Interesting Links for 25-01-2018

[andrewducker]

Think your country is crowded? These maps reveal the truth about population density across Europe

(tags: population europe maps )

How Private Equity Killed Toys “R” Us

(tags: business money )

This Is What Domestic Violence Is Like When You're LGBT

(tags: lgbt rape abuse )

Scotland to ban electric shock dog collars

(tags: dogs scotland )

Working in female-dominated workplaces means worse access to flexible working arrangements

(tags: women work )

How Canada may use Sweden's gender-balanced snow-clearing to adjust their budgets

(tags: Canada feminism government money )

The Humanity Star

(tags: space )

This 19-year-old Kiwi farmer accidentally became a character in a US board game

(tags: newzealand usa boardgames wikipedia )

Conflict Theory vs Mistake Theory

I'm Mistake Theory by nature - with a few bits of learned Conflict.
(tags: politics philosophy argument belief society )

World's first electric container barges to sail from European ports this summer

(tags: electricity transport europe canal )

It’s not all in their heads: people with low self-esteem really do have less responsive partners

(tags: psychology relationships self-esteem )

Possibly the finest special effect of all time

(tags: specialeffects muppets viaSwampers )

Comments

[alithea]

Loved that first article, thanks! (I always enjoy a good map and that sort of analysis)

Low self esteem

[alithea]

Interesting stuff, nice to have confirmed things I realise I've tried to train myself to do in my own relationships.

[danieldwilliam]

Surely the end result of the Humanty Star in the 21st century is that someone will find a way to draw a giant cock and balls on its side.

[danieldwilliam]

I'm not sure that private equity killed Toys R Us. They might have bungled improving it or they might have spotted an opportunity to take some money out of a failing business before that money was shared with future employees and suppliers.

It's not clear that Toys R Us was thriving business with great grown prospects that was ruined by the people who bought it.

[andrewducker]

I have to admit I find this a tricky one. On the one hand, the people who owned it did actually own it, and if they want to, effectively, sell a chunk of it to the banks, then that's a private matter for them and the banks.

On the other hand, it does seem a bit too easy to say to the banks "We want to borrow some cash for expansion" and then just take that yourself, leaving the banks owning a company when they aren't going to take it on as a going concern.

I'm not actually sure I know of a good answer here.

[danieldwilliam]

Banks are pretty serious players here. The often know as much or more about the industy and the companies they are investing in as the management. (For example, the sort of banks who are lending to a former energy industry employer of mine would have their own energy trading desks and the bankers to Toys R Us might well also be bankers to Smyth's Toys and other competitors.)

They are capable and often do negotiate specific protections for themselves. They may well have been in on the deal either explicitly or implicitely. The bankers here are not some suburban bank manager who is bamboozled by some VC sharp suits.

For me the place where the moral hazard lies is in two-fold, 1) employees and suppliers who aren't clued up enough to know whether the take-over is genuine attempt to improve the operation of the company or that someone has spotted a failing and cheap business that owns a bunch of under-valued assets and 2) the pension funds of the employees which are usually not adequately funded.

[dpolicar]

I found the whole Conflict Theory vs Mistake Theory post bewildering, but that is frequently true of SSC's take on the role of power in demographic relations.

Anyway, I am a Mistake theorist among peers and a Conflict theorist where significant power imbalances exist, and I feel like this is such an obviously correct way to be that any other position baffles me.

It's rather as if I were asked whether people losing a lot of wealth in a transaction is a function of them making poor financial decisions, or them being robbed. In situations where they have a lot of control over their wealth, I assume the former. In situations where they don't have control over their wealth, I assume the latter. If someone says to me "no, never mind how much control over their wealth they have, just which do you think more likely?" I stare at them bewildered.

[andrewducker]

"I am a Mistake theorist among peers and a Conflict theorist where significant power imbalances exist"

That seems entirely reasonable to me. And large chunks of my life have been spent discovering all sorts of power imbalances that I had no idea existed, because I grew up in a sheltered middle-class existence.

So I think we need to work on what rules society should run on - but also what we need to do to get to that society in the first place. It seems unlikely that these two things would be the same.

[dpolicar]

Agreed. Indeed, sometimes it feels like they're mutually exclusive.

[andrewducker]

He posted a followup, with the best comments from the thread. Fasscinating watching people grapple with this stuff.

[dpolicar]

Yes.