Smug Hypocrisy Invites Nemesis

We're all dependent on a sprawling global industrial base that generates downsides and sacrifices that few of us experience.

Among the many infuriating facets of everyday life, a special corner of Heck is being reserved for the Smug Hypocrisy of America's elites which manifests along the entire ideological spectrum from Smug Hypocritical Liberal to Smug Hypocritical Conservative.

No one runs faster to cut in front of everyone else crowding around the Federal "free money" feeding trough than self-proclaimed "conservative believers in free markets" elbowing aside everyone else to secure their federal tax break, government subsidy or other gummit giveaway.

The much-reviled welfare queens in the "Free Stuff Army" (FSA) are small fry compared to the Corporate Welfare Royalty who defraud, extract, skim and scam untold billions from the public and the Treasury via an endless stream of lobbying, regulatory capture, bribery, outright fraud, inflated invoices, no-bid contracts and enough other scams to keep an entire army of overpaid attorneys and lobbyists busy at the Federal "free money" feeding trough.

I often share this comprehensive data base of Corporate Settlements and Fines for egregious violations of the most basic business standards ably compiled by Jon Morse. There are now 2,848 entries. Come on, "believers in self-regulating markets," give us your best shot of smug hypocrisy.

"Taxes are theft" until we're feasting on government contracts funded by taxes.

When it comes to identifying the most infuriatingly smug examples of hypocrisy, wealthy liberals are like shooting fish in a barrel. "Rent is theft" until our monthly draw from the family trust fund depends on collecting rents from all the properties the trust acquired for peanuts decades ago.

It's funny how privatized totalitarianism's core characteristic--"some are more equal than others"--plays out across the entire spectrum of Smug Hypocrisy: all those wealthy folks, regardless of their self-identified political label, are delighted to sprawl atop the moral high ground and lecture the rest of us about how marvelously righteous they are, disclaiming their elitist education and connections and proclaiming their ordinariness: "we live pretty simply," look at us playing with our Irish Setter, just like you do, blah blah blah.

Gee, why is everyone suddenly so shy about their wealth and advantageous perch in the top 10%, 5%, 1% and 0.1%? Could it be that they know the system is rigged and they benefited mightily from it being rigged?

Political correctness, left and right, manifests Smug Hypocrisy. Those feeling smug about "saving the planet" because they bought an electric or hybrid vehicle should surrender their top 10% house and income and go live in a village next to an open-pit lithium mine for a few months, then go work on the natural gas wellhead that powers the battery factory, then drive a diesel fueled dozer in another mineral mine before declaring their purchase of an electric vehicle is "saving the planet."

Those touting the wonders of "the market" should surrender their top 10% house and income and go work a couple months of 10-hour shifts as a Lyft driver and find a place to live that matches their earnings before glorifying the rigged "markets" of privatized totalitarianism.

A little honesty and humility would be welcome. How many times do you hear someone state that the vast majority of their income and wealth is the result of pure luck, getting in before assets soared five-fold because they happened to be in the right generation, not because of "hard work" and brilliant investing?

How many times do you hear anyone state that their income and wealth are the result of connections unavailable to most people, from elite universities, inheriting family enterprises / wealth, being offered a job in a family friends' office, etc.--or plain old luck?

We're all dependent on a sprawling global industrial base that generates downsides and sacrifices that few of us experience. It's remarkably easy to be smug when your hands are clean and you tagged home plate because you started on third base. It's remarkably easy to be hypocritical when defending your righteousness in a rigged system.

On a much larger scale than "money" and status, Smug Hypocrisy invites Nemesis, payback for the smug confidence that living atop a rigged system is our rightful due. Hypocrisy is costless, which is why it's so attractive and ubiquitous. But maybe it's only costless in the moment because the consequences will be served as a banquet that we won't be able to decline.

---

New collection of five intriguing stories: Jumble Bin Stories (Kindle $6, print $12) read samples for free (PDF)

My book Investing In Revolution is available ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Ken E. ($70), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Mike F. ($70), for your monstrously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Jon W. ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Gary H. ($10), for your most generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Since We're All On Board the Hyperinflation Ship, Will It Sail As Expected?

The point here is there are options to destroying the currency and the economy, but they require something more than greed.

Few things have attracted more consensus that the belief that the US government has no choice but to "inflate away its massive $40 trillion debt" by devaluing the US dollar, a process that has a nasty habit of escaping the control of Central Planners and self-reinforcing into runaway / run-to-failure hyperinflation that destroys the economy.

As a hard-wired skeptic, when everyone is on board the same ship while the other side of the trade's ship has only a handful of contrarians and a few people wearing Silly Hats, I start wondering if Bob Farrell's famous Rule #9 will play out: "When all the experts and forecasts agree, something else is going to happen."

(Ten) Market Rules to Remember.

There are various game-theory and market dynamics supporting this truism: Self-Defeating Prophecy, group-think, etc., but there's another set of dynamics in play that few seem to think through.

Those empowered by their positions within the Central State have a keen interest in not letting the Central State devalue its currency--and thus its credibility and power--in a hyperinflationary death spiral. History offers few (if any) examples of hyperinflationary death spirals benefiting the citizenry, whose consent legitimizes the government.

While the consensus is confident that the US government "has no choice but to inflate away its debts" by debauching its currency, this discounts the survival instinct of those steering the ship. As already noted, only "madmen and economists" could believe that debauching the US dollar to "inflate away the debt" will generate a Hollywood ending to the drama--and it seems even madmen and economists don't believe it will lead to a Hollywood ending.

What's being discounted (other than Farrell's Rule #9) is the nation-state has other options other than destroying the value of its currency to inflate away the $40 trillion in Treasury debt. Doing nothing is popular because no one wants to make any additional sacrifices, but the irony here is painfully obvious: doing nothing feels like a victory until the currency and economy implode, laying waste to everyone's security.

There are various radical alternatives being proposed, for example, Ellen Brown's proposal to invoke the sovereign powers already granted to the nation-state: The Sovereign Reset: Escaping the Interest Trap with Greenbacks. These ideas are controversial, of course, because doing nothing remains the most popular and easiest choice, until something breaks and a crisis forces some action that proves undesirable to somebody.

Let's consider what somebody did back in 2008-2010 that effectively rigged the US economy to benefit the top 10% at the expense of the bottom 90%. These charts are facts, not proposals. Go ahead and argue with the facts, oops, the facts won.

Post the rigging of the economy to favor the top 10% via monetary, fiscal and regulatory policy changes, the wealth of the top 10% tripled. The Federal Reserve breaks the top 10% into the top 0.1%, the top 1% and the top 90%-99%. The charts of the top 1% and the top 90%-99% are nearly identical: if the trend line of the previous decades had continued (i.e. unrigged), the assets held by the top 10% would be roughly half of their current levels.

This concentration of the nation's wealth is especially obvious in the top 0.1%, whose share of financial assets nearly doubled post-2008-2010 from 7% to 13%:



The top 1%'s wealth more than tripled, from $16 trillion (poor things, only $16 trillion!) to $56 trillion:



The top 90%-99%'s wealth also tripled:



The bottom 50%'s share of financial assets--real wealth--plummeted: some are more equal that others in privatized totalitarianism. Note that the top 0.1%--340,000 people--own 16.6% of the nation's financial assets, 6.6X what the bottom 50%--170 million people--own, a 2.5% share of the nation's financial assets.



In terms of who got thrown under the bus and who's driving the bus post-2008-2010, it's pretty obvious, isn't it? Here are the facts:

Top 10% share of total assets (everything with any monetary value: houses, vehicles, furniture, etc.): 64%

Bottom 50% share of total assets (everything with any monetary value: houses, vehicles, furniture, etc.): 5%

Top 10% share of total financial assets (assets that generate income and capital gains): 72%

Bottom 50% share of total financial assets (assets that generate income and capital gains): 2.5%

The rising tide of the monetary, fiscal and regulatory policy changes since 2008-2010 did not raise all boats: the share of financial assets owned by the wealthiest few doubled while the share of financial assets owned by the bottom 50% fell.

According to the Federal Reserve, the top 10% own $125 trillion in assets. If the economy hadn't been rigged to their exclusive benefit, their wealth--tracking the trendline of the previous decades--would have been about half this sum.

Doesn't common sense suggest that those owning 72% of the gains of our rigged economy should make 72% of the sacrifices needed to restore some measure of financial sense to the nation's accounts? In previous eras, this was called noblesse oblige, the obligation of the wealthy nobility to serve the shared interests of the entire society, not just their private interests.

It's almost amusing how those whose wealth tripled due to the economy being rigged to benefit the wealthiest 10% consider these gains "earned" and therefore sacrosanct, when the charts above indicate these gains were entirely the result of the casino being rigged.

It seems reasonably safe to assume the 200 million people thrown under the bus might not be amused when something breaks and a crisis demands resolution, and the 340,000 with political influence declare their wealth is sacrosanct. Few seem to think these dynamics through to their logical conclusion.

No wonder doing nothing is so popular with the wealthiest, most politically influential few.

If this doesn't sit well with the top 10%, they have another option: put their wealth to work electing adults instead of self-enriching toadies, sycophants, minions, lackeys and grifters who win re-election by passing out "free money" borrowed by the Treasury, money that accumulates interest paid by taxpayers.

The point here is there are options to destroying the currency and the economy, but they require something more than greed, which is all that's left in our rigged economy. When something finally breaks, greed won't provide a solution; it will only accelerate the dissolution and destruction.

---

New collection of five intriguing stories: Jumble Bin Stories (Kindle $6, print $12) read samples for free (PDF)

My book Investing In Revolution is available ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, David D. ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Salt 24 ($70), for your monstrously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Greg W. ($70), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Eva ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

We Can't Automate Learning, We Can Only Automate Dependence on AI

AI can't do our learning or thinking for us, but it excels at making us dependent on its substitution of learning and thinking, and the resulting state of helplessness when we have to think for ourselves.

There are a number of things we already know about AI: one is that we can't automate learning, we can only automate dependence on AI. This can be expanded to: we can't automate learning how to think independently, we can only automate the helplessness of being dependent on AI.

The use of AI in education to substitute for actual learning has pushed reading--and reading comprehension, i.e. the ability to truly learn and think for oneself--off a cliff. What AI does is automate dependence on AI, at the cost of students learning how to "connect the dots" on their own.

This process of connecting dots beyond what was taught in the lesson plan requires an ability to research variety of subjects and think about them independently, that is, not as a process of rote regurgitation for an exam but thinking as the source of "aha" moments, where we come to understand something in a new, intuitive way, not just as a collection of facts.

Correspondent P.S. has worked extensively with AI tools, and he encapsulated what AI can't do for us / automate:

"This missing faculty is probably one of the clearest remaining boundaries between present AI and genuinely general intelligence. It isn't knowing more. It is seeing what matters before somebody labels it for you."

This is the intuitive leap from being told "this is the way it is" and accepting that uncritically, and seeing connections beyond what's already labeled for our consumption. This is thinking independently, and it requires thoughtful, focused reading of often difficult texts, re-reading key passages, and connecting ideas and concepts--i.e. labels for broad swaths of knowledge--in ways that extend beyond the conventional labels.

AI can't do our learning or thinking for us, but it excels at making us dependent on its substitution of learning and thinking, and the resulting state of helplessness when we have to think for ourselves. AI makes it convenient to learn nothing deeply enough to matter, and in this way it is Ultra-Processed Cognition, the equivalent of social media's endless Ultra-Processed scroll of eye-catching, emotion-arousing crunchy snack texts and images.

So when we finally awaken to the profound loss of our ability to research, think and connect disparate ideas and concepts beyond the Ultra-Processed Labels of convention, we find we've lost the ability to connect anything beyond our dependence and our helplessness.

---

New collection of five intriguing stories: Jumble Bin Stories (Kindle $6, print $12) read samples for free (PDF)

My book Investing In Revolution is available ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Mario G. ($10), for your most generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, XX ($7/month), for your monstrously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Anti-Hip ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Cheryl A. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Social Media Is Pointless Slag

The irony here is we're being "consumed" by the process of "consuming" social media.

If we want to understand why a system generates unfavorable output, a good starting place is to identify

1) the incentives embedded by the system's design and

2) what this type of system generates by its very nature. One way to understand this is Marshall McLuhan's famous dictum, the medium is the message: the medium itself defines the message, not the content.

Per MarshallMcLuhan.com, Each medium, independent of the content it mediates, has its own intrinsic effects which are its unique message. 'The medium is the message' because it is the 'medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action.'

The classic example is the medium of print media versus the medium of broadcast television. These are not interchangeable, as each medium lends itself to different avenues of communication, knowledge and emotional impact. Each is attractive / addictive in different ways, and the incentives to "consume" content in each medium differ, as do the incentives to create content in each medium.

The basic idea here is it's more productive to investigate the incentives and behaviors generated by the communication medium itself and ignore the messages / content.

What becomes immediately apparent is social media is slag--the worthless mass left over when we melt a mountain of ore to obtain a handful of useful metal--both by the nature of its incentives and by its structure.

The incentives of social media are uniquely perverse: social media platforms invite users to create content with two built-in incentives:

1. increase your social status and sense of self-worth by posting content showing yourself in the best possible light

2. attempt to earn money by posting a mountain of content to extract a handful of payments from the corporate platform.

The consumer economy systemically induces insecurity as the means of promoting the purchase of goods and services we don't need but which confer social status: "you have to have this new product/service or you're low status."

Given the mass insecurity this system generates, people are starved for opportunities to increase their social standing and sense of self-worth by increasing their visibility: look at me!

Social media fulfills this desire to a T. Constantly post photos of oneself in exotic locales, dining out, looking fabulous, etc., none of which has any appeal to the truly secure individual.

This competition to gain attention generates envy and insecurity, which then feed a desire to fabricate / highlight even more looking fab content, which then generates more data and profits for the platforms.

That we don't actually become higher status or more secure by entering this competition undermines the entire exercise / "investment" of time and energy. The platform's Happy Story is that social media "connects people," but the medium only lends itself to superficial simulations of connection, not actual connections.

For that, we have email: individual to individual, not broadcasting on social media.

The financial incentives are equally attractive: sit at home (or at work) and post content for "free" (because "free" means we're the unpaid source of the platforms' profits) which can generate substantial income if our content goes viral and attracts millions of views.

By its very nature--users post as much content as they want, 24/7--social media thrives on quantity, not quality. So the way to make money on social media platforms is to post a mountain of content as the means to extract a handful of cash.

This is an ideal setup for social media platform corporations: users create content that is addictive by design--the endless scroll, keep going or you'll miss out on a terrific post!--which can then be scraped for data that can be sold to other companies while also being used to target advertising tailored to each addicted user / poster.

The platforms rake in tens of billions of dollars and dole out a tiny percentage to content creators. It's actually an amazingly one-sided extraction machine: the platforms recruit users to slave away posting mountains of content that's profitable to the platforms in the vain hope of becoming an influencer raking in big bucks from attracting tens of millions of views. The actual distribution of the money follows a power-law curve: only the few at the top make any real money, the 99.8% earn pennies or nothing.

This meager monetary inccentive also generates an unquenchable desire to post attention-grabbing content. Whether it's accurate or not is not the incentive; the incentive is to be outrageous enough to activate users' limbic attention to emotion-generating images and text.

There is no other possible output of this structure other than addiction to a pointless mountain of slag. Mighty bulldozers scoop up the raw content and extract the value via data collection and advertising, and a few nuggets are tossed to the content creators who generate the most addictive / attractive content. Everyone else is generating content in the futile pursuit of higher visibility / status / security.

Hey, Hypocrite, don't you post on social media. Yes, I do, because that's where the audience is now. If you expect me to stand on a street corner reading my content aloud (and likely being arrested as a 5150 or public nuisance), sorry, I'm in the business of creating content, and so I have to go where the audience is, which is now social media.

I don't have to "like" social media or spend any time on it to recognize that it is a global mass medium of open access. I don't post enough to ever attract much of an audience, nor is my content of the sort that attracts vast audiences. But no writer can ignore changes in the mediums of communication if they want their content to be read, oops, I mean "consumed."

The irony here is we're being "consumed" by the process of "consuming" social media. The medium of social media lends itself to Ultra-Processed Content, the cognitive-emotional equivalents of addictive-by-design Ultra-Processed snacks.

How much "nutritional value" did we extract from sorting through the mountain of pointless slag? The answer is not enough to make the time-attention-consuming process worth our time or energy, given the degradation of our mental-cognitive health that being addicted to social media incurs by its very nature.

Social media can be productively understood as a medium labeled "to serve humans," as it consumes us to feed a profit machine that can only generate mountains of pointless slag due to its incentives and structure.

---

New collection of five intriguing stories: Jumble Bin Stories (Kindle $6, print $12) read samples for free (PDF)

My book Investing In Revolution is available ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Mario G. ($10), for your most generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, XX ($7/month), for your monstrously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Anti-Hip ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Cheryl A. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

We're Living in a Tragicomic Parody

It's hard to take a joke when our entire economy and financial system is the joke.

We're blessed/cursed to be living in a very peculiar era in which parodies are taken with the utmost seriousness, an absurdist state of affairs captured by the classic line from the 1959 film North by Northwest: "So horribly sad. How is it I feel like laughing?"

The parodies are now so extreme they are self-parodies that cannot be parodied. How do we parody a world gone mad with parodies? Every attempt to parody "the news" today is trumped by reality.

We're inhabiting a travesty of a mockery of a sham of smug overlords and obsequious politically correct grifters, left and right, claiming the high moral ground while they pillage with a money-grubbing avarice so blatant that it's impervious to parody.

Their hypocrisy is so comically obvious that we can no longer tell if it's comic by design or the grifters are so shallow and superficial that they're blind to the irony of their self-parody.

At any moment, we might be instructed to wear our underwear on the outside of our clothing, and the Supreme Court would rubber-stamp this parody of serious policy with its usual cowardice, a cowardice that is now so blatant that it's also beyond parody: the Supreme Court is a parody of a functioning system of justice.

All this will be reported with great seriousness, as if it isn't a punchline in a joke nobody gets.

The irony of all the euphoric claims about AI is powerful enough to melt thick steel containment doors. The AI euphoria is itself an irony, wrapped around an even deeper irony: there is no way to tell the difference between an AI parody of "intelligence" and what AI presents as "legitimate intelligence."

A parody of AI hallucinations is impossible, because the reality of AI hallucinations already exceeds any parody. A parody of runaway AI mischief is also impossible, because the reality of AI mischief already exceeds any parody.



Then there's the parodies that are so systemic, they're the punchline nobody gets: the economy is a parody of a functional economy--here is total debt:



And the the stock market casino run by The Gamesters of Triskelion is a parody of a functional financial system:



Star Trek fans know the The Gamesters of Triskelion episode is a parody in which a society of supposedly great intelligence has decayed into a debased casino in which gambling and gaming the betting action is the sole focus of these supposedly intelligent Masters of the Universe.

Isn't it obvious that the US financial system / stock market is now such an absurd parody of a functional financial system that it can no longer be parodied, as it's a full-blown self-parody?

Ultra-Processed Life--everything is "innovative," "new," a novelty everyone must have, profitable glop presented as amusement and distraction not nourishment--is a self-parody not just of a functioning socio-economic system but of an authentic value system.

It's hard to take a joke when our entire economy and financial system is the joke. The comedian delivers the punchline and the audience is silent: they won't get the joke until it's too late to laugh, except through tears, for we're living in a tragicomic parody.

New podcast: Charles Hugh Smith on the End Game of Repressed Interest Rates: Stagflationary Inflation followed by "Cold Turkey" (29:25 min)

---

New collection of five intriguing stories: Jumble Bin Stories (Kindle $6, print $12) read samples for free (PDF)

My book Investing In Revolution is available ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Bruce D. ($200), for your outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Cynthia M. ($7/month), for your monstrously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, James W. ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Don F. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...