Advertising spend being too high is a symptom of a supply glut. Too many products in the marketplace, not enough consumers to buy them.
In a different world where there are higher wages, more people would have more spending power. Then companies wouldn't have to spend as many dollars on advertising, which they could split between higher wages, higher margins and lower prices.
Alas, the short-term single-firm directional incentive for company decision makers in that world leads to marginal prioritization of higher margins. The loss of wages leads to loss of consumer spending power but it's spread across the economy. But every firm has the same incentive so they all do the same thing, and the good thing gets ruined.
This line of thinking leads to a Georgist-ish conclusion: The class conflict shouldn't be between workers and employers. They should be allies; the real cause of nobody being able to afford anything is rent extractors. (Writing in the 1800's, George [1] was most concerned about land rents; but the advertising monopoly of Google / Meta may be another form of extractive rent with similar characteristics.)
Maybe Henry Ford was on to something when he shocked the world by paying his employees enough to afford the product they were making (more than doubling many workers' wages)...
> In a different world where there are higher wages, more people would have more spending power. Then companies wouldn't have to spend as many dollars on advertising, which they could split between higher wages, higher margins and lower prices.
Interesting hypothesis. I looked it up in Wilkinson and Pickett, The Spirit Level.
The authors provide cross-sectional data across 23 rich nations, showing a strong positive correlation (r~=0.70) between income inequality (Gini coefficient) and advertising expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
They attribute it to increased status competition & anxiety in more unequal societies, leading to pressure to consume more.
>The authors provide cross-sectional data across 23 rich nations, showing a strong positive correlation (r~=0.70) between income inequality (Gini coefficient) and advertising expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
Why only rich nations? Many of the most unequal countries are also poor (or at least, not rich), so why do they get a pass?
Take a few quantitative courses (ie statistics). Roughly speaking, you usually want to compare similar-ish groups. It's like if you want to examine the effects of diet on a human body, you can't just mix old and young haphazardly. Advertising spend in Somalia probably works very different than advertising spend in Norway.
>Maybe Henry Ford was on to something when he shocked the world by paying his employees enough to afford the product they were making (more than doubling many workers' wages)...
That's a nice story to tell, but the economics never works out if you do the math. Whatever extra wages you pay, you only get a fraction of that back in increased sales. How much percent of a worker's income do you think is spent on a car? As a rough measure we can use the BLS's CPI weights for "new and used vehicles", which comes in at 7.4%, with an extra 1.4% if you include maintenance and parts. By that alone "paying his employees enough to afford the product they were making" is going to be a losing proposition, because Ford can only hope to get 8.8% of whatever they paid in wages back as revenue. And all of this is ignoring the fact that you can't pay extra wages out of revenue, only profit, so you can only hope to recoup a fraction of that 8.8%.
thats an overly simplistic way to look at it. Of course you can never get more money from your employees' purchases than you give them, that makes no sense. The point is using your market power as a large employer to raise market salaries. People will not want to work for your competitors or other sectors if they pay half what you do. So when you rise, naturally other salaries will rise too. And those other workers will also be buying cars.
Whether that makes sense economically is a difficult problem to quantify, especially over any fixed timeframe. I would guess not, at least if your brand isnt insanely strong (on the level of half or more people with enough money would buy it)
It's a collective action problem.
If everyone pays higher wages, there's a greater supply of money for buying stuff / solving problems (assuming the higher wages aren't eaten by rents). No individual form recoups all of the higher wages they pay their workers, obviously, but there's a larger market for the goods of everyone has more money.
>If everyone pays higher wages, there's a greater supply of money for buying stuff / solving problems (assuming the higher wages aren't eaten by rents). No individual form recoups all of the higher wages they pay their workers, obviously, but there's a larger market for the goods of everyone has more money.
Does this actually work? Suppose you're on an island where the economy only produces coconuts. How does giving workers more coconuts make the economy grow, such that there's more coconuts to go around overall? Unless the workers were absolutely famished, giving them more coconuts isn't going to increase productivity. You might argue this model isn't representative of the real world, but that's approximately how the economy works. It can produce a certain amount of "stuff" (ie. coconuts), of which some portion can be given to workers, and the remainder can be given to the kings/elites/capitalists/whatever. Unless you improve productivity, there isn't going to be magically more stuff to go around.
Giving each worker a car can plausibly increase their productivity (less time spent commuting?) but the effect is small, and unlikely to be recouped by car companies. The situation looks even worse in the current economy. If everyone's paychecks were 10% bigger, what marginal item do you think it'll be spent on? A bigger car? A new iPhone or big screen TV? How would any of those increase productivity?
> Suppose you're on an island where the economy only produces coconuts.
This is why nobody takes economists seriously. What you lose in simplifying down to this model is literally everything. The coconut economy has zero predictive power.
In the real world, distribution effects dramatically affect the functioning of the economy, because workers are also consumers and owners of capital are siphoning off the purchasing power of their customers. Productivity isn’t the question in the modern economy - we’re already massively overproducing just about everything - our problem is both our wealth and production allocations are borderline suicidal.
>This is why nobody takes economists seriously. What you lose in simplifying down to this model is literally everything. The coconut economy has zero predictive power.
A simplified model is needed otherwise rigorous analysis becomes impossible, and people make handwavy arguments about how paying workers more means they can spend more, which means factories, and it's a perpetual growth machine!
>we’re already massively overproducing just about everything
No we're not. If we weren't, we shouldn't have seen the massive inflation near the end of covid. The supply disruptions hit almost immediately, but it wasn't until the stimmy checks hit that inflation went up.
>our problem is both our wealth and production allocations are borderline suicidal.
If you read my previous comments more carefully, you'd note that I'm not arguing against better wages for workers as a whole, only that contrary to what some people claim, they don't pay for themselves.
> A simplified model is needed otherwise rigorous analysis becomes impossible, and people make handwavy arguments about how paying workers more means they can spend more, which means factories, and it's a perpetual growth machine!
I'm no economist but you can't live on an island that only produces coconuts, because the people on that island would quickly start producing other stuff, breaking your premise.
This is like saying cash is useless because amoeba haven't evolved a cash economy.
> A simplified model is needed otherwise rigorous analysis becomes impossible
If your tools aren’t capable of rigorous analysis of a model that retains enough detail to capture the salient features of the thing they’re trying to model, they’re not the tools for the job.
What's the "salient feature" that's missing? From all the other replies it sounds like people are still relying on the handwavy argument that "pay workers more -> workers spend more -> you can pay workers more -> repeat", but can't articulate where the actual growth is coming from. If this is true, the communism would have beaten capitalism, because they would be able to exploit this better than any capitalist system, but obviously that didn't happen.
Overall this feels like troll physics[1]. Yes, the idea that having a magnet pull you forward, which itself is pushed forward by you moving forward sounds superficially plausible as well, but it doesn't pencil out in reality. The only difference is that "the economy" is complex enough it's non-trivial to disprove, and people can handwave away any objections.
Multiple products. Multiple employers. A currency distinct from a consumable product.
A simplified model could be useful, but yours goes too far.
It doesn't take into account effects like that by paying more you can attract more, and more productive workers. Or that it puts pressure on other employers to increase wages.
> but can't articulate where the actual growth is coming from
I am not an economist, but I think one situation where this works is where you are competing for workers with other employers that have high margins, and pay their workers relatively little. In that case one of two things happens. Either other employers also increase wages, leading to their workers also having more money, which they can spend on your product, or they don't compete on wages, and you can outcompete them in getting the best workers.
The key is that total productivity doesn't necessarily improve, but wealth distribution becomes more equitable.
As it sits, all of the members of your coconut economy are going to be dead of malnutrition or exposure in relatively short order, so maybe address that and then we can work our way up to the flaws in the economic theory that drove the greatest wealth expansion and boom in consumer spending the world has ever seen.
The salient feature is that people consume a higher percentage of their wages than investors do of their wealth. Redistributing some profits to wages means that money gets spent, inducing demand. This also has a higher multiplier effect than profits, because consumer spending can move through the economy multiple times in a measurement period.
> No we're not. If we weren't, we shouldn't have seen the massive inflation near the end of covid. The supply disruptions hit almost immediately, but it wasn't until the stimmy checks hit that inflation went up.
What? The first Covid stimulus checks were April 2020. 271 billion in 2020 here per here: https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-to-know-about-all-three-ro.... 135B of the second round by Mar 2021. The third started about then. Inflation - and consumer activity in most areas - was low because nobody was going anywhere still, but at least we did a fair job of avoiding mass unemployment and homelessness.
Then inflation started accelerating during the economy's broader reopening in April 2021 (2.6 -> 4.2 percent from March). It didn't peak until near the end of 2022. Those stimulus checks were LONG gone by then for most people, since a huge portion of the country lives paycheck to paycheck, and the stimulus checks weren't available to people making more than 80-100k (single or avg-per-person in a married couple), which is the higher-income demographic that would have the disposable income to really drive inflation across the board by a "let's buy stuff we wouldn't otherwise" splashy purchase.
Instead, inflation was driven by people getting back out and doing/buying all the shit that had all been scaled down. The first stimulus checks didn't drive it because people weren't purchasing as broadly yet, and were still more in panic mode. Textbook bullwhip effect; at steady state we produced more than enough and never saw shortages, then in Covid demand types and volumes shifted enough to cause shortages of certain things and surpluses of far more other "non-quarantine consumer" things, so production changed, and then when things started to go back to normal ALL those things got hit again. I don't know if I'd agree that we're "massively" overproducing everything now that we're not in a quarantine scenario again, but the consistency of supply of most normal things suggests a lot of excess capacity in the system to absorb normal fluctuations in a way that nobody ever has to think about where their next roll of toilet paper is coming from again.
This is how we had a major boom in middle-class wealth int he US post WW2.
If you are only selling coconuts, a single raw material, yes, you will run into supply constraints such that prices go up. But that isn't how economics works. Your zero-sum economics example is only applicable in short-term scenarios: over the longer term, new industries develop to solve persistent problems that people are willing to pay to solve.
Money solves the problems of the people that have the problems. If the problem is 'we need to eat', producers will diversify into new food sources to meet the demand, solving the problem, and capturing the money of the people who have that problem.
There is an enormous space of problems people have which cannot be solved due to lack of access to money. Increasing costs in childcare, elder care, and education are good examples.
>This is how we had a major boom in middle-class wealth int he US post WW2.
The fact that Europe got bombed no doubt helped too, same with the elites being concerned that communism was on the rise and giving workers a better deal in an effort to stave that off.
>Your zero-sum economics example is only applicable in short-term scenarios: over the longer term, new industries develop to solve persistent problems that people are willing to pay to solve.
>Money solves the problems of the people that have the problems. If the problem is 'we need to eat', producers will diversify into new food sources to meet the demand, solving the problem, and capturing the money of the people who have that problem.
I'm not how you got the impression that I thought the economy had to be zero sum. I even specifically mentioned the possibility of more stuff to go around if productivity goes up. That's the problem with your "new industries develop" argument. Unless productivity goes up too, there will only be different stuff, not more stuff overall.
>There is an enormous space of problems people have which cannot be solved due to lack of access to money. Increasing costs in childcare, elder care, and education are good examples.
All of those are service industries that are resistant to scaling, and as a result productivity growth have been abysmal. Giving people more money to spend on those things just means productive capacity is removed from the economy elsewhere. Going back to the coconut economy example, it would certainly be nice if workers could have a maid to do the cleaning or a chef to do the cooking, but you still need people do the cleaning or cooking. At the end of the day you're just shuffling people around, not growing more coconuts.
>This is how we had a major boom in middle-class wealth int he US post WW2.
>The fact that Europe got bombed no doubt helped too
Europe also had a massive boom in middle-class wealth post WW2. I don't understand how this myth continues to live on, when the evidence against it is total.
It smells of the "if we go break the windows and sink the yachts of all the billionaires, it'll create a lot more jobs!" logic that the top-0.1%-of-earners doesn't seem to endorse...
> The fact that Europe got bombed no doubt helped too, same with the elites being concerned that communism was on the rise and giving workers a better deal in an effort to stave that off.
Workers got a better deal because the US intentionally passed massive top-end marginal tax rates pre-WWII with the goal of leading to less income-hoarding (or at least more charitable giving etc) at the top-of-the-top.
Wasn't the idea to give people more money (i.e. higher wages) so they could buy more cars/coconuts/etc? That's different than just directly "paying" them in the goods.
So in your simplified coconut economy, you'd at least have to keep two distinct kinds of entities, the goods to be paid and the payment. You sort of replaced both with coconuts and concluded the resulting system wouldn't work.
If the economy is 100% coconuts — all supply is coconuts, all demand is coconuts — then coconuts are all. Business owners sell coconuts in exchange for coconuts in order to acquire more coconuts. Employees are paid in coconuts which they trade for more coconuts. Paying workers more coconuts gives them more of what they want, which is coconuts, that they turn around and spend on coconuts.
That's exactly the problem. At the end of the day, unless you increase production of "stuff" (or coconuts), there isn't going to be magically more "stuff" (or coconuts) to go around just because people are shuffling "stuff" (or coconuts) around.
Not for coconuts, but in the real world, most products have economies of scale. If one rich guy has 99% of the money, the entire economy will be structured to serve his needs and yet nothing he buys will reach economies of scale. He just doesn't care to have that many Rolexes. So production methods will be fairly inefficient.
But if everyone has a bit of money, stuff can get mass produced, which actually makes for much greater total welfare, because the production methods are just a lot more efficient.
Nobody will increase production of stuff if all the money is increasingly concentrated into a shrinking percentage of people who have far more than they can spend on stuff.
That's how you get high asset inflation and "K-shaped" stuff as the rich increasingly look for any value-storage vehicle to "invest" in, since they can't get a return on producing stuff to sell to the people with less money...
Higher wages means workers and businesses have to be more effective. So more goods and services are produced and available. It's not a zero-sum game.
"But workers are already as effective as they can be"
Great, in that case you have the margins to pay higher wages.
A high wage / high cost society is great for workers and for businesses which actually do real work and produce real goods and services. It's not great for everybody else. Ie those who don't work, and businesses who doesn't make a high contribution.
Let's say you skewed income distribution a bit more like 1950s US, when high marginal tax rates resulted in more equal distribution of revenue through mechanisms like deductions or simply not taking that extra bump from 3 to 4 million. Now the upper 1% has lower income, but they were already mostly not-limited in purchasing power by their income. The upper 5-10% gets more. They go out to eat more, etc, etc.
We tried that experiment after passing "soak the rich" taxes in the early 20th century, and it seemed to work out pretty well for economic growth and living standards. But then we moved back towards "let there be oligarchs with immense wealth" instead. One of the claims was that the "investments" from allowing the powerful to keep most of the revenue streams for themselves would foster enough development to make it more than worthwhile, but instead... the broad base of consumer spending power has tanked, so businesses to supply the masses haven't found spending power to justify new investment/development outside of ad-powered ones participating in an arms race for the constricting consumer spending power that remains (or those industries benefiting from wildly subsidized-in-weird-ways spending like healthcare/pharma). And so it has also inflated asset classes across the board as there aren't enough startup ideas to eat up all the investments because of the general decline in spending power. Which hurts spending power further. (IMO the ability to capture higher and higher amounts of corporate profits as personal income also correlates to the massive financialization, outsourcing, and other short-term number-juicing moves we've seen.)
We can point to a lot of problems that have occurred from taking revenue shares away from the average worker, so it shouldn't be rocket science to think that returning a greater share of revenue to workers would return some purchasing power and guide the economy back towards development and growth instead of zero-sum asset bubbles.
Is there? Covid stimulus would say there isn't. Granted a company raising wages doesn't print money out of air like the Fed but the amount of goods doesn't change, the cost of the goods adjusts to the monetary supply. You now pay more for the same.
The Covid stimulus that prevented a huge wave of unemployment in more industries beyond travel and hospitality while inflation remained quite low for the calendar year following March 2020?
Or are you blaming the 2020-and-2021 stimulus for the 2021-through-2023 bullwhip-effect predictable-yet-not-mitigated inflation as things re-opened and demand returned for stuff we'd ramped down supply chains for? While chasing stupid obviously-not-permanent-change trends like Peloton stock instead?
Look at how much of the country lives paycheck-to-paycheck, and the income limits of the stimulus checks - how can you connect those people getting immediate money in 2020 or early 2021 to inflation at the end of 2022?
I didn't even get Covid stimulus checks and yet I also spent way more in 2021 and 2022 and 2023 on a lot of categories of goods than I did in 2020. Cause I went outside and did things more.
> the economics never works out if you do the math
The economics work out pretty well if you are the only game in town where your employees can purchase what you have marketed to be the next big thing and status symbol that everyone must have.
The idea is to use that as a marketing ploy on all sides.
On one side, paying high wages is marketing on the employment market - enticing people to work at Ford's rather than somewhere else.
Then, you got the government side. A factory providing a town with a lot of high quality employment leads to a lot of purchasing power from the employees and thus to a growing city. Wolfsburg in Germany, the best example, literally was founded by/for Volkswagen. Being respected by local politics for that growth, in turn, leads politicians and city management to... be lenient in enforcing regulations impeding the business. The best example here is Tesla in Brandenburg near Berlin. With any other company in any other place in Germany, they would get hammered with fines. Tesla in turn set up shop in a destitute area, so politicians bent over backwards and looked aside despite numerous violations and transgressions.
And finally, you got the customer side. The story of a quality product, made by well-paid domestic workers, was as powerful a story as it still is today, at least in affluent circles.
If you're a market leader it might make sense to use your influence to try pushing the whole market against the per-firm incentive gradient to a better equilibrium. Factors that help:
- You're an early player using new technology so you have profits to spare
- You're in a capital intensive business so salaries are a relatively small portion of your expenses
- You have a celebrity CEO so investors give them more of a "pass" for visionary ideas that go against conventional wisdom
I'm not an expert on the history of the US auto industry but my gut feeling is that all of these applied to Henry Ford's Ford.
Obviously this would never work with a single employer. But I think the point is moreso that if every employer, in an altruistic sense, decided to pay their employees enough to afford more purchasing power, the entire market would grow faster
>If hypothetically you are paying 99x a year and bumping that to 100x means someone buys an 8.8x product that could be a win.
What type of company would this work for? Cars are so ingrained in our society that it's doubtful the marginal Ford (or Tesla) factory worker is going to be buying a $50k car just because they paid better wages.
A luxury car manufacturer could tip the scale of someone buying their product vs someone else’s product via an arbitrarily small wage increase.
The degree to which this is generalizable is of course a different story, but it’s at least theoretically possible for a small wage bump to be a net gain for the company.
The microeconomics of that decision are poor for the company, but the macroeconomics are great. But the macro angle has been reduced to "Fed interest rate" in America.
Why do you argue against paying people more when we are stuck in a society that increasingly fucks over workers with blithe logic and one-sided presentations of data?
Ok, so if he still makes a profit, so what? There are numerous other advantages to a happy and well-compensated workforce, even completely ignoring the societal benefits beyond just the company.
I'm just going to add a recommendation for the book 'Technofeudalism' by Yanis Varoufakis. The short version is that the current cloud economy is similar to serfs working under a feudal lord.
I don't think that's how it works. These companies have all the visibility control and make you invisible by default unless you pay them. It has very little to do with quality, demand, or any of the rest.
> the real cause of nobody being able to afford anything is rent extractors.
Employers/Owners are essentially rent extractors to workers. Its even worse IMO. They buy some of your time to do stuff for them. They also lend you the tools and materials to do your job. And they own whatever you produce.
If you are selling your one hour for 100 bucks to produce ten linen coats worth 100 bucks each, you get a 100, everything else - minus costs of materials and your 100 the employer gets to keep as free rent.
Yes, because the employer just happened to be the first one to find the fully built and equipped coat factory and he declared himself the boss. He in no way shape or form had to risk his capital to set up a successful business, so he should be living from scraps
Am I seeing a fellow georgist in the wild? That's great!
I do agree that these monopolies are rent seeking and we should probably do something about it
> Maybe Henry Ford was on to something when he shocked the world by paying his employees enough to afford the product they were making (more than doubling many workers' wages)...
Everyone bet that they would fold but they are doing stronger than ever. People took voluntary pay cuts when the company was under pressure and they even gifted their CEO their favourite car out of their own geneorsity!
I always smile when I watch this video. (the company's gravity payments)
> The class conflict shouldn't be between workers and employers
I feel like the problem's becoming that the employers are themselves rent seekers (so think working at google,facebook,twitter) or the VC companies which want to build more Google's and facebooks and twitters but not companies like the one that I mentioned in the video
That is an interesting chicken and egg problem. A strong union requires members who can demonstrate that prolonged work stoppages are a credible threat. If the employer thinks everyone will be starving and begging to come back after a week, the union has no power.
In other words, in order for a union to become strong, wages already need to be up to allow the workers to be able amass considerable savings to get them through the months and years when they aren't working. So higher wages have to come first. But to complicate matters, once workers have that, they often start to feel like they don't need a union.
The one time when unions did become strong, workers were so desperate for safer working conditions that potentially being thrown out on the street and left to starve was seen as a better option than being crushed by a machine. But the law now ensures that workers are just comfortable enough to prevent an uprising like that again.
>In a different world where there are higher wages, more people would have more spending power.
I don't think that's true, not for random goods. Rent scales with disposable income. If most people make more money, then rent becomes more expensive. Rent essentially vacuums up all the excess money people have available. (Rent = housing in this case)
Why would people want to live in these more expensive places rather than somewhere cheaper? It's because that's where all the (well-paying) jobs are.
When you see Americans complaining about how poor they are you might reasonably ask: okay, but how do people on $poorCountry get by when their income is 5-10x less? It's not like food, clothing, electronics, and other goods are 5-10x cheaper there. But what is much cheaper is housing. (You'll even find cheap housing in rich countries, it'll just be in areas with no jobs.)
> The class conflict shouldn't be between workers and employers.
Then why don't employers, the ones with essentially all the power here, tend to choose actions that go against the interests of the working class? Simple: regardless of what you think "should" happen, a study of history tells us what actually tends to happen in reality, and that tendency is towards class war between the ruling and exploited classes.
Anyways, in what way is "ownership" not rent-extracting in general? If you own shares of a stock and you get paid a dividend, that is rent plain and simple. All the arguments you can make against that being the case -- eg that you deserve a premium for parking your capital in a risky asset -- apply to advertising conglomerates and even literally renting out land too, so either they're all renting or none are.
Because employers don't tend to make choices about the "interests of the working class", they make choices about what benefits them specifically in the moment or near future. You need to get some sort of alignment on their interests and the interests of the working class to create change, whether that's via government intervention or otherwise.
And I hear you on ownership. It's "just" figuring out how to make that change.
The article in the parent comment specifically spells out why renting out land is different than say, "renting" out a car factory (or any other productive asset).
My problem with buying stuff is that by the age of 40 I had already attained everything that I ever needed or wanted except for a occasional replacement.
Personally, I don't need more products, but there are many services I would pay for if they existed. But, apparently companies don't seem to care about providing services. Why? Is it because they don't scale?
I'm not familiar with Georgism, but employers and rent extractors (e.g. the majority stock owners) seem to be one and the same pretty often, at least in the US.
A Marxist can certainly also be a Georgist, it's a matter between who should we eliminate first: the capitalists or the rent-seekers. Maybe we should eliminate the latter first in order to be able to properly tackle the former: the real class conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois!
But you can also go a bit more extreme (and less orthodox) and say that classical capitalism has already come to an end, and in the current neoliberal era most of the purported "capitalists" are actually just rent-seekers (platform based companies which run either on ads or monthly payments) - you don't sell commodities anymore and instead just access to services. Maybe these are just a symptom of The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall - where the value of labor itself has fallen so much that there is no way for any capitalist production to continue generating acceptable profits unless you do any rent-seeking behavior. In that sense, you can certainly be both a Georgist and a Marxist since you still believe in the TRPF and the inherent contradictions of capitalism (though quite an unorthodox one!)
.png){kind=link}
In a different world where there are higher wages, more people would have more spending power. Then companies wouldn't have to spend as many dollars on advertising, which they could split between higher wages, higher margins and lower prices.
Alas, the short-term single-firm directional incentive for company decision makers in that world leads to marginal prioritization of higher margins. The loss of wages leads to loss of consumer spending power but it's spread across the economy. But every firm has the same incentive so they all do the same thing, and the good thing gets ruined.
This line of thinking leads to a Georgist-ish conclusion: The class conflict shouldn't be between workers and employers. They should be allies; the real cause of nobody being able to afford anything is rent extractors. (Writing in the 1800's, George [1] was most concerned about land rents; but the advertising monopoly of Google / Meta may be another form of extractive rent with similar characteristics.)
Maybe Henry Ford was on to something when he shocked the world by paying his employees enough to afford the product they were making (more than doubling many workers' wages)...
[1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-progress-a...