How to Make Your Own Luck (Ep. 424) - Freakonomics Freakonomics - "KONNIKOVA: In his Critique of Pure Reason, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant proposes betting as an antidote to one of the great ills of society: false confidence bred from an ignorance of the probabilistic nature of the world, from a desire to see black and white where we should rightly see gray. From a misplaced faith in certainty, the fact that to our minds, 99 percent, even 90 percent, basically means 100 percent — even though it doesn’t, not really. Kant offers the example of a doctor asked to make a diagnosis. The doctor reaches a verdict on the patient’s malady to the best of his knowledge — but that conclusion isn’t necessarily correct. It’s just the best he can do given the information he has and his experience in this particular area. But will he tell the patient he’s unsure? Maybe. But more likely, if his certainty reaches a specific threshold — a different one for different doctors, to be sure — he will just state his diagnosis as fact.But what if he had to bet on it?"
Remembrance of Economic Crises Past (Ep. 425) - Freakonomics Freakonomics - "ROMER: We had the Making Work Pay tax credit. We thought, rather than write people checks and have them arrive in their mailbox or in their account, we would just slip it in. So, it’s just going to show up in lower withholding. And we thought people would just notice they had more money in their bank account and maybe that would have a good effect on spending. As it turned out, most people didn’t seem to even know they got it. Or worse yet, they thought the Obama administration had raised their taxes, which they hadn’t. We’d cut them by a lot. So, that was one that just didn’t work as we’d anticipated... economic theory doesn’t give us good insight. It’s really, in some sense, a behavioral question. Do people respond more if they see the check in their hands or do they respond more if it just shows up in their paycheck a little bit every month?...
DUBNER: I’ve heard this from several employers, mostly small- and medium-sized firms — that even if they survived Covid pretty well or are now returning to business, that they are having a really hard time rehiring their own former employees because the unemployment insurance and the other aid that people have been getting is really great and they can literally earn as much, if not more, by not going to work. I know this was an early concern when the CARES Act was being put together. It was largely dismissed as saying, “Hey, it’s much better to support individuals, if this is the downside, we’ll live with it.”...
ROMER: When I was in the Obama administration, certainly later in the Obama administration, when he desperately needed more fiscal stimulus, that was the moment when policymakers, especially Republican policymakers, decided that, “No, fiscal policy didn’t do anything.” But then part of what’s happened over the last 10 years is there’s just been paper after paper looking at what was done in the Recovery Act, looking at what was done across countries in terms of their fiscal response to the Great Recession."
Homo economicus at work again!
For the Communists, people not returning to work is a feature, not a bug
Of course, there're still people who insist fiscal policy doesn't work because they don't want it to
Should America (and FIFA) Pay Reparations? (Ep. 426) - Freakonomics Freakonomics - "In most industries, supply and demand create what seems like a sensible equilibrium that produces a sensible wage. But pro sports is a bit different.Like other fields of entertainment, it’s more of a tournament model, with a handful of big winners who win really big. Are the big winners really that much better than the ones who don’t even get into the arena? Consider Beyoncé. Last year, she earned about $80 million. I’m sure she worked very hard. And she’s super-talented. But is she 1,000 times more talented, did she work 1,000 times harder, than, say, a singer who records in her basement and maybe runs her church choir and teaches music in an elementary school? The actor Bradley Cooper made about $57 million last year. He seems like a really nice guy — but is Bradley Cooper really $56.95 million nicer and better-looking and more talented than some other actor who’s making $50,000 a year, tips included?"
Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans - Wikipedia - "In 1792, during the French Revolution, he changed his name to Philippe Égalité. Louis Philippe d'Orléans was a cousin of Louis XVI and one of the wealthiest men in France. He actively supported the Revolution of 1789, and was a strong advocate for the elimination of the present absolute monarchy in favor of a constitutional monarchy. He voted for the death of king Louis XVI; however, he was himself guillotined in November 1793 during the Reign of Terror."
FAIL!
Anita Sarkeesian attacks The Mandalorian for "boob armour" - "It’s not easy to appease Anita Sarkeesian. A few years ago she lead a campaign to change the games industry forever. She thought the games industry, both game designers and gamers alike, were toxic misogynists and sexist pigs. Her goal was to make it more inclusive.After making several speeches at some campuses and complaining on the internet she vowed to make a documentary series called Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. Sarkeesian launched a Kickstarter for her series and, despite reaching many of her stretch goals, she did not deliver on her promise… until much later at least. After being called a scam artist Anita finally decided to — somewhat — deliver on her promise and released a handful of episodes to her series. However, it was blatantly obvious to many that the funds that she made through Kickstarter did not all go to production of her series... The mainstream media buried the controversy an Anita went on to become a highly influential figure, even influencing games like The Last of Us Part II, in the games industry."
Anita Sarkeesian Doubles Down Labels Criticism of Her Attack on The Mandalorian and Jon Favreau as "Harassment" - "Anita Sarkeesian, a self-labeled feminist media critic, doubled down on her attack of Jon Favreau and The Mandalorian by labeling those who called her out as harassers. Sarkeesian took to Twitter to play victim despite being the initial aggressor. She would also continue to attack the show insinuating it “normalizes patriarchy.”... In what I can only describe as a mind Twister, Sarkeesian justifies what she describes as online harassment if it comes from her point of view.She writes, “Allowing space to voice dissenting opinions is important but there is a big difference between calling out oppressive and regressive ideologies and defending the status quo to the degree that it actively works to dehumanize the most vulnerable people in our society.” Sarkeesian then claims that the individuals who decided to call her out for her attack on Jon Favreau and The Mandalorian are actively trying to silence her. Interestingly enough, she is still Tweeting about it and now claiming she is some kind of victim. She would double down on all of this and receive aide from the Access Media in the form of Kat Tenbarge at Insider."
Anita Sarkeesian Claims Ant-Man and The Wasp's Main Plot is "Saving a Damsel in Distress" - She Gets Rebuked! - "Feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, who founded the website Feminist Frequency in 2009 and would go on to crowdfund a YouTube video series Tropes vs Women in Video Games decided to air her opinion on the latest Marvel Studios film, Ant-Man and the Wasp.Sarkeesian would claim, “The ENTIRE MAIN PLOT IS ABOUT SAVING A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS!” She would even agree that the subplot is about a damsel in distress as well. Many folks quickly rebuked Sarkeesian and set the record straight on exactly what happened in Ant-Man and The Wasp... even if Janet Van Dyne was a damsel in distress as Anita Sarkeesian claims, would it take away from the film? No. There would definitely be different plot points, but it wouldn’t take away from the film."
What’s In A Medieval Name? | HistoryExtra Podcast - HistoryExtra - "One of the key things about names in the in the sort of 700s, 800s, is that people only had one name. So they didn't have a byname or systematic byname or surname added to it like we have today. So my name is James Chetwood. The Chetwood bit wouldn't exist, I would just be James. And this is perhaps one of the reasons why people had a wide variety of names, you have a wider variety of names. By having a wide range of names, you didn't need to have a surname. And that's the same in Scandinavia, actually. So the development of bynames, both as nicknames, or nicknames and relationship names, including parental patronyms and matronyms, starts to come in around the 10th century... There's very, very little repetition of names throughout a family as well. So today, you might name your, your son or daughter after a grandparent or an Uncle and Auntie. eRm, what you see is this doesn't happen, is that at least not in the fifth, sixth seventh centuries, people try to avoid naming children after living relatives, and which might be to do with very different reasons. But there's no passing down of names in the same way as today. And that's one of the key things that changes over the period…
‘You mentioned in your, in your research, a theory by somebody called Régine Lejeune [sp?] who suggested that it was that was due to some demonic belief in the indivisibility of body and spirit and a fear that you would be in some way, I don't know, doing a disservice to your ancestors if you took their name, I suppose.’
‘Yeah, I think there is something to that. And although I don't think that can be the only reason, she explains that there is this idea that, yeah, people having the same name as someone else is essentially stealing their, almost like stealing their soul, their essence and their individuality... this changes as Christianity takes over from Germanic paganism’...
'Obviously, the occupational names are related to somewhat, anything that will actually be when they are still being given as a, as part of, as a sort of creative process in someone's life, they very much would indicate their social status. Some of these are ironic. So that you get people called King and Baron who are quite clearly not kings or barons. And so it might be that they're very poor. Actually, they've got a nickname that shows that they are very poor. And, and it might be something to do with their character. But obviously, if you are someone called Tanner, that that shows that you have a job, so you're not the lowest of the low, you've got a profession, but obviously, that's not quite as prestigious as a Smith. If that makes sense. So a Smith would be one up, a priest would be one more up. So actually, they're very good tools indicating an individual's social status. And, but you're right that obviously, once they become hereditary, we can see that most people don't, most people in, for most of history, stay roughly the same place and roughly stay at the same social status. That might be a controversial thing to say. But actually, surnames are and are a good way of working out where someone comes from originally originally. Because most people stay in roughly the same part of the country until around the Industrial Revolution. And there's not a huge amount of social mobility'"
Exclusive podcast: Dan Jones on the human stories of the crusades - HistoryExtra - "This is the late 11th century. And it's a fair bet at this time, if you're talking about crusading history, it’s like 50-50, a man is probably called Baldwin at this point… This Baldwin, cousin of Roger sends ambassadors down to Sicily. And the ambassadors approach Roger and they say, listen, how about this. Baldwin, your cousin thinks it'd be great if he could go to North Africa, not very far away from Sicily, of course, and attack the rich Islamic held cities of North Africa and plunder them and take them over and take their trade. It’d be a great thing to do, great Christian thing to do, great, you know, great for all of us. Can we come down to Sicily and use Sicily as the launchpad to go and attack the rich Islamic cities in North Africa, please? And Roger didn't say anything to this initially. He just lifts up his leg and farts in their general direction. Now, if you really know your history, you're thinking now of Monty Python. I fart in your general direction, okay. You may have thought that was the sort of invention of the Monty Pythons and the Holy Grail... And when he finishes doing that, he finally speaks. He says to Baldwin’s ambassador, he says, well, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of course, you can't come down to Sicily and use this as a launchpad to attack the rich Islamic cities in North Africa. I've taken ages conquering Sicily from the Muslims thank you very much. Massive expenditure in time and money and blood. Taken all this for me to get here. Well you’re just gonna march in and use my Sicily as a launchpad. Absolutely not. I do very good trade thank you very much with the Muslims in North Africa. Don’t want that disrupted. Anyone's going to conquer those cities, is going to be me. But he says, but I'll tell you what, go back to Baldwin to say, if he really wants to go and attack Muslims, in a nice, rich city, good for plundering, there’s loads of them in Jerusalem...
The big story over this as well as the defense of the Crusade States, is of the Islamic world getting its act together. All the Islamic Chronicles said, why does the First Crusade succeed? Well, it's because the Islamic world of the Near East was totally fractured between the Sunni Seljuk Turks who are themselves all fighting with each other, the Shiite Fatimids in Egypt, who, frankly wanted a buffer zone between the Sunni Turks. The whole thing was, sort of Fatimid Caliphate is falling to bits in Egypt, the whole thing is a hot mess, and it's just waiting for somebody to come and reunite the Islamic world of the Near East"
Damn US foreign policy, causing the Sunnis and Shiites to be fighting in the 11th century!
Andrew Adonis On Ernest Bevin | HistoryExtra Podcast - HistoryExtra - "‘It's this combination of Bevan and Bevin, which is the Labour Party at its best, and you need both sides of that equation.’
‘It's interesting that you talk about this combination and I mean, clearly Bevin is a huge figure in his own day, but actually nowadays, I get the sense of Bevan is a lot better known than Bevin is. Why do you think he's become perhaps relatively obscure?’
‘The reason that Bevin has fallen into the shade is most of my Labour Party friends even today, are much happier talking about the NHS than talking about NATO. International defense and dealing with international dictators, particularly on the left, is a necessary evil as far as they're concerned, whereas what they're actually in politics for, they see it as a more equal society, and a stronger welfare state. Now, I'm with them in wanting the more equal society and the strong welfare state. That is what the Labour Party exists to do, but it will never be able to do it unless it can get into into power and is trusted to manage Britain's international relations. And it's this combination of Bevin and Bevan, which I think we need to celebrate, because why is it that Labour finds it so difficult to win elections? It's partly because particularly the English middle class has big big doubts about whether Labour can be trusted with power, and in particular, whether it could be trusted with Britain's defence. And let's be absolutely blunt about it. That is the reason why we’ve had such difficulties in the recent past, with Jeremy Corbyn...
Tony Blair famously said that his three priorities were education, education and education. And he sent his kids to state schools. That had never happened with a Labour Party leader before. So it was the The Blair and Brown government, in my view, was the equivalent of Bevin and Bevan together, which is the reason why I think we won three general elections. And for 13 years, an unprecedentedly long period, we were trusted with running the country. And if we're going to get back into government, again, as I hope we will, then it will be by learning the lessons of that Labour government and the Atlee governments of being about both Bevin and Bevan’"
