ANewFormation

You're fundamentally misunderstanding in a way akin to arguing that 'I've seen no evidence that destroyed homes cause tornadoes.'

The US printing money doesn't allow it to export its inflation, but rather exporting inflation allows the US to print far more money than other countries without comparable inflation. In fact we even relatively economically weaken other countries in the process of it.

This is why countries with comparable debt to GDP ratios are generally in very poor economic shape while the US is near its economic peak in most typical measurements.

But this superpower is fading in ways you presumably now understand, but the decades of money printer go whrrrr, and the unbelievable debt hole it left, remains.

Trying to handle a debt whose interest alone has now exceeded a trillion dollars a year is not going to be realistically possible without funny money or the emergence of some new economy booming industry akin to the birth of computing/internet.

They're in fact now the 5th largest economy [1], behind Russia and India. And they'll keep going down.

And this was the point - the reason you are able to use them as an example of a country that endlessly prints money without being ravaged by the countless problems places like the US have suffered since 1971 is because their economy is basically frozen in time. This is undesirable.

The ideal one wants is an economy that can increase at a healthy rate without being ravaged by everything we've seen since 1971. And what's the solution? Practically everything before 1971!

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...

It would be a good idea to site your facts rather than relying on instinct, because I suspect you write be surprised.

For instance this [1] is the US monetary supply. If we only dump money on the economy when "bad things are happening" then it must be assumed that really bad things are always happening, and at a rapidly accelerating rate.

And similarly Wiki has a passable section on the history of wealth inequality in the US [2] : "In the late 18th century, “incomes were more equally distributed in colonial America than in any other place that can be measured,” according to Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson. The richest 1 percent of households held only 8.5% of total income in the late 18th century...

In 1860, the top 1 percent collected almost one-third of property incomes, as compared to 13.7% in 1774. There was a great deal of competition for land in the cities and non-frontier areas during this time period, with those who had already acquired land becoming richer than everyone else. The newly burgeoning financial sector also greatly rewarded the already-wealthy, as they were the only ones financially sound enough to invest.[19]"

And once again many of the problems with our current system are already highly visible, completely quantified, and have clear causal backings.

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...

It could also simply have been impotence that he did not want to acknowledge.

Made perhaps even more likely with Antoinette's alleged proclivities, her children's questionable paternity, and so on.

Also the [general] requirement for a unanimous vote to convict makes this form of juror action quite uncommon. By contrast a single juror can cause a jury to be unable to convict.

Do you understand what others (who may not agree with you) think of your arguments when you use extremely hyperbolic language to describe things that do not appear to justify such?

The Boy Who Cried Wolf is an excellent tale I regularly read to my children. The moral is one of the utmost importance.

There is one straight forward causal mechanism - excessive money printing sends the monetary supply skyrocketing and directly drives inflation.

It's not hard to deal with inflation for the wealthy. You will generally have substantial wealth invested in inflation resistant appreciating assets, businesses can pass the inflation on to the customer, and so on.

But for labor it's a different story. Not only do you suffer far more from price increases with little in the way of offsetting assets, but inflation allows wages to 'secretly' grow stagnant or even decrease.

What I mean is that since e.g. 2020, the CPI has increased by 18%. So if you're not earning at least 18% more, you're more earning less than you did in 2020.

Without inflation this doesn't work. Workers' raises would actually increase their real earnings.

It's not hard to see how this single issue causally drives much of what happened in 1971 (and beyond.)

Notably the excessive money printing began somewhat before 1971 which is what caused the default that eventually happened in 71.

Because it was mostly being astroturfed. Democracy obviously isn't going to end in any way, shape, or fashion under Trump.

And so the organizations pushing these lies need to move onto the next lies to keep the rage and fear going. Maybe this time around it'll be Trump is secretly controlled by China - must be why he reversed the TikTok ban.

His campaign is large enough that there's probably some guy in it, no more than a degree or two separation away, banging a Chinese spy a la Eric Swalwell. Tie it to Trump, start a new committee of absurdity and away we go.

It'd actually provide some logic to banning TikTok which was just politically absurd when Trump would predictably reverse that, to much fanfare.

This is not necessarily just a matter of perception if society is indeed generally on a downward arc.

This sounds melodramatic yet it's quite trivial to list countless things that have become much worse, while it's somewhat more difficult to list things that have become much better.

It's the issue with economic/technological development as the main milestone. Would you rather live as an aristocrat in Ancient Greece, or in poverty in the US today? Basically nobody would pick the latter choice but by the things we would typically list as better, a person in poverty today would have while our Ancient Greek could only dream of such. But it seems there's more to life than smartphones, medicine, and air conditioning.

So many modern problems can be traced to 1971. [1] That is the year that the US defaulted on our obligations under Bretton Woods effectively ending the system and causing currencies to become completely fiat, enabling governments to effectively print unlimited funny money.

This perverts capitalism so hard because you now end up with tens of trillions of dollars being dumped into the economy in horribly inefficient ways and so behaviors that make one likely to get some of this become far more economically relevant than just making the best product.

Our current economic system is obviously completely unsustainable at this point and may well end up being one of the shortest lived economic experiments ever. That's particularly ironic because, as you alluded to, for most of everybody alive today this is just how it's always been!

[1] - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

He's making tens of millions of Americans (especially including those who may not have otherwise been political) quite fond of him, bringing back a platform that has definitely been a net positive for him overall, undoing one of his predecessors 'achievements', and so on.

He came out against a ban on TikTok long ago (after initially being in support) and made it clear he'd work to reverse it the second the ban bill started gaining momentum.

People don't care about most things because there are a practically infinite number of things one could care about.

But when you ban something 9 figures of people happily use, with some small chunk of that even being people making a living off of it, people will care about that because it directly and visibly affects them.

Indeed, and I suspect as more people learn about jury nullification, the world will grow more just.

An important difference is that a jury acquittal is not saying you think the defendant is innocent, but rather that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence is assumed.

You could think somebody is probably guilty but also feel obligated to acquit them. For a famous example I somehow doubt all the OJ Simpson jurors thought he was innocent, but he was acquitted nonetheless.

Of your primary interests in life where would you rank ESPN+? Now multiply that by $12 to get an overall impact since presumably you would be willing to pay at least as much for things you value more highly.

This is why "just" $x per month is, in general, not a sustainable model for most things for most people and why 'piracy' is booming again.

Which recourses are you talking about? It was mostly a classic witch hunt in that they were charged without evidence, presumed guilty, and then told to prove that they were not a witch.

It's a tried and true method to find witches.

Erm... TikTok has longform content.

What I'm saying is that those are people counted as "knowing English" since the typical way such things are measured is self response. Nowhere remotely near the peecents stated for many countries is accurate.

China's also been pushing Mandarin lately and claim 85%.

CIA gives 18.8%, so about 1.5 billion. [1]

But this number is dubious as it's largely from self response. Here [2] is a list by country. So 25% of Thais, 50% of Ukrainians, 50% of Poles, and so on "speak English."

In the sense of being able to say hello, thank you, and introduce themselves that is probably true. But "my name is Bob" maketh not a common tongue. If we narrowed it down to the percent of people that could hold a basic conversation, the number would plummet precipitously, likely leaving Mandarin at the top.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_languages...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...

It's not like Russia is a closed country, nor is inflation difficult to measure. Third parties don't simply take Russian figures at face value, which is why the numbers from e.g. the World Bank will vary slightly from those of the IMF and then vary once again from the official figures, and so on.

When the Russian economy was briefly under substantial strain when the huge sanctions attack first landed and the ruble fell rapidly, not only did their official numbers reflect this, but they had a more negative expectation than third parties!

For that matter there are a zillion videos you can watch on YouTube of people doing walking tours through various supermarkets and places looking at the availability/prices of stuff. Here's one from some lady a month ago that clearly leans ideologically Western, but nonetheless affirms prices to be somewhat lower than would be expected from the official rates, while complaining about it - https://youtube.com/watch?v=m01-iYSPDt0

Made even sillier if you're aware of Russia's economic history since the end of the 90s. Their economy has for decades been seeing substantial inflation (5-10%) yet even more substantial wage growth. So complaining about prices without even mentioning the change in wages is the sort of behaviour one should expect from people of this sort of bias.

You're not going crazy, they are. But even once things start falling apart, inertia alone can give the appearance of productive movement for years to come.

This is probably why when somebody looks to try to find the cause for e.g. the collapse of the Roman Empire there were a surprisingly large number of potentially serious issues all happening simultaneously.

The reason is that the empire probably collapsed decades before its fall and so the stupid decisions and actions all continued to pile up, seemingly without consequence. All until the inertia finally ran out and suddenly the entire house of cards came crashing down.

I'm about as big a SpaceX fanboy as possible, and still find this a remarkable achievement.

You simply can't sim your way to a successful landing because there's too many unknown unknowns. Note on this launch it seems they even fubared the thrust:weight ratio a bit right off the pad, and that's normal.

This stuff is hard to do, and them getting to orbit in one shot is a great indicator of where they might be headed.

I'd love to see a competent competitor to SpaceX because that'll just get us to Mars (and beyond) that much faster.

Let's assume what you're saying is true, though I'm sure you realize you're being rather hyperbolic, at a minimum.

I think the purpose of school is to teach the fundamentals - reading, writing and arithmetic in particular.

I don't really care what worldview a school endorses so long as they are completely transparent on it.

Young Earth theory and creationism is one side of a coin - 80 genders, intersectionalism, and critical theory is the other.

If a parent is down with these worldviews, I see no problem so long as the school is excelling at their primary educational responsibilities, and also making their ideological motives transparent to parents.

The thing is - the average school is terrible. NAEP scores show less than 25% reach "basic" proficiency in math, and reading is even worse.

I can't find any comparable stats on just religious schools, but I strongly suspect they are, on average, performing substantially better than non-religious schools. The reasons for that are more to do with the students than the schools, but the exact reason is inconsequential - the point is that people are targeting them because of the religious aspect and not the quality of education.

The typical claim of evolution is illogical. Even if a religious school solely and exclusively taught creationism while not even paying lip service to the controversy (which few to none do), it's not at all like a child's education would be permanently crippled. As the most important things learned in basic education are not facts, but skills - reading, writing, and arithmetic in particular.

Many Catholic high schools are also among the highest performing in the country.

The claims around religious education are one of the biggest remaining examples of socially acceptable bigotry.

You need to contrast suggested ideas to the current systems, not an idealized standard that the current system is nowhere near achieving.

For instance NAEP scores consistently demonstrate only about 25% of students achieve "basic" proficiency in math, reading is even worse. Its going to be difficult to do worse.

And I mean that very literally - some percent of people would become competent in e.g. basic math with 0 public education due to family or personal interests. I can't imagine it's "that" far from 25%.

A big difference to whom?

When I judge an educational institution I could not care less why some child being significantly disruptive is tolerated, even slightly. That institution simply becomes a non starter for a place I might send my children.

Of course parents who don't care about such things, or don't have the luxury of being able to choose, would accept such things. As would those who themselves have 'problem children.' Now think about what this does to the quality of that institution over time.

And after the article was unflagged, it became one of the most upvoted topics.

Vouching relies on visibilty while flagging dramatically reduces visibility.

I think the big shift was in cancel culture, doxing, swatting, and all that stuff starting to rise, which is all relatively recent.

A moralistic ideology acting holier than thou is nothing new. In the 80s (and for sure time after) evangelicals had their "Moral Majority."

But nobody really cares until an ideology starts regularly driving harmful actions, at which point there starts to be a lot more push back.