[No text content]
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 22:24:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2007216403267629386
[No text content]
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 22:24:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2007216403267629386
Our organization has been making this argument for almost a decade. Though we include the reforms in the financial sector as well – the extractions from which are even more horrifying. Our point is that there is no reason we tax the common folk so to speak. We don’t have to increase taxes. I get angry thinking of independent contractors whose bodies give up by their late forties paying income taxes when their net contribution to taxes is in the low single digits. It’s just ‘not right’ so to speak.
Noblesse Oblige.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 06:56:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006982836041982024
Yes, the increase in expectations of consumption – much of which was created during the 90s – that’s created a false impression of the baseline expectations of potential home owners.
Someone just sent me Austin figures which are informative, but not representative. National numbers are all over the place. I grew up in a small town in western NY state, and housing is ridiculous today. At present, I’m back living in the USA. I live a few miles east of the Microsoft Redmond WA campus, and we’re seeing east-asian sized apartments at NYC and San Francisco prices. Meanwhile the company (the tech sector) is exiting it’s (overpaid) middle layer on a scale we saw in postwar industrial sector in the 80s that led to the franchise boom as people were outcast from industry.
The Northwest saw this with Boeing in the 70s. Seattle was nearly a ghost town. I lived through the movement of tech sector from Boston to the west coast in the 80s but Boston recovered because of it’s institutions. I’m seeing the same near certainty in the current tech sector (where I made my wealth since the 80s).
So, between ‘the great sort’ and changes in urbanization, offshoring, asymmetry in the economy because of the tech sector, the tech sector obscuring the rest of the economy, questionable education expense, financialization of the economy, the pressure on the young remains prohibitive – and is more than responsible for suppression of reproduction.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 06:51:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006981636328456548
I frame the increase in housing costs differently.
Our expected ‘minimums’ in every walk of life have vastly increased – particularly in housing. We don’t produce three bedroom ‘1000 square feet of house as we did postwar or even 1200 square feet we did in teh 60s. By 2000 we’d doubled to 2200 square feet.
And amenities? we’ve about quadrupled the amenities we’ve included in the houses.
In retrospect we’re getting what we pay for at a discount.
I focus instead on outsourcing the productive economy and financialization of the economy that has left the bottom half out of most gains since the seventies.
I do try to remind the bottom half that the reason that they’re in this position was their embracement of the democratic socialist program during those periods and how they forced business, industry, and finance to seek global markets rather than be ‘blackmailed’ by the combination of unions and the democratic socialist movement among the democrats.
Democratic socialism destroyed european economies. It just took until now to see that it’s irreversible. By the seventies we knew the end of socialism. By the sixties the end of communism. It’s taken us a long time to ‘get over’ the false promises of the marxist(class) -neomarxist(cultural marxism) – Postmodern(truth marxism) -feminist(sex marxism) -woke(race marxist) revolution – all lies and stupidity of silly people who were captured by false premises and magical thinking.
It’s exasperating how much harm believable lies were to humanity. It’s almost as damaging as the spread of abrahamic religions and the false promises they promoted but caused the dark ages in europe the middle east, central asia, and are still threatening us today.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 06:29:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006976054196617595
Great Question.
While (a) all conspiracy theories hold a grain of truth at their core and (b) there is a tendency on the right to seek conspiracy narratives just as the left has a tendency toward oppression narratives, the reality is that the city of london does specialize in shady money, but that they’re closely intertwined with our NYC only slightly less questionable money.
While I get why folks latch onto these City of London empire theories—there’s no denying London’s massive role in global finance, handling 40% of forex and offshore havens that tie into US trends like deindustrialization—it’s mostly overblown conspiracy thinking.
What we should think in terms of is the US-UK transfer of imperial power and the UK’s retention of some aspects of that history combined with some aspects of american postwar capture of the UK financial system in order to expand american postwar power.
But in the end it’s rational incentives (‘conspiracy of common interests’) not conspiracy by intent.
Financialization in America ramped up through our own choices, like deregulation in the ’80s and chasing short-term profits, which yeah, led to predictable downsides like inequality and job losses in manufacturing, but also powered our dominance in world trade and military might. The USA switched from military to economic power especially under Regan. Which we see playing out with Trump’s continuation of exercising that power today.
Instead of chasing plots, let’s stick to facts: incentives drive this stuff, not some British overlord suppressing sovereignty.
OTOH: anything that gets the radical right to agitprop is probably a counter-balance to the radical left and in some strange way produces a reasonable equilibrium.
Short answer, no conspiracy other than common interest made possible by the utility of our shared anglo american common law emphasis on the protection of private property, the profitability of globalism for the financial sector, and the utility of using that wealth as strategic leverage instead of blood and steel.
I hope this provides the answer you’re looking for. I try to remain sympathetic to conservatives without feeding the false narratives.
CD
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 06:06:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006970421980299501
I am not sure savants (correctly ‘idiot savants’) have any such conception. They have a more autistic near-rage at irreducibility to their frame. If you mean savants proper it really depends if they’re on the autistic spectrum or just very smart (ie: Terrance Tao). If they’re very smart they usually have a very practical understanding of their position. I think the problem we might consider is that very bright people are often aware that they have specialized in domain, where the signal of a ‘not so smart’ is someone who seems to believe expertise in one domain is transferrable to another – which is most of the problem with academics.
In economics we are sort of forced out of this, as are some people in physics – because specialization turns out to require very different premises in different sub-specializations. So questions like ‘x economists or y physicists’ are relatively stupid questions, since in each subdomain there are probably only two or three people of extraordinary competency and the rest have only familiarity. This is untrue in the soft sciences, and certainly in the liberal arts.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-01 22:50:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006860586144116962
Great analogy, and I’m cautious of analogies, because they lead to subsequent false deductions, but basically, as I think you meanit, yes.
The way to think about it, is that at some point the correlations you create in the LLM via training either over-enforce (overdetermine) or misdirect (underdetermine) the distribution.
This is why training using our existing regression algorithms independent of contextualization of whatever subnetwork we’re trying to tune, requires retesting nearly everything.
I see papers discussing compartmentalization through episodic memory associations (like the brain does) which should get us there, but my job is governance (constraining the path through the latent space) and I leave the training to those who have access to the code and the large models. I don’t, my team doesn’t, so it’s pointless to theorize without the foundation model dev’s ability to test.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-31 20:03:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006456195608199539
Perfect. 😉
But I reserve the right to fond memories on occasion. 😉
Hugs and thank you for your leadership.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-30 20:37:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006102304097767761
Brilliant. Clear. Visionary.
I knew you’d know.
Genius. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-30 20:36:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006102064309375318
@OrielJohann
net net, yes you are correct. I just enumerated the majority of causes. I’ll wrap it into the industrial revolution relieved demand for consumption and we built a world for consumption which of course produced deterministic consequences.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-30 19:35:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006086865817129402