I actually have started reading Graeber's book, and it is phenomenal. just provoking the idea that holding people responsible for their own actions (rather than the denizens they "represented" as despotic "leaders") is revolutionary. the Magnitsky Act comes to mind as a practical implementation of that, and it certainly has caused ruckus.
I disagree that capitalism reflects human nature. I think that living in a capitalistic society for tens of generations makes people have a skewed perception of human nature. I recently read https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290 which gives anthropological evidence of non-commercial societies and it paints a very different picture of human nature. It isn't all good, but it is different. I believe Marx makes a similar argument in Capital.
While many of the books I would suggest have been mentioned previously throughout the comments, might I add a sort-of different take on history? Check out David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years for a unique view on economic evolution and the role its played in the development of human society (particularly, how debt has been a major driving force behind politics for millennia).