/ [Econ 101] Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt -- Memory Hole fill-in the plugs! Also because I'm trying to figure out the best way to explain this in as few sentences as possible which you know is hard for me
Fucking relevant to MAGA 
That last line is the epitome of the Dems problem
ya
All things are connected
Need and demand are different, purchasing power is KING and Republicans keep forgetting that markets are not an infinite rengerating resource etc.
I'm not sure who doesn't know this by now, but ok.
At this point I'm not going to doubt there are people who don't understand 1+1 = 2 TBQFH
side note: I keep trying to go too fast, but okay
RED CIRCLE AROUND 
Do not be fucking fooled by bigger number = better like this is the most "anyone who plays any video game in the world should know" and lampshaded in Noragami but just in case
Do not be fucking fooled by bigger number = better like this is the most "anyone who plays any video game in the world should know" and lampshaded in Noragami but just in case
Also because I guess this is a "how to talk to MAGA who doesn't understand that the economy is fucked by morons :VVVVV"
Aka: No, no the country doesn't do better when we fuck our cities up, why the fuck would you think that??????????
"Because I'm a construction contractor" Okay stupid, you are still eating into your own would-be profits by destroying any desire for anyone to build shit when it's going to get destroyed by psychos
And then I just derailed into arguing with the book etc.
-- I contend that arguing others are deprived is itself a huge fallacy.
Again it presumes too much = inferring there will be a glut of industry based in a sector with too much investment in only one facet/aspect but even that is not necessarily true. Poland has a bunch of subsidies for video game development and the more studios that get built, the more get built. Yeah there IS a bubble EVENTUALLY-
if you overdo it and ignore all sensibility for the quickbux ala crypto; but not if you are diversified and set up with long term strategy in mind. Furthermore; the long term strategy necessitates keeping in mind the first part that everything is connected and while there is the law of unintended/unseen-indirect consequences, that goes more into the favor of
giving out loans as it always has returns; and literally no returns are met on burying the money in a hole (see the Jesus parable of the servants with talents)
And if you are worried, again , about where the spending is going to -> ie: frivolities that don't invest (parties without ROI and/or waste/abuses of fraud etc.) that's a further sign of why and wherein you need restrictions and ~~~regulations~~~~
re: college loans; we do need a better system to make sure it isn't abusive, to make sure it is helping create more effective workers, but also that it isn't a promise that can't be materialized - Ie: "people with college degrees earn more than those without." Yes, on aggregate, but that's depending on the desired industries and you can't just assume that
college degrees = universal training in all things and therefore you can neglect your in-house specialization etc. so in those cases the gov. would be better positioned to help the industries looking for workers supplement their training programs and creating a more universal HR system that actually has its thumb on the pulse instead of "Private industry is
better suited for that" (clearly it isn't) because that's easily corrupted (~~diverted~~ to use HH's terms) and they literally aren't capable of the necessary infrastructure to assess what people need/want much less where to put them etc.
bullshit. Everything on this page is bullshit. TBF some of it you couldn't account for in 1949 sure but -->
Point 1 => government spending leads to corruption
A] No.
B] It's even more corrupt even without it
C] wherein there is government corruption there is ALSO the greater chance to neutralize, expose, and prosecute, but it's much harder when it isn't forced to be transparent. Yes. In communism there is an immense deal of this problem, but not because
A] No.
B] It's even more corrupt even without it
C] wherein there is government corruption there is ALSO the greater chance to neutralize, expose, and prosecute, but it's much harder when it isn't forced to be transparent. Yes. In communism there is an immense deal of this problem, but not because
it's government spending, but because ^ they don't bother organizing a judicial system to deal with C. Are there ways to create legal loopholes? Yes, and wherever those exist; it's even easier to close them. City on a hill etc. (a city on ahill has a harder time hiding its rot than one in the swamp because all the sewage will leak out if not dealt with
properly vs. on the swamp, you can't tell what is supposed to be there as easily)
Point 2 => Gov. throws money at careless projects
A] No, private capital ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DOES OBVIOUSLY GIANT RED CIRCLE around crypto scams, and the latest romance scam trends
B] You LITERALLY have to show your work for all government grants, are you fucking kidding me? They are WAY better at spotting dumb fucking shit
A] No, private capital ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DOES OBVIOUSLY
GIANT RED CIRCLE around crypto scams, and the latest romance scam trends B] You LITERALLY have to show your work for all government grants, are you fucking kidding me? They are WAY better at spotting dumb fucking shit
(usually, not perfectly) than private investors, because they actually have the connections to ask experts rather than "I'm a business major, come fly on my plane" (see above: the college =/= universality training)
C] literally there are so many government agencies that already exist to nitpick the fuck out of wasteful spending of gov. orgs, this is the very biggest problem with DOGE from the getgo (aside from that it's also just a crypto SEO scam and money laundering and weakening/discarding investigations into all of Elon's fraud)
See again: back to November and Truman's Investigations into waste & fraud -- the biggest importance isn't even the risk / waste, but the literal deaths that happen on account of it; something so many morons forget/neglect /HUFF
Point 3 => People want to take on the private risks with their own private capital.
A] No. No they fucking don't. People want to gamble, and people want REWARDS but -> most of all? They want the rewards off other people's money.
B] See also: having to do all the bailouts of banks and S&L -- if they were actually that fucking MORE
A] No. No they fucking don't. People want to gamble, and people want REWARDS but -> most of all? They want the rewards off other people's money.
B] See also: having to do all the bailouts of banks and S&L -- if they were actually that fucking MORE
competent than government, than they wouldn't have needed bailouts, would they??? 
C] No one wants to risk their own money. No one. Again, they want to gamble, but any chance to use other people's money for it? THEY ALWAYS WILL AND ALWAYS HAVE. (Crypto again but also just literally look at gambling addicts and all the kick streamers who get paid to
C] No one wants to risk their own money. No one. Again, they want to gamble, but any chance to use other people's money for it? THEY ALWAYS WILL AND ALWAYS HAVE. (Crypto again but also just literally look at gambling addicts and all the kick streamers who get paid to
gamble literally because monkey see, monkey do)
Point 3.5 => What people actually WANT is to work. And be rewarded commensurately in resources & progression of personal status.
And be rewarded commensurately in resources & progression of personal status.
A] People confuse this easily for "people want money" No shit. But money in itself is intrinsically worthless. It's only valuable as currency and in exchange for ^ resources. It's math. No one is satisfied simply working, and wherein that happens, they will start making other rewards for themselves, even if that means corruption (ie: a bureaucrat who is
doing work for the government that they could paid more for via private industry will usually fucking go to that private industry; fucking duh. But an UNSEEN (see above) benefit to working government instead of private industry is literally just morality and respect. Communities have more respect for someone who is working for their benefit than against them
DUH)
B] No one who has all their material needs met then does nothing. Let's take the Trump family. Depending on your position in the cult; you might consider Don Trump Jr.'s "work" to not really be valuable to society (ditto, Ivanka, Eric, Lara, Jared Kushner...) but you can't deny they themselves call it work :||||| Nor are they in need of money. They want it.
The desire for work is not borne out of material need. The desire for work is both intrinsic & extrinsic. In my case; it's intrinsic. I am miserable without "work." I LIKE working. I love working. I'm a workaholic who has to literally be careful not to overdo it and fuck up my health for it :|||||
For most people it's extrinsic, they want the RESPECT (I want self-respect, self-value, and I'll take my extrinsic rewards when I need or if something comes up) and other people to see them as [insert identity qualifier preference here] and the rewards -- but the rewards alone do not erase this drive, and even when material needs are met people do things
others might term to be "Work."
Work by definition is SO complicated and multi-faceted and I'll get into that eventually. But the big thing right now; is that work should always be I] an allocation of resource of labor to II] meet a societal need III] and commensurately reward with resources (money, acclaim, rewards~) which IV] does NOT include intrinsic rewards (self respect, joy) because
you cannot scientifically measure that or expect it to be the same for everyone, so it is an individual's prerogative to take that into account for themselves. ie: I will never fucking be comfortable / happy calling anyone on the phone NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU PAY ME because it is my biggest issue, so it would be unreasonable to set the price for such a
job based on my phobia. (try to average it out instead.)
C] There are no unwanted jobs. There are only underpaid jobs. Remember that.
Point 4 => Cruel market test
A] Clearly they do not. See again: lending fiasco. They do not exclusively demand a meritocracy more than the government, nor are they free from nepotism. COUNTER POINT->
B] They demonstrably have a greater tendency towards racism and sexism disguised as "statistics" rather than the government which has to mete out its funding
A] Clearly they do not. See again: lending fiasco. They do not exclusively demand a meritocracy more than the government, nor are they free from nepotism. COUNTER POINT->
B] They demonstrably have a greater tendency towards racism and sexism disguised as "statistics" rather than the government which has to mete out its funding
and prove that it isn't discriminating. While there are (some) laws enacted that are meant to stop private industry from doing that too; they're MUCH harder to prove.
--------------> For any Feds seeing this; it occurs to me that might be an easy way to target Trump & his admin. because they are so very used to the private rules that they forget how much stricter government laws are on themselves 
Just saying.
Just saying.
ugh
I have yet to see an oversupply of housing but even pretending that was /could be the case -- this is more to do with the constant assumption that demand can be directly correlated with supply and that you can easily depress all demand with too much supply. Certain things this is not true for provided the population isn't stagnant; and sometimes
but even pretending that was /could be the case -- this is more to do with the constant assumption that demand can be directly correlated with supply and that you can easily depress all demand with too much supply. Certain things this is not true for provided the population isn't stagnant; and sometimes
even if it is - Housing, and even food. Wherein food can then be converted fairly easily into other things (art, feed for other animals, soil, science & research) and there is never enough land for all the uses it has (making lawns all the more despicable in my extremely spicy opinion) anyway
Likewise; there is the opposite fallacy in certain politicans; that demand can be artificially generated so long as there is supply for it -- but this is not fucking true (HRC for instance :V You cannot force people to like something just because "nothing is better" people will indeed choose nothing.)
Clearly it's not just unions as they are not the ones freaking out over AI :VVVV
--> again there's a point in here that just because machines facilitate more doesn't mean that the jobs are there otherwise; and indeed, the industrial revolution created more demand for things like clothes, as people were no longer stuck with only two sets: work or church etc. since they became more plentiful and cheaper HOWEVER
Just because you have machines doesn't mean you no longer need workers. the most fucking obvious problem with AI and the capitalists who think it does mean that. Furthermore, that's even disregarding the copyright issues. No one cared about the copyright on a pin. People care a great deal about the copyright on books 
the most fucking obvious problem with AI and the capitalists who think it does mean that. Furthermore, that's even disregarding the copyright issues. No one cared about the copyright on a pin. People care a great deal about the copyright on books 
they're baaaack
Only spouting the opposite position now
-- that machines do displace labor and it's good because everyone should have just robots do things and who knows. Nonsense.
(see above)
Again there's a a half-truth here (that HH himself spoke up top about :VVVVV) in that we shouldn't be afraid of technological progress just for labor's sake. Yes. *******However**********
-- the important points from this and the one above are that what matters is how the profits are invested.
To reverse his example; let's go back to crypto & AI
If you only, as an employer, fire coding engineers (or Disney style; animators, writers, etc.) because now the AI can do it; this is OH SO FREAKING backwards, and going to instantly backfire, because you still have to have to have all the original people who put the work into the AI, "free" internet scraping isn't free (at all) and even if you only use
in-house coding (animation, writers, extrapolating off your past work) you still have the people who have to put it in, take it out, refine it, etc.
So if instead, you just assume "Look AI can do everything we had to hire people for!!!! :V" what you get is contraction and collapse because you played yourself
There's a reason Henry Ford had the whole "make sure the workers can buy a car themselves" It isn't even just that it's free advertising, it's so they don't fucking riot like the English luddite example
Okay so in case of the above examples; most of the machines were more or less time-saving things, or as with dishwashers; labor reduction (in a more personal way, as when you have one in your house it's not like you are depriving paying someone else to do them, and indeed, there is still some labor left in putting the dishes in/rinsing/putting away etc.)
However; we can (and have) easily reach the point where time itself becomes the scarce commodotity / resource; and this is what the "attention economy" is all about.
There are not enough hours in the day to watch all that Netflix has on catalog or enough time (energy) to read all the books of humanity. ^ in this quality starts to matter much more (see above re: nylon and other fabric tech that cannot happen without the base level technology to start the balls rolling) and jobs can come in in literally helping enhance
the quality and/or meet the demand with the correct supply (books are better based on your life circumstances and that's not a simple algorithm to solve and even algorithms require creators etc.)
I knew he would go there (of course you did CC, you have memory holes, but you still read this like 30 years ago)
A] studies have shown that fewer work hours and greater vacations DO increase productivity
B] the "private industry wouldn't hire and pay the same etc." is easily cured by
B] the "private industry wouldn't hire and pay the same etc." is easily cured by
C] I do agree that you can't just prevent people from doing overlap on the reasoning "to increase jobs" but following through with our law of unseen consequences; there is still the reasons to HAVE experts do their expertise can involve: because dumbasses who think they can do something because "that's easy~~~" are dumbasses who then get electrocuted and
then the homeowner would be out of the money for all that and still not have the repair done etc.
D] decreasing work hours isn't solely for increasing employment (again see above: FJG) it also increases quality; both of life for employees (with all the residual butterfly wing's ripples) and productivity. Too much is made of about having bodies in on the clock for hours (especially for example in the games industry because WE HAVE OFFICES, WE MUST USE IT)
But increased hours do not at ALL mean increased productivity whatsoever! see: slavery :||||||
see: slavery :||||||
while I have never seen the argument for that (bottom right) let's pretend for a bit that's because I've mostly only read right-leaning literature and/or the politics all assume this book is totes true for realsies
Let's not assume all skills are transitory (see his own argument above) and replaceable (see DOGE)
it's also really fucking insulting to refer to soldiers and gov. employees as living off of civilian's labor/taxes as if the gov. employees are not equally contributing resources of their own labor and/or as if soldiers themselves are not generating wealth that would otherwise be utterly lost if completely dismantled/not there
See again: DOGE & IRS -- in the case of generating income; since we know that trickle down doesn't work. Plz stop -> wrt to soldiers, while there is a big reason to disband in the form of "otherwise a gov will start trying to use them for stupidity like yanno conquering the world to justify their existence" yes, but you could also train them to do more
peacekeeping ventures in the form of natural disaster fixing, or helping save the world in the form of greenpeace / community building / safekeeping operations provided you also facilitate a better system that checks on the demands/needs of the population (even if that includes the whole world -- kind of especially then.)
The next Chapter is called the Fetish of Full Employment so I'm going to need to sleep so I don't throw things :VVVV before I tackle that 
I'm going to need to sleep so I don't throw things :VVVV before I tackle that 
slept twice okay so there's a half-truth here. 1) employment =/= production. Just because you put someone to work doesn't mean good outcome.
This is true WHAT IS NOT is that aside from just fighting the entirety of FDR's policies [redacted thinking] 2) it doesn't address material concerns, needs, and wealth by definition, distribution or allocation (resources) what-so-fucking-ever
WHAT IS NOT is that aside from just fighting the entirety of FDR's policies
Yes, employment does not inherently mean that the resources go to the producers, but it is a step in that direction. Which is inherently more than literally nothing duh 
duh
I think I have a better beat on how to structure my own book at least
Not completely true at all. 1) you shouldn't try to maximize production or you get the outcome we have now wherein CERTAIN TOP PEOPLE are able to siphon all the profits for their own benefit and DO NOT FUCKING TRICKLE DOWN the profits to the employees' wages or to cut costs for consumers
wherein CERTAIN TOP PEOPLE are able to siphon all the profits for their own benefit and DO NOT FUCKING TRICKLE DOWN the profits to the employees' wages or to cut costs for consumers
2) See his own point earlier; reducing hours works both ways. You can get more production done in less time so you should maximize outcome
So there's obviously a few jumps in logic, if God gives me enough health, I'll do a full on video about this; or a bunch of mini-videos but
Re: making the point of globalism -- which is international trade; I guess I should have posted the previous page or 3 talking about Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations but
tl;dr paraphrasing not exact quoting (memory holes also but vibes are there) "it's unreasonable for a farmer to spend more money to make something in house he can buy from someone else for cheaper." and this is true for countries as well.
Thus a tailor won't also make shoes. ^^ see above; the significance of importance in having specialists even though HH was saying labor unions purposely spread out the labor just to ensure employment for different people and disallow overlap anyway
To the above page
obviously you can have trade disparities (Trump's supposed reasoning for having tariffs which is a lie, but that's his you know "plausible deniability" of it.) but that's more because the world isn't all equal right now \:|/ There aren't equal resources or wealth. Period. This is not hard at all to understand (it is for him because he could not pass
5th grade if he had to go back through them all like the Adam Sandler movie okay okay)
Again, this is so fucking obvious to me, it almost causes me physical pain to state/show but in case any, I mean literally any dipshit is left who can be reached from the cult here you go. This is not even the most mickey mouse ABCs of economics
This is like compared to ZZZ cup breasts, these are AAA. No hate, love all boobs. But yeah.
rehashing in new language / EXTREME cliff note version (and because I know my grey on black is nearly invisible to sane individuals):
tariffs on external goods might in THEORY stimulate an industry in that home country; HOWEVER: at the expense twofold of the home country. 1) they have to subsidize that industry quite literally 2) build it up from scratch 3) all the workers who now work in that otherwise redundant industry are now no longer working in the OTHER industries that could
have been much more profitable/valuable
(see above Adam Smith)
" The desire for work is not borne out of material need. The desire for work is both intrinsic & extrinsic"
-this summed up things so well for me, and it made life more sensical
-this summed up things so well for me, and it made life more sensical
"Only minds corrupted by generations of misleading propaganda can regard this conclusion as paradoxical." I LAUGHED SO FUCKING HARD :VVVV
SO it might not be proof that the GOP & CIA are propagandizing the SHIT out of the USA buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut; they definitely are writing their policies as if their propaganda was phenomenally more effective than it actually was 
Indeed, you are a quintessential example of the desire for extrinsic social rewards and recognition/acknowledgement
i am sorry i keep making you talk on the phone with me
I would also point again to those like Trump as being unfill-able by the rewards of status/money etc. because they haven't done the work
?????
oh pff no I love you and talking is important for my lung
Give me 15 minutes to finish up stuffffff
HRC? Hardness Rockwell C steel scale?
Hilary Rodham Clinton
"I'm with her!!!" is a completely supply side economics based theory when all Democratic politics is still operating on demand generating supply -- ie: I want housing. A candidate should talk about housing to get my vote. // in supply side it's branding; blue team or red team, and the idea of "nothing is better" by specifically kneecapping all opposition
(Ie: Bernie and Green Party)
This is related to that ^ part just now
The CIA & GOP are running a race to the absolute bottom and trying to literally handicap their opponents to do it rather than "get good" themselves.
Whew I caught up. Really highlights for me how incredible it was that I graduated college. Absorbing new information is hard
IT IS HARD, but babe you have post-covid and I am not exactly writing this like a primer. I am kind of writing it as notes for myself and on a completely different plane from Earth [alien hands]
So don't assume you wouldn't do better with something that isn't sort of treating all this as "Here CC, please write a book review on Hop on Pop"
WHICH FOR ANYONE ELSE READING THIS I am not trying to insult you, HH, or anyone except Trump & co who didn't get this basic lesson that wouldn't even be in my high school class -- I have just spent nearly 40 years every single day of my life inundated with every book you cannot imagine, resources no one else has, and working on a different plane so FOR ME
YEAH IT DOES FEEL LIKE HOP ON POP
"What does Dr. Suess mean by this? Is it a grand metaphor for why you should not use fathers as trampolines? Does it signify how parents lay down all their work for their children, much like the episode of King of the Hill wherein Billy realizes he is the one spending the entire family budget for entertainment on CDs every month? 
"
"
we have to learn eventually. not all things will be easy
If you ever doubted "Yes, I am fucking serious about this, I am going to fix the entire human trajectory for Earth. I deadass have a covenant with God and my entire life has been orchestrated to changing all economics" don't.
don't.
ACTUALLY BABE YOU REALLY DON'T
You might not even be able to because I can speak first hand to the blockers that ~will be in place~ if you're better off NOT
??
If God doesn't want you to think about it; nothing you do will bust through the wall he puts in place. -- basically.
ALTERNATELY
If I have this what do you need to know it for? I don't ignore driving because you can do it, but I do understand God does NOT want me to drive yet. And nothing I (or Luffy-bro, or others) do will fucking make it happen.
Okay let's see
@silverwolfcc - [Econ] 1.01 REVISITED: What is curre...
THERE
Currency
Haha and just when I started going "okay this looks like my memories" it spun off into a hole and I am like "where did you come from?" anyway
"All currency is governmental" because as with bitcoin -- who the fuck can enforce "trade agreements" via bitcoin? USA does when it infringes ON the USA Dollar, but in the instance of Trump embezzling money via crypto
good luck
Why you must not have too much emphasis on exports > imports even though Trump is doing just that supposedly for /checks notes/ ~American stability~ /glances at Chicago :|||| X TO DOUBT/
= because if you don't have imports from them, they don't have any fucking money to give you for exports anyway. AGAIN; this isn't always true. Because resources exist in a disparate form throughout the world BUT
FOR THE MOST PART It is very easy to go back to video games
In Sid Meier's Pirates; each shopkeeper at ports only has SO MUCH money to give you for shit. If you BUY shit, they get more. (that fucking easy/obvious)
i want to know it because it is you, i like knowing about you
So no matter how much you are like "fuck you, Imma sell you my shit, no buy" you can't sell that much if you never buy they just won't have anything to buy more otherwise.
they just won't have anything to buy more otherwise.
b-babe
i do love how that silly pumpkin contest champion is on everything
yes whenever you change your picture it goes to all the past ones regardless
"this is serious business"
look at my superior gourdish bounteousness
look at my superior gourdish bounteousness
Dancing for Bees | Teen Titans Go! | Cartoon Networkrandomly because it was broken in that plurk so
ehh, that's one part of you I don't want to know
I had a feeling
But the more I think about the work/reward equation (people innately have a desire for work counterbalanced by the reward, and the more you try to fill in the reward equation, the more you increase the work void etc.) the more I think Trump is acting out his failed narcissistic underveloped psychology by projecting his insecurities en masse
aka: he doesn't work, he knows he hasn't earned shit, and he's trying to demand rewards without doing work when he actually wants to demand work, and doens't fucking understand that; much less how to obtain it.
So with the tariffs even
He keeps trying to be like "NO! We cannot import things, we need to EXPORT (sell)!" even though again; this does NOTHING to address his own individual ISSUES
He also keeps thinking if he gets the reward part then the work side of the equation is moot instead of actually growing larger as a need/dearth
ie: Nobel peace prize
Like if he just got the prize, then he wouldn't have this gaping desire to try to get world peace and also they might just psychologically/MAGICALLY be tricked into being peaceful because otherwise there wouldn't be a prize granted to him for it 
Mind you there is not enough psychology on Earth to fix him, but
Moving on --
ACTUALLY NO first I need to also add
I think this equation does present for children. As you see it with children wanting the reward for doing things like having artwork up on the fridge etc. acknowledgement
And when someone with imposter syndrome just keeps trying to fucking "fake it 'till you make it" even when you "make it" you have to fake it ALL THE MORE, because it is a growing paranoia that you will be exposed and lose everything. And for someone who has never lost, much less learned how to build/gain other than lies and tantrums well
I know we're seeing him slip into dementia and therefore regress -- we've already gone back through the 90s, 80s, and 70s, I guess childhood is on the way.
out of nowhere -- I want ramen
CC: I guess I want ramen because my head is doing better?
My head hurts
there's.... a lot to this
Okay first off, yeah you DO need your business trading partner to have money to spend on you (import/export see above) but this doesnt' always mean "and therefore any charity/loans will be met with reciprocal generosity" ayyy reciprocal tariffs -- /smacked
charity by definition necessitates that it's good will. In one direction. The only thing you get back is FUTURISTIC KARMA and intrinsic rewards; ie: explicitly: "I am awesome."
Now; that said..... there is still a tangible benefit of extrinsic REPUTATION that does really fucking matter, and likewise, the status of other people trusting you because you have consistently shown you mean what you say and do good things again really does fucking matter.
again really does fucking matter.
Especially in international trade relations
Trump and the CIA fucking up our elections on purpose aside
(literally why they suck so much)
1) loans cannot always be repaid. They are investments, and sometimes countries/governments fail.
2) trying to eke money out of a younger generation for what their older generations did (ie: Germany in 1920s) will rise to a Hitler figure because they get desperate for any way out. (aka; reparations are dangerous and not smart.)
2) trying to eke money out of a younger generation for what their older generations did (ie: Germany in 1920s) will rise to a Hitler figure because they get desperate for any way out. (aka; reparations are dangerous and not smart.)
3) and most importantly; give a man a fish and he'll feed for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he has a sustaining career and can trade you fish for your carpentry.
AKA: again, I know I'm not talking about what's on the page, but according to HH's own principle of "seeing beyond the immediate visible, the ripple effects" --
A lot of what China has been doing is setting up long term agreements with African nations (and others.) Things like feeding the world from America wouldn't just be immediately a huge boon to us economically in stature and internal economics; but even though it's literally ~~charity~~ abroad, we'd be setting up a peaceful foundation that would be undermining
all terrorist opposition (no one rationally wants to bite the hand that feeds them unless that hand is actually doing it as an abusive slaver etc.) and launching broad market appeal to everyone affected by it who would then be able to elevate still others and so on.
LIKEWISE: the reverse is very fucking true. Every fucking time the CIA decided to try (or succeed) to do a regime / coup, assassination, fuck over democracy in favor of their machination shit; they undermined America's safety, status, and ESPECIALLY the economy.
"CC why are you so obsessed with the CIA right now" I'm fucking mad. They owe me. >:| And I'm putting them on notice. I will get my money /eyes, screen/
and they dug this themselves.
100%
FOR WHAT /shakes fist
anyway
anwyay
IDK if Trump & co are dumb enough to fucking be like "yes, we are giving Argentina relief because it will give us back the money IN DIVIDENDS" or something euqally fucking retarded
but smack them if they do
smack them if they do
BUT LET US ALSO GO BACK TO "Foreign aid spending" !
Because DOGE was like "weeeeeeeeee chainsawwwww :V"
But all it did was literally fuck America over.
Again; the unseen ripples are ALSO of things like stature, peace, progress, soft power and things we want of extrinsic rewards from other people
They are constantly playing a game trying to seesaw all the math onto one side of the seesaw, and act like it's even despite everyone on the planet clearly seeing otherwise.
No; it does not INSTANTLY cause reciprocal trade.
however
when Jesus spoke of the sower of seeds parable (hang on Koppa I got you atheists hold tight)
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 13 - New Internationa...man I totally forgot that latter half of WHY PARABLES BRO -- it's actually immensely relevant (almost more than the parable itself)
as the seeds only had about 1/6 chance of fruitful dividends; so it is with investing (generally. Obviously really good investors do a lot better than literally > 18%, but generally it is much like a racehorse bet, where 5/6 times you might lose, it's just the 1/6 that pays out a lot to make up for it in theory.)
EVEN IF ONLY 1/6 resulted in profit; that is still FAR better than the guarantee of zero percent if you never invest at all.
-- but we would also go back to the "investing your own money vs. investing someone else's" above
interesting that you referenced me as an atheist despite 'recruiting' me into your 'movement'
Let's say America invested in every single country in the world. If only 20% viewed that as an almost "ride or die" relationship ala supposedly what Trump is entering with Qatar (remains to be seen that either party follows through)
That's guaranteed "congratulations you own the world." because if even the 20% POOREST countries in the world were the ones who had America's back, no fucking sane person even as a crazy lunatic cultist goes "yeah... I'm going to piss off the entire fucking world because..... I want the infamy." and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to because
all those countries would hinder them
I just meant you might not have the instant knowledge of what that parable was but thank you love <33333333
but thank you love <33333333
wow that parable is really good. it isn't just about reception of God's word, it has real world application.
"Why bother sowing seeds if 3/4ths don't survive?"
"Would you condemn the fourth seed for the failure of the others?"
"Why bother sowing seeds if 3/4ths don't survive?"
"Would you condemn the fourth seed for the failure of the others?"
YES!!!
That's my favorite part of why he uses parables
It's multifaceted for multiple different applications and that makes it timeless.
A lot of people don't understand why fiction is important, but that's literally why. It doesn't just stick with people more easily, (narratives -- humans' brains literally remember things better when in story mode) it spins out differently to each person based on their life circumstances and time periods etc.
it blows me away, how rational the bible what Jesus said but it is so misconstrued
"Why do you speak in parables?"
"you may understand, but others without experience may not. Men of the Earth truly understand what they can perceive, therefore they will understand the unfamiliar if told in a familiar way"
"you may understand, but others without experience may not. Men of the Earth truly understand what they can perceive, therefore they will understand the unfamiliar if told in a familiar way"
it makes so much sense it's unreal
I want to read the Bible, but I need one in a straight undressed fashion
I know right
Explain to me "undressed"/straightforward.
Like, his word speaks through time. It is, as you said, timeless. It isn't for the Roman poor or a monk in a monastery, it's for any eyes that find it, in the year 1 or 100,000
Yes
wild
So the version I linked is the New International Version
But, yes, they somehow translate it as "fuck trans kids and kick out the starving" somehow
that's because they aren't actually reading the bible. They're listening to cultists that Jesus even warned would fucking do some insane shit hang on
The book of Matthew alone ^ which is the excerpt I linked from there
would REALLY appeal to you because it's
ALSO HAS (hang on)
BUT MIND YOU my favorite version is still the Brick Testament because lego bible is amazing and the best way to read the old testament in its insanity
well, before you get into it, I don't mean to sidetrack you
you can do your thing
The Brick Testament Every time I read Samson's section I die of lulz
but yeah no, just because someone says they're Christian, doesn't mean they know shit??? Like right before the election a bunch of pastors were SOUNDING THE ALARM because they would give sermons and people would come up and say (no fucking kidding I'm not exaggerating) "Where'd you get that woke crap, bullshit?"
Pastor: "... the bible."
MAGA: well that shit doesn't work in our modern times anymore
MAGA: well that shit doesn't work in our modern times anymore
It's like my human Garp!Dad warned (I specifiy human because God the father is different) - when politics infiltrate religion and are shown to be at odds with it, people leave the religion, not the politics.
i am ashamed
i'm pretty sure if you said 'dad' I'd understand who
Don't be. I just want to specify because it makes me feel better.
And yeah, I'll tell you something on Signal but anyway
no i was ashamed for humanity
Yeah, again
Don't be. (THOUGH I FEEL YOU I AM ALL THE TIME.....) We did our best, now we must do still better.
-- but yes, as the last line says, "the real reason a country needs exports is to pay for its imports"
-- there is a lot of flaw wrt some of the fix-its via farming in the Great Depression.
They didn't know all that caused it, because it was new, and "THROW EVERYTHING AT THE WALL" was not inherently bad; just haphazard, and some of it worked, and some of it was bad.
-- how you sort the good from bad, (going back to BOTH bible references in Matthew above !!!) - is by the outcome and OTHER historical examples.
!!!) - is by the outcome and OTHER historical examples.
News reminded me to come back to this
So yes, while there were some flaws -- such as setting the prices and just straight up setting food on fire in order to enable scarcity in order to get the profits to a livable wage thing
It's ABSOLUTELY the fucking case that there is not a single human economics plan wherein farmers/agriculture is not the entire backbone.
For all that American Civil War buffs claim that North vs. South was a matter of agriculture (south) vs. industry/factories (North) this isn't really the total case.
Countries like Japan can't grow enough on their own lands to feed an ever growing population; but CAN use other resources and trade to more than make up for it -- and as Switzerland has shown, plenty of other advantages can be had even in seeming inhospitable climes, with enough ingenuity and building up reputation and smart allocation for luxuries
The reason cities are so prominent in human history is because the fast access to population = easier market distribution.
But even nomadic cultures were heavily dependent on food resources and their herds (sheep, elk, hunting, etc.)
Indigenous North American rotated lands in order to not deplete the soil, and South American indigenous used bat guano as literal currency it was that valuable and useful for all things.
In Sun Tzu's Art of War - Economics is EVERYTHING. And first and foremost in that is farmers. That's actually one of the huge things Nobunaga Oda pioneeered in Japan; he considered it utter bullshit that samurai were allowed to kill farmers, but it also required being royalty and dedicating life to the sword -> something guns helped equalize because then
farmers could be soldiers in only a year and a half and otherwise still be farmers etc.
TLDR; yes, actually, farmers not being able to afford industry is THE BIGGEST RED FLAG I can possibly think of for any society in all of human history.
NOW THAT SAID
the ideal solution is not to just throw money at them because that isn't a solution, and barely even a stopgap measure to stem the bleeding. You have to define all the problems; ensure they won't continue, and create better techniques to solve this. THIS IS ALSO realllllllllllllllllllly weighty like
a] droughts (see also: global climate chaos)
b] land competition in the form ofuseless motherfucking LAWNS pollution, competing industries fucking oil poisoning the entirety of Louisiana, golf courses, weirdos like Bill Gates buying all the land because he knooooooows
b] land competition in the form of
b continued -- in the Balkans, they talked about how in the 1800s, it was mostly family farmers, and how they would keep dividing the land to leave their offspring etc. This was MILDLY less so in Western Europe because Serfs which is a terrible "economic system"
c] technology obsolescence and/or outpacing the knowledge (see: John Deere tractors)
Serfs which is a terrible "economic system"c] technology obsolescence and/or outpacing the knowledge (see: John Deere tractors)
d] Literally government made disasters like Trump's asinine tariff wars.
Wrt a] while many governments throw hands up and go "divine disasters / act of god, can't do anything about it." anyone who is willing to reference God to that, should probably at least know what all religions say God says to do about it -- which is to be careful, guard for the future, and help everyone as much as you can.
Aqueducts and manmade reservoirs can help deal with the droughts; and it is also necessary to understand when you are trying to literally do a waterpark in a desert and then you know; Not fucking do dumb shit like that
Farmers are the EVERYTHING of economics. Because food and people are all economy is made for if you get down to the MOST watered down form of it. This is why I intend to link currency directly to food, complete with depreciation
skipping the page of parity pricing wrt a car in 1910 vs 1970s and how the price of corn hasn't escalated blah blah
Actually I will cap it but no comment
(spoilers: the reason food is subsidized is so we don't bring back guillotines but nvm that right now)
but nvm that right now)
yes it is a shame that Trump's entire admin is completely fucking illiterate
FUNNILY ENOUGH there is a weird sector of Libertarian TM "economists" (aka wanna be day traders and currently now "crypto bros" and soon to be bankrupt berks....) who were fanatically all about buying up silver again. I am trying to keep my contempt out of my tone but yanno
Nyeeeeeeeh News reminded me again
-- Farmers, China, and Slavery //
1) China is purposely not buying from USA using the tariffs as an excuse - which has basis in reality if not the totality. US-China business is really really strange because we do export them tons and tons of food. But mostly we import from them "junk" ie: cheap easy goods so we don't have factories making Temu/Wish/Amazon/Walmart easy stuff. We also send
literal trash to China and Phillippines rather than recycle it here because the shipping industry needs to have full ships both ways to make the trip viable/financially reasonable, and we don't send just food.
One of the big obsessions I had (idk memory holes, it's a lot, don't ask if you don't remember, if you do, awesome, if you don't don't worry about it, I'm delulu ) - was "true cost" and measuring it. The "true cost" for anything shipped anywhere is much much greater because of fuel and it's the main reason Truman & others were very obsessed with
) - was "true cost" and measuring it. The "true cost" for anything shipped anywhere is much much greater because of fuel and it's the main reason Truman & others were very obsessed with
manufacturing at home/locally rather than just letting slave labor be cheaper and therefore fall into ^ the above mention Adam Smith principle (never make something at home that is more expensive than simply buying from your neighbor/a different specialist)
Likewise; we should not be growing soy on American lands because it doesn't work well with the environment and same with almonds in CA (water consumption) and while there are absolutely cases where plants that aren't native here DO help the environments far far better
-> Okra is the greatest example that instantly comes to mind for me. It was brought from Africa because "black people are a different species and eat it" like they LITERALLY WERE SO RACIST They thought maybe Africans couldn't eat the same foods as Europeans. Which wow. BUT -->
It is really good for the environment so 
Rare instance. Again, soy is not
Rare instance. Again, soy is not
Obviously this is not true everywhere, soy in Asia is fine, it's awful in America in South America because they have to fucking destroy the RAINFOREST which is obviously bad (not rainforest in Argentina -- extreme soil erosion however!!!) , and in the midwest plains, it completely levels the native grasses which do better with maize broken up by beans and
squash, which can then also even help handle tornadoes, especially if working WITH buffalo who are ruminants and you know; need vast swaths of wandering land to ROAM (but soy doesn't work with that at all lol) and rotaaaaaaaaaatioooooooooon
(see also: peanuts are good for putting nitrogen back in the soil)
Soy Farms: Is Soy Farming Bad for the Environment? |...
HOWEVER THE VERY FUCKING OBVIOUSLY BETTER WAY TO HANDLE THIS IS NOT A TRADE WAR WITH CHINA but the "correct" way would be to establish/integrate natural native farming techniques with precision and updating for the modern world and work with the land rather than arbitrarily dictate at it from afar .
but the "correct" way would be to establish/integrate natural native farming techniques with precision and updating for the modern world and work with the land rather than arbitrarily dictate at it from afar .
All US farming is subsidized. It always has been, because from inception, farmers were not able to fucking survive without extreme help. 1) the environment is completely foreign to Europeans. Both socially and agriculture. When the Pilgrims first landed they mostly starved and would have if not for help. 2) the idea of setting up farms is foreign to
native tribes who are more like wolf packs with territory and hunting grounds, the land doesn't pass down generationally, and it isn't rancher style. That worked decently in Italy and parts of Europe. It doesn't fucking work in the US without government protection because 3) the natural disasters are too big for family farmers without each other community
4) VIA the whole "don't make at home what is more expensive than buying from someone else" -> 99.9% of 16th century goods were waaaaaaaaaaay cheaper to get elsewhere. and by the time of the industrial revolution???? You get the idea.
5) again, because if farmers go under, who the fuck is going to grow the food?
So one of my favorite "Wtf" moments that makes me laugh is the first Virginian settlers were actually minor nobles who had never done a single days of "work" in their life. They were more coddled pansies than Stephen Miller.
They spent all their time panhandling the river for gold :|||||
The governor had to threaten them at gunpoint to fucking farm dipshits wtf is wrong with you
But that wasn't enough either because how do farm?????? IDK I ONLY KNOW THE RIGHT SILVERWARE FOR BALLS AND WHAT FAN LANGUAGE MEANS THx
Yes, even threatening with guns wasn't magically enough to impart them with knowledge and skill even if it gave them drive :VVV -- so they had to trade with the natives because literally, starving to death.
Roll ahead 400 years.
China doesn't really care that much about their people being a little hungry tbqfh. Also China has different ideas when it comes to food anyway. They aren't ACTUALLY dependent on soy, they're just accustomed to it, and trying to get away from having lots of farmers themselves because it's a societal thing where they see farming as kind of ehhhh not
backwards but definitely not what they WANT to be doing. Much cooler to trade out but that doesn't mean it can't be done if they focus on it. I'm not even touching on the Uygur thing yet.
but that doesn't mean it can't be done if they focus on it. I'm not even touching on the Uygur thing yet.
-> However American farmers growing soy don't magically have many (any) other markets for soy. Like yeah, it is GENERALLY used for animal feed, but selling soy directly as chicken feed 1) is a huge price loss for a lot of them -- ESPECIALLY if their quality is a lot higher and they were growing it as human-grade 2) still runs into weird tariff/trade issues
3) ANY price loss this term right now? means a HUGE uncertainty of what to plan right the fuck now for next season/harvest. Especially because (as anyone who has played literally any farming game ever knows~) they might not even HAVE the money to buy all the best seed they'd originally been hoping for.
It gets worse
I HOPE most are wise/smart enough to have learned from Trump 1.0 and diversified like fuck. I know my godparents 100% have been doing nothing but making their money extremely GOP-proof for 20 years, but -->
MOST farms hire migrant workers especially for harvest season. That was obviously fucking impossible this year. That eats into profit. More than that, the fear ALSO eats into profits (no worker is at their best when scared to death. Slavery was VASTLY ineffectual and eventually only became a weird FUCKING CREEPY status symbol and the money all was in
~"breeding"~ like horses. Fucking. Gross. WORST. EVER.)
Farms in the US have already been on VERY slim margins with so much of them just giving up and selling the land to either factory farms, Bill Gates, or other industries.
When people are desperate , not only does that trash the pricing (desperate to sell, lowers prices) they do sell the land and etc. -- This was recently lampshaded in South Park even!
China, Blackrock, and others have been financially buying land and housing in the US for awhile.
Because then they can control the pricing obviously. But worse than that ->
obviously. But worse than that ->
It is a lot easier for them to wait out America's issues and the farmers to lose everything (literally everything) than for farmers to convince China "n-n-no reaaaaaaaaaaally PLEASE BUY OUR SHIT D: D: D:" And guess what happens in literally just 3 years of this????? Yeah.
// All farming in the US is subsidized, because all of it is undervalued and underpaid. Around the industrial revolution thanks to England's general means of catching up with factories and cities, US 100% did the same thing. It isn't inherently NECESSARILY bad, buuuuuuuuuuuut there's a reason the Great Depression had SO MANY STARVING PEOPLE IN A COUNTRY
THAT MAKES ENOUGH FOOD TO FEED THE PLANET
LITERALLY just allocation.
When I fully flesh out the whole book I'll show it, how to assess the needs, the value, the pricing, get food from growers to the world etc. but ->
If you do not subsidize farmers, they do not survive. It only takes 2 bad harvests for most American farmers to be on the verge of collapse, and they've already been trying to survive 10. Every single problem in the US of healthcare, of housing, of education, of isolation, of climate castrophe, of pollution, of mis-regulation, of idiots mismanagement
usually gets felt x10 on farmers.
And if you don't have farmers? You do not have a country. Period.
How Joseph Stalin Starved Millions in the Ukrainian ...
I'm not saying Trump is trying to copy Stalin and purposely starve Americans to death so his weird cult can buy all the land and make it golf courses.
I'm saying that's what he's doing, even if he's not fucking consciously aware of it because dementia and stupidity, but he's surrounded on 30 angles by fucking insane death cultists who are SO MUCH WORSE than Lysenko (Holodomor)
Private jets, parties and eugenics: Jeffrey Epstein'...
Private jets, parties and eugenics: Jeffrey Epstein'... moving the fuck on
Lysenkoism - WikipediaSeriously though what does South Africa, China, Russia, and the South US all have in common? Racism insane theories agriculture and humanity spinning out into child sex trafficking and slavery. \:|/ I fucking hate it.
the reasons against government subsidizing are easy enough. "Because it's intuitly unnatural, and goes against the markets' desires."
Oil was subsidized to replace whaling. This was a good. For the world, for America, for our heart and soul. Coal is bad and should not be kept alive for the sake of tradition -- or whatever Trump's insane theories are. He likes it, but he's a literal antichrist apocalyptic death-cult deity so I generally find doing the opposite of him is for the best.
"Not all coal workers can upgrade to solar or wind farm work." Don't care, find them something else.
Much like the farming examples above -- it is important to have the government that would otherwise be forced to "carry" such newly unemployed workers actually find them better sustainable newly desired jobs, and indeed, the act of finding such jobs IS a job itself
However in the case of "by why subsidize anything then?"
-> as with oil replacing whaling: because to get it started, it needs a push. Trump is wrong btw. Oil is subsidized. He kept insisting wind couldn't be financially viable on its own and yadda yadda, all energy should be economic producing on its own etc.
Oil was NEVER economic producing "on its own." :|||| WE STILL subsidize it and we SHOUDLN'T anymore, because we can move the fuck on from it; but it was better than whaling which ALSO had to be subsidized SO MUCH that the government busted open Japan just to have landing ports because the Pacific journey is too hefty :V so yeah. That was insane.
We still subsidize oil now because 1) around the 60s every government realized that oil prices would basically dictate who would be President, 2) it was national security ALSO (because overseas) 3) "if we don't then poor people will literally freeze to death."
We can deal with those all and stop subsidizing oil but we don't because right now the banks all prefer oil because they can control those finances, and they can't if every homeowner and others start getting used to solar where they don't need oil pipelines or the bank at all for :|||||
Funny how that works out huh :||||||
Subsidizing is important and absolutely should be done -- but in a Democratic (Republic) system it MUST be done for the good of everyone, and NOT be allowed to be so egregiously market captured by CIA & oligarchs who are hell bent on doing American 21st century Lysenkoism insane shit.
DUH.
So good things to subsidize: food. :| :| :| And then you can ensure you feed the planet and people don't want to kill you :|||||| Housing -- we DO subsidize housing (not nearly enough) but the housing crashes every other decade are a good sign of why, but on top of that -
As with banks running oil; because of the scarcity induced system we currently have running; places like NYC have vastly fewer apartments than workers. Aside from the mass transit issues being expensive and yet ANOTHER thing that necessitates subsidization (otherwise again, you don't HAVE the workers, and things fall apart~~~) those who DO own apartments
jack the prices up and don't want competition.
There's totally merits in regulation of historical or environmental reasons to block more new housing at times. There is a LOT that goes into city planning; certain streets on the shore might be unviable with additional residents because it might literally sink into the sea, or the sewer system can't even be updated to handle it (I SEE YOU PLUM ISLAND EW)
And some of that you don't know until you FAFO !!! but once you do; there's a lot to weigh.
However
Where more housing CAN be built, do. And that's not going to happen if you just leave it to contractors to decide because for all the ideology of "but they're in the best position to know where/when/how!!!" that's just ideological bullshit and more Lysenkoism non-science How would they know? And even if they DO know; what incentives have they to build
How would they know? And even if they DO know; what incentives have they to build
more rather than just charge more for less???
The most in place to know, are census number takers who can literally see the math on where people are working, and then analyze & counter-reference housing places that can handle more people etc. It should also be noted; that a lot of the industrial places that have fallen to disuse; can be updated not just with housing but with NEW industries -- such as
Lowell, MA. It was one of the worst cities in MA. Its major industry in the 18th century was textiles and water mills on the canals. You can't bring that back. It's completely unreasonable and insane. What you CAN do (and was a very good thing to do!!!) was bring in a ton of the pharmceutical and drone engineers. The education systems are super near but not
directly flooding; and there was a lot of room for this sort of thing. ALL THIS TOOK SUBSIDIZING HOWEVER.
Subsidizing is great for jumpstarting. Grants are too. \:|/ Get good.
- which brings me back to my above SUPPPPPER lengthy point about China, the soy trade war - not-buy and US farming
In UK during the Industrial revolution, the farmers moved mostly to the cities. ^ Despite HH's general mentions of all these things being "transferred" one to another; this is not completely the case. No UK farmer before the Industrial Revolution could have afforded 99% of the new goods being made; and this is a HUGE part of why the quality of life went up
so dramatically.
Likewise; farming was still sort of making do with a fuedal era serf system and landlords. While America had a bit of a weirder development with the settling "LOOK AT ALL THIS FUCKING LAAAAAAAAAAAAAND AHHHHH" -- that's part of the biggest worry for farmers; because when they have to sell land, the only way to be a farmer is either a stable rational
government that remembers "feeding people prevents guillotines...." (you will not find with Trump & co.) ooooooooooor you get serfs and slaves again
If China waits out the farmers to sell the land, give up, what do you think happens with the new USA and multiple civil war factions?
China profits. That's what. So does Russia. US??? Not so much.....
---- FTR: I am not doomer-ing. I already sold my life, identity, soul, spirit, and all that I am and can be to God. If I say "I've got this." I mean it. Don't worry. It took me decades to recognize all that he was doing in conjunction with me; much less to start asking if it was okay to talk about [x] and I'm still censoring where it's best to, but
If I say "I've got this." I mean it. Don't worry. It took me decades to recognize all that he was doing in conjunction with me; much less to start asking if it was okay to talk about [x] and I'm still censoring where it's best to, but
So much of my economic plan is rolling already that it can't be stopped or even easily fucked up. I'm not completely TAUNTING at this point; but a little bit undermining how fucking stupid they are. Because they are.
And the sooner they realize it and cede way, the sooner we can do better than all this ass-backwards shit.
I'll check my own plurk back when tomorrow but I BELIEVE I already tackled the supply vs. demand tweaking and the fallacies therein
Some of which I certainly mentioned above wrt: housing
The problem isn't that people should make things to the full production capacity that would fill the world with trash :| Imagine infinite Nikes. Wtf. Horrible. Rather; previously without extremely capable computing and the rapid communication connectivity of the internet, and 8 billion population -- certain amounts of analzying what people want and will
buy wasn't fucking possible before. Now it is. That's why almost all the stock market is run by computers now
There's no point in having ~~~guessing~~~ Or worse; trying to create artificial demand. Now how to define "real" demand vs. fake is basically more akin to the Morbius fiasco. There was absolutely never any real demand for Morbius. The internet also wanted to send a message to Sony about trying to give us drek slop so they made them pay for it
twice. Which is hilarious
It's true not everyone knows what they want (reasons for education, experience, exploration, mimesis, and trying new things to get closer to it) but aside from also having to build up cogent markets; (ie: someone could write the best book for all the people in all the world and all cultures and history; but people might not ever read it if they don't start
with reading drek until they get closer to finding out what it is they like etc. Creating opportunities FOR people to get closer is a VERY VERY big deal!!!)
it's also a skill to know how to get people what they don't even know what they want -- AND to do that without trying to trick them into buying something they do not actually want.
Seriously.
Smartphones are actually an example of this for me. I hate cell phones because "ugh phone... talking... torture..." even though it's not like I do not want to talk to my boyfriend gosh. I liked texting, but obviously it was harder on flip-phones etc. MUCH easier to just get on AIM (remember that? those were the days.) meanwhile when Pokemon Go was
all the rage, for the life of me I thought "why not just regular Pokemon? \:|/" and especially for the money and less powerful mini laptop. yet once I did it, I love my phone, it is now my D&D style phylactery. (not to be confused with the Rabbi version.)
This is because it filled actual needs (communication, boredom, access to internet, also actually made me less car sick) rather than facebook style trying to make it seem like it was useful while the user experience would be rather torturous hellhole for me. -- AGAIN, not something I could know without taking the risk (see risk vs. reward) but obviously
others understood what its uses were for the whole population etc.
🚨 Trump’s FATAL DECISIONS on Economy CAN’T BE STOPPE...
Am I stupid today? I don't understand this footnote. By reselling cotton at a severe discount, how was US gov. subsidizing the rest of the world's cotton?
Because they created artificial demand with oversupply so the rest of the world was what? Also growing cotton???? Okay, but then like why couldn't the farmers go "gee looks like that's less profitable now" and switch to something else??? Or is that his point?
This is the case, and t reminds me of the farmers' revolution in the Balkans, though the next one is going to be anti-corruption globally
it is also worth noting; Trump is a criminal. Everything he does is with with a criminal mindset. He is not capable of doing things correctly, criminality is all he knows.
skipping over more of HH's anti-SJW (whatever the neoliberal 1950s equivalent is) rambling insanity which has consistently borne out false....
the reason Trump TACOs and is ridiculous and chaos incarnate
The rent control chapter already has me rage quitting for now :VVV
Bluntly -- I skipped some of the first part of the Rent Control chapter because it's genuinely too exhausting for me to refute right now and if anyone REALLY wants I will go into it because rent, landlords, and housing is a big fucking deal especially for me but
wrt: using space wastefully -- no. You need only look at America's bizarro swathes of storage boxes to understand hoarding is a different issue (one I hope to address also) and people aren't incentivized to use space for clutter; but rather it's more of a decision paralysis thing ESPECIALLY with lower income people who have a literal trauma and fear of
becoming homeless; they can't evaluate mentally what is worth keeping of items and this goes back to my "we need to move beyond an economy based on ownership it's infantile and we are better than it"
However; it is very true that luxury housing becomes over-rewarded, over-produced, and there is an absolute dearth of low-income housing incentives -- which is all the more exacerbated by lobbying from the wealthy oligarchs to oppose gentrification which, while it has roots in opposing commercialization of artsy low-income neighborhoods;
quickly becomes utilized and exploited by the wealthy to actually mean, "restrict new tenant housing, in order to artificially increase current housing, and then raise rents until only wealthy can afford it" -- WHICH HAS the same effects on the RICH EVEN as HH (author) argues it does on the poor because there is no competition or incentive to increase
benefits/renovations/technology of housing -- I can literally point to where I used to live for an example. It hasn't done SHIT to update for 30 years. What the actual fuck. I mean yes, location is everything, but seriously????? And yeah it has no fucking reason to, it hasn't even added more units. The one thing it did was start allowing pets and add
a dogpark. But given they literally tore out the children's park.... woot?????????????????????
Well I guess we need to emphasize
the difference between rich and obscenely oligarch rich but keep in mind
oligarchs can't even get as rich as they would if everyone else was able to get richer too; not just because a rising tide floats all ships, but literally because the technology for luxuries isn't going to be made by oligarchs ever. It'll be bought by them. See Adam Smith "don't make in house what is cheaper to buy elsewhere "
"
they aren't going to sit there 60 hours a week to research a medical cure; they'll fund others only if they themselves have the disease and even then, aren't going to be as good at the funding as someone who specializes in studying it etc. etc. etc.
"Necessity is the mother of inventions" etc.
WRT NYC and abandoned buildings (and very applicable upstate NY as kopperhed rages about quietly on a semi-weekly basis) -->
The solution is simple
Tax land :|
I mean it. Then give back subsidies for farming to specific family farmers (making foods you want more of notable, and those you want less of disincentivized, constantly teaching ROTATION IS KING because otherwise you'll kill the soil) - buy up a shit ton gov.-wise to create a ridiculous amount of national parks; fund the basic startup grants
I mean it. Then give back subsidies for farming to specific family farmers (making foods you want more of notable, and those you want less of disincentivized, constantly teaching ROTATION IS KING because otherwise you'll kill the soil) - buy up a shit ton gov.-wise to create a ridiculous amount of national parks; fund the basic startup grants
based on re-investing in existing buildings SO YOU DO NOT FUCKING CLEAR CUT FORESTS TO LITERALLY MAKE A FUCKING STORAGE SYSTEM WAREHOUSE 
- but DO reinvigorate places like Lowell or the many many rundown industrial complexes all along the NY rivers that have all been abandoned
Super incentivize food growing at all times (I suggest literally making money itself based on nutritional value; and all profits of services, tech, healthcare and literally everything else based on long term value of what it does for people both individual and broadly societal)
Make landlords no longer OWNERS OF LAND but rather administrators of services rendered; in that they have actual incentive to make their tenants lives better.
Back to the Future | Marty McFly Plays "Johnny B. Go...I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it.
Blah blah blah HH bitching about rent control proponents being anti-capitalist and meanwhile ranting about Welfare State etc.
Oh joy, Minimum wage laws is next
I picked a bad timeline to stop drinking "sniffing glue"
Airplane! (1980) "Looks like I picked the wrong week...
Airplane! (1980) "Looks like I picked the wrong week... 
ugh
Okay so -- we live in the world this book has created. If I ever doubted that a book is a good way to get this all across, I need look no further.
1) Let's roll back to TRUE VALUE. The number of minimum wage is immaterial, it needs to be a percentage. Which I know. We in America fucking hate percentages amirite
"But how will you know the value until well after the fact" yeah no kidding, Sherlock. That's why you need to 2) hire a shit ton of bean counters and reinvent the stock market to have them all working on figuring it out (see above; profits based on the good it does for people both individually and wrt all)
Likewise; if you hire them from the government ala: Federal Job Guarantee - straight up reverse Project 2025 because that is literally a plan on how to NOT do economic prosperity; you can do away with minimum wage because the minimum wage is either what the government guarantees (with multiple shifts on trying to find a good fit)
OR benefits that the gov. isn't offering; much like WW2 the only reason we have an employer-based health insurance "healthcare" system is because they capped wages because they needed so much in war production etc. So places offered services in the form of health insurance as the only major benefit etc.
Some of which may just include; being your own boss, or location, or certain cultures/environments
etc. etc. a million (infinite actually...) possibilities
3) wrt employees being worth more than the market rate ..... HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO I KNOW I KNOW IN THE 60s though -- BUT FOR REAL This is just so
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO I KNOW I KNOW IN THE 60s though -- BUT FOR REAL This is just so
Infuriating
Like again, yes, obviously given that minimum wage hasn't increased in 20+ years, and we've been watching the systemic collapse of an empire by corporations & oligarchs, and "but wouldn't the people bring back guillotines" I swear I'm going to 2010s Occupy Wall Street all over again....
No one is capable of valuing themselves. not even me. And frankly, I'm probably in a better position than most, because I've had to endure weird unique shit that made me have to weigh the physical, mental, and emotional expenditures of things like "if I get myself a cup of tea...."
Especially because what we do for ourselves isn't as valuable as what we do for others.
I know I know, I'm talking like ZZZ level vs. the AAA that this book is, but
It is a flawed mindset, based on infantile just post- object permanence understanding, in which toddlers go from "holy shit that thing is still where I left it?!" to that age of toddlers again to "MINEEEEEE" based in biological evolutionary development that is just.... undeveloped. Infantile. Based in not even necessarily scarcity as much as
undeveloped. Infantile. Based in not even necessarily scarcity as much as
just "This stick is my stick. It is not your stick. It is my stick." but does start to incentivize artificial scarcity.
Okay to try to roll back from the ZZZ levels -->
The basic flaw in labor market right now is the flawed concept of scarcity as the only metric of value.
Just because you can turn your eyelid inside out without hands, doesn't make that a valuable skill.
however
Just because "anyone" CAN clean; doesn't make that less valuable either! Because it's not about whether someone COULD, but whether they DO.
Cleaning has different values to different people, because some people (especially autists) LIKE cleaning. But some people (Stephen Miller) fucking hate it. It is definitely nonsensical to argue then, "well since I hate it, I have to pay more," as that just incentivizes lying. (Grit teeth: hahaha nooooo I love cleaning.... I just don't have the TIME)
INSTEAD: the value becomes an aggregate of being in the right place, time, and capacity to do it, do it WELL, and the bonuses of how the cleaning aids the clients in other ways etc. Cleaning matters!
This is also why USA artificially overvalues CEO on their ~~~scarcity~~~ but they aren't necessarily scarce, competent, "earning it" or frankly doing fuck-all but hype & vibes and that would be better spent on the middle or lower workers all around or advertising.
Neoliberalism disgusts me.
A government needs to guarantee housing, food, healthcare, and justice & liberty - not even touching the environmental and disaster prevention/recovery.
"but why, CC?" = Because otherwise the government has no point in existing.
"Aren't governments for armies?" Yes, and? What is the point of the army? What do they have to cover for their army? That simple.
"Aren't governments for armies?" Yes, and? What is the point of the army? What do they have to cover for their army?
That simple.
All currency must be governmental; because otherwise there is no enforcement to the contracts. All governments are entrusted with power TO control housing, food, healthcare, justice, and liberty and no one else is able to but through inadequate baby steps in "the right direction" which aren't enough.
There should NEVER be "starvation wages." People cannot be FORCED to work for anything. This was something Europeans SHOULD have fucking learned with the indigenous, but instead they kept thinking the problem was just that they were able to run away easier than Africans, & Irish (who were also doing slave stuff, and it was harder for runaways because OCEAN)
Indigenous will not be forced to work. It is antithetical to our culture and society, because we also know if we do, that incentivizes trying to enslave the rest of our tribe. A lot of fascists (I am using that correctly, stfu) bitched that natives in prisons still maintain this wholly because we just will not fucking do it. "Don't work, don't eat." Okay
guess we'll starve then :V
All work should NEVER be at the expense/cost/destruction/pain of the worker. That's not what work should be. Because if it is, you will get a very very very VERY shoddy outcome, AT BEST.
All work should be for prosperity. This also necessitates workers who help employees find what they enjoy, love, and are good at, as well as what needs doing.
There is no justification for "starvation wages." None. Zero. "But if people don't grow food--" Right, so let's roll alllllllllllll the way back to the very first settlements in America
A bunch of rich nobles came from Europe looking for gold and knew fuck all about farming, hunting, and building houses etc. They literally definitely preferred sifting rivers looking for gold > gardening. It cracks me up every time. Anyway.
There's a reason the Powatans tribe had to bail them the fuck out.
Wrt: puritans; they were doing a communist settlement, and badly. :|||| One of the ways they decided to incentivize themselves was "okay you can own land based on production and then pass it down to your descendants" etc. but by this time, only 22 were even left because the plague and winter seriously destroyed the fuck out of them.
People aren't innately against growing food. :||||| In both instances they were hilariously raised in societies where they didn't grow food; for other reasons: mostly because they had a society that offered to let them do other things, and they didn't expect to become farmers in another continent, have to figure out what the fuck a pumpkin is and whether
it makes good ale alternative etc.
As they got better (ish) at it, they also weren't really incentized to grow A LOT of it, because they were completely alien to this continent, didn't have their old systems of trade and luxuries, and omfg it is REALLY exhuasting. Especially when you have a new illness no one can cure but rest helps you feel less like a zombie (unless you die but then still)
They literally HAD to start growing crops they could send back to Europe because otherwise they would go insane. (arguably did anyway.)
You should not EVER need to have a stick punishment to counterbalance the reward-carrot. You just need the right reward. Donkeys may be stubborn, (they are) but abusing them isn't gonna change that, it will definitely get worse if you try.
/sigh
This only works with men of good will/character and wherein that doesn't have governmental facilitation to ensure/require you end up with the oligarch system we now have wherein they get ALL the profits, and do not trickle back down because they can specifically (and do) lobby the governments to enable their own greed and not equity
again, the problem remains, as before, with percentages > specific numerical denotations
blah blah anti-union rhetoric. I get where this set up the 80s but :|||| ugh
Unions CAN be bad. Sometimes. Rarely. BUUUUUUUUUUUUT they are also the ONLY way to get negotiations with "fatcats" who have no desire to pay workers based on productivity levels, much less even attribute productivity to the workers. (see also: AI lol)
There is a point about a lot of labor unions are incentivized to only establish rewards for the old members and literally try to disuade or even prevent new incoming.
obviously I don't agree with HH's "THEREFORE UNIONS ARE THE WORST" but rather; profits must also look at investing long term rather than hoarding
okay the half sentence before this is that liberals all say that workers are ALL generally underpaid -- which, I can't speak for the 60s but right now??? Uh yeah, definitely. but let's go to the point of me posting this
HH argues that free market principles can oh so easily determine the ~true market value~ of labor of all the factions, but this is clearly not borne out in reality.
And also because SEE ABOVE
No one can determine their value of even tasks, because they can only evaluate what it costs them personally
(time, energy, vs. what they get back in return etc.)
(and even then....)
Further, he argues that in order to justify their existence, unions will overzealously defend/argue on behalf of their own faction at the expense of the others, but by the same token, expects good things from people on the principle of it's obviously the right thing to do TM
It is absolutely valuable to have a zealous advocate; hence literally lawyers, advocates, etc. but while HH is arguing against having emotionality in economics; he doesn't have any requirement/suggestion/facilitation to get impartial data collection on market values
moreover, there is absolutely value in emotions (energy!!! -- but longterm profit analysis; all that health and long effects etc.) and wherein it is ignored you wind up with our flawed system where sociopaths take advantage of it via HYPE and FEAAAAAR (see Republicans) literally appealing to and manipulating monkey brains instead of "everyone just needs to
be more robotic."
Yet another reason, advocacy is valuable, because they can use their emotions to fight on behalf of someone else and they are less likely to be hurt by the emotions of it. Emotional labor is real and valid.
- two references hang on
Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Atti...
Empathy is a superpower, not a weakness.
yeaaaaaaah ORRRRR America is extremely subverted and has centuries of "work is good, lazing is DEATH" culture and until WW2 had minimal reason to unionize and then in the 80s got fucked wtih it. SOOOOO X TO DOUBT, SIR
two things
1) Just because the investors could make more money with another line doesn't mean they will do that, KNOW THAT, or facilitate it, especially if they decide to pull a WB and just withhold the movie (rail line) rather than try to eke back profits double especially if they think it will cause long-term downsides; like convincing children "actually justice is
awesome"
or to use the railway example; eat into the profits that they could get on the single line by charging even higher because MUH SCARCITY (but you could get TWICE the amount now; yes, but they would still have to actually pay to build the second, and that doesn't mean they will take the "~gamble~")
2) the eXpLoItAtIoN oF cApItaL bY LaBoR
Just
the fucking caucasity of this guy. My dude.
A N Y W A Y
His theoreticals aside; in reality, unemployment =/= reduced production (just as vacations don't either) buuuuuuuut again if full employment is good (and I think so, he doesn't) FJG
TOO MUCH WRONG WITH THIS uuuugh gonna just backburner for a bit and tackle bae with kisses before he goes to work WITHOUT PAY I WILL REMIND YOU 
14 Main Causes of Low Productivity at Work — Talkspa...Not that unions address these or they can all be fixed with less hours, but unions COULD be made to address these
Wherein they do not need to fight for safety, health, pay etc. and indeed/instead to maximize/facilitate worker production because that increases profits for all and also you know; worker health and wellbeing as well and not at the cost / detriment of anyone