rigorousintuition.ca

"This assumes you have the resources—the warehouse of wood—to start. Where did the wood come from? In most cases, the wood has to be acquired, usually by purchase. So do the nails, the glass, the foundation concrete, the plumbing pipes and the electrical wires and fixtures, and all of the required tools etc. Not to mention the expertise of plumbers, electricians, glaziers etc., in the event the solo builder lacks these skills.

Fungible money makes it easy to make these exchanges, by measuring the relative values of the raw materials. (Bartering for real stuff can't achieve this level of trade on any scale.)

You might get the dollars needed to build a house from existing savings, or from a bank loan, or from a grant by the government. Savings doesn't make more dollars ("inches"), while bank loans and government outlays do make more dollars; either way, the point is that it'll be very difficult to build a house without any dollars."

You don't say. I had no idea how difficult it is to build a house. You know, I just beamed down to planet earth only yesterday.

I'm not arguing that it isn't how it is. I'm saying how it is, is absurd. There is an absurdity at the core of money. It doesn't change the way I do business. I deal in absurdities all the time.

But it is absurd. I think sometimes people forget that. Then money becomes a sort of magical talisman for warding off death, economic theories slip into religious territory. Remembering the absurdity at the core of it pops the mystical bubble around tbe subject. It's only money.

Why is Ted here? I'm not getting the connection. Not really familiar with his work.

dada » Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:42 am wrote:You don't say. I had no idea how difficult it is to build a house. You know, I just beamed down to planet earth only yesterday.

If so, it might make for a valuable perspective.

Why is Ted here? I'm not getting the connection. Not really familiar with his work.

Just a silly joke about a guy who presumably built his own place with his own labor and materials he gathered.

You should read the Unabomber manifesto. Interesting stuff. (Not an endorsement.)

.

"If so, it might make for a valuable perspective."

It might, but who would appreciate the value?

Elvis' post about what goes into building a house reminds me of a passage from Plato's Republic. I'll post it here for fun.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this Republic. Although the more I work through it, the more my feeling grows certain that it is to be read correctly as witty, subtle satire.

"The origin of the city, then,” said I, “in my opinion, is to be found in the fact that we do not severally suffice for our own needs, but each of us lacks many things. Do you think any other principle establishes the state?” “No other,” said he. “As a result of this, then, one man calling in another for one service and another for another, we, being in need of many things, gather many into one place of abode as associates and helpers, and to this dwelling together we give the name city or state, do we not?” “By all means.” “And between one man and another there is an interchange of giving, if it so happens, and taking, because each supposes this to be better for himself.” “Certainly.” “Come, then, let us create a city from the beginning, in our theory. Its real creator, as it appears, will be our needs.” “Obviously.”

“Now the first and chief of our needs is the provision of food for existence and life.” “Assuredly.” “The second is housing and the third is raiment and that sort of thing.” “That is so.” “Tell me, then,” said I, “how our city will suffice for the provision of all these things. Will there not be a farmer for one, and a builder, and then again a weaver? And shall we add thereto a cobbler and some other purveyor for the needs of body?” “Certainly.” “The indispensable minimum of a city, then, would consist of four or five men.” “Apparently.”

“What of this, then? Shall each of these contribute his work for the common use of all? I mean shall the farmer, who is one, provide food for four and spend fourfold time and toil on the production of food and share it with the others, or shall he take no thought for them and provide a fourth portion of the food for himself alone in a quarter of the time and employ the other three-quarters, the one in the provision of a house, the other of a garment, the other of shoes, and not have the bother of associating with other people, but, himself for himself, mind his own affairs?

And Adeimantus said, “But, perhaps, Socrates, the former way is easier.” “It would not, by Zeus, be at all strange,” said I; “for now that you have mentioned it, it occurs to me myself that, to begin with, our several natures are not all alike but different. One man is naturally fitted for one task, and another for another. Don't you think so?” “I do.” “Again, would one man do better working at many tasks or one at one?” “One at one,” he said. “And, furthermore, this, I fancy, is obvious—that if one lets slip the right season, the favorable moment in any task, the work is spoiled.” “Obvious.” “That, I take it, is because the business will not wait upon the leisure of the workman, but the workman must attend to it as his main affair, and not as a by-work.” “He must indeed.” “The result, then, is that more things are produced, and better and more easily when one man performs one task according to his nature, at the right moment, and at leisure from other occupations.” “By all means.” “Then, Adeimantus, we need more than four citizens for the provision of the things we have mentioned. For the farmer, it appears, will not make his own plough if it is to be a good one, nor his hoe, nor his other agricultural implements, nor will the builder, who also needs many; and similarly the weaver and cobbler.” “True.” “Carpenters, then, and smiths and many similar craftsmen, associating themselves with our hamlet, will enlarge it considerably.” “Certainly.” “Yet it still wouldn't be very large even if we should add to them neat-herds and shepherds and other herders, so that the farmers might have cattle for ploughing, and the builders oxen to use with the farmers for transportation, and the weavers and cobblers hides and fleeces for their use.”

“It wouldn't be a small city, either, if it had all these.” “But further,” said I, “it is practically impossible to establish the city in a region where it will not need imports.” “It is.” “There will be a further need, then, of those who will bring in from some other city what it requires.” “There will.” “And again, if our servitor goes forth empty-handed, not taking with him any of the things needed by those from whom they procure what they themselves require, he will come back with empty hands, will he not?” “I think so.” “Then their home production must not merely suffice for themselves but in quality and quantity meet the needs of those of whom they have need.” “It must.” “So our city will require more farmers and other craftsmen.” “Yes, more.” “And also of other ministrants who are to export and import the merchandise. These are traders, are they not? “ “Yes.” “We shall also need traders, then.” “Assuredly.” “And if the trading is carried on by sea, we shall need quite a number of others who are expert in maritime business.” “Quite a number.”

“But again, within the city itself how will they share with one another the products of their labor? This was the very purpose of our association and establishment of a state.” “Obviously,” he said, “by buying and selling.” “A market-place, then, and money as a token for the purpose of exchange will be the result of this.” “By all means.” “If, then, the farmer or any other craftsman taking his products to the market-place does not arrive at the same time with those who desire to exchange with him, is he to sit idle in the market-place and lose time from his own work?” “By no means,” he said, “but there are men who see this need and appoint themselves for this service—in well-conducted cities they are generally those who are weakest in body and those who are useless for any other task. They must wait there in the agora and exchange money for goods with those who wish to sell, and goods for money with as many as desire to buy.” “This need, then,” said I, “creates the class of shopkeepers in our city. Or is not shopkeepers the name we give to those who, planted in the agora, serve us in buying and selling, while we call those who roam from city to city merchants?” “Certainly.” “And there are, furthermore, I believe, other servitors who in the things of the mind are not altogether worthy of our fellowship, but whose strength of body is sufficient for toil; so they, selling the use of this strength and calling the price wages, are designated, I believe, wage-earners, are they not?” “Certainly.”

“Wage-earners, then, it seems, are the complement that helps to fill up the state.” “I think so.” “Has our city, then, Adeimantus, reached its full growth and is it complete?” “Perhaps.” “Where, then, can justice and injustice be found in it? And along with which of the constituents that we have considered does it come into the state?” “I cannot conceive, Socrates,” he said, “unless it be in some need that those very constituents have of one another.” “Perhaps that is a good suggestion,” said I; “we must examine it and not hold back.

First of all, then, let us consider what will be the manner of life of men thus provided. Will they not make bread and wine and garments and shoes? And they will build themselves houses and carry on their work in summer for the most part unclad and unshod and in winter clothed and shod sufficiently? And for their nourishment they will provide meal from their barley and flour from their wheat, and kneading and cooking these they will serve noble cakes and loaves on some arrangement of reeds or clean leaves, and, reclined on rustic beds strewn with bryony and myrtle, they will feast with their children, drinking of their wine thereto, garlanded and singing hymns to the gods in pleasant fellowship, not begetting offspring beyond their means lest they fall into poverty or war?”

Here Glaucon broke in: “No relishes apparently,” he said, “for the men you describe as feasting.” “True” said I; “I forgot that they will also have relishes—salt, of course, and olives and cheese and onions and greens, the sort of things they boil in the country, they will boil up together. But for dessert we will serve them figs and chickpeas and beans, and they will toast myrtle-berries and acorns before the fire, washing them down with moderate potations and so, living in peace and health, they will probably die in old age and hand on a like life to their offspring.”

And he said, “If you were founding a city of pigs, Socrates, what other fodder than this would you provide?” “Why, what would you have, Glaucon?” said I. “What is customary,” he replied; “They must recline on couches, I presume, if they are not to be uncomfortable, and dine from tables and have made dishes and sweetmeats such as are now in use.” “Good,” said I, “I understand. It is not merely the origin of a city, it seems, that we are considering but the origin of a luxurious city. Perhaps that isn't such a bad suggestion, either. For by observation of such a city it may be we could discern the origin of justice and injustice in states. The true state I believe to be the one we have described—the healthy state, as it were. But if it is your pleasure that we contemplate also a fevered state, there is nothing to hinder. For there are some, it appears, who will not be contented with this sort of fare or with this way of life; but couches will have to be added thereto and tables and other furniture, yes, and relishes and myrrh and incense and girls and cakes—all sorts of all of them. And the requirements we first mentioned, houses and garments and shoes, will no longer be confined to necessities, but we must set painting to work and embroidery, and procure gold and ivory and similar adornments, must we not?” “Yes,” he said. “Then we shall have to enlarge the city again. For that healthy state is no longer sufficient, but we must proceed to swell out its bulk and fill it up with a multitude of things that exceed the requirements of necessity in states, as, for example, the entire class of huntsmen, and the imitators, many of them occupied with figures and colors and many with music—the poets and their assistants, rhapsodists, actors, chorus-dancers, contractors—and the manufacturers of all kinds of articles, especially those that have to do with women's adornment. And so we shall also want more servitors. Don't you think that we shall need tutors, nurses wet and dry, beauty-shop ladies, barbers and yet again cooks and chefs? And we shall have need, further, of swineherds; there were none of these creatures in our former city, for we had no need of them, but in this city there will be this further need; and we shall also require other cattle in great numbers if they are to be eaten, shall we not?” “Yes.” “Doctors, too, are something whose services we shall be much more likely to require if we live thus than as before?” “Much.”

“And the territory, I presume, that was then sufficient to feed the then population, from being adequate will become too small. Is that so or not?” “It is.” “Then we shall have to cut out a cantle of our neighbor's land if we are to have enough for pasture and ploughing, and they in turn of ours if they too abandon themselves to the unlimited acquisition of wealth, disregarding the limit set by our necessary wants.” “Inevitably, Socrates.”

“We shall go to war as the next step, Glaucon—or what will happen?” “What you say,” he said. “And we are not yet to speak,” said I, “of any evil or good effect of war, but only to affirm that we have further discovered the origin of war, namely, from those things from which the greatest disasters, public and private, come to states when they come.” “Certainly.”

“Then, my friend, we must still further enlarge our city by no small increment, but by a whole army, that will march forth and fight it out with assailants in defence of all our wealth and the luxuries we have just described.” “How so?” he said; “are the citizens themselves not sufficient for it?” “Not if you,” said I, “and we all were right in the admission we made when we were molding our city. We surely agreed, if you remember, that it is impossible for one man to do the work of many arts well.” “True,” he said. “Well, then,” said I, “don't you think that the business of fighting is an art and a profession?” “It is indeed,” he said. “Should our concern be greater, then, for the cobbler's art than for the art of war?” “By no means.” “Can we suppose, then, that while we were at pains to prevent the cobbler from attempting to be at the same time a farmer, a weaver, or a builder instead of just a cobbler, to the end that we might have the cobbler's business well done, and similarly assigned to each and every one man one occupation, for which he was fit and naturally adapted and at which he was to work all his days, at leisure from other pursuits and not letting slip the right moments for doing the work well, and that yet we are in doubt whether the right accomplishment of the business of war is not of supreme moment? Is it so easy that a man who is cultivating the soil will be at the same time a soldier and one who is practising cobbling or any other trade, though no man in the world could make himself a competent expert at draughts or the dice who did not practise that and nothing else from childhood but treated it as an occasional business? And are we to believe that a man who takes in hand a shield or any other instrument of war springs up on that very day a competent combatant in heavy armor or in any other form of warfare—though no other tool will make a man be an artist or an athlete by his taking it in hand, nor will it be of any service to those who have neither acquired the science of it nor sufficiently practised themselves in its use?” “Great indeed,” he said, “would be the value of tools in that case."

Elvis » Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:48 pm wrote:I was wondering: Hypothetically, can I borrow Bitcoin from someone? At what interest rate? Curious how people would acquire bitcoin to, say, finance a business.

Meant to come back to this question. Then I saw this dropped today:

https://www.theinvestorspodcast.com/bit ... ark-yusko/

On today’s show, we talk about Bitcoin borrowing and lending with Blockfi’s CEO, Zac Prince. Additionally, Preston was accompanied by Blockfi investor, Mark Yusko from Morgan Creek Capital Management.

IN THIS EPISODE, YOU’LL LEARN:
What are the basics of how Bitcoin lending works
What is over-collateralization
What are some of the risks w/ Blockfi
How does Blockfi protect against institutional lending that isn’t over-collateralized
How does Blockfi manage the escrow for depositors
What is the future going to bring for Blockfi
Does Zac Prince think lending rates will go higher

JackRiddler » Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:23 am wrote:

dada » Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:42 am wrote:You don't say. I had no idea how difficult it is to build a house. You know, I just beamed down to planet earth only yesterday.

If so, it might make for a valuable perspective.

Why is Ted here? I'm not getting the connection. Not really familiar with his work.

Just a silly joke about a guy who presumably built his own place with his own labor and materials he gathered.

You should read the Unabomber manifesto. Interesting stuff. (Not an endorsement.)

.

I knew Gil Murray, the last guy murdered by Ted K. Gil was a TA in the first forestry class I took at Cal in early 70s and he later managed the Cal school forest, Blodgett, before taking Bill Denison's position as Ex Dir of the California Forestry Association, a timber industry trade group (National Forest timber purchasers not foresters that changed their name from Western Timber Association to CFA under advice of a consultant using focus groups), and getting blown up by a package addressed to Bill Denison. In either early 91 or 92, I was on a panel with Gil and a Fed Scientist that lead the then Forest Survey in Sacramento at the Western Hardwood Associations convention in Sacramento. Last time I saw or spoke to Gil was at that convention, later the California Licensed Forester's Association had an annual Gil Murray Ski Competition after his murder.

Alison McDowell | Human Capital Markets, Cellular Colonization, and the Virtualization of Reality




Scary and sick... as in, 'soul sick' ...

Grizzly » Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:34 pm wrote:Alison McDowell | Human Capital Markets, Cellular Colonization, and the Virtualization of Reality

McDowell has done a lot of homework and brings a lot of great information, but she falls into a common trap. Let me emphasize the word trap.

Early on, around the 9:20 mark, she outlines what she sees as the basic dilemma igniting the Great Reset:

The government does not have the money to cover these needs...The poor have very little income to pay in taxes...so the government cannot meet the needs of the people.

That's backwards. Any analysis proceeding from that assumption will be flawed—if not doomed—because it perpetuates the nefarious myth that money is a private creation. She didn't say resources, or goods and services; she said, "government doesn't have the money." Of course this is incorrect; money is one thing the government can never run out of.

By conceding the money power to private interests, McDowell renders us helpless against corporate giants—

Google and Goldman Sachs are your government now, by the way.

Well...no, they're not. I understand her point about the outsize power of big business, but she ignores the hierachy of authority (and money), where government is at the top. Almost everything that follows in her analysis skews the lens in favor of the private predator, to whom government must go begging for revenues.

Have I talked about that word, revenue? Revenue means go back or send back—because taxes were money people sent back to the issuing authority; taxes go back to the government that first spent them. Thus it has even been.

You want to be the one to make the rules... that is the position of power.

This is correct. But McDowell needs to understand that money is a creature of the state, engineered into existence by rules—rules that "we" make. The myth that the US government "doesn't have the money" only erases public power.


"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is the one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it." —John Kenneth Galbraith


Zooming back a bit, I want to post this interview somewhere in full later, and meanwhile if anyone wants to unroll the text and start the discussion, feel free. For now I'll just post the link—it's pertinent, and full of profound insights:

Money as a Constitutional Project with Christine Desan
https://moneyontheleft.org/2021/01/01/m ... e-desan-2/

.

She'd probably be the first to admit she's no economist.

What about the rest of her points?

Also:

money is a creature of the state, engineered into existence by rules—rules that "we" make.

Who's "we"?

And are The People, broadly, better off now than in prior years? Or are things getting incrementally worse over time for the average American?

There is how things are supposed to work in theory (reportedly), and then how things work in practice.

(And then there is the overt messaging of how a given system is supposed to work in practice, ostensibly as a benefit to the majority. The reality, once enacted, often differs from its presentation, however. Election campaigns and most proposed legislation are clear-cut examples of this).

So much of our system relies on convincing the public to buy into dubious propositions. Marketing, a critical cornerstone of any hyper-capitalist empire. We see it in on display every day in finance, healthcare, and of course, business and media.

For all practical purposes, it's getting increasingly difficult for Average Jane and Joe to have a decent living, and now we have the prospect of less agency, less privacy, less employment opportunities, and tighter controls than ever in the years ahead ---- unless of course The People awaken, collectively, from their induced conditioning.

.

Who's "we"?

When writing my post, I started to define that, but really, c'mon—we all know how it works, the caveats, the limitations etc. I don't need to spell it out here. The quote marks should signal that.

What about the rest of her points?

I gave her credit for the good information, but again, the analysis ultimately falls short when it begins with a bad assumption. I think she's great! It's just that—

So much of our system relies on convincing the public to buy into dubious propositions.

— and I think the #1 dubious propostion is that the government has to get its money from taxing or borrowing:

"As a matter of basic logic, it is impossible to tax or borrow money that has not already been placed into circulation."

From: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3536440

.

Fair points.

the larger frustration (for lack of a better word at the moment) is that it appears our system (or perhaps, those involved in pulling the levers) rely on fuzzy-at-best awareness of the underpinning mechanisms -- and this is a big problem not only in economics, but as we've clearly seen in the past ~year+ (and arguably, historically), in broader areas of healthcare/public policy/civil liberties as well.

Keeping the majority misdirected, divided, and fearful. Critical ingredients for any totalitarian agenda.

If her entire understanding of taxes, debt, and money, and how it all works together, is erroneous, how accurate could her overall dystopian analysis be? It is useless, although she mentions several areas to focus upon. Wellness of a society redesigned capitalist system must come to be, perhaps after, as I have predicted to occur in 15 months time, the collapse of the international bond market and all fiat currencies become worthless. I certainly do not disagree with her regarding which areas of need will be encumbering on national debt, but throughout all, she retains a sense of privilege.

Sure, there are those who will gladly accept implants, if they believe they'll give them an advantage over competitors and co-workers. How plugged-in to social networks are you, your friends and your kids? Who among your associates has the hottest, new phone? These will be those first in line to get their AI implant, if they believe it will benefit them. My landlord was telling me about his cool wristwatch that reads his heart rate and blood oxygen levels, which horrifies me. Greed to individually succeed financially is what needs to be altered to something quite the opposite, wellbeing for all.

Take our military budget - please! Just one year's budget could bring some relief to a great part of our society that has long been neglected and/or discriminated against. A universal guaranteed income will surely become a reality, right along with single payer healthcare, the madness of which I've recently become enveloped. Once everyone has safe housing with free access to healthcare and a guaranteed, free education and a nutritious diet guaranteed, we will be on the right path to begin rebuilding our futile feudal society.

Change doesn't come easily. We will meet greed-driven opposition at every new proposal suggested to bring such desperately needed change about. I do not believe blockchain currency will succeed; it's electronic and as undependable. Imagine you are deeply invested and sense a spike coming before a drop in value, do you bail now, cash in your chits, or do you push it as far as you can while watching its value grow?

Then the power goes out where you live; your phone service suddenly stops working just as you're about to cash out, so you try two days later, when your services return and find you're unable to access blockchain, but from other sources you find the value of bitcoin tanked, causing you a great loss in value should BC once again operating and total loss if it doesn't. Worst that could happen with gold is that it would drop in price dramatically, causing you to lose a great deal of value - but you've still got a lump of gold in your pocket and gold will always hold some value, little as that might be.

.

I feel I need to clarify a comment in my prior response. When I mentioned Elvis raised "fair points", it should not be interpreted as broad agreement.

whatever Alison McDowell reportedly may not grasp with respect to govt taxing or borrowing does not take away from her years-long research into the other topics/points of interest she raises. Of course, she's not the only person digging into the aims of the WEF and this would-be 'Great Reset', however realized these aims may or may not be in the near or long term.

Focusing on her point(s) specific to money and rendering a hand-waving dismissal of the rest of her ample contributions is very much 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. I'm not a fan of this tactic, needless to say. And again, hers is not the only voice on this topic. Others have been calling this out as well. (Be warned, however: their grasp on the concept of ' how money works' will vary on a case-by-case basis).

Remember: the Machines of Oppression will continue to press down on the Many, regardless of how one may be able to articulate or understand the inner-workings of the machinery involved.

With respect to blockchain tech: it's already here, it's already being implemented. It's going to play a pivotal role in whatever manifestation of digital currencies (CBDCs) or tracking/surveillance tech is enacted by Nation States.

To be clear, one of the key points of contention here isn't what a consumer may choose to purchase or adopt. Consumers can purchase or adopt whatever new technology they have the means to acquire (and surely this will be encouraged). The interest here is what sort of new policies/laws/mandates should we expect in the years ahead specific to blockchain/digital currency technology, and what are the primary drivers for these actions? Will they be to the benefit, or the detriment, of the Average Citizen? One must first arm themselves with knowledge and awareness of acts of subjugation before any viable efforts to curtail or prevent such affronts can be successful. This is what I meant, in part, when I typed:

Keeping the majority misdirected, divided, and fearful. Critical ingredients for any totalitarian agenda.

The phrase 'in the dark' should be added somewhere in that quote as well.

Lastly: we already discussed this would-be scenario of losing power. There's yet to be a scenario where power has been lost across a wide geographical area for an extended period of time such that the price of digital currency, or the value of blockchain tech, would be tested in any noticeable way. In any event, local outages will not make the digital currency "disappear". It'll still be there. Even if prices drop as a result of a non-permanent power loss -- and prices have already dropped many times, though to this point prices remain substantially higher than any comparable investment initiated in 2008 -- the likelihood is prices will come back up as long as the demand and technology is still there, and certainly, no temporary "power loss" is going to curtail current momentum. Anyway, how many people have access, currently -- within reach -- to cold hard cash or precious metals? And of those that do, how much do they have? How many rely on credit cards and ATMS? The majority that rely on FIAT currency would be just as impacted by power loss -- arguably even more so, since digital currency has yet to reach anything approaching mass adoption.

Now, if there's an EMP that wipes out multiple power grids -- hell, ALL power grids, FOREVER -- then the value of bitcoin will be the least of anyone's concern. But the chances of that happening any time soon is the same as man reaching Mars within any of our lifetimes.

Frankly, an EMP blast would arguably be to the benefit of the human race, at this point. Get us back to a more agrarian lifestyle, connected to the earth and each other, rather than devices and screens... and above all, it would mean the death of the propaganda-riddled internet. Oh, the horrors that would follow. Many may not survive without access to Google.

("how can I make a fire without Google outlining the steps??")


.

.

Lest anyone doubt the implementation of blockchain tech, see this 'pilot phase' rollout below.
Merely the first of many steps to follow.

Many will surely be A-OK with sharing their personal health information with these corporate entities. It'll all be encrypted, don't worry! (As someone that works in this space, know that your PHI can be hacked regardless of encryption claims. And then, of course, IBM will keep your info stored in their databases, regardless).

Despite this latest intrusion to personal information/privacy, at least in NY masks and 'social distancing' will still be required despite the covid negative result and/or proof of vaccine jab.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/govern ... garden-and

The Excelsior Pass and its companion verification app are built on IBM's Digital Health Pass solution and is designed to enable the verification of health credentials such as test results and vaccination records. Using blockchain technology, individuals will be able to voluntarily share their health status through an encrypted digital wallet on their smartphone without the need to share underlying medical and personal information. The technology is flexible and built to scale, allowing other states to join and help foster a safer, trusted transition to a post-pandemic reality.

Entry into sports arenas will not be permitted without this 'proof'.


The fringe 'conspiracy theories' of the late 90s/early 2000s have practically all come to pass in the last year...

I remember thinking, back then, "no way will people just agree to this! They'll refuse, resist!".

Well, here we are. And far from pushing back en masse, refusal and/or resistance is far from the norm.

Conditioning and propaganda, over time, will do that to a populace.

.....................................................................

.

All that aside, fully agree with the following, from IAM:

Greed to individually succeed financially is what needs to be altered to something quite the opposite, wellbeing for all.

Unfortunately, the underpinnings of the system greatly incentivize the former (Greed, unchecked) while suppressing the latter (well-being for all).

This can be changed, of course, but the reality is that it will likely not occur until after this current zeitgeist is fully expressed. By this I mean, things will likely get worse before they will get better, and there's a good chance "better" won't happen, at least not en masse, within our allotted timeframes. But individually, or at the community-level, well-being can be achieved. That's likely our best bet.