lordadmiralfarsight

[lordadmiralfarsight]

"Before, I was antisemitic because I was uninformed and in an echo chamber, which is bad antisemitism. Thankfully, I have now read the entirety of the Talmud (promise its the real thing and not a mutilated and purposefully uncharitably translated version), so now my antisemitism is informed and righteous. My interpretation of the holy texts of Jews is perfect and absolute, and I understand them better than all the several millenia of Jewish commentary accumulated on them, and I concluded they are EEEEVIIIIIIIL." I can find no other consistent translation. That said, I'm not Jewish, so I'm not the decisive authority there. Anyone feel like rating my translation ?

Can you like. Calm down about Jews? Seriously why are you so obsessed with them

Okay so at the time of my "incident" I was mostly antisemitic because of the echo chamber I found myself in, where everything was blamed on them. I really did want to get better, so I started reading the Talmud, and I PRAY that by the time I finish it will do a 180, because right now, it's not looking good for the jews. And before you comment calling me antisemitic again, READ IT. I know how I sound right now, but please read it before making any judgements

[lordadmiralfarsight]

Keep in mind that the Pope is Argentinian, and like many South Americans, he faced years under a dictatorship due to the Operation Condor framework for USA-compatible dictators. Why is this relevent ? Because it made him, and many South Americans, virulently Anti-USA/Anti-West. And that's the crux of the issue. He's not siding with the aggressor in his mind. In his mind, he's fighting against the Source of All Strife, the Ur-Aggressor, the USA, by demanding that the USA-backed side lay down arms. In his eyes, Israel and Ukraine are the actual aggressors, simply because they receive US support. (And some level of antisemitism for Israel, let's be real.) It's not THAT rare a position, plenty of people that are willing to walk alongside genocide, oppression and rape just to hurt the USA in some way. It's just that, here, it's the Pope.

"Hypocritical" to arm Ukraine, Pope Francis says, silent on Russian terror - Euromaidan Press

Hmm this looks like another headline I've seen recently...

Why does the Pope's anti-war stance seem to completely ignore those who started the war with a violent genocidal excursion into their neighbor's terrirory? Why is the Pope silent about the actions of the Axis of Evil?

Being anti-war when countries are facing active genocidal threats from their neighbors is just asking people in those countries to roll over and die and also get sexually assaulted either before or after they are dead, as per what happened on Oct 7th.

Being anti-war in Ukraine/Russia comes from the privilege of having not experienced an invasion from Russia.

Bring anti-war in Israel/Gaza comes from the privilege of having not experienced October 7th after decades of Hamas/Hezbollah carpetbombing Israeli civilians with unguided rockets launched towards populated towns and cities after 1500 years of genocide and oppression.

"Lay down your arms" is not something you say to someone who just got their hand shot off by their neighbor and now has said neighbor's gun pointed at their heads.

[lordadmiralfarsight]

It's part of it, but not just white guilt, there has been an INTENSE drive to idealize and glorify Islam in Western Leftist circles, going on since decolonization basically. A lot of the Leftism we see right now is built on the writings of decolonization-era French writers, and their direct heirs in the 60s and 70s, people such as Foucault, a gay intellectual who, for some fucking reason, was a ravening simp for ayatohla Khomeini. Yes, that one. In the name of decolonization (an absolutely needed thing, let's be clear), they gave wholehearted, fullchested support to Islamist movements and Islamic nationalists and translated that support into their work. And since those works are the theory used as reference by a lot of modern leftists, that unquestionning, drooling simping for Islamist rethoric and Islamic nationalism is also a reference. And in that narrative, Jews are an inconvenience when they speak up and bring nuance. "What do you mean, there were pogroms in SWANA too ? No, you must be lying, Sagan and Fanon told me they are ontologically good because decolonialist !" Those tales, those testimonies, bring an unwanted nuance of grey into their black and white, orientalist, simplistic view. So they hate it.

Jews 👏were👏not👏welcomed👏in 👏Middle Eastern 👏countries!!👏

Stop with the revisionism jfc!! They were exiled/killed/forced converted/faced discriminatory laws

[lordadmiralfarsight]

*thunderous applause reading your explanations*

Thank you : )

[lordadmiralfarsight]

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.

[lordadmiralfarsight]

The Admiral's lessons

This is where I put links to all my lessons on various topics, for easy perusal by wandering students. Expect jokes, puns and memes to lovingly coat the pill of knowledge. Economy lessons :

Interest rates and inflation, the spiciest marriage

Tarriffs and their true habits, a nature documentary

Money velocity, or why the economy is a giant waterwheel Geopolitics lessons : Trumpolitics and his expansionist fantasies : a trailer

[lordadmiralfarsight]

Not necessarily, due to the geopolitical implications which .... ah screw it, I'll make a detailed post in the morning. About Greenland, Canada, Panama and, of course, Mexico and what the costs and consequences and benefits for Trump and the US could be. Just ... after I sleep.

[lordadmiralfarsight]

@metanoeins Do you want a geopolitical explanation or are you just joking ? Because if you're just joking, joke away, but if you want the geopolitics, I can do that.

[lordadmiralfarsight]

Je suis heureux de pouvoir t'aider : )

Don't worry about not having the slang, it can be hard to get it when all you have is the formal context, but you do kind of need that context before you can go into slang.

Just keep at it, peek into francophone spaces (keeping in mind that different nationalities will have different slangs and phraseologies) and you'll get it soon enough.

[lordadmiralfarsight]

@mapletree100 Of course it's boring if you stick to the most basic, uncreative and barebones way of talking about it. We have plenty of cuter and funnier ways to say it. Tailler une pipe - carve a pipe Faire un pompier - make a fireman Faire un baiser au grand chauve - give a kiss to the great bald one Jouer du trombonne - play the trombone Faire la turlute - that one can't be translated, it's just pure musicality of language. Don't stop at just the basic, boring name. Go with the fun names. That's where the beauty of a language is.

[lordadmiralfarsight]

umm i need reassurance that my presence is wanted but i can’t ask for reassurance because that’s really Embarrassing and it wouldn’t feel genuine if i asked for it

[lordadmiralfarsight]

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.

[lordadmiralfarsight]

I struggle to express just how unsurprised I am. I am also not surprised by how flimsy the argument as, not going further than an affirmation. Fuck, even the people saying that the Houthi sex-and-chattel slavery is actually a "paternalistic relationship between different social classes" are making more of an effort in justifying their horseshit.

Also from "Me too" to "Rape of jewish women can be excused as an act of palestinian resistance".

[lordadmiralfarsight]

Tarrifs, shmariffs, what do ?

Grrrrreeeting my dear Tumblr users, it is I, random economy oriented Tumblr User that was onces convinced his blog was gonna be about ships (and not those on water).

I come to you bringing explanations on tarriffs, what they do, what they bring and what their consequences are, since they are kind of a big topic right now, what with Trump and all. "But Mr. Rando, I already know!" you say, and I believe you, and I am proud of you, but much like in my irl class, not everyone has the same knowledge base, so even if it's a bit tedious for you, we have to cover the topic so everyone is on the same page. Alright ? Swell.

So, what is a tarriff ? A tarriff is a tax levied on importations. AKA, you buy something from out-of-country and get it into the country, you pay the tarriff. Many of you will have seen the memes and viral posts, and will triumphantly point at the part where I say the importer pay the tarriffs. And you are right to do that, it's kind of very important. It's the main point, even.

Why is it the main point ? Easy : if outside stuff cost more, inside stuff better choice. Or, in non-caveman speach : the increase in cost on foreign products and resources will either increase the competitivity of domestic products and resources, or level the playing field. At least that's the idea.

"So", I hear you ask, "are you going to be the Nth user here to tell us that tarriffs are going to fuck the average US citizen over? Because we already know that."

Well, yes, but also know. Also, I'm not sure you have the nuance on the topic, and I do love me some tasty, tasty nuance. And custard. But alas, custard is not the topic of today. Economic nuance is. Now, onto the topic :

The main question to ask here is "what is getting hit by the tarriffs ?" Because the impact will vary a lot depending on what gets hit. To give a simplified framework, there's 3 types of economic goods : raw resources, transformed goods and finished products.

Raw resources are ... raw. Iron ore, lumber, clay, wheat grain, lithium ore, water, dirt, raw oil, you get the idea. Those resources tend to have razor thin profitability margins, because so much is produced.

So, what would be the goal of tarriffs on raw resources ? Well, that would be protecting or developping in-country extraction/production facilities, whether those be mines, farms, fishing fleet or lumber mills.

And that's where a tiny little factor comes into play : economic viability, AKA whether a given activity in a specific region is economically interesting.

Like I said, raw resources tend to have razor thin profitability margins, this means that overwhelmingly, raw resources are extracted in regions that allow lower costs.

Some of those costs can be reduced in costlier economies, like environmental or safety costs, with some good ol' deregulation ... up to a point. Even the notoriously protest-averse USA would face some degree of protests if all safety regulations disappeared and industrial accidents jumped 5000%. Poorer countries tend to be more lax on those regulations, and/or not really enforce them, or both.

On the other hand, there are costs that can't be reduced all that much in a given economy, like the cost of manpower. Due to the cost of living, there's a limit to how low you can go with your offered wages. For instance, offering $12 a day in the USA will yield fuck all in terms of recruitment, but $6 a day in the poorer parts of Africa will cause a flash mob of eager-to-work candidates.

And these are the two big factors of the equation : can the reducible costs be lowered enough that the irreducible costs aren't that much of an issue anymore ? And when the answer is inevitably no, can the tarriffs bridge the gap ? Well, uh ... that's gonna depend a lot. But overall, I would lean more on "no". African iron will be cheaper than US iron every day for the foreseeable future, unless you impose a fucking ungodly amount of tarriffs.

Some resources that cost more will see better results from tarriffs, but far from all. Like, tarriffs on iron, copper, tin, etc ? Bad idea. Tarriffs on helium, lithium or other rarer and costlier resources ? Could protect or help the national production indutry.

In the cases where, even with tarriffs, outside product remain more competitive, there's just going to be an increase in cost down the line, and wealth is just going to exist the country more. In the cases where the inside product becomes more-or-as competitive, then perhaps wealth can remain in the country and help the economy. But, well, we'll get to it later.

Raw resources, done. Two more to go.

Transformed goods (henceforth TG for simplicity) ! They are everywhere and they make up the bulk of international trade. Phone parts ? TGs. Flour ? TG, mostly. Tires ? Eyup, TGs. Radars ? TG. Ink? Oh you bet it's a TG.

So, what would be the aim of tarriffs on TGs? Protecting national industry, giving it room to develop or maybe even forcing multinationals to relocate/create the industry inside the country.

So, TGs are where globalization starts clashing really, really bad with tarriffs. Because you see, with globalization, there's been a global dispatching of production facilities. So you'll have part A that's produced in Italy with resources from Greece, part B that's made in Australia with Indonesian resources, part C that's made in Brazil with stuff from Zambia, etc.

the funky stuff happens when you need to combine parts A and C in a US plant, but then have to send the result over to Mexico to weld part B on top. And then you have to get it back into the US. Double tarrifs, you say? Yepperino, my dear student, double tarrifs. On this incredibly simplified exemple. Imagine what that looks like when there's 3 or 4 more parts involved.

At that point the question is : is it cheaper to pay the tarriff conga line or to just send the US parts of the production line overseas ?

"That sounds like the opposite of the stated goal" you say, with the blazé impassivity of someone that saw it coming a hundred miles away. Yes, yes it does. That's why tarriffs have to be manipulated very, very carefully, especially on transformed goods and intermediate steps of the production process, because it can stack up real fast, real bad.

Sometimes though, paying the tarriff conga line IS the better option, especially for sensitive processes that require a well-trained workforce with in-depth theoretical knowledge of very specific fields and access to training for cutting-edge machines, which is only found in the United Staaaaa ... what do you mean, Europe ?

So yeah, very sensitive, tarriff with care. And in either case, expect cost increases, which WILL be recouped with increased sale prices, leading to a domino effect.

And now, the finished products. The end of the line. The consumer targeted stuff. What you buy online and in shops.

What's the aim of tarriffs here ? Same as before, protect native industry, give it room to develop and force multinationals to relocate the production plant into the country.

At this level, you'll see similar considerations as with the TGs, with one tiny added funky detail : the costs of the two previous steps pile up here. Indeed, the tarriffs on TGs and raw ressources are liable to eat up the profit margins of the finished products, and since profit margins are sacred and must be preserved at all costs, well the simple solution is to simply increase the price of the end product in proportion to the other cost increases. And that means shit costs more for people.

"Well, that's awful" you say, and you are right. But we're getting started. It's time for another trip through early 2000s deviantart, say it with me : INFLATION !!! Except instead of your favourite character being turned into a balloon, we're talking about the content of your wallet losing value. And it's going to hit every industry that has to suffer those tarriffs. At which point the entirety of society faces a dillemma : do we increase salaries accross the board (with the associated widespread price increases) or are we chill with a global reduction in the amount of shit people can buy ?

And that's where it starts getting funky (derogatory, fear inducing), because if enough industries are hit with tarriffs, either choice is bad.

Increase salaries ? You speed up inflation and reduce confidence in your money, making exports admitedly more interesting but imports far less so, and when you are a globalized economy where there are imports everywhere at various levels, it gets spiky really fast.

Going the "tough luck fucko" route ? Well first off, rude, second off : congratulations, you are reducing the overall economic activity in your country, creating unemployment and poverty, reducing confidence in your economy and, if things go really, really poorly, starting a recession (WHOOOOO!!! Who wants to sleep under a bridge ?).

Now, is this a doomer prophecy ? No. No it's not. We have to keep in mind that systems, including economic systems, can adjust their course after starting in a new direction. It's rather unlikely that everything will consistently go bad in the worst way possible. But.

A lot of that is dependant on precision political decision-making, and the person soon-to-be in charge of these decisions in the USA has made it clear that he does not intend to listen to outside opinions or do precision. And considering his last go at it, I believe him. So I'm not optimistic. I don't think the US economy will collapse, that would be absurd, but I don't see the US having a good time either.

It's going to be very, very complicated, and it will depend a LOT on what fields are actually affected, in what proportions, etc.

And keep in mind, I haven't even talked about retaliatory tarriffs (from the people whose products you put tarriffs on). Or political tensions inside the US, that's something I don't feel qualified to talk about. Or the non-economic effects on geopolitics. Or the effects on the global economy.

If I had to make a prediction, I would guess that quite a few production lines will be reorganized to either have long stretches inside the USA or to be entirely divorced from them for as long as possible. Some products may become economically non-viable when it comes to the USA. Some US companies may find themselves no longer economically viable due to reliance on tarriff-affected outside goods and resources. It's hard to guess how large the impact will be, but there WILL be an impact, and most of it will likely be felt by the USA. Because tarriffs aren't paid on expedition, they're paid on reception.

So, as a French, all I can say is : bonne chance.

[lordadmiralfarsight]

My culturally christian goy ass can't help but find it funny how, despite some rather HEAVY history, the various christian crosses have never been called symbols of fascism.

Because uh ... there's been some pretty heinous shit done under those crosses, including rather recently. But somehow ...

If you see articles and tweets about how the Star of David is now a symbol of fascism and think to yourself "maybe they have a point," then whatever you define as your antizionism has absolutely crossed the line into antisemitism

The Star of David is one of the most important symbols in Judaism. The fact that it is on the flag of Israel does not make it fascist. The government of Israel is separate from the symbol. Labeling such a widely used symbol by a marginalized people as fascist is incredibly dangerous and seeks to conflate Jews as a whole with the Israeli government- something antizionists continually claim people shouldn't do. So why are some doing it?

High control groups slowly ease you into believing nonsensical things. They provide "reasoning" and "logic" which goes largely unchallenged within echo chambers. People in these echo chambers are prone to believing it because they start to see it as real logic instead of bigoted, twisted reasoning. Even otherwise intelligent people can fall for their prejudices as they begin to view it as a form of justice

It is a fantasy that high control group leaders go from 0 to 100 in five minutes or refuse to answer any questions- they are usually much more manipulative

Please confront your biases. The Jews are tired

[lordadmiralfarsight]

Also to note : this is from Groland, a program that's all about rude humor, jokes on the more socially unacceptable subjects, from sex to shit and more, gore occasionally. It's a transgressive program.

They chose to make their joke about disrespecting the transphobes. They could have made a horrifyingly transphobic joke, it wouldn't have been that far from some of the stuff they did. Instead, they shit on the transphobes.

And I think that's beautiful.

This meme is inescapable on French insta so I'm posting it here for all to enjoy

[lordadmiralfarsight]

Women and queer are not obligated to coddle bigots, absolutely, but maybe creating new ones with violent misandry isn't the best idea.

And as someone that escaped the alt-right pipeline of the early 2010s : the misandy spewed by some leftist and/or queer circles was their bread, butter and meat. They built their WHOLE content on that, to give the impression that men were soon to be under siege, to be hunted and destroyed.

When I was in that pipeline, I saw frankly deranged posts that were wildly upvoted. Flawed studies with unrepresentative samples made in one specific US university used to claim that all men, worldwide, have a 33% chance or higher to be rapists. (That stat, fucked up and false as it is, still came up in political debate in my country of France 2 years ago. The far right are well after that.)

Utopian fantasies where men were dehumanized past 15, sent to live like animals in the forest, alone and without clothing or tools.

Degradation gallore, posts questioning if men had souls or were even human, broad generalizations, demonization, etc, etc.

When that was their content, it was horrifyingly easy for them to sell adherence to essentialism, because their essentialism became a shield you could rally behind, to avoid the suffering and dehumanization promised by the other side. And the threat of what that other side would do helped to reduce principled stances.

When you feel like you're under an existential threat, you're far less selective of the people you stand for, because you need someone to stand with you.

And how did they create that feeling of existential threat ? By pointing out freely shared opinions that got accepted by leftwing and/or queer spaces without contest. By painting these opinions as the majority. By pointing out leftwing essentialism. And it fed their own.

Wanna know one thing that really helped pull me away from that pipeline ? When a proud feminist became a Minister and changed the legal definition of rape so that men could also be protected.

Essentialism feeds essentialism.

Compassion feeds compassion.

Chose what you want to see flourish.

I hope this isn't too far off the mark @musashi, but I think explaining what it looks like from the perspective of those young men is important.

posts about the alt-right pipeline being compassionate towards young men while radical leftists shun and shame them are not fucking saying "the men are becoming violent because feminists are too mean!" and if that is your takeaway you need to get off tumblr until you've better honed your critical thinking skills.

those posts are talking about how effective the language and approach you take in your activism can be. this is literally cult deprogramming 101. if someone is being taken in by a violent or dangerous group, that violent or dangerous group is usually offering them compassion and solace while working hard to convince them everyone else in the world is their enemy. you are under no obligation to coddle or act compassionate toward these men and their violent ideologies, but if you have the means to try, it is something that you can do to make a tangible difference.

radicalized people are often only one loving friend or family member or external voice away from being de-radicalized. of course that is not always the case, but it very often is. a lot of y'all rightfully understand that you do not carry the burden of being that voice, but a lot of y'all also have a lot of internalized ideas about morals and punitive justice and have simply written off these people as deserving of only the worst and not worth saving.

ten years ago, my grandmother was a fox news watching republican who voted red in every election and very well could have fallen down the qanon rabbit hole if not for me and her daughter challenging her compassionately, walking her through hypotheticals that validated her feelings & proving why they were false, & being patient with her despite our extreme division in political ideology. it was frustrating fucking work! but i decided i wanted to do it, because i could see the horizon and i could see me making a difference!

"misogynists have been saying feminists are too mean for years, get new material" that is not the fucking POINT. the point is that you, feminist, can be the compassionate voice that guides your brother, your father, your cousin, your grandfather away from fucking becoming or staying a nazi. you can show them compassion and companionship. you can be the woman they think of when their alt-right bros try to convince them that women are the enemy. and you can choose to crystallize that image of yourself so wholly in their mind's eye as worth protecting that they may very well choose to reject those harmful ideas.

it's not saying you HAVE to do it! it's saying you CAN do it! don't you 'firebomb a walmart' people all love taking change into your own hands? where the fuck is that energy right now, huh?