Posts on Twitter:

Dutch Q2 GDP Expands At Steady Pace



















Replying to

They went under because the banks demanded a £200M security and nobody stepped in to pay for this including the taxpayer. Now they’ve gone under we have a 600M bill that tax payers will foot. is so badly managed under successive Tory governments.Tories used to be sound







RT : Alfred Marshall, FBA was one of the most influential economists of his time. His book, Principles of Economics, was the dominant economic textbook in England for many years.




Alfred Marshall, FBA was one of the most influential economists of his time. His book, Principles of Economics, was the dominant economic textbook in England for many years.






Show this thread

📄 23.09.19 Script on Calendar, Shares, News & Statistics. Script sur le Calendrier, Actions, Nouvelles et Statistiques. ▢ Subscribe to the « 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 » :




No need to worry about your homework. Allow me to do your homework. I assure you that you will get 100% score guaranteed. DM ME FOR , , , , , , .




"Ghana will grow faster than any other economy this year, the IMF says why "




Ghana will grow faster than any other economy this year, the IMF says why










Ghana will grow faster than any other economy this year, the IMF says why RT WEF









Retweet Retweeted Like Liked
Posts on Tumblr:

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
—  Terry Pratchett - Men At Arms
image

Productivity [Day 9 / 100]

I swear, it’s like my online economics teacher WANTS me to get distracted. So far I’ve had to look up 3 different things on google after his “Step 1” video for the week was like, “I hope you watched the economics video I posted for this week, as it tells you all about this.”

Dude! This is VIDEO 1. There should not be another video before this. Guhhhhhff.

Serious props to all you econ majors out there. Thank you for pursuing all this, cuz I sure as hell never will.

Mansion of the Stroganov family in Solvychegodsk (Russia, 17th century).  The Stroganovs were a powerful merchant family who seized land from local populations and were instrumental in the Russian conquest of Siberia. Solvychegodsk was known for its saltworks, which started the Stroganovs’ fortunes.  The name “Solvychegodsk” literally means “salt on the Vychegda River”.

anonymous asked:

“ a form of dom” ahaha but yes i love love economics and I can’t wait to get to studying it at uni

I’ll let you know how it goes!!

First year is gonna be a little easier for me cause I studied econ in IB

My Government is looking to the future. Guyana is entering a new phase of economic development. The advent of petroleum production, next year, will result in sustained expansion of the economy.
—  President David Granger of Guyana on plans for what he terms, the Decade of Development: 2020-2029
image
image
image
image
image

The Destruction of Resistance through Appeasement

As many other people, I too, joined the Earth Strike on the 20th of September this year. I have to confess I love protests and demonstrations. The manifestation of the people’s will and the sense of solidarity and power of all these different individuals coming together to demand a better future is the purest form of human expression. But, how powerful are actions like these, really?

I understand that children not going to school four times a month is supposed to move the powerful to change something. But the rich and powerful care for their own profit and gain, and would only change something if it was in their best interest. So, unfortunately not even some 100’000 people going on the streets calling for climate justice will persuade them to take action. We encounter the same issue here as we do with voting. If it could change something it would be made illegal by those in power.

One of the demands that were loudly voiced was the call for a system change, not climate change. And while I understand and support this view I know that nothing will really be changed for the planet’s or the people’s benefit unless we force those in power to do so. There is a reason why you never see the rich genuinely supporting just causes. They profit from killing the planet, they profit from exploiting both nature and humans. And any kind of change to that system would be fatal to them.

And here is where we get to the point. In order for us, the people, the many, not to rise up and get confident enough to take them down, they agree to slight alterations, which many supporters of any movement, including this one, will accept and drop the issue. Now, they don’t do this because they know that it is right but because they know how to pacify the people. Whatever concessions are made to the movement it will not be enough to save the planet and they simply do not care. 

This sort of appeasement policy is widely liked by the people in power. They know how and when to use it to be the most effective, and the governments that the people try to move to cut carbon emissions and stop climate change can and will not force the companies on which they rely on so heavily to do anything that is not in their best interest. For if the politicians aren’t directly linked to an enormous corporation, then they have some other self interest that keeps them from forcing companies to do right. But apart from the massively negative consequences to the planet, since these concessions will not be enough to save it, nor will it happen soon enough, this pacifying effect gives the people a wrong sense of safety and accomplishment which makes them shut up long enough for those in power to keep profiting and further destroy the planet.

I am aware that this is a rather negative text. It is, however, important to remember not to give in and naively believe that things will get better after this. I am all for taking to the streets and fight for what is right. Remember what the goal is. A peaceful world, where everyone is free to do as they please, nature is thriving, everyone has all they need and want, and where there are no masters, no hierarchies, just freedom and happiness. I believe that we need stronger actions to bring about change.

Gather in solidarity. We are the many. For the better world.

image
image
image

220919 . • .

[18/100] hey i got further with quite a lot yesterday. not at the level i want to be but we’re making progress. also wtf i dropped my tea on my notebook yet again (part 4) luckily it’s dried and it didn’t damage my notebook, but like i need to stop spilling my tea 😬 also it’s my friends bd today so i might be less productive today (miGht). anyways, take care 💕✨

Siberian History (Part 7): Mangazeya

The Russian frontiersmen in Siberia still had to depend on Moscow for support (such as administrative & logistical support).  During the Time of Troubles, the Siberian garrison was mostly left to themselves, which lead to disease, starvation and death.

The natives peoples of Siberia took the opportunity to make several attempts at an uprising.  The most powerful was in 1608, when Princess Anna of Koda, a “Tartar Joan of Arc”, nearly succeeded in uniting the entire native population of Western Siberia to revolt.

In 1612, an attempt was made to re-establish the old Khanate of Sibir “as it had been in the time of Kuchum”.  But it was betrayed at the last minute, and ten of its ringleaders were rounded up and hanged.

By now, the Russian occupation of the Ob-Irtysh Basin had increased the nation’s size by a third.  But in Moscow, Siberia still wasn’t properly understood as a geographical entity, and so it was used as a political bargaining chip.

Boris Godunov, for example, tried get an influential boyar to support him against False Dmitry I, by promisng him “the Kingdoms of Kazan, Astrakhan, and all Siberia”.  The False Dmitry II promised to reward his brother-in-law, a powerful Polish noble, with “the whole land of Siberia” for his help.

But the Ob-Irtysh Basin had scarcely been secured before the Russian advance into the next great river valley, the Yenisei, began.

image
image

The Russians ascended the eastern tributaries of the Ob River, and crossed a low plateau to streams flowing into the Yenisei.  By 1619, they had taken all the important river routes and portages that connected those two rivers.  They organized expeditions from Mangazeya (in the north) and Tomsk & Ketsk (in the south), coming at the river valley from both directions.

image

The Taz Estuary marks the area where Mangazeya was located.

They met the Tungu people on the lower Yenisei, and the Buryats (whom they’d never heard of before) on the upper Yenisei.  The Buryats lived in a region that was rich in furs, and they practised animal husbandry; they were rumoured to grow crops and have access to silver.  This was guaranteed to interest Russia.

The Tungu people (east of the Yenisei) and the Buryats (around Lake Baikal) fought to prevent Russia from establishing bases in their territory, but failed.  Yeniseysk was founded in 1619 (where the Angara and Yenisei Rivers meet); Krasnoyarsk was founded in 1627 (astride cliffs of red-coloured marl); and Bratsk was founded in 1631 (on the Angara River).

image


image

On the upper Yenisei River (the southern part of it), the Russians met the staunch resistance of the Kyrgyz people and the Kalmuks, both steppe nomads.  Their homelands bordered Siberia to the south, and they were continually hostile.  Eventually, a solidly-fortified line was established over the southern frontier, but this would take two centuries.

Meanwhile, Russian mariners had developed the sea route north of Russia from Arkhangel to Mangazeya (which was just a few miles above the Arctic Circle).  At Mangazeya, they bartered goods with the local Khanty and Samoyedic peoples for furs.  Mangazeya prospered and grew, attracting more and more traders, who were willing to navigate the treacherous waters of the Kara Sea.

One contemporary account says that: “Hundreds of thousands of sable, ermine, silver and blue fox skins, and countless tons of precious mammoth and walrus ivory” were shipped every year from Mangazeya and Europe.  This was an illicit trade that had begun during the Time of Troubles, and the government couldn’t manage to gain control of it.

Porcelain, silk, and other expensive fabrics were traded (through middlemen) from Central Asia & China to Mangazeya.  The city was “a virtual Baghdad of Siberia, where big commercial deals were celebrated at fabulous feasts that lasted for days, and that featured the best European wines and local delicacies like sturgeon, caviar, mushrooms, berries, and venison and other game.”

By the time stability was restored in Moscow, reports of Siberia’s vast wealth in furs had spread far and wide.  This, of course, attracted the attention and greed of European powers who wanted new colonies.  The Russian government worried that foreign agents might try to trade directly with the natives, or even attempt an armed invasion (through the Taz Estuary) to seize the whole of north-western Siberia.

Meanwhile, inland merchants working out of the Urals, Tyumen and Tobolsk were envious of Mangazeya, as it siphoned off commerce that would otherwise have come to them.

So in 1619, the Russian government closed the sea route to Mangazeya. They forbade even Russians to use it, in case foreigners found it out from them.  Anyone who broke this law was to be “put to the hardest possible death, and all their homes and families destroyed branch and root”.

Navigational markings were torn up.  Surveillance posts were established along the coast, to intercept and kill anyone who tried to get through.  A coastal fort was built on the Yamal Peninsula, commanding the portage between the Ob Gulf and the Kara Sea.  Maps were falsified to depict Novaya Zemlya as a peninsula, rather than an island.  This would cause problems for later mariners who were using them as nautical guides.

Gradually, Mangazeya declined, and the rich merchants left.  In 1643, its administrative apparatus was moved to Turukhansk – this city was founded at the mouth of the Turukhan River, a tributary of the Yenisei.  For a while, it was known as “New Mangazeya”.

In 1678, Mangazeya was burned to the ground, without any official explanation.  The local Samoyedic peoples called its ruins Tagarevyhard, which means “destroyed town”.  The site wouldn’t be rediscovered for almost three centuries.

Mangazeya, perhaps more than any other early settlement, was the proof of the enormous wealth that Siberia possessed.  In 1632, a former military governor of the district strongly encouraged the tsar to press on from the Yenisei to conquer the Lena River Basin.  His encouragement was inspired by the riches of Mangazeya.

For more than a quarter-century, one party has believed that government should leave markets alone to maximize economic growth that will benefit everyone; the other has believed that government should nurture markets to maximize economic growth that will benefit everyone. And for more than a quarter-century, those markets have produced growth whose rewards have mainly been captured by the 1 percent. What we don’t have is a party dedicated to the actual welfare of ordinary families — one that believes that government is a means for a decent society to provide for the security and well-being of all its members. Until we have such a party, the reign of the economists will continue.
Siberian History (Part 6): The Time of Troubles

By the late 1500s, Russia was one of the largest nations on earth. Its many principalities had been united by stealth & force under the reign of Moscow, and now that the Khanates of Kazan & Astrakhan on the Volga River had been subjugated, Russia was now a multinational state.

From Ivan the Terrible onwards, the tsar claimed to rule by “divine right”.  This was already common in Europe, but the Russian tsar’s power was autocratic and absolute.  One contemporary wrote about Ivan, “like Nebuchadnezzar, he slew, had beaten, elevated, or humbled whomsoever he wished.”

The state bureaucracy was growing, and near the top was the Boyar Dumar, the royal council made up mostly of men of noble birth.  There was also an inner cabinet of councillors, whom the tsar could consult.  But it was said of Ivan that he often did so “in the manner of Xerxes, the Persian Emperor, who assembled the Asian princes not so much to secure their advice…as to personally declare his will.”

Russia had a population of about 13 million people, mostly impoverished peasants who worked on large estates, or worked their garden-like plots in tiny hamlets across the land.

The old aristocracy had been humbled somewhat, and the service gentry had arisen to take its place.  The difference between the two was that the old aristocracy inherited their titles & land by inheritance, whereas the service gentry were awarded estates for service to the tsar.  However, the service gentry would eventually acquire many of the prerogatives of the aristocracy, including titles and inheritable estates.

Russia had no true middle class, independent merchant guilds, or any mercantile economy of the sort that was beginning to grow in many European countries.  The gosts (“great merchants”) were appointed by the Crown.  All offices & positions were in the employ of the state, i.e. “state service”.

Travel within Russia was restricted, and travel abroad was almost unknown, “that Russians might not learn of the free institutions that exist in foreign lands.”  Police surveillance was widespread, and people had the “duty to denounce” – no matter what rank or standing people had, they had to politically inform on each other, and report whatever they knew or heard about disloyal acts or thoughts.

Punishments were harsh, and torture was common.  People could be torn to pieces with iron hooks, beheaded or impaled, branded with red-hot irons, have their limbs cut off, or beaten with the knout.  The “knout” was a short whip with a tapered end, and attacked to this tapered end were three tongs of hard tanned elk hide, which cut like knives.

The roads were poor, and there were no inns between towns for travellers.  Alcoholism was a major problem throughout the nation.  There was little intellectual curiosity – even a simple knowledge of astronomy, such as the ability to predict eclipses, could lead to a charge of witchcraft.

One foreign diplomat said that the habit of oppression had “set a print into the very mindes of the people.  For as themselves are verie hardlie and cruellie dealte withall by their chiefe magistrates and other superiours, so are they as cruell one against an other, specially over their inferiours and such as are under them.  So that the basest and wretchedest [peasant] that stoupeth and croucheth like a dog to the gentleman, and licketh up the dust that lieth at his feete, is an intollerable tyrant where he hath the advantage.”

Foreigners saw the Russians as a semi-barbaric, insular people and state, arrogantly self-assured as the true bearer of Christianity, but rife with ignorance, supersitition and immorality.  One visitor to Muscovy made up a rhyme about it:

Churches, ikons, crosses, bells, / Painted whores and garlic smells, / Vice and vodka everyplace – / This is Moscow’s daily face.

To loiter in the market air, / To bathe in common, bodies bare, / To sleep by day and gorge by night, / To belch and fart is their delight.

Thieving, murdering, fornication / Are so common in this nation, / No one thinks a brow to raise – / Such are Moscow’s sordid days.

But it was not as bad as foreigners claimed.  The common people were genuinely religious, and a renaissance was taking place – through trade and other contracts, Western cultural influences were beginning to have an effect.  These influences, combined with Russia’s rich Byzantine heritage, might have brought about a true renaissance, but these currents would be overwhelmed by the bloody legacies of the immediate past.

Ivan the Terrible’s tyrrany had divided the nation in two; and the social enmities he had created would outlive him.  In 1581, he killed his eldest son, Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich, during an argument.  When he died himself in 1584, his son Fyodor succeeded him.

Fyodor I was absent-minded and reluctant to be monarch, and he relied heavily on the boyars appointed to be his guardians.  Plots sprung up, a power struggle ensued, and Boris Godunov became the dominant figure behind the throne.  Boris was a noble of Tatar origin, and his sister was married to Fyodor.  Soon, he was recognized as Lord Protector (as the English called him), and the de facto head of state.

Under Godunov’s reign, trade prospered, revenue increased, taxes decreased, and peace returned. Fugitive peasants returned to their homesteads, more arable land was cultivated, grain prices fell, and granaries recorded large surpluses.  Construction increased, with stone walls around Moscow and Smolensk; many new churches, expanded port facilities at Arkhangel, and the completion of the Ivan the Great Belltower in the Kremlin, reaching upwards in three tapering octagonal tiers.

There was military progress as well.  Godunov made headway against the nomadic peoples in the southern steppes (between Russia and the Crimea), established a series of important fortified towns, recoered territory lost to Sweden during the Livonian War, and pushed Siberian conquest eastwards from the Ob River.

When Fyodor died in 1598 without an heir, Godunov was offered the crown.  He denied it three times, to demonstrate the inevitability of his succession, and looked to the masses for his support.  At his coronation (in the Dormition Cathedral on September 1st, 1598) , he declared: “As God is my witness, there will not be a poor man in my stardom!” and tore the jewelled collar froms his gown.  Jealous nobles called him Rabotsar, which means “the Tsar of slaves”.

image

There are no known contemporary portraits of Godunov, but this is what he probably looked like.

After Godunov’s coronation, favours were announced, army & administration officials received a substantial salary increase, merchants were granted tax breaks, and the natives of Western Siberia were exempted from taxes for a year. Godunov said: “We take a moderate tribute, as much as each can pay…And from the poor people, who cannot pay the tribute, no tribute is to be taken, so that none of the Siberian people should be in need.”

But this could not solve all the problems.  The biggest problem was the competition among landed proprietors for peasants to work their estates.  The more prosperous of them tempted peasants away from their smaller holdings.  Many of these small holdings were held on military tenure, so their decline affected the security of the nation.

The government tried to solve this problem by binding the peasants to the soil.  Peasants’ freedom of movement had already been severely curtailed over the years, but now new decrees pushed them towards serfdom.

The service gentry squeezed everything they could from their peasants, who were already near breaking point because of state taxation.  As a consequence, violence spread.  In Russia’s heartland, bands of highwaymen (who were once peasants) ransacked monasteries & manorial estates.  Along the southern frontier, legions of the disaffected accumulated.  Things were moving towards rebellion.

From 1601 – 03, protracted crops failures led to famine and mass starvation.  Godunov distributed money and grain from the public treasury to those who were destitute, but widespread hoarding & profiteering by landlords & merchants (including the Stroganov family) not only negated his actions but made it worse.  

Whole villages were wiped out. People ate cats, dogs and rats, as well as bark and straw.  Human flesh was sold in public markets.  An eyewitness wrote that every day in Moscow, “people perished in their thousands like flies on winter days.  Men carted the dead away and dumped them into ditches, as was done with mud and refuse, but in the morning, “bodies half devoured, and other things so horrible that the hair stood up on end” could be seen.  A court apothecary rescued a little girl from starvation, and entrusted her to a peasant family; he later learned that they had eaten her.

Thousands of unemployed labourers, and peasants abandoned to their fate by uncaring masters, scavenged throughout the countryside, or fled into the wilderness. This was the Time of Troubles, which lasted from 1598 to 1613.

It was beyond Godunov’s control, and his standing fell.  He was a legitimate tsar, properly elected; but he couldn’t claim any dynastic link with Russia’s “sacred” past.  People soon began to see him as a ruthless usurper who had taken the throne through violence, crime and deceit.  Rumours spread that he’d murdered Tsarevich Dmitry Ivanovich (Ivan the Terrible’s 9-year-old son by his seventh wife); that he’d poisoned his own sister; that he’d poisoned Fyodor I himself.  Godunov’s spy network uncovered many plots, but discontent was still growing stronger.

There was an uprising in 1603 by peasants, fugitive slaves and bandits, which the army put a stop to. The people began to long for the protection of a “born tsar”, romanticizing even the worst parts of their past.

Then a rumour sprang up that Tsarevich Dmitry had miraculously survived his assassination, and was about to retake the throne.  The pretender (known later as False Dmitry I) was backed by the Poles, and in October 1604 he crossed into Muscovy, leading an army of mercenaries and volunteers.  This False Dmitry was conventionally ugly, “a strange and ungainly figure with facial warts and arms of unequal length”.  He was a charismatic leader, and many people joined his cause.  His army was over 16,000 men by November.  Godunov, feeling helpless, turned to sorcery & divination to try and alter his fate.

image

False Dmitry I.

Godunov died on April 13th, 1605, from poison or a stroke.  His wife and son were murdered within the next few weeks, and the Kremlin was stormed.  False Dmitry I ruled for nearly a year, from June 10th, 1605, to May 17th, 1606.

Then he was toppled by Vasily Shuisky, who became Tsar Vasily IV.  Shuisky had the right pedigree, but not popular support.

New uprisings and foreign invasions followed this.  In June 1607, False Dmitry II, again backed by the Poles, advanced on Moscow.  This led to Vasily IV’s deposition in July 1610, and the installation of a Polish tsar, Vladislav I (he would later become King of Poland, in 1632).

image

Vasily IV (17th-century painting).

It seemed as if Muscovy would be partitioned.  Russian popular armies rose up in the north and east, and advanced with patriotic fervour.  On October 25th, 1612, the Polish garrison in the Kremlin capitulated, and the foreigners were driven out.

On February 21st, 1613, a national assembly elected a new tsar.  This was Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov (Mikhail I), the grand-nephew of Anastasia Romanova, Ivan the Terrible’s first wife.  The Time of Troubles then came to an end.

Hi!

I’ve been on tumblr for a long time (far too long) but I’ve decided to create a studyblr now that I’m off to university!

The hope is that I can motivate myself and be motivated by other similar blogs to help me get through my course. I’m studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics but I’m also interested in learning French on the side. 

If anyone posts about any of these things, or runs a studyblr then please give this post a like/reblog so that I can give you a follow!

Thank you!!

youtube

John Stossel: Life is getting better. Don’t believe news reports—we’re healthier, richer, and safer than ever before.

@chibi-blastoise @unabashedlynerdypatrol

This is going to be a long read, but if you’re actually interested in solutions, here are some passages from Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. I’m not being sarcastic or condescending when I say I recommend it highly to literally everyone.

“…it is contended, the government, by forbidding increases in rents, protects tenants from extortion and exploitation without doing any real harm to landlords and without discouraging new construction.

This argument is defective even on the assumption that the rent control will not long remain in effect. It overlooks an immediate consequence. If landlords are allowed to raise rents to reflect a monetary inflation and the true conditions of supply and demand, individual tenants will economize by taking less space. This will allow others to share the accommodations that are in short supply. The same amount of housing will shelter more people, until the shortage is relieved.

Rent control, however, encourages wasteful use of space. It discriminates in favor of those who already occupy houses or apartments in a particular city or region at the expense of those who find themselves on the outside.

The effects of rent control become worse the longer the rent control continues. New housing is not built because there is no incentive to build it. With the increase in building costs (commonly as a result of inflation), the old level of rents will not yield a profit … If, as often happens, the government finally recognizes this and exempts new housing from rent control, there is still not an incentive to as much new building as if older buildings were also free of rent control.

A common next step of legislatures, acting under merely political pressures or confused economic ideas, is to take rent controls off “luxury” apartments while keeping them on low or middle-grade apartments. The argument is that the rich tenants can afford to pay higher rents, but the poor cannot.

The long-run effect of this discriminatory device, however, is the exact opposite of what its advocates intend. The builders and owners of luxury apartments are encouraged and rewarded; the builders and owners of the more needed low-rent housing are discouraged and penalized. The former are free to make as big a profit as the conditions of supply and demand warrant; the latter are left with no incentive (or even capital) to build more low rent housing.

The result is a comparative encouragement to the repair and remodeling of luxury apartments, and a tendency for what new private building there is to be diverted to luxury apartments. But there is no incentive to build new low-income housing, or even to keep existing low-income housing in good repair. The accommodations for the low-income groups, therefore, will deteriorate in quality, and there will be no increase in quantity.

It may reach a point where many landlords not only cease to make any profit but are faced with mounting and compulsory losses. They may find that they cannot even give their property away. They may actually abandon their property and disappear, so they cannot be held liable for taxes. When owners cease supplying heat and other basic services, the tenants are compelled to abandon their apartments. Wider and wider neighborhoods are reduced to slums … it has become a common sight to see whole blocks of abandoned apartments, with windows broken, or boarded up to prevent further havoc by vandals. Arson becomes more frequent, and the owners are suspected.

When these consequences are so clear that they become glaring, there is of course no acknowledgement on the part of the imposers of rent control that they have blundered. Instead, they denounce the capitalist system. They contend that private enterprise has “failed” again; that “private enterprise cannot do the job.” Therefore, they argue, the State must step in and itself build low-rent housing.” (End quote.)

So, to answer your questions, my solution is for the State to fuck off. That’s it. Rent control can and has quite literally destroyed cities and communities. I don’t want to leave it as it is. The State should slash regulation regarding the construction of new housing, and get rid of any and all rent controls. If rents are allowed to fluctuate based on supply and demand, you will get the greatest supply of “affordable” housing possible. Why? Because the most amount of people want it. And landlords and builders want to make profit. You don’t make profit by building shit people don’t want unless the government forces them to buy it. But the reason the politicians won’t do this is because they have entire voting blocs that don’t understand how rents got so expensive, so they think government stepping in will be a quick fix, even though it is the politicians’ fault in the first place.