These threads aren't successful but... ... I saw this show, watched twice. Bretty darn good. It's about the lost Franklin expedition to map the Northwestern Passage. Some mystery and supernatural was added but I believe their real story had to be a nightmare as well. Highly recommended.
Decided to take blink at Good Doctor. It would be funnier with House as the main character. It's about an autistic surgeon at the beginning of his career and the difficulties he has to face. On one hand this show is too mainstream to be KC-tier, on the other hand the main character is too irritating, hmm the actor is too irritating with his high pitched voice. Tho I might watch few more episodes.
>>28044 It's classical knight fullfilling his destiny movie. The actors wasnt too bad but the usage of camera voice was too mediocre. The scenario was at this point way too cliche I'm sure it appeals kc tier people to some degree because knighthood autism but overall the movie targets normal people if I have to use kind words for that audience.
>At least 33 people are dead and dozens injured after a man set fire to an animation studio in the Japanese city of Kyoto, officials say. this kills the anime. really makes me think that Nippon buildings can be really cramped with people without adequate emergency exits and sprinklers. imageboard dwellers claim that the guy who did it won a prize at this studio with his ideas, but they didn't hire him or bought the script and afterwards stole ideas from it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49027178
>>28084 well it can be music from old vidya too (some amiga days i dunno) but its more general late-80s flava i don't know how the genre is called actually but i sure heard fuckton of it https://youtube.com/watch?v=MUXC9rRm21o [Embed]
4example its in this video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xu8Fi0tC9IA [Embed]
>>28077 >Holy Rus It's so weird, the woman in the center with the dark scarf on her head and the kid by her with the white scarf, and the other woman on the right with the colorful scarf who is facing us feels as if they were from a photo, but not the others. Not even Jesus. Haha: https://www.puzzleout.com/jigsaw/holy-rus-mikhail-nesterov/
As I promised I'll write about this book. It's quite lengthy but you'll reach the end if you read at your own pace. Most of the book isn't dense for me, an economic layman, with the exception of the parts about trade, which left me confused. I'll write what I manage to understand. The author wrote it to argue in historiographical debates and make some points, but I read it just to add to my historical knowledge.
I'll write in sections, at most one a day so Bernd doesn't get overwhelmed, and will try to make the sections more thematic rather than just a sythesis of each chapter, as Hitler himself suggests in Mein Kampf for how one should mentally organize knowledge. I want to write about:
-Trade and controls of foreign currency and raw materials -Budgets and revenue -Agrarianism -Businessmen and workers -Consumer goods -The fate of different industries -Rearmament -General progression from 1933 to 1939
If I give up on writing I hope at least to cover the prewar period. I also hope to write on: -Armaments priorities until 1940
>>28066 In this particular post of mine here: >>28051 no, my point wasn't related to planned economy, it was related to you're being full of shit when implying/saying only one value exist. I tried to say this nicer here >>28053 but you didn't uderstand.
But you also mix up two things. The critique of planned economy about the "inefficient resource distribution: surplus and shortage" and the "socialist calculation debate" (quoted from Wikipee). Whataboutism incoming: Shortage and surplus problem also exist in market economies, the "market" just "corrects" it with changing price. But it doesn't solves the problem. If there is less goods on the market than needed some people won't satisfy their needs because they can't no matter how high the prices will go. If there is not enough bread people will die of hunger easily. Poor people because the rich can buy it still and will buy up everything causing more shortage. If there is more goods in the market it doesn't matter if the price goes down the goods will be wasted - not on the side of the seller, granted, but at those who buy it because they really don't need it (just buy it because it's cheap) so it won't be used efficiently. I can buy two loafs of bread but if I can eat only one in a given time the other will dry out or worse gets moldy and I have to throw it out. Or I eat double but then I just get fat. How any of these two solves the problem of shortage and surplus? It's don't.
>>28074 The shortage problem seems to be solved only by our age and place's overabundance, where no serious shortages occur at least in the part of the world where I live in and in the "West". But it is solved with wastage, we have waaayy more goods than what we need.
>>28074 >If there is less goods on the market than needed some people won't satisfy their needs because they can't no matter how high the prices will go. In the short term high prices stimulate production. In the long term our present state of abundance can be achieved, an impossibility in a planned economy. >those who buy it because they really don't need it Well, with low prices production will decrease. Consumers have decreasing marginal gains and may not buy the bread at all. But if they want to buy more bread and there is bread then that's a success. That they don't consume it in a way we find proper is our judgement. >How any of these two solves the problem of shortage and surplus? For one thing, they don't create the new problems of shortages and surplus introduced by price setting. Impose price controls on a normal market economy and you'll find shortages caused by a problem with that measure itself. This is well documented and understood, it happened with meat and dairy in Germany and it's happening right now in Venezuela with farmers not selling goods because legal prices are too low. It happens in market economies with price controls and planned economies are no better. They won't work just fine. In this regard playing within "capitalism's ruleset" is the wisest thing to do.
>>28029 >>28030 >>28031 >>28033 This is straightforward too. I've two things to add. One is about the impact of feudalism on the system of land ownership. Well it is a question basically how did it influence that? On the Hungary back in the first half of the 19th, it became obvious that feudal land ownership is in the way of modernization, laws had to be changed so lands could be sold in order to help nobles to acquire capital in form of loans so they'll be able to modernize their farmlands, so they won't rely anymore on the low producing and ineffective robot their serfs were bound to do for them. It was also obvious that the serfdom had to be abolished and they had to be made into owners of their lands they worked. But this led to a debate, those lands were owned by the nobles and they had to be compensated. Or not, this was one point but if they were compensated how should it happen, the serfs (we might call them tenants, I think in England that was their name) should pay it in time, or the state would pay instead. It was planned to do both but the failure of the revolution and war of independence in 1849 postponed the process. Then four year later Franz Joseph made order to abolish serfdom. There were several problems (liek 60% of the serf were landless, or there were serfs with different legal status that allowed them to be exploited) which made the thing as a whole unsettled and left many without securing their livelihood. The situation left unresolved way after this, and when the soc-dems took over in 1918 they had to do something about it, they planned and initiated division and distribution of lands (probably the only good thing they did) but they give too few people and too little land, less than the viable size - just as you wrote about the German land division plans.
The other thing is relation of holding and childbirth rate. In the 19th it became customary on quite a few region of Hungary to have only one child to preserve the owned land intact. If there is only one kid, it won't be devided, it will be still a viable size. Ofc this had negative effect on population growth.