I've read very little about economics, can you recommend me a good book to get started? I'm particularly interested in something that will help me understand the type of transactions that carry a systemic risk, and that can explain why there was such an absurdly large housing market bubble and why nobody appeared to have noticed it (I guess some people did, and maybe the rest of the market decided to just brace for the deluge?)

Actually I also have Marx's Capital around here somewhere, maybe I should read that one first.

There's Sraffa's book Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities of course, but a lot of the interesting stuff is found in articles/papers in the literature. In particular I like Garegnani's 'Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution' for a criticism of economic concepts like the production function and demand/supply. For a treatment of the financial crisis specifically you can read A Critical Approach to the Analysis of the Evolution of Financial Regulation Before and After the Crisis, which looks at how changes in regulation lead to increasing systemic risk.

I should point out though that I learned mainstream economics in university before getting interested in alternative economic thought, and without the background knowledge anything you read will be a hard slog.

People will be forced to buy health insurance and health insurance companies will be forced to sell their product to anyone who wants it.


I heard healthcare is pretty expensive in US compared to other developed countries, so, how does that help lower the costs? Won't that cause healthcare costs to rise because there will be an increase in demand but not an increase in the supply of medical services? Maybe everyone is entitled to their health thingies but all that does is change the order in which people have access to it.

You sound like someone fresh out of Economics 101 and brimming with rage at the government and all those union fatcats for tampering with the free market and wages.

The Sraffians dismantled the whole concept of demand and supply forces determining relative prices in the long run in the capital debates of the 60s, but for some reason the right-wing marginalist economists basically ignored all that inconvenient stuff and pushed their theory which is why when you open up an economics textbook the first thing you will see is demand and supply curves drawn up as if they are scientific laws of gravity.

I hate those easy crush bottles so much. All they do is make it harder to reuse bottles so you have to keep buying more, which is worse for the environment. They also make a demonic noise when you accidently crush them in your bag.

hell yeah. it's a small world or it's a small MIRACLE, choose your fate...

...Salt World.... funny name for a planet.....


I've been playing a 3DSWare game called Rabi x Laby 3. It's basically a puzzle platformer where you co-ordinate two characters and navigate your way to the exit. The levels get pretty tricky later on, but the best part is that there's a timer and medal system, so once you've figured out how to clear the level you can go back and speedrun it, trying shortcut strategies or just better execution to shave off seconds.

I haven't finished it yet, but there's a leaderboard for the top total times. The thing I like about the 3DS is that it hasn't been cracked yet, so you can actually have fun competing with other players' scores. It's not really about GAMING SERIOUS BUSINESS, but it's nice to know that those crazy times are legit and, though not in this game, it's fun to be back in an age where you can have secrets and stuff without everything being dissected with cheats the moment it's out.

I needed to remind myself why I still play games, so I reinstalled Tyrian 2000 and gave it another whirl. Searched up the soundtrack on Google and happened upon what appears to be Dada's Youtube channel, so here I am again.

Reddit has really gone to shit. I would say that I find it hard to believe Ron Paul has gained so much traction in such a progressive community, but on second thought it's not so surprising. Fuck that echo chamber.

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, someone on GW had this in his sig:

Art is not, and has never been, subjective.

"Art is subjective" is usually a term used to justify the insufficient pedagogical practices of self righteous dredges who believe themselves true artists despite their complete disregard for the principles of effective design...

Saying that art is in the eye of the viewer is nothing more than self-interested postmodernist bullshit requiring a concerted ignorance of the history and legacy of artistic achievement.

Where is this from? ??? I am dying of curiosity