Wednesday, May 29, 2024

"The American Worker Is Being Destroyed Right In Front Of Our Eyes And It's Worse Than You Think"

Full screen recommended.
Epic Economist, 5/29/24
"The American Worker Is Being Destroyed Right
 In Front Of Our Eyes And It's Worse Than You Think"

"The decline of our country is explicit. While 99% of our population is struggling to adapt to the rising cost of basic necessities, the top 1% of ultra rich Americans has seen their wealth increase by nearly 500% over the past four years. Though an America where some have more money than others is nothing new, in the past generation, the financial gap between the elites and everyone else has become obscene. Economists are convinced that something has gone awry in our economic system, threatening the underpinning of the American Dream. They say we're living a tale of "two Americas", divided between the "haves" and the "have-nots."

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office exposes that income inequality in the United States has never been worse. Even though Americans are working harder than ever before, they are earning less when accounting the current cost of housing, food, energy, healthcare, and other essentials. The bottom 20% of U.S. households earns an average income before taxes and transfers of just $21,900 while the top 20% earns more than $400,000 a year. What’s more, the top 1% of households made almost five times as much income as the rest of the population from 2020 to now.

Data released by the Pew Research Center shows that the top 10% of households have over $6.7 million in wealth. At the same time, the bottom 50% of households have just $50,000 in wealth. As a group, the top 10% holds 66.9% of the nation's household wealth. In contrast, the bottom 50% only holds 2.5%.

Today, the concentration of income toward the ultra rich is at its highest point since 1980. In fact, over the past four decades, average incomes grew by 135% for upper-class Americans, but just 38% and 23% for middle and low-income Americans, respectively. Although the latter income brackets account for more than 60% of the nation's consumption, their purchasing power is getting significantly lower."
Comments here:
o
"The more I see of the monied classes,
the better I understand the guillotine."
- George Bernard Shaw

Jeremiah Babe, "I Can't Believe What I Saw Today; Buy A Home With No Money Down; Homebuyers Will Be Decimated"

Full screen recommended.
Jeremiah Babe, 5/29/24
"I Can't Believe What I Saw Today; 
Buy A Home With No Money Down; Homebuyers Will Be Decimated"
Comments here:

Gregory Mannarino, "The MMRI Has Hit 'Red Zone, This Could Get Very Bad, Very Fast"

Gregory Mannarino, 5/29/24
"The MMRI Has Hit 'Red Zone, 
This Could Get Very Bad, Very Fast"
Comments here:

The Daily "Near You?"

Bristol, Connecticut, USA. Thanks for stopping by!

Travelling with Russell, "I Went Walking in the World-Famous Gorky Park in Russia"

Full screen recommended.
Travelling with Russell, 5/29/24
"I Went Walking in the World-Famous 
Gorky Park in Russia"
Come for a walk with me around the world-famous Gorky Park in Moscow, Russia. Locally known as Park Kultury, or Park of Culture. Discover what it's like on a beautiful Monday evening. Sunset time in Gorky Park, amazing.
Comments here:

"What We Gain By Recognizing The Role Of Chance In Life"

"What We Gain By Recognizing
 The Role Of Chance In Life"
By Mark S. Rank

"Your luck, they say, can turn around. All you need to do is work a little harder. As a saying often attributed to the Roman philosopher Seneca goes: ‘Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.’ A similar proverb is dated to the 16th century: ‘Diligence is the mother of good luck.’ And even the French chemist Louis Pasteur echoed the idea when he declared in 1854 that ‘chance only favours the mind which is prepared’. Today, many of us still believe that our fortunes can be engineered. But that is not always how the world works. Luck plays an ungovernable and unpredictable role in our lives, which we can’t fully mitigate through preparation or diligence. So why do we continue to believe we can turn our luck around?

On 18 August 1913, at a casino in Monte Carlo, a roulette wheel was spun, and the ball fell on black. This is not unusual. The alternating red and black colours of a roulette wheel mean that, like a coin toss, there is roughly a 50-50 chance that the ball will land on either color. But as the ball continued to land on black, again and again and again, gamblers rushed to the table, placing bets on red in the belief that the alternating colour must be coming up. Convinced that things would eventually balance out, gamblers raised their bets each time the ball landed on black. But they continued to lose. Improbably, the ball would settle on black a total of 26 times.

The ‘Monte Carlo fallacy’, also known as the ‘gambler’s fallacy’, is the belief that a string of bad luck must end. It is the belief that there is a sense of balance in how luck plays out. It explains why gamblers playing roulette mistakenly believe that one color is overdue after a consecutive series of the other color, even though the odds remain 50-50. But the relevance of the Monte Carlo fallacy goes far beyond the tendencies of gamblers in casinos.

Though anecdotal evidence for the fallacy is well established, only in recent decades have experts confirmed our belief that a string of bad luck must end. In a 2005 study, two US researchers studying decision-making, James Sundali and Rachel Croson, analysed gambling behaviour at casinos in Reno, Nevada. Among those who were making 50-50 bets in roulette, Sundali and Croson found that gamblers who had watched one spin of the wheel evenly divided their bets between red and black. However, as the wheel landed on red (or black) in consecutive spins, the betting changed significantly. After five consecutive reds, 65 per cent of the bets were placed on black, and after six consecutive reds, 85 per cent of the bets were on black. Though the sixth spin of a roulette wheel is not influenced by the previous five spins, gamblers still placed their bets as if it was. Our intuitive sense is that imbalance must be corrected.

Closely related to this is the mistaken belief that the distribution in small numbers will reflect the distribution in large numbers. Take the case of flipping a coin. The odds in any one flip are 50 per cent heads, 50 per cent tails. If we flip a coin 10,000 times, close to 50 per cent of the total flips will be heads and close to 50 per cent tails. However, if we flip a coin 10 times, the result could easily be seven heads and three tails. Though it is a mistake to think the odds of a small number of cases will reflect the odds of a large number of cases, we find this belief in many areas of life. For example, parents who have had several children of the same gender may believe that they are overdue for a child of the other sex and that their odds will shift if they keep trying.

Part of the reason why we cling to the belief that a string of bad luck must end is that we find it hard to reconcile the difference between the odds of large and small numbers, but there is also a deeper explanation for why these fallacies are so hard to shake: we like to believe the world is just and fair. We like to believe in balance. When someone works hard and plays by the rules, we hope they’ll be appropriately rewarded; when a crime is committed, justice is seen as being served if the criminal is sentenced to a punishment that fits the nature and severity of the crime. On the other hand, if an individual commits a serious crime and is neither apprehended nor punished, we feel an injustice has occurred. Thus, in situations where individuals experience events that are incongruent with their prior actions and behaviors – like young children who have terminal cancer, or civilians who are killed during a war – the world appears unbalanced and unjust. Our intuitive sense is that such an imbalance must be corrected. Unfortunately, this isn’t always possible.

Chance and luck have little interest in our notions of balance and deservedness. In life, bad things can happen to good people, and good things can happen to bad people. Accidents take place, illnesses strike, and unlucky breaks occur indiscriminately. In this regard, the randomness of the universe is blind to any sense of justice. We can attempt to rectify some of the negative consequences of this randomness, and be grateful when good luck strikes, but we should not deceive ourselves into believing that the world is always fair.

The philosopher Nicholas Rescher stated this well in "Luck" (1995) when he wrote: "The trenchant question of old (posed by unfortunate and fortunate alike) is: Why me; what have I done to deserve this? The irony of course is that the appropriate and correct answer is: Nothing. It is simply a matter of chance – of fortuitous luck."

In the bestselling book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" (1981), the US rabbi and author Harold Kushner attempted to reconcile how God could allow so much injustice in the world. Kushner explained that these ‘bad things’ are basically random events. When they occur, one can turn to God for comfort and strength. Yet, as Jane Eisner wrote about Kushner, he believed it is our role ‘to accept the randomness of the universe, not to blame God or ourselves for tragedies but to believe in God’s omnipotent goodness as a nourishing force.’

Many decisions that affect us involve some element of luck and may have little to do with our abilities. Consequently, there may be times in life when there is little point to casting about for blame. The randomness of the universe simply does not abide by such a conjurer. In some respects, this understanding can be liberating. Rather than searching for blame or a causal reason, randomness can relieve us from such a burden.

So how else might we use a deeper understanding of chance and randomness to our advantage? Can luck help create fairness, balance and a better world? I think it can.

By recognizing the prevalence of luck, a strong argument can be made for the importance of perseverance in pursuing one’s goals. This is subtly different to the view of luck presented by Seneca or Pasteur, in which preparation and work lead to a change of fate. Many decisions affecting us involve some element of randomness and luck and these decisions may have little to do with our abilities or credentials. As the US sociologist Michael Sauder has observed, we often blame ourselves for things that could be attributed to chance: ‘We did not get the job we applied for because our application was misplaced by the hiring committee, but we assume we reached too far and attribute the outcome to our lack of worthiness.’

In discussing careers in the arts and entertainment fields (where good luck is often a prerequisite for getting ahead), the Canadian author Stephen Marche has observed that ‘persistence is the siege you lay on fortune’. We cannot control randomness and chance, but we can increase the odds that chance will shine in our favour by increasing the number of opportunities for a particular result to play out – we can, as the aphorism says, keep ‘many irons in the fire’. By being persistent, and thus increasing our chances, we can also increase the importance of talent and ensure that skill carries more weight.

Recognizing and accepting chance and luck also fosters a heightened sense of gratitude. The recognition of randomness in our lives helps ensure we don’t take the good things for granted – it helps us understand the precarious nature of good fortune. As we gain insights into the world of randomness, we realize how easily we might find ourselves in less favorable conditions. This is reflected in the saying ‘count your blessings’, but is slightly different in that it recognizes the precariousness of those blessings. In turn, this can help us develop a greater sense of both humility regarding our own accomplishments and empathy for the plight of others. While there is no denying that hard work and skills are important in life’s journey, there is also no denying that luck and chance may be every bit as important in shaping the course of our lives and our achievements. This splashes cold water on the belief that we live in a world of strict meritocracy where we deserve all that comes our way.

Randomness underlines the importance of a strong social safety net. By recognizing the ubiquitousness of chance in our lives, we are in a much better position to empathize with the misfortunes of others. Bad luck can strike anyone at any time. Accepting this fact allows us to imagine ourselves in the position of the less fortunate, and creates the possibility for more meaningful and empathetic connections with each other. In this way, recognizing luck has significant policy implications.

Randomness underlines the importance of ‘social insurance’ and a strong social safety net. When we insure our home or car, we don’t anticipate having an accident immediately. Instead, we are acknowledging the possibility that we may experience an accident at some point in the future. Likewise, a strong social safety net is designed to protect individuals from the bad luck of economic hardship that can strike at any point. By understanding the frequency and reach of bad luck, we can blunt and counteract some of its negative impacts through a set of robust safety-net programmes.

For the ancient Romans, the goddess of chance, Fortuna, would spin her wheel of fortune, causing some to rise and others to fall. What goes up can come down, and vice versa. She delighted in reversing the fortunes of us mortals, and 2,000 years later she is still spinning her wheel. Many of us believe that we can find some deeper logic to the outcome of her spinning wheel and anticipate how it will spin. But things don’t always balance out. We can’t always turn our luck around.

By acknowledging and better understanding chance, we can begin to better co-exist as we make our way through life. We can begin to see the world as it is, rather than how we imagined it to be."
o
Charles Bukowski, "Roll the Dice"
Read by Tom O'Bedlam

"It's Not the End of the World"

"It's Not the End of the World"
by Jeff Thomas

"Periodically, I’ll encounter someone who has read one of my essays and has decided not to pursue them further, stating, "You’re one of those ‘End of the world’ guys. I can’t be bothered reading the writings of someone who thinks we’re all doomed. I have a more positive outlook than that." In actual fact, I agree entirely with his latter two comments. I can’t be bothered reading the thoughts of a writer who says we’re all doomed, either. I, too, have a more positive outlook than that.

My one discrepancy with such comments is that I don’t by any means think that the present state of events will lead to the end of the world, as he assumes. But then, neither am I naïve enough to think that if I just hope for the best, the powers that be will cease to be parasitical and predatory out of sympathy for me. They will not.

For any serious student of history, one of the great realizations that occurs at some point is that governments are inherently controlling by nature. The more control they have, the more they desire and the more they pursue. After all, governments actually produce nothing. They exist solely upon what they can extract from the people they rule over. Therefore, their personal success is not measured by how well they serve their people, it’s measured by how much they can extract from the people. And so, it’s a given that all governments will pursue ever-greater levels of power over their minions up to and including the point of total dominance.

It should be said that, on rare occasions, a people will rise up and create a governmental system in which the rights of the individual are paramount. This was true in the creation of the Athenian Republic and the American Constitution, and even the British Magna Carta. However, these events are quite rare in history and, worse, as soon as they take place, those who gain power do their best to diminish the newly-gained freedoms. Such freedoms can almost never be destroyed quickly, but, over time and "by slow operations," as Thomas Jefferson was fond of saying, governments can be counted on to eventually destroy all freedoms.

We’re passing through a period in history in which the process of removing freedoms is nearing completion in many of the world’s foremost jurisdictions. The EU and US, in particular, are leading the way in this effort. Consequently, it shouldn’t be surprising that some predict "the end of the world." But, they couldn’t be more incorrect.

Surely, in 1789, the more productive people of France may have felt that the developing French Revolution would culminate in Armageddon. Similarly, in 1917, those who created prosperity in Russia may well have wanted to throw up their hands as the Bolsheviks seized power from the Romanovs.

Whenever a deterioration in rule is underway, as it is once again now, the observer has three choices:

Declare the End of the World: There are many people, worldwide, but particularly in the centers of the present deterioration – the EU and US – who feel that, since the situation in their home country is nearing collapse, the entire world must also be falling apart. This is not only a very myopic viewpoint, it’s also quite inaccurate. At any point in civilization in the past 2000 years or more, there have always been empires that were collapsing due to intolerable governmental dominance and there have always concurrently been alternative jurisdictions where the level of freedom was greater. In ancient Rome, when Diocletian devalued the currency, raised taxes, increased warfare and set price controls, those people who actually created the economy on a daily basis found themselves in the same boat as Europeans and Americans are finding themselves in, in the 21st century.

It may have seemed like the end of the world, but it was not. Enough producers left Rome and started over again in other locations. Those other locations eventually thrived as a result of the influx of productive people, while Rome atrophied.

Turn a Blind Eye: This is less dreary than the above approach, but it is nevertheless just as fruitless. It is, in fact, the most common of reactions – to just "hope for the best." It’s tempting to imagine that maybe the government will realize that they’re the only ones benefitting from the destruction of freedom and prosperity and they’ll feel bad and reverse the process. But this clearly will not happen. It’s also tempting to imagine that maybe it won’t get a whole lot worse and that life, although not all that good at present, might remain tolerable. Again, this is wishful thinking and the odds of it playing out in a positive way are slim indeed.

Accept the Truth, But Do Something About It: This, of course, is the hard one. Begin by recognizing the truth. If that truth is not palatable, study the situation carefully and, when a reasonably clear understanding has been reached, create an alternative. When governments enter the final decline stage, an alternative is not always easy to accept. It’s a bit like having a tooth pulled. You want to put it off, but the pain will only get worse if you delay. And so, you trundle off to the dentist unhappily, but, a few weeks after the extraction, you find yourself asking, "Why didn’t I do this sooner?"

To be sure, those who investigate and analyze the present socio-economic-political deterioration do indeed espouse a great deal of gloom, but this should not be confused with doom. In actual fact, the whole point of shining a light into the gloom is to avoid having it end in doom.

It should be said here that remaining in a country that is tumbling downhill socially, economically and politically is also not the end of the world. It is, however, true that the end result will not exactly be a happy one. If history repeats once again, it’s likely to be quite a miserable one.

Those who undertake the study of the present deterioration must, admittedly, address some pretty depressing eventualities and it would be far easier to just curl up on the sofa with a six-pack and watch the game, but the fact remains: unless the coming problems are investigated and an alternative found, those who sit on the sofa will become the victims of their own lethargy.

Sadly, we live in a period in history in which some of the nations that once held the greatest promise for the world are well on their way to becoming the most tyrannical. If by recognizing that fact, we can pursue better alternatives elsewhere on the globe, as people have done in previous eras. We may actually find that the field of daisies in the image above is still very much in existence, it’s just a bit further afield than it was in years gone by. And it is absolutely worthy of pursuit."

"How It Really Is"

 

Good luck!

Adventures With Danno, "Grocery Items At Walmart You Should Be Buying Right Now!"

Full screen recommended.
Adventures With Danno, 5/29/24
"Grocery Items At Walmart You Should Be Buying Right Now!"
In today's vlog, we are at Walmart and are shopping for cheaper grocery options.
  Shop with me as I attempt to find the best and budget food options available!
Comments here:

Judge Napolitano, "Phil Giraldi: How Deep is DC Support for Israel?"

Full screen recommended.
Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom, 5/29/24
"Phil Giraldi: How Deep is DC Support for Israel?"
Comments here:

Dan, I Allegedly, "Real Estate Agents Are Fleeing Fast!"

Full screen recommended.
Dan, I Allegedly, 5/29/24
"Real Estate Agents Are Fleeing Fast!"
"Today, I’m reporting from the stunning Tamarak Beach to dive into the alarming trend shaking the real estate world. Why are agents quitting in droves? What massive changes are hitting the industry? From lawsuits against the National Association of Realtors to agents struggling to make ends meet, we break it all down."
Comments here:

"Social Media Hijacks The Subconscious Mind"

Full screen recommended.
"Social Media Hijacks The Subconscious Mind"
by Paul Rosenberg

"Anything that affects the subconscious minds of billions of people, on a daily basis, is a very serious thing, and that is precisely what has happened over the past decade, as social media captured a large percentage of human cognition.

I am well aware that I am running against the stream. Mine, to be honest about it, is a small and largely unwanted voice. Still, someone needs to say these things, and the truth is that social media directly replaces natural subconscious functions. Or, perhaps more accurately, it displaces subconscious operations and acts in their place. And that is very, very dangerous.

As we go through this, please understand that I’m not saying these things precisely, simply because no one knows how to say them precisely. Any “expert” on the subject could be attacked by half a dozen contrary experts, each with their own theory of the unconscious. So, those who need to find fault may proceed as they must. I am doing my job all the same, because fear of the critic spawns self-censorship, and we very much need to address this.

What Social Media Does: I cannot affix a percentage to how much social media displaces our inborn subconscious minds, because no one knows how to measure such things. But that it does displace the human subconscious is easy to establish. Here, briefly, is some direct support:

Without a doubt, our subconscious minds filter our sensory inputs, delivering only a fraction of them to our conscious minds. Also without a doubt, social media does the same thing: Sifting through all the inputs in its system (which double, counteract or displace a large number of our own sensory inputs) and delivering to its user those inputs which serve the system’s needs.

Our subconscious minds search our internal data banks for relevant memories. Social media does the same thing, again displacing human operations. (While monetizing them.)

Our subconscious minds trigger involuntary reactions like disgust, outrage and revulsion. Social media hijacks this process and pulls such reactions out of its users, rather than allowing them to form naturally.

Our subconscious minds recognize and process impressions of status. Advertising has long monetized this, but social media monitors the user’s reactions and triggers them very precisely, accelerating and directing the process.

Social media corporations have employed and do employ a large number of professionals, precisely to develop routines to increase “user engagement” (which we might as well be honest and call “addiction”), thus increasing their profits. More or less all of this involves subconscious vulnerabilities. If not, these companies would simply reason with their users, convincing them to engage more. If you’re trying to make people do something, and if you’re not openly convincing them, you’re left with hijacking their instincts, aka their subconscious operations.

More than 12 years ago, Facebook ran an experiment on 685,000 unknowing users, to see if their system could, by tweaking headlines, change the (subconscious) moods of their users. And indeed they could. Not only that, but they measurably changed the moods of those users’ friends. (I leave you to speculate on what they’ve done with that information over the ensuing years.)

I know very well that half the world has raced into social media and will defend their choices as only pre-committed humans can. Still, facts stand.

If I’m At All Right…For those still with me, please bear in mind that by using social media, you are being provided with a custom environment, created specifically for you, and specifically for you on that day. Once immersed in that environment, you’ll be thinking and feeling in response to personalized stimuli. Your reactions will then be fed into a monstrous data system… a system that most definitely is not centered on your interests.

Social media operations are the most informed, most intimate and most adaptable systems of manipulation that have ever existed, and by far. We should also bear in mind that this work is being done by computers, at a near-zero per-instance cost. And yes, these systems are quite able to “drink from a fire hose;” they use heuristics that thrive on it and even require it.

If my argument is at all correct, we’d expect to see masses of humans who can be led directly from one collective stampede to another, despising those who refuse to join them. We’d also see whistle-blowers, psychologists raising warnings, people obsessively checking their feeds, and people who are unable to walk away, even though part of them is convinced they should.

In the end, social media functions by usurping free will. It is, properly, a mind parasite. Moreover, humanity has no natural immunity to this type of parasite, simply because no such thing has previously existed.

Finally, I will remind everyone that 25 years ago we had none of these “free” systems. (And “free” really should have been a clue.) Nonetheless, we lived in heated houses, drove cars, had jobs and friends, read books, fell in love, got married and had children. We didn’t have such mind parasites and we did at least as well without them."
o

"France, Spain, And The Fate Of The United States"

"France, Spain, And The Fate Of The United States"
by John Wilder

"Over a decade ago, I was reading a post by John Michael Greer (here’s a (LINK) to his current blog). In that post, he talked about time compression and our tendency to not think about historical events in the timeframe that people actually lived them. His example was that of a young girl, born at the time of the French Revolution.

In my mind, the French Revolution turned to the Napoleonic era and the defeat at Waterloo in a fairly short time. I mean, I knew it took longer than the two days we spent on it in World History in high school, but that young girl, born when heads were rolling on the guillotine, would have been 25 or 26 and likely had her own children when Napoleon got waffled in Belgium. And that poor French girl couldn’t even post about how tough her life was on TikTok®!

26 years. That’s a number that, back when I read Greer’s post, surprised me. From a distance of 230 some years, four years of Biden is an eyeblink.

The amazing amount of debt that’s been printed in the last four years along with the rampant inflation made me think back to that young French girl. I think that in 100 years, people will look back on our time and compress it, and I think that they’ll talk about it as the time when the United States sank to third world standards in what, to them, will be just a paragraph in a history book.

There’s plenty of precedent for it. Spain, after the colonization of the New World, brought back ship after ship filled with massive amounts of gold and silver for a period of about 100 years. This caused several related things to happen:

• The inflation from the huge supply of gold and silver distorted the entire economy of Europe, causing an inflation that lasted at least 100 years.
• The huge amount of wealth caused the Spanish to import labor (a lot of to do the work that Spaniards refused to do, you know, like sweeping or making the bed). The Spanish aristocracy also was allergic to work, since they considered it low class. Apparently, the exceptions were being a professor or a priest, but mainly they just sat around in fancy clothes sweating.
• Spain then got caught in an endless web of pointless wars, probably because they were bored.
• Oh, and when the gold and silver stopped flowing from the New World? Yeah, they didn’t stop spending, they just went bankrupt again and again.

This is not a good combination. In less than 100 years, Spain went from being THE world power and the largest economy in the world, by far, to being poor and irrelevant.

I imagine the world in Spain as it declined in decadence just slowly got crappier and more expensive every day, just like we’re seeing today, as we see a long, slow slide to becoming the third world. I wrote last week about the encrapification of the Internet, but other businesses are doing it, too. McDonald’s® has record profits, but I’ve seen Big Mac® meals advertised for $15 or so.

The Mrs. bought a McFish© sandwich the other day and put it in the fridge, perhaps as some sort of religious ritual since I have no evidence that humans actually eat them. I opened it up to give it a look, and was surprised to see a biscuit-sized sandwich.

It's been a while since I’ve even seen a Filet-O-Fish©, but the last time I ate one it wasn’t made out of a single goldfish. Heck, I think the last time I ordered one was sometime during the Bush Administration. Which one? Much like Bill Clinton, I can’t remember which Bush because there were too many. Back then it was a full-sized sandwich, but at some point, it became bite-sized.

I could come up with more examples from other companies, but that one will do. Keep this in mind: McDonald’s is now a luxury food. Are McDonald’s™ sales number up? Sure! Prices have doubled. But I haven’t been there in months (which is probably good for me) due to my inability to rationalize the idea that a Big Mac™ meal costs more than a pound of ribeye steak.

What’s the outcome? Middle class people aren’t going to restaurants nearly as much, which is causing them to fail. Examples abound:

• Red Lobster© closed 87 locations
• TGI Fridays® is closing 36 locations
• Applebee’s™ closed up to 35 locations last year
• Denny’s© closed 57 locations last year
• Outback® has closed down 41 locations

Middle class people are now too poor to go to these restaurant chains. Period. Inflation has priced them out and wages, held down by continual streams of illegal aliens have not kept up. This is part of the slow, creeping third worldism showing up in the United States.

Over the span of 26 years, where does this take us? My answer is that, just like France before the Revolution couldn’t imagine what the world would be like after Napoleon, and just like the Spanish who brought the great heaps of gold and silver back to Spain thought it was going to be totally awesome (el awesomo, I think is the Spanish translation), our first world wealth is rapidly slipping away.

The next twenty years will be, generally, poorer in the United States and in the West. The good news, however, is poorer equals poorer, not necessarily unhappier. Who knows, we might even be happier if we lose the Internet and can’t access TikTok© anymore."

"Alert! NATO Prepares Nuclear Strike On Russian Border; EU Authorizes 'Launch Missiles Now'"

Full screen recommended.
Canadian Prepper, 5/28//24
"Alert! NATO Prepares Nuclear Strike On Russian Border; 
EU Authorizes 'Launch Missiles Now'"
Comments here:
o
Video here,:

OMG, these insane psychopaths are REALLY going to do it...
We're all dead...

Tuesday, May 28, 2024

Fred Reed, "On Poking Dragons"

"On Poking Dragons"
by Fred Reed

"I wonder how many Americans quite understand what the US is facing in its aggressive confrontation with China. Washington clearly prepares the public for another unnecessary war. Given America’s routine defeat in war and catastrophic miscalculations in fighting small powers, picking a fight with what, increasingly, is again becoming the Middle Kingdom seems less than bright. Yet within the Beltway there is the usual smug complacency, the unshakable arrogance that appears to think the China is just a big Norway or Guatemala that needs to be put in its place.

A quick glance at China: China easily leads the world in civil engineering, building roads, bridges, ports, rail lines, long-distance high-voltage transmission lines, and digital infrastructure. People returning from China, including yours truly, describe it as being like coming back from a more-advanced planet.

Everyone talks about the high-speed trains, with good reason: 180 miles per hour, quiet, comfortable, huge windows, with very short stops at villages between major cities, giving rural populations the speed of air travel without the nuisance. by contrast, American rail looks like something out of 1955.

The importance of civil engineering is more thans symbolic. Infrastructure facilitates commerce. China is of course the manufacturing powerhouse of the world. By contrast, America simply ignores infrastructure, spending instead on the military and long since having largely abandoned manufacturing.

China leads the world in ship-building, with South Korea being another major player in this game. America has almost no ship-building except for military, and this has been criticized by the Government Accounting Office for primitivism and slowness. Ship-building obviously is important for commerce, and also for military purposes–China now having the world’s largest navy.

China leads the world in Five G, in patents, technology, manufacturing capacity, installed base. This is not always well understood. Five G allows the transmission of large amounts of data with short response times–high throughput, low latency, as we say. Huawei now has what it calls Five.five G, an improved version. Five G is important for controlling factories, smart cities, and so on. Beijing takes it seriously, China now having around 3.6 million installed base stations versus something like 100,000 pseudo-Five G base stations in the US.

China finds its brightest students by rigorous testing, and then sends them at government expense to its excellent universities. The US deliberately enstupidates its schools at all levels to make minorities look smarter than they are. How is this going to work?

China dominates the planet in electric vehicles. Its lead over the US is so great as to be insuperable in technology, batteries, price, and productive capacity. If you follow tech news, you see things like a Chinese ev battery that charges in ten minutes. As many have pointed out, BYD’s sub-ten thousand dollar car will find an almost unlimited market in the Global South. No other country is even close. Biden’s high tariffs on Chinese evs will serve only to allow American companies to continue selling wildly over-priced vehicles to Americans who will have no choice.

China, Russia, and Iran have developed hypersonic missiles, of which America doesn’t have any. This is interesting. Americans have always assumed technological superiority over Russia and China. Judging by the poor performance of Western weaponry in the Ukraine, this seems questionable.

In other fields, America maintains a lead, or at least an important part lead, though usually not by competing but by strong-arming, sanctions, and tariffs. The greatest of these is semiconductors. The situation is curious. The Chinese have the brains, engineers,and savvy to design and make high-end chips, but Washington has a stranglehold on the equipment needed to manufacture them. However, China has a recent history of horrifying Washington by doing things it wasn’t supposed to be able to do, such as make chips in seven and five nanometer nodes and stay neck-and-neck with the US in supercomputers. But it has not been able to make the advanced lithography tools needed at the forefront of the chip business. If it does, it will be Katie bar the door, but it hasn’t.

China leads the world inproduction of steel and aluminum. America can’t compete, so it imposes tariffs.

It leads the world in solar panels, leads in technology, production capacity, and price. America can’t compete, so it imposes tariffs.

China remains behind America, but not by much, in aspects of its space program. However, it has an extensive and robust launch capacity, a successful space station in some ways more advanced than the International Space Station, and moves rapidly toward reusable launch vehicles. Years back now, it sent a successful fully automated moon-sample return mission to our satellite, and, later, a combination Mars orbiter, lander, and rover, all functioning perfectly on the first try. NASA and Space X maintain a lead, but it isn’t a growth stock

There are other fields in which America holds a lead. Jet engines, for example. My point is that Washington seems to suffer a recto-cranial inversion, imagining a superiority it only barely has but probably, all things considered, doesn’t. China has four times the US population, the Han by agreement among psychometrists have a five or six point advantage in mean I.Q, and an intelligent government focused on increasing its commercial superiority.

It is all the fashion in America to decry authoritarianism, but this allows Beijing to take decisions and then carry them out, over decades if need be. It also allows a noticeable system approach. In America, individual states or corporations undertake projects like high-speed rail or Five G. China tends to do things on a whole-country basis. The difference in results is clear.

Washington, which subsidizes its own industries, complains that Beijing does the same–but the Chinese system works.

What China doesn’t have is a sprawling, over-extended, low-grade, incomprehensibly costly military draining funds desperately needed to bring America up to modern standards domestically. China is not an appendage of its military. It seems to have figured out that wars cost money and, if there is one thing the Chinese really really like, it’s money.

Sez I, a little more realism in the Yankee Capital might be a good idea, a bit less huff and puff, more spending on America and less on a blood-sucking arms industry. But what do I know?"

"Russian Missiles, Training To Capture Israeli Soldiers: Hezbollah 'Prepares' For Long War"

Full screen recommended.
Hindustan Times, 5/28/24
"Russian Missiles, Training To Capture Israeli Soldiers:
 Hezbollah 'Prepares' For Long War"
Comments here:

According to Col. Doug Macgregor Hezbollah's arsenal of rockets, missiles, and drones is estimated at over 200,000. They also have massive artillery resources. It has over 100,000 extremely well-trained and equipped professional soldiers, battle hardened by 10 years of fighting in the Syrian civil war. If Israel demands war the Israeli Occupation Force will be obliterated and Tel Aviv will look like Gaza after 30,000 missiles rain down on it. Inshallah! So be it... - CP

Jeremiah Babe, "No One Trust The Economy; Millions Are Finished, It's Game Over"

Jeremiah Babe, 5/28/24
"No One Trust The Economy; 
Millions Are Finished, It's Game Over"
Comments here:

Musical Interlude: 2002, "We Are Always"

2002, "We Are Always"

"A Look to the Heavens"

“A star cluster around 2 million years young surrounded by natal clouds of dust and glowing gas, M16 is also known as The Eagle Nebula. This beautifully detailed image of the region adopts the colorful Hubble palette and includes cosmic sculptures made famous in Hubble Space Telescope close-ups of the starforming complex. Described as elephant trunks or Pillars of Creation, dense, dusty columns rising near the center are light-years in length but are gravitationally contracting to form stars. 
Energetic radiation from the cluster stars erodes material near the tips, eventually exposing the embedded new stars. Extending from the ridge of bright emission left of center is another dusty starforming column known as the Fairy of Eagle Nebula. M16 lies about 7,000 light-years away, an easy target for binoculars or small telescopes in a nebula rich part of the sky toward the split constellation Serpens Cauda (the tail of the snake).”

"The Holstee Manifesto"

"Butterflies..."

"We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it's forever."
 - Carl Sagan

“Hannah Arendt on Time, Space, and Where Our Thinking Ego Resides”

“Hannah Arendt on Time, Space,
and Where Our Thinking Ego Resides”
“The everywhere of thought is indeed a region of nowhere.”
by Maria Popova

“In Lewis Carroll’s ‘Through the Looking Glass,’ the White Queen remembers the future instead of the past. This seemingly nonsensical proposition, like so many elements of the beloved book, is a stroke of philosophical genius and prescience on behalf of Lewis Carroll, made half a century before Einstein and Gödel challenged our linear conception of time.

But no thinker has addressed how the disorienting nature of time shapes the human experience with more captivating lucidity than Hannah Arendt (October 14, 1906–December 4, 1975), who in 1973 became the first woman to speak at the prestigious Gifford Lectures. Her talk was eventually adapted into two long essays, published as ‘The Life of the Mind’ (public library) – the same ceaselessly rewarding volume that gave us Arendt on the crucial difference between truth and meaning.

In one of the most stimulating portions of the book, Arendt argues that thinking is our rebellion against the tyranny of time and a hedge against the terror of our finitude. Noting that cognition always removes us from the present and makes absences its raw material, she considers where the thinking ego is located if not in what is present and close at hand:

“Looked at from the perspective of the everyday world of appearances, the everywhere of the thinking ego – summoning into its presence whatever it pleases from any distance in time or space, which thought traverses with a velocity greater than light’s – is a nowhere. And since this nowhere is by no means identical with the twofold nowhere from which we suddenly appear at birth and into which almost as suddenly we disappear in death, it might be conceived only as the Void. And the absolute void can be a limiting boundary concept; though not inconceivable, it is unthinkable. Obviously, if there is absolutely nothing, there can be nothing to think about. That we are in possession of these limiting boundary concepts enclosing our thought within (insurmountable) walls – and the notion of an absolute beginning or an absolute end is among them – does not tell us more than that we are indeed finite beings.”

Echoing Thomas Mann’s assertion that “the perishableness of life… imparts value, dignity, interest to life,” Arendt adds: “Man’s finitude, irrevocably given by virtue of his own short time span set in an infinity of time stretching into both past and future, constitutes the infrastructure, as it were, of all mental activities: it manifests itself as the only reality of which thinking qua thinking is aware, when the thinking ego has withdrawn from the world of appearances and lost the sense of realness inherent in the sensus communis by which we orient ourselves in this world… The everywhere of thought is indeed a region of nowhere.”

T.S. Eliot captured this nowhereness in his exquisite phrase “the still point of the turning world.” But the spatial dimension of thought, Arendt argues, is intersected by a temporal one – thinking invariably forces us to recollect and anticipate, voyaging into the past and the future, thus creating the mental spacetime continuum through which our thought-trains travel. From this arises our sense of the sequential nature of time and its essential ongoingness. Arendt writes:

“The inner time sensation arises when we are not entirely absorbed by the absent non-visibles we are thinking about but begin to direct our attention onto the activity itself. In this situation past and future are equally present precisely because they are equally absent from our sense; thus the no-longer of the past is transformed by virtue of the spatial metaphor into something lying behind us and the not-yet of the future into something that approaches us from ahead.”
[…]
In other words, the time continuum, everlasting change, is broken up into the tenses past, present, future, whereby past and future are antagonistic to each other as the no-longer and the not-yet only because of the presence of man, who himself has an “origin,” his birth, and an end, his death, and therefore stands at any given moment between them; this in-between is called the present. It is the insertion of man with his limited life span that transforms the continuously flowing stream of sheer change – which we can conceive of cyclically as well as in the form of rectilinear motion without ever being able to conceive of an absolute beginning or an absolute end – into time as we know it.”

Once again, it is our finitude that mediates our experience of time: “Seen from the viewpoint of a continuously flowing everlasting stream, the insertion of man, fighting in both directions, produces a rupture which, by being defended in both directions, is extended to a gap, the present seen as the fighter’s battleground… Seen from the viewpoint of man, at each single moment inserted and caught in the middle between his past and his future, both aimed at the one who is creating his present, the battleground is an in-between, an extended Now on which he spends his life. The present, in ordinary life the most futile and slippery of the tenses – when I say “now” and point to it, it is already gone – is no more than the clash of a past, which is no more, with a future, which is approaching and not yet there. Man lives in this in-between, and what he calls the present is a life-long fight against the dead weight of the past, driving him forward with hope, and the fear of a future (whose only certainty is death), driving him backward toward “the quiet of the past” with nostalgia for and remembrance of the only reality he can be sure of.”

This fluid conception of time, Arendt points out, is quite different from its representation in ordinary life, where the calendar tells us that the present is contained in today, the past starts at yesterday, and the future at tomorrow. In a sentiment that calls to mind Patti Smith’s magnificent meditation on time and transformation, Arendt writes: "That we can shape the everlasting stream of sheer change into a time continuum we owe not to time itself but to the continuity of our business and our activities in the world, in which we continue what we started yesterday and hope to finish tomorrow. In other words, the time continuum depends on the continuity of our everyday life, and the business of everyday life, in contrast to the activity of the thinking ego – always independent of the spatial circumstances surrounding it – is always spatially determined and conditioned. It is due to this thoroughgoing spatiality of our ordinary life that we can speak plausibly of time in spatial categories, that the past can appear to us as something lying “behind” us and the future as lying “ahead.”
[…]
The gap between past and future opens only in reflection, whose subject matter is what is absent – either what has already disappeared or what has not yet appeared. Reflection draws these absent “regions” into the mind’s presence; from that perspective the activity of thinking can be understood as a fight against time itself.”

This elusive gap, Arendt argues, is where the thinking ego resides – and it is only by mentally inserting ourselves between the past and the future that they come to exist at all: Without [the thinker], there would be no difference between past and future, but only everlasting change. Or else these forces would clash head on and annihilate each other. But thanks to the insertion of a fighting presence, they meet at an angle, and the correct image would then have to be what the physicists call a parallelogram of forces.

These two forces, which have an indefinite origin and a definite end point in the present, converge into a third – a diagonal pull that, contrary to the past and the present, has a definite origin in the present and emanates out toward infinity. That diagonal force, Arendt observes, is the perfect metaphor for the activity of thought. She writes:

“This diagonal, though pointing to some infinity, is limited, enclosed, as it were, by the forces of past and future, and thus protected against the void; it remains bound to and is rooted in the present – an entirely human present though it is fully actualized only in the thinking process and lasts no longer than this process lasts. It is the quiet of the Now in the time-pressed, time-tossed existence of man; it is somehow, to change the metaphor, the quiet in the center of a storm which, though totally unlike the storm, still belongs to it. In this gap between past and future, we find our place in time when we think, that is, when we are sufficiently removed from past and future to be relied on to find out their meaning, to assume the position of “umpire,” of arbiter and judge over the manifold, never-ending affairs of human existence in the world, never arriving at a final solution to their riddles but ready with ever-new answers to the question of what it may be all about.”

“The Life of the Mind” is one of the most stimulating packets of thought ever published. Complement this particular portion with Virginia Woolf on the elasticity of time, Dan Falk on how our capacity for mental time travel made us human, and T.S. Eliot’s poetic ode to the nature of time.“

"We Are All Like Elephants"

"We Are All Like Elephants"
by Marc Chernoff

"In many ways, our past experiences have conditioned us to believe that we are less capable than we are. All too often we let the rejections of our past dictate every move we make. We literally do not know ourselves to be any better than what some opinionated person or narrow circumstance once told us was true. Of course, an old rejection doesn't mean we aren't good enough; it just means some person or circumstance from our past failed to align with what we had to offer at the time. But somehow we don't see it that way - we hit a mental barricade that stops us in our tracks.

This is one of the most common and damaging thought patterns we as human beings succumb to. Even though we intellectually know that we're gradually growing stronger than we were in the past, our subconscious mind often forgets that our capabilities have grown. Let me give you a quick metaphorical example.

Zookeepers typically strap a thin metal chain to a grown elephants leg and then attach the other end to a small wooden peg that's hammered into the ground. The 10-foot tall, 10,000-pound elephant could easily snap the chain, uproot the wooden peg and escape to freedom with minimal effort. But it doesn't. In fact the elephant never even tries. The worlds most powerful land animal, which can uproot a big tree as easily as you could break a toothpick, remains defeated by a small wooden peg and a flimsy chain.

Why? Because when the elephant was a baby, its trainers used the exact same methods to domesticate it. A thin chain was strapped around its leg and the other end of the chain was tied to a wooden peg in the ground. At the time, the chain and peg were strong enough to restrain the baby elephant. When it tried to break away, the metal chain would pull it back. Sometimes, tempted by the world it could see in the distance, the elephant would pull harder. But the chain would not budge, and soon the baby elephant realized trying to escape was not possible. So it stopped trying.

And now that the elephant is all grown up, it sees the chain and the peg and it remembers what it learned as a baby - the chain and peg are impossible to escape. Of course this is no longer true, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the 200-pound baby is now a 10,000-pound powerhouse. The elephants self-limiting thoughts and beliefs prevail.

If you think about it, we are all like elephants. We all have incredible power inside us. And certainly, we have our own chains and pegs - the self-limiting thoughts and beliefs that hold us back. Sometimes it's a childhood experience or an old failure. Sometimes it's something we were told when we were a little younger. The key thing to realize here is this: We need to learn from the past, but be ready to update what we learned based on how our circumstances have changed (as they constantly do)." 

The Daily "Near You?"

Rogersville, Tennessee, USA. Thanks for stopping by!

The Poet: Carl Sandburg, “From the Shore"

“From the Shore"

“A lone gray bird,
Dim-dipping, far-flying,
Alone in the shadows and grandeurs and tumults
Of night and the sea
And the stars and storms.

Out over the darkness it wavers and hovers,
Out into the gloom it swings and batters,
Out into the wind and the rain and the vast,
Out into the pit of a great black world,
Where fogs are at battle, sky-driven, sea-blown,
Love of mist and rapture of flight,
Glories of chance and hazards of death
On its eager and palpitant wings.

Out into the deep of the great dark world,
Beyond the long borders where foam and drift
Of the sundering waves are lost and gone
On the tides that plunge and rear and crumble.”
- Carl Sandburg

"And It Was Pointless..."

"And it was pointless to think how those years could have been put to better use, for he could hardly have put them to worse. There was no recovering them now. You could grieve endlessly for the loss of time and for the damage done therein. For the dead, and for your own lost self. But what the wisdom of the ages says is that we do well not to grieve on and on. And those old ones knew a thing or two and had some truth to tell for you can grieve your heart out and in the end you are still where you were. All your grief hasn't changed a thing. What you have lost will not be returned to you. It will always be lost. You're left with only your scars to mark the void. All you can choose to do is to go on or not. But if you go on, it's knowing you carry your scars with you."
- Charles Frazier
 "Never be ashamed of a scar. 
It simply means you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you." 
- Unknown