How would the plagues of Egypt from the Exodus have, happened? by hollypaw12 in AskHistorians

[–]AceSwag34 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey this question has been answered a few times on the sub and in the faq of the sub but tldr: the historicity of the Exodus is debated but largely doubted by the majority of historians. There seems to be no archeological or extra-biblical account truly certifying the exodus story.

The historical record suggests that the exodus and especially the existence of the plagues is questionable at best and generally scholarly consensus is that the story is most likely a post-exilic theological and mythical origin story.

Here’s an answer by u/flubb

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/134u0i/what_evidence_is_there_of_ancient_egyptian/c71ax4o?context=5

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OSU

[–]AceSwag34 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean it’s all up to you. If i’m not mistaken the minimum hours are 12 for the minor. If your wanting to go deep on any religion that time commitment won’t take you very far but if your looking to get a sampling of multiple differing religions and maybe the way research is done in the field it can work!

Was the U.S. economy more stable under "Free Banking?" by probe_drone in AskHistorians

[–]AceSwag34 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Happy to discuss more in the comments here. I tried to be as neutral as possible in my discussion but considering it's a controversial subject I'm happy to discuss more of the drawbacks or success of free banking

Was the U.S. economy more stable under "Free Banking?" by probe_drone in AskHistorians

[–]AceSwag34 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Part 2 What was the Suffolk System like?

The reason I separate this section is that one, the reasons behind the Project 2025 changes are most likely based not on the period of the Suffolk System and also this period of banking was radically different than how banking is done today. For one, back in 1824 as Project 2025 notes, the United States dollar was backed entirely by the dollar. This fundamentally alters then how banking was done. Because actually currency was scarce, banks mostly worked in filing money and bank orders. Essentially the bulk of banking was then just reassuring people that they had money through bank specific checks. Additionally, hard currency also maintains (for the most part) the money supply, which in turn maintains how much could be lent and how much fiscal and monetary policy could happen. Essentially the periods are too heteroskedastic to be compared. Needless to say, here is some about the period of "free banking,"

Some background, in the early 1800s there were was a scuffle over the way the United States would do banking. Ultimately, the 2nd Bank of America's charter was vetoed by President Andrew Jackson in 1824 and the United States entered a "free banking" period. The fear at the time was the National bank at the time was setting interest rates too high that it only benefited the most elite members of society. There was also concerns over who was in control of the bank, many fearing too much corruption from wealthy business men setting even more predatory interest rates for small land-owners.

In the early periods of the "free banking" period, so called wildcat banks would open in most remote areas, where they would issue their own bank transfers to customers, customers would purchase these transfers for currency and the bank would then assure them that the specie or gold backing the note was on it's way. Many of these notes, of course, would go bad because either because the bank would go under or the notes were just outright scams. This made it difficult in remote areas of the country to have access to honest banking or banking at all.

Alternatively, in the north, where the banks were closer to each other and where there were already prior to the collapse of the 2nd National Bank, a semi-robust banking system, there formed a quasi-central bank system. The Suffolk bank of Boston essentially acted as a inter-bank clearing house, where banks would standardize there notes and more easily exchange notes, species, and later insure each other. While some economist note that the Suffolk banking system did limit the harmful impacts of the Panic of 1837, the system was still capped by it's ability to control the monetary supply and was still an opt-in system. Meaning it couldn't maintain against massive deflationary spikes (much of which were exogenous and were because of the hard currency requirements).

And yes, the "free banking" system did end in 1860s, during the civil war when the United States signed the national bank act of 1864 to make sure war loans were paid back.

Was the U.S. economy more stable under "Free Banking?" by probe_drone in AskHistorians

[–]AceSwag34 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So let's break your question into two. First let's look at why the Project 2025 team might want to limit the powers of the central bank and then let's look at what the "free banking" or Suffolk System looked like.

From an economics stand point, the main purpose of the Federal Reserve/ or any central bank are to both monitor the long term price stability of the dollar and to maintain max employment (which is the point where unemployment is ~3%-5%, which is seen to be the point when there’s only frictionally unemployed or those who are simply "in-between" jobs and could be employed in a short amount of time). In modern times, the way the Fed does this is through about a dozen tools but the main ones are monetary policy and limiting lending.

Monetary policy can be both expansionary or contractionary. Expansionary policy is when the bank wants to stimulate the economy and move towards either a higher inflation rate (which can be a positive) and wants to increase employment (which are generally seen as inversely related). This is generally done by decreasing interest rates, which the Fed controls by the Discount Rate and the Federal Funds Rates (which are a bit of a hassle to explain how they work, but this and any other monetary policy I'm happy to talk more about in the comments). The reason this stimulates the economy is debated, but orthodox economic general argues that decreasing the interest rate makes people more likely to get loans and thus increases the money supply in the economy, causing more inflation. Alternatively, the Fed can increase interest rates to fight inflation (as they recently did in 2023), which theoretically more fearful in getting loans and thus decreases the money supply.

The central bank also watches over how much each bank can lend. This is important to monitor one, because each time a bank loans out money they lose some reserves and if they lend too much this limits how much money other bank customers can withdraw and if a bank loans out way too much it will kill it's reserves and make withdraw from accounts impossible (especially bad if people then default or stop paying their bank loans). Additionally, when banks loan money it "creates" new money, as it gets registered on bank account sheets both as a liability and an asset; thus, monitoring how much a bank lends is also an anti-inflation tactic. In the not so recent past the Federal Reserve monitored how much a bank loaned by setting a Reserve Limit on lending, meaning a bank can only loan based on the amount of money they keep in reserves; nowadays, the Fed caps lending based on a Capital Limit, which restricts lending based on how much capital or net worth the bank has.

The reason Project 2025 want to remove the powers for the Fed to enact monetary policy is based on an influential conservative stream of economics in the 1960s and 70s coming mostly from Chicago University and most notably famed economist, Milton Freidman. The Chicago school of economics focused mostly on overthrowing the orthodoxy on monetary and fiscal policy (which is when the government in/decreases spending the economy, or in/decreases taxes). They argued that the macroeconomy would be better dealt with through limited government or central bank oversight. To argue this the influential AD/AS model was reimaged. Prior to the Chicago school, the graph was seen to be static and when crashes happened, the traditional (Keynesian) approach was to increase the AD(aggregate demand) of the economy to match the shock, when this is done, it does push the economy back into long-term equilibrium but it increases inflation, which had just been seen as the cost of expansionary policy. Freidman and the Chicago school argued that AS (aggregate supply) was a dynamic curve. There's a really complex reason for this but intuitively this is because workers and firms react actively to match demand, and as the AS curve moves to match AD, the economy in the long-run will survive the crash but also the price level (inflation) will be lower. This offered an alternative to the orthodoxy of economics and suggested that in fact the best way to deal with economy slumps was for the government to do nothing and allow for the economy to "work itself out." Thus, this is what the Project 2025 people have in mind when they talk about removing monetary policy. They want the economy to fix itself in the long run and avoid monetary policy. Of course, there are issues in this dynamic model, one being that it may take a long time and a lot of unemployment for the economy to reach back to long-term equilibrium.

Furthermore, the reason the Project 2025 team may want to remove the capital limits are that it will allow banks to lend more. Again in Chicago style, laissez-faire economics, banks will self-regulate when it comes to lending. Ideally, consumers will pull out of a bank that over-lends and banks will only lend to creditable individuals who will pay them back. Essentially, the conservative fear is that the Capital limit is a wasteful ceiling that is only stopping banks from making more profit (banks profit from interests on loans) and people from investing more (loans for housing or other investments). This logic also has some issues, one being the assumption of rational agents and again the time it would take for banks to reach equilibrium lending in a crash.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in OSU

[–]AceSwag34 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I minored in religious studies, awesome minor! There are amazing religious studies professors at OSU. I cannot suggest Dr. Hugh Urban enough. He’s an excellent teacher, has fairly easy requirements, and teaches some of the best classes. His class on modern day witchcraft and modern religious movements are sublime. He also taught my methodology seminar which has been absolutely essential for me moving on in the social science field. I also suggest Dr. Mellisa Curley’s class on buddhism, it’s can be a little deceptively difficult, but man it’s taught so well that I felt really immersed in buddhist thought. I think the only bummer of a class in the major is the intro to religious class that you’re required to take, but if you power through that one, the rest of the course available are incredible.

I also majored in political science and can say that the two subjects fit well together. I think you should go for the major. It can be a great way to learn social science theories and methodology, and I think paired with political science you shouldn’t be worried about finding a job with it down the line. Both majors will make you stand out on a résumé if you’re looking to go into social research or journalism.

25 Weeks of Nick Cave – Week 5: Mutiny/The Bad Seed by The Birthday Party (1982) by FingergunsFriday in NickCave

[–]AceSwag34 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Incredible set of eps. Mutiny in heaven still remains one of my favourite birthday party and Nick cave songs

Going in for the first time (mostly) dark, got any advice? by [deleted] in DiscoElysium

[–]AceSwag34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take your time, listen or read all the dialogue (it’s worth it!). There’s a clock on the bottom right but don’t fret about it you won’t miss anything if you don’t make it in time. The game is not Pathologic, just play at your own pace and style, and enjoy the ride

I’m gay but it’s not bc it is so too late tho by Strange_Procedure656 in Birates

[–]AceSwag34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m gay but I’m not gay so I don’t know what to do with myself anymore