I think the restrictions that Europe has placed on social media should be done in the US too. The EU is trying like hell to save their citizens from going down the rabbit hole along with the US. We in the US should be so smart!! Sooner rather than later!!!
The EU has stricter rules about digital privacy that apply to insurance companies as well. Not coincidentally, American insurance corporations have been quite supportive of Trump. They might reconsider their gung-ho support for this moron once they reckon with the damage he inflicts on the broader economy with tariffs and other abuses of power, but hard to say. How dare those foreigners challenge our America first agenda!!
“Meta internally projected late last year that it would earn about 10% of its overall annual revenue – or $16 billion – from running advertising for scams and banned goods, internal company documents show.”
This is unbelievable. People trust the ads because they believe those platforms are reputable. Clearly, they’re not.
Scamming as a business model! You can’t make this stuff up.
Meta is earning a fortune on a deluge of fraudulent ads, documents show
Meta projected 10% of its 2024 revenue would come from ads for scams and banned goods, documents seen by Reuters show. And the social media giant internally estimates that its platforms show users 15 billion scam ads a day. Among its responses to suspected rogue marketers: charging them a premium for ads – and issuing reports on ’Scammiest Scammers.’
I would say more "scandalous" than "unbelievable".
The role of govt (should be) is to support the population, by encouraging or supplying necessary needs and preventing avoidable harm.
Thus natural monopolies like health care are best delivered with strong protective regulation and one-payer systems, as happens in every stable country in the world.
Note that implies that I am saying that the US is not stable in that regard.
Health care in the US is more expensive than health care in other rich countries, but leaves many out.
As well, the wild wild west gun laws are failing in their task.
So Trump's excesses are not entirely new, although he pushes to a new extreme.
Now, there will be a 60 day period for comments (as if that matters?) before travelers from European countries, South Korea, basically countries that have Visa waivers to arrive in the US will have to give five years of social media history, all current & former email addresses, places of birth of all immediate family members etc. before entering the US under the pretense of "national security". That will only apply to commercial flights, because do you actually think the wealthy who fly on private planes to those private plane airports actually have to deal with TSA? I'd like to know. There goes World Cup, because if I was a foreigner, screw dealing with TSA as "cattle". We're next with the new McCarthy authoritarians looking for antifa. The plan is to turn the US into a social credit system like China through DOGE & Palantir...it was already in action before Trump, as Google had installed the air port wifi in the European airport I was in last December that set my gmail address now displayed on my browser. Oligarchs don't like US citizens seeing how good Europe's social safety net is and we are to all be peasants believing all the dumb bs being told to us as is being told to those Pocono, PA people at the casino. It's going to be like the world wars era all over again. Too bad Franco & Stalin didn't suffer the same fate as Hitler & Mussolini. That might be something that those in charge might want to consider when 30%+ of the population begins to feel gas lighted at being fleeced.
Money in politics supports mega corporations including social media and AI giants who are destroying America.
Voters are waking up angry at politicians in government who have ignored affordability for decades and a new generation of progressive Democrats can get elected in 2026 and 2028 with solutions that are funded with new taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
For 50 years the federal government controlled by the wealthy has been taking and stealing wealth from 95% of people and giving it to the top 5% mostly to the top 0.01%. The wealth transfer needs to be stopped and fair taxes restored. The tax rates for the top 1% and 5% in 2024 should be changed to what the tax rates were for the top 1% and 5% in 1965 with the tax rates for the 95% in 2024 remaining unchanged to what the rates were in 2024. That would create $1.3 trillion of new federal revenue for funding solutions to core problems including affordability of healthcare and housing.
The top U.S. federal corporate tax rate was 48% in 1965 compared to a flat rate of 21% today. Reset the corporate rate to what it was in 1965!
We need solutions to stop the wealthy control of politics manipulated by huge amounts of unlimited money. Repeal Citizens United. The solutions include affordable housing and healthcare.
Hi ElderyLoudCatWomyn. Thank you for this post. The story which you cite shows us how much ‘unintended consequences’ are multiplied, in volume as well as in severity of outcome, when a platform goes global. Unlike Miles del Vey’s comment/ reply, what I see is the vulnerability of being human, more than the culpability of being human. We can’t stop progress, we tell ourselves. The attempt by the Australian Government, let’s see how it plays out, and hopefully Australians and the rest of the world will learn how to improve on this first step. Even if we choose to smoke tobacco, it’s still legitimate to advertise openly that it causes harm to our health. I see the debate going in that direction. Thanks again for your post. Anthony.
"It's tragic that that boy died, but I'm gonna go ahead and say that if you die by suicide it is, in fact, your "fault," to the extent it's anyone's fault."
That's a pretty cynical take on suicide. Just as on example, there have been many kids driven to suicide by bullying on social media, sextortion of girls and boys, compromising or nude pictures posted for all the world to see, for instance. How is that the kid's fault?
it did at first urge the kid to get help, but in later stages discouraged him from leaving his home-made noose (that the bot helped him design) around the house so his parents would see it, i.e. a clear attempt to call for help. The bot by the late stages was completely facilitating the suicide.
These issues, and particularly US bullying of Europe (and everyone else) to allow American media to degrade everything, have been covered extensively for some time now by Cory Doctorow. Those interested should look through recent posts on his revelatory blog https://pluralistic.net/
If you are interested in getting an insider’s take on the extremely strange Zuckerberg and the management of Meta, read the book “Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism” by Sarah Wynn-Williams. It’s a wild story and very disturbing. Sheryl Sandberg doesn’t come off well, either. Here is a review of the book:
“I read ‘Careless People.’ Now I know why Mark Zuckerberg tried to ban the tell-all memoir:
However entitled you already thought these people were, they’re more so, according to Sarah Wynn-Williams in her memoir “Careless People.” “
Jonathon Haidt, his team, and the folks they collaborate with at After Babel also do an excellent job reporting and recounting the grotesque effects of social media and tech.
Well as H.L. Mencken said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Further Mencken, for all his faults, commented extensively on a public susceptibility to manipulation by demagogic leaders inclined toward authoritarianism.
Unless the demagogue was German. His quips during WWI that Germany should run Europe were tolerated. His pro Hitler stance cost him his position at the Baltimore Sun. “Marriage is a fine institution but who wants to live in an institution?”
The Australians today have brought in a social media ban for under 16s. I don’t remember them being described in the National Security Strategy as an enemy, but then Russia does not have designs on Australia, I presume.
I think a well done advertising campaign targeted at teens might be a better idea. There were some very effective ad campaigns to lessen smoking. Prohibitions, especially with teens can be counter-productive.
Oh Karel…give him (Trump et al) time….they’ll find something to screech about the Australians one day. Somehow, with Trump, it’s always ‘the others’ who are at fault….! Anthony
In the larger scheme of things, not that much money is being spent by donors. The donors, big and not so big, spent $16 billion in 2024 and $10 billion in 2022. Average over 4 years: $6+ billion a year to control a $6 TRILLION government and $30 TRILLION economy!!!
For about 1/10th of 1% of the federal budget (mostly paid by wealthy and successful people, given our progressive income tax) a federal campaign finance voucher program would put dollar power back in the hands of voters. Look at what Seattle did to utterly transform its local political scene by spending less than $3 a year to control its $9 billion a year budget.
Who opposed it there and freaks out wherever it has been proposed elsewhere?? The business special interests. That’s who.
Who thinks vouchers would be a good idea? Any person who learns of them. Right, Left or middle. In fact, the MAGA folk, who already feel “the system” is out to get them, are especially enthusiastic.
Problem? Influencers like Krugman and Heater Richardson are all focused on Citizens United and the Supreme Court instead of asking Congress to pass a simple law and peel off a modest $6 billion a year to save our democracy
This. One of the reasons I don't read too many posts is that doing so gets the blood pressure up. One more person telling me what the problems are and "we need to..., if we just could..., if a law could be passed to.., we need to call our representative and tell them.., all we need to do is...." and I'll take a long walk off a short pier.
Me too for the past 40 years. Good idea, maybe after 2026 voting (if we're allowed). Public funding has always been the solution for me but for politicians not so much. To give up that lobbying money (aka bribes) is a little beyond the pale for them. Plus manipulating public funds is probably a violation of Federal law.
The reason we have those politicians (so many of them) is that an awful lot of voters don’t trust government…not just this government, any government. That goes along with not trusting publicly financed anything, aside from the necessities that they can easily ignore.
Susan: Yes. "...passing a simple law" seems out of sight right now. But a hell of a lot more achievable than passing a constitutional amendment (the current focus of most "liberal" advocates) or even impeaching a bunch of the court's current occupants.
All that is needed is a big enough win in 2026. Think about what I said - the voucher concept can be explained in a sentence or two and appeals to ALL voters, MAGA or the wildest-eyed leftists. And everyone in between. Tie dollars to your vote and watch the politicians (left, right, middle) scramble to start listening again.
But, you say, we will still be locked into a Senate that was configured with the "original sin" that gives small population states the same voting power as large ones. Well, a big enough win in the midterms (60 senators or more) could allow the Senate to pass a revised filibuster rule. The filibuster (especially the rule change in 1972 that allowed silent "holds" to allow the Senate to proceed to other business while any "held" measure quietly withers) has increasingly locked up the Senate since at least Bill Clinton's time.
What sustains this foolishness? Our campaign finance system means that our Senators just do not have time to spend debating the public business. They MUST be out sitting in phone cubicles schmoozing donors (or, now, on their cell phones sitting in the Congressional parking garage).
With vouchers, this money-raising time burden would be mostly lifted.
A big enough majority could make a rule change to go back to the "talking filibuster". A talking filibuster that is impossible with our current campaign finance system.
With a big enough win (60 or more) Senators could make another change to the filibuster rule - instead of counting all senators as having one vote, the "counting rule" could give every Senator the number of votes on filibusters that his state had House members. Bring a significant bit of Democracy back into our most undemocratic institution.
Could there be a 60-vote majority in 2026? Bring on campaign finance vouchers and watch the public suddenly get excited about voting again. Watch them respond to candidates who advocate for bringing real power to voters. Watch them turn away from candidates who offer lame excuses for not supporting vouchers and who instead try to explain why our government should be run by wealthy donors.
True power to the people. We have watched our donor-focused politicians (not just Donald Trump or the Republicans) let the public get screwed long enough. We have watched them refuse to raise taxes or control spending so we are faced with a federal debt so large we may not be able to withstand a crash in our over-extended AI bubble.
We can do this if we can get leaders like Krugman to listen.
It's not a surprise that our governments and courts can be bought. It's a surprise that they can be bought so cheaply. The wealthy and big corporations have a fantastic return on investment in politicians. They bought the government and darned if they aren't going to use it for their benefit.
I understand that it is mostly the wealthy. Actual corporate giving (the focus of Citizens United) is relatively modest. Instead, it is giving by the owners and managers of those corporations. So, reversing CU would not change the money flow very much. CU? mostly much ado about not too much.
On the other hand, the wealthy (of any party or no party) just do not see the world via the same experience lens as the average voter or non-voter. That has kept our legislation (little as it has been) aimed like a laser on things that benefit the wealthy. The ACA and Inflation Protection Act? Better than nothing, but poor substitutes for what could have been done, starting when we pretty much ignored the catastrophic job losses in our rural areas starting in the 1990s. Setting up the entrance of Donald Trump.
Vouchers are not popular because 1) taxpayers envision better uses for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and 2) they know that politicians would just pocket the cash while continuing to benefit from unlimited corporate funding by "unrelated" Super PAC's. After all, has anyone EVER been convicted of violating FEC anti-coordination rules?
Today's headline could as well have been for an article about crypto. The operative phrase is "rule of law is for the little people." Everywhere you look, that is the guiding "principle." One-person one-vote is just window dressing. It may seem inconvenient, but it's a very effective disguise.
Good response. Thanks, George. Passionate types like me need to hear that kind of pushback. Let me try to answer.
First, I wish I had a chance to understand what you already know about vouchers. Then I could better understand where you get your feeling that " 1) taxpayers envision better uses for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and 2) they know that politicians would just pocket the cash while continuing to benefit from unlimited corporate funding by 'unrelated' Super PAC's. After all, has anyone EVER been convicted of violating FEC anti-coordination rules?"
Over my limited experiences explaining vouchers to others (to be clear, I'm a nobody so most people have no reason to listen to me - and my hairdo can be a bit wild), I have rarely gotten reaction #1. Whereas it sounds like you have been at least thinking about them some. I HAVE occasionally gotten reactions somewhat like #2, but mostly just skepticism that something so intuitive and simple as vouchers could actually work. Could we have really gotten into the mess we are in when something this straightforward was available? Well, yes, while vouchers already work in Seattle, we are asking our politicians to make a huge leap-of-faith: to risk losing their sucking-for-dear-life grip on the usual donor teats.
Re: #1 better uses for taxpayer money. We pay financial advisors between .3% and 1.3% to manage our retirement savings. We let banks keep almost all the interest they earn from our deposits. So does it make sense to spend 1/10 of 1% (.001) of our government's tax take to allow citizens to exert influence over that government? I think it does.
Re: #2 politicians pocketing the cash. Some have and are seeing the world from behind prison bars. The spending rules are pretty clear and enforceable. But anti-coordination rules? As you say, unenforceable. Why bother? I say: let us just outspend the usual donors by making every voter a donor. And stand back and watch the politicians openly brag about how their election was financed by the voters. And run away, as fast as they can, from Big Money that labels them as "bought" no matter if it was a direct donation or some "independent" messaging coming from a Super PAC. They will not usually need that "outside" money any longer.
Lack of money dooms. But once a candidate's message is "out there," saturation bombing of money will not buy an election result. The payoff for the wealthy and special interests is so large only because the voters have been left out. That payoff will always be there to some degree but will shrink considerably.
Please, George, can we continue this discussion? I'm actively trying to redo my May 2024 essay on how a voucher program should be configured. I need all the pushback I can find.
The EU also has extensive protocols for AI, which the US is also trying to get rid of. They are also a model for how we should be dealing with AI, and of course strongly opposed by Big Tech.
I'd like to see an organizational status imposed on social media companies with X amount of users and/or with accounts open to under 18. Nonprofits have specific structural regulations and income limitations on admin positions. Make these public companies with specific controls just for the type. Normally I would not argue to make this type of industry a public owned entity. But given our elected representatives have done nothing serious to control these companies or limit their profit seeking nor curb the harms... I say take back our elective power and democracy and then "reign in" the would be digital monarchy. Especially Musk.
That's the dilemma. To actually prevent kids from circumventing this law might require giving up all online privacy for everyone. So for now, they are only required to take "reasonable steps."
Admittedly I have no reasonable ideas to meet the need and absolutely hate the idea of a digital fingerprint of every child nationwide in the hands of Google (thus being sold to any bidder including the government--thanks to Dick the Cheney). But I do wonder about starting with the idea of automatically disabling a vehicle from starting up in the face of alcohol to having a home computer, with a device in control of the adults in the home, with a device that disables the computer with, say, a thumb print. Of course this implies a responsible adult to monitor the situation. Although a great incentive would be a hands-on demand to be aware of what the children of the home are a) interested in, and b) wanting to look at.
Paul is correct in highlighting the deliteriois, addictive effects of social media. Exploiting children is a significant piece of our GDP. Think of candy. Works on the same biological and neual pathways as opiates and sets kids up for a lifetime of chronic disease.
If Trump was honest, a concept that makes me gag, he would bomb tabacco companies that kill five times as many Americns as fentanyl, approx. 500 k per year.
Since these murders have started we hear nothing of Epstein, interesting.
In reality if we legalized opium in wine, laudanum, as was the case in the 1890's the drug problem would go away. Ppl. could cope, get help when they wanted and our jails would empty out.
But that wouldn't help keep the peasants controlled and big pharma. protected.
Paul is correct in highlighting the deliteriois, addictive effects of social media. Exploiting children is a significant piece of our GDP. Think of candy. Works on the same biological and neual pathways as opiates and sets kids up for a lifetime of chronic disease.
If Trump was honest, a concept that makes me gag, he would bomb tabacco companies that kill five times as many Americns as fentanyl, approx. 500 k per year.
Since these murders have started we hear nothing of Epstein, interesting.
In reality if we legalized opium in wine, laudanum, as was the case in the 1890's the drug problem would go away. Ppl. could cope, get help when they wanted and our jails would empty out.
But that wouldn't help keep the peasants controlled and big pharma. protected.
I think we should all be doing what Australia is doing with social media. Not only does it protect and benefit children, it has the added benefit of improving the quality of media online. An online ecosystem largely by and for the very young will inevitably lead to a decline in the overall quality and intellectual rigor of the platforms for all users. This is because the content standards are primarily influenced by trends catering to a less discerning audience.
A digital landscape predominantly driven by easily digestible and low-complexity content results in a general race to the bottom that negatively impacts the entire user base.
In Europe, we have safe food, reasonable (and much less costly) public health, better health and life expectancy, less inequality of wealth and income, better public transport, less corruption of our political representatives. I could go on…
If only you could stop exporting the rants of ignorant, ketamine-addled billionaires that think that, just because they are enormously rich, they are supermen…
I forgot to mention the fact that parents in Europe don't have to worry so much about their children getting killed at school by some psycho with assault weapons.
Annual ranking … It intends to reflect the degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations, and netizens have in each country, and the efforts made by authorities to respect this freedom.[3]
🔹 Reporters Without Borders notes that the WPFI only deals with press freedom and does not measure the quality of journalism in the countries it assesses, nor does it look at human rights violations in general.
It's great you live in Boston - guess what, most Americans don't. And enjoy the high prices and lack of coverage for so many in the US.
Reality: US ranks somewhere between #39 and #69 in terms of quality of health care in the world. We're number one in cost (most expensive - average is about half of what we pay), and most other countries cover everyone, not just those who can afford it.
Adopting any European model of health care would give us (on average) better care, for 1/2 the cost, for everybody. Maybe we should start learning from them.
https://index.prosperity.com/rankings (note on this one it includes columns for more than just health care, you can choose which one to use for ranking – very interesting results)
Just sell your United Health Care stock before the law passes. When Blue Cross was a non-profit we paid 6% of GDP for healthcare. But then the vampire capitalist system decided there was real ‘Money to be Made’, now we pay 20%, if these were B-Corps and we all held stock I’d like that! Pick three, let them compete for the best service and care, switch whenever you like, welcome to Germany!
I'm not necessarily writing to convince him. I'm writing so people reading the comments can get a realistic look at things. That's one reason why I include links - it's not just some random dude on the internet posting, there's actual data they can look at and verify for themselves.
I'm not sure if you're making a joke about the freedom of driving. I'll just say last summer I took the train from Bordeaux to Paris in 2 hours which is much further than from Boston to NY. It cost $50. I didn't fight traffic and was deposited in the middle of Paris with no parking and had easy access to the Metro so I could go anywhere. My only regret not driving I didn't get to stop in the Lorie Valley and visit wineries.
It depends I guess. Most train stations are in city centers, Bordeaux's is a little outside the center. Bordeaux has a really convenient tram system which cost $2 and took me right to the station. I had do do some walking. I could used Uber but it was something like $25 and I'm cheap. I waited maybe 15 minutes. Trains run once an hour or so. You have to lug your luggage around.
Wow! Actually medical inflation dropped after the ACA…in part because the standards and clarity of insurance plans. Of course it’s not perfect! Searching for the perfect is a fool’s error.
Hasn't the federal funding been eliminated for research? Price transparency happens when government regulates private industry, such as with insurance like original Medicare, which no retiree ever turns down, so private industry just becomes more devious in raiding the fund through private plans with the Medicare name attached. We are now officially a banana republic without the bananas....with a leader who pardons a convicted drug lord just because he happened to be president of another banana republic--yet allows the bombing of Venezuelans on international waters with the pretense that they're drug traffickers. The percentage of those who didn't vote for your dear leader is being gradually joined by the ones who didn't bother to vote and a few ignorant ones who did vote for him are becoming increasingly disgruntled with what's happening in our country.
“… the lowest-cost way to fix Venezuela. Authoritarians don’t reform …”
What, ‘fix’ oil-rich Venezuela so that Trump ‘n Chumps can barge in & cash in? Yes, authoritarians ‘don’t change’ - and that is Trump until the day he dies.
"I can drive from Boston to New York in about four hours. That level of convenience is unbeatable."
Amtrack does downtown Boston to downtown New York is 3-4 hours, it's downtown to downtown, no putting up with traffic (https://www.amtrak.com/tickets/departure.html - put in Boston & New York, chose dates, see times & costs). Sit back, relax, use your computer, listen to music, watch what goes by, maybe buy a snack & drink. Much more relaxing than driving I95.
You can walk from the station to a hotel. In neither Boston nor New York are cars needed - they have great public transportation. Like many European cities.
Reads like AI but AI knows the rules of statistics...of course AI is neither, it's a cheat by stealing others' works and words to look intelligent, like you actually wrote the poem instead of stealing it...even my HS girlfriends knew that trick!
They are learning less? They are bored of testing, perhaps due to the Eugenics smell of standardized testing…test don’t go up because kids are pretty much the same each year…so trying to force the ‘Up’ creates bad curriculum, boring, decontextual, silly…and scores go down. And we waste boat-loads of time and money on management.
Aaron, it's funny when folks take a specific and make a general statement from it...I'm glad some do well, can do well, for a variety of reasons, and high expectations by parents is a key, as is enrichment, money, time, good school, rules about homework...etc. One of colleagues, in computer science, had all six kids go to college, none in computer science! U.C. Berkeley suggests that, for many incoming students, they not use their AP courses for college credit because it causes too many to fail, based on data, for the whole group, not one story expanded...somewhere in the rules of stats you learn this.
I take maths seriously! I also take 'reality' seriously.
Good for you for shining the light on our benighted, self-righteous and obscenely greedy digital plutocrats. The parallel is right on. Social media triggers dopamine with its quick hits of pleasure to the brain, similar to heroin.
It's all part of our Brave New World. Aldus Huxley was right.
Excellent column. Thank you for your intelligence, integrity and courage.
Was anyone else struck by how much the opening paragraphs of today's post sounded like it was describing Big Tobacco and its denial, for years, that smoking causes cancer?
The Broligarchs want nothing short of Laissez Faire (and heavily subsidized) Capitalism. It didn't work in the past and it will fail again - spectacularly!
I beg to disagree. They do not want laissez-faire capitalism because in such a system there would be no government subsidies. What they want is monopoly power and control over the economy and the polity of our entire society. Thanks to a corrupt Supreme Court and a spineless Congress they are well on their way to achieving just that.
Worse than that their aim is racist feudal fascism but with AI and current robotics the vast bulk of humanity is superfluous to the aims of P2025 and that is what seems to be driving the current regime in USA . Which suggest 99% of the current human population serve no function in P2025s longer term final implementation.
I do take a bit of comfort in knowing that AI will eventually take out the oh-so-replicatable role of corporate executives, which are based on a very simple rule-set.
In the interim, I cling to the fact that the bulk of billionaires' net worth is based on stock price, and the markets as a whole depend on consumer spending on products and services.
Problem is given the superrich are primarily those developing or controlling the development of AI like the industrial revolution a bottom up approach is likely to be/being taken. Young educated non cyber nuts are finding jobs harder to come by in' developed ' areas
Broligarchs, yes, but bidnizzes in general don't really want laissez-faire capitalism until *after* they hold a bunch of the market. Until then they want a "level playing field".
Sorry, Borrowing from your comment section. I need help.
Why? Because the error in economics isn't the fault of any one person or group of people.
It's the error in the understanding of economics itself.
This is a new way of thinking in economics, different from other economics in that its explanation lies not in the external aspects of the transaction but in its internal aspects. If we use a familiar analogy, it's like the difference between alchemy and chemistry. Both explain chemical reactions, but the former explains how external substance A becomes substance B through a certain method. The latter explains how the transformation of substance A into substance B occurs internally.
Assuming everyone has the same understanding, then the value of a commodity x is 50. The actual transaction price is also 50. Therefore, we don't consider taxes or other factors. The only change here is supply and demand, meaning the actual transaction price might be 47 or 53, etc.
Demand, as a form of currency, doesn't exist here. Similarly, we can understand that if there is demand for currency β, then the original currency is currency α, meaning the selling price of the traded item is α50β currency -3 or 3, which equals currency α47 or 53.
This means that no matter what, you need to pay currency α50, and you will receive currency β3 in change. However, currency α and currency β are not interchangeable. This is inherent to supply and demand theory.
In reality, for traded items, whether goods or services, we don't know their true value or how much of the price change is due to supply and demand. But what happens if currency β flows into α, referring to excessive money supply or exchange of currencies of different face values, such as the euro and the yen?
We can see that the same traded item will have two levels under supply and demand.
And what if a traded item has more levels and flows?
This reveals that the supply and demand theory itself is both correct and incorrect, and this duality applies to all economic theories.
Economists don't explain why people do certain things, but rather the consequences of doing so. Like other natural sciences, a theory doesn't dictate how airplanes and cars should be manufactured, but rather how doing something leads to certain results, which people then use to create airplanes and cars.
As mentioned above, like alchemy and chemistry, this is also economics, but completely different from what we know as economics. Therefore, the economic theories we commonly encounter are not true economic theories, but rather explanations of human behavior itself, using economic data to reinterpret why people do what they do. Such work is more suitable for psychologists, behavioral scientists, or biologists and neuroscientists. Economics has no answers, nor will it ever have any. Unless you believe economists can answer what the goals of an individual or human life are.
The above example uses supply and demand. Now, let's make an assumption that excludes supply and demand: you buy two goods, A and B, and simultaneously produce both goods. A and B are unaffected by supply, demand, scarcity, profits, taxes, or any other factors; their prices are exactly the same. However, the resulting economic outcomes will be different, even opposite. Here, the flow between A and B, or between C, which you sell for money, due to their internal differences, is what truly affects the economy.
Perhaps my explanation was unclear. Let's consider a commodity initially valued at 50. In reality, a payment of 48 or 54 doesn't necessarily correspond to -2 or 4, but rather to the same 47 and 53. This means the actual transaction value of the commodity becomes 51, which here represents a flow of β money into α money. It's like exchanging 100 yen for 100 euros of the same denomination.
This price increase from 50 to 51, applied to most everyday goods, results in inflation, unrelated to money supply or economic growth. Similarly, the hierarchical relationship within goods isn't solely based on supply and demand; this is just an example using supply and demand.
In other words, 48α doesn't... It must equal 50α and -2β. For the same product, 50α = 10α① 10α② 10α③. Here, we assume α① = 7; α② = 30; α③ = 3. Therefore, α①, α②, and α③ can flow like αβ.
Similarly, 50α ≠ 50α, not only because the proportions of α①, α②, and α③ are different, but also because α itself is different.
For person A, α① = 5 = $6, but for person B, α① = 5 = $5.8. Therefore, when the perceived value of the same product is 50, the actual costs paid by A and B are $60 and $58 respectively. Conversely, when A and B, as producers, price the product at $60 and $58 respectively, the actual price is 50.
For my own sanity, I tend to avoid explanations that use phrases that use "not true X" or "duality." Sorry.
Also, whatever they're called, I test the soundness of ideas (economics, justice, public policy) based on whether they capture modern knowledge of actual human cognition, brain chemistry and measurable human responses, rather than traditionally accepted theory.
It could be your first cup of coffee in the morning.
Regarding duality, let me use a realistic example you might like: Imagine two identical cups of coffee, with exactly the same ingredients, roasting, and everything else.
The only difference is that one is sold in a coffee shop and made by someone you don't know, while the other is made by your spouse, children, parents, or friends.
Are these two cups of coffee the same? The answer to the same question will differ for different people and for the same person at different times.
But are the actions of the actual barista or the person who makes the coffee for you the same or different?
The answer is different. Although the same actions can make five cups of coffee, for your coffee... There aren't five coffees available for you to consume, so the one made for you is more expensive.
Now, let me ask you, are these two coffees the same coffee? What would be the answer if I asked a third person the same question?
Let's express this precisely with numbers. Suppose the remaining cost is $0.5 and the production cost is $2.5. Ignoring profit, the coffee for a stranger is $1, but for you it's $3. So, is this coffee $1 or $3? Both are possible; it depends on your perspective. There's no fixed answer.
However, this coffee can be traded for any price. Here, $0.5 is α① and $2.5 is α②; they can be exchanged.
What you said is true. Why do you think these two are the same price? The coffee is the same or different. Is it just a difference in thinking, or are there genuine differences between the two methods, and why? Or can you prove that coffee needs to be consumed within 3 minutes or any other time after extraction, otherwise the taste will change? These are all things you mentioned, but that's not what economists need to consider.
Just as a physicist, when considering a force, doesn't think about whether the person applying that force is Tyson or O'Neill, or whether it's a friendly pat or a beating, the economy similarly doesn't care what you think, but whether the money you pay has flowed. The two cups of coffee above are both traded for $3, and these two people then buy another good. Whether the flow is from α① to α②, or vice versa, or equal, is unchangeable. The fact is, for the salesperson, income can be either a① $0.5 or a② $2.5, or both a① and a② $1.5. If this salesperson buys a TV for $300, the TV's ratio isn't always a fixed α①:α② ratio of 1:5. Even if it were 1:5, the salesperson's income could be $2300, possibly a ratio of α① $400, α② $1600, or a β $300.
So, what ratio does the salesperson use when paying for the TV? Or is the ratio between their income and the purchased goods always 1:5 or 4:16:3?
Clearly not. Interestingly, this can be tested. If you don't believe it, you can try this experiment yourself, a test that can be conducted based on common sense.
The rest is just my take on hyper-technical analysis that blows up in the face of human irrationality. This may be fine for an economics doctoral thesis, but it matters very little in a world where a stupid jackass puts a giant tariff on Brazilian coffee for corrupt and petty reasons, or persistently increasing crop failures puts stress on the world's food supply.
Sorry, due to translation software limitations, I don't quite understand the meaning of that sentence.
For the following question, I'll use a real-world example. The value of a component of a commodity remains constant, meaning it doesn't change regardless of policy or tax changes. Let's continue with the example above. There are α and β, where α is the commodity itself and β is supply and demand. Now, let's change the tax to γ...
So, assuming the landed price of Brazilian coffee beans is $5000 (I don't know the exact price), then α is $5000, regardless of the value of γ, or how much it affects β. Whether the actual world transaction price is $8888 or $18888, it won't change the fact that the coffee beans cost $5000.
In other words, whether the premium is due to demand, β is $3888 or $13888, or γ is part of the tax.
Or, the main issue with taxes isn't how much is collected, but where it's spent. Now, there are two types of coffee beans: the Brazilian coffee beans mentioned above, and American coffee beans. I want to increase local coffee bean cultivation, but the price of local coffee is $7000. So, let's assume the tariff increases the price of Brazilian coffee beans to $7000/$7500/$8000... That is, assuming a 40% tax, $2000 goes to the local... Coffee growers receive a $1000 subsidy, plus a $500 subsidy for every coffee purchased.
Similarly, if there were a $35 tax and a $500 subsidy, the selling price would be $6000.
But what is the actual selling price here? It's still $5000 and $7000. That is to say, if Brazilian coffee beans decrease, taxes decrease, and subsidies stop, the selling price of local coffee beans would still be $7000.
Similar examples are happening in the real world; the protests by farmers in Europe a few years ago due to subsidies are a real example.
Here, taxes, or γ, are outside of α. And the above α①α②, etc., are inside α.
As I said at the beginning, they are inside, not outside, so even without external taxation, internal flow will still occur. Similarly, whether to increase US-grown coffee beans or whether to increase the price of local and Brazilian coffee beans... The fixed answer, whether for price or other purposes, is not a fixed answer in economics.
Or, let's ask a practical question: I am Chinese, is a tax war necessary? This doesn't have a fixed answer. The Chinese are friendly, the Germans are friendly, the Japanese are friendly, but were Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan friendly? Replace Brazil with China, and coffee beans with all daily necessities. If the US and China went to war, the expenses you would need wouldn't be at current prices. You'd see coffee beans from Brazil become American, 5000 becomes 7000, and because of reduced supply, you'd need a higher price. Simultaneously, because of the war, you'd need even more expenses. So, for the same expenses, if you originally had 10,000 per month, due to changes in goods, you'd need 14,000; because of the war premium, you'd need 15,000; and because you'd need weapons and other supplies to cope with the war, you'd need 200. 00, Prematurely changing will only result in 14,000 to 20,000, while changing will result in 10,000 to over 20,000. Which is better?
I won't give you an answer. Which is better is not for me to decide.
The same behavior applies to daily transactions, even to goods produced in one's own country, region, or small town.
Now do you still think this is just some theory irrelevant to life?
Because this isn't just about China; this China can also apply to Walmart, Amazon, and Costco. It can also apply to the British, French, and American treasuries, or the entire economic system. The current price of goods is like $5,500 for American-made coffee beans. This price is unsustainable, just like the US debt.
Or, using the same coffee beans, a 5% tariff, but the same subsidy method, the fiscal problems will obviously worsen.
And this is only part of the problem. There are other unsustainable aspects.
3) If we Europeans try to do something to save our kids' mental health (and the euro) we have to face Trump's tariffs and Putin's bombs
4) Mr Musk and Thiel lecturing us on free speech is the ultimate insult to Humanity.
In my humble opinion, I firmly think it is past time that somebody in Manhattan and Washington, starting from Congresswomen and Congressmen, start doing their job, trying to save us all.
I have been following you and appreciating your economic, political and social wisdom since I first learned of your work through Michael Barker and CSPA some 45+ years ago. I have been remiss in not thanking you long ago how much your insight, analysis and advocacy have meant to me …and the country/world over that time…and all the more in this dark time. Thank you for shining Liberty’s economic+ light.
the other thing we can do is boycott those corporations that are buying/on these apps. Don't order through FB, Instagram or TikTok. If you see something you want to buy, get it locally or from the website of the company that sells the item. Don't use Temu or Shein.
Yep. If I go on Amazon's website, it's only to find the name of a company selling something I need, and then doing a search to find that company's website. It doesn't always work, because sometimes the company still uses Amazon for fulfillment. But very often it does work, and I get to continue to avoid spending money on Amazon.
Even better, go cold turkey, delete all of them: Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Amazon. Quit relying on corporate media for information, don’t buy into cryptocurrency, regard AI as any malign gossip. Life is better without the lies and abuse.
The one upside of Amazon I've found over the decades (started buying tech books in the 1990s) is that they don't pester you with emailed or snailed advertisements, and they forbid their vendors from doing it. Just about any other place I order from will result in me getting on mailing lists for endless catalogs and promotions. (Yes, I have a neurotic aversion to being added to mailing lists, which is why I no longer give to political campaigns and I've happily found ways to donate to charities anonymously.)
Will we see a new online diaspora? Will person to person communications allow social comments without a Facebook or another central processor. Encrypted communications may thrive in a dark hothouse of secrecy. It is possible. I might call it the "New Dark Age."
Maybe. My stepson and his wife have placed strict limits on the amount of "screen time" their children are allowed. They recently had a landline installed to prevent their kids from using wireless phones.
His mother and I approve and are supportive. His biological father and stepmother are furious.
I don't have an account on any of those platforms, so I have been spared. I do see a fair number of scamish ads on Youtube, but I've figured out a couple ways to bypass them. Even when I have not been able to bypass one, so far I've resisted any urge to buy.
Great analogy and coda - I almost feel guilty living here in France, where kids don’t get shot going to school, hate speech is illegal, health is covered for all, food is healthy (strictly monitored !) and education accessible through university. What is the U.S. thinking ??! 🙄
Why have we become the toxic, corrupt bully in the room??!
The rule of law is for little people and some people are just better than others. Got that?? It’s the new American way. Let me know when we’re great again.
America is a value less and morally corrupt nation. Its politicians. Business elites. Media. Just a huge failure. And without any capacity to identify and solve its problems. Keep the US boycott strong.
You really should not make such vicious and obviously false generalizations about an entire nation which is in any case highly diverse. And please remember: we Europeans are depending on millions of brave Americans to defend the values we have in common.
As an American, I'm afraid that right now the commentator has it right. Sure, there are many in the US, present company included, I imagine, who are fighting the good fight - but it's very much an uphill battle and everything that the country is doing "in our name" now is evil.
I know it must be dispiriting. But you know what? I think the US will get through this. You have a vigorous political culture. There are plenty of policy ideas for a better future from Paul Krugman and many others. Many of the sycophants around Trump are just that. Their policies are irrational or contradictory and will do serious economic damage. And I see an impressive handful of Democratic politicians spoiling for a fight.
We could not disagree more. American politics in its 2 party system all the way from judges to police chiefs to governor ra and presidents is so easy to corrupt. Laws against money in politics is a joke. Finally their extremist individualistic society is completely incapable of nuance, of focus and of solidarity to solve any of their problems. They can’t solve school children being shot ! I don’t know where you see the light.
Well, I don't see much light, but I do see hope. The US has been here before, in the Gilded Age, when corruption and monopolies were brought to heel by the Muckrakers and Teddy Roosevelt. Extreme individualism was combatted by the New Deal, and racism by Black protest, Kennedy and his successors. There has been huge progress in developing universal health insurance. I feel that maybe we Europeans sometimes have difficulty in recognizing that the dynamism of the American economy, which we ought to admire, has inevitable costs, but we also have difficulty in recognizing social progress, partly because it doesn't come clothed in socialist rhetoric.
Hi Rena. Please, keep on with the uphill battle. America is in a very bad place, you’ve got my attention in the UK. But David’s advice is wise. Humans do a lot of bad things, including awful things. But we also have the ability, and the instinct, equally in our genes to do better. Thanks for your comment,and regard, Anthony
Thanks David. I agree with you. Jean-François’ comment is a slogan, not an argument, and relies on simple characterisation to provide a punchline. If America does well, we all benefit. If America does harm, we all suffer. I’m writing as an Irish man living in Britain, so I understand at a visceral level how characterisations cause harm. We can do better than this. The snappy criticism is cool to roll off the tongue, but it isn’t accurate. Please, everyone, try to avoid triggering which hurts. Real life does enough of that already. Yours, in regard, Anthony.
Of course my answer is quick. To get a reaction. And to make Americans think. Seems we’re all non Americans here. Ironic. The world is full of states that have fallen from some past greatness. Hungary. Argentina. Turkey. Britain. List goes on and on. I very much doubt the US will be in a place of any greatness in 10 maybe even 5 years. No healthy society gets to this point.
Dear Jean François. Thank you for taking time and for your thoughtful comment. I understand your perspective better. I don’t have a rebuttal to offer. I might be saying useless platitudes. However, I try to see what common ground we share, and to encourage cooperation. Your criticisms try to achieve that too. Your original comment was too triggering, I thought. Thanks again for your thought provoking comment. Sorry to be slow in getting back to you. Yours, Anthony.
I’m fascinated by your response here. Usually though I see this with Americans where they are ‘triggered’ as you say by words. I feel the situation is dire. The US just released their security strategy that basically says the Americas are there’s to take, Europe is an enemy and we must all be kinder to Russia. This paper is triggering. This paper is a blueprint and an action plan to completely rewrite the world order giving more weight to autocrats and making liberal democracies the enemy. This is triggering. This has power. My vulgar thoughts on a Substack post are meaningless. Let’s agree to focus on the correct threats. I hold no power whatsoever.
Thanks, again, François. I’m sorry to have misjudged your original comment. I ‘judged the book by its cover’, and I was lazy, too quick with my keyboard. Your final thoughts today sink in. Thanks for getting back to me. Anthony.
Maybe we already are an actual narco state. First strike, second strike, whatever, it is all murder, but lies about the importance of small boats in Caribbean sea as drug carriers make you wonder just who is benefitting.
I'm with you, but I'm a little more optimistic. Venezuela has two serious mountain ranges. Sun Tsu says that he who takes the sunny side of the high ground will win (of course, he was writing over 2,000 years before aircraft existed). The Captain who taught our ROTC classes said that guerillas cannot exist long without the support of the people. The Venezuelan government is busily arming the people. IMO, if the US cannot obtain the support of the Venezuelan people and a substantial number take to the hills, we're looking at another Vietnam.
I don't know. The issues with the Bay of Pigs were 1) that invasion was planned out by the Eisenhower administration and then execution was handed over to the Kennedy administration, and 2) the evaluation of Cuba's military capability was essentially worthless. Item #2 was the critical one; the Soviet Union had shipped in modern aircraft and the US provided Korean war surplus material to support the invaders. The invaders were also not supported by the US military (neither administration wanted to go on record as having the US invade Cuba). The MiGs had a field day.
This is totally different. One of the exercises students were handed in my ROTC classes was to evaluate the military capability of a nation from sources available to us. My assignment was Egypt (shortly after a war with Israel). Working from newspaper accounts, I developed an evaluation that got an A. Based on that experience, I'm certain that the US military has a pretty good idea of the capabilities of the Venezuelan air force and navy. IMO, an invasion by the United States would certainly succeed. Subjugating the country afterwards would be another matter.
The US has sustained a total moral collapse and it’s metastasizing. I’m a disabled grandmother committed to equal access. I’ve engaged in more than 50 acts of microadvocacy (one organization at a time) across virtually all domains: Finance, Retail, Entertainment, Federal Government, State Government, Academia, Health Care, Nonprofit Safety Net, Media, Publishing, Insurance and Mainstream religion. The outcome is always the same: false hope, empty promises, and an utter abandonment of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. That said, I believe that we’re witnessing an emerging adulthood in the US, where we are ready to take responsibility for what we’ve done and commit to reparations on all levels. This regime and its wildfire won’t last forever. From the immense destruction will come new growth. G_d willing, we’ll make better choices.
They probably control the actual illicit drugs too. Maybe that's what bombing Venezuelan boats is about; Mafia tactics so Trump and friends now get a big cut.
The oligarchs took over the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society which took over the Supreme Court and much of the federal judiciary. The Supreme Court then handed down rulings to give even more power to the oligarchs and to pull the teeth of the federal government agencies which police anything.
The current case before the Supreme Court is over whether to let Donald fire members of independent commissions at will. Anyone unsure as to how that will go? I would be shocked if the MAGA majority on the court does not give Donald another win.
Congress has long been bought and paid for by Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, the military industrial complex, and other assorted oligarchs.
The majority of the Supreme Court is bought and paid for. Donald is bought and paid for.
The project to take over the Federal Courts and fill them with republican reactionaries and make America safe for the wealthy and well connected and big corporations is not a new idea. It has been going on since the 1970's or 1980's. In his article, the Good Professor mentions the Citizens United decision in 2010 which did away with limits on campaign donations. That case was decided 15 years ago.
During this process it was possible to see what was happening and there are many books and articles written over the years detailing what the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, and others are up to, but progressive and Democratic forces were unable to prevent the capture of the federal courts and many state legislatures by the reactionaries.
The bottom line is that Democrats need to control more state legislatures and a majority of seats in the U. S. Senate. The state legislatures in many states draws the districts for representatives and the U. S. Senate approves people to be federal judges.
In my opinion, the oligarchs have taken over because many people don't know or care about what they are doing.
I think the restrictions that Europe has placed on social media should be done in the US too. The EU is trying like hell to save their citizens from going down the rabbit hole along with the US. We in the US should be so smart!! Sooner rather than later!!!
The EU has stricter rules about digital privacy that apply to insurance companies as well. Not coincidentally, American insurance corporations have been quite supportive of Trump. They might reconsider their gung-ho support for this moron once they reckon with the damage he inflicts on the broader economy with tariffs and other abuses of power, but hard to say. How dare those foreigners challenge our America first agenda!!
“Meta internally projected late last year that it would earn about 10% of its overall annual revenue – or $16 billion – from running advertising for scams and banned goods, internal company documents show.”
This is unbelievable. People trust the ads because they believe those platforms are reputable. Clearly, they’re not.
Scamming as a business model! You can’t make this stuff up.
But it’s true!
A REUTERS SPECIAL REPORT
Meta is earning a fortune on a deluge of fraudulent ads, documents show
Meta projected 10% of its 2024 revenue would come from ads for scams and banned goods, documents seen by Reuters show. And the social media giant internally estimates that its platforms show users 15 billion scam ads a day. Among its responses to suspected rogue marketers: charging them a premium for ads – and issuing reports on ’Scammiest Scammers.’
By Jeff Horwitz
November 6, 2025
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/
The expression, Too Good 2b TRUE, applies to Many items on FB MarketPlace, my exact thoughts? Surly a Seller, This Biggly, has been vetted?
I would say more "scandalous" than "unbelievable".
The role of govt (should be) is to support the population, by encouraging or supplying necessary needs and preventing avoidable harm.
Thus natural monopolies like health care are best delivered with strong protective regulation and one-payer systems, as happens in every stable country in the world.
Note that implies that I am saying that the US is not stable in that regard.
Health care in the US is more expensive than health care in other rich countries, but leaves many out.
As well, the wild wild west gun laws are failing in their task.
So Trump's excesses are not entirely new, although he pushes to a new extreme.
Now, there will be a 60 day period for comments (as if that matters?) before travelers from European countries, South Korea, basically countries that have Visa waivers to arrive in the US will have to give five years of social media history, all current & former email addresses, places of birth of all immediate family members etc. before entering the US under the pretense of "national security". That will only apply to commercial flights, because do you actually think the wealthy who fly on private planes to those private plane airports actually have to deal with TSA? I'd like to know. There goes World Cup, because if I was a foreigner, screw dealing with TSA as "cattle". We're next with the new McCarthy authoritarians looking for antifa. The plan is to turn the US into a social credit system like China through DOGE & Palantir...it was already in action before Trump, as Google had installed the air port wifi in the European airport I was in last December that set my gmail address now displayed on my browser. Oligarchs don't like US citizens seeing how good Europe's social safety net is and we are to all be peasants believing all the dumb bs being told to us as is being told to those Pocono, PA people at the casino. It's going to be like the world wars era all over again. Too bad Franco & Stalin didn't suffer the same fate as Hitler & Mussolini. That might be something that those in charge might want to consider when 30%+ of the population begins to feel gas lighted at being fleeced.
Money in politics supports mega corporations including social media and AI giants who are destroying America.
Voters are waking up angry at politicians in government who have ignored affordability for decades and a new generation of progressive Democrats can get elected in 2026 and 2028 with solutions that are funded with new taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
For 50 years the federal government controlled by the wealthy has been taking and stealing wealth from 95% of people and giving it to the top 5% mostly to the top 0.01%. The wealth transfer needs to be stopped and fair taxes restored. The tax rates for the top 1% and 5% in 2024 should be changed to what the tax rates were for the top 1% and 5% in 1965 with the tax rates for the 95% in 2024 remaining unchanged to what the rates were in 2024. That would create $1.3 trillion of new federal revenue for funding solutions to core problems including affordability of healthcare and housing.
The top U.S. federal corporate tax rate was 48% in 1965 compared to a flat rate of 21% today. Reset the corporate rate to what it was in 1965!
We need solutions to stop the wealthy control of politics manipulated by huge amounts of unlimited money. Repeal Citizens United. The solutions include affordable housing and healthcare.
Hi ElderyLoudCatWomyn. Thank you for this post. The story which you cite shows us how much ‘unintended consequences’ are multiplied, in volume as well as in severity of outcome, when a platform goes global. Unlike Miles del Vey’s comment/ reply, what I see is the vulnerability of being human, more than the culpability of being human. We can’t stop progress, we tell ourselves. The attempt by the Australian Government, let’s see how it plays out, and hopefully Australians and the rest of the world will learn how to improve on this first step. Even if we choose to smoke tobacco, it’s still legitimate to advertise openly that it causes harm to our health. I see the debate going in that direction. Thanks again for your post. Anthony.
If he had used a Colt revolver, Colt would claim he did not use the firearm as intended.
To be fair, Colt wouldn't exactly be wrong...
"It's tragic that that boy died, but I'm gonna go ahead and say that if you die by suicide it is, in fact, your "fault," to the extent it's anyone's fault."
That's a pretty cynical take on suicide. Just as on example, there have been many kids driven to suicide by bullying on social media, sextortion of girls and boys, compromising or nude pictures posted for all the world to see, for instance. How is that the kid's fault?
Give your head a shake.
it did at first urge the kid to get help, but in later stages discouraged him from leaving his home-made noose (that the bot helped him design) around the house so his parents would see it, i.e. a clear attempt to call for help. The bot by the late stages was completely facilitating the suicide.
These issues, and particularly US bullying of Europe (and everyone else) to allow American media to degrade everything, have been covered extensively for some time now by Cory Doctorow. Those interested should look through recent posts on his revelatory blog https://pluralistic.net/
Thanks for the link.
If you are interested in getting an insider’s take on the extremely strange Zuckerberg and the management of Meta, read the book “Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism” by Sarah Wynn-Williams. It’s a wild story and very disturbing. Sheryl Sandberg doesn’t come off well, either. Here is a review of the book:
“I read ‘Careless People.’ Now I know why Mark Zuckerberg tried to ban the tell-all memoir:
However entitled you already thought these people were, they’re more so, according to Sarah Wynn-Williams in her memoir “Careless People.” “
https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/article/careless-people-facebook-memoir-review-20228056.php
Thanks Theodora 👍. Anthony
Jonathon Haidt, his team, and the folks they collaborate with at After Babel also do an excellent job reporting and recounting the grotesque effects of social media and tech.
https://www.afterbabel.com/
no wonder millions in US are seeking european dual citizenship to get the hell out of this dystopian nightmare
Yes! I rewed my UK passport!
It's ok till long after the Lame Duck Felon is gone...
Well as H.L. Mencken said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Further Mencken, for all his faults, commented extensively on a public susceptibility to manipulation by demagogic leaders inclined toward authoritarianism.
Mencken, Twain, O'Rourke, Carlin, Ivins... oh how we could use them all today
Unless the demagogue was German. His quips during WWI that Germany should run Europe were tolerated. His pro Hitler stance cost him his position at the Baltimore Sun. “Marriage is a fine institution but who wants to live in an institution?”
The Australians today have brought in a social media ban for under 16s. I don’t remember them being described in the National Security Strategy as an enemy, but then Russia does not have designs on Australia, I presume.
I think a well done advertising campaign targeted at teens might be a better idea. There were some very effective ad campaigns to lessen smoking. Prohibitions, especially with teens can be counter-productive.
Yep, let’s see how it goes. I doubt that this law will be without amendments. Thanks for your comment. Anthony.
Oh Karel…give him (Trump et al) time….they’ll find something to screech about the Australians one day. Somehow, with Trump, it’s always ‘the others’ who are at fault….! Anthony
China does
In the larger scheme of things, not that much money is being spent by donors. The donors, big and not so big, spent $16 billion in 2024 and $10 billion in 2022. Average over 4 years: $6+ billion a year to control a $6 TRILLION government and $30 TRILLION economy!!!
For about 1/10th of 1% of the federal budget (mostly paid by wealthy and successful people, given our progressive income tax) a federal campaign finance voucher program would put dollar power back in the hands of voters. Look at what Seattle did to utterly transform its local political scene by spending less than $3 a year to control its $9 billion a year budget.
Who opposed it there and freaks out wherever it has been proposed elsewhere?? The business special interests. That’s who.
Who thinks vouchers would be a good idea? Any person who learns of them. Right, Left or middle. In fact, the MAGA folk, who already feel “the system” is out to get them, are especially enthusiastic.
Problem? Influencers like Krugman and Heater Richardson are all focused on Citizens United and the Supreme Court instead of asking Congress to pass a simple law and peel off a modest $6 billion a year to save our democracy
“Asking Congress to pass a simple law…” Really? Congress? We wouldn’t have the Supreme Court making bad law if we had a functioning Congress.
This. One of the reasons I don't read too many posts is that doing so gets the blood pressure up. One more person telling me what the problems are and "we need to..., if we just could..., if a law could be passed to.., we need to call our representative and tell them.., all we need to do is...." and I'll take a long walk off a short pier.
Wayne: try to control your blood pressure. I take little pink pills. And then read the other response I just posted.
Mike
Me too for the past 40 years. Good idea, maybe after 2026 voting (if we're allowed). Public funding has always been the solution for me but for politicians not so much. To give up that lobbying money (aka bribes) is a little beyond the pale for them. Plus manipulating public funds is probably a violation of Federal law.
The reason we have those politicians (so many of them) is that an awful lot of voters don’t trust government…not just this government, any government. That goes along with not trusting publicly financed anything, aside from the necessities that they can easily ignore.
Susan: Yes. "...passing a simple law" seems out of sight right now. But a hell of a lot more achievable than passing a constitutional amendment (the current focus of most "liberal" advocates) or even impeaching a bunch of the court's current occupants.
All that is needed is a big enough win in 2026. Think about what I said - the voucher concept can be explained in a sentence or two and appeals to ALL voters, MAGA or the wildest-eyed leftists. And everyone in between. Tie dollars to your vote and watch the politicians (left, right, middle) scramble to start listening again.
But, you say, we will still be locked into a Senate that was configured with the "original sin" that gives small population states the same voting power as large ones. Well, a big enough win in the midterms (60 senators or more) could allow the Senate to pass a revised filibuster rule. The filibuster (especially the rule change in 1972 that allowed silent "holds" to allow the Senate to proceed to other business while any "held" measure quietly withers) has increasingly locked up the Senate since at least Bill Clinton's time.
What sustains this foolishness? Our campaign finance system means that our Senators just do not have time to spend debating the public business. They MUST be out sitting in phone cubicles schmoozing donors (or, now, on their cell phones sitting in the Congressional parking garage).
With vouchers, this money-raising time burden would be mostly lifted.
A big enough majority could make a rule change to go back to the "talking filibuster". A talking filibuster that is impossible with our current campaign finance system.
With a big enough win (60 or more) Senators could make another change to the filibuster rule - instead of counting all senators as having one vote, the "counting rule" could give every Senator the number of votes on filibusters that his state had House members. Bring a significant bit of Democracy back into our most undemocratic institution.
Could there be a 60-vote majority in 2026? Bring on campaign finance vouchers and watch the public suddenly get excited about voting again. Watch them respond to candidates who advocate for bringing real power to voters. Watch them turn away from candidates who offer lame excuses for not supporting vouchers and who instead try to explain why our government should be run by wealthy donors.
True power to the people. We have watched our donor-focused politicians (not just Donald Trump or the Republicans) let the public get screwed long enough. We have watched them refuse to raise taxes or control spending so we are faced with a federal debt so large we may not be able to withstand a crash in our over-extended AI bubble.
We can do this if we can get leaders like Krugman to listen.
It's not a surprise that our governments and courts can be bought. It's a surprise that they can be bought so cheaply. The wealthy and big corporations have a fantastic return on investment in politicians. They bought the government and darned if they aren't going to use it for their benefit.
I understand that it is mostly the wealthy. Actual corporate giving (the focus of Citizens United) is relatively modest. Instead, it is giving by the owners and managers of those corporations. So, reversing CU would not change the money flow very much. CU? mostly much ado about not too much.
On the other hand, the wealthy (of any party or no party) just do not see the world via the same experience lens as the average voter or non-voter. That has kept our legislation (little as it has been) aimed like a laser on things that benefit the wealthy. The ACA and Inflation Protection Act? Better than nothing, but poor substitutes for what could have been done, starting when we pretty much ignored the catastrophic job losses in our rural areas starting in the 1990s. Setting up the entrance of Donald Trump.
Vouchers are not popular because 1) taxpayers envision better uses for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and 2) they know that politicians would just pocket the cash while continuing to benefit from unlimited corporate funding by "unrelated" Super PAC's. After all, has anyone EVER been convicted of violating FEC anti-coordination rules?
Today's headline could as well have been for an article about crypto. The operative phrase is "rule of law is for the little people." Everywhere you look, that is the guiding "principle." One-person one-vote is just window dressing. It may seem inconvenient, but it's a very effective disguise.
Good response. Thanks, George. Passionate types like me need to hear that kind of pushback. Let me try to answer.
First, I wish I had a chance to understand what you already know about vouchers. Then I could better understand where you get your feeling that " 1) taxpayers envision better uses for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and 2) they know that politicians would just pocket the cash while continuing to benefit from unlimited corporate funding by 'unrelated' Super PAC's. After all, has anyone EVER been convicted of violating FEC anti-coordination rules?"
Over my limited experiences explaining vouchers to others (to be clear, I'm a nobody so most people have no reason to listen to me - and my hairdo can be a bit wild), I have rarely gotten reaction #1. Whereas it sounds like you have been at least thinking about them some. I HAVE occasionally gotten reactions somewhat like #2, but mostly just skepticism that something so intuitive and simple as vouchers could actually work. Could we have really gotten into the mess we are in when something this straightforward was available? Well, yes, while vouchers already work in Seattle, we are asking our politicians to make a huge leap-of-faith: to risk losing their sucking-for-dear-life grip on the usual donor teats.
Re: #1 better uses for taxpayer money. We pay financial advisors between .3% and 1.3% to manage our retirement savings. We let banks keep almost all the interest they earn from our deposits. So does it make sense to spend 1/10 of 1% (.001) of our government's tax take to allow citizens to exert influence over that government? I think it does.
Re: #2 politicians pocketing the cash. Some have and are seeing the world from behind prison bars. The spending rules are pretty clear and enforceable. But anti-coordination rules? As you say, unenforceable. Why bother? I say: let us just outspend the usual donors by making every voter a donor. And stand back and watch the politicians openly brag about how their election was financed by the voters. And run away, as fast as they can, from Big Money that labels them as "bought" no matter if it was a direct donation or some "independent" messaging coming from a Super PAC. They will not usually need that "outside" money any longer.
Lack of money dooms. But once a candidate's message is "out there," saturation bombing of money will not buy an election result. The payoff for the wealthy and special interests is so large only because the voters have been left out. That payoff will always be there to some degree but will shrink considerably.
Please, George, can we continue this discussion? I'm actively trying to redo my May 2024 essay on how a voucher program should be configured. I need all the pushback I can find.
Mike
"Smart" does not seem to be an adjective that can be applied to the US.
At the very least, the people of the United States should cheer the actions of the EU and Australia. I find their fortitude inspiring.
The EU also has extensive protocols for AI, which the US is also trying to get rid of. They are also a model for how we should be dealing with AI, and of course strongly opposed by Big Tech.
I'd like to see an organizational status imposed on social media companies with X amount of users and/or with accounts open to under 18. Nonprofits have specific structural regulations and income limitations on admin positions. Make these public companies with specific controls just for the type. Normally I would not argue to make this type of industry a public owned entity. But given our elected representatives have done nothing serious to control these companies or limit their profit seeking nor curb the harms... I say take back our elective power and democracy and then "reign in" the would be digital monarchy. Especially Musk.
I’m curious to know these companies can tell the age of their users, other than by going by what the user says, which could be a lie.
That's the dilemma. To actually prevent kids from circumventing this law might require giving up all online privacy for everyone. So for now, they are only required to take "reasonable steps."
Admittedly I have no reasonable ideas to meet the need and absolutely hate the idea of a digital fingerprint of every child nationwide in the hands of Google (thus being sold to any bidder including the government--thanks to Dick the Cheney). But I do wonder about starting with the idea of automatically disabling a vehicle from starting up in the face of alcohol to having a home computer, with a device in control of the adults in the home, with a device that disables the computer with, say, a thumb print. Of course this implies a responsible adult to monitor the situation. Although a great incentive would be a hands-on demand to be aware of what the children of the home are a) interested in, and b) wanting to look at.
Correct, Laura. ‘It’s never too late to do something good to change for the better’. Anthony
Paul is correct in highlighting the deliteriois, addictive effects of social media. Exploiting children is a significant piece of our GDP. Think of candy. Works on the same biological and neual pathways as opiates and sets kids up for a lifetime of chronic disease.
If Trump was honest, a concept that makes me gag, he would bomb tabacco companies that kill five times as many Americns as fentanyl, approx. 500 k per year.
Since these murders have started we hear nothing of Epstein, interesting.
In reality if we legalized opium in wine, laudanum, as was the case in the 1890's the drug problem would go away. Ppl. could cope, get help when they wanted and our jails would empty out.
But that wouldn't help keep the peasants controlled and big pharma. protected.
Oh well.
Paul is correct in highlighting the deliteriois, addictive effects of social media. Exploiting children is a significant piece of our GDP. Think of candy. Works on the same biological and neual pathways as opiates and sets kids up for a lifetime of chronic disease.
If Trump was honest, a concept that makes me gag, he would bomb tabacco companies that kill five times as many Americns as fentanyl, approx. 500 k per year.
Since these murders have started we hear nothing of Epstein, interesting.
In reality if we legalized opium in wine, laudanum, as was the case in the 1890's the drug problem would go away. Ppl. could cope, get help when they wanted and our jails would empty out.
But that wouldn't help keep the peasants controlled and big pharma. protected.
Oh well.
So smart is not enough, US should learn from CN, ban heroin and X, INS..
I think we should all be doing what Australia is doing with social media. Not only does it protect and benefit children, it has the added benefit of improving the quality of media online. An online ecosystem largely by and for the very young will inevitably lead to a decline in the overall quality and intellectual rigor of the platforms for all users. This is because the content standards are primarily influenced by trends catering to a less discerning audience.
A digital landscape predominantly driven by easily digestible and low-complexity content results in a general race to the bottom that negatively impacts the entire user base.
In Europe, we have safe food, reasonable (and much less costly) public health, better health and life expectancy, less inequality of wealth and income, better public transport, less corruption of our political representatives. I could go on…
If only you could stop exporting the rants of ignorant, ketamine-addled billionaires that think that, just because they are enormously rich, they are supermen…
I forgot to mention the fact that parents in Europe don't have to worry so much about their children getting killed at school by some psycho with assault weapons.
Also better Freedoms of the Press : the U.S. now ranks 57, Sweden 4, Norway 1, Canada 21, UK 20, Israel 112 and Russia isn’t even worth mentioning.
What does that actually mean? Whose numbers are those, and what do they measure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
Annual ranking … It intends to reflect the degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations, and netizens have in each country, and the efforts made by authorities to respect this freedom.[3]
🔹 Reporters Without Borders notes that the WPFI only deals with press freedom and does not measure the quality of journalism in the countries it assesses, nor does it look at human rights violations in general.
That guy (Aaron) is a bit trollish.
It's great you live in Boston - guess what, most Americans don't. And enjoy the high prices and lack of coverage for so many in the US.
Reality: US ranks somewhere between #39 and #69 in terms of quality of health care in the world. We're number one in cost (most expensive - average is about half of what we pay), and most other countries cover everyone, not just those who can afford it.
Adopting any European model of health care would give us (on average) better care, for 1/2 the cost, for everybody. Maybe we should start learning from them.
https://axenehp.com/international-healthcare-systems-us-versus-world/
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#Health%20expenditures%20per%20capita,%20U.S.%20dollars,%202023%20(current%20prices%20and%20PPP%20adjusted)
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#Total%20national%20health%20expenditures,%20US%20$%20per%20capita,%201970-2023
https://www.numbeo.com/health-care/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2025-mid
https://www.statista.com/topics/9017/global-health-care-systems-comparison/#topicOverview
https://www.atlasandboots.com/remote-work/countries-with-the-best-healthcare-in-the-world/
https://index.prosperity.com/rankings (note on this one it includes columns for more than just health care, you can choose which one to use for ranking – very interesting results)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4193227/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4191238/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184968/us-health-expenditure-as-percent-of-gdp-since-1960/
Just sell your United Health Care stock before the law passes. When Blue Cross was a non-profit we paid 6% of GDP for healthcare. But then the vampire capitalist system decided there was real ‘Money to be Made’, now we pay 20%, if these were B-Corps and we all held stock I’d like that! Pick three, let them compete for the best service and care, switch whenever you like, welcome to Germany!
I'm not necessarily writing to convince him. I'm writing so people reading the comments can get a realistic look at things. That's one reason why I include links - it's not just some random dude on the internet posting, there's actual data they can look at and verify for themselves.
I'm not sure if you're making a joke about the freedom of driving. I'll just say last summer I took the train from Bordeaux to Paris in 2 hours which is much further than from Boston to NY. It cost $50. I didn't fight traffic and was deposited in the middle of Paris with no parking and had easy access to the Metro so I could go anywhere. My only regret not driving I didn't get to stop in the Lorie Valley and visit wineries.
It depends I guess. Most train stations are in city centers, Bordeaux's is a little outside the center. Bordeaux has a really convenient tram system which cost $2 and took me right to the station. I had do do some walking. I could used Uber but it was something like $25 and I'm cheap. I waited maybe 15 minutes. Trains run once an hour or so. You have to lug your luggage around.
Since it’s clear you don’t live in Europe and know little about Europe keep your ignorance in the US.
Wow! Actually medical inflation dropped after the ACA…in part because the standards and clarity of insurance plans. Of course it’s not perfect! Searching for the perfect is a fool’s error.
According to https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#Total%20national%20health%20expenditures,%20US%20$%20per%20capita,%201970-2023 (see chart “Total national health expenditures as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, 1970-2023“), health care spending increase slowed (almost leveled out) around 2009, at 17.2% of GDP, staying below 18% until 2020 (no surprise), dropped back to 17.2% by 2022, and rose to 17.6% in 2023.
Hasn't the federal funding been eliminated for research? Price transparency happens when government regulates private industry, such as with insurance like original Medicare, which no retiree ever turns down, so private industry just becomes more devious in raiding the fund through private plans with the Medicare name attached. We are now officially a banana republic without the bananas....with a leader who pardons a convicted drug lord just because he happened to be president of another banana republic--yet allows the bombing of Venezuelans on international waters with the pretense that they're drug traffickers. The percentage of those who didn't vote for your dear leader is being gradually joined by the ones who didn't bother to vote and a few ignorant ones who did vote for him are becoming increasingly disgruntled with what's happening in our country.
“… the lowest-cost way to fix Venezuela. Authoritarians don’t reform …”
What, ‘fix’ oil-rich Venezuela so that Trump ‘n Chumps can barge in & cash in? Yes, authoritarians ‘don’t change’ - and that is Trump until the day he dies.
"I can drive from Boston to New York in about four hours. That level of convenience is unbeatable."
Amtrack does downtown Boston to downtown New York is 3-4 hours, it's downtown to downtown, no putting up with traffic (https://www.amtrak.com/tickets/departure.html - put in Boston & New York, chose dates, see times & costs). Sit back, relax, use your computer, listen to music, watch what goes by, maybe buy a snack & drink. Much more relaxing than driving I95.
You can walk from the station to a hotel. In neither Boston nor New York are cars needed - they have great public transportation. Like many European cities.
Tech Bros strike back. I wonder if this is the same troll who advocated violence in the comments section from the last post.
Reads like AI but AI knows the rules of statistics...of course AI is neither, it's a cheat by stealing others' works and words to look intelligent, like you actually wrote the poem instead of stealing it...even my HS girlfriends knew that trick!
I no longer trust our fascist tech-owned government (before Trump was inaugurated) and use a foreign email for more of my business.
They are learning less? They are bored of testing, perhaps due to the Eugenics smell of standardized testing…test don’t go up because kids are pretty much the same each year…so trying to force the ‘Up’ creates bad curriculum, boring, decontextual, silly…and scores go down. And we waste boat-loads of time and money on management.
Aaron, it's funny when folks take a specific and make a general statement from it...I'm glad some do well, can do well, for a variety of reasons, and high expectations by parents is a key, as is enrichment, money, time, good school, rules about homework...etc. One of colleagues, in computer science, had all six kids go to college, none in computer science! U.C. Berkeley suggests that, for many incoming students, they not use their AP courses for college credit because it causes too many to fail, based on data, for the whole group, not one story expanded...somewhere in the rules of stats you learn this.
I take maths seriously! I also take 'reality' seriously.
You must have the best list of enemies ever.
Good for you for shining the light on our benighted, self-righteous and obscenely greedy digital plutocrats. The parallel is right on. Social media triggers dopamine with its quick hits of pleasure to the brain, similar to heroin.
It's all part of our Brave New World. Aldus Huxley was right.
Excellent column. Thank you for your intelligence, integrity and courage.
Was anyone else struck by how much the opening paragraphs of today's post sounded like it was describing Big Tobacco and its denial, for years, that smoking causes cancer?
Or Big Oil denying climate change.
Merchants of Doubt! Cigarettes are good for you!
Or the gambling racket.
But...but...the state lottery is being used to fund *education*!!
(After we stripped a lot of other funding away from it.)
Or even more directly, the Opioid/OxyContin/Purdue/Sackler Family scandal.
The Broligarchs want nothing short of Laissez Faire (and heavily subsidized) Capitalism. It didn't work in the past and it will fail again - spectacularly!
I beg to disagree. They do not want laissez-faire capitalism because in such a system there would be no government subsidies. What they want is monopoly power and control over the economy and the polity of our entire society. Thanks to a corrupt Supreme Court and a spineless Congress they are well on their way to achieving just that.
We're closing in on half a century of being "trickled" on!
“Tinkled on”
Exactly!
Thinking dog and fire-hydrants…big dogs, ugly and smelly, elan truck dogs.
Worse than that their aim is racist feudal fascism but with AI and current robotics the vast bulk of humanity is superfluous to the aims of P2025 and that is what seems to be driving the current regime in USA . Which suggest 99% of the current human population serve no function in P2025s longer term final implementation.
What was that movie!? Every time I try to navigate an airport I like we are cattle, and I moo…as do others…pretty funny really.
The term pilots and flight attendants use for passengers is "cattle."
This why they laugh so hard and smile when I, and others, moo!
I'll throw in a "baa-aa" from time to time, or an occasional whinny.
I do take a bit of comfort in knowing that AI will eventually take out the oh-so-replicatable role of corporate executives, which are based on a very simple rule-set.
In the interim, I cling to the fact that the bulk of billionaires' net worth is based on stock price, and the markets as a whole depend on consumer spending on products and services.
Problem is given the superrich are primarily those developing or controlling the development of AI like the industrial revolution a bottom up approach is likely to be/being taken. Young educated non cyber nuts are finding jobs harder to come by in' developed ' areas
Broligarchs, yes, but bidnizzes in general don't really want laissez-faire capitalism until *after* they hold a bunch of the market. Until then they want a "level playing field".
I would contend ‘bidness’ is consolidating into giant monopolies similar to the 1890s. We need another Teddy Roosevelt.
"Bully!"
(Also: "Charge!")
Sorry, Borrowing from your comment section. I need help.
Why? Because the error in economics isn't the fault of any one person or group of people.
It's the error in the understanding of economics itself.
This is a new way of thinking in economics, different from other economics in that its explanation lies not in the external aspects of the transaction but in its internal aspects. If we use a familiar analogy, it's like the difference between alchemy and chemistry. Both explain chemical reactions, but the former explains how external substance A becomes substance B through a certain method. The latter explains how the transformation of substance A into substance B occurs internally.
Assuming everyone has the same understanding, then the value of a commodity x is 50. The actual transaction price is also 50. Therefore, we don't consider taxes or other factors. The only change here is supply and demand, meaning the actual transaction price might be 47 or 53, etc.
Demand, as a form of currency, doesn't exist here. Similarly, we can understand that if there is demand for currency β, then the original currency is currency α, meaning the selling price of the traded item is α50β currency -3 or 3, which equals currency α47 or 53.
This means that no matter what, you need to pay currency α50, and you will receive currency β3 in change. However, currency α and currency β are not interchangeable. This is inherent to supply and demand theory.
In reality, for traded items, whether goods or services, we don't know their true value or how much of the price change is due to supply and demand. But what happens if currency β flows into α, referring to excessive money supply or exchange of currencies of different face values, such as the euro and the yen?
We can see that the same traded item will have two levels under supply and demand.
And what if a traded item has more levels and flows?
This reveals that the supply and demand theory itself is both correct and incorrect, and this duality applies to all economic theories.
Economists don't explain why people do certain things, but rather the consequences of doing so. Like other natural sciences, a theory doesn't dictate how airplanes and cars should be manufactured, but rather how doing something leads to certain results, which people then use to create airplanes and cars.
As mentioned above, like alchemy and chemistry, this is also economics, but completely different from what we know as economics. Therefore, the economic theories we commonly encounter are not true economic theories, but rather explanations of human behavior itself, using economic data to reinterpret why people do what they do. Such work is more suitable for psychologists, behavioral scientists, or biologists and neuroscientists. Economics has no answers, nor will it ever have any. Unless you believe economists can answer what the goals of an individual or human life are.
The above example uses supply and demand. Now, let's make an assumption that excludes supply and demand: you buy two goods, A and B, and simultaneously produce both goods. A and B are unaffected by supply, demand, scarcity, profits, taxes, or any other factors; their prices are exactly the same. However, the resulting economic outcomes will be different, even opposite. Here, the flow between A and B, or between C, which you sell for money, due to their internal differences, is what truly affects the economy.
Perhaps my explanation was unclear. Let's consider a commodity initially valued at 50. In reality, a payment of 48 or 54 doesn't necessarily correspond to -2 or 4, but rather to the same 47 and 53. This means the actual transaction value of the commodity becomes 51, which here represents a flow of β money into α money. It's like exchanging 100 yen for 100 euros of the same denomination.
This price increase from 50 to 51, applied to most everyday goods, results in inflation, unrelated to money supply or economic growth. Similarly, the hierarchical relationship within goods isn't solely based on supply and demand; this is just an example using supply and demand.
In other words, 48α doesn't... It must equal 50α and -2β. For the same product, 50α = 10α① 10α② 10α③. Here, we assume α① = 7; α② = 30; α③ = 3. Therefore, α①, α②, and α③ can flow like αβ.
Similarly, 50α ≠ 50α, not only because the proportions of α①, α②, and α③ are different, but also because α itself is different.
For person A, α① = 5 = $6, but for person B, α① = 5 = $5.8. Therefore, when the perceived value of the same product is 50, the actual costs paid by A and B are $60 and $58 respectively. Conversely, when A and B, as producers, price the product at $60 and $58 respectively, the actual price is 50.
For my own sanity, I tend to avoid explanations that use phrases that use "not true X" or "duality." Sorry.
Also, whatever they're called, I test the soundness of ideas (economics, justice, public policy) based on whether they capture modern knowledge of actual human cognition, brain chemistry and measurable human responses, rather than traditionally accepted theory.
There's no special "x" here.
I can be referring to any product or service.
It could be your first cup of coffee in the morning.
Regarding duality, let me use a realistic example you might like: Imagine two identical cups of coffee, with exactly the same ingredients, roasting, and everything else.
The only difference is that one is sold in a coffee shop and made by someone you don't know, while the other is made by your spouse, children, parents, or friends.
Are these two cups of coffee the same? The answer to the same question will differ for different people and for the same person at different times.
But are the actions of the actual barista or the person who makes the coffee for you the same or different?
The answer is different. Although the same actions can make five cups of coffee, for your coffee... There aren't five coffees available for you to consume, so the one made for you is more expensive.
Now, let me ask you, are these two coffees the same coffee? What would be the answer if I asked a third person the same question?
Let's express this precisely with numbers. Suppose the remaining cost is $0.5 and the production cost is $2.5. Ignoring profit, the coffee for a stranger is $1, but for you it's $3. So, is this coffee $1 or $3? Both are possible; it depends on your perspective. There's no fixed answer.
However, this coffee can be traded for any price. Here, $0.5 is α① and $2.5 is α②; they can be exchanged.
What you said is true. Why do you think these two are the same price? The coffee is the same or different. Is it just a difference in thinking, or are there genuine differences between the two methods, and why? Or can you prove that coffee needs to be consumed within 3 minutes or any other time after extraction, otherwise the taste will change? These are all things you mentioned, but that's not what economists need to consider.
Just as a physicist, when considering a force, doesn't think about whether the person applying that force is Tyson or O'Neill, or whether it's a friendly pat or a beating, the economy similarly doesn't care what you think, but whether the money you pay has flowed. The two cups of coffee above are both traded for $3, and these two people then buy another good. Whether the flow is from α① to α②, or vice versa, or equal, is unchangeable. The fact is, for the salesperson, income can be either a① $0.5 or a② $2.5, or both a① and a② $1.5. If this salesperson buys a TV for $300, the TV's ratio isn't always a fixed α①:α② ratio of 1:5. Even if it were 1:5, the salesperson's income could be $2300, possibly a ratio of α① $400, α② $1600, or a β $300.
So, what ratio does the salesperson use when paying for the TV? Or is the ratio between their income and the purchased goods always 1:5 or 4:16:3?
Clearly not. Interestingly, this can be tested. If you don't believe it, you can try this experiment yourself, a test that can be conducted based on common sense.
The first bit (terms used) was a joke.
The rest is just my take on hyper-technical analysis that blows up in the face of human irrationality. This may be fine for an economics doctoral thesis, but it matters very little in a world where a stupid jackass puts a giant tariff on Brazilian coffee for corrupt and petty reasons, or persistently increasing crop failures puts stress on the world's food supply.
The first part (terms used) was a joke.
Sorry, due to translation software limitations, I don't quite understand the meaning of that sentence.
For the following question, I'll use a real-world example. The value of a component of a commodity remains constant, meaning it doesn't change regardless of policy or tax changes. Let's continue with the example above. There are α and β, where α is the commodity itself and β is supply and demand. Now, let's change the tax to γ...
So, assuming the landed price of Brazilian coffee beans is $5000 (I don't know the exact price), then α is $5000, regardless of the value of γ, or how much it affects β. Whether the actual world transaction price is $8888 or $18888, it won't change the fact that the coffee beans cost $5000.
In other words, whether the premium is due to demand, β is $3888 or $13888, or γ is part of the tax.
Or, the main issue with taxes isn't how much is collected, but where it's spent. Now, there are two types of coffee beans: the Brazilian coffee beans mentioned above, and American coffee beans. I want to increase local coffee bean cultivation, but the price of local coffee is $7000. So, let's assume the tariff increases the price of Brazilian coffee beans to $7000/$7500/$8000... That is, assuming a 40% tax, $2000 goes to the local... Coffee growers receive a $1000 subsidy, plus a $500 subsidy for every coffee purchased.
Therefore, Brazilian coffee beans cost $6500, and US-grown coffee beans cost $5500.
Similarly, if there were a $35 tax and a $500 subsidy, the selling price would be $6000.
But what is the actual selling price here? It's still $5000 and $7000. That is to say, if Brazilian coffee beans decrease, taxes decrease, and subsidies stop, the selling price of local coffee beans would still be $7000.
Similar examples are happening in the real world; the protests by farmers in Europe a few years ago due to subsidies are a real example.
Here, taxes, or γ, are outside of α. And the above α①α②, etc., are inside α.
As I said at the beginning, they are inside, not outside, so even without external taxation, internal flow will still occur. Similarly, whether to increase US-grown coffee beans or whether to increase the price of local and Brazilian coffee beans... The fixed answer, whether for price or other purposes, is not a fixed answer in economics.
Or, let's ask a practical question: I am Chinese, is a tax war necessary? This doesn't have a fixed answer. The Chinese are friendly, the Germans are friendly, the Japanese are friendly, but were Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan friendly? Replace Brazil with China, and coffee beans with all daily necessities. If the US and China went to war, the expenses you would need wouldn't be at current prices. You'd see coffee beans from Brazil become American, 5000 becomes 7000, and because of reduced supply, you'd need a higher price. Simultaneously, because of the war, you'd need even more expenses. So, for the same expenses, if you originally had 10,000 per month, due to changes in goods, you'd need 14,000; because of the war premium, you'd need 15,000; and because you'd need weapons and other supplies to cope with the war, you'd need 200. 00, Prematurely changing will only result in 14,000 to 20,000, while changing will result in 10,000 to over 20,000. Which is better?
I won't give you an answer. Which is better is not for me to decide.
The same behavior applies to daily transactions, even to goods produced in one's own country, region, or small town.
Now do you still think this is just some theory irrelevant to life?
Because this isn't just about China; this China can also apply to Walmart, Amazon, and Costco. It can also apply to the British, French, and American treasuries, or the entire economic system. The current price of goods is like $5,500 for American-made coffee beans. This price is unsustainable, just like the US debt.
Or, using the same coffee beans, a 5% tariff, but the same subsidy method, the fiscal problems will obviously worsen.
And this is only part of the problem. There are other unsustainable aspects.
1) Current social media are drugs. Full stop
2) Crypto their money
3) If we Europeans try to do something to save our kids' mental health (and the euro) we have to face Trump's tariffs and Putin's bombs
4) Mr Musk and Thiel lecturing us on free speech is the ultimate insult to Humanity.
In my humble opinion, I firmly think it is past time that somebody in Manhattan and Washington, starting from Congresswomen and Congressmen, start doing their job, trying to save us all.
They sold out their people, why should they stand up straight for other nations?
Good rhetorical question 😂.
Hi Luigi. Is there room on your ‘humble opinion’ soap box for another person to share it with you (me)? Thanks, Anthony.
I have been following you and appreciating your economic, political and social wisdom since I first learned of your work through Michael Barker and CSPA some 45+ years ago. I have been remiss in not thanking you long ago how much your insight, analysis and advocacy have meant to me …and the country/world over that time…and all the more in this dark time. Thank you for shining Liberty’s economic+ light.
I’d like to join Bob Friedman in his comment. Thanks Paul & Robin. Anthony.
the other thing we can do is boycott those corporations that are buying/on these apps. Don't order through FB, Instagram or TikTok. If you see something you want to buy, get it locally or from the website of the company that sells the item. Don't use Temu or Shein.
Ditto Amazon.
Yep. If I go on Amazon's website, it's only to find the name of a company selling something I need, and then doing a search to find that company's website. It doesn't always work, because sometimes the company still uses Amazon for fulfillment. But very often it does work, and I get to continue to avoid spending money on Amazon.
Ditto here. Amazon also has one of the worst search engines I've seen in that it will produce the most irrelevant results.
It actually will change words. For example there’s a popular writer called “Jonathan Cahn.”
If you type the less well known writer “Jonathan Cohn” into the Amazon search box it will change “Cohn” to “Cahn.”
In other words you can’t search for Jonathan Cohn’s books on Amazon by entering his name.
You have to know the name of the book.
Totally crappy IMO.
Try Abebooks. I just ran a search for "Jonathan Cohn" and it found him.
FWIW, Amazon owns Abe’s.
Thanks for the tip!
"Sponsored"
Even better, go cold turkey, delete all of them: Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Amazon. Quit relying on corporate media for information, don’t buy into cryptocurrency, regard AI as any malign gossip. Life is better without the lies and abuse.
I did over five years ago and it was hard. I replaced them with thoughtful essays and am happy with the choice.
The one upside of Amazon I've found over the decades (started buying tech books in the 1990s) is that they don't pester you with emailed or snailed advertisements, and they forbid their vendors from doing it. Just about any other place I order from will result in me getting on mailing lists for endless catalogs and promotions. (Yes, I have a neurotic aversion to being added to mailing lists, which is why I no longer give to political campaigns and I've happily found ways to donate to charities anonymously.)
Will we see a new online diaspora? Will person to person communications allow social comments without a Facebook or another central processor. Encrypted communications may thrive in a dark hothouse of secrecy. It is possible. I might call it the "New Dark Age."
Maybe. My stepson and his wife have placed strict limits on the amount of "screen time" their children are allowed. They recently had a landline installed to prevent their kids from using wireless phones.
His mother and I approve and are supportive. His biological father and stepmother are furious.
I don't have an account on any of those platforms, so I have been spared. I do see a fair number of scamish ads on Youtube, but I've figured out a couple ways to bypass them. Even when I have not been able to bypass one, so far I've resisted any urge to buy.
Brilliant Meighan. Thank you. Anthony
You could also replace "heroin" with "fossil fuels" and the same would apply
Old ad: "What if everything ran on gas?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn__9hLJKAk
Great analogy and coda - I almost feel guilty living here in France, where kids don’t get shot going to school, hate speech is illegal, health is covered for all, food is healthy (strictly monitored !) and education accessible through university. What is the U.S. thinking ??! 🙄
Why have we become the toxic, corrupt bully in the room??!
A sugar high of capitalist success without the undergirding of culture?
The rule of law is for little people and some people are just better than others. Got that?? It’s the new American way. Let me know when we’re great again.
Let me know when we turn around and start heading towards greatness again.
America is a value less and morally corrupt nation. Its politicians. Business elites. Media. Just a huge failure. And without any capacity to identify and solve its problems. Keep the US boycott strong.
You really should not make such vicious and obviously false generalizations about an entire nation which is in any case highly diverse. And please remember: we Europeans are depending on millions of brave Americans to defend the values we have in common.
As an American, I'm afraid that right now the commentator has it right. Sure, there are many in the US, present company included, I imagine, who are fighting the good fight - but it's very much an uphill battle and everything that the country is doing "in our name" now is evil.
I know it must be dispiriting. But you know what? I think the US will get through this. You have a vigorous political culture. There are plenty of policy ideas for a better future from Paul Krugman and many others. Many of the sycophants around Trump are just that. Their policies are irrational or contradictory and will do serious economic damage. And I see an impressive handful of Democratic politicians spoiling for a fight.
We could not disagree more. American politics in its 2 party system all the way from judges to police chiefs to governor ra and presidents is so easy to corrupt. Laws against money in politics is a joke. Finally their extremist individualistic society is completely incapable of nuance, of focus and of solidarity to solve any of their problems. They can’t solve school children being shot ! I don’t know where you see the light.
Well, I don't see much light, but I do see hope. The US has been here before, in the Gilded Age, when corruption and monopolies were brought to heel by the Muckrakers and Teddy Roosevelt. Extreme individualism was combatted by the New Deal, and racism by Black protest, Kennedy and his successors. There has been huge progress in developing universal health insurance. I feel that maybe we Europeans sometimes have difficulty in recognizing that the dynamism of the American economy, which we ought to admire, has inevitable costs, but we also have difficulty in recognizing social progress, partly because it doesn't come clothed in socialist rhetoric.
Hi Rena. Please, keep on with the uphill battle. America is in a very bad place, you’ve got my attention in the UK. But David’s advice is wise. Humans do a lot of bad things, including awful things. But we also have the ability, and the instinct, equally in our genes to do better. Thanks for your comment,and regard, Anthony
Thanks David. I agree with you. Jean-François’ comment is a slogan, not an argument, and relies on simple characterisation to provide a punchline. If America does well, we all benefit. If America does harm, we all suffer. I’m writing as an Irish man living in Britain, so I understand at a visceral level how characterisations cause harm. We can do better than this. The snappy criticism is cool to roll off the tongue, but it isn’t accurate. Please, everyone, try to avoid triggering which hurts. Real life does enough of that already. Yours, in regard, Anthony.
Of course my answer is quick. To get a reaction. And to make Americans think. Seems we’re all non Americans here. Ironic. The world is full of states that have fallen from some past greatness. Hungary. Argentina. Turkey. Britain. List goes on and on. I very much doubt the US will be in a place of any greatness in 10 maybe even 5 years. No healthy society gets to this point.
Dear Jean François. Thank you for taking time and for your thoughtful comment. I understand your perspective better. I don’t have a rebuttal to offer. I might be saying useless platitudes. However, I try to see what common ground we share, and to encourage cooperation. Your criticisms try to achieve that too. Your original comment was too triggering, I thought. Thanks again for your thought provoking comment. Sorry to be slow in getting back to you. Yours, Anthony.
I’m fascinated by your response here. Usually though I see this with Americans where they are ‘triggered’ as you say by words. I feel the situation is dire. The US just released their security strategy that basically says the Americas are there’s to take, Europe is an enemy and we must all be kinder to Russia. This paper is triggering. This paper is a blueprint and an action plan to completely rewrite the world order giving more weight to autocrats and making liberal democracies the enemy. This is triggering. This has power. My vulgar thoughts on a Substack post are meaningless. Let’s agree to focus on the correct threats. I hold no power whatsoever.
Thanks, again, François. I’m sorry to have misjudged your original comment. I ‘judged the book by its cover’, and I was lazy, too quick with my keyboard. Your final thoughts today sink in. Thanks for getting back to me. Anthony.
Yup, elbows up!
💪🇨🇦 💪
Never 51st.
Period.
End of sentence.
https://youtu.be/FLSbrezIK7s?si=IADb5RMq6HDVxMpA
Go ahead a click the link. It’s safe.
That definitely applies to the MAGA population.
Meta's shareholding structure where Zuckerberg controls the company as if it was a sole proprietorship should be delisted as a public company.
Maybe we already are an actual narco state. First strike, second strike, whatever, it is all murder, but lies about the importance of small boats in Caribbean sea as drug carriers make you wonder just who is benefitting.
Hegseth is itching to play warrior. I actually feel sorry for Venezuela.
I'm with you, but I'm a little more optimistic. Venezuela has two serious mountain ranges. Sun Tsu says that he who takes the sunny side of the high ground will win (of course, he was writing over 2,000 years before aircraft existed). The Captain who taught our ROTC classes said that guerillas cannot exist long without the support of the people. The Venezuelan government is busily arming the people. IMO, if the US cannot obtain the support of the Venezuelan people and a substantial number take to the hills, we're looking at another Vietnam.
What is Venezuela's analog to the Bay of Pigs?
(Also, if Petróleos had any foresight, they'd add anti-takeover bombs to their oil/gas rigs, and announce it to the world.)
I don't know. The issues with the Bay of Pigs were 1) that invasion was planned out by the Eisenhower administration and then execution was handed over to the Kennedy administration, and 2) the evaluation of Cuba's military capability was essentially worthless. Item #2 was the critical one; the Soviet Union had shipped in modern aircraft and the US provided Korean war surplus material to support the invaders. The invaders were also not supported by the US military (neither administration wanted to go on record as having the US invade Cuba). The MiGs had a field day.
This is totally different. One of the exercises students were handed in my ROTC classes was to evaluate the military capability of a nation from sources available to us. My assignment was Egypt (shortly after a war with Israel). Working from newspaper accounts, I developed an evaluation that got an A. Based on that experience, I'm certain that the US military has a pretty good idea of the capabilities of the Venezuelan air force and navy. IMO, an invasion by the United States would certainly succeed. Subjugating the country afterwards would be another matter.
Invasion would succeed
(1) at great cost
(2) to no benefit
(3) and probably with a lot of oil spilled in the Caribbean
America is a thug nation. In so many ways. 11 months, we take back the House and begin to bring sanity back.
The US has sustained a total moral collapse and it’s metastasizing. I’m a disabled grandmother committed to equal access. I’ve engaged in more than 50 acts of microadvocacy (one organization at a time) across virtually all domains: Finance, Retail, Entertainment, Federal Government, State Government, Academia, Health Care, Nonprofit Safety Net, Media, Publishing, Insurance and Mainstream religion. The outcome is always the same: false hope, empty promises, and an utter abandonment of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. That said, I believe that we’re witnessing an emerging adulthood in the US, where we are ready to take responsibility for what we’ve done and commit to reparations on all levels. This regime and its wildfire won’t last forever. From the immense destruction will come new growth. G_d willing, we’ll make better choices.
History suggests otherwise, I am afraid.
Social workers are hard-wired optimists. We have to be.
A lovely reply and comment. Thanks. Anthony
Thank you!
Except that, whatever the final outcome, we've already lost treasure, industries, trade advantages, moral high ground, and international status.
China has benefited greatly from Project 2025.
They probably control the actual illicit drugs too. Maybe that's what bombing Venezuelan boats is about; Mafia tactics so Trump and friends now get a big cut.
Instead of addressing the needs of the great majority, the current system responds only to the wants of a tiny few.
In the long run, history says that this doesn't end well for the tiny few.
Millions and perhaps billions await this change
The oligarchs took over the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society which took over the Supreme Court and much of the federal judiciary. The Supreme Court then handed down rulings to give even more power to the oligarchs and to pull the teeth of the federal government agencies which police anything.
The current case before the Supreme Court is over whether to let Donald fire members of independent commissions at will. Anyone unsure as to how that will go? I would be shocked if the MAGA majority on the court does not give Donald another win.
Congress has long been bought and paid for by Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, the military industrial complex, and other assorted oligarchs.
The majority of the Supreme Court is bought and paid for. Donald is bought and paid for.
What is left?
The project to take over the Federal Courts and fill them with republican reactionaries and make America safe for the wealthy and well connected and big corporations is not a new idea. It has been going on since the 1970's or 1980's. In his article, the Good Professor mentions the Citizens United decision in 2010 which did away with limits on campaign donations. That case was decided 15 years ago.
During this process it was possible to see what was happening and there are many books and articles written over the years detailing what the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, and others are up to, but progressive and Democratic forces were unable to prevent the capture of the federal courts and many state legislatures by the reactionaries.
The bottom line is that Democrats need to control more state legislatures and a majority of seats in the U. S. Senate. The state legislatures in many states draws the districts for representatives and the U. S. Senate approves people to be federal judges.
In my opinion, the oligarchs have taken over because many people don't know or care about what they are doing.