Total posts: 4,392
-->
@Savant
Uniformly rising prices is the effect, inflating money supply is the cause.It's one cause, not the only one.
Is this new term on the lips of every citizen when they shake their heads at the totals in stores? If the answer is "no" that would mean the subversion has succeeded because that IS the cause of that bottom number going up and up and up.The money supply is the main cause of inflation but not the only supply.
Even if there's some rare exception, we're talking about if they can contribute to price increases.
It is the only non-transient cause.
Define efficiency in this context.Lack of deadweight loss or negative changes in consumer behavior
Government spending is always dead weight.
Lack of deadweight loss = no dead weight = no government theft and spending
An impossible property for a tax to have.
Controlled, 2% inflation is fine, it's predictability that matters most.
It is justice and prosperity that matters most. Predictability is the obsession of central planners and day traders.
Why is 2% more predictable than 0%?
Decreased supply/taxes increase prices.
but not all of them at the same time over long periods.
Even if there's some rare exception, we're talking about if they can contribute to price increases.
If there is a scale large enough to walk around on, and I walk around it; I can increase local pressure, but I can't increase the scale total.
Inflation is adding more weight to the scale. Anything that can be charted on the supply demand curve is just moving weight around. Which can still screw people if their work is devalued compared to what they need/want; but fundamentally its a different phenomenon.
So the definition isn't misleading.
"all the prices are going up" is imprecise but not misleading. The only thing that makes "all the prices go up" is over-inflation of the money supply.
Contrast with post # where you said "An increase in prices"
Either you meant "a general increase in prices" which would be an imprecise definition of inflation (since that is only caused by excess increase in money supply), and your definition is compatible with pre-subversion websters, or you meant that when a fire takes out a orchard and the apple prices skyrocket locally that is also inflation in which case you're wrong and the definition is misleading.
Inflation is caused by national banks, but natural disasters can cause an increase in prices.
Then what is the new term for inflation?The new term for what you call inflation? An increase in the money supply. The term for prices going up? Inflation.
What is the term for the increase in general prices due to an excess increase in money supply?
The money supply is the main cause of inflation
Reading as "the money supply is the main cause of general increases in all prices"
What else can cause general (permanent) increase in all prices?
Created:
-->
@Savant
because CPI wasn't a redefinition of a "useful concept, one which if forgotten would leave people unable to understand critical dynamics of fiat currency systems".Again, the economic understanding of fiat currency hasn't been lost.
Despite the best efforts of subversive attempts, as my insistence on using the correct definition and the general public's awareness of the problem demonstrate.
Inflation was commonly measured as the rise in prices, so there was some utility in using a definition corresponding to what was being measured.
That's like saying pressure is often measured by the gravity force of a liquid metal, so there was some utility in using a definition corresponding to what was being measured.
Oh wait, they kinda do, mm of mercury.
Now what would happen if they were to start calling space a "low mercury environment", and then some sad product of the American education system said that we need to bring liquid mercury to the moon so we can breathe.
That is the OP, except it wasn't some accident, he was told this non-sense by people acting to subvert the definition of inflation.
If anything, this is less misleading, since the old definition could lead people to assume that something other than the price of goods was being measured.
IT WAS!
Just like the height of the mercury column was measuring something else: pressure.
Uniformly rising prices is the effect, inflating money supply is the cause. CPI is a proxy for inflation. Inflation is what theoretically needs to be known by the national banks to know whether to print more money. When you say just "inflation" that means the part of the increase in prices caused by inflation, which is in theory and on average: the only cause.
In their original theory (which they modified in order to accommodate establishment desire for more theft) inflation should be zero. A fiat currency with stable value, that would require some increase in money supply.
See how the concept of "money supply" is not identical to "inflation" nor is "increasing money supply" identical to "inflation"?
You can increase the money supply without causing inflation, when the increase is proportional to the actual increase in value*transactions per unit time.
but living standards are generally going up in the long term.
Yet dips are correlated with inflation.
From the instant the scheme of national fiat currency was invented it became a tool for shadow taxation and since then every government under any kind of stress self-inflicted or not has used it to hide and diffuse the amount they steal.
That stealing does reduce quality of life. Read vampire economy. The nazis were waging war on half the world, throwing vast resources into it, resources they stole; through inflation.
Those who would subvert the concepts of sound economics pretend as if these are alternative explanations, war OR printing money.
Putin did it, he started a war. <not mentioned> which then 'forced' the US government to print trillions to give to Ukraine by giving them weapons bought with those trillions of printed dollars very inefficiently compounding the theft </not mentioned>
Covid didn't make the prices go up, the shut down followed by the government trying to 'stimulate' the economy by stealing from everyone via printing money thereby causing inflation.
The lie is connecting shifts in the supply/demand equilibrium with inflation. Wars and diseases can certainly cause shifts in the supply/demand equilibrium; but wars are not inflation. Price changes are not inflation unless they are caused by printing money, and that HAS been what has been causing them when the government uses printing money to steal whatever the reason.
For example if Putin blew up a pipeline (actually it was "the good guys") that would explain a loss of supply for oil. Not for Spanish pears, for oil. That is neither a CPI increase nor inflation.
I claim countries die from hyperinflation. Which is a particular form of government theft.After a variant of a disease is named, there is no honest reason to change the name.Are tariffs not government theft too then? It's a direct tax on consumers that makes them have to pay more.
They are definitely taxes and thus theft, not directly on the consumer (almost none of which have the first clue about importing) though so I don't know why you would say that.
A particularly inefficient form of theft, too, because of how much deadweight loss it incurs.
Define efficiency in this context.
Taxation and direct destruction of the means of production can increase some prices, but in that case the price of labor goes down until a critical point after which the black market becomes the only means of survival and which prices mean nothing.Tariffs don't always make the price of labor go down.
They don't always make the price go up either. They can change behavior and thus shift the supply/demand curve drastically which means there are no absolute predictions, just a few absolute facts:
When the government ends up with more real wealth in their hands, and they threatened force to get it; they stole that wealth and they're almost certainly going to waste it either in stupendously poorly executed activities or straight up corruption (almost always a hybrid of the two).
This is, on the grand scale, the equivalent to coming into a prosperous town, making a big pile of their finest products: pies, pots, pottery, paintings, clothing; and then setting it on fire.
That reduces quality of life, and if it happens too often and the destruction is too great, the people become impoverished to the point of desperation. When a government uses inflation as the means of theft there is no escape, the destruction continues till the final crumb of bread, with people carrying around paper currency in wheelbarrows.
With tariffs, on-the books international trade simply ceases. In that way tariffs are less dangerous than inflation. Tariffs can at worst reduce you to total economic isolation. Inflation can go all the way back to the stone age if you actually have the guards to prevent people from switching to barter.
And even if they did, tariffs don't always force huge black markets. They don't tend to be this broad anyway.
That's because it's rare for an import to be a true staple, something people are willing to risk imprisonment for.
You put a tariff up inside your own economy (called sales tax), that will force a black market if it's bad enough. Or if there is truly a necessary import, such as an island that can't produce its own food; there will be a black market or there will be blood.
It would be misleading if we said inflation was the cost of goods but only measured the money supply.
Yes it would, it's the increase in the cost of goods CAUSED by the excess increase in the money supply.
Since what inflation is called and what is being measured are the same thing, it's not misleading.
?
What inflation is called? You mean inflation?
"Since inflation and what is being measured are the same thing, it's not misleading."
Well I would accept that with some caveats about time, in the short term CPIs can fluctuate, but ONLY inflation is a permanent increase in the general prices.
The problem is the equivocation of inflation with any increase in prices whatsoever, and by extension any cause for increase in prices; tariffs for example cannot be inflationary and cannot over a long period change the CPI if they were magically uniform (which they can't be).
In other words this is one of the rare instances where people's shallow understanding is actually exactly right, they are calling "all the prices are going up" "inflation" and that is exactly what it is even if they don't generally understand why. It's not open taxation, it's not war, it's not disease; it's money printing. That is the only explanation and it is the scientifically confirmed cause.
Terms used for different things have adjusted
Then what is the new term for inflation? We've established that it isn't "money supply" nor "increase in money supply".
Is this new term on the lips of every citizen when they shake their heads at the totals in stores? If the answer is "no" that would mean the subversion has succeeded because that IS the cause of that bottom number going up and up and up.
Created:
-->
@Savant
by that means attempt no redefinitionThe definition has already changed. Changing it back requires more hassle. You don't object to the term "CPI," so why object to the term inflation?
because CPI wasn't a redefinition of a "useful concept, one which if forgotten would leave people unable to understand critical dynamics of fiat currency systems".
If transgenders decided they were "gender-role-non-conforming" GRNC pronounced "granac" that would not be an attempt to erase the concept of "woman" and subvert thousands of years of cultural baggage, legal implications, and social privileges.
Economics has advanced since the 60s, in part due to having more data to work with.
That's why everything is getting better. <- sarcasm
And I don't think I claimed anyone was "dying of hyperinflation,"
I claim countries die from hyperinflation. Which is a particular form of government theft.
After a variant of a disease is named, there is no honest reason to change the name.
Tariffs and covid and wars can increase prices.
Taxation and direct destruction of the means of production can increase some prices, but in that case the price of labor goes down until a critical point after which the black market becomes the only means of survival and which prices mean nothing.
Except wars and tariffs and sickness have identifiable negative effects on the economy, even if they aren't the main source of price increases.
That is irrelevant because wars and tariffs are not targets for definition erasure.
Actually I take that back. Trump labeling "trade deficits" as "tariffs on America" is also an example of attempted definition subversion.
You're saying "buy hey the new concept [trade deficits] has some use" but it doesn't matter if the new definition is interesting, all that matters is that there was no good reason to use that word, only subversive reasons.
If anything, an increase in the money supply is the most tolerable cause for price increases since it's possible for wages to keep up and avoids deflation.
People recover from theft, wars and pandemics end too. This is irrelevant.
No matter the troubles, understanding requires categorization into concepts. Changing definitions under these circumstances is an attack on conceptual clarity. There is no excuse.
If they wanted to argue inflation was minor factor that nobody should be concerned about they are welcome to. To attempt to redefine inflation after the people's mind was made up is pure sophistry.
I have thought of another example: defining slavery as "apprenticeships" after reconstruction.
There was no purpose except to confuse people who had already decided that slavery was wrong/illegal.
Created:
-->
@Savant
one which if forgotten would leave people unable to understand critical dynamics of fiat currency systems.You can still use the term "money supply," which economists commonly do
You could use CPI, as they commonly do; and by that means attempt no redefinition.
And it's not like people understood fiat currency systems any better in 1960.
I think the average understanding was much better, due in large part to people describing themselves as "economists" being significantly more honest on average.
The original definitionNot always the more useful one.
In this case it is both.
"Nice" used to mean foolish, for example. "Bully" used to mean sweetheart. Now they mean other things, so it's more useful to use their new definitions.
and if I was in the midst of bully being redefined in order to accuse sweethearts of marital abuse, I would call it subversion.
Inflation is what has caused hurt so much hurt. When we see countries dying of hyperinflation it is never because of the other transient and insignificant factors that could affect CPI.
It hasn't been tariffs, or covid, or ukraine that moved the CPI of the western world this past decade.
Taxes cause prices of end products to rise but wages go down. The "GDP" remains the same in fiat, but buying power goes down permanently.
ONLY [money supply] inflation causes uniform permanent increase in prices. The "GDP" goes up in fiat, while buying power goes down temporarily.
The dirty charge of the word "inflation" is well earned.
Changing it now, after it has once again proven it's colors several more times is akin to redefining pedophile as "MAP" and "communist" as "progressive".
The sole purpose of such a redefinition is to decouple the objective evil with the already identified cause of the evil. To then allow for the illusion of novelty and the uncertainty of a novel dynamic.
What causes my prices to go so high? Who knows? Maybe it's Putin. Maybe it's too many trans kids committing suicide? Maybe it's the Easter bunny. Who can say?
Created:
-->
@Savant
it's probably the less common definition.
I don't think that war is lost yet, hence my insistence. If the sane people get closer to losing I guess I'll switch to "real inflation" to distinguish it from the redefinition. This will of course be called subversive by the subversives in the same way you're not allowed to call a woman a "real woman".
The pre-subversion definition is objectively two things:
1.) A useful definition of a useful concept, one which if forgotten would leave people unable to understand critical dynamics of fiat currency systems.
2.) The original definition
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
We can survive, but not without an explosive restoration of economic libertyTrump also promised lower taxes, less government spending and less regulations, so I think its going to work out.
He can't do that alone, not without going far more rouge than he has already; which I would welcome.
He would be the anti-FDR (who also went completely rouge, threatened the supreme court and likely did the same to congress to rubber stamp him effectively enacting the New Deal before it passed).
I wouldn't complain, it just seems too much to hope for.
I guess the way I would do it is this: I would take all the taxes that are mandated by congress; and then have all the various federal departments be a single cubicle with the director and a computer. All the departments do is pay citizens as government contractors.
There could be an algorithm that ensures every citizen is paid in proportion to the takes taken.
So they take 50k from me, and then one government department pays me 25k for homeland infrastructure, I'll clean up some litter and even donate to the county roads department. USAID pays me 5k for foreign relations, I tell my foreign cousins how great America is.
etc... etc...
They can call the whole maneuver the "people's budget veto".
Created:
-->
@Savant
Page 749 (748 in epub index)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That's why we have a constitution. The will of the majority isn't enough to legalize that.
Well you could do it with a supreme court majority too.
They've decided twice that certain classes of homosapien sapiens organisms weren't entitled to due process protections.
a
Three times if you want to include "foreign terrorists" (how about that timing?)
Also you could do it with taxes.
Babies owe taxes, they never pay, the punishment is death, and then of course repaying the debt as a sacrificial meal.
Kinda like obamacare individual mandate.
"No no, you don't HAVE to sign up; it's just the only way to get the tax rebate."
I'd do guns but we don't have all day. Short and sweet:
Constitution - "Ad hoc armies are a right, weapons are a right"
Courts - unless those weapons or armies are in any way dangerous, until you go through an unlimited set of bureaucratic hoops and fees
Your part time sacred cow is dead and rotting. You don't believe in it anymore than you believe in democracy.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
That is not nothing, and it is the perfect example to further make my point.lithium-ion batteries
US government decides carbon dioxide is going to make the ocean boil, introduces all sorts of taxes and regulations making it ever more impossible to use combustion (especially diesel), while making it advantegous to use an EV.
All in the context of not mining our own lithium but getting it from China.
Now EVs work, bad reasons aside.
ICEs work.
However if you cut off the battery imports, and you don't remove the shit you did to ruin ICE appeal and production; then you don't have any vehicles and you are very screwed.
That is a highly representative example of the whole situation.
We can survive, but not without an explosive restoration of economic liberty. One that will be politically very difficult to deliver. One I am not confident Trump is even aware is necessary.
I fear he thinks he's just done the hard part, and if that is the case; we are going to go into a chaotic depression and not recover. This will be used as proof Trump and "capitalism" (economic liberty) were wrong. "late stage capitalism", the USA will fully embrace socialism, and then it will end up like all the other American nations that have tried socialism (poor as fuck, possibly hyper inflated, dominated by a black market run by organized crime)
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
They can't because there would be no buyers.No, but it will push the chinese import out of rangeIt wont. The Chinese will just sell at higher price in USA until some competitor appears to replace them.
That's the problem.
If American companies could afford to buy American and simply choose not to for profit motive, then tariffs could alter behavior.
However if they are on a business model that cannot drastically increase prices and they cannot afford American made, then they don't buy Chinese or American, they go out of business.
This is also the fallacy of the minimum wage increases, the assumption that there is a large profit margin that the government can redirect in its infinite wisdom to the politicians constituents. i.e. you increase minimum wage and nobody gets fired. That is an incredibly baseless assumption.
It's a big economy, you'll find specific examples of everything, but in general the companies that we need the most have thin margins. You increase minimum wage and they will fire or go out of business. You take away the cheap east Asian imports and their business model no longer works at all.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Tariffs do not cause inflation.If you define inflation as an increase in prices, tariffs can cause inflation.
If you define a woman as anyone who identifies as a woman then ketanji brown jackson isn't a biologist.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
No, but it will push the chinese import out of range, and companies will fail. Again just a specific example. Far from the only case.
This is not just temu fashion in question
Bulk industrial tools and resources
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Thats not really true. Many products are in competition with not just products of same type, but with different products which serve similar purpose.
I'll give you an example. Miniature skid steers.
USA made: $80,000 no bells and whistles
China made: $12,000 base, $15,000 all bells and whistles, $25k after import
An 80k machine is not a drop in for a 25k machine. It doesn't matter if it can do the same thing, people can't afford it. Combine it with all the illegal leaving and there won't be a low wage workforce to do things without a machine.
That means light earth works companies shut down.
They can't raise their prices by 200% to afford american machines and american labor.
That's facing all our sins at one time, and whether that's better than easing into it I don't know.
Of course we can be a prosperous society, we can adapt, but that would require that all the government theft stop, it would require that the government stop ruining schools and universities, it would require that the government stop making rules so complicated and inconsistently enforced that sometimes you can't even pay a lawyer to figure out if doing something harmless and productive is legal (and you couldn't afford the rates if there was a willing lawyer).
Again, my point is that the things which created the trade imbalance are poisons in our own body. These tariffs create a quarantine, but if you're already sick it doesn't help.
What this is doing is making it life or death, and the problem is that for Trump changing the tariffs is infinitely easier (politically) than stopping the mass theft and regulation.
What this is doing is making it life or death, and the problem is that for Trump changing the tariffs is infinitely easier (politically) than stopping the mass theft and regulation.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
tariffs arent going to cause any great rise in prices.
If they stay around for more than two months (that is the typical lead time for ordering from east Asia), they most certainly will.
and if they stay around for four years while the north American economy remains shackled and suppressed by endless regulation, taxation, and inflation; then we will certainly suffer.
The large majority of imported items (and there are many) no longer have local competition. They aren't services that we can just start doing, nor are they things small run industrial shops can produce efficiently.
This is a sink or swim strategy, and it would be insane if not for a simple fact: The public are idiots. If something doesn't happen in four years, then it won't happen at all because the pendulum will swing and they'll elect a new batch of idiots who will undo everything.
The only way to change policy in the USA is to do something so radical that it sabotages any attempt at reversion.
That is EXACTLY how the left-tribe has consistently made progress over the last century.
The ratchet strategy.
The ratchet here is simple: Nobody is going to trust a business model which is based on exporting to the USA if this lasts for more than a month. Nor should they.
After they stop obsessing over selling to us, we'll have to start building things ourselves even if the left-tribe retakes control.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
It looks like you just don't want to call prices going up as inflation?
I will continue to reject and call out subversive redefinition.
Woman = state of mind : rejected
Inflation = prices going up for any reason : rejected
Terrorism = violence for political motivations : rejected
Socialism = liberalism, progressivism, etc... : rejected
What you call it is irrelevant
Attempting to erase the concept or hide the historical associations by redefinition is very relevant.
Tariffs cause prices to go up
That is possible, but I won't be taking seriously the alarmism of people who have no trouble with sales taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes, wealth taxes, property taxes about the danger of what is by definition a specialized tax on the buying power of the average man.
Where was this insight for the last 100 years?
A free market is self-balancing. Trade deficits are by their nature unstable, a persistent trade deficit is smoke that only comes from one fire: government interference.
I see these tariffs no differently than I see covid stimulus checks. Just another flawed action meant to bandaid a system failing due to flawed concepts. I would weap a river and find a tiny violin if it was something new.
As a libertarian yourself, you should be supporting my defense of the free market
As a rational human being my first duty is to the truth.
I like liberty, but if you said that praying to Jesus destroyed liberty because you have redefined religion as tyranny, I would object.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
As of my last knowledge update in October 2023, imports accounted for about 15% to 20% of the U.S. GDPReally?3 trillion import, 30 trillion GDP = 10% of GDP is import.Even if you pushed it to 15% somehow, it wouldnt amount to much.
Keynesian conceptual sophistry.
Ask how it is that something call "product" includes consumption in its sum?
If a petty chief sits in a house built by slaves eating the food of ten men, is his GDP the same as the product of ten men?
He has produced nothing, his ability to steal is not production.
No portion of the production of the united states comes from government spending or imports. Exports are production.
When a nation's (or company's, or household's) imports exceed its exports it's either going into debt, stealing, or benefiting from charity.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
It's called logic and evidence actually.Looks like you have your libertarian blinders on
What is the evidence of the meaning of a word? A dictionary.
Page 749 (748 in epub index)
I don't know a single economist who would say tariffs don't cause inflation
Then you don't know any economists at all.
Can you find a single credible source that backs up your claim?
See above.
Created:
Tariffs do not cause inflation.
One and only one thing causes inflation: An increase in the money supply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you trust democracy you trust those dumb people.Democracy isn't just about choosing your leader, it's an entire system of checks and balances.
That's constitutional republicanism actually (republic as in Plato's republic, the idea of engineered government which uses power blocs as moving parts in a machine).
If you trusted that then you are lost in constitutional crises, a crises that can arise simply by one of the parts exceeding their designed authority.
The power to tax and declare war is vested in Congress
When was the last time war was declared by congress? When was the last time the US military intentionally killed someone in foreign or international territory?
Trump's been eroding from the shadows for a while it seems.
yet Trump is claiming emergency powers on the basis of us being at war
lol, yea; why go so far when a virus is apparently a sufficient excuse?
We have all throughout history seen the danger of an autocrat having the power to change the direction of their nation with the snap of his fingers.
Indeed, and many other duties abused and power misused. We have seen the creep of bureaucracy and stagnant corruption it decays into destroy large federations time and again. In China alone it has happened like six times.
Note: Chinese civil wars over history account for the majority of avoidable deaths, both in absolute terms and normalized to global population.
So no, it's not about trusting the dumb people
Oh I know, that's why I knew that only dumb people claimed to think that and only dishonest people (like yourself) claimed to think that while knowing full well that you don't trust the majority.
Your dishonesty here manifests by attempting to equivocate on the word "democracy". You can save whatever excuse you may have on that, I don't care.
Honest well educated people know about the aztecs, and once you know about the aztecs trusting majorities just isn't possible without some form of internal contradiction. All you have to do to make the dumb people's brain stop working is ask "what if the majority decided to eat the babies?", when they say "that would never happen", you just point out it happened.
I never claimed to have loyalty to the will of the majority, I do love some ironic karma though, and people who claim to derive their moral authority from a principle getting kicked in the ass by that principle will always be satisfying.
Created:
Posted in:
It's hilarious how they can go from saying "our democracy" 24 times per second (the unit there is virtue-signal-hertz) to "most people are dumb, just really dumb".
They are dumb, that's why humanity keeps walking onto the rake that is socialism.
If you trust democracy you trust those dumb people.
If you trust lawyers you believe in Dredd v Scott.
If you trust congress you believe the deficit must be working out fine.
We will see no improvement in outcome until more people trust reason, that is what makes dumb people smart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You don't need to. Buy the stocks the panicers are trying to unload, wait for the panic to pass, sell those stocks, and then when things look good buy gold and wait for the next panic.At the precise moment you need gold, it is too late to buy.I disagree. It is never too late to buy gold. Besides, its not like I can go back in time and buy before now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Ladies and gentlemen; I present to you the the thought process of the normy:
If any of you have 10k hanging around buy stockNo! Gold is better. Plus, my magic rituals do require gold.
At this moment hundreds of thousands people are pulling out of stocks to do something like that. Rushing to "protect their wealth" like sheep under the expertly targeted fear of a sheep dog.
That's what a stock market crash is, a panic and a blind and far too late rush to react to a perceived disaster. The stampede becomes itself the disaster that destroys their savings and transfers the wealth to the cunning.
Buy low, sell high.
When is gold and similar most likely to be at its lowest price? During a general market collapse or when inflation is growing slowly and the market is growing?
At the precise moment you need gold, it is too late to buy. At the price moment you fear holding stocks, that is the moment to buy more.
Created:
Posted in:
If any of you have 10k hanging around buy stock.
This is a shock reaction from the normies, there is nowhere for the investment money to go.
This does constitute financial advice <- lol from behind anonymity
This does constitute financial advice <- lol from behind anonymity
Created:
Posted in:
Edit* when I said "custom made" I meant "made to order", "custom" is EVEN MORE expensive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@J.A.Prufrock
Oh, heaven forbid we create a market for American manufacturers. We might actually create jobs that matter...As far as I can tell, US auto manufacturing is already running at capacity or near capacity.
rofl, the crashed car is near its top speed: zero
I could house half of Honduras in our abandoned factories, warehouses, industrial districts, and shipyards.
It's a differential equation, economies are always that way. People don't buy American so American factories shut down. American factories shut down and then there is no American production. American made product prices go up.
I have been involved in more than one attempt at productive enterprise outside the purely digital realm (construction, engineering prototyping).
There are things which simply aren't mass produced in the USA (anymore). If you want an American made example it either has to be custom made or it's from before the collapse (1985ish).
I've overseen imports where the tariffs were 50% (this was under Biden, a Trump era tariff his puppet masters left in place). It was STILL cheaper than a used American equivalent.
To all those who say "but the quality" I'm sorry but that is delusional copium. Yes, American engineering quality is better *on average*, but like 30-50% depending on the context. German engineering tends to be even better still. Japanese quality control and product evolution is generally flawless.
It's not that the market won't buy quality, it's that it still doesn't justify the cost. If an American machine costs $100 and a Chinese machine costs $10 that means I can try five different brands of Chinese equivalent, pick the best, and then spend $50 perfecting it with custom work.
That's all "brandname" is these days (with almost no exceptions), it's just more Chinese products with an extra layer of oversight.
Furthermore it is not that we've grown greedy or lazy (well maybe we are lazy) but the fact is Americans used to be able to afford American and European products. We're not addicted to cheap products, the corruption in our governments and the mega corps that are entangled with them have stolen our wealth until we can't afford anything but cheap imports.
Furthermore it is not that we've grown greedy or lazy (well maybe we are lazy) but the fact is Americans used to be able to afford American and European products. We're not addicted to cheap products, the corruption in our governments and the mega corps that are entangled with them have stolen our wealth until we can't afford anything but cheap imports.
The net sum of this game is that everybody is getting screwed except a small group of people typified by Nancy Pelosi and the big stockholders of Lockheed Martin.
The vast amount of the stolen money is given out to people wasting their time directly or indirectly employed by the government, often in such small amounts (per capita) that they can't even claim to have a much better quality of life than honest producers. They're just mannequins for the money laundering operation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@J.A.Prufrock
Don't be an idiot. For every manufactured good with the same cost base, for example, a 10% tariff on the foreign good will result in a 10% price increase on that foreign good in America. And a 10% tariff on the same foreign good, will result in a 9% increase on the comparable good made in America. Congratulations, you have just raised the price for that good sold to all Americans. Good going!
Why?
All else equal, the demand would go down along with supply.
The only reason it wouldn't is if domestic production was lower than foreign production, in other words: They're building the stuff we use. i.e. a trade deficit in real value.
That is the problem. That is why all our stuff is made in China.
That is why the manufacturing in the western world is a shadow with a few exceptions such as automotive and aeronautical. As I have said before and recently: The solution to not building stuff is to build stuff, not to refuse to buy stuff.
Protectionism doesn't solve the underlying problem: Their production is more efficient than ours.
The other critical question to ask is: What the hell are we 'giving' them in return? The answer is basically they're being manipulated into it with threats of force (petrodollar, CIA starting a war or something anywhere that doesn't want to play the game).
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Unless the goal is to normalize outrage justifying unlimited political power...
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Imagine a venn diagram, a giant circle "the detectable by being in the same room"Obviously it is good at indicating intelligence which is why if I put you in a room of people with retard level IQs and then a room with normal IQ score people you would be able to tell me which rooms belong to which IQ groups.
now imagine two much smaller circles "intelligence" and "IQ"
You just said that since the IQ circle is inside the giant "detectable" circle, it must be intelligence.
This does not follow.
You just failed at basic logic, I might say that is an indication that you are not very intelligent; but I am intelligent enough to know that would be simplification to the point of falsehood.
There are a dozen reasons you would make a invalid argument, most of them far easier to define than "intelligence".
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Do you think it's impossible to prove blacks have lower than white IQ or that women despite an average higher IQ have significantly less geniuses than men?
1.) IQ is a measurement of something but claiming it is a test of "intelligent or creative" is pure speculation, bad science.
2.) The laws of biology don't preclude the possibility of races of man with inferior intelligence or creativity, nor do they preclude the possibility of sexual dimorphism showing inferior intelligence or creativity.
It is all of human history and all honest attempts to statistically analyze the issue that preclude the possibility that inheritable factors have scope to cancel out non-inheritable factors.
It is all of human history and all honest attempts to statistically analyze the issue that preclude the possibility that inheritable factors have scope to cancel out non-inheritable factors.
Prejudice isn't wrong because god said so, it's not wrong because the universe was engineered to make all sapient lifeforms equal, its wrong because it's false; a generalization that is so useless that only the irrational bother worrying about it while engaging in society.
To put the exact same point another way: Even if you proved IQ meant something in terms of engineering or scientific achievement, and then you proved women or blacks on average had 3 points lower, the natural variation from non-inheritable factors would be 40 points.
You still could not look at a black woman and know she's not a genius, in fact; statistically there would have to be black woman geniuses and it shouldn't surprise you that every once in a while people with a less than healthy obsession with race and gender find these people and make a movie about them.
Created:
You know what they always forget to mention is this: If America made better products, we would just buy American products and foreign tariffs wouldn't matter.
Trump's economic enemies list is a comfort as the possibility that it's somebody else's fault is always a comfort.
It's true they manipulate and and protect their own industries, they act to control the means of production; but it only works because of the beam in our own eye: The fact that the federal government is stealing everything.
Deregulate, abolish taxation. Then it won't be our problem.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Well I've talked to like 7 self-identified transgenders and none of them tell the same story.If it's not objective there is nothing to debate.I mean I'd like to hear one person who feels the way I described give some insight.
It's preference on top of preference. I don't think there are genuine people here who self identify so maybe you need to go to somewhere else for interviews.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Who cares, given that:Maybe a trans person would be able to give their take on this
though it probably depends on the person
If it's not objective there is nothing to debate. Ice cream flavors.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I agree the motivation is there, and I've seen many other cases of exaggeration; but that doesn't mean your list can be taken at face value.
Especially in historical movies, they always overstate simply by the act of focusing you lose context; and they do more, adding in events that have no corroboration.
For example in the movie about Churchill they have the subway scene. It was moving, but an invention. If such a thing had happened there would almost certainly be some waves from the 50 witnesses.
In almost all cases where I have doubted and looked it up, the inventions in the portrayal of these 'minority heroes' has been in the bigotry they supposedly faced.
Women and African Americans weren't intelligent or creative enough to actually contribute to science
Baseless collectivism.
Similarly when you see of African American women in movies such as "hidden figures", they were essentially just meat computers that did the boring tasks while actual white men made the real science happen.
The Apollo Program was an engineering effort.
I am a space history buff, I did some poking at hidden figures and the story is essentially true. No more liberties were taken with the movie than any other historical movie.
For example the guy smashing the segregation sign violently. Exaggeration, but not to the point of dishonesty.
That's not "meat computer".
Created:
-->
@WyIted
When I got into a car accident with the getaway driver of a robbery. I always told myself that in that type of moment I would be rational and just be safe but I hopped out of my car and with cars buzzing around me at 60mph I pushed it out the way to save the life of anyone passing by in that moment on the road. The accident almost killed me, but I voluntarily took actions to save others.I realized then that logic and rationality, though they had a place couldn't really explain why my impulse was to save others.
You are surprised by your own actions and you think that is a black mark against logic and rationality?
All I see is someone whose values are subconscious. Many are like that.
Even if you held conscious or unconscious values that contradicted each other, what would that proof except that you won't ever be happy until you change?
Some people called me a hero and you often here people say "anyone would have done it" and you think to yourself "no they wouldn't" hell the hero thought he wouldn't do it, because he's right. It's just a primal impulse that is virtually uncontrollable.
You're projecting.
No everyone would behave the same, and moments like this are common. The conscious panics and the subconscious provides an instant reaction.
The impulse would have been controlled had your conscious mind remained coherent.
This is known from the way that people can become desensitized to just about anything and when they are they retain memory of their conscious thought patterns where at first they did not because you can't explain your subconscious's logic.
It exists not because of societal conditioning but because even you know your philosophy is wrong .
So you can't predict your own brains behavior but you can see clearly into the depths of my mind?
The subconscious learns by experience, just like the conscious mind. That is why it is no more reliable.
The "This moralistic impulse" of a typical Aztec urged him or her to sound the alarm when sacrificial victims tried to shirk their duties.
It's unreliable.
You can believe the lies of the world, that the crusades were bad.
Fine, I'll be more specific: the sack of Constantinople was made possible by religious faith and certainly not stopped by it. Can we agree the sack of Constantinople was bad?
Mother Theresa's help to the poor was also made possible by religious faith.
Just think about why even you intuitively reject your own values.
When did this event occur?
If you keep leaning on that logic you'll fail to keep up with machines. You aren't going to put think AI, you'll need to tap into somebody's brain who created the universe to actually compete.
Pray the fake AI away, well you hear something new every day I guess.
These neural nets have never once showed the slightest indication of what some foolishly call "general intelligence" but which in fact is actual intelligence. When ants build a complex nest, that isn't intelligence, it's the mirage of intelligence created by an evolutionary process; and the EXACT SAME THING is behind every single one of these neural nets.
If there was a way to short the market over 20 years, I would do it, and I would be very rich.
In the end they will be put on the tool-shelf along with calculus and relational databases, and people will go back to writing object oriented code. If we actually tried, over decades, to write an artificial intelligence with object oriented paradigms we might get close enough to have that economic revolution. This isn't it though, and while I hate to see humanity going down the wrong path I will enjoy the mountain of "told you sos" I earn.
If there was a way to short the market over 20 years, I would do it, and I would be very rich.
In the end they will be put on the tool-shelf along with calculus and relational databases, and people will go back to writing object oriented code. If we actually tried, over decades, to write an artificial intelligence with object oriented paradigms we might get close enough to have that economic revolution. This isn't it though, and while I hate to see humanity going down the wrong path I will enjoy the mountain of "told you sos" I earn.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
How do you explain the reaction to skid marks on pride crosswalks?I don't think liberals support criminals or criminality, that would be sick.How would you explain the support for Luigi Mangione and of the vandalism of Tesla just to make a few things off the top of my head.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
The runaway individualism of the right is more about the exploitation of the working class and the poor though. It's the individual who has no loyalty to country or God or family who puts his own needs and desires first.
You think loyalty to country, god, or family would prevent "exploitation"? I think those are just used as fancy excuses that in no way prevent any dishonesty or coercion (notice I shifted from poorly defined 'exploitation' to actually immoral things).
Were not all the slave owning societies religious?
Did the nationalism of nazi germany or fascist italy guarantee dignified work?
Were there no families in the slave plantation manors?
Any failure to prevent abuses can be laid at the insistence on false generalizations such as labeling any admission of self-interest "individualism" and thereby associate it with abuses merely because they have a motivation in common.
The crusades don't make Mother Theresa evil despite common religious motivation.
A rapist is self-interested just like US steel, but US steel was a symbiote not a parasite on others.
It's not a balancing act either. "Just enough individualism" "just enough selfishness" "the perfect level of collectivism".
These are philosophical errors that exist on the analytical level. Collectivism is a fallacy because collections are abstract and individuals are concrete. The only valid properties of a collective must pass through an aggregation function (like average) to the abstraction. Collectivism is the philosophical mistake of ignoring that fact and treating collectives as if they had concrete moral properties (as individuals do). Properties such as guilt, values, responsibilities.
There are valid aggregators and invalid aggregators. Democracy and monarchy are invalid. The majority does not speak for all. The king does not speak for all.
A man speaks for himself, no more.
A contract is a valid aggregator, it asserts authority only over those who sign it.
That's an example of the kind of error I'm talking about. The rational philosophy that is blatantly missing from the late 19th and 20th century philosophy and politics.
If I had to define "bad individualism" I would say I have already given a synonymous label in my many previous explanations of the moral derivation: savages.
A philosophical savage is someone who has accepted that his own values have logical implications, but chooses not to abstract his values to the class of moral actors in general. In other words he chooses to reject the concept of rights. He follows his values alone and knows he cannot blame anyone else no matter how evil they might be according to his values.
There have been plenty who act that way, and plenty of philosophers who failed to understand this critical choice; but never has the philosophical stream that used "rights of man" led anyone to think savagery was acceptable.
It is anathema to civilization and personal relationships alike. It is thus incompatible with the existence of a fully realized human being. It is appropriate for sociopaths living as parasites and predators alone.
Yet for all that, it is still not a fallacy. There is no self-contradiction in being a savage. There is no ignorance of reality. As there is with the fallacy of collectivism or the faith of religion.
The left, not in theory but in reality is also a type of runaway individualism. The left wants Gay sex in public.
simply because the individual wants it?
You oversimplify.
They have created an evolving mesh of irrational victims and oppressor lists. The people and behaviors on their list of oppression are expressing individual desires nonetheless.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
There's more examples I can think of, but it would take all day. The point is that any time you see a news story of criminals, they will normally side with the criminal.
I am afraid it's more shallow than that.
They will believe whatever the "news", i.e. propagandist for the establishment, tell them.
Notice what they thought of cops and 'criminals' on Jan 6.
The propagandists pick a narrative that is beneficial to the aims of the global deep state, they cherry pick, and the numb skulls fall in line. There is an underlying philosophical reason, but not one that biases them towards or against criminals, law, anarchy, authority, rich, or poor.
They are subconscious collectivists. It's easy to fall into that, tribal instincts will push you that way and our school culture does everything to encourage it and nothing to discourage it (it did once, actually do things to encourage independent critical thinking).
You can see it in the things they grasp onto in fiction.
"Be part of something greater than yourself"
That's what they want, that's what their foolish subconscious thinks they're acting out.
That's what they want, that's what their foolish subconscious thinks they're acting out.
It may seem ironic in the shallow political sense, but a very similar phenomenon is behind a considerable amount of the right-tribe population as well. Whether it is a grand destiny of equality or the eternal truths of religion, tradition, and the national spirit; a great many of them feel first and think only as needed to keep the feelings (positive and negative) going.
That is why there is one constant in the modern world: hypocrisy abounds, if there were no double standards there wouldn't be any standards at all
In the beginning it was just man and #nature. Man should be able to do what he wants and so what he is allowed to do is only constrained by natural law. soon other men move close and maybe you don't want to build a house and farm and make your food and chop wood for fires etc. So you exchange your labor for your neighbors and he chops enough wood for both of you and you farm enough for both of you. These sorts of agreements grow exponentially and #societies form. Everyone benefits from these exchanges in #labor so certain unwritten rules start to be written. You have natural rights you do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt me. #Laws are created to maintain this voluntary and mutually beneficial participation in #society . If you harm another person you have violated natural law and deserve to be punished. Robbing your neighbor is bad and you failed society. I want you to remember this a violation of natural law is a a person who takes advantage of or has failed society.
In the beginning was just man and nature. Eventually more and more people show up, because you are reproducing, your neighbors are reproducing and the area is getting crowded. These close living quarters and large groups need some rules and mutual agreements to function properly otherwise it's just unworkable chaos. So a society is essentially being built up to respond to the tribes growth and the bigger the tribe the more we have to think about what works for most people.However, there's a problem. The societal structure doesn't benefit everyone. In fact it hurts some people. For the good of society some people will fall through the cracks or be harmed just by the nature of rules not being individualistic. The people the rules and societal structure negatively impact didn't have a say in creating the rules. The rules are imposed on them and they may in fact thrive if society was not forced on them. SO while the conservative would say the individual failed society, the liberal would point out that society has failed the criminal who would not be a criminal if not for society being forced upon him with rules and structures that advantage others.
You've mixed and matched the philosophies a bit, putting individualism and collectivism in the wrong boxes.
Robbing your neighbor is bad and you failed society.
Violating natural law isn't "you failed society", that implies that if society would benefit from a little well tailored robbery it wouldn't violate natural law. You thus redefine "natural law" as "net utility".
This is utilitarianism, a flawed philosophy for a few reasons to be sure, but is starkly contrasted with the moral absolutism of natural law which is expressed in "the rights of man", a hypothetical list of liberties which allow society to exist but exist because of the nature of the individual (as created by god, if you believe in that sort of thing).
For the good of society some people will fall through the cracks or be harmed just by the nature of rules not being individualistic.
You've confused a focus on minorities with individualism, this is forgivable given that the individual is the ultimate minority; however that is a fact that most people who would agree with your description of "liberal political philosophy" try to avoid acknowledging.
What you label as "liberal" is an obsession with equity.
If you said:
For the good of society some people will fall through the cracks or be harmed just by the nature of rules not being equitable.
It would be far more accurate to what they believe. They believe a perfect society, a sinless society, will leave no one behind. Every individual or minority that appears disadvantaged is proof of sin. It's not their fault because its somebody else's fault.
This is in fact the polar opposite of individualism. It denies all agency to the individual.
It is the collectivist underpinnings that allow individual autonomy to be dismissed in favor of the preferred narrative: collective sins.
On the other hand true individualists (which only describes a portion of the right-tribe) will never discount the individual's choices. Among individualists though, there is variation depending on context.
There are some truly misguided that allow for individual choice, but also believe every choice is correct simply because an individual made it. i.e. the anarchists.
There are mixtures of collectivism and individualism where:
Purpose: collective
Responsibility: individual
Which appears to be what you imply here:
SO while the conservative would say the individual failed society
Who said the goal was to serve society?
Perhaps the individual failed himself, this is the objectivist pattern:
Purpose: individual
Responsibility: individual
The classical collectivist pattern (fascist, socialist, nazi, communist, etc...):
Purpose: collective
Responsibility: collective
This also describes a lot of human thought patterns in history. Anywhere you see racial, tribal, national guilt that is Responsibility: collective. Anywhere you see the purpose of life is the race, tribe, nation, religion that is collective purpose.
... what is most prevalent in the left-tribe of western civilization at the moment is:
Purpose: individual
Responsibility: collective
You decide what to live for, what makes you happy, your preference is all, but if you can't get it; that is is because society is broken.
the liberal would point out that society has failed the criminal who would not be a criminal if not for society being forced upon him with rules and structures that advantage others.
The problem so far? These are generalizations. As rules, they are false. History has shown individuals can fail themselves, individuals fail society, societies fail individuals, and societies fail themselves.
If one perspective fails to fit every foot, that's because the feet are different.
There is no substitute for reason, and sound philosophy has plenty to say; but you don't work backward from broken viewpoints. You need to start at the fundamentals.
What you described as "# Conservative political Philosophy" Is much closer to the correct start on the path of rational philosophical derivation than the alternative you called "liberal", and that might explain why these so called conservatives don't go nearly as wrong nearly as often.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I knew this wouldn't be the best explanation but I trusted you anyway
In the words of the knight from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: He(you) choose.... poorly....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@7000series
This is some special form of barbarism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I don't disagree although I would say if the mistake is intentional we will never know and should never know. We don't want national intelligence of how we choose what to leak to be exposed.Someone should know, even if it’s not the American public as a whole.
Anyone who knows couldn't tell you that the leak was intentional one way or another.
Either way the public face of it looks the same: "whoopsies, we'll do better next time"
There should be a means to determine whether or not this was a mistake and a means to hold the people who committed said mistake accountable if so.
If those means were available to the public then they would be available to the enemy as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Well everybody called me crazy when I said government secrets are unjustified risks.
If there are going to be government secrets it goes without saying that they are not obligated to explain to the public why they keep some things secret vs others.
Otherwise it just turns into a guessing game. "Is the secret in regards to something green?"
You either trust them or you don't. I don't, but the solution is not to wait till they leak something and then say "how dare you reveal a secret that I didn't know about till now but which you decided to keep secret in the first place, EXPLAIN YOURSELF!"
It would be to legally prohibit the government from keeping secrets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Maybe there is nothing for them to learn.If that’s the case, then it should be easy for them to prove that they did everything right. We’ll see what happens.
Within the context of "even if all of them are planned." they have no intention of proving anything to you or anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
that they won’t learn from the experience because any restrictions will be imposed externally
Maybe there is nothing for them to learn.
Remember the context:
More leaks mean more opportunities for intelligence failures, even if all of them are planned.
You keep implying that planned leaks are compounding risks, that is the assertion which you have provided no support for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Why?Because we shouldn’t assume that they will be consistently judicious about what information they include.
Once again, they are the executive branch of the government. If you can't assume they are judicious about what they pretend to want to keep secret, why would you assume they are judicious about what they openly declassify.
There is no point you're making here.
If you didn't trust them yesterday nothing has changed.
More leaks mean more opportunities for intelligence failures, even if all of them are planned.
This is a "if you make a move you take a risk" observation.
If a carrier moves to a different location, that was an opportunity to be ambushed. Doesn't mean it was an error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Why?and that there's a substantial risk with each one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is it possible that they pulled the same trick on a larger group of people and only one went public before contacting them? I can't see the point of that since a journalist publishing is hardly a betrayal of trust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
...and you're looking for defenders, not people pointing out what you can't know. Got it....no? The original post you responded to was engaging with an argument in defense of these leaks
I contradicted two assertions:
1.) Signal is insecure
2.) An intentional leak is a risk of unintentional leak (the dam analogy)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Frankly, I just don’t see much reason to continue this conversation, as it seems clear that your goal is more to introduce uncertainty about what could have happened rather than defend it.
...and you're looking for defenders, not people pointing out what you can't know. Got it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
it seems like you don't really think these experts are worth listening to anyway, so I don't know why you bother responding to any of them in the first place.
They can't see what I post, people on this site can.
I commented on the supposed expert opinion to demonstrate that it is not very expert; thus justifying the attitude of considering them not worth listening to.
It's not that they have no inside information,
For example
"...members of Trump’s Cabinet — including the vice president, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, among others — were likely using personal devices, since in most cases, Signal cannot be downloaded onto official federal devices."
Were they using personal devices? Can we even confirm these people were part of the conversation or was it all a script?
"People can link Signal messaging to a desktop application.' he said. 'This means that Signal data is being delivered to potentially multiple desktop and laptop computers"
Were they using desktops and laptop computers?
it's that they're too biased to provide information that we can have any trust in.
Biased or ignorant, doesn't really mater in the end does it?
Bias can be in the selection of comment as well. How many opinions did the propagandist gather? What percentage of that was presented, even from the same person?
I don't trust the editor's editing or interpretation, I don't trust the sources, and I certainly don't believe the wizard of consensus is behind the curtain. That status quo for me though. If I was a truster I wouldn't be a debator.
In this particular case my mistrust was (once again) validated by specific, demonstrably misleading claims.
The argument here is not that a phone, as a device, is less hackable than a PC.
That was absolutely the implication.
Here is the quote again:
“People can link Signal messaging to a desktop application,” he said. “This means that Signal data is being delivered to potentially multiple desktop and laptop computers where it isn’t being stored in a phone’s secure enclave. That data is then at risk from commodity malware on the system.”
Also doesn't seem particularly likely that an internally developed program that is not open source would offer the opportunity to invite a journalist to join. Maybe that's just my assumption.
That's probably a safe assumption (if that program exists), which compounds the oddness if it was not an intentional leak.
If it was intentional on the other hand, of course they could not be so obvious about it by having a journalist meet with NSA or DoD techs to get him setup.
If there is a secret government app package and phone with messaging that isn't just a repacking of off the shelf products which I would guess is 50/50, why would the entire Trump admin decide to use Signal instead?
Either they don't trust the NSA (understandable) or this particular leak is a sham. There are other possibilities but they imply large sprawling conspiracies; i.e. NSA didn't tell them about the in-house option.
The simplest explanation is that everyone is a lot stupider than 'we' are giving them credit for.
The NSA and the Pentagon are full of idiots who are being paid because government always tends towards waste and corruption. They don't have any workable equivalent to Signal, they've been relying on firewalls to protect them while they use Microsoft Outlook to plan their dastardly deeds; meanwhile the Trump team really did think Signal was fine, and this leak was a thumb fumble in a contacts list.
The stupidity of the Trump team in this case would not be using Signal but changing details of an attack two hours before executing it. That is rushing that would be inexcusable outside of battle context.
From the politco article:
The app has become increasingly popular in recent months in Washington, following the discovery of a massive Chinese government-linked breach of U.S. telecommunications networks that allowed hackers to steal a trove of Americans’ cell phone records and spy on the conversations of senior U.S. political figures, including Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
If you believe that, that would mean they were using straight SMS before?
From the same article:
From the same article:
A former intelligence and security official, granted anonymity to discuss the handling of likely classified information, noted that the situation could have been averted if the U.S. government had a chat service certified to handle classified information.
So the ever reliable anonymous source claims there is no better option, what do you believe?
BS, look at what happened with the obamacare website.Don't know why you're going off on this tangent. Yes, I can acknowledge that the experts aren't always right and there are some major fuck-ups. Not sure why this applies or how this invalidates their insights on cybersecurity.
Halfway there, more like:
1.) Just because the government hired them, doesn't mean they're experts.
2.) Just because the government spends billions of dollars doesn't mean they have nice toys, it is mostly money laundering after all.
Which both tie into the reasonability preferring Signal over the hypothetical secret alternative.
the more opportunities they have to release vital and dangerous information
Opportunities? They are the top of the hierarchy. They can release everything at any time they want.
I mean... do you want me to just give you a list of sources
You do whatever you want to do, I am explaining why you might get the impression that there is a consensus of experts when there is not. It's a very old trick at this point.
They're a source you don't trust, ergo their expertise doesn't matter.
Hypothetical expertise.
We have to reference experts at some point since none of us are
Should have finished with "on everything", I'm an expert on some things (by comparison to the average knowledge). If you aren't an expert on something it's surprising you support yourself financially.
then there's no point in discussing any of this and we might as well just throw up our hands.
You have not brought me a consensus of experts, you brought me some quotes; one of which demonstrated shallow expertise. A consensus of experts or a single idiot, what matters is the argument.
People on this site can respond to arguments, quotes from third parties cannot. If you have nothing to say but "I believe this because I believe experts believe this" then yea, throw up your hands because that is an utterly useless statement to make. There is nothing to debate there but epistemology.
Created: