Skip to main content

POST-MODERNIST POST-STRUCTURALIST POST-FEMINIST POST-CYNICAL HAPPINESS ERUPTS!

I reserve the right to be wrong.



I believe in the main assertions of third-wave feminism, that everyday discourse privileges my sex at the expense of the other; and that men too are harmed by this patriarchy in various ways, as Fathers 4 Justice ably demonstrates. Misogyny will probably be a topic I cover occasionally, since I am fascinated by the population-level misogyny in so many of our story-telling tropes and popular discourses. I'm also fascinated by popular culture for god knows what reason, as well as house prices. Ooer, lovely delicious house prices! Mortgages and rents, to you, dear reader.



I will share my learnings in the wonderful worlds of the social sciences. My focus is economics, but this blog will inevitably deal with geography, political science, sociology and psychology too. There are probably bits of humanities like archaeology and anthropology, plus some science, in particular neuroscience, since it's highly relevant to the social sciences.



Woohoo! Away we go!



Social science is the study of humans as social beings; how we do and don't behave around each other, especially in the field of sociology. Sociology is all about our non-material connections to each other, whereas economics is about the material side of our socialising, usually for some kind of advantage through exchange, also known as trade.



Society is the beast that is really being studied by these fields, rather than the internal life of the individual, which is where psychology comes in, exploring the deeper, personal side of motivation rather than the purely external connections and their social or material consequences (sociology and economics). But as psychology is my weakest social science topic, you can expect this to be the one I'm least assertive on in this blog.



Natural science has useful things to say on social matters too! Namely, the field of neuroscience grants people the inside scoop on what their brains are up to. Admittedly it's a nascent field, and we may never find the true seat of the self / soul / whatever, but damnit that doesn't stop us from trying!



Those fields will all find some kind of place, even in passing, on this blog, but as I'm writing about whatever interests me at the time, don't be too surprised to find the odd movie review / breakdown on here, too!






Because you're awesome.

Popular posts from this blog

So I was reading a piece on The Outline about identity politics when the author, Sean McElwee, brought up a survey he had penned and collated to establish how positions on economic and racial issues align;
Could Democrats win over racially conservative whites with economic populism? It’s unlikely, because people who oppose racial justice also tend to oppose liberal economic policies.  To test this, I created scales of economic and racial liberalism, using two questions that have been on the American National Election Studies surveys since 1972. One question asks respondents to place themselves on a one-to-seven point scale on government aid to black Americans, the other on a one-to-seven scale on guaranteeing jobs and income for all Americans. In 1972, only 54 percent of white Americans who took the racially liberal position (supporting aid to black Americans) also took the economically liberal position (guaranteeing jobs and income).  By 2016, 74 percent did. And in 1972, 77 perce…

Will Automation Make All of the Jobs Disappear?

... No.

There is no reason to suggest that automation will dramatically increase unemployment in the short term, or at all in the long term.

Seriously, it will not.

Do read the links in the order in which they appear please. Finding the right comments in the third link might be quite interesting. They are all by a user called BestTrousers and start with "RI" meaning R1.

The main argument used by HealthcareEconomist3 is to give a survey of several works, while BestTrousers goes for comparative advantage.

Capital & Labor in the Race to Exploit the Other

The idea that labor exploits capital is equally as plausible, sans assumptions*, as the idea that capital exploits labor. This is only intended as a response to the formal concept, descriptive or normative, of exploitation in Marx's schema from Capital Volume I.

* Assumptions include the power relation whereby capital is just assumed to be above labor hierarchically.

~
~ Capital exploits labor because... ... Capital earns income from production done by labor that capital didn't perform
&
~ Labor exploits Capital because... ... Labor earns income from capital that labor didn't buy
~
Basically in good old formal logic fashion both of those cases above, being factual descriptions, are true at once or are false at once.