zazen

New vid from the GOAT: “The expanding drone strikes on Russian energy infrastructure represent a long-term U.S. strategy aimed at weakening Russia and constraining China’s rise through an emerging, de facto energy blockade."

Good to see you mentioned Akala: Lowkey is also unreal:

From that old thread: Something must already exists in the first place to be opportunistically pulled on - a grievance or dispute. China is approaching its first land based supply chain that would make the Malacca chokepoint redundant. It doesn't align with China's incentives to want to de-stabilise or cause issues here - but it does for the US's overall containment strategy against China. Same guy shared this about the recent flare up and the new National Security Strategy: https://x.com/BrianJBerletic/status/1998661988164186204 The "New" US National Security Strategy, Same as the Old "so when we look at the rise of the Chinese military, what our goal in the joint force is to create multiple, simultaneous dilemmas for ALL of the adversaries around the world, so that they are very cautious and concerned about doing something that would bring any sense of threat to the American people [read: American interests abroad]." Here is the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admitting that the US is pursuing an "Extending Russia" policy against ALL designated US adversaries, including Russia, China, and Iran. This strategy has served as the basis of US foreign policy for decades, and is the foundation neo-conservative driven US hegemony has been based on. Beyond deliberately misleading corporate media headlines, inside the halls of corporate funded think tanks, the truth is admitted openly in forums they know the general public and even many commentators will never hear or see. Listen from 10 min - 14 min (the quoted / emboldened part is at 10 min 30 sec). Interesting 4 minutes. Another quote: ''Are we in an AI arms race with China? I think I think there's the possibility that we end up in an AI arms race. I think we could end up in a variety of different things because technology is developing so fast. And what I'm trying to create with my other joint chiefs who are here is our ability to win from the seabed up to CIS lunar space and beyond and to create more dilemmas for other people than they create for us. And I think we can totally do that if we take the best of the military plus the best of the intelligence community plus the best of our allies and partners plus the best of the private sector coupled with Congress and others and private capital and public capital coming together. We can build the force that will allow us to maintain the dominant position that we have on the globe and deliver peace through overwhelming strength, which is what our people deserve.'' ''And that's going to require the best of the military, the best of the Congress, the best of the private sector, and the best of not just the defense industrial base, but the national industrial base.'' This is what we can see happening. It's also in line with Project 2025 - where they discuss burden sharing and ''division of labor'' among allies as Peter Hegseth has said many times.. The grand strategy is re-shore critical supply chains and bolster industrial bases to be self sufficient (which is a good thing) - but if the end intention is that this means they can then go to war (it becomes bad). Also - them wanting Europe to be strong (upping military spending etc), doesn't mean them wanting Europe to be sovereign. They want their partners and allies strong yet subservient to US strategic interests and strategy - that strength is tied to the US orbit (economically, militarily, geopolitically and technologically via a US dominated tech stack). This also is in line with the Monroe Doctrine 2.0 as discussed in the new national strategy and correlates with actions we are seeing with Venezuela, Greenland etc: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf ''we want a Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations. In other words, we will assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine'' The US deep state permanent class isn't just a single ''blob'' but multiple blobs (Tech, Finance, three letter agencies, MIC). That's why the West hasn't always had coherence or long termism - because of short political time horizons and divergent interests - the system is rigged for private trans-national interests rather than a national purpose (of national development and geopolitical strength from the ground up). Those interests are constants regardless of who's president, but they also are in constant negotiation and bargaining - interests can diverge or align. What seems to be happening now is that they are aligning much more coherently due to geopolitical pressure - towards this grand strategy seeks dominance across domains - and the key thing that is a multi-domain multiplier is AI. Which is why all are coming together on a sort of war footing and piling into AI like the Manhattan project. This is why they have they just recently announced the Genesis mission - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/11/launching-the-genesis-mission/ Why I emboldened private capital:

Lol bro i'm pro European too - pro world in fact. These labels can be way too limiting - we slap them on too easily and think they explain everything. Life is much more complex and ''liberal democracy'' whatever one thinks that is isn't the final form or universal model we are all ''developing towards''. There's all these assumptions which come along with these terms we use. One assumption of being a liberal democracy is that it's the only and best model to cut corruption. Singapore, UAE and China beg to differ. Another conflation that happens is between liberal progressiveness as a cultural phenomenon with liberal democracy as a system - we think that because the political system is a certain way - the culture will and should follow as a end point. Poland, Hungary etc are electoral democracies with rights frameworks (liberal democracies) - but socially and culturally more conservative. Singapore protects property rights and operates under constitutional rule but rejects social liberalism. Not everything has to be identical to the West to be legitimate. We should also interrogate our own democracies - is it just enough that we have the right to vote or is the impact of that vote equally important? Does the center of power exist at the presidential level the way we think it does or is there deeper layer of multiple interests groups ie the permanent bureaucracy or ''blob'' or ''deep state''. Are we really in democracies in the way we think and define them? I staunchly disagree with what liberalism has turned into or permitted today in the West: Maybe Zelensky should be sent 2-3 year Dagestan and forget haha On a serious note about how to Make Europe Great Again lol. If Europe wants to be militarily sovereign and have a unified military umbrella like NATO - the issue becomes who leads the command structure when you have 27 nations? The issue with NATO is that the command structure is American. You can have all the military might in terms of arms and men ready to fight or protect Europe - but they require the political will to do so collectively and the command structure that is able to coordinate them against any adversary. The world is getting much more complex - and in that kind of a world it will be the political systems that are the most nimble, flexible and adaptable that will deal better with that pace of change. The issue we have in the West and the EU is political paralysis and slowness of everything. This is a massive disadvantage in today's world and needs to be fixed.

I think it’s less ideological and more that the cost-benefit doesn’t add up in favour of continuing the war. Ukraine was instrumentalized in weakening / containing Russia indirectly - it was never meant to defeat Russia decisively. It’s now reaching it’s threshold of use. Any further support that can be given to decisively defeat Russia now risks direct war and involvement of NATO which isn’t desirable ie flirting with troops on the ground or tomahawks etc. Have a look also at the latest 33 page national security strategy that’s been released: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf The sentiment among Europeans is the Europe has been “dropped”. But realistically - what is the end game otherwise? Continue escalating to WW3.. Ukraine was an asset that now has become a liability - it’s not sentimental but strategic. Geopolitics is a cold game that should avoid being moralised. This is from back in February commenting on project 2025 - seems in line what what’s happening now: Europe needs to build its strength, power and sovereignty. The US wants “strong allies in Europe” but not sovereign. But Europe can only have sovereignty and do what’s in its best interest once it has the strength to do so - which right now it doesn’t. They outsourced the hardest pillar of sovereignty which is military - to the US. They are now energetically less sovereign and dependent on the US also. They should copy China’s strategy - lay low and bide your time. Build strategic self sufficiently and optionally (multiple energy sources) in the background so no one can dictate to them. But for all this they also need to compete and innovate economically especially in tech which they are behind China and the US in.

Agree with what Leo said also. Reading Zeihan's book years ago actually got me into geopolitics - found it all so interesting and devoured every podcast of his and other geopolitical analysts - but my understanding has matured since. He's overly confident and says things with too much certainty. He's good at pointing out vulnerabilities but then is too deterministic and overlooks the human factor. It's not just about the cards your dealt but how you play them. For example, his past work noted France and Argentina as being strong future powers due to their geography and demographics lol. We aren't only prisoners of geography but overcomers of it. Geography is the starting point not the end point. He assumes America re-treating from policing the world leads to chaos as inevitable - which becomes a issue for trade dependent countries that depend on that stability of trade (via sea lanes). American exceptionalism seeps into a lot of his views and the hidden assumption is that without ''us'' people can't get along or are incapable of co-existence and diplomacy. Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, Belt and Road trade corridors and ASEAN neutrality doctrine oppose that view, as does history. Modern trade routes aren’t like 18th century pirate waters that need US defending them when we now have regional state actors doing so due to capability, cooperation and incentive to trade which they also depend on. On his China collapse rhetoric. He assumes China doesn't plan long term and are just frozen. More importantly, they have a political system that allows them to be consistent in their approach to their long terms plans yet simultaneous quick enough to pivot, mobilize and adapt. That's why in the past he alarmed about the housing bubble (Evergrand) leading to China's collapse, before demographics would do the job. But China control demolitioned that bubble and directed lending and liquidity into strategic industry. They expedited that at rapid pace because of Biden and Trumps posture towards containing them via tech and trade wars. So they had to cut their vulnerabilities. That's why all of a sudden we see a explosion in multiple verticals being dominated - EV's (BYD), Green tech (solar, wind turbines), batteries, local semi-conducter eco-system, industrial robots and automation. That brings me to his point about demographics. If a inverted demographic pyramid means collapse why hasn't Japan? One factor is they got rich enough before they got old enough - so that they could fund elderly care and pensions. They also have state capacity and cohesion to manage it. Ageing is managed and doesn't automatically mean collapse. Also, automation and robotics steps in to keep productivity high and replace labor. And China leads in robotics and industrial automation: The Chinese also have some of the highest domestic saving rates in the world which means less pressure on state funding. They also have cultural expectations of family care (like in much of Asia) - though that is strained because of urbanization and kids moving away from parents who remain rural. Europe is also old but unlike China it can't so easily reform pensions, raise retirement age or open doors to migration without backlash, and the norm of family care isn't what it used to be. The wealth they do have simply buys them time to manage the situation - but the math doesn't math and isn't sustainable without a decline in expectations and living standards (unless some AI breakthroughs?). US demographics are healthier which buys it more time, and they absorb immigration very well (which MAGA strains as a option) - they face the same trajectory, only delayed. Aging societies require shared sacrifice - so if the US is polarized and divided then they may mismanage it. Like you said - Those in North America will be best off, if we can cooperate together not isolate from one another. If Zeihan debated a few analysts that come to mind he would be shredded. One example:

@MightyMind I’d be interested to learn more. There’s been a resurgence on Twitter and other places of counter establishment views about the Austrian painter.

Above on why Jews were specifically hated. Half truths are a bitch. Hitler believing in Aryan purity is a joke: That said - he tapped into real anger caused by conditions of economic collapse, humiliation, and identity crisis. He critiqued elite exploitation but only those he defined as foreign or disloyal to the nation ie Jews and international globalists. But his own national elites exploiting the people because he needed them to rebuild Germany into a military machine. The only valid thing is that private or a-national interests can subvert national interests - as is also happening today. But he racialized the problem into a scapegoat and mixed grievance politics with purity politics. Then again - Hitler couldn’t have done what he did without the soil of anti-semitism already being there. He was a logical extreme end product of Western history - its nationalism, racial hierarchy theories, imperial logic, Christian antisemitism, industrial militarism, and belief in civilizational exceptionalism.

@Elliott Your responses makes sense as you shared Kinna and Graeber on the other thread and lean anarchist? You see the state as the only meaningful source of domination. But that lens creates blind spots - you treat private power as harmless individual action instead of something that can consolidate, organise with others and choose to impose violence on others living ''freely'' in a world of anarchy where no state exists to protect them. It’s ironic because both Kinna and Graeber critiqued corporate and financial power as forms of domination - not just the state. They included economic coercion and private capital as forms of violence. Yet you excuse oligarchs, minimize 2008 and shift all blame onto ‘individual consumer choice’' which is tone deaf just as Apparition Jack has called you above. You dick ride capitalists instead lol ''BaNkErS cOmItTeD nO HaRm BrO'' You’ve adopted anarchism’s suspicion of the state, but ignored its structural critique of private power. Graeber would’ve shredded the arguments you’ve been making.

@Apparition of Jack Elliot is unable to analyse at a systems level or entirely underestimates structural factors. His analysis hinges on the individual being the ultimate decider of his fate. The same blind spot shows up in conversation with yourself, Blueoak yesterday, and me in a previous conversation about the 2008 banking crisis where he didn't see how predatory and fraudelent banking practices harmed people - instead it was the consumers choice.

Symbiotic doesn’t mean equal - tapeworms are symbiotic yet parasitic. The main issue isn't that both can benefit but the asymetric gain and trajectory of private capital eroding the sovereignty of a state. You don't see issue with a state needing to depend on a oligarch who can exercise their private interest at the expense of the national interest? If it was such a ''win-win'' why did anti-trust laws come about? Because of public backlash and the fact that a state recognizes the structural vulnerability and lack of sovereignty it has in needing to depend on a private individual. You just read a headline about a titan like JP bailing out the government and get a MAGA hard on. Analyse things structurally and not just on the surface. The trajectory from 1895 to 2008 in fact shows a initial power imbalance that has since become institutionalized to the point it is too big to fail. Over time - has private capital become more powerful or less? Has the sovereignty of the state become sub-ordinate to capital or less? JP Morgan was in the same class of actors referred to as Robber Barons. Google Morganization: ''Morganization refers to the late 19th-century business strategy of J.P. Morgan, involving consolidating rival companies, forming powerful trusts/monopolies (like U.S. Steel, General Electric), stabilizing industries, and attracting European investment by creating massive, profitable entities, fundamentally shaping American finance and leading to modern antitrust laws and private equity. It was a period of intense industrial consolidation and monopolization, creating vast wealth but also public backlash against "robber barons". We've been over this in another thread where you couldn't see the harm bankers caused because of the 2008 crisis and instead blamed consumer choices lol. You said: ''What you're pointing at has been getting minimized even, not growing. Look back to Carnegie and JP Morgan for heavens sake, look up JP Morgan's bailout of the United States, (the bank bailed the country out).'' JP Morgan manages assets worth $4 trillion. That's equivalent to the GDP of the 4-5 biggest economies - Japan or India. It has more firepower than the UK. When your larger than the GDP of most countries you don't just manage assets in the market but can govern and dictate the nature of the market by your decisions - you dictate to ''sovereign states''. You become indispensable because of your size. If a state must guarantee your survival for stability - it introduces perverse incentives - the more recklessly you grow, the more certain the governments backstop becomes. Gains get privatized, costs get externalized and socialized. To understand better: If excess of capital isn't checked you get gremlins like Soros: See how he says he acts a-morally ie not immorally. The issue with perverse or misaligned incentives is that actors don't have to hate the world and act with ''intent to harm''. They simply act with indifference. That's the alignment issue with AI also - not that it could act with malice to harm humans but that its cold indifference to humans can cause harm because it simply seeks to achieve its objective regardless of the cost to humans. The same way corporations seek to achieve their objective - one of them being the legally mandated fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. From our other conversation ''Corporations have a fiduciary duty to serve private shareholder value - not people. People are served as as secondary order effect, but not as a primary motive. If a corporation can cut costs, hike prices and lobby for regulations that favor it at the expense of the consumer - they will. This is legally mandated - this is what I mean by the system being structurally rigged in favor of capital.'' Even if your a enlightened lovey dovey bhudda with good intentions as a CEO - you will be replaced by someone who will execute on that legal mandate. This is structural entrapment where capital and its accumulation is primary regardless of its costs.

What’s your point, elaborate?

Elaborate on the point your trying to make - is it that an oligarch richer than God had so much concentrated wealth and power that he could single handedly decide whether the US economy survived? Is that free market capitalism? The problem isn’t that JP Morgan once bailed out the state - its a problem if the state’s stability depends on JP Morgan type actors existing. That’s why the Federal Reserve was created after that crisis. From Wiki: “The panic was triggered by the failed attempt in October 1907 to corner the market on stock of the United Copper Company.” Ie Capital being naughty. ”Collapse of TC&I's stock price was averted by an emergency takeover by Morgan's U.S. Steel Corporation, a move approved by the trust-busting President Theodore Roosevelt. The following year, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, a leading Republican, established and chaired a commission to investigate the crisis and propose future solutions, which led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System.” So the excesses of capital accumulation created such instability, and then a God tier capitalist consolidates during that crisis and can then make certain demands for the price of rescue. And Roosevelt just said “fuck it, exempt JP from anti-trust laws cos we need him more than our laws” and let him gobble up competitors in a consolidation play. For your historical amnesia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907

Still haven’t seen OP rebuttal any arguments - just agreed with Leo saying the current system is the best so far. Despite my comment on the previous page going into how and why this particular kind of capitalism has in emerged in the West - including the reason for its sacredness as a value which has become synonymous with freedom. “Capitalism” isn’t the least bad system - it was and is the least bad system for a specific civilization (Westwern) escaping a specific problem (Medieval fuedalism). It’s a mistake to assume this as universal and have a binary view of governing systems that is blind to history. Other societies had capitalism in the sense they had commerce that allowed for private gain and accumulation but that the excesses of which were disciplined by a higher authority instead of making it the apex value ie Capital-ism - a mutant child of commerce. Westerncentric analysis thinks the West is the reference point of development with everyone else developing on and along their timeline - trailing behind them of course. Historical amnesia and Spiral dynamic supremacy. In 2008 capitalism privatized the gains and socialized the losses. When the system based upon the primacy of capital collpased it wasn’t the “free market” that saved the day but state power (banker bailouts) and ironically a so called communist state (China) that disciplines the excesses of capital instead of elevating it into God tier status - that stabilized the global financial system by buying US debt. Be prepared to have your theories and worldviews challenged in the coming decades as the global order shifts. Haters gonna hate, comrade Zazen be like:

If vibing is considered game then Craig Ferguson :

People need to realise this a larger war than Ukraine-Russia. The reason Tomahwaks can't be given and most likely won't be is because whilst Western involvement in this war is obvious (intelligence, ISR, Western arms and aims at the expense of Ukrainian blood etc) Tomahawks or any system that requires the very explicit involvement of the US to operate such systems (that can't simply be given to those without the operational ability) increases the tensions between rival powers who are avoiding direct conflict (a hot war vs a cold indirect one via proxy now). The stakes are simply too high unless you want to risk WW3 and gamble on that. This is where Ukraine finds itself in a bad position - because it's provided defensive means but never the offensive means that can perhaps tilt the balance in their favor - which may not happen even if they were provided. Those offesnive weapons simply risk a hot war between Russia and the West that is being avoided at all costs by the sane minded, or being flirted with by the insane Eurocons who dream of Balkanizing Russia and taking the fight to them - not knowing what that even means. This is why diplomacy is the only way and the cutting of losses to prevent further losses (to life or land). As we speak there are encirclement of the front line cities with Pokrovsk being a major logistical hub in the cross hairs. The linear thinking of - Russia only captures x km of land in x amount of time therefore it would take them 100s of years to capture all of Ukraine - is simply not smart. War isn't linear - if certain places fall they can have a domino effect more than others and leave wide open spaces to take land more easily than others. Attrition warfare is never linear. Ukraine's drone strategy is good in causing issues in Russia - but the other side of this is that facilities get repaired and back online within weeks at times, and Russia can adapt or move product to other regions to be refined etc. Things shouldn't be overstated. Even if we think the West can cause enough chaos in Russia as to have Putin overthrown - what does that achieve? Putin is actually seen as more of a moderate in Russia - do we really want someone like Medvedev to come into power? lol. Tell you the future before it happens cos I spy with my third eye. Apparently it was “once strategic” and is “no longer militarily important” lol Not what BBC was saying just last month: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jdv0623pno.amp ”If Pokrovsk falls, defending its satellite city of Myrnohrad becomes almost untenable and Russian troops would then be able to turn their focus to the battle for Kostyantynivka to the north-east and the rest of the so-called "fortress belt" cities of Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk and Slovyansk.” EU fully banning Russian energy. So how will Europe become competitive with higher energy prices? Some will do better than others and it will take time. UK just said their going to reform and embrace nuclear which is a start: https://nuclear.britishprogress.org/ UK luckily also has some of the best wind potential it can harness. Norway has unreal hydro etc but most countries don’t have blessed geographies and instead react to nuclear like their allergic. The only silver lining here is that Europe got a kick up the ass to take their energy, economic and military sovereignty seriously and need to start acting accordingly. But it will be a lost decade of growth due to higher energy cost and major investments needing to be made plus % of GDP going to military.

Larry Ellison: A AI expert: Most of these AI guys say similar things - there's a uncomfortably high chance of dystopia rather than abundance. But the AI race and game theory of it all pushes us forward regardless. Another common theme is that the AI leaders / companies underplay the risk (that they discuss in private) but overplay the benefits when public facing. It could be that our baseline rises but inequality skyrockets. We'r all rich with Ferrari's we 3D print - but not powerful like the elites who have Bugatti's instead lol. Essentially rich but powerless peasants.

Spot on here. This is the thing - we still view power dynamics as nation state vs nation station rather than as private capital that has outgrown the nation state itself and is in conflict with it, even as that nation state goes up against other nation states. Our analysis of geopolitics is outdated if we only look at national interest - because now there are private a-national, trans-national interests who use the nation state as a platform for their own interests. This is why many people feel dissonance, disillusionment and confusion and question ''why don't our elites or political class serve us any longer''. The fundamental thing is to have state capacity that checks this power and disciplines it. But the liberal reflex to this level of state capacity and intervention is seen as ''authoritarian overreach'' and fear of the slippery slope leading towards a tyrannical state. So we exist on the edges with our solutions (communism vs capitalism) rather than in a healthy middle. As I mentioned in my comment on the top of this page: the underlying social contract that justified capitalism has been broken. We have private empires being built on public scaffolding - with the public no longer sharing in those returns or riches. That's because we have a funnel vs a loop - to put it simply. A healthy functional system or a loop enforcing the social contract would be - the public creates the conditions for growth = private sector innovates and builds wealth = wealth circulates back into the public sphere through wages, taxes, and reinvestment. The funnel that has taken its place instead is - society funds the platform = private actors monetise it = capital exits the system = the commons decays = capital gains more leverage and consolidates its gains by influencing and gaming the system ie the state (lobbying, regulatory capture, revolving door etc). We seprated churhc from state but not capital from state. And the same way we have brain drain from developing countries, we have a similar sort of resource drain (wealth exiting or existing out of state reach) in developed countries that stalls societal level up lift. ''True Communism'' much like “True Capitalism” can never be implemented in their purest forms by a human nature that isn’t 100% pure. Communism demands we not be greedy for the sake of community (the commune) and assumes others will fend for us - capitalism demands we be greedy enough to fend for ourselves and that doing so will have a trickle down effect on those less able to compete with us. Communism throws a net on talent (suffocating innovation and growth), capitalism has no safety net for those with little to no talent. Communism assumes the wealth it built off of capitalist mechanisms can then be sustained without those mechanisms. Capitalism assumes the goodwill of the people and market incentives are enough to protect against the accumulation of power by capitalists that can then undermine the public commons. Communism overestimates human goodwill and virtue, capitalism underestimates human greed and corruption. Neither survive contact with reality and are retarded Frankenstein caricatures of human nature.

Lol so much binary thinking. The world isn’t as simple as capitalism vs communism. That was a peculiar reaction to Western feudalism that distorts human traits (individual gain vs communalism) and totalizes the system to bend to one principles over another without any nuance or complexity. Both are inhuman or end up inhumane. Non-Western civilizations had commerce, wealth accumulation, and contracts - but were disciplined by a higher authority when they grew too powerful. Capital itself was never the organising principle. The kind of capitalism that came out of the West was a much needed escape hatch from feudalism. But that creates and is potentially now creating a techno fuedal scenario where capital escapes the people - because when capital no longer needs labour (AI, automation) - how does labour (all of us peasants) obtain capital? Capital and property rights as its pre-requisite became sacred in the Western psyche because it literally was the escape hatch from a rigid feudalistic aristocracy that kneecapped upward mobility. This is why libertarianism, capitalism and communism emerged from the West in particular - but shouldn’t be universalised as if they are the global solution. A European family civil war became a global Cold War of retarded ideaologies that bring lopsided results. The West separated the state from church and monarchy but didn’t so cleanly from capital - and now capital cannibalises the system and commons. The reason it works better in Scandinavia is because instead of a loop where capital is taxed and re-invested into society - it’s funnelled out the system. Smaller, culturally cohesive societies keep the social contract intact - they see tax collection as an investment rather than taking something from “me” the “sovereign individual”. Also, the wealthy don’t pay tax in proportion to what they own or extract from society - they pay tax on the income they choose to declare. This isn’t malice but simply incentive - which is why the system itself needs a redesign - but that takes a cultural shift where capital isn’t the apex value. Check this:

Shabby roads and infrastructure: Their building cities just to show off and ''flex'' - not because they need to urbanize and lift 100's of millions out of poverty and rural living: China's political system: People used to also view Japanese products as mass market trash and ''unreliable''. That's how industrial economies develop - they master mass manufacturing and climb up the ladder to advanced manufacturing and quality. The value for money in China is strong too. Which is also what PPP compares better compared to just GDP - meaning, people in their local currency have decent purchasing power and therefore better living standards. For people coming in with stronger currencies its quite a place to enjoy: You can stay in 5 star hotels for £100 - £200 a night that would cost anywhere from £300 - £600 a night in the Western cities. Grand Hyatt, Sheraton etc. Even on their tropical island of Hainan with beaches. What happens when you focus on building and re-investing in the foundation of a society instead of financializing your economy for a parasitic financial elite that bid up and milk the populace through a rentier economy that jacks up the price of essentials rather than supply them at scale. Of course no place is perfect - but there are lessons to be taken.

Real “change” in the transformative sense happens to a society - rather than solely by a society. Incrementalism manages a system but transformation changes a system - and most people and systems resist any significant change until crisis point. Incrementalism (small steps) from the elites above preserves the system through policy tweaks, symbolic gestures, concession’s etc. Incrementalism from the society below prepares the ground for change but isn’t groundbreaking by itself ie galvanised energy into movements, shift in consciousness/culture etc. Both (elites and society) need crisis or enough pain to cross a threshold - where the old system’s operating logic needs to be abandoned for a new one. For society the status quo becomes intolerable to their material security and sense of dignity. For elites the status quo continuing risks revolt (heads rolling), mass non compliance or systemic failure. It’s more incentive driven then morally driven for the elites who risk loss of legitimacy and control - while society risks material well being and dignity. Transformation will come when the price of staying the same becomes higher than the price of changing. Surely AI will force its arrival.

Epstein was a node in a wider ecosystem largely revolving around financial crime : Criminal underworld - intelligence agencies - finance - and now tech. Shorter if ya’ll busy actualizing:

@Jodistrict Nice share. We’re gonna see so much cope in the next decades lol Tristan Harris who made Social Dilemma : We have to get our shit together to tackle the changes AI is going to bring. Perhaps that will bring the world together better than Covid did.

I share your optimism too. At the same time - the transition to get to the baseline where everyone is lifted up will be bumpy. Abundance still doesn’t solve for ego - and the resulting power dynamics that come with it. Even if survival pressures are solved - power dynamics and new hierarchies can be created. The infinite abundance in output also relies on the finite resources of input. Geopolitical tension and rivalry will be over that material base including choke points. At the national level states will have to have the capacity, coordination and cohesiveness to keep pace with the change. Job displacement will have to be plugged with some sort of UBI - but that requires taxing and containing the very companies that will wield immense influence and leverage. States that subordinate capital / private interests for national interests will fair better in this regard ie China, Singapore, Nordic and Gulf countries for example. US is notorious for functionally acting as a corptocracy where the state is a platform for private / capital interests that subvert national interests. Will the state discipline and step in before it’s too late, or will it take crisis to force them to do so? In the end - the incentives will force the elites to provide UBI to prevent revolt and because they still require consumers. It will be some form of circular economy - but it’s not certain what the UBI will look like - it could be conditional basic income where we’re surveilled, programmed and nudged to behave “well”. Also, if AGI then leads to Artificial Super intelligence - that’s something that could be completely out of our hands. It won’t be confined to whichever country reaches it first - because it could be far beyond our capacity to reign in. Check these out: