u/Over-Discipline-7303

I'm reading "Fragile by Design" by Calomiris and Haber. I'm only partway through the book, and in the early chapters they argue that small unit banks create economic systems that are under-banked and slow economic development. They say that unit banks cannot effectively spread risk over geographic areas and business sectors. They cannot achieve scales of economy. In short, they are deeply problematic.

On the other hand, in the 2008 global financial crisis, one thing I heard quite a bit was that bank bailouts were necessary because the banks were too big to fail. Economists and public policy people seemed to widely agree that Bank of America, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs were all too big to fail, and that the damage of the 2008 crisis would have been even worse if bank bailouts hadn't occurred.

I imagine that the answer is that banks should be "somewhere in-between" but what does that mean in a quantitative way? What is the "right size" for a bank? Can that be quantitatively calculated or in some other way well-defined?

If it matters, I'm a physics person so I can handle (probably would even prefer) a mathematically rigorous model.

I grew up in a middle-class American suburb in a highly conservative area. My teachers were baby boomers who grew up in the height of the cold war. They all believed in American exceptionalism, etc.

The history of the Cold War I was taught was basically, "The evil Soviet Union was hell bent on world conquest. But the ever-vigilant US protected freedom and liberty to save democracy. The US fought Communists in Korea, then in Vietnam. If the US had not intervened in Asia, South America, and Afghanistan, the Soviet Union would have taken control of all of those areas, established puppet states, and gone on to conquer the entire world. It is only through the actions of the US that Communism was defeated, and the entire world owes the US a debt that can never be repaid. The Soviet Union raped and murdered its way through Germany at the end of WW2, and that's exactly what they wanted to do through the entire world. And would have, if the US had not engaged in cunning proxy wars through the latter 20th century."

As an adult, I have come to the conclusion that much of what I was taught was basically jingoism. For example, the version of WW2 I was taught was essentially, "The US saved Europe for the second time. You're all welcome, by the way." Which I understand to be simplistic at best, outright propaganda at worst.

I want to know, how much truth was there to what I was taught about the Cold War? Did the USSR want to conquer the world? Were the Soviets always seeking to establish a global Communist government under Russian dominion? Was Cold War Domino Theory correct?

I just finished Farming Life in Another World, and it was awesome. I loved every second. My biggest problem is that I finished it in a single weekend. But I liked the pacing, I liked the low stakes. I liked how everything just kind of was chill and always ended happily. I loved how the MC was totally over-powered and never really understood just how insane he was with all of these super-powered people working for him on the farm. It was awesome.

What else is good? I have Crunchyroll and Hidive. I prefer to watch anime dubbed. Is there another great, relaxing show where good things happen to likeable characters?

This issue comes up in a lot of conversations I have. Basically, I have a suspicion that many corporate CEOs are overpaid. Many CEOs are given compensation packages in the tens of millions of dollars, and it's hard to imagine that a CEO provides enough value to the corporation per day to truly justify that pay. I just don't believe that it's true. I'm not trying to argue that CEOs don't provide any value at all (that's too extreme for me as well). But I find it hard to imagine that you really need to pay one, singular person nearly $100 million dollars a year to be CEO of Starbucks. Surely there's somebody who can do maybe 90% as good of a job, and is willing to "settle" for a pittance of $50 million/year? That still seems like a lot of money!

On the other hand, a lot of people tell me, the market is efficient. If CEOs did not provide that value, the market would quickly identify it and the market would adjust CEO pay accordingly. Therefore, the fact that the market is paying CEOs these high rates is de facto proof that CEOs are generating massive, enormous wealth for the corporations.

When it comes to high-end executive pay, is the market efficient? And how do you know? How do you calculate market efficiency in a scenario like CEO compensation? How is the value of a CEO's pay correctly calculated? How do you know that Brian Niccol was singularly responsible for $100 million of value? How do you know that no other person could have delivered similar decisions or choices that he made for a lower salary?

I’ve heard a lot of people say that sweatshops damage communities by creating lots of low-wage jobs. But those jobs have to be paying well, because people obviously want to work them. If they don’t want to work in those conditions, they should just quit.

So what’s effect do sweatshops have on local economies? Do they tend to improve local economies and provide jobs, or are they actually bad?

I'm a physics guy with an interest in economics. Specifically, I'd like to learn more about how central banking and monetary policy work. I'm looking for a textbook that can give me a broad overview of monetary policy, but preferably a more technical discussion. I've taken 3 semesters of calc, but I'm not really great with differential equations yet.

Are there any books that would be appropriate for a student like me?

I hear this argued both ways. Some of my military history enthusiast friends tell me, no they weren't. One in particular likes to argue that the US had a habit of massively over-estimating Soviet capabilities. His argument is that the Typhoon-class was too big to be practical, under-capable for its size and weight, was prone to mechanical failure, easily detected because it was extremely noisy, and in general was never a credible threat to any NATO nation. He goes on and on about how Soviet military technology was always a minimum of 20 years behind US technology, largely due to Soviet economic inefficiency and purges of anybody who showed signs of competence.

On the other hand, I've heard it argued that the Akula class was a genuinely capable platform, in fact more advanced than NATO planners thought the Soviets were capable of, and that the Soviet submarine program was generally well-run, with the crews being highly professional, educated, and disciplined.

What's the truth? With the benefit of hindsight, were military planners of the 70s-90s massively over-estimating Soviet submarine capabilities? Were the Typhoon and Akula class submarines technologically advanced for their era? Did they pose a strong threat to NATO navies?