Economics in the 1980s
April 5, 2024 7:53 AM Subscribe
I'm trying to understand how someone who got a Bachelor's degree in Economics in the 1980s would understand, well, the economy.
A close, maternal figure of mine's primary educational qualification is a degree in economics in the 1980s, in Australia.
While she has undergone a lot of unrelated field-specific training since then, this remains her primary academic qualification. What confuses me is I have never heard her use or even acknowledge *any* any of the basic economic concepts I'm familiar with. Marginal propensity to consume? Who is Keynes? Economic cycles of boom and bust? What are drivers of inflation? Elasticity of demand and supply? Even just the ideas of opportunity cost, protectionism, comparative advantage, she acts like these are new, radical, Marxist ideas I am forcing into the conversation.
I myself did high-school economics and a year of tertiary 101 political economics before giving up. I barely remember most of it! A few concepts like the marginal propensity to consume or save have really stuck, the multiplier effect, etc. Like, they gave us Ha-Joon Chang's "Economics: The User's Guide" as a key text. She's qualified to teach the high-school economics course I did, although hasn't for decades.
I don't understand the disconnect. It's not that she has ever explained *different* understandings of these concepts, theorists she prefers, critiques or so on. Just acts like I'm speaking an arcane, different language, when all she wants to talk about how unfair it is that plumbers can get tax write-offs on their vehicles and it's sad how the housing market isn't good for young people.
She's the one with the degree in economics, I'm a dabbling amateur. What am I not understanding here? How can I better communicate with her? Any advice appreciated.
A close, maternal figure of mine's primary educational qualification is a degree in economics in the 1980s, in Australia.
While she has undergone a lot of unrelated field-specific training since then, this remains her primary academic qualification. What confuses me is I have never heard her use or even acknowledge *any* any of the basic economic concepts I'm familiar with. Marginal propensity to consume? Who is Keynes? Economic cycles of boom and bust? What are drivers of inflation? Elasticity of demand and supply? Even just the ideas of opportunity cost, protectionism, comparative advantage, she acts like these are new, radical, Marxist ideas I am forcing into the conversation.
I myself did high-school economics and a year of tertiary 101 political economics before giving up. I barely remember most of it! A few concepts like the marginal propensity to consume or save have really stuck, the multiplier effect, etc. Like, they gave us Ha-Joon Chang's "Economics: The User's Guide" as a key text. She's qualified to teach the high-school economics course I did, although hasn't for decades.
I don't understand the disconnect. It's not that she has ever explained *different* understandings of these concepts, theorists she prefers, critiques or so on. Just acts like I'm speaking an arcane, different language, when all she wants to talk about how unfair it is that plumbers can get tax write-offs on their vehicles and it's sad how the housing market isn't good for young people.
She's the one with the degree in economics, I'm a dabbling amateur. What am I not understanding here? How can I better communicate with her? Any advice appreciated.
Response by poster: I know it's too early to comment, but to me, going from "I have a qualification in linguistics" to "I have an opinion on prescriptivism", is exactly what I *want* from her but don't see.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:02 AM on April 5, 2024
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:02 AM on April 5, 2024
Right, but my internal state is: I know what this specific linguistic theory is and I know that behavior x is bullshit and not actually a valid way of engaging with language. My external state is: behavior x.
posted by bq at 8:05 AM on April 5, 2024
posted by bq at 8:05 AM on April 5, 2024
It sounds like she just doesn't want to talk about it?
Having a degree doesn't mean you'll still be interested in its subject forty years later.
I did a degree (in economics, as it happens) more recently than she did. I didn't enjoy it, forgot most of it the day after my exams, and now mostly avoid reading or talking about the whole topic.
posted by Klipspringer at 8:08 AM on April 5, 2024 [13 favorites]
Having a degree doesn't mean you'll still be interested in its subject forty years later.
I did a degree (in economics, as it happens) more recently than she did. I didn't enjoy it, forgot most of it the day after my exams, and now mostly avoid reading or talking about the whole topic.
posted by Klipspringer at 8:08 AM on April 5, 2024 [13 favorites]
Response by poster: Okay, I'm going to leave off, but I clearly messed up by trying to be vague.
She's my mother. She encouraged me to pursue economic studies. She doesn't have some vague general friendship, she's both been key in forming my beliefs and doesn't really have the choice of saying "I don't care about economics", not while she's on me for my own financial choices. If she wants to be persuasive, she has to engage me at least at my own basic level, not pretend she knows nothing. This is not a "take it or leave it" friendship. This is a claim to authority which is *never* backed up by any reference to what that authority is or what she thinks about it.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:29 AM on April 5, 2024 [2 favorites]
She's my mother. She encouraged me to pursue economic studies. She doesn't have some vague general friendship, she's both been key in forming my beliefs and doesn't really have the choice of saying "I don't care about economics", not while she's on me for my own financial choices. If she wants to be persuasive, she has to engage me at least at my own basic level, not pretend she knows nothing. This is not a "take it or leave it" friendship. This is a claim to authority which is *never* backed up by any reference to what that authority is or what she thinks about it.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:29 AM on April 5, 2024 [2 favorites]
If someone got a degree in economics in the 80s they're pushing or over 60 and are probably just tired, all the time. Perhaps just let them enjoy your company.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:30 AM on April 5, 2024 [7 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:30 AM on April 5, 2024 [7 favorites]
I know almost nothing about how econ happens in Australia except that in one or another major university they had a split that was bad enough that they formed a dept of econ and a dept of political economy (which ends up iirc doing vaguely marxist stuff and not the stuff you'd find in the journal of political economy).
In the US, you sometimes find econ departments that basically don't teach econ. Never common but less-uncommon at smaller schools or schools with their own ideological bent. I have a couple of friends with iirc econ degrees from a wee little christian school and they seemed to have only been taught Austrian stuff and consistently equated basic boring neoclassical econ with marxism.
Does this happen in Oz? No idea.
Also lots of people graduate with lots of different kinds of BAs and remember jack-shit about any of it six months later.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:34 AM on April 5, 2024 [2 favorites]
In the US, you sometimes find econ departments that basically don't teach econ. Never common but less-uncommon at smaller schools or schools with their own ideological bent. I have a couple of friends with iirc econ degrees from a wee little christian school and they seemed to have only been taught Austrian stuff and consistently equated basic boring neoclassical econ with marxism.
Does this happen in Oz? No idea.
Also lots of people graduate with lots of different kinds of BAs and remember jack-shit about any of it six months later.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:34 AM on April 5, 2024 [2 favorites]
Perhaps she got the degree as a stepping stone to a career vs a way to have a particular view of the world, and sees that as its utility.
posted by zippy at 8:36 AM on April 5, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by zippy at 8:36 AM on April 5, 2024 [1 favorite]
I myself did high-school economics and a year of tertiary 101 political economics before giving up. I barely remember most of it!
Regardless of field, it's often the case that non-experts want to focus on the specific terms and concepts they know, and experts have long moved past those things to a broader understanding of issues.
There's a topic for which I am one of the world's leading experts. If someone wanted to talk about that topic, but they only had the knowledge I had when I first got into it two decades ago, that would be a painful experience for me.
In your specific case, I doubt that "she's on me for my own financial choices" is really about economics to the extent you want it to be.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 8:41 AM on April 5, 2024 [6 favorites]
Regardless of field, it's often the case that non-experts want to focus on the specific terms and concepts they know, and experts have long moved past those things to a broader understanding of issues.
There's a topic for which I am one of the world's leading experts. If someone wanted to talk about that topic, but they only had the knowledge I had when I first got into it two decades ago, that would be a painful experience for me.
In your specific case, I doubt that "she's on me for my own financial choices" is really about economics to the extent you want it to be.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 8:41 AM on April 5, 2024 [6 favorites]
Also lots of people graduate with lots of different kinds of BAs and remember jack-shit about any of it six months later.
Exactly.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:44 AM on April 5, 2024 [5 favorites]
Exactly.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:44 AM on April 5, 2024 [5 favorites]
1. If she never worked as an economist, it's unlikely she remembers any of it, as she never put any of it into practice and it was 40 years ago.
2. Economic theory is meant to explain on the large scale. It is not going to convince your mother that whatever you are personally buying is the best use of your money (especially if your money was previously your mother's money).
posted by kingdead at 8:47 AM on April 5, 2024 [3 favorites]
2. Economic theory is meant to explain on the large scale. It is not going to convince your mother that whatever you are personally buying is the best use of your money (especially if your money was previously your mother's money).
posted by kingdead at 8:47 AM on April 5, 2024 [3 favorites]
Are you having conversations like:
Why haven't you bought a house yet?
I can't afford it - housing prices have risen way more than wages.
Don't give me that flimflam, I had a house at your age so you should be able to do it.
That sounds incredibly frustrating. Unfortunately I have no useful advice. It sounds like she's forgotten whatever she learned and there's not really anything you can do about that.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:01 AM on April 5, 2024 [2 favorites]
Why haven't you bought a house yet?
I can't afford it - housing prices have risen way more than wages.
Don't give me that flimflam, I had a house at your age so you should be able to do it.
That sounds incredibly frustrating. Unfortunately I have no useful advice. It sounds like she's forgotten whatever she learned and there's not really anything you can do about that.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:01 AM on April 5, 2024 [2 favorites]
You might try reading Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics. I'm mid-way through. There's some questionable stuff in there (it was great until the Ethereum mention...), but there's also a lot about how different schools of economic thought get so wrapped up in their own structural patterns that they ignore reality. That various schools of economics as a discipline have become abstract mathematics rather than models for reality, and so when faced with reality that contradicts the model, people double down rather than expanding their understanding.
posted by straw at 9:03 AM on April 5, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by straw at 9:03 AM on April 5, 2024 [1 favorite]
Unclear from your follow up how long your mother taught (?) basic economics, but I agree with others that I think you are just putting too much weight on a BA degree attained 40 years ago.
I'm married to a PhD economist. One of the things they've frequently commented on is how economic theory, and particularly behavioral economics, has become a "trendy" way in popular writing to explain how the world works (see, Michael Lewis). But, it really hasn't always been so. Your mother may have long since abstracted away much of what she learned and economics is simply not the dominant lens through which she has re-trained herself to view current affairs.
posted by AndrewInDC at 9:03 AM on April 5, 2024 [3 favorites]
I'm married to a PhD economist. One of the things they've frequently commented on is how economic theory, and particularly behavioral economics, has become a "trendy" way in popular writing to explain how the world works (see, Michael Lewis). But, it really hasn't always been so. Your mother may have long since abstracted away much of what she learned and economics is simply not the dominant lens through which she has re-trained herself to view current affairs.
posted by AndrewInDC at 9:03 AM on April 5, 2024 [3 favorites]
Best answer: Maybe she's embarrassed that she doesn't really know what you're talking about - because she was an indifferent student, because she's forgotten, because they didn't teach that stuff in her course, who knows.
Are you dependent on her financially? If not, you don't actually have to argue this stuff with her; you can say "I need you to believe me and trust me that I'm doing the best I can in the economy that exists today for people my age, even if you don't see it. And if you can't trust me that's okay too, but I need you not to tell me because it hurts and it's frustrating."
If you are dependent on her financially then things get more complicated, but you can still move towards an approach of nodding along and changing the subject rather than trying to teach her economics.
If talking about this stuff is a central part of your relationship and you don't want to change that, then maybe instead of bringing in econ 101/102 stuff you can try sending her general-audience news articles about the relevant topics (things like "Young People Across Country Unable to Afford Own Homes"). But don't expect too much; instead focus on not taking her views personally or feeling like you need to correct her on everything.
posted by trig at 9:04 AM on April 5, 2024 [4 favorites]
Are you dependent on her financially? If not, you don't actually have to argue this stuff with her; you can say "I need you to believe me and trust me that I'm doing the best I can in the economy that exists today for people my age, even if you don't see it. And if you can't trust me that's okay too, but I need you not to tell me because it hurts and it's frustrating."
If you are dependent on her financially then things get more complicated, but you can still move towards an approach of nodding along and changing the subject rather than trying to teach her economics.
If talking about this stuff is a central part of your relationship and you don't want to change that, then maybe instead of bringing in econ 101/102 stuff you can try sending her general-audience news articles about the relevant topics (things like "Young People Across Country Unable to Afford Own Homes"). But don't expect too much; instead focus on not taking her views personally or feeling like you need to correct her on everything.
posted by trig at 9:04 AM on April 5, 2024 [4 favorites]
If Rip Van Winkle got a BS in Computer Science in the '80s, fell asleep and then woke up in 2024, the foundations of computer science might remain superficially similar, the developments and terminology and practices are ludicrously different. An iPhone connected to the Internet would be baffling development by itself, a modern development environment (or even current processor design) even more so.
This isn't exclusive to rapidly developing fields; engineering has to contend with new materials and practices, physics has had any number of discoveries over the past decades, surgeries and medications and our understandings of health are quite different than they were 40 years ago.
A lot changes. A lot. For most of us, our education is just the very beginning, we all develop through the years both in terms of personal skills, as new discoveries are made, as language changes, and through our work.
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 9:10 AM on April 5, 2024
This isn't exclusive to rapidly developing fields; engineering has to contend with new materials and practices, physics has had any number of discoveries over the past decades, surgeries and medications and our understandings of health are quite different than they were 40 years ago.
A lot changes. A lot. For most of us, our education is just the very beginning, we all develop through the years both in terms of personal skills, as new discoveries are made, as language changes, and through our work.
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 9:10 AM on April 5, 2024
Response by poster: I would appreciate answers that focus more on explaining what an economics degree looked like in the 80s than attempting to empathise with her position.
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:25 AM on April 5, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:25 AM on April 5, 2024 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I took economics in Canada the early 1980's it was thorough and non-ideological. I did not work directly in the field (more accounting and finance) but can recall all those topics. I question whether this person actually took much economics or just the intro courses in first year.
Back then the main concerns were the public debt , inflation , employment.
posted by canoehead at 9:26 AM on April 5, 2024 [2 favorites]
Back then the main concerns were the public debt , inflation , employment.
posted by canoehead at 9:26 AM on April 5, 2024 [2 favorites]
This is a question about human relations.
In OP's words:
exactly what I *want* from her but don't see
doesn't really have the choice of saying "I don't care about economics"
If she wants to be persuasive [hint: she doesn't], she has to engage me
more than 10 years of trying to talk about how the economy is and receiving absolutely no critical answers
You've spent ten years trying to use your reading and knowledge to draw her into debates. She doesn't want that. She doesn't owe you it. Being an any-time any-place intellectual sparring partner is not a required part of being a mother.
Have you questioned why this is so important to you? Do you want to demonstrate how much cleverer and better read you are than her? What's in this for her?
posted by Klipspringer at 9:30 AM on April 5, 2024 [6 favorites]
In OP's words:
exactly what I *want* from her but don't see
doesn't really have the choice of saying "I don't care about economics"
If she wants to be persuasive [hint: she doesn't], she has to engage me
more than 10 years of trying to talk about how the economy is and receiving absolutely no critical answers
You've spent ten years trying to use your reading and knowledge to draw her into debates. She doesn't want that. She doesn't owe you it. Being an any-time any-place intellectual sparring partner is not a required part of being a mother.
Have you questioned why this is so important to you? Do you want to demonstrate how much cleverer and better read you are than her? What's in this for her?
posted by Klipspringer at 9:30 AM on April 5, 2024 [6 favorites]
Response by poster: To make my question very basic and simple: I was given Ha-Joon Chang. What was my mother given?
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:32 AM on April 5, 2024 [1 favorite]
posted by Audreynachrome at 9:32 AM on April 5, 2024 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I would appreciate answers that focus more on explaining what an economics degree looked like in the 80s
I have a US econ BA from 1992, doing boring normal neoclassical econ. Much of this will be similar throughout "orthodox" econ programs in the US.
Introductory microeconomics -- there are a billion completely interchangeable texts. Focuses on basic concepts -- introduces marginal this and that, the idea that things equilibrate when marginal cost = marginal benefit, basic overall equilbrium with supply and demand curves. Introduces other basic concepts like comparative advantage.
I can't remember whether there was an intro macro course or not. If I took one, I don't remember anything from it as it all got overwritten by intermediate macro.
Intermediate micro -- a lot of the same topics as intro micro, but shifting to indifference contours and budget frontiers. Very basic game theory for things like oligopoly equilibration. Occasional differential calculus rears its ugly head. Basic principle changes from "equilbrium means marginal cost = marginal benefit" to restatement of it as "highest indifference contour that's tangent to the budget frontier." Still lots of completely interchangeable textbooks. Varian might be the most standard of the standard texts?
Intermediate macro -- macro, but self-consciously built up as an aggregation of individuals. Still getting to same results you see talking heads blether about, but relatively consistently focusing on how this builds up from individual behavior.
Basic statistics -- starting from nothing up to rudimentary multiple regression
After this, it was just "take several more econ courses of your choice." Lots of them were mostly applications of intermediate micro skills to particular settings or indifference curves with different axis labels. These were the only courses that might feature reading the occasional article or something other than an actual textbook.
Thinking of it as "we read these thinkers" is off base. The core is actual textbooks with all the rough edges sanded off presenting a blandly consensus view. Like a high school chemistry textbook.
If your mother went to one of the weird programs that teaches Austrian econ, everything would have been very different and the whole program would be spun around why Hayek and Hazlitt were right about everything.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 10:03 AM on April 5, 2024 [5 favorites]
I have a US econ BA from 1992, doing boring normal neoclassical econ. Much of this will be similar throughout "orthodox" econ programs in the US.
Introductory microeconomics -- there are a billion completely interchangeable texts. Focuses on basic concepts -- introduces marginal this and that, the idea that things equilibrate when marginal cost = marginal benefit, basic overall equilbrium with supply and demand curves. Introduces other basic concepts like comparative advantage.
I can't remember whether there was an intro macro course or not. If I took one, I don't remember anything from it as it all got overwritten by intermediate macro.
Intermediate micro -- a lot of the same topics as intro micro, but shifting to indifference contours and budget frontiers. Very basic game theory for things like oligopoly equilibration. Occasional differential calculus rears its ugly head. Basic principle changes from "equilbrium means marginal cost = marginal benefit" to restatement of it as "highest indifference contour that's tangent to the budget frontier." Still lots of completely interchangeable textbooks. Varian might be the most standard of the standard texts?
Intermediate macro -- macro, but self-consciously built up as an aggregation of individuals. Still getting to same results you see talking heads blether about, but relatively consistently focusing on how this builds up from individual behavior.
Basic statistics -- starting from nothing up to rudimentary multiple regression
After this, it was just "take several more econ courses of your choice." Lots of them were mostly applications of intermediate micro skills to particular settings or indifference curves with different axis labels. These were the only courses that might feature reading the occasional article or something other than an actual textbook.
Thinking of it as "we read these thinkers" is off base. The core is actual textbooks with all the rough edges sanded off presenting a blandly consensus view. Like a high school chemistry textbook.
If your mother went to one of the weird programs that teaches Austrian econ, everything would have been very different and the whole program would be spun around why Hayek and Hazlitt were right about everything.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 10:03 AM on April 5, 2024 [5 favorites]
Best answer: If you would like a primary source, this was the standard undergraduate textbook in the 80's: Economics: Principles and policies, WJ Baumol, AS Blinder - 1979 - Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
They are on the 13th edition now, but you can probably find a used copy somewhere. From memory, it covers many of the principles you named, like marginal utility, etc.
Baumol and Blinder were prolific and influential. This re-assessment would also be interesting: Blinder, A. (2010). Teaching macro principles after the financial crisis. The Journal of Economic Education, 41(4), 385-390.
posted by dum spiro spero at 10:53 AM on April 5, 2024
They are on the 13th edition now, but you can probably find a used copy somewhere. From memory, it covers many of the principles you named, like marginal utility, etc.
Baumol and Blinder were prolific and influential. This re-assessment would also be interesting: Blinder, A. (2010). Teaching macro principles after the financial crisis. The Journal of Economic Education, 41(4), 385-390.
posted by dum spiro spero at 10:53 AM on April 5, 2024
I also used Baumol and Blinder in my (US) 80's Econ 101 course. A student who had just graduated with an economics degree from a mainstream economics program in the 80's and who had absorbed and understood what was taught would be able to understand your discussion. Some things have changed since I graduated with a econ-related degree in the 90s, but 99 percent of the basic concepts are the same.
The reason that no one is directly answering your question is that we cannot: We are not your mother, so we don't know what she learned.
Not every school is the same. Not every student is the same. Even those who get a degree might learn enough to pass an exam but not really grasp some of the concepts. And many of those who do have a decent understanding upon graduation will forget the bulk of what they learned if they don't use it.
So maybe your mother went to a bad college. Maybe she's not that smart. Maybe she had other priorities than remembering what she learned in college, such as raising you. Maybe she's become politically biased. We don't know.
What people can do is give you advice on how to interact with the mother you have, not the mother you wish you had, and there is some good advice above.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:43 AM on April 5, 2024 [4 favorites]
The reason that no one is directly answering your question is that we cannot: We are not your mother, so we don't know what she learned.
Not every school is the same. Not every student is the same. Even those who get a degree might learn enough to pass an exam but not really grasp some of the concepts. And many of those who do have a decent understanding upon graduation will forget the bulk of what they learned if they don't use it.
So maybe your mother went to a bad college. Maybe she's not that smart. Maybe she had other priorities than remembering what she learned in college, such as raising you. Maybe she's become politically biased. We don't know.
What people can do is give you advice on how to interact with the mother you have, not the mother you wish you had, and there is some good advice above.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:43 AM on April 5, 2024 [4 favorites]
I have an undergraduate degree in Economics and History (double major) in the early 80s. I can follow along with the talking heads on TV, but not much beyond that. It is like learning a language you have not used for decades. Some of it comes back, but some is still wandering in the desert. I also have a graduate degree in finance that seems to have marginally helped me in my career. I am in my early 60s.
Quite frankly, the only thing I needed to know from my Economics degree is that something is worth what they will pay for it, not what I say it is worth. My degree included courses in micro-, macro-, stats, and advanced courses in macro and micro.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 12:00 PM on April 5, 2024
Quite frankly, the only thing I needed to know from my Economics degree is that something is worth what they will pay for it, not what I say it is worth. My degree included courses in micro-, macro-, stats, and advanced courses in macro and micro.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 12:00 PM on April 5, 2024
Best answer: Your mother would have been taught about marginal supply and demand. She would have learned what economist then thought caused inflation. She would have gotten a snapshot, or at worst, a caricature, of Keynes and Keynesiasm.
If she remembers none of it, it was because she learned it well enough to cram for an exam 40+ years ago, and forgot it
posted by MattD at 7:16 PM on April 5, 2024
If she remembers none of it, it was because she learned it well enough to cram for an exam 40+ years ago, and forgot it
posted by MattD at 7:16 PM on April 5, 2024
As a discipline , Economics has the problem the economies are so big, have so many moving parts, are subject to so many random events, that it's impossible to prove or disprove theories. Economists still argue about Keynes, 100 years after the fact. It numbs the mind, and sanity requires forgetting about it to the degree possible.
posted by SemiSalt at 5:20 AM on April 6, 2024
posted by SemiSalt at 5:20 AM on April 6, 2024
Response by poster: Thanks to everyone who answered.
I'm still most confused by the idea that you could simply not care about something you chose to study, however long ago, but it probably is the best fit for an explanation.
It just doesn't gel very well with how I feel I was taught to think about knowledge - ignorance is not a sin, but apathy just might be.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:25 PM on April 8, 2024 [1 favorite]
I'm still most confused by the idea that you could simply not care about something you chose to study, however long ago, but it probably is the best fit for an explanation.
It just doesn't gel very well with how I feel I was taught to think about knowledge - ignorance is not a sin, but apathy just might be.
posted by Audreynachrome at 8:25 PM on April 8, 2024 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by bq at 7:58 AM on April 5, 2024 [2 favorites]