Økonomisk teori har for mig altid været noget abstrakt og uoverskueligt. Det har fremstået tørt og kedeligt, og som noget utilgængeligt. Det er problematisk, da økonomi er allestedsnærværende og har enorm meget betydning for vores liv.
Det er her Bogen omøkonomi fra Bark kommer ind i billedet. Bogen præsenterer den økonomiske videnskabs idéhistorie på en overskuelig og appetitlig måde, som stimulerer nysgerrighed og reflektion.
Denne bog er mere end en bog. Det er et stykke kunst; at åbne bogen er som at træde ind i et farverigt museum, hvor man kan fortabe sig i spændende økonomisk teori og historie.
Ligesom alle bøger fra Bark fra Store ideer-serien, er også denne bog spækket med dragende illustrationer og grafikker, og sproget er meget læsevenligt.
Bogen kommer omkring problemstillinger og spørgsmål såsom, “hver er en rimelig pris?”, “udbud og efterspørgsel”, “låntagning og gæld”, “hvad er økonomisk liberalisme?”, “socialisme og planlægningsøkonomi”, “økonomi og miljø”, og “finanskriser” – og meget, meget mere!
Et fint lille særpræg er udvalget af citater, som bidrager til at stimulere refleksion og passende afspejler sidernes indhold. Et eksempel:
“Universel konkurrence, eller bestræbelserne på altid at producere mere og altid til en lavere pris … har været et farligt system.” (s. 79)
Jean-Charles Sismondi
Bogen illustrerer sammenhængen mellem mennesket og økonomi, idet økonomi grundlæggende er en menneskelig aktivitet, hvorfor feltet også i dag ses som en “blødere videnskab”, såsom psykologi, sociologi og politik.
Bogen om økonomi belyser nogle grundlæggende eksistens- og samfundsvilkår, som påvirker vores tænkning og handlinger, om vi vil det eller ej. For eksempel:
“Det første, man lærer i økonomi, er knaphed: Der er aldrig nok af noget til at tilfredsstille alle dem, der ønsker det.” (s. 13)
Thomas Sowell, amerikansk økonom
En åbenlys sandhed, men ikke desto mindre et vilkår, der strukturerer vores liv og handlinger på måder som vi ikke engang er bevidste om.
Denne bog er perfekt til dig, som er nysgerrig på økonomisk teori og historie, men som ikke lige kan overskue at åbne en tung, akademisk bog, der kan virke intimiderende. Den er velegnet som en bred introduktion til faget, og som inspiration for videre læsning og fordybelse!
—-
Bogen om økonomi er en del af Store Ideer-serien. Læs mere her: Bark
Suočavanje s dugotrajnim zdravstvenim problemima — u mom slučaju, teškom nepokretnošću — nemilosrdna je, brutalna stvarnost. Nema brzih rješenja; nema čarobnog metka. Svaki dan je kao Dan mrmota. To je radikalan gubitak kontrole, neumoljivo suočavanje s činjenicom da se svemir i zakoni fizike ne mogu saviti pukom snagom volje; spoznaja da su tvoji krici upućeni noćnom nebu dočekani zaglušujućom tišinom.
Potrebna je spartanska psiha da se izdrži takav egzistencijalni potres.
Krivnja i sram često mi dolaze u posjetu i progone me: „Zašto sam to učinio?“ „Zašto nisam učinio ono?“ „Ja sam neuspjeh.“ „Da sam barem učinio ovo ili ono…“
S vremenom sam, međutim, naučio pružiti sebi milost. To znači prihvatiti da su moje emocije valjane reakcije na nevjerovatno tešku situaciju. Da sam u redu — i da razlog što sam i dalje zaglavljen u noćnoj mori nije taj što sam slomljen, nego to što su izgledi od samog početka bili protiv mene, jer su mnoge stvari u konačnici bile izvan moje kontrole.
Što, pretpostavljam, odražava život općenito.
Pouka je, dakle, razvijati sposobnost puštanja.
———
Podijelit ću nešto čemu se često vraćam u mislima. Šest sedmica nakon operacije trebalo je da stanem na nogu punom, ili gotovo punom, težinom tijela. Nisam mogao. Nešto je pošlo po zlu s mojom nogom u prethodnim sedmicama, zaustavivši očekivani napredak prije šeste sedmice.
Bio sam u bolnici na kontroli u šestoj sedmici i radi daljnjih uputa za fizioterapiju. Žena koja me je pregledala bila je pomalo šokirana mojim nedostatkom napretka. Mogao sam stati s 10–15 kilograma umjesto 75. Nisam se osjećao fizički sigurno da učinim više, jer sam već imao problema prethodnih sedmica i nisam dostizao ni manja očekivana postignuća.
Cijela situacija — spoznaja da zaostajem — naglo mi je povećala tjeskobu oko budućnosti. Zapravo se nisam bojao koristiti nogu; jednostavno sam osjećao jasan signal iz tijela da ne pretjerujem.
Ono što je tada rekla, vjerujem, promijenilo je tok mog oporavka:
„Ako ne staneš na nogu, nećeš moći hodati.“
To mi je još više povećalo tjeskobu i učinilo da se osjećam duboko nelagodno. Šta sam učinio kad sam došao kući? Čitav sat sam se prisiljavao da stojim na nozi s velikom težinom, istovremeno istežući tetivu.
Nedugo nakon što sam legao da se odmorim, počeo sam osjećati izuzetno jaku bol, što je dovelo do potpune nepokretnosti noge i zgloba puna tri dana. To je lošu situaciju učinilo višestruko gorom.
Volio bih da je komunicirala drugačije, i volio bih da nisam paničario. Ipak, gledajući realno, danas razumijem zašto sam tako reagirao, što mi pomaže da sebi pružim onu prijeko potrebnu milost.
I feel the the world is cleaved in two halves. Liberals and conservatives in the US—and, to varying extents, in Europe—live in different realities. I am both baffled and provoked by political commentators with extremely myopic and biased views. The fact that so many of them have platforms is deeply disturbing. I suppose black-and-white opinions are simply easier to sell.
On a recent episode of Piers Morgan’s show, right-wing guests claimed that liberals are to blame for the increased violence in the US. But they failed miserably to self-scrutinize and honestly examine themselves and their political in-group. Is the Left violent in terms of speech and actions? Yes. Antifa is to some extent violent, there has been plenty of demonizing of the Right, and some people even celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk.
The extreme Left has not been—and still is not—too comfortable with opposing opinions, which is a huge problem. There is a dogma-problem in some versions of the “Woke Left”, which cannot be ignored. And celebrating Kirk’s death is vile and, in my opinion, a moral failure; It also only fuels further tensions. I’ve seen videos on TikTok and other platforms where people celebrate—it’s sickening.
But to suggest, as some politicians and pundits do, including here in Denmark, that the Left is the main villain and that the Right is somehow a victim is simply astonishing. What about the hateful and violent speech from the Right, including Trump? Trump has been the primary engine of radicalizing and normalizing toxic, violent, and hateful speech over the past decade.
What he has said about women, immigrants, and his political opponents … where does one even begin? Trump calls his opponents “radical communists and marxists” and “enemies within.” Is that any different from calling right-wingers “nazis”? Radical right-wingers literally wanted to hang Mike Pence on January 6, 2021. Oh, and speaking of January 6 … Trump still denies the election results and so does his servants. Doesnt this create a charged atmosphere, creating an angry mob of people who feels betrayed by their own government? How is this not conducive to increasing the political temperature?
And have you seen what people write on X? Are you kidding me? It’s a hotbed of extreme ideas, conspiracies, hostility. Just take Elon Musk himself.
Both extremes of the spectrum need to calm down.
Another point I hear a lot these days is that the Left misuses and overuses words like nazi and fascist. That is true. These labels should be used prudently, but let’s also dispense with the word “communist” or “radical Left” or “socialist” every time a liberal proposes something that isn’t conservative.
And let’s be honest: Trump does display fascist tendencies. If someone on the Left displays autocratic or communist tendencies, then by all means, call them out on it. And the blatant hypocrisy when it comes to Trump: he is the greatest bully in the world; a man so incompetent and insecure that he must lie, attack and cheat his way through life; yet right-wingers have such a hard time saying anything negative about their supreme leader. Charlie Kirk himself said in a debate that Trump is a “truth teller”. Really?
Furthermore, as much as I think it is despicable to celebrate Kirk’s death, it is not illegal speech. Yet now some Republicans are calling for retaliatory measures against those who expressed joy over it. Is that really going to calm things down? I thought the Right was the guardian and promoter of The First Amendment?
And let’s not forget what recently happened against some Democrats, which Trump even couldnt remember when he was asked about it the other day:
“Former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, who were gunned down in what authorities say was a politically motivated killing, will lie in state in the state Capitol Rotunda on Friday, a day ahead of their funeral, Gov. Tim Walz announced Tuesday.
Hortman, a Democrat, will be the first woman and one of fewer than 20 Minnesotans accorded the honor.
I juli i år udstillede sangeren Ed Sheeran i London en kollektion af malerier, som han kalder “Cosmic Carpark Paintings”. Efter sin store turné sidste år begyndte han at male abstrakte billeder. “Jeg løb hen til et nedlagt parkeringshus i Soho, malede, og løb så hjem igen – og det gjorde jeg hver dag, indtil jeg skulle på turné igen,” fortæller han.
Malerierne består af farverige malingstænk og minder umiddelbart om Jackson Pollocks berømte drip paintings. Sheeran har selv sammenlignet sin stil med Pollocks – men den parallel har mødt hård kritik fra kunstverdenen, som kalder den både overfladisk og historieløs.
Så spørgsmålet er: kan man tage Sheerans malerier seriøst som kunst, eller er de blot en kendis’ hobbyprojekt? Og hvad vil det egentlig sige, at noget er god malerkunst?
For at blive klogere på disse spørgsmål – og mange flere – har jeg inviteret Jens Tang Kristensen, ph.d. i kunsthistorie og museumsinspektør ved Museum Sønderjylland, til en samtale.
Kapitler
00:00: Introduktion til Jens Tang Kristensen 02:11: Ed Sheerans Cosmic Carpark Paintings 03:29: Jackson Pollock og ny geopolitisk virkelighed 09:56: Pollocks fandenivoldskhed 12.28: Kunst som fysisk aftryk 13:57: Performance kunst 17:48: Counterculture 20:19: Tekniske forskelle mellem Pollock og Sheeran 21:09: Kunst som behov og nødvendighed 23:24: Kan man adskille kunstneren fra kunsten? 28:13: Lidelse som forudsætning for god kunst? 28:52: Kollektiv lidelse 30:46: Stereotypen om den lidende kunstner 35:12: Kunst og kunstig intelligens
“Jens Tang Kristensen er ph.d. i kunsthistorie og museumsinspektør ved Museum Sønderjylland. Jens har i mange år været ansat som ekstern lektor, forsker og underviser ved Institut for Kunst og Kulturvidenskab, ved Københavns Universitet, siden ved Rytmisk Musik Konservatorium i København. Han har deltaget i en lang række internationale konferencer. Han afholder desuden løbende foredrag i højskole- og folkeuniversitetsregi, samt på diverse danske museer, som Cinemateket, Heerup Museum, Carl-Henning Pedersen og Else Alfelts Museum, Statens Museum for Kunst, Kunsten Aalborg, Holstebro Kunstmuseum, Frederikshavn Kunstmuseum, Odsherreds Kunstmuseum, J.F. Willumsens Museum ,Sorø Kunstmuseum, ligesom han afvikler offentlige og private omvisninger på Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademi. Derudover bidrager han til kunst- og kulturdebatten, via indslag i landsdækkende medier, i særdeleshed på DR. Siden 2014 har Jens udgivet over 100 nationale og internationale forsknings-og formidlingsartikler samt bøger indenfor billedkunst, litteraturhistorie, musik, æstetik og politik.”
00:00: En ubekvem sandhed 02:18: Jespers baggrund 04:47: Hvad er meteorologi? 09:25: Global opvarmning 11:50: Drivhusgasser 15:08: Naturens forbundethed 17:35: CO2s særlige rolle 20:04: Den foruroligende hastighed 22:17: Forandrede livsbetingelser 25:01: Fra 280 til 425 ppm 28:20: Økonomi vs. naturen 31:21: Grøn omstilling og kunstig intelligens 34:12: Tipping points 38:27: Iskerner 40:55: IPCC – FNs klimapanel 43:31: Mistillid til videnskaben 47:13: Det personlige ansvar og klima handling 48:28: Vigtigheden af kulturelle møder 50:23: Myte: manglende konsensus omkring menneskabte forandringer 52:02: Myte: klimamodeller er upålidelige 56:43: Positive udviklinger og fremtidsperspektiver
Kort opsummering
I denne episode taler jeg med meteorolog Jesper Theilgaard om klimaforandringer og konsekvenserne af, at kloden bliver stadig varmere. Jesper forklarer, hvad videnskaben på nuværende tidspunkt ved om klimaforandringer, og hvad der sker, når enorme mængder CO₂ pumpes ud i atmosfæren.
Ét af hovedproblemerne ved klimaforandringer er, at både kloden og mennesket har svært ved at tilpasse sig den hastighed, forandringerne sker med. Ud over tempoet risikerer vi at nå såkaldte tipping points – vendepunkter, hvor der ikke er nogen vej tilbage.
Vi taler også om FN’s klimapanel, IPCC, og dets rolle i kampen mod den globale opvarmnings farer. Derudover afkræfter Jesper nogle udbredte myter og reflekterer over, hvorfor nogle mennesker har tendens til at mistro videnskaben og i stedet lade sig forføre af misinformation.
Communication, K. (2020, August 19). Jesper Theilgaard — KiER Communication. Kier Communication. https://www.kiercom.dk/profiler/ foredragsholder/jesper-theilgaard
“JESPER THEILGAARD (f. 1955) er uddannet flyvemeteorolog i 1978. I 1990 kom han til DMI og begyndte samtidig som tv-meteorolog på Danmarks Radio. Forlod DR i 2018 og er nu fuldtidsbeskæftiget med formidling inden for klimaområdet. Har udgivet en række bestsellerbøger om klima og vejrfænomener og modtog i 2007 Gyldendals Faglitterære Pris for bogen Det danske vejr.”
You read a message from someone on social media and you feel your heart beating faster, your breathing becomes shallow, and you feel a knot in your stomach. The raw emotion of anger has been triggered and is changing your physiological state, signaling to your body and mind that something of importance has occurred, something that is either a threat to your physical or psychological well-being, or both. So now what?
I had the privilege of delivering this year’s commencement speech for the IB class of 2025 at EUC Syd, Sønderborg. Here it is:
“Good afternoon, graduates, families, and friends. Congratulations to the IB Class of 2025. The day you’ve eagerly awaited and dreamed about is finally here. I am grateful and excited to be a part of your special moment, which marks the end of one chapter and the beginning of another.
Being your teacher and listening to your thoughtful perspectives and ideas has genuinely been a privilege. In Theory of Knowledge, we discussed complex questions such as, “What is knowledge, and what information can we trust?”; “Do animals have language?”; and “Can historians ever produce objective knowledge?”. In psychology, we tackled difficult yet crucial themes like globalization, addiction, stereotypes, and discrimination. All in all, you learned that there are no black and white answers to complicated issues, and that solutions require careful reflection and critical thinking.
But beyond witnessing your thoughtful exploration of complex questions, I also saw how academic pressure sometimes left you frustrated, anxious, and overwhelmed. To help you unwind at the beginning of a few psych lessons, I tried playing mindfulness music for five minutes, asking you to close your eyes and rest your heads on the table. I joined in, too, only to find one of you lying on the floor five minutes later in a rather unusual position. And then there was the time during an evolutionary psychology lesson when I excitedly showed a fascinating video of a bird carefully building its nest – well, at least I thought it was fascinating until I noticed one of you falling asleep…
But humor aside, I genuinely relate to the stress and anxiety you might have felt when facing deadlines and something important. But know that we teachers have been there, too. Let me illustrate with a brief personal example.
On a Sunday afternoon in September 2019, I was racing to finish a daunting 60-page philosophy paper due the next morning; the culmination of five intense years at university. At the same time, I was preparing to teach my first-ever university class the next day. Overwhelmed, I went for a walk to clear my mind, only to find myself gripped by anxiety and doubt. “Will I finish my paper in time?” “Am I even qualified to teach?” “Will everyone think that I’m a fraud?” My mind became cluttered with negativity, including the sarcastic words of a high school physics teacher after a failed exam: “Good luck in the future!”, he said.
That Sunday I felt the world was ending. But morning arrived, my paper was submitted, and I taught my class. Life moved on, I graduated and eventually found myself in an exciting and meaningful role teaching IB students. Everything, despite my fears, turned out just fine. As philosopher Alan Watts once said, “Don’t be afraid. You’re going to make it, but it’s always going to feel as if you’re not.” Somehow, things always work themselves out, one way or the other.
Dear graduates, you are a talented group of people, full of potential, with your whole life ahead of you. You stand before a future rich with possibility and adventure, but at the same time, a future that is increasingly difficult to predict. The world faces unprecedented environmental and technological challenges and is also haunted by anti-democratic ghosts of the past. The world calls upon you to confront these and other issues with intelligence, determination, collaboration, and not least with humility. By engaging actively with these and other societal problems, you’ll find growth, meaning, and purpose.
Before you leave these classrooms and corridors and embark on your next journey, allow me to share three short lessons – insights I wish someone had shared with me when I was your age. At the senior age of 35, I’d like to imagine I’ve acquired a modest amount of hard-earned wisdom—at least enough to share a few insights with you today.
Lesson one: you will make mistakes and wrong decisions – but that’s okay. The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard humorously captures this human truth: “Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way.” Choices, imperfect as they may be, shape who you become. Embrace uncertainty; see fear not as a giant red stop sign, but as an invitation to curiosity and exploration. The psychiatrist Thomas Szasz once said, “A child becomes an adult when she realizes that she has a right not only to be right but also to be wrong.”
Lesson two: you will encounter setbacks and misfortune. Not every plan or goal will unfold as expected. But remember, failure can sometimes exactly be what you need to become something greater; misfortune can carry the seeds of emotional and spiritual growth. Eckhart Tolle once wrote that, “Life will give you whatever experience is most helpful for the evolution of your consciousness.“
And lesson three: you cannot do it alone. Carrying all your thoughts and emotions by yourself can be incredibly difficult – and it’s more than okay to be vulnerable and ask for support. Being vulnerable while owning it is an act of true strength and bravery. I wouldn’t be sitting here today without the support and consolation of my family and friends in times of need, nor without the inspiring teachers, professors, and employers who believed in me and paved the way for me.
So, offer your support to others, too. Never underestimate the power you have to make the world just a little better for the people around you. Be a light in the darkness.
Once again, congratulations IB Class of 2025. Go confidently and courageously into your bright futures.”
I just watched Joker: Folie à Deux. Despite the musical scenes and elements (not really my thing), I really enjoyed it. Here are some observations and comments.
SPOILER ALERT
The film emphasizes how people perceive you as they wish, and how society quickly rejects you if you don’t meet its expectations. Arthur’s lawyer and Harley Quinn (Lee) want him to be something he’s not – The Joker. Both of these women try to manipulate Arthur for their own interests. The lawyer insists Arthur developed a split personality to prove his innocence and advance her career; Lee speaks to his alter-ego to live out her own twisted fantasy. Are these characters extensions of Arthur’s mother, who also didn’t accept him for who he was, as shown by her calling him “happy”? Harvey Dent, the prosecuter, sees him as a monster. But is he?
All Arthur desires is connection, love, acceptance, to be valued for who he is. Don’t we all? Yet, he is profoundly emotionally wounded, not shaped for society and its demands, making rejection easy. The film depicts Arthur as essentially weak, unable to embody his clown alter-ego and lacking control over his life. He is not The Joker, the strong persona who “can do anything”; this persona cannot shield him from the world’s cruelties. This is shown by his humiliation and dehumanization by the prison guards who sodomize him after his theatrical Joker performance in court. Furthermore, when he hears his prison mate being strangled, it seems he experiences a PTSD episode, reminding him of severe childhood trauma. He is so traumatized that he often retreats into an inner world where he feels safe and in control.
A meta-layer? Interestingly, the film itself seems to be rejected by many in the audience (receiving bad-to-mixed reviews), perhaps because they expected something different. Perhaps they anticipated The Joker, chaos, violence, and mayhem – to be ENTERTAINED – not to witness an exploration of a broken, fragile, unwanted human being. As Arthur says at one point, “I got this sneaking suspicion that we’re not giving the people what they want.” How meta. The ending line, just before Arthur is stabbed in the gut, can also be interpreted on a meta-level: “You get what you deserve!”
*
I read or heard before watching the film that psychological explorations of tormented killers, like Fleck or Dahmer (real), are misguided because these individuals are innately evil, implying that we should not sympathise with them. I couldn’t disagree more. We can attempt to understand the inner workings of killers while still holding them legally and morally accountable for their actions. Even if a person is deemed evil, they didn’t choose to be so. Nobody chooses their genes, pre- and post-natal environment, parents, society, and culture. I would rather live in a society that shows empathy towards individuals who are victims of fate than one that sees the world in absolutes, in simple good and evil categories, thereby increasing the risk of dehumanization and mass atrocities.
I see some parallels between Frankenstein’s monster and The Joker: Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” and The Joker share an intriguing exploration of the Monster’s subjectivity. In Shelley’s novel, the creature is a complex being seeking understanding and acceptance, grappling with its own identity and the rejection from society. Similarly, the Joker often represents chaos and madness, yet beneath the surface lies a deeper commentary on the nature of humanity and what it means to be seen as a monster.
