Prepare For The Ultimate Gaslighting

[Dave Bryce]

Excellent article.

 

Certainly encapsulates more than a few of the things I'm thinking and feeling right now.

 

dB

[Anderton]

I was about to post this as well, it relates to so much of what's been discussed here lately. Hope you don't mind, I went in and bolded the link so it would be more obvious.

 

There was a story in the news about how people in a city in India could see mountains in the distance that hadn't been seen in 30 years due to the pollution. Maybe this whole horrible plague thing will cause people to re-think what "quality of life" really means.

[KuruPrionz]

I read over half of the article, may go back and finish it eventually.

 

It is a valuable perspective and certainly true that we are under more scrutiny from all directions now than any people have ever been in the past.

Which is why I do not use my cheap,crappy cellphone on the internet at all.

 

Recently I posted something in one of the MPN fora mentioning a product and a couple of minutes later the person I was conversing with posted that the same product had suddenly appeared on their emal homepage!!!!

Scary stuff!!!!

 

The last television I owned was given to me by my Dad about 1998 or so. I put it in the corner with the screen facing inward until the weather got nicer, then I sold it for a few bucks at a yard sale in the front yard.

Running an ad blocker on my interwebz, not perfect but a huge improvement.

 

I am a "Lean Evangilist", more precisely - an advocate for Kaizen. Kaizen is sort of a philosophy of constant improvement. Lean/Kaizen is the primary driving force that took Toyota from being a small company in a few sheds in war torn Japan in the early 50's to their current status. They receive over 60,000 suggestions for improvement from their workers every year and implement a majority of these ideas.

 

One person on the line in a Toyota factory can pull a rope if they are given a part with a defect and the ENTIRE assembly line will come to a halt until that problem is addressed. That almost never happens, the QC happens everywhere from the nuts and bolts to the final testing.

 

Living in Fresno, I remember seeing both the Coastal range and the Sierra Nevadas clearly when I was a kid. As time went on they slowly disappeared into a haze of pollution. I was in Hollywood once and you could barely breathe and could easily see the smog just looking across the street.

 

Then the Federal government started trying to mandate pollution controls. The Big Three (GM, Ford and Chrysler) pushed back, claiming it would be too expensive, was not feasible, etc.

Both Toyota and Honda immediately set to work and in a matter of months were producing automobiles that ran cleaner than Federal standards. The bar had been raised, the Big 3 had no choice but to compete on the new playing field. The American "We won WWII, We are Invincible" attitude took a major blow - long overdue.

 

Over time, the air in Fresno got much less polluted. Older American cars were mostly in junkyards, Japanese cars were everywhere and emitting far less pollution. Modern US made cars were seen in lower numbers but also much improved in terms of emissions.

 

Why the story? We CAN improve the quality of our lives, Kaizen does not apply only to technology.

When I was working I "Kaizened" cooking breakfast. I made the same breakfast but it too less time, eventually several minutes less.

 

I've taken my home studio apart and put it back together at least a dozen times. Each time it is easier to use. Next big improvement is a work in progress, custom length cabling to reduce excess and unneeded clutter and reduce/eliminate cable born EMI.

 

There is no end to progress, just a matter of focusing on WHAT progress means to us as individuals.

It is our choice to be sucked into the vortex, or not.

Cheers, Kuru

[PrairieGuy]

Let's not forget that the article is written by someone who still has a job. That makes it a lot easier to have nice thoughts and dreams for a beautiful future but the harsh reality is that millions of people that are out of work and some of them may never have a job to go back to. But they will still have rent or mortgages, families to support, and bills to pay.

 

That being said...we've always lived modestly and the latest designer item or brand new car has never excited us so the advertiser onslaught that will come after this is over will be lost on us. Not caring about the latest new thing has its rewards.

[Doerfler]

very well written article. I am not familiar with the publication. Thanks for sharing

[nursers]

very well written article. I am not familiar with the publication. Thanks for sharing

 

Dave, Medium is a site pretty much anyone can contribute to. Like any such site the quality can vary between excellent (like the article linked on this thead) to much less robust stuff. I use it for the odd book or game review and find it fun to use and read.

[GovernorSilver]

Well-written article.

 

Yes, there are people losing jobs because of the pandemic and thus won't have the money to be affected - much - by the massive wave of marketing campaigns to come, that were mentioned in the article.

 

That said, as the article points out, the marketing campaigns will be part of a broader strategy to convince the US public that the pandemic never happened and to forget all the missteps by the current administration, including "relief" that is a pittance compared to what other countries, supposedly not as "Great" as USA, are doing for their economically impacted citizens.

 

With 20,000 deaths and counting in the US, maybe the pandemic won't be so easily forgotten but we'll see.

[dboomer]

Maybe I just don"t get it. Besides food, clothing and shelter purchases, everything else is an emotional purchase. So what if it costs to take your kids to Disneyland? You pay your money for that emotional high and then you are either pleased with that purchase or not.

[Anderton]

Let's not forget that the article is written by someone who still has a job. That makes it a lot easier to have nice thoughts and dreams for a beautiful future

 

Yes and no. He's self-employed, which means it can be a lot more difficult to have nice thoughts for a beautiful future because you never know where the next check is coming from, or when, or even "if."

 

I guess I have a "job," because I'm self-employed, I find gigs, and people pay me...in theory. But not always in practice. I'm owed royalties from July to December of 2019, for books I wrote for Hal Leonard (now Rowman & Littlefield). Contractually, they don't have to pay until 90 days after the close of the period. (I don't know if this is because it takes that long for accounting to get its act together, or whether they just sit on the money to collect interest.) When it was a few days short of three months, I sent an email to accounting to ask when I could expect the check...I was nervous because they paid later than 30 days for the previous half-year, and also underreported the correct amount of royalties (they eventually made good on that, though) . Then after the three-month period was up, I received an email saying that their operations had been suspended due to Covid-19. No check. I guess they choose not to do electronic transfers, for some reason. Half a year of earnings...gone. Poof. Is that a job?

 

So does he have a job? Not in the sense you mean, where there's some sense of security. There's no sense of security. There are no paid sick days or paid holidays. There are no health benefits or company-assisted 401k accounts. It's a lot harder to think nice thoughts about the future when you have to think what you can do in the present to make sure there actually is a future.

 

The harsh reality is that millions of people that are out of work and some of them may never have a job to go back to. But they will still have rent or mortgages, families to support, and bills to pay.

 

But unlike the article's author (or me, for that matter), they can collect unemployment while they look for a job. For someone self-employed, you have to pitch something, it has to get approved, you do the work, and eventually you get paid...maybe. With a conventional job, you get the gig, and two weeks later, you get a paycheck. Sure, my publisher can suspend their operations...but Kroger doesn't suspend wanting to get paid for groceries.

 

So I think that probably, the article was written by someone who has to hustle all the time to get gigs, and now, he's forced not to hustle because there's nothing to hustle...and he's finding out that maybe time is worth more than money. It's like when I was fired from Gibson...my girlfriend didn't say "OMG, what are we going to do?!?" but instead said "congratulations!" She said "that job was aging you." And she was right. I still work hard, but I have more choices in what to do with my life. We have a sustainable lifestyle that's scaled to my ability to earn money.

 

I think what the article describes about the scaling back of consumerism was already happening before the pandemic hit, because even though the stock market was doing well, that only meant a tangible increase in wealth to a very small percentage of people. Most folks were just managing to make ends meet. Apple realized they would have a hard time convincing people to buy new iPhones. The model for software sales changed. People held on to cars longer, or stopped buying cars and used rideshare services and public transportation instead. They read eBooks and streamed movies and music because they didn't want to be burdened by "things."

 

Frankly, I'm not sure the author is saying anything ground-breaking, but instead, is actually a bit late to the party.

[Notes_Norton]

Thanks Craig

 

As a self-employed gig worker:

• No sick leave
  
• No paid holidays
  
• No paid vacations
  
• No employer contribution to Social Security (the gig worker pays both the employer's and the worker's share)
  
• No employer contributions to health insurance or group plan rates
  
• No job security you have to hustle for every new dollar
  
• No unemployment compensation (except the exception for this crisis and I've yet to see a penny)
  

 

I could have made a lot more money and had a lot more benefits if I had stayed with the Electronics Engineering I was traind for, but I'd be working for some faceless, heartless corporation. I did that as a Cable TV Field Engineer for a few years when I was younger, and it isn't worth the money.

 

I make a living doing what I would do for free. I put in many more than 40 hours a week, but I like what I'm doing. I don't have to answer to some clueless middle manager who got the gig because he/she is friends with someone important. I don't have anyone telling me what to do. I live from my good decisions and hopefully learn from my bad ones.

 

The mode of the self-employed is NOT to do recreational or emotional shopping. Do not purchase things on credit to keep your debt as close to zero as possible. Keep a savings to buffer the times when you can't land a gig for a while. Live below your means.

 

I don't have to impress people with a Porsche, latest fashions, or luxury items. I impress them with my musicianship (hopefully) and my personality (again hopefully). As long as my wife loves me (and she does) and people enjoy my entertaining (which they do) life is good.

 

So when the ads hit after the virus is gone it won't matter. I won't see them since I nuked the "salesman in my living room" in the 1980s. I unplugged the Cable and I took the antenna and mast down, and in my fringe area, that means no TV at all.

 

Full disclosure: I'm on the Netflix one disc at a time in the mail plan. The only time the TV goes on is when we want to watch a movie. Perhaps twice a month.

 

For me, life without TV is better than life with TV. I found I would rather live my life by actually doing things than to live my life vicariously by watching actors pretending to do things,

 

Of course, as always, YMMV

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[Dave Bryce]

Count me as another independent contractor.

 

Frankly, in this situation, it's been a good thing for me. The fact that I have multiple irons in the fire has allowed me to adjust my work flow towards the things that either are the most fruitful right now, or appear as if they will be going forward.

 

For me, the tradeoff of being a bit more in control of what I do and how I do it is worth the lack of things that typically go with the traditional employment model.

 

dB

[Jazzmammal]

Well, I read the full article. My take, some good points, some stupid points, bad conclusion. He begins with this:

 

His initial premise is that a guy caught cheating can convince his wife it didn't happen by "gaslighting" her? What kind of idiot must she be? All I can say about that is if I tried that with my lady I wouldn't be here writing this...

 

So, with everybody home going out of their minds with boredom and worry about their economic future, we're going to wax poetic about the nice view of the mountains? And use that to try to think about some kind of utopian future? Ok, fine. Nice views but when can I get back to work and go see a Lakers game?

 

And then of course, he has to mention income inequality. I think I can say this without getting nuked. People are paid what they're worth.

 

Then there's this:

 

And because it is rarer than rare, it has brought to light all of the beautiful and painful truths of how we live. And that feels weird. Really weird. Because it has⦠never⦠happened⦠before. If we want to create a better country and a better world for our kids, and if we want to make sure we are even sustainable as a nation and as a democracy, we have to pay attention to how we feel right now. I cannot speak for you, but I imagine you feel like I do: devastated, depressed, and heartbroken.

 

What? No. Brought to light painful truths? Yes, LA has smog. The native indians called if the valley of smoke hundreds of years ago and it's much better now than it was 30 years ago and it will be better in the future. Most people don't feel devastated, depressed or heartbroken. A few sure, what about you guys here? Does the majority on this forum feel devastated, depressed and heartbroken? What's he talking about?

 

Then this is part of his conclusion based on "gaslighting" as if we're too stupid to understand.

 

Business and government are about to band together to knock us unconscious again. It will be funded like no other operation in our lifetimes. It will be fast. It will be furious. And it will be overwhelming. The Great American Return to Normal is coming.

 

Some nebulous "powers that be" are going to band together to knock us unconscious again? We're going to be duped like a bunch of sheep? I think he's one of those who thinks the average person is as dumb as a rock. The current situation proves that's not the case. We all recognize the threat and the vast majority have taken the appropriate measures to stop it. We're not that stupid, jeesh. And yes, I want the Great American Return to Normal. Bring it on!

 

At the risk of sounding callous and uncaring about the plight of others, this virus is not a big deal in the big picture By that I mean the country and world as as whole. As a planetary civilization, as a national civilization we can easily absorb millions of deaths worldwide without a blink of an eye. We've already done so many times. Millions dead in Darfur. Millions dead in the Middle East. Millions dead in the Killing Fields after the Vietnam War. How far back should I go with examples?

 

Bad things happened, people died. Life goes on. We're not going to find our way to something resembling the Star Trek universe by staying home collecting unemployment and admiring the view of the mountains because the economy has totally collapsed.

 

This current situation is only scary because it affects us right here regardless of status, money, power, whatever so that scares us. We will get back to work fairly soon, there will certainly be changes in behavior for a while but that will pass. Probably within the next two years during which a vaccine is developed and deployed it will be as if this never happened.

 

Bob

[KuruPrionz]

^^^ Great answer Jazzmammal.

 

I took what seemed useful (although obvious) from the article and went in my own direction in my response above.

 

I've moved on, I have LOTS that needs done and I am making progress.

There will always be people who are easily influenced, there always have been.

 

The only thing that never changes is that everything always changes.

[Dave Bryce]

People are paid what they're worth.

Not sure I agree, brother Bob. "Worth" is a funny word...

 

Are women worth less than men? They typically get paid less to do the same job, right?

 

Are teachers and police worth that much less, take home pay-wise, than athletes and actors?

 

How many CEO and "top-level executives" making eight figure (plus) salaries are "worth" what they're being paid?

 

How is any of that measured? I hope we can agree that the financial yardstick only shows part of the picture...and even that aspect can vary prwetty widely from person to person.

 

I'm not saying I have the answers by any stretch of the imagination...but I do tend to disagree that people get paid what they're worth, largely because I'm not sure there's a reliablequantifiable way to detemine that. I know more than a few people who get paid a whole bunch of money just because of who they know, and some of them don't even do that much. Are they being paid what they're worth?

 

The only thing that never changes is that everything always changes.

 

dB

[Mike Rivers]

As a retiree with a pension, a meager amount from social security, and a respectable investment account, I make too much money loafing to collect my $1200. Still, I'm out of work, at least paid work.

[PrairieGuy]

People are paid what they're worth.

Are women worth less than men? They typically get paid less to do the same job, right?.

 

The "women are paid less than men" myth has been soundly debunked repeatedly over the years. Virtually all of the difference in wages is attributed to career choice and number of hours worked. As a general rule, men are more willing to do more dangerous work (90% of workplace deaths are men) and work longer hours to get ahead.

 

So, technically women are paid less but it's due to personal choice, not sexism.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

His initial premise is that a guy caught cheating can convince his wife it didn't happen by "gaslighting" her? What kind of idiot must she be? All I can say about that is if I tried that with my lady I wouldn't be here writing this...

And that means you found a great lady, but I think this is something we see a lot of on small scales and large in our current world, with such intensity and regularity that it can be hard not to be swept up in it. Rather than the interpersonal example, the one I go to often is the Orwellian one of "we've always been at war with Oceania." Repeat something enough times, with authority, and people can believe it whether it's true or not, even if they've experienced the denied reality firsthand, and that's dangerous.

 

So, with everybody home going out of their minds with boredom and worry about their economic future, we're going to wax poetic about the nice view of the mountains? And use that to try to think about some kind of utopian future? Ok, fine. Nice views but when can I get back to work and go see a Lakers game?

I don't think the "nice view of the mountains" is the point, it's the affect our normal routine has on our habitat, and that change is possible.

 

And then of course, he has to mention income inequality. I think I can say this without getting nuked. People are paid what they're worth.

Is that true? Are you defining "worth" as simply "what the market will bear?" Does that mean that if Craig gets stiffed on his royalties as mentioned above, he is worth less?

 

Not to even get into the more philosophical question of "what is a human life worth," on a more practical note, are we saying the CEO is worth more than the production line workers? That an NFL player is worth more than an EMT? How does that assumption play when the normal routine is completely disrupted, as it is right now?

 

I think one of the main points of this article is that we need to question our assumptions of what people are "worth," because the current systems don't hold up under pressure. Do we just accept that, knowing that the next catastrophe will devastate the same groups of people, or do we learn from this and change the system?

 

What? No. Brought to light painful truths? . . . Does the majority on this forum feel devastated, depressed and heartbroken? What's he talking about?

I don't know, man. All this sitting around my house not being able to be with my friends and family, having our entire financial landscape altered, watching the death toll rise because hospitals can't get what they need, having talking heads tell me I only deserve medical care if I can afford it, has me feeling pretty depressed. Maybe you're just bored and annoyed. I'm having a very difficult time with this emotionally, and most of the people I know are, too.

 

At the risk of sounding callous and uncaring about the plight of others,. . . Bad things happened, people died. Life goes on. We're not going to find our way to something resembling the Star Trek universe by staying home collecting unemployment and admiring the view of the mountains because the economy has totally collapsed.

No, and I think that's what the piece is about: remember that the normal routine is fragile, and that we can do better, and act accordingly. Demand more for ourselves than "$1200 is coming, I promise, now shut up so that six months from now we can remind you that 'every man for himself' is the only way."

 

I think KuruPrionz nailed it in recounting of the American Big 3 balking at regulation/change but being forced to follow Toyota/Honda and their philosophy of efficiency and improvement. We can try to tell ourselves that the way we were doing things is still the best way and that this is an inconvenient aberration and that hospitals being unprepared and the economy being devastated is a given, or we can do better for everyone so that the next time there is a catastrophe, we are better prepared to care for one another on a global scale, and "people being paid what they're worth" doesn't have to translate to "yeah, a lot of people won't be able to get to the hospital, that's the way it is."

[Dave Bryce]

People are paid what they're worth.

Are women worth less than men? They typically get paid less to do the same job, right?.

 

The "women are paid less than men" myth has been soundly debunked repeatedly over the years.

"Soundly" debunked? Where?

 

I believe the amount of the pay gap may be under some dispute...but, as I understand it, it does still exist in many workplaces environments.

 

 

Virtually all of the difference in wages is attributed to career choice and number of hours worked.

 

Gauged how?

 

As a general rule, men are more willing to do more dangerous work (90% of workplace deaths are men) and work longer hours to get ahead.

 

So, technically women are paid less but it's due to personal choice, not sexism.

Not sure you're entirely right about that, brother. In some cases, sure - personal choice is gonna be a factor...but I'm not sure how much.

 

Check out the attached graphic. Methodology employed is referenced at the bottom. It supports what we're both saying, if I read it correctly.

 

 

 

dB

[PrairieGuy]

Not to even get into the more philosophical question of "what is a human life worth," on a more practical note, are we saying the CEO is worth more than the production line workers? That an NFL player is worth more than an EMT? How does that assumption play when the normal routine is completely disrupted, as it is right now?

 

Almost anyone can be a competent production line worker. On the other hand competent CEOs are a magnitude harder to find and therefore worth more money. A bad production line worker will be replaced with little disruption. A CEO must make difficult decisions all day long and a bad one can destroy a company putting hundreds or thousands of people out of work.

 

The same thing goes for an NFL player versus an EMT. There are only 1800 people good enough to be NFL players. There are millions of people good enough to be EMT workers.

 

I think one of the main points of this article is that we need to question our assumptions of what people are "worth," because the current systems don't hold up under pressure. Do we just accept that, knowing that the next catastrophe will devastate the same groups of people, or do we learn from this and change the system?

 

That's the age old argument...are athletes worth more than teachers or doctors? It's about the value they bring to the business. The NFL generates billions which is freely given by the fans. Don't the players deserve their cut of a successful business? Teachers are important but it's a job that millions can do competently. Who could afford to pay their taxes if teachers were paid $1 million per year?

[Anderton]

And then of course, he has to mention income inequality. I think I can say this without getting nuked. People are paid what they're worth.

 

It's hard to address your points without getting political, but suffice it to say that if you have enough money to buy legislation, you can leverage control to gain more control, and ultimately accrue control to your benefit. For example, you have to pay sales tax on food, but you don't have to pay sales tax when you buy stock.

 

Most people don't feel devastated, depressed or heartbroken. A few sure, what about you guys here? Does the majority on this forum feel devastated, depressed and heartbroken?

 

Assuming most people don't feel devastated, depressed, or heartbroken is unfortunately as unfounded as assuming that people do feel devastated, depressed, or heartbroken. It's not a binary situation where everyone feels the same way. Some people are having a really, really hard time right now, some people aren't.

 

Some nebulous "powers that be" are going to band together to knock us unconscious again? We're going to be duped like a bunch of sheep?

 

Well...let's leave politics and opinions aside, and look at the reality. The US economy is based on consumer spending. A healthy economy makes the rich get richer, but it also makes the poor get richer. So then the question becomes how best to improve the economy and encourage spending. IMHO one way to improve the economy is telecommuting and virtual purchases. Sure, servers take a lot of energy. But I think quality of life increases for everyone when you don't have to dedicate two hours a day commuting, and as a bonus, the economy gets a boost as well. That may be a lesson we learn from this. I think the fear is that there will be attempts to prop up the economy in ways that are not in everyone's best long-term economic interests.

 

At the risk of sounding callous and uncaring about the plight of others, this virus is not a big deal in the big picture [snip] Bad things happened, people died. Life goes on. We're not going to find our way to something resembling the Star Trek universe by staying home collecting unemployment and admiring the view of the mountains because the economy has totally collapsed.

 

I agree 100%, but that's not the takeaway I got from the article. My takeaway is that we should take advantage of this interruption to re-examine how we conduct our lives, and make any needed course corrections. I've already lost gigs from some clients, which may or may not come back, and I already mentioned the issue with getting paid for half a year of royalty earnings. This just underscored I can't depend on other companies, so I'm creating products for sale - I've been successful doing that in the past, but now I've decided to make it a much bigger portion of my income stream because I can at least depend on myself

 

Probably within the next two years during which a vaccine is developed and deployed it will be as if this never happened.

 

You're probably right. And society won't look ahead to what can be done to prevent other potential problems.

 

My favorite example: X-Class solar flares happen periodically. One like the Carrington Flare that happened in the 1800s would basically fry anything with a microprocessor, and destroy the electrical grid. How long do you think society would last if there was no electricity for five months to two years (the time required to make, ship, and deploy new transformers, most of which are made in China)? For starters, every nuclear reactor would melt down, water couldn't be distributed, there would be no GPS, anyone in a hospital needing something that runs on electricity would die, modern cars based on microprocessors wouldn't work but that wouldn't matter because gas stations couldn't pump gas, sewage lifters wouldn't work, etc. etc. Check out the song I did,

[/b]

 

Spending $2 billion would harden the electrical grid against this kind of disaster. The National Science Foundation knows this is real, anyone who's studied astrophysics knows it's a "when-not-if" situation, and Congress has been briefed on it. Minor storms knocked out power in Quebec for 9 hours, have disrupted satellite transmission, and blown out a few transformers.

 

Will anything be done about it? I doubt it. And when it does happen, you may have to revise your opinion that people aren't stupid

[Jazzmammal]

Wow, I didn't expect this firestorm on the "worth" thing. In the time it took me to finish a tax return you guys have pretty much argued both sides of that one. And I agree, to dig much deeper we'd get too political and none of us wants to go there. And speaking of taxes I'm posting an update in the tax thread after I post this.

 

Good job!

[pinkfloydcramer]

Not impressed by the article, sorry. I didn't find it to be particularly profound, although it tried to be. Started out by expressing the obvious (that people will use the downtime to re-evaluate how they did things before, in their personal lives, and that they will make some changes going forward) but then it degenerated into the same old boilerplate, laundry list of finger-pointing and economic ignorance. Business owners should keep on paying their employees even after they're forced to close? The anti-malarial drug as some kind of snake oil (how many Covid-19 positive patients will refuse to take it just to prove a point)? Same stuff we hear every day (unless we restrict our time online to KSS, of course).

 

Why are people being wound up to be invested in gloom and doom? Recent developments don't seem to call for that. I'm optimistic- that death tolls won't be as severe as predicted, that a vaccine will be developed well before 18 months or even a year, that the research into antibodies will enable more people to work feeling secure. That treatments will improve and cut back the death rate to well below 1%. You can't destroy an economy for that. Think I'm flippant, that I'm callous? I have skin in the game. I'm sole caregiver for an elderly parent with advanced COPD. If she gets it it will wipe her out, pretty much instantly. If I get it there's no one to care for her.

[KuruPrionz]

You're probably right. And society won't look ahead to what can be done to prevent other potential problems.

 

My favorite example: X-Class solar flares happen periodically. One like the Carrington Flare that happened in the 1800s would basically fry anything with a microprocessor, and destroy the electrical grid. How long do you think society would last if there was no electricity for five months to two years (the time required to make, ship, and deploy new transformers, most of which are made in China)? For starters, every nuclear reactor would melt down, water couldn't be distributed, there would be no GPS, anyone in a hospital needing something that runs on electricity would die, modern cars based on microprocessors wouldn't work but that wouldn't matter because gas stations couldn't pump gas, sewage lifters wouldn't work, etc. etc. Check out the song I did,

[/b]

 

Spending $2 billion would harden the electrical grid against this kind of disaster. The National Science Foundation knows this is real, anyone who's studied astrophysics knows it's a "when-not-if" situation, and Congress has been briefed on it. Minor storms knocked out power in Quebec for 9 hours, have disrupted satellite transmission, and blown out a few transformers.

 

Will anything be done about it? I doubt it. And when it does happen, you may have to revise your opinion that people aren't stupid

 

Ahh yes, the ever popular "not if but when' disaster scenario!!! Love that stuff, the one you posted is a good one.

 

'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.'

â Albert Einstein

 

We have all sorts of scenarios up here.

 

A friend owns a lovely beachfront home on Sandy Point. In 2008-9 or so, a wave washed up over the level of the ceiling of the first floor. Somehow, no significant damage. North on the same beach is a place we used to gig - The Bay Breeze. The building has been hit by waves and damaged to the point of needing exstensive renovation at least 3 times in it's existence.

 

A few miles east of us is Sudden Valley, a housing Association with over 6,000 residents. Lots of houses and summer cabins in close proximity in deeply forested hillsides. In the summer, the wind blows strong every afternoon/evening from the north. There is literally 2 feet of fuel - pine needles and small branches etc. covering most of the land. People are allowed to have outdoor fire pits. And, they are STUPID!!!

 

Not a matter of If but When. Yikes!!!

 

We also know that the Juan De Fuca plate has been subducting beneath the North American plate since before the arrival of the European invaders. Small tremors are common and unnoticed for the most part. Slightly more vigorous ones occur every now and then. Easily seen from Bellingham is Mt. Baker - an active volcano. At some point, there will be a catastrophic earthquake, possibly a splendid tsunami and as icing on the cake - even a volcanic eruption.

 

Are we prepared? Ask Mr. Einstein, he'll tell ya!

 

Of course, back East you have your own share of catastrophes, the recent tornados in Nashville come to mind but hurricane season has not been mild down south of you a bit either.

There is no place safe in this world. Ignorance is Bliss!!!!

Cheers, Kuru

[Anderton]

Why are people being wound up to be invested in gloom and doom? Recent developments don't seem to call for that.

 

To be fair to all concerned, no one had a clue about what to expect - and in some ways, there are still a ton of unanswered question. Will it hit again? Will it mutate? Will the heat make it just go away? Will the economy bounce back, or go into a prolonged recession? Will GearFest happen? No one knows.

 

Also, there was been so much misquoting and misinformation ("the CDC said 2 million people are going to die!" - no, they didn't), and a total inability to understand that "model" and "prediction" are entirely different things.

 

The social distancing thing makes sense to me, so I'm doing it. Otherwise, I'm just rolling with the punches and seeing what happens, both in terms of the illness itself, and the fallout from same.

[Jazzmammal]

I have to say something about stocks and Wall Street because that is the big boogieman to a lot of people. It's easy to say they're just a bunch of leeches feeding off the "little people" You mentioning not paying sales tax on a stock purchase Craig misses a very important point. A stock is an investment with risk attached, not a set of steak knives. It's the reason why the short term stock investor is taxed at ordinary income rates on a gain while a long term investor, meaning holding the stock for over a year, gets a preferential tax rate. It's also why if you think you're a player and lose 100K one year you only get to take a max of $3,000 of that loss on your taxes and the rest gets carried forward. I actually have a client who inherited money and promptly lost 1.3 million, got scared and he's not risking the rest. Yes, he still has some left. He gets to carry that loss for the rest of his life at $3,000 a year until he dies. The government, meaning us taxpayers, doesn't want too many people using the market as a casino and they're not going to subsidize it so you get to eat those losses.

 

Anybody can go to one of the online brokers and open an account with minimal funds and go play if you think it's so easy. Just follow the big boys, they're rich they know what they're doing, right? What people don't understand is each trade is two sided. Every time you buy a stock the other side of that is a seller who thinks you're an idiot for buying it. Every time you sell a stock is a buyer who thinks your an idiot for selling it. This is very simplified but it's pretty true even for huge institutional investors.

 

People love to say the only ones getting richer in the market are the rich, the little people never see any of that. Totally, completely and massively untrue. The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) is an agency in the California executive branch that "manages pension and health benefits for more than 1.6 million California public employees, retirees, and their families". CalPERS alone has over 200 Billion in equities, does that sound like no little people are in the market? Every other state, government agency plus private employers and major corporations do the same. They all have most of their funds in the market. When you hear a news person referring to institutional investors this is what they're talking about.

 

A very big area of study is about this question: What is the stock market good for, what's it's purpose, what does it DO? To be very brief, it's the engine of our entire capitalist system. Without it none of our great multinational corporations would even exist and along with them gazillions of jobs. That's all I can say without writing a book about that. Just Google that question.

 

As for the concept of individual worth, I realized I can make a few points about that without getting political at all. A few pointed out what's the worth of a schoolteacher compared to a millionaire athlete or anybody else who makes big bucks. That answer to that is in two parts. The first part is altruistic worth and the second part is pure economic worth. Both are equally important to society as a whole. An example of altruistic worth is the schoolteacher, policeman, sanitation worker, all that kind of thing. Also many other things like clinical psychologist for example. They make squat too relative to their education, same as someone with a masters in anthropology or music and many other liberal arts. We all know about that one it's been talked about on this forum for years and years. But there's still value in music and the arts to society even if it doesn't pay much. There a difference between getting educated in areas that don't earn a lot of money and areas that do. If you choose to do that, that's your choice and you can perfectly happy with your altruistic worth but your economic worth is determined by supply and demand just like any other commodity. The second part is all the highly skilled technical jobs I don't need to list. They can make 150K while the police officer makes 70K.

 

Some may disagree when I said both the altruistic jobs and millionaire jobs are equally important to society. The reason that is a correct statement is basic. These jobs exist therefore they are important. Sort of like "I think, therefore I am".

 

If that's not true nobody would hire them and the public wouldn't care. How can a guy who can put a ball into a net or ride wild animals in the middle of a dirt arena make millions if nobody cares? How can a CEO make millions if nobody cares? How can any business rise up from nothing to being worth billions if nobody cares? They exist because they are important.

 

Bob

[KuruPrionz]

 

People love to say the only ones getting richer in the market are the rich, the little people never see any of that. Totally, completely and massively untrue.

 

Bob

 

Just wanted to provide a real world example of this.

In 2009, my brother "gifted" me $6k that he didn't quite know what to do with. We had an understanding that I would use it to start a Roth IRA, invest and eventually we would come to an equitable agreement regarding returning his investment and taking a cut for myself.

 

I was a bit of a novice at playing the investment game but I learned, found some reasonable sources and did pretty well. In 2018 we agreed that we could do some sharing of the resource. At that point it was 30k. Brother got 21k and I got 9k.

 

I've never been wealthy an am not wealthy now. Right place, right time? No doubt about it. That said, I could just as well have lost it all or broken even.

I invested in individual stocks, risk is higher but returns can be higher as well - and they were.

 

Somewhere in our current time frame will be an excellent time to invest in some bargains. Despite all the current gloom and doom my holdings in WPM are up 24.27 % and AMD is up 4.19 percent.

Not everything is going to plummet.

Little guys CAN do well with stocks. Not saying it is easy or anybody can do it, but it CAN be done.

[Anderton]

<>

 

I mentioned food because it's universal, but to your point, I have to pay a sales tax on the investments I make in my business. Believe me, those investments entail risks. They are not a set of steak knives.

 

To which I would add, don't read any value judgements from what I said into the stock market itself, or into CEO or investors. I am simply wondering why some business people who invest in a business and whose investments entail risks have to pay sales taxes, and others don't. I guess I'm just special

[Anderton]

I've been thinking (always a dangerous thing), and don't want to post any more in this thread. Here's why.

 

My take is that discussions of systems are inherently flawed because the systems are irrelevant. The success of a system, or the lack thereof, depends on people.

 

I know people who believe that the purpose of accumulating wealth is to be able to do more good for more people, and others who believe the purpose of wealth is to acquire more expensive toys. To each his own. But I believe they would behave the same in any system. The person who wants to do good would do so in a free market-based or communist-based society. The person who just wants to acquire more expensive toys will figure out how the game the system if needed. Despite communism claiming to promote equality, an elite class always rises to the top. And a free market system allows enough freedom for people to accumulate wealth at the expense of society as a whole.

 

Interestingly, both communist AND free-market systems had/have no problem with 12-year-old kids being worked to death at various points in their historical arcs. So I believe that's a good example of an issue caused by the people within a system, not the system.

 

Some would argue that one of the purposes of society is to rein in the worst impulses of some people. But realistically, that's probably about as effective as software copy protection. Companies are finding that honest people pay for software, dishonest people will find a pirated copy.

 

People project. If you're a crook, you think everyone is out to get you. If you're kind, you expect the best from people. I haven't seen anyone in these forums I wouldn't want to hang out with. But unfortunately, it's easy to con nice people. I currently feel we're being conned by the right, left, center, up, down, and sideways. We have no choice but to do our own research, and try to maintain the objectivity that allows seeing multiple sides to a story. And some stories have a lot of sides, unintended consequences, and unforeseen systemic issues that bubble up to the top periodically.

 

As to me, it's back to upward expansion, audio interfaces, impulse responses, and how to play better music If I can't fix the system, I might as well try to fix myself. Who knows, that might even help fix the system.

[Jazzmammal]

Your own business is a different issue using completely different rules. All buying a share of stock does is make you an owner of the company and who ever gets taxed for buying into a business? You have an S corp with stock and you invite me in so I give you 50K for some shares. I'm going to get taxed for buying your shares?? Are you kidding me? I'm already taking enough risk by partnering up with your dumb ass...JUST KIDDING. It doesn't matter if it's just you or it was Microsoft in 1981 when it was just Gates and a few others. If it was offered and I gave them $5,000 for a share, I would not get taxed for buying those shares and the principle is exactly the same regardless of how big or small the corporation is. At that point in time who knew that 5K would allow me to buy the Clippers in 2017? All it was then was a couple wild eyed computer wizzes who had what looked like a good idea. Any guarantees? Of course not. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Add taxes to that purchase and it cripples the financing for businesses.

 

And that is all the stock market is when you boil it down. More or less risky financing.

 

I just saw your last post. I was having so much fun. Oh ok, back to those boring audio interfaces.

 

Bob

[Greg Mein]

Not impressed by the article, sorry. I didn't find it to be particularly profound

 

It's the same one I saw people posting on facebook and it didn't do much for me either. I've certainly been fascinated however by what I've seen happen in the last couple months; the run on toilet paper seems to stand out as something no one could have predicted. I'm not overly surprised by the panic and hysteria, after all, a global pandemic ranks right up there with nuclear war or alien landings to scare the shit out of people.

 

I've mostly continued to live my life without a great deal of concern, I go to work every day, order take out and go through drive-ins almost daily and if restaurants could be open I'd be the first person at a table. I'm a bit irritated by all the #StayHome stuff, people seem to have no problem telling me what I should do but I've yet to see anyone tell me what they are doing; are you staying at home, being safe, saving lives, cowering in the corner? I might respond to examples but likely never respond to dictates.

 

The country has taken extraordinary measures and I believe at this point in Podunk IA I'm more likely to get stampeded by a herd of elephants than to contract covid-19. Don't take that to mean I'm not respecting anyone else's safety, feelings, values or whatever. The only people I come in contact with pose as much threat to me as I do to them. What it actually means is that I don't see running and hiding from the flu as a viable long term strategy. I'd be surprised if most of the people who've gotten it were not trying to avoid it also.