Perhaps someone here can explain something to me. Trump says Ukraine must accept the Russian-written "peace proposal or "risk losing US support. So, let's assume a counterfactual: Ukraine accepts the proposal. What good is US support supposed to do them, even assuming it lasts more than milliseconds beyong Russia moving it's troops forward?
It looks to me that the actual choice is between losing US support or losing US support. The only difference is between losing a bunch of territory at the same time or not.
I have tried to put down roots here, and I think I’ve done a good job, but given that it has been a conscious effort, I have to say that those roots aren’t deep, certainly not as deep as Japanese from here.
It's true that those who have moved tend to have shallower roots than those who have lived somewhere for a lifetime. And also, it's not surprising that some are better than others at developing new roots when they move. But I would point out that, while you feel your new roots are shallow, you are hardly someone who is perpetually moving. (I'd put the threshold for "perpetually moving"/rootless at relocating every couple of years or less.)
I acknowledge that my perspective is probably skewed by my personal experience. The US is called "a nation of immigrants" (suck eggs, Steven Miller!) for a reason. And California is a bit extreme, even for the US.
Growing up, I lived in a little farm town, just starting to evolve into a suburb. When my parents moved here, after WW II, the population was under 500. By the time I graduated high school, my graduating class was around 500. For all that there were a couple of families who had been here for a century, pretty much everybody in town was from somewhere else. Often, the kids in my classes had moved a couple of times already. Today, the town is up to nearly 50,000.
That sort of thing continues. I'm in the long time rooted category because, although I've lived in a half dozen different places over the years, they've all been within a hundred miles of here. But my family, my friends, my neighbors? All have moved or lived previously, far away. I've got a brother who, in his 20s and 30s, lived "in Europe" -- never settled anywhere for more than a couple of months, as far as I could tell. Definitely in the perpetually moving category.
“Maybe we are done putting down roots and will just keep moving.”
In reality, there have always been those who put down roots, and those who kept moving. As far as I can see, that is still true today.
There were also those who, from necessity, picked up and moved, sometimes a very long way, before stopping and putting down new roots. (I am put in mind of a story I read long ago about a guy who moved from Europe, but having arrived in New York City, never went west of Ocean Parkway.)
I suppose you could make a case that, at least in the US since the middle of the last century, it became more common for entire families to pull up stakes and relocate multiple times. They put down roots serially though; they weren't really moving constantly.
The one thing I think has changed is that those who just keep moving are now able to form lasting connections online. Before, they were largely isolated. Being able to make lasting connections allows them to form communities. Just communities not based on geography. That makes them more visible.
I hope the Wall Street Journal editorial is right about American voters, but I fear it is not. Surely if American voters hated dishonour as much as all that, there would not be a second Trump presidency
It all depends on what American voters perceive as dishonor. Perhaps surprisingly, they seem more likely to take that view of foreign policy screwups than they do of dishonorable behavior on the domestic (or personal!) front.
Yeah. I get warnings about the site being potentially unsafe. But I cheerfully downloaded the files anyway. Now I just need to get the software to open them.
I am amazed by the number of people I have encountered over the last few months who said variations of “but Trump will eventially get/is getting impatient with Putin, so it looks like things are going to change”.
It's pretty human to expect things that you really, really want to see happen will indeed happen . And it's also all to easy to assume that others will do what you would expect anybody to do. Even when you know, if you stop and think about it, that the person isn't even remotely rational, let alone sensible.
So, we'd like to see Trump cease being Putin's patsy when it comes to Ukraine. And, given how Putin is behaving, any normal person would long since have gotten exasperated. So, easy to think any little glimmer in that direction is the beginning of a real change. No matter how many times it proves not to be.
It must be incredibly frustrating for Dmitriev. He keeps putting out ever more outrageous demands, in the hopes that Witkoff will say No, so he can blame the US for negotiations failing. But Witkoff keeps giving him everything he asks and more. Over and over. The draft plan differs from Russia's maximal demands only in giving Russia even more.
About all that's left is Russia demanding massive reparations from Ukraine. Watching this space....
Percentage wise, America saw way more immigration in the 1700s than in the 19th century. Also way more in the 19th century than in the 20th century. Certainly there were peaks and valleys. And the raw numbers climbed, but as a percentage of the (non-Native American) population? No.
I suspect that we also saw more in many decades of the 20th century than we have so far in either decade in the 21st century. The usual peaks and valleys may have impacted what we've seen this century so far. But by now, our population is just too big for the percentages to get that high.
Banknotes stuffed in a mattress is looking better and better.
Works right up to the moment that serious debasement of the currency (aka inflation) sets in. Which, the idiots at the top of this administration being how they are, seems a distinct possibility.
Might be better to put your money into reconfiguring your back yard (if you have one) into a big vegetable garden.
lj, I suppose it depends a lot on the behavior of the companies one is familiar with. I've certainly seen (and worked for) some that practice "devil take the hindmost" capitalism.
But I've also worked for companies which thought being a good person and a good citizen was important. And seen a lot more of them. Plus, of course, their owners and managers were bright enough to realize that their people were what kept the whole thing running.
It’s not like there are some tiny companies, hidden in the shadows, that are somehow ‘doing capitalism right’.
Actually, I think there are. Not just tiny ones either; medium and moderately large ones, too.
The behemoths get all the attention precisely because they are so big. As you say, a handful of them make up half the NASDAQ. But by numbers, as opposed to simple market capitalization, the vast majority not only do more business, they employ, in aggregate, far more people.
And they survive by doing capitalism right. Not "right" as a lot of economists seem define it. They take care of their customers and they take care of their people. Without screwing over either in pursuit of a tiny fraction of a percent better numbers. And their executives don't make tens (or hundreds) of thousands of times as much as their average employees.
What kills me is that this is basically capitalism 101 and the Chinese are proving to be a whole lot better at it that the US.
Say rather that the Chinese are a lot better at it than enormous Silicon Valley firms. Which is to say, firms that so dominate their niche that they no longer have to pay much attention to competition. If you are Google or Microsoft or Amazon, you've got money to burn. So why not spend some of it on whatever shiny object has caught your biggest shareholder's eye?
Expect them to eventually, possibly sooner rather than later, discover why not. Although, if they can (apparently) afford to pay their CEOs hundreds of millions per year, maybe not.
I wonder if there’s such a thing as MAGA fatigue. By that, I don’t mean the fatigue that I would guess most of the people commenting here feel after dealing with all the bullsh*t the MAGAts produce. I mean fatigue among the MAGA faithful.
I suppose they are more Heritage-faithful than actual MAGA-faithful. But quite a few of the negative rulings lately seem to be coming from judges who were appointed by Trump. Which probably mostly speaks to the level of incompetence of the new bozos at DoJ.
Nvidia designs chips. All of their chips are fabricated by TSMC in Taiwan.
Another potential issue here. If China decides to forcibly reunite Taiwan, all that chip production is no longer secure. (Even making the heroic assumption that the various fabs are not severely damaged or destroyed.)
That would, I suspect, bring AI expansion to an abrupt halt. With obvious massive disruption to any business (not just AI providers) which has reorganized and restructured their operations to depend on it.
the software industry as a whole is all-in on AI (LLMs in particular).
makers are trying to stuff it into every nook and cranny they can find.
As noted, the costs are enormous. So using AI everywhere is the only prayer of actually making any money from it.
And for non-AI software companies, it's a matter of not looking like they are less than cutting edge. It's folly, except in a few narrow cases. But here instinct is powerful in the industry.
Brighter minds than mine will surely chime in to explain why this is not a matter of concern.
I think what you mean is, more credulous minds than yours.
At current valuations AI would have to bring in $400 per year per US resident for the AI companies to produce a decent return on investment. Which isn't happening in the foreseeable future.
"Bubble" is exactly what we're looking at. The question is when, not whether, it will pop. And how big an impact that will have on the economy overall. Personally, I'm going nowhere near stock in any company which is big into AI. But then, I've been avoiding bitcoins like the plague, too.
I understand that this is the first time the assigned DOJ attorney has ever done a prosecution.
Well, as I understand it, the reason she got assigned is that DOJ professionals looked at the case and concluded that there was nothing to it. So they declined to prosecute. The Attorney General had to find someone inexperienced enough (or foolish enough) to try to take the case forward.
Whether or when that is Bondi's response depends on whether the Senate gets around to a vote on the resolution. Not to mention if they make some kind of amendment which then requires it go back to the House for concurrence. Lots of ways to slow walk the whole thing.
But yeah, once the whole thing is done, Bondi can claim "ongoing investigations." Put one extremely junior and ultra-MAGATrumpist staffer to work reading thru the whole file. Could easily be "on-going" for years.
... more Democratic votes in that district won’t win the seat, but those will be votes to re-elect Ossoff to the Senate.
But consider, if a strong candidate could move the district from 65-35 last time to 60-40 (or better), and then we see the sort of blue wave election in 2026 which looks increasingly possible? Might actually happen. Probably temporarily, but still worth doing if it happens.
The point being, wj, that he wasn’t securing a seat for the Democrats by voting with Republicans on critical issues, but that probably won’t get through the radical centrism or whatever it is that makes you want to defend the guy.
No. The point being that, in a very narrowly divided Senate, a vote which can change who is majority leader, and thus in control of what business gets done, is important. Having someone who provides a critical vote on that is important. Even if he sometimes, or even routinely, doesn't vote the way you (or I!) would like on various issues.
I'm not defending the guy. I'm arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there's certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don't, save your invective for the other side. Screaming "treason!" is counterproductive.
Manchin screwed his own party not long before deciding not to run for another term and his senate seat is now held by a Republican. How is that supposed to be good for Democrats?
Gosh he got vilified for years by party activists. And then decided not to run again. What a stunning surprise. Why would anyone pass up a chance for more of that? /sarcasm
wonkie, I'm not clear why you think getting moderates elected doesn't work. Do you mean that, when in office, it doesn't make it easier to get stuff done with bipartisan support? Or do you mean that running moderates doesn't improve the chances of winning a general election? Or something else?
Currently, there isn't a whole lot of bipartisanship on offer, so that wouldn't be a reason (in my opinion) to favor running a more moderate candidate than you'd prefer. On the other hand, in a purple to somewhat reddish district, a more moderate candidate seems like it provides better odds of winning the seat. Certainly, I can't see an argument that a less moderate candidate would be more likely to win in such a district.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
Perhaps someone here can explain something to me. Trump says Ukraine must accept the Russian-written "peace proposal or "risk losing US support. So, let's assume a counterfactual: Ukraine accepts the proposal. What good is US support supposed to do them, even assuming it lasts more than milliseconds beyong Russia moving it's troops forward?
It looks to me that the actual choice is between losing US support or losing US support. The only difference is between losing a bunch of territory at the same time or not.
On “Shabana burns the cakes”
I have tried to put down roots here, and I think I’ve done a good job, but given that it has been a conscious effort, I have to say that those roots aren’t deep, certainly not as deep as Japanese from here.
It's true that those who have moved tend to have shallower roots than those who have lived somewhere for a lifetime. And also, it's not surprising that some are better than others at developing new roots when they move. But I would point out that, while you feel your new roots are shallow, you are hardly someone who is perpetually moving. (I'd put the threshold for "perpetually moving"/rootless at relocating every couple of years or less.)
I acknowledge that my perspective is probably skewed by my personal experience. The US is called "a nation of immigrants" (suck eggs, Steven Miller!) for a reason. And California is a bit extreme, even for the US.
Growing up, I lived in a little farm town, just starting to evolve into a suburb. When my parents moved here, after WW II, the population was under 500. By the time I graduated high school, my graduating class was around 500. For all that there were a couple of families who had been here for a century, pretty much everybody in town was from somewhere else. Often, the kids in my classes had moved a couple of times already. Today, the town is up to nearly 50,000.
That sort of thing continues. I'm in the long time rooted category because, although I've lived in a half dozen different places over the years, they've all been within a hundred miles of here. But my family, my friends, my neighbors? All have moved or lived previously, far away. I've got a brother who, in his 20s and 30s, lived "in Europe" -- never settled anywhere for more than a couple of months, as far as I could tell. Definitely in the perpetually moving category.
"
“Maybe we are done putting down roots and will just keep moving.”
In reality, there have always been those who put down roots, and those who kept moving. As far as I can see, that is still true today.
There were also those who, from necessity, picked up and moved, sometimes a very long way, before stopping and putting down new roots. (I am put in mind of a story I read long ago about a guy who moved from Europe, but having arrived in New York City, never went west of Ocean Parkway.)
I suppose you could make a case that, at least in the US since the middle of the last century, it became more common for entire families to pull up stakes and relocate multiple times. They put down roots serially though; they weren't really moving constantly.
The one thing I think has changed is that those who just keep moving are now able to form lasting connections online. Before, they were largely isolated. Being able to make lasting connections allows them to form communities. Just communities not based on geography. That makes them more visible.
I suppose
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
I hope the Wall Street Journal editorial is right about American voters, but I fear it is not. Surely if American voters hated dishonour as much as all that, there would not be a second Trump presidency
It all depends on what American voters perceive as dishonor. Perhaps surprisingly, they seem more likely to take that view of foreign policy screwups than they do of dishonorable behavior on the domestic (or personal!) front.
"
Yeah. I get warnings about the site being potentially unsafe. But I cheerfully downloaded the files anyway. Now I just need to get the software to open them.
"
I am amazed by the number of people I have encountered over the last few months who said variations of “but Trump will eventially get/is getting impatient with Putin, so it looks like things are going to change”.
It's pretty human to expect things that you really, really want to see happen will indeed happen . And it's also all to easy to assume that others will do what you would expect anybody to do. Even when you know, if you stop and think about it, that the person isn't even remotely rational, let alone sensible.
So, we'd like to see Trump cease being Putin's patsy when it comes to Ukraine. And, given how Putin is behaving, any normal person would long since have gotten exasperated. So, easy to think any little glimmer in that direction is the beginning of a real change. No matter how many times it proves not to be.
"
It must be incredibly frustrating for Dmitriev. He keeps putting out ever more outrageous demands, in the hopes that Witkoff will say No, so he can blame the US for negotiations failing. But Witkoff keeps giving him everything he asks and more. Over and over. The draft plan differs from Russia's maximal demands only in giving Russia even more.
About all that's left is Russia demanding mas
sivereparations from Ukraine. Watching this space....On “Shabana burns the cakes”
London’s foreign-born population is 41%.
And the percentage of foreign born residents in New York City over the years would be what?
If you're going to cherry pick numbers, gotta expect folks here will notice.
"
Percentage wise, America saw way more immigration in the 1700s than in the 19th century. Also way more in the 19th century than in the 20th century. Certainly there were peaks and valleys. And the raw numbers climbed, but as a percentage of the (non-Native American) population? No.
I suspect that we also saw more in many decades of the 20th century than we have so far in either decade in the 21st century. The usual peaks and valleys may have impacted what we've seen this century so far. But by now, our population is just too big for the percentages to get that high.
"
It’s the guy blowing leaves off our roof.
Except he's not blowing leaves off, he's ripping off the shingles.
On “Pop!”
Banknotes stuffed in a mattress is looking better and better.
Works right up to the moment that serious debasement of the currency (aka inflation) sets in. Which, the idiots at the top of this administration being how they are, seems a distinct possibility.
Might be better to put your money into reconfiguring your back yard (if you have one) into a big vegetable garden.
"
lj, I suppose it depends a lot on the behavior of the companies one is familiar with. I've certainly seen (and worked for) some that practice "devil take the hindmost" capitalism.
But I've also worked for companies which thought being a good person and a good citizen was important. And seen a lot more of them. Plus, of course, their owners and managers were bright enough to realize that their people were what kept the whole thing running.
"
It’s not like there are some tiny companies, hidden in the shadows, that are somehow ‘doing capitalism right’.
Actually, I think there are. Not just tiny ones either; medium and moderately large ones, too.
The behemoths get all the attention precisely because they are so big. As you say, a handful of them make up half the NASDAQ. But by numbers, as opposed to simple market capitalization, the vast majority not only do more business, they employ, in aggregate, far more people.
And they survive by doing capitalism right. Not "right" as a lot of economists seem define it. They take care of their customers and they take care of their people. Without screwing over either in pursuit of a tiny fraction of a percent better numbers. And their executives don't make tens (or hundreds) of thousands of times as much as their average employees.
"
What kills me is that this is basically capitalism 101 and the Chinese are proving to be a whole lot better at it that the US.
Say rather that the Chinese are a lot better at it than enormous Silicon Valley firms. Which is to say, firms that so dominate their niche that they no longer have to pay much attention to competition. If you are Google or Microsoft or Amazon, you've got money to burn. So why not spend some of it on whatever shiny object has caught your biggest shareholder's eye?
Expect them to eventually, possibly sooner rather than later, discover why not. Although, if they can (apparently) afford to pay their CEOs hundreds of millions per year, maybe not.
On “Your quest begins now!”
I wonder if there’s such a thing as MAGA fatigue. By that, I don’t mean the fatigue that I would guess most of the people commenting here feel after dealing with all the bullsh*t the MAGAts produce. I mean fatigue among the MAGA faithful.
I suppose they are more Heritage-faithful than actual MAGA-faithful. But quite a few of the negative rulings lately seem to be coming from judges who were appointed by Trump. Which probably mostly speaks to the level of incompetence of the new bozos at DoJ.
On “Pop!”
Another potential issue here. If China decides to forcibly reunite Taiwan, all that chip production is no longer secure. (Even making the heroic assumption that the various fabs are not severely damaged or destroyed.)
That would, I suspect, bring AI expansion to an abrupt halt. With obvious massive disruption to any business (not just AI providers) which has reorganized and restructured their operations to depend on it.
"
the software industry as a whole is all-in on AI (LLMs in particular).
makers are trying to stuff it into every nook and cranny they can find.
As noted, the costs are enormous. So using AI everywhere is the only prayer of actually making any money from it.
And for non-AI software companies, it's a matter of not looking like they are less than cutting edge. It's folly, except in a few narrow cases. But here instinct is powerful in the industry.
"
Brighter minds than mine will surely chime in to explain why this is not a matter of concern.
I think what you mean is, more credulous minds than yours.
At current valuations AI would have to bring in $400 per year per US resident for the AI companies to produce a decent return on investment. Which isn't happening in the foreseeable future.
"Bubble" is exactly what we're looking at. The question is when, not whether, it will pop. And how big an impact that will have on the economy overall. Personally, I'm going nowhere near stock in any company which is big into AI. But then, I've been avoiding bitcoins like the plague, too.
On “Your quest begins now!”
I understand that this is the first time the assigned DOJ attorney has ever done a prosecution.
Well, as I understand it, the reason she got assigned is that DOJ professionals looked at the case and concluded that there was nothing to it. So they declined to prosecute. The Attorney General had to find someone inexperienced enough (or foolish enough) to try to take the case forward.
"
Whether or when that is Bondi's response depends on whether the Senate gets around to a vote on the resolution. Not to mention if they make some kind of amendment which then requires it go back to the House for concurrence. Lots of ways to slow walk the whole thing.
But yeah, once the whole thing is done, Bondi can claim "ongoing investigations." Put one extremely junior and ultra-
MAGATrumpist staffer to work reading thru the whole file. Could easily be "on-going" for years.On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
... more Democratic votes in that district won’t win the seat, but those will be votes to re-elect Ossoff to the Senate.
But consider, if a strong candidate could move the district from 65-35 last time to 60-40 (or better), and then we see the sort of blue wave election in 2026 which looks increasingly possible? Might actually happen. Probably temporarily, but still worth doing if it happens.
"
The point being, wj, that he wasn’t securing a seat for the Democrats by voting with Republicans on critical issues, but that probably won’t get through the radical centrism or whatever it is that makes you want to defend the guy.
No. The point being that, in a very narrowly divided Senate, a vote which can change who is majority leader, and thus in control of what business gets done, is important. Having someone who provides a critical vote on that is important. Even if he sometimes, or even routinely, doesn't vote the way you (or I!) would like on various issues.
I'm not defending the guy. I'm arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there's certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don't, save your invective for the other side. Screaming "treason!" is counterproductive.
"
Manchin screwed his own party not long before deciding not to run for another term and his senate seat is now held by a Republican. How is that supposed to be good for Democrats?
Gosh he got vilified for years by party activists. And then decided not to run again. What a stunning surprise. Why would anyone pass up a chance for more of that?
/sarcasm
"
If you want something different, but still creepy:
https://archive.ph/8Px6C#selection-2091.157-2091.192
Just show some of these "conversations" with someone who is impressed with ChatGPT.
"
wonkie, I'm not clear why you think getting moderates elected doesn't work. Do you mean that, when in office, it doesn't make it easier to get stuff done with bipartisan support? Or do you mean that running moderates doesn't improve the chances of winning a general election? Or something else?
Currently, there isn't a whole lot of bipartisanship on offer, so that wouldn't be a reason (in my opinion) to favor running a more moderate candidate than you'd prefer. On the other hand, in a purple to somewhat reddish district, a more moderate candidate seems like it provides better odds of winning the seat. Certainly, I can't see an argument that a less moderate candidate would be more likely to win in such a district.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.