Some random, disconnected thoughts...are we at the beginning of a new financial crisis leading to a recession?
Well, we just don't know and so many economic predictions come from either blowhards or people who don't have any specialized predictive power.
For example, how often have you heard predictions of an imminent recession only to see the BLS comes out with a report saying we added 500,000 jobs per month? It seems like a discourse dominated by Republicans who just *wanted* a recession so they could blame it on Biden.
It's only about a week since we learned about a very large bank collapse. The *feel* (admittedly not very precise) of the headlines suggests that there is pain ahead and a lot of people are scared. In and of itself that can mean something since psychology influences the economy.
If I had to bet money I'd probably say we're headed for some type of recession, maybe even a mild financial crisis. I don't think it will be as bad as 2008, which was a once in 80-year event.
The @TheBHCNews#bhc2023 just wrapped up. Were presenters finding ways to connect their papers to current events?
I just purchased @jeannasmialek's book, Limitless, which arrived. It must be cool to have one's work be so relevant to current times with the FED and inflation so prominent in the news.
It would be interesting to get Jeanna's take on this:
I used to do a very in-depth lecture on the Great Recession. It was fun to learn about sub-prime loans, mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, and credit-default swaps. I could still rotate it in but now I include it a lecture on Reaganomics.
It's still early. Some basics to keep in mind:
* finance is the lifeblood of the economy b/c everyone relies on credit to function
* bond prices bear inverse relationship to yield (interest rate). As rates go up, prices go down (same thing happens to homes).
Apparently #SVB had some bonds on its books that declined in value as interest rates went up, which was one contributor to the bank run that caused its collapse.
A final plea to writers who have technical expertise: communicate *clearly* so that the general informed reader, beyond just your small circle of friends, can understand you. I've seen too many academics make the mistake of not communicating clearly and it sucks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Someone recently asked, Dead or Allmans? A brief thread that is somewhat akin to who's your favorite sports team, so it can get emotionally charged, especially with Deadheads, but in the end, let's not take this too seriously.
I like both bands but I'll vouch for the Dead...
This is a Wall of Sound show in England, Sept '74. So right before the classic show in Dijon, France and of course, before Winterland '74 that became part of the Grateful Dead movie and the Steal Your Face album.
The Wall of Sound was the HUGE, state-of-the-art sound system the Dead carried around to each venue, impressive even by today's standards, but finicky and costly to erect and dismantle. See an article here.
A lot of dissertations and books I come across in the field of history seem to favor breadth over depth. It seems so ubiquitous that it could easily pass without comment. Here's what I mean. I will come across something and look at the citations...
I see A LOT of secondary sources cited, which does take time and a certain amount of expertise and thinking to synthesize, but often feel unimpressed by the amount of primary sources cited. And since I've seen a lot of older works whose orientation is the opposite, I wonder...
how and why it became this way in academic history?
Your typical topic in academic history seems to take a group, commodity, or larger trend, and discuss it over a 50-year period, let's say. This contrasts with an in-depth study of a figure, election, or battle, for example.
Historians ask questions and construct narratives and arguments based on the responses to those questions. Let's ask a few.
1. In 2003, what percentage of the world's oil did Iraq contain?
2. In 2003, how many metric tons of GHG did Americans emit compared to rest of world?
3. Do you think the answer to question #2 has any relationship to the answer to question #1. If so, what is it?
Once you're aware of that relationship, how do you now think reasons for the United States's invasion of Iraq in 2003, as publicly stated by the Bush administration?
Let's return to Question #2. Of the total amount of GHG emitted by Americans in 2003, what percentage comes from transportation?
In general, do Americans have larger cars compared to Europeans? What is our public transportation like? Do we tax and subsidize fossil fuels in...
I gotta be 100% honest, I get annoyed when I'm challenged on climate. It's not that I think I'm above being challenged. It's that I think I've read a lot of the evidence, the evidence to me is very clear, and I can't understand why others don't feel the urgency I do.
I do understand why people get apathetic or don't want to rock the boat but at the end of the day I don't find these arguments convincing. And it takes a long time to lay out all of the evidence. I'd really like to write a book some time on the history of climate change, and...
oil industry propaganda, but I think those arguing with me on climate ought to do that. I'm busy with 500 students per year at 2 institutions, along with my own publishing goals. Read Oreskes & Conway, the Drilled Podcast and literally hundreds of other pieces of evidence.
1/68. THREAD on the International Gold Standard (GS), Inflation, Finance, and International Trade.
Intended for non-experts. Relevant for our own time! Includes Graphs, links, and images!
2/68. Note: I have not published peer reviewed articles or books on this topic, so I won’t claim to be an expert. Still, I had to learn enough of the basics to write about the Bank War and want to share my enthusiasm and understanding with others.
3/68. To start off, we can define the international gold standard as a monetary system used by most of the world’s major economies that prevailed from roughly 1870 to 1914.