alrascala

[alrascala]

Movie Tag Game

Rules: Without naming them, post a gif from ten of your favorite films, then tag ten people to do the same! I just got tagged by @sleepytimegrrl so now you lot have to deal with it.

This took me far too long. @chickiboots @cookiemonstor86 @toastedstars @blindpandabear @whats-space @tuibelle @dustandashen @aethersea @missblackmrblue and @tundrakatiebean, good luck to you.

[alrascala]

Want to materially support indigenous rights within 10 minutes?

Make a submission against the New Zealand's government's proposed bill that will take away Māori rights. You don't need to be from Aotearoa New Zealand to submit.

You have until 7th January New Zealand time.

FAQ about the bill here, from a trustworthy organisation.

Guide to writing a submission here. (It's more aimed at people based in Aotearoa, but is still valuable.)

Submit here.

Examples of international submissions. Please make it your own, as repeated submissions will not be counted.

In 2025, we should all strive to support indigenous rights, and here's an easy way to do that.

[alrascala]

#something something that post about the difference between what you want to do as an ape versus what you know is right as a human#vimes is the poster boy for that and i think that's one thing that makes him so big as a character in the series#he always acknowledges the ''burn them to the fucking ground'' rage of dealing with terrible things that speaks to all of us at heart#but then shows us how to set it aside to do what is morally right in spite of what you feel like they deserve#it doesn't matter how awful and evil and cruel carcer is - vimes *does not get to kill him* because he does not have the right#to decide in the darkness and in anger that someone should die - he hands him over to be judged by the people#he still falls into the ''punishment = justice'' problem but that reflects the setting (and i suspect sir terry's views at the time#considering that later we see moist as an example of restorative justice. but i digress.)#vimes endures as a character because he *feels* the first quote but *acts on* the second#anyway.#discworld#gnu terry pratchett

You scum, you rat-sucking little worm eaters! You headsdown little scurriers in the dark! What did you bring to my city? What were you thinking? Did you want the deep-downers here? Did you dare deplore what Hamcrusher said, all that bile and ancient lies? Or did you say ‘Well, I don’t agree with him, of course, but he’s got a point’? Did you say, ‘Oh he goes too far but it’s about time somebody said it’? And now, have you come here to wring your hands and say how dreadful, it was nothing to do with you? Who were the dwarfs in the mobs, then? Aren’t you community leaders? Were you leading them? And why are you here now, you ugly snivelling grubbers? Is it possible, is it possible, that now, after that bastard’s bodyguards tried to kill my family, you’re here to complain? Have I broken some code, trodden on some ancient toe? To hell with it. To hell with you.

-- Terry Pratchett - Thud!

[alrascala]

song of the summer (via muco_0 on tiktok)

[alrascala]

Makes me laugh. Every time.

[alrascala]

Trumpolitics and geopolitical implactions

Grrreeetings my dear students ! I AM RETURNED !!! With another lesson ! This time, some of you made the horrifying mistake of inciting my teaching urge on the geopolitics of trump drooling on Greenland, and I decided I would take a good long look at that AND at other targets of potential expansion for the USA. I am sorry to inform you that memes will be sadly not that present in the first two points, because they're where I put down the structure of this thing. First off, Context ! 1) The Context As you may have seen, Trump has recently been on a tweeting spree about territories he'd like to add to the USA or bring under control in some way. From calling Canada the 51st state to claiming that controlling Greenland was "an absolute necessity", and even making open threats to Panama about taking back control of the Canal of Panama.

And considering what is being looked at, I'm going to add Mexico to the mix, because it's been targeted with threats of invasion-and-or-intervention to deal with the Cartels. 2) The Goals The goals of all these outside operations can fit in a clean-enough categorization : - Security : this is about protecting US security against an external threat, whatever form it may take - Ressource availability : the access to the territory's ressources is important to Trump or his administration - Trade control : the territory offers the ability or potential to control global trade routes Those are the three big geopolitical aims of an expansionist policy in regards to the USA. Other countries, such as Russia for instance, could have demographic aims to counteract a demographic collapse, but that's not the case of the USA. Of course, there's also Trump's personnal goal, common among strongmen : looking like a badass warmaster that does war so good and is so successful, wow, such medal, much military.

3) Oh, CANADA ! Canada, land of snow and forests, maple syrup and poutine, land of the eh and dedicated contributor to the expansion of the Geneva Convention. Trump has been pretty insistent on "joking" about it becoming the 51st State, despite a great many Canadians signaling very loudly that they do not find it funny. On one hand, making insulting jokes about your allies and ignoring their protests and then wondering why you aren't popular is violently American (As a French, I have close to 18 years of personnal experience on that), but on the other, this is Trump, so is it really a joke ? So, what would be the benefits of invading Canada ? Well, they would be many from a geopolitical point of view. It"s just that there are as many, or more, inconvenients. The big question being, will Trump even LOOK at those inconvenients ? But that's for later. First off, resources. Canada is ridiculously resource rich, owing in part to its very large size. I'm sure you've seen a few memes about Americans finding the biggest deposit of X or Y resources at random, well the only reason Canada doesn't do that too is because it is far less populated and its population is far more centralized. But the potential is there, absolutely. And even better, those resources are VERY varied : minerals, hydrocarbons, and absolute fuckton of wood and, perhaps less often thought about, fresh water. So on that front, Canada would undeniably be a very attractive catch. Second, security. Canada would allow the USA control of roughly a third-to-half of the entire Arctic region, allowing extensive protection of the northern flank, something that may be of interest in current times due to how light and under-strength the Canadian armed forces are, which also serves to make it a (seemingly) easy target to occupy. Third, trade control. Oh that's right, Canada has the trifecta. See, with the Arctic melting, the near-mythical North-West passage is opening, allowing for way faster transit from the Bering straight to the Atlantic, and yes this is damn important, the Panama Canal was opened in part because that passage didn't exist, but now it does for longer and longer periods of time, and Canada controls roughly 80 to 90% of its length. And control of that trade route means cash from ships that take it (taxes, maintenance, rescue when need be ...), it's a whole thing. A minor interest, though not put forward by Trump would be the "natural borders" approach, or territory continuity. Basically, considering that Canada is, by its geographical situation, American territory-to-be. That's ... pretty disturbing, and like I said, Trump didn't put it forward, but keep in mind it's part of the debate.

Now, for the inconvenients, which uh ... well they aren't few. First off, Canadians. The "eh" dudes are often represented as passive and friendly and polite, but they are certainly not interested in becoming Americans, especially by force, and considering just how many guns they have, well they have the means to make that displeasure known quite virulently. Which creates an entire administrative mess where they have to decide if they confiscate weapons inside Canada, or only those of Canadians, and what happens in the rest of the US, and what if ... so complicated. Messy. Either way, while the invasion wouldn't necessarily be that difficult (due to smol, US-dependant Canadian forces), the occupation would be WAAAAAAY harder. Especially since Canada is rather big and empty, giving PLENTY of room for partisan groups to spread, hide and ambush anyone that leaves urban centres. Second, Nato. Now, do I think Nato would mount a task force to push US troops out of Canada ? Lmao no, we're way too dependant on US security infrastructure for that. And since so many people still seem to think that, when France tries to push European strategic independance it's actually a French bid for control of the EU or us trying to shill our industries, well I don't see it changing without some major shock, even as things are. Poland does seem to be speedrunning this bitch though, so maybe we can do something there. But no, Nato wouldn't stop the invasion, but the invasion WOULD collapse Nato, and I can already hear the Vatniks and Tankies getting a stiffie just from imagining it.

Nato wouldn't survive because, in this scenario, the most powerful member of the alliance attacks another member. At that point, there's no confidence left, no trust, nothing. And that has ... rather big ... consequences. For instance, Russia feeling entirely uninhibited and allowed to invade as they please. To avoid that, the only option is to have a truly gigantic "fuck off" button, and only one such button exists : the nuclear one. So that's nuclear proliferation going back onto the table and at least half of the eastern part of the EU reaching for nuclear programs. Poland at the very least, Finland most likely can too. And then there's the rest of the World. Unless the French president at the time points out that our nuclear umbrella does actually extend over our eastern allies (it does) and actually manages to convince both Russia and our allies that it's true, and that's where I am profoundly unsure, considering how successful the US has been at propagandizing against France and presenting us as cowardly or unreliable. Remember when I said I had personnal experience with insulting jokes from the US ? At this point, I'm half convinced that the only way to convince Poland and co that we're reliable would be to help them develop nukes or just give them some, which ... same result anyway. So yeah, bad shit right there.

4) The land of LIES Greenland, or Groenland, an autonomous dependency of Denmark. A big place with not that much population. But, here again, geopolitical benefits can be found in taking it over : First off, resources. Though its resources aren't as varied as Canada's, Greenland is still very much a resource-rich place, and global warming makes more and more of those resources accessible, making it a very attractive target indeed. Security is the main reason put forth by Trump, and uh ... well it reveals a LOT in my opinion. See, the main security interest of Greenland is the ability to project control over one of the two main exits of the Arctic sea. With Greenland, Norway and Iceland, an arc is formed allowing control of that exit, as much as such a large span of sea can be controlled. The reason I say it's worrying is because there's already a US airbase there, Pituffik airbase, and Greenland is part of Nato. There's already an entire system in place to counter if the enemy is Russia. So the "absolute necessity" of controlling Greenland would indicate he has another enemy in mind. See why I'm worried ?

Now, would it be difficult to control Greenland ? No, not THAT much, it only has 57 000 people, so occupation wouldn't be too hard, hell, it would even be colonizable fairly easily. You know, the Russian model, displace parts of the local population to send them into the territory of the ethnic majority so as to isolate them, all while bussing in masses of ethnic-majority colonists to fill new jobs created by the occupation. Speaking of, Trump claimed Greenlanders wanted the US there, which contradicts local testimonies and declarations. Hmm, a strongman leader claiming a foreign territory for "security reasons" and saying the locals want his troops there, where have I seen that rethoric before .... Of course, here, we also see the collapse of Nato, with similar, or identical, consequences. It's possible, but rather unlikely in my opinion, that the Danish government could sell Greenland to maintain the illusion of still having Nato, but like I said, I don't buy it. Once again, Nato would have no real way of stopping it, since the US are the big fish in this pond.

And now that we've seen the two scenarios where Nato collapses, what would that mean for the US ? A whole lot of bad, actually. Because, see, if the USA feel free to invade Nato allies, then their military bases become liabilities, pre-established beach-heads from which they can prepare and launch offensives. So that would mean most, if not all, US bases in Europe getting closed damn near overnight, an d a rather difficult to manage diplomatic mess. That could also spook non-Nato countries into kicking out US forces, reducing the power projection capabilities of the US tremendously. Once allied ports would close to their ships, like the many, many, many French and British naval bases spread all around the globe that the US navy can use to resupply, refuel and rest. Airbases would close, forcing longer, more logistically difficult flights ... There's also the breakdown in training agreements, like the agreement that allows US special forces to train in the jungles of Guyane. Bet you didn't know about that. And then there's the military supplies in terms of equipment that becomes uncertain, because yes, the US military doesn't buy exclusively American, for instance they love Thales radars, which are French. And yes, they also buy from other European countries, it's just that since I'm French, I mostly think of French exemples. Fellow Europeans, add in the notes what you country produces that ends up on the US military shopping list ! So yes, while the collapse of Nato would leave Europe damn near butt naked in the face of Russian aggression, with no other option than to go balls to the walls, it would also hamper the US rather severely.

5) Panama, the Canal The Canal of Panama was made by the US, completed in 1914, and apparently Mister Trump wants it back because, le gasp, China allegedly has too much influence on it and, le gasp², US ships pay fees like everyone else. The Canal is, all things considered, the most straightforward option. It has one benefit only : trade control. But considering the location, that benefit is sizeable and long lasting. See, the Panama Canal is a reliable and rather safe option when compared to the intermitent and iceberg-filled Northwest Passage and the shit-weather festival that is the Cape Horn (which can also have icebergs, yay), so it's basically a guarantee for LOADS of maritime trafic. Control of that canal would allow to levy fees and, potentially, block passage to the ships of rival polities, like, say, China. Except China already has routes to feed its products to Europe and Africa that don't go through Panama, and for the eastern part of South America, I can absolutely see them throw a giant wad of cash at yet another pharaonic railway project. Not immediate, but not impossible either. And if it goes into the realm of dick-measuring contests (it will, Trump is involved), Xi absolutely will, on principle.

That doesn't mean control of the Canal isn't interesting, it absolutely is, but it's not AS interesting as he perhaps thinks.

And then there's the issue of Panama not being particularly enthused by the idea, weirdly enough. Would Panama's regular military be able to stop Trump ? Haha, no. I don't have any illusions on that, you don't, and I guarantee that Panama doesn't either. What they CAN do, however, is make it unsufferable to use. Cause collapses, force ships out of alignment to Evergreen it up in this bitch, guerilla-warfare patrols into an early grave, loads of stuff. And they would have volunteers from a lot of Latin America, due to flashbacks of US-backed dictatorships giving motivation to a lot of people.

In short, it would be a forever war for control of a string of water that would quickly end up costing a LOT more, in cash and lives, than it brings. 0/10, do not recommend, would not imperialism.

6) Mexico, Cartel time Ah, the Cartels, Mexico(s number 1 problem, and a big talking point for US conservatives. They have floated the idea of sending the military to deal with them several times, and it was even suggested recently to classify them as terrorists to justify the military intervention.

Here, again ,there's a single interest : security. The idea being that, if you off the drug dealers, then drugs won't be a problem anymore. Surely this simple and obvious reasoning has no flaw to it, right ? Well … First off, Cartels aren't easy to manage, due to how spread out they are. Then there's the fact they are rather heavily armed, which is part of why Mexico hasn't been able to deal with them. Cartel armories include some heavy weapons, and I can GUARANTEE that they've expanded those armories in preparation of a potential US army intervention, and that WILL include US weapons. So if that happen, prepare for the humiliation of losing Abrams tanks to gangers. Moreover, the afforementionned US-based trauma would also awaken here, ensuring that, despite how unpopular they are, the Cartels WOULD receive volunteers to reinforce them, simply on the basis that they'd be fighting an expansionist US.

Now add in that they have people inside the US, not just direct network members, but also affiliates and customers. Those groups are also violent and armed, and can be agitated fairly easily. If the US launch a military attack on the Cartels, I expect those affiliate gangs would mount assault on police precincts at the very least, and based on the performance of US cops at Uvalde and other cases, where they cowered when faced with a SINGLE assault rifle, I wonder how they'd react when faced by many, and potentially outnumbered. Would they all break and run ? No, most likely not. But enough would, since that would most likely happen all over the country. This would create a feeling of insecurity and danger that would be devastating for Trump. It would make him look weak.

So all in all, far from ideal.

7) The Rest of the Consequences

Yeah, I didn't look too much into the global effects … yet. Basically, Expansionist US = massive uncertainty, meaning economic confidence collapses, meaning stock prices go down in many places, economic paranoia blooms, worry takes hold of the planet and, oh would you look at that, a financial crisis. Is it a guarantee ? No, but depending on the scenario it's more or less likely. For instance, if it's the Greenland track, it's unlikely to cause a financial crisis, at least not immediately, it will have to wait until Nato openly and officially collapses (AKA the moment maintaining the charade isn't worthwhile anymore). The other three options though ? Yes. Canada is a major economic player, if it's invaded, economic actors will be scared. An invasion of Mexico is such a gigantic upheaval that it will cause shakeups in the worldwide economic network. And the Panama Canal being seized by a military intervention is basically like collapsing a cliff face into a fjord, the effect will be rapid, devastating and spectacular.

Then there's the loss of soft-power. In the first two scenario, the US immediately lose all credibility as an ally, anyone on their list of ally is informed that they'll be invaded the second it becomes beneficial, AKA an alliance with the US is utterly worthless, or even dangerous, unless you force yourself into a position where invading you is a waste (AKA poverty), and even then, your resources might spark an invasion anyway. In the last two, it erases all efforts made to improve and moralize the US foreign policy, and it severely weakens the diplomatic position of the US. Trump can negociate whatever he wants after that, it won't change the fact that trust in the US will drop severely, and yes that will include European countries.

8) conclusion Now, am I sure that Trump will invade someone ? Yes, but that's a personnal bias. There are no certainty until it's a done deal. It's possible that this is just Trump trying to be relevant, or like one of the linked articles said, trying to create chaos. But I'm not convinced. Trump feels empowered, allowed to do anything he wants. He won't feel like he has to hold back. So he may decide to actually invade a country. Do we have certainty on the consequences of such an invasion ? No, because here I looked only at the invasions and their geopolitical consequences if nothing else changes. The world is a constantly churning mass of variables that interact in exotic and sometimes very roundabout ways. But I think my analysis is solid and credible, and it would take a hell of a change for what I described her to not happen. I guess we'll have to see what Trump decides to do.

[alrascala]

Tuatara skulls are truly beautiful.

Dead thing fact: Tuataras are unique in having a true diaspsid condition. They have two clear skull fenestras.

Juveniles also have a third eye on the top of their heads that remains somewhat functional in adults.

[alrascala]

These posts are cousins to me.

[alrascala]

How to say "grape" in Romance and Germanic languages in Europe

From Latin ūva (“grape”):

uva (Spanish/Castilian)

uva (Asturian)

uva (Italian)

uva (Portuguese)

uga/uba (Aragonese)

uva (Galician)

uva (Judaeo-Spanish)

uva (Piedmontese)

uga (Lombard)

iva (Romansch)

úa (Sardinian)

ùa/ova (Venetian)

auã (Aromanian)

From Latin racēmus ("cluster or bunch of grapes"):

raisin (French)

racina (Sicilian)

raïm (Catalan)

rasim (Occitan)

resim (Franco-Provençal)

roésin (Picard)

roejhén (Walloon)

Unknown origin:

strugure (Romanian)

---------

From Old French grape (cluster of fruit or flowers, bunch of grapes"):

grape (English

grape (Scots)

Literally "wine-berry":

Wiitrybel (Alemannic German)

Weinba/Weinbeer (Upper/Southern German)

vínber (Icelandic)

From Proto-West Germanic *þrūbō ("cluster" or "grape"):

Traube (German)

drue (Danish)

druva (Swedish)

drue (Norwegian)

druif/wijndruif (Dutch)

druif (Afrikaans)

troyb (Yiddish)

Druve/Druuv (Low German)

drúf (West Frisian)

Drauf (Luxembourgish)

[alrascala]

Hey, happy Earth Day! Who wants to talk about climate change?

Yeah, okay, fair, I kinda figured the answer to that would be "ugh do we have to?" What if I told you I have good news though? Good news with caveats, but still good news.

What if I told you that since the Paris Agreement in 2015, we've avoided a whole degree celsius of global warming by 2100, or maybe more?

Current projections are 2.7C, which is way better than the 3-5C (with a median of 3.7C) we were expecting in 2015. It's not where we want to be - 1.5C - but it is big, noticeable progress!

And it's not like we either hit 1.5C and avoid all the big scary consequences or fail to hit 1.5C and get all of them - every tenth of a degree of warming we avoid is going to prevent more severe problems like extreme weather, sea level rise, etc.

This means that climate change mitigation efforts are having a noticeable impact! This means a dramatically better, safer future - and if we keep pushing, we could lower the amount of global warming we end up with even further. This is huge progress, and we need to celebrate it, even though the fight isn't over.

It's working. Keep going.

[alrascala]

humanity, truth

[alrascala]

Economy lesson : Money Velocity

Greetings my dear little Tumblrans, it is I, that guy that keeps making vaguely meme-y economy posts ! Today with horrible news : I have decided to teach outside of work hours ! On the plus side, unlike my IRL students, YOU can block me if you don't want the lesson.

And today's topic will be Money Velocity. What is money velocity ? It's not a bike city populated by sentient cash, despite what some might believe, no. It is the speed at which money moves inside an economy. What's that got to do with anything ? A fucklot ! Let me explain.

Money velocity is, like I said, the speed at which money moves in an economy between actors. Like consumers, banks, the State, companies, NGOs, etc. The faster that money moves, the better, because it means that money is being used for economic activity, powering various parts of the system and thus creating wealth.

Or, in the wise words of one of the few monarchs I am not physically incapable of tolerating, King Julian : we like to move it move it (it being money).

To illustrate, allow me to introduce a character : a random €100 bill. Yes, euro, not dollar, I'm European, you can't stop me. That €100 bill, which we will call Billy going forward, is used to buy a load of groceries at the market, let's say veggies for a restaurant. Billy is now in the hands of a farmer, who uses it to buy fertilizer to keep his farm going. The producer of the fertilizer then uses Billy to pay a worker, who then uses billy to pay for a new piece of furniture, and then Billy is used to buy more lumber, then to pay for repairs on a chainsaw, then to buy spare parts, then to ... You get the idea, Billy is on a grand journey through the economy, how delightfull.

When he's doing that, Billy is keeping the economic waterwheel going, round and round, and that economic waterwheel then powers society. A waterwheel that goes vroom means that the economy is healthy, which means you can safely invest in a house, new tools, a car, whatever, and it's likely that the investment will go at least OK-ish. It means banks can feel safer about lending, which is kind of a central part of our current economic model and one of our primary tools of wealth creation.

Now, if you've read my other two economic posts, you're probably thinking I'm going to explain how everything's fucked and how we're all doomed, which is a gross exaggeration and I...

Why everything's fucked

I could apologize for that easy joke, but I asked myself if I should just because I could, and my answer is no.

So, in short : money move fast, is good. So logically, if money move slow, is bad, right ? Exactly. So the question then is : what makes money go slow ? Well, a bunch of stuff can.

For instance, a low amount of existing money, AKA the money supply. People like hoarding what's rare and what has value, so valuable rare stuff is prime hoarding material. Keeping in mind that TOO MUCH money can also be bad due to hyperinflation, something that causes shudders of horror in prudish teenagers prowling DeviantArt (no, I will not change my joke) and in Germans in general (I use "cahs wheelbarrow" in attack mode to trigger generational trauma).

Another factor would be how easy it is to pay for stuff. For instance, if you have to go to the bank to take money out of your account each time you need to pay for something, unexpected/impulse buying is far less likely, if only because of the hassle. If you can pay with a credit card (and even more so if you can check your account in real time), you're more likely to feel confident buying things, which in turn means you'll buy stuff, which keeps the money moving.

Last big factor we'll see is economic actor behaviour. "Can I start blaming billionaires now?" Patience my dear, I'm giving you a reason. So, how economic actors behave has an impact on the economy, amazing discovery, next, scientists claim ocean is made of water. But more seriously, if you're putting money aside you're reducing money velocity by creating, I guess you could call it an economic drainage lake which you fill with your savings.

Now, that money isn't entirely out of the system, since you're most likely shoving it into a savings account which can then serve as a backing for banks to loan money (how did you think interests were accrued?) so it's still going through the system, even if far slower than if you spend it.

Those bank loans can still be given to consummers buying big things (like houses) and to companies looking to develop, and that still keeps the economy running, right ? Normally, yes.

"Is it time to blame Capitalism and billionaires yet?" you ask, and yes, yes it is.

So, why do we blame them now ? Easy : there's a second economic circuit that's going perfectly fine, the financial one. If we look at the entire system, there's plenty of movement of money on the stock markets, even without taking speculation into account which ... is a whole other subject I may have to look at later. The main issue is that this financial economic circuit is not as connected as the traditional one as it perhaps should be, which means the money injected into that circuit has a worrying tendency to STAY in that circuit. How ? Well ...

Investors put cash into a company, then they expect dividents. Those dividends are used to put more cash in the company or in other companies, and since monkey brain like number big, investors ask for MORE dividends, which means you need to cut costs somewhere, like for instance employees. That money is still pushing economic activity, it's still creating wealth, but that wealth is focused in a rather small group and is based on the inherently unstable stock markets, which means that it can evaporate whenever investors have a collective tantrum. There's also the fact that, despite the large sums of money involved, that particular mass of money moves far slower than the money used by consummers.

Second big issue : the drainage great lakes. You're not the only one to have savings, the 1% have savings too, except theirs are proportional to how much cash they have. Now, to be clear, most of their wealth is in assets, not in cash, but they still DO have cash, and as you are no doubt aware, they aren't too thrilled when asked to pay taxes. Taxation is theft and all that bullshit spewed by people opposed to snake BDSM.

Like I pointed out, savings aren't inherently bad, they slow down the flow of money a bit, but do not stop it, and in fact allow for crucial investments that produce new wealth. No, the main issue is where those savings are. Tax havens, a well known term for places where money is put to stay hidden and, sometimes, to be laundered. Well, these puppies form, in effect, giant financial retention dams, where rivers of cash are poured in and trickles come out.

Most of the money put in tax havens don't return to the economy they come from. And, to be perfectly honest, they don't go into the tax haven's economy either. It just ... sits there. Hoardingly.

Proportionally, the tax havens have less of an impact than the parallel financial circuit, but they are visible and, most importantly, symptomatic of a way of thinking, of acting, of hoarding wealth and value.

So yeah, that's money velocity, or how fast money goes in the economy. Put simply, our system is currently obsessed with the stock market due to a systemic gambling addiction and has forgotten that the basis of a consumption economy is the consummer, which uh ... is generally in a less than ideal situation right now.

Now, when this topic was suggested to me, "trickle down" economics was mentionned, with the suggestion that I show how it's a scam. Well, I think it's already done fairly well with the above, as the system set up to "trickle down" was what spawned the financial circuit and allowed wealth monopilzation that spawned the tax haven problem on its current scale.

But I feel I should go further.

Is trickle down economics doomed to fail in all cases ? No, it can work actually ! It's just like unregulated Capitalism or Real Communism(tm), it can work if you just do this one simple, cheap, easy thing : replace all humans with robots bound by a strict programming.

Like many other economic or political ideas, "trickle down economics", in its stated goal and ideal functionning, is predicated and dependant on being populated purely and entirely by good faith actors. Adding any degree of human interference leads to the idealized system collapsing in one way or another.

This leaves two options :

Reagan and co were unerringly naive and incapable of considering the possibility humans could act selfishly or in a way that didn't match their vision.

They knew and were counting on it, and only sold the ideal as a sugar coating for the bullshit.

I'll let you pick which one is more likely.

[alrascala]