CharonY

VW did invest into east Germany. What recall is that they reworked facilities such as in Zwickau. So there were heavy west German investment into the east. Yes, and much are historic structural issues. The fact that the west is draining talent and that Germany as a whole was resistant to immigration didn't help. Outside of major university cities the East especially didn't like to recruit foreigners, which would have helped the economy somewhat, so there is some self-inflicted pain and we see some of the worst elements happening in the east (aging community, stagnating economics and so on). The big one however is that the DDR was built on industries that were on the decline already and while service economy become more relevant in the West, they were largely absent in the East. Entrepreneurs would ultimately go West Germany for more opportunities. It is a bit like the situation between Canada and the US, only that mobility within Germany, and given the short distances is way higher. Fundamentally, there are folks full of nostalgia regarding their memories of the DDR, in which the government was propping up unproductive structures.

A lot of things happened. Essentially the country unified overnight and among the many things, a bit change was that the East German currency was converted 1:1 to the West German currency. A big issue arising from there was economic issues. In the former DDR (East Germany) companies were run by the state and had poor productivity. The currency exchange resulted in East Germans suddenly made ca. 70% of the income for their West German conterparts, however the industries had about 30-40% of their productivity. I.e. when converted to private companies, none of them were really viable. A second big change was the rebuilding of East Germany to address the issue. West Germans paid additional tax on their income, which got transferred to East Germany for big infrastructure projects. While it was supposed to be short-term, it ended up to be permanent. Ca. 400 billion euros were collected from it, and in addition to other project over 2 trillion euros were ultimately poured into East Germany in attempt to balance the economy between east and west. However, this was only partially successful and mostly worked in some of the larger cities (e.g., Dresden). A big issue was that Germany's economy was heavily built on middle-sized companies creating a supply-chain infrastructure for the larger ones (a model that is now in crisis, but worked very well in the past). But ultimately it was not seen as attractive to create companies in East Germany on that scale. Moreover, due to wage imbalance, many young folks moved to West Germany for better opportunities. Likewise, foreign investor saw West Germany as a better place for investment with adding issues later with xenophobia to the mix (though probably only a minor economic concern). Germany always had a somewhat xenophobic, ethnonationalist undertone, both in the West and East. In the West it was more covert, but especially in the 90s and early 2000s Germany did reject the idea of immigration as positive thing and for the longest time considered foreign workers as guests rather than members of society. This ultimately clashed with the reality of the need to get foreign talent in, and, unsurprisingly folks living there for a long time wanted to make a home, rather than return to their home countries after years or decades living in Germany and building a life and family there. However, few foreigners went to East Germany outside of the major cities and xenophobia remained much more overt. There had been cases of black workers and university students chased by groups of far-right youths, for example and open racism is still frequently reported by folks I know. Germany as a whole didn't like the idea of bringing talent in politically. Companies wanted to, but the most citizens resented that idea. There was a large discussion over it during the dot com boom and the government was loath to issue work visa for highly qualified folks. The idea really was to only bring temporary, low wage worker who then can be sent back rather rapidly. Again, something that didn't really worked like this in reality. No, the unification was complete and East Germans had not difference there. Except perhaps that they were fluent in Russian. Yes and no, see above. One could argue that the privatization of the east was mismanaged, but the roots were formed in the DDR. I don't this is fully accurate as such. As mentioned, a lot of money was poured in, though as a whole the German welfare system was suffering as a consequence. There were austerity principles, but still more money went from west to east, something that at some point built resentment in the west. The de-industrialization was more of a consequence of low productivity and even rebuilding infrastructure didn't fully resolve this. The idea was to move the CDU further to the right with Merz (he was ousted back in the day, in part because he was on the right fringe of the CDU and Merkel consolidated more towards the center). They hoped to gain votes from the AFD, and we can see that this is backfiring rather spectacularly. He is now despised by both right and left.

Well, they do do have a strong pro-Russia bias, which I am sure has nothing to do with financing of pro-Russian far-right influencers and sponsored trips of party members.

There a hypothesis floating around that one should give those extremist party a real shot at governing, as they typically have an unfavorable ideology/fanaticism-to-policy-ratio. I.e. if they fail to deliver, folks will recognize them as the snake oil sellers they are. Interestingly, after Trump 2.0 fewer folks are saying that now. In recent times only all too frequently the far-right extremist manage to get too close to catching the car. And as it turns out, their plan for governance is the same as campaigning: continue to lie and blame others. Today's society seems to encourage that (Liar's dividend): I.e. the idea is that making false claims ultimately pays off more dividends than apologizing (i.e. taking responsibility). Now using the spectre of AI, it will be even easier. It is probably a bit too early to see whether Reform voter will really change their minds, but my bet would be maybe a temporary slip and then some level of recovery.

The AFD has now won Saxony-Anhalt with ca. 44% of the votes according to latest results. It is the state with the oldest population and among the lowest percentage of foreigners. They are projected to barely miss the absolute majority, which would have made them take over the government. They still can, if they are tolerated by at least one other party. The only likely party is a populist one with mixed left and right populist messages but they already signaled that they likely won't. That all being said, it does show that the pivot to the right by the conservatives (CDU) did not pan out, rather then gaining votes from the far right, they lost over 19%, whereas the Afd won 23%.

Well, not sure about that, given the way things are moving. Some might think his speech is not radical enough. I guess we'll see but I think consequences for actions is not really a thing anymore.

This all true and interesting there is also the other side, where phytic acid have been discussed in the context of functional food due to its antoxidant properties. I.e. by chelating metals, especially iron, thereby it reduces radical formation This obviously has also been discussed extensively in the context of cancers, but I am not sure what the current state of discourse is (as everything ultimately boils down to cancer research, it seems).

Not sure, maybe, but I guess how dependent the party is on him. There was a similar scandal with the Austrian FPÖ which was part of the government, where the vice-chancellor (Strache) and deputy leader of the party were recorded to be open to offer business contracts in exchange for political support from Russians. While they ultimately resigned and the party lost some seats in the snap election, the party rebounded in the following regular elections. While the Strache officially left the party, he re-joined politics. And this was all pre-COVID and sense of reality has shifted even more in the public since then. Given that Farage is not (yet) part of the government, I wouldn't be particular surprised if he can just shrug it off. It depends on how much the British sense of appropriateness has changed. Adding his propensity to utilize the Liar's dividend (aka, lying through his teeth, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar%27s_dividend), he might just as well claim that this is all a conspiracy made with AI or something. And folks will believe.

I have heard good things about the author, but have not read it. Might want to add that to things to look forward to (probably after retirement- if books still exist then). My problem is that I have to read too much stuff for work, leaving little time to read for enjoyment. I usually nab half an hour before bedtime every now and then, but frequently that is way past midnight and my eyes are not focusing anymore. I do not particular enjoy only have short segments of reading, especially for non-fiction. I miss being able to read through a book or a few novels over the weekend, for example. For lighter reads having a few minutes here and there kind of works, but it is somehow less fun and less immersing. I feel it also changes perception. I finished two very different novels (Klara and the Sun and Kafka on the Shore) and I would have assumed that I would like the latter more than the former, if I had read that in one setting. But in bits and pieces, the former turned out to be more memorable in my mind to my surprise. But maybe it is just my brain going mush and me needing more structure.

True, but a big missing piece is archaeology, which wasn't really developed then (beyond graverobbing, perhaps) and Gibbons did fill some gaps with opinions (especially when talking about the eastern Roman Empire as well as how he describe the decline of Rome. IIRC, it was a rather simplified, at times moral argument (which was a big thing in the enlightenment age) and most notably there was little research on societal and economic factors, which, in modern scholarship would be some of the first things to look at when nations decline. But things like sequence of events were accurate and perhaps most importantly, it tried to provide an overview of a whole lot of things. So on the high level it was a success and a monumental work, for sure. I am reminded again of Darwin, who was basically right, but for example had no concept of genetics. And perhaps one issue regarding facts is that in order to translate facts to knowledge, some interpretation and context is necessary, which Gibbon's did, but is now superseded by having found and interpreted new facts. But also keep in mind that I am just engaging in academic quibbles here. I wouldn't tell anyone not to read Gibbon or Darwin, but I find it helpful to keep the age of the books in mind. I mean, that's a given . Edit. Oh god, I really want to have more time reading books for enjoyment (not on a bloody screen. Big heavy hardbound books.. sigh).

So, basically an important book for historians, but in my mind it occupies a bit of a similar space as Charles Darwin's On the origin of species. It is fundamentally accurate but a bit dated. Not a bad read at all, if you keep the historic context in mind (including biases and all), but for learning about the era, there are more modern historians who might want to turn to. One of the things that I found curious was lens through which he characterized the Eastern Roman Empire. A book that I was itching to read for a while but never found the time is: Kaldellis Anthony, The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium, Oxford University Press: New York, 2024. A review that piqued my interest is here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02656914241308038h There was also an interesting book that I skimmed that is a bit like Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, but much more historically accurate is Kyle Harper, The Fate of Reome: Climate Disease, and the End of an Empire. It is somewhat and more a pop sci book as it doesn't really go into the nuances of historic debate and kind of just the side that best suits the narrative. But in contrast to Diamond's book it doesn't just go off the academic rails. That being said, I only read a few chapters as I was thinking about adding history of pandemics to lecture. That was early 2020...

So, Baronius' framing is a bit different to others (also in the link) and your previous usage, as you alluded to the fall of Rome. I.e. in this framework the assumption would then be that the output was high before, then dropped during the Dark Ages, before climbing again. The Issue here is that despite the well-known works within the classical Latin literature, the output is not really that high and roughly matches what we see in the time frame of the Dark Ages. The way it was explained to me is that the output is simply a function of time and how likely they survived and importantly, many of the classic Latin work survived, because they were reproduced in the middle ages. I.e. the argument then goes more towards how much survived rather than how much was produced (with monasteries and similar institutions driving maintenance). The issue, of course is that the limitation of classic Latin lit can also not be connected to being just less being produced, but just much less surviving due to time (though not sure how much one can disentangle that). The other part, was, and I only vaguely remember this, as it has been a long while I talked to my historian friend about that, was regarding the way folks described the quality of the writing vs survival. That part was rather complicated and I admit, when he pulled out graphs I might have zoned out a bit.

I think the issue is more of it being a rather powerful narrative, that also happens to be a myth that historians for a long time now try to address, as @exchemist points out. It is like the alpha wolf myth or the belief that evolution is directed towards complexity. The big issue with those intuitive narratives are that they are so powerful that the actual facts become harder to teach, because folks have to unlearn things first. And unlearning is often harder than learning, folks are really resistant to that and sometimes become more entrenched. I think a reason for that is that because in order to overwrite prior assumptions one has to understand the concepts better than the previously held beliefs. This makes it a rather arduous process that one would rather not do under most circumstances. Edit: what makes things complicated related to the "Dark ages" narrative is also that there is some decline due to strife, though not universally so. There is significant cultural continuity but also a (slow) decline in trade and other changes while certain areas (I believe agriculture) saw some technological innovation in the time period. I think a bit issue is that many folks think of history a game-like progression toward something, not dissimilar to how some folks erroneously believe evolution works. But for much of our history things just changed but were not necessarily progressing on any recognizable trajectory.

I don't really think that Musk cares much about car sales. His main goal is increasing evaluation and has rebranded his companies almost on a continuous basis. He has branded Tesla as software and/or robotic or whatever company to get his evaluations up. That being said, and I am not sure how much of that is marketing, there are analysts (and Musk) saying that the end of electric subsidies will actually weaken competition more than Tesla. The battery and solar race is, from what I understand over, as there is no way to compete with the Chinese at this point. Considering how unmoored Tesla evaluation is from actual car sales I don't really think that the policies are hurting it that much, especially as he is able to use the money he gets from the government to prop it up. There was a report of SpaceX buying close to a billion dollars in Cybertrucks and batteries from Tesla, for example. There is also a secondary game that the billionaires are playing and I think it is genuinely ideological. Thiel is a consistent example but Musk too. In that scenario a few million injection (as well as support via social media platforms) is just play money to bend society to their will. Internationally, that is. I would love to see Musk attending the AfD meetings in person and try his Hitler salute there.

I think some of earliest legal and continuous records in Germany were done in Schreinsbuecher starting around the 12th century. Individual land charter documents predate those by at least a few hundred years, but they tend to be spread out between different churches and monastries. There is the Codex Laureshamensis (now kept in Wuerzburg), a 12th century book that documents transcripts from many such localities dating back to the 7th-8th century. So even documentation of history has a history of documentation. That being said, if we consider things like administrative records, there are very old archives that have survived. The Royal Archives of Ebla are probably one of the most famous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla_tablets There are many papers on this archive. A bit more distributed but perhaps a credit to Chines bureaucracy are gazeteers (difangzhi) originating from early version in the 1st century CE and have evolved to become a highly systematic system of record keeping (though the bulk of surviving records are 13th-14th century onward).

My guess would be on tinted glasses. There is a lot of local history in many places to astonishing detail. However, the vast majority doesn't make it into interesting books. But you could go and find local historians (quite a few of them are e.g. school teachers, and pastors perhaps unsurprisingly) and talk to them. Quite a few of them do publish articles or monographs, but they are often mostly hosted by local academic institutions and/or have a very limited print. They tend to be on the dry side and rarely make a broader circulation. But there is a ton of such documented knowledge out there.

I think the latter is more realistic than the former. I think some wealthy folks running for office claimed that they are less likely to be corruptible as they are already rich. Looking at Trump as just one prominent example, grifters are gonna grift. Not sure, by paying millions, Musk is reaping billions in tax payer money. The ROI looks pretty decent to me.

If you can play the rules to benefit you, then you do. This is just smart business sense. This is why you stop investing in your business after you are sufficiently rich, but invest in politicians instead.

I can pull out my German dialect, which is more to the point and probably not suitable for a public forum.

There are certain conventions folks adhered to after the fall of empires. I am pretty sure that at least partially it can be attributed to the realization that a full-on might makes right attitude, that had been so pervasive in our history, has real potential for total annihilation in the modern world. Thus, there was an incentive to find a win-win for everyone involved and for a short while concepts like liberalism, rule of law and associated concepts seemed to gain popularity until, well, now.

It's Canada Geese, eh?

Also note that in OP it was about immigrants in general. Though quite often the least liked group (e.g. asylum seekers) are picked out to represent the rest. I wonder why it is so.

So impeachment is unlikely going to happen, but even so, asylum would be unnecessary, as he would just be removed from office. The easiest case for prosecution are acts while not in office, but I am not sure whether there is material for criminal prosecution. I think the most critical cases he faced before he got re-elected where conducted during his first presidency and for that it seems he is pretty much well-protected. There is a part in the SCOTUS decision that roughly states that official acts cannot be used as evidence for unofficial/private conduct. The way I understand it, if in a private fundraiser he asks for money in exchange for, say scrapping EPA regulations, the act of scrapping thus regulations cannot be used as evidence for a quid-pro-quo. Sottomayor gave another grave example, if he decided to have someone assassinated, he could officially use US military in his official capacity and be immune. IOW, only when he does something in private and not connect it in any form or shape with his official position can he be prosecuted. But since all his grifts are based on his presidency, I am not sure what would realistically a criminal case that could be prosecuted. There may be civil liabilities that could come back once he leaves office, but given the wealth he accumulated while in office, he may not even notice that. I do think that Epstein is not going to harm him, either, given the lack of criminal prosecution on that end. Maybe some sort of exchange/discussion was planned? Maybe Witkoff and Kushner didn't want to interrupt golfing for that.... More serious question, does the C-17have more defensive capabilities than other jets which could be used for this type of travel?

I mean, the various puddings and pastries in British cuisine with their chopped... things, often surrounded by gelatinous goo... not sure whether it gets much more mysterious than that. At least in shawarma the meat has to have a consistency that makes it stackable.

According to reports Ratcliffe might have delivered warning to Moscow not to attack NATO members, it seems. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/26/cia-russia-nato-moscow-ratcliffe-01051848