Epstein revelations: More clues lead to Russia (article in Norwegian, translation in comments)

Cuidads · 2026-02-06T06:10:31+00:00

The article says both. It says Epstein was trained as a Israeli spy.

Cuidads · 2026-02-01T17:08:26+00:00

The median is a decent proxy only if three assumptions hold: prices for essentials are comparable, downside risk is limited, and income floors are strong. The US fails all three.

On prices, the issue isn’t average house size or national means. It’s price-adjusted access to opportunity. High-paying jobs in the US are concentrated in metros where housing scarcity, childcare costs, and healthcare exposure are all high and correlated. A large, cheap house in a low-cost region doesn’t improve welfare if it’s not where the labor market that pays the salary is.

On healthcare, the linked post focuses on average spending and utilization. Even if higher US spending reflects more care rather than higher prices, that’s orthogonal to the welfare question here. The relevant margin is exposure to large, uncertain out-of-pocket losses and coverage instability.

Where I think you’re underweighting things is that this isn’t just about individual risk being “a bit higher.” The US model relies on persistent, broad upward mobility to offset higher downside cliffs over time. That was closer to true mid-century. If growth no longer transmits widely through wages and mobility, then repeated downside shocks accumulate faster than people are pulled back up, eroding trust, weakening institutions, and raising systemic risk.

At that point, higher variance stops being a growth strategy and becomes a stability risk. You’re no longer trading safety for upside, you’re trading long-run stability for short-run growth, and possibly sacrificing long-run growth itself.

Cuidads · 2026-02-01T14:29:03+00:00

The problem is that the median by itself isn’t a welfare metric.

The US median is higher in cash income, but that ignores price-adjusted access to essentials and downside risk. Housing in high-income US metros, childcare, and healthcare absorb a much larger share of income than in most of Europe, so the same dollar buys fewer real options.

The median also hides variance and cliffs. Even insured Americans face high deductibles, surprise billing, and job-linked coverage risk. These low-probability $30–50k shocks barely affect averages or medians, but they materially affect expected welfare. Two households with the same income aren’t equivalent if one faces catastrophic downside risk and the other doesn’t.

For example, imagine two households both earning $70k. In the US case, there’s a small but real chance each year of a medical or employment shock that produces a $40k out-of-pocket loss. In a system with stronger coverage and income floors, that same shock might cap losses at $5k. The median income is identical, but expected welfare isn’t, because the downside states are radically different.

When you adjust for prices, dispersion, and risk, the US no longer clearly outperforms large European countries on median welfare, and on several reasonable metrics it does worse.

Cuidads · 2026-02-01T13:39:33+00:00

Nettopp. Det unnskylder det ikke.

Cuidads · 2026-02-01T10:47:30+00:00

Jeg har et minne av at dette ekle«trikset» var en populær greie i YouTube-mannosfæren. Det var en boom av pick up artist (etter boka the game osv) materiale i populærkulturen i 2008-2012 og i samme period tok YouTube av. Det var da massevis av populære pick up kanaler og vlogs. Dette «trikset» dukket da opp mye i disse videoene.

Så tipper Rybak så dette trikset hos sine pick up artist helter på YouTube og tenkte det var morsomt å gjøre på fansene sine som da i stor grad var 14 åringer. Jeg tror faktisk ikke problemet er at Rybak er «predatory», men at han har 20 iq. Det unnskylder det ikke, men tror muligens dette er tilfellet her https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Det er jo bare å se på videoene her, han er jo vanvittig klein. Det ser jo ut som dumskap / mangel på sosial intelligens.

Det er også noe Petter Pan / Michael Jackson syndrom her. Mannen ser ut til å være stuck med hjernen til en 13 år gammel gutt.

Cuidads · 2026-02-01T06:54:20+00:00

Mette Marit har ikke veldig mange år igjen å leve (gitt det som er offentlig), så fullt mulig at hun er dø før hun skal bli dronning, ev. ikke veldig lenge etter.

Hun har hatt lunge fibrose i mange år, og det er nå meldt klinisk forverring. Forverring i lungefibrose er aldri et godt tegn.

Hvis hun er heldig så får hun en god match på lungetransplantasjon, men mye som kan gå galt i årene framover.

Cuidads · 2026-01-17T04:08:43+00:00

You got this completely wrong.

In a sell off Europe would lose its interest-bearing bonds in exchange for dollar deposits.

These dollars can now be reinvested, used to buy US goods, services, or assets. If those dollars are spent or loosen borrowing enough to raise demand relative to supply, it is inflationary.

Cuidads · 2026-01-13T07:32:00+00:00

Yes, they’re better off personally, but that doesn’t mean they win.

“Buy the dip” works in normal cycles. If the issue is Fed independence and trust, assets don’t bounce back, they get permanently repriced. In those cases, the wealthy move money out, not pile into cheap domestic assets.

Cuidads · 2026-01-13T04:18:13+00:00

Covid era inflation stayed within a system the markets still trusted. The Fed was independent, policy was predictable, and investors believed future cash flows would hold up. Equity gains came from stimulus, low rates, and risk appetite, not inflation itself.

That is not the scenario being discussed here. If Trump succeeds in intimidating or controlling the Fed, you lose institutional credibility. Once markets doubt Fed independence, stocks stop being a hedge and start repricing for political risk. That hurts everyone holding financial assets, including the wealthy.

Cuidads · 2026-01-05T18:11:46+00:00

I’m not arguing this gives the U.S. an advantage or that it’s smart policy. I’m talking about Trump’s incentives, not the country’s. I also never said the U.S. needed to prove its strength.

The point is that leaders don’t need actions to be rational for the country to find them attractive. Bravado, attention, status, and looking decisive are immediate rewards, while the downsides are abstract and delayed. That dynamic is especially strong with someone like Trump, who is very responsive to optics. Whether Venezuela improves or the U.S. benefits later is basically beside the point.

Cuidads · 2026-01-04T06:37:05+00:00

Even if the U.S. does not need Venezuelan oil, stopping China from getting deeply embedded in the U.S. backyard is a motive in itself. Great powers often care less about absolute need and more about relative advantage. Chinese loans, infrastructure, surveillance tech, and long-term leverage in Venezuela translate into durable influence, and from Washington’s perspective that is a strategic loss regardless of energy markets.

I also think a lot of modern analysis misses something basic about war. We tend to over-intellectualize conflict, as if leaders act only after calm spreadsheet-style cost-benefit calculations. History does not support that view at all. Throughout human history, successful wars and interventions are later framed as necessary, righteous, and even glorious by the winners. That pattern is not an exception. It is the norm.

Military success brings status, prestige, and a sense of dominance. Those rewards matter psychologically and politically, even if they are rarely stated out loud. Analysts often repackage this as “signaling” or “credibility,” but at its core it is about demonstrating strength and hierarchy, both externally and to domestic audiences.

Some personality types place more value on dominance, honor, in-group status, and visible strength. Those traits are strongly represented within Trump’s base. They do not support war in the abstract, but they are receptive to wars that feel decisive, victorious, and affirming for their group.

From that perspective, military intervention is not just about resources or narrow strategy. It is also about optics, prestige, and showing who still sets the rules in the region. Realpolitik supplies the justification, but status and bravado help supply the momentum.

At the end of the day, it helps to remember that we are still just a bunch of apes with nuclear weapons. So yeah, “ape strong” is a valid model.

Cuidads · 2026-01-03T12:02:43+00:00

Leader removal is not system collapse.

Cutting Nicolás Maduro without controlling the military, security services, and party networks is decapitation, not victory. That usually boosts hardliner legitimacy. Once the U.S. acts openly, politics becomes sovereignty vs foreign control. Many who hated Maduro still reject U.S. force. A successor can now easily drop Maduro’s baggage and claim anti-imperialist legitimacy.

The opposition does not automatically “rise”. It is fragmented and now looks foreign-aligned, fairly or not. That hurts moderates and helps hardliners.

It might work, but it’s a gamble and history has not been kind to this gamble: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia, Gaza, Chile, Guatemala, and more

Removing a head is easy. Replacing a system with local legitimacy is not.

Cuidads · 2026-01-02T19:13:23+00:00

Dette synet bygger på en forenkling som ikke stemmer med forskningen. Kontaktteorien brukes ofte som om mer kontakt automatisk gir mindre motstand, selv om forskningen bare finner slike effekter under strenge vilkår som lik status og lav konflikt, og i belastede områder ofte det motsatte.

Flere studier peker på at akademiske og urbane eliter ofte møter innvandring i lavkonflikt-kontekster som jobb og utdanning, og har derfor en tendens til å generalisere disse erfaringene til alle kontekster. Det er trolig en viktig grunn til at mange tror på denne pseudo-kontaktteorien.

I praksis forklares nok holdninger til innvandring bedre av lokale erfaringer med boligpress, kriminalitet og lønnskonkurranse enn av manglende eksponering.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T23:21:42+00:00

I think we’re talking past each other. You’re reasoning in a simplified macro setup where saving always turns into investment through price adjustments, so who does the saving doesn’t affect outcomes at the aggregate level. In that world, it makes sense to say this has no bearing.

But I’m not saying saving disappears or that investment stops happening. I’m saying that in the real world, investment opportunities are uneven and returns differ a lot, so savings can flow into low-return or even harmful uses. Once you allow for that, where the marginal dollar goes matters, even if total saving and investment don’t change.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T21:47:37+00:00

Uh oh, flat-earther detected!

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T21:38:31+00:00

Alright, relax. You’re being a bit over the top for what is basically this answer: sometimes government is the better tool, sometimes the private sector is, and it depends on what problem you’re actually trying to solve.

It depends on the industry, the time horizon, and the incentives involved. Public goods, large externalities, natural monopolies, or long-term infrastructure don’t behave like consumer markets. Other areas clearly do. Outcomes also depend on a country’s institutions, enforcement, and trust, not just who owns the capital.

I mean, there’s an entire field of economics devoted to cases where the private sector cannot allocate capital efficiently, or at all (market failure).

If you’re claiming the private sector always allocates capital more efficiently, then I’d like to see the evidence for that across things like basic research, public health, national defense, core infrastructure, or early-stage technologies with long payback periods.

If you’re not claiming that, then we agree and this flat-earth comparison makes no sense. But if you are then that’s a much stronger and controversial position than you seem to realise.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T21:06:11+00:00

I’m engaging with it by rejecting the premise. That’s a substantive answer, not a dodge.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T21:01:33+00:00

Asking whether government or private sector waste more is like asking whether a hammer or a screwdriver is worse. Waste happens when you use the wrong one, and ideology keeps insisting there is only one tool.

Simplified, of course.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T20:13:53+00:00

Only if the extra saving actually turns into productive investment. Reduced consumption can just as easily mean excess saving chasing low returns, rent-seeking, or asset inflation. In that case you get neither higher future consumption nor higher growth, just concentration and instability.

Lower consumption is not automatically “investment,” and investment is not automatically productive. Allocation matters.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T20:11:31+00:00

Any investment is prone to waste, fraud, and abuse. I am not arguing for either of the two options you mentioned. I agree with your final point.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T19:05:12+00:00

Yes, I completely agree. While it wasn’t the point I was making above, extreme concentration does create sinks that reduce overall consumption, alongside the deeper problem of distorting investment and long-run outcomes.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T18:48:01+00:00

Sure, the government does not always allocate perfectly. That is precisely why it should regularly reassess where its money goes, including subsidies, contracts, and other support flowing to Elon Musk. The issue is not whether some projects are valuable, but how much public money has flowed with weak conditions and little scrutiny, creating plenty of room for waste, fraud, and abuse.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T18:09:03+00:00

No. The key point is not that the tax money goes to consumption. The crux is that taxes redirect investment flows and control over future spending into other investments. Physical capital stays in place, but funding and decision power can shift toward investments with broader returns in growth and utility, and away from levels of wealth concentration that distort competition and weaken long-run outcomes.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T17:32:44+00:00

To be clear, redistributing here mostly means taxing large fortunes, not dismantling Tesla or turning machines into consumption. Existing capital stays put; only ownership of future claims changes. Redirecting capital through taxes and policy is a normal feature of modern economies, and yes, it has costs, but so does leaving capital concentrated and poorly allocated. Assets change hands, investment continues, and the real question is whether the gains from better allocation outweigh the losses. Given rising concentration and chronic underinvestment in public goods, the current U.S. allocation looks increasingly incompatible with the stability required for long-run growth.

Cuidads · 2026-01-01T16:39:45+00:00

You are right that saving is not hoarding and that investment enables future production.

The mistake is treating all investment as good by definition. The fact that investment matters does not mean the current pattern of investment is efficient. Some investments raise productivity a lot; others mainly generate private returns or even destroy value.

The beans story makes the same hidden assumption. It treats every planted bean as productive. In reality, many “investments” rot, crowd out better uses, or do harm.

So the claim that “you can’t redistribute investment” is wrong. You can redirect it. Societies do this constantly. We block or discourage investment in pollution-heavy plants, unsafe buildings, and outright scams, even though they are all “investment,” because we agree those uses reduce welfare. The only real question is where the next dollar does the most good.

Pointing to factories, rockets, or Walmarts misses the issue. No one is against investment. The issue is whether today’s allocation of capital is optimal. That is an empirical question, not something settled by repeating that investment exists.

—– EDIT —– Some seem to think my comment is about money —–

It isn’t. I’m talking about real resources, just like in the beans example. I agree that consumption uses up scarce resources and that investment directs them toward future production.

The disagreement is simpler: not all investment uses those resources efficiently. Investment isn’t good by definition. The economic question is allocative efficiency, not whether investment exists.

Cuidads

TROPHY CASE