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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Private Ownership and the Emergence of Field-based Agriculture

Quick update: There is a nicer, fancier article on this very subject on another blog. If for some reason you read my article below, treat yourself and partake of properal's piece too . ~~~ There is a paper by Samuel Bowles and Jung-Kyoo Choi called 'Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene' and it is wonderful. It leaves a few stones unturned and its thesis needs to be empirically verified or falsified but it really begins to clarify the intimate relationship between the form of agriculture that we refer to as farming on the one hand and private ownership on the other. Their thesis is that technology was not the driver that led to long-term (inter-generational) farming, but also that farming did not follow some moment where the folks in a society all said "hey, let's all have private property now!" Rather, what they posit is that farming and private property actually coalesced, ad-hoc and over a multi-generational time-fram...

I AM AN AUSTRIAN

Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes. I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops. I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past? Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful. NOT MAINSTREAM? Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview,...

1318 - The Evil Capitalists Own Your Mom!

The New Scientist ran a piece  on the economic relationships between the 43,060 transnational corporations in the world as of 2007. It turns out that 147 of 'em are thick as thieves, which each of those 147 entirely owned by one or more of the others within that clique. Naturally some anti-capitalists have decided that this proliferation of tight interconnections constitutes the proof that not buying what someone's selling will fail to put that seller out of business. Takes all sorts to make a world, brah. Is concentration scary in itself? No; John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability. Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable . “If one [compan...