Avatar
a source familiar with the matter
f5b55f6b44b8997b2b6e8469a6a57f8d3f3b2ef27023543445c40ecec485ee64
<script src="https://pastebin.com/embed_js/TstHh0VL"></script>

I agree that some significant portion of modern US wealth is a product of the post-WW2 world empire (and the dollar reserve as a form of tribute).

However, USA (and Argentina) were dramatically rich in the late 1800s due to free market policies that brought about a much higher degree of economic activity than in most of Europe.

The US is now a mix of industries that have been made into fascist cartels as well as those that are relatively free. Some of the present wealth is due to actual economic productivity even in industries laboring under government intervention (eg the US is the world's #1 food exporter)

Replying to Avatar Rune Østgård

The laws of economics dictate that

- what you tax, you get less of

- what you subsidize, you get more of

Experience and logics tell us that people get fewer children in urban areas than in the countryside.

Furthermore, families are the only institutions that produce children.

Do you agree with me so far?

Grok estimates that the EU's average fertility rate in 1960 was approximately 2.59 births per woman.

The EU’s average fertility rate is now 1.46

This is a reduction of 77 per cent.

Grok estimates that the public sector's spending as a share of GDP for the five major EU economies between 1960 and 2022 likely has grown by at least 50% to 100%.

By other words, in this period we have seen a shift of economic wealth from the private sector to the public sector comparable to the average reduction in the birth rates.

My best guess is that it's here we find the main explanation.

Shifting of wealth from the private to the public sector is shifting of wealth from those who produce kids to institutions which produce bureaucracies.

What you tax (people), you get less of.

What you subsidize (public sector), you get more of.

And bureaucracies typically grow the most in urban areas, where people traditionally prefer to have fewer children than in the countryside.

In conclusion, less production of kids is a result of the growth of the public sector, which mainly consists of institutions in urban areas that produce bureaucracies instead of kids.

A socialist society is parasitic of nature, and the parasite in the end always runs out of hosts.

Welfare -> fatherlessness (as seen dramatically among US Africans) -> lower fertility (since Dad isn't there to give Mom a second, third, etc)

It should also be mentioned that the dominant mode of reproduction in human history is that the mean male and mean female have approximately the same number of children (since it takes one of each and the population is roughly half each sex) but the modal man has far fewer children than the modal woman (ie a few men have lots of children while many have none). With the relaxation of Christian marriage norms (but not the post-Christian welfare ethic) we have lost stable nuclear families but not yet replaced them with polygamous or tribal arrangements.

Is it just me or is this retarded?

If you can build and maintain a rail line why can't you build and maintain an electric line to power the train? Especially over such a short distance... why use batteries?

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/tesla-launches-worlds-first-electric-111535136.html

IDK about 5G towers but I'm not convinced that there is any evidence of infectious subcellular replicating parasites

male patriarchs, like most of the world and all of human history

Just frozen, but it keeps for a long time on the counter/shelf if it comes to that

I also have ghee which is totally shelf stable

I use night mode on my screen devices and am very sparing with overhead artificial light

I have some red LED night lights in my home so I can see my way around without needing the white/yellow light

If you've already got black jack and hookers why do you need a lightning wallet?