We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
Oxfam started out as famine relief – a good, Godly, righteous thing to be doing. Get food to the starving – bonzer.
Then two things happen. One, we find out that shipping food to the starving – except in the most obvious cases of outright famine – isn’t really the way to do it. Because that bankrupts all the farmers for the next year, we make the problem permanent. Instead, we should ship money to poor people so they can buy food.
Before 7 October 2023, the English-language Wikipedia article on Zionism opened by describing a movement that emerged to “espouse support for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.” Since then, the opening has been reworded to say that this homeland was to be established “through colonization,” immediately followed by a new sweeping claim: “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.” The sentence is backed by an unusually large bundle of 17 citations, drawn from historians including Benny Morris, Rashid Khalidi, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappé, and to the casual reader it looks like the settled verdict of scholarship. It is not. The editor who introduced it in August 2024 has since been banned from the entire Palestine-Israel topic area for non-neutral editing. Yet the sentence survives, and for a year Wikipedia formally barred its editors from even discussing whether to remove it.
Nixon incurred a generation’s outrage and mockery for insisting to interviewer David Frost that, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Trump, within the first month of his second term, asserted on social media that, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” a formulation frequently attributed to Napoleon. When asked the previous month by The New York Times whether there were any constraints on his power, he said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” These statements are much closer to reality than they were during his first term, thanks to a 2024 Supreme Court decision, Trump v. United States, granting presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for the exercise of “core constitutional powers,” plus lesser forms of immunity for “official acts.”
Once investors begin to doubt the real return available on sovereign liabilities, the speed with which they can respond becomes important. Modern financial wealth can be reallocated almost instantaneously. An investor dissatisfied with cash or government bonds can move into foreign equities, commodities, gold, property funds or another currency without waiting for wages, consumer prices or conventional money velocity to adjust. Monetary distrust can therefore appear first as a portfolio movement rather than as an immediate surge in spending on goods. This makes attempts to suppress sovereign yields potentially less stable. The wider the gap between the return investors believe they require and the return governments are willing to permit, the stronger the incentive to move elsewhere. In earlier periods, geographical, institutional and technological frictions slowed that process. Today, capital can react to a deterioration in expected real returns within seconds.
That is where the primary danger lies. The market may require a yield high enough to compensate the private holder for inflation and fiscal risk at precisely the moment the sovereign cannot comfortably afford to pay it. Yet if policymakers prevent yields from rising to the level required to clear the market voluntarily, they have not eliminated that required return. They have merely created an incentive for private capital to leave government debt for foreign assets, commodities, property, gold or anything else expected to preserve purchasing power more effectively. The monetary danger examined later in this article begins when there is no politically tolerable yield at which both the government’s financing needs and the private investor’s required real return can comfortably be satisfied.
One plausible macroeconomic consequence of such a divergence is stagflation, in which both inflation and weak growth coexist. Persistent supply shortages and increasingly expensive capital would weigh on real growth, while the fiscal and monetary response required to prevent financial liquidation would make it difficult to extinguish inflation completely. This is the central problem examined in this article.
Yet when it comes to AI, I have found the evolution of this carefully staged exercise in scaremongering different in some respects. For a start, this is clearly a top-down campaign, orchestrated by industry insiders. Indeed, as far back as 12 years ago, those in the know began to raise the alarm about AI. In 2014, Elon Musk told his followers on Twitter that AI is potentially ‘more dangerous than nukes’. Bill Gates informed millions of his followers on Reddit that ‘I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don’t understand why some people are not concerned’. Needless to say, these fears did not stop either of them from pursuing the development of AI.
The HOMEFRONT Act is a GRANITE-style foreign censorship shield bill, the seventh such GRANITE-architecture bill or model policy to be advanced by American legislators in the last seven months, and the third such bill to be advanced in the last ten days. I anticipate there will be even more GRANITE-style bills, both state and federal, in the next several months.
Caught pushing an apocalyptic scenario they knew couldn’t occur, climate scientists are now claiming their policies prevented it.
A clique of stealth activists, including the former head of the National Academies of Science, claimed a high-emissions future was possible long after it had been falsified.
Climate policies saved the world from catastrophic warming, say leading climate scientists. On September 1, a consortium that produces analyses for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released new scenarios. They say the new worst-case scenario is just 3.3 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100 over pre-industrial temperatures. That’s down from 4.6 to 4.9 degrees of the last three generations of climate scenarios used by the IPCC. “Our business-as-usual projection of 3C of warming – rather than 4 or 5C – is a testament to the progress in global decarbonization over the last few decades,” wrote climate scientists Zeke Hausfather, Glen Peters, and Piers Forster back in May.
Others agreed. Chris Smith, a modeler at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis who helped build the new scenarios, told Carbon Brief that “back in 2010, RCP8.5 wasn’t an implausible future, we’ve now made it an implausible future.” Gavin Schmidt, the longtime director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argued that scenarios shifted “in light of what we (as a society) are doing,” so that “we have already done things and so ‘business’ is no longer ‘usual.’” Robert Vautard, cochair of the IPCC working group on physical science, said the old high scenarios “assumed no climate policies,” while “there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement signed in 2016.”
But the high emissions scenarios were never plausible.
On none of these matters have Trump’s tactics worked. The US trade deficit is unchanged. Greenland has not been sold. Ukraine has not been forced to agree a peace deal with Russia. Iran’s nuclear capability remains. The current conflict with Iran, which began after Boys’s book was completed, is the clearest evidence yet that other states have seen through Trump’s bluster and faux belligerence. Despite numerous threats of armageddon, the Iranians have not backed down, and they called Trump’s bluff because he appeared unwilling to accept the economic consequences of escalation. China has taken a similar approach to managing trade wars, forcing concessions on the export of chips while finding ways to circumvent tariffs.
[…]
The so-called realists have been bolstered in recent decades by the failure of more ambitious American strategies. Russia, China and other autocracies have not been converted to liberal democracy via capitalism, as many hoped in the years following the Cold War. The post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are now acknowledged by almost everyone to have been disasters on a historic scale, undermining the US’s moral and military authority at enormous expense in terms of lives and cash. The US’s humanitarian interventions have a chequered record: they stopped Slobodan Milošević from massacring Kosovar Albanians, but failed in Somalia and Libya. The realists also argue that the conflict in Ukraine is a direct result of overreach in the 1990s and 2000s, as the US and western allies unnecessarily provoked Russia by interfering in its “sphere of interest” – though others would note that Vladimir Putin’s own imperial fantasies might have more to do with it.
When Sanchez came into power, he did so not via an election but by winning a no-confidence vote against former PP leader Rajoy in June 2018. In this moment, he promised to wash away the corruption of PP and lead Spain with dignity. After eight years of premiership, his ministers are in prison, and his only idea for economic growth has been the now completely discredited policy of importing waves of immigrants with cheap tourism to avoid reforming the country. He has hollowed out institution after institution, including his own party.
His legacy? Pedro Sanchez is the dead end of Europe´s open borders experiment. Let us pray that when he goes, he takes that corpse with him.
The N-word is very much the ultimate trigger-word right now. Despite this being a full article about this precise epithet, I am unable to easily use it. Just to be safe from malicious prosecution or algorithmic suppression, even free speech websites like the Daily Sceptic will generally use asterisks to obscure it as ‘n****r’, even though you all know perfectly well what full word the typography indicates. It’s not ‘number’ or ‘nectar’ (‘neuter’ might be quite appropriate, though).
– Steven Tucker, writing In Minnesota, words matter more than rape.
Words of Power lose their impact when overused or habitually misused, which is why “fascist” and “racist”, once useful categoric descriptions with specific meanings, now mean almost nothing beyond “someone I do not like and wish to place beyond the pale”.
However “nigger”, absolutely a word of power in a strangely inverted way, is just a crass insult. Yet it is so powerful we’re required to render it as “the N-word”, akin to saying “Adonai” rather than the true name of God. Yet bizarrely in this two-tier civilization of ours, it becomes acceptable when used by melanin enhanced rappers, in which case it becomes something more akin to “geezer” or “my crew” or various other non-taboo things, depending on context.
The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa
Recent Comments