Left freakers ball if Trump wins in 2024

 The new normal of Democrat intifada for years with a storm of accusations and declarations that Trump voters are deplorable haters would follow re-election of Donald Trump in 2024. I believe it can’t happen because he revealed himself in his last year in office to be a true environmental troglodyte, and that loses support of intelligent voters after a while that sympathize otherwise with conservative court appointments, secure borders and a few more planks.

Democrats would in effect react like little kids that cover their ears and hum or sing very loud when a sibling is bothering them. They will invent falsehoods to disqualify. Grownups would call a riot and occupation something less than insurrection. Even the situation in Burma or Myanmar isn’t yet called an insurrection by the media. Those require an actual military plan, arms and personnel tantamount to an effective coup.

Each party has poison pills that make them unacceptable except to extremists, although these days the media tends to regard political opposition to Democrat planks as extremism. All of that works to concentrate wealth and enslave the populace.

On the shadow government

 With concentrated wealth comprising an ad hoc plutocracy for-the-world collusion on political, economic and social goals is assuredly possible. The basic problem my lie in the electorate rather than the stars though since electing people instead of good ideas, chasing after race and goals with unequal protection of laws and so forth make democracy very ineffective and getting governing priorities done. Republicans are environmental troglodytes yet they don’t mind alternating leadership much with Democrats that reinforce their concentration of wealth and corporatism goals about as well as themselves.

In reply to the question; If Alaska were split in to two states where should the linbe be drawn

 Easy answer for that; if the state were split in two the Panhandle to Lituya Bay and Yakatat would be a new state and the rest of Alaska would be Alaska. The two regions are fairly separate as it is and environmentalists and reasonable people don’t want more, destructive shoreline roads to be built to connect them.

Some people regard the panhandle as too warm to be Alaskan, and at low altitude it is as warm as the Aleutians (that should remain with the large part of Alaska). Juneau or Petersburg could be the capital of the South Alaska and Fairbanks should be the capitol of Alaska- although the people of Anchorage might say it’s too cold there.

On evil, wickedness and society

 Maybe negativism is easier to produce than positivism. People may advance criticisms without providing anything constructive. Evil in the Biblical paradigm is natural disaster while wickedness is the right term for humanity. Therefore evil might be the man caused natural disaster of over-consuming the world ecosystem bring natural disaster responses to the world from the famous global warming to pandemics (too promiscuous of demographic travel ending natural environmental firewalls).

If humanity is mired in the original sin of thermodynamic need to consume energy to exist and thoughtlessly consumes the environment without regard to sustainability, if social inertia and poor, unreflective leadership reinforces maladaptive economics, evils ensue. Even worse, political use-truth values will repress free speech that dissents from the wrong macro-social economic structure’s most wicked facticities.

The life expectancy of cancel-culture

 Cancel culture is progressive historical revisionism and brave new world order use-truth packed into one neat deconstructionist, hyper-modernist package easy to sell in the corporate market place so it will run its course.

Creative destruction applies not just in economics, it works with culture too continuing to gnaw away at its own foundations. Sometimes popular cultural products/ideas last 20 years before anti-ideas appear to mock the previous popular one although the life-cycle may decrease with the w.w.w.

What vast public debt means today?

 Several quality economists have said that the public debt is not too important anymore. That is a ponderous concept plainly. If money or debt is so elastic for the government then it might be a good idea to periodically lubricate the economic well being of the poor and down trodden yearning to be rich that live in this nation with a trillion or two now and then.

There is a marginal reserve rate that means a bank needs to have about 10% on deposit of the amount it loans out. Banks don’t need to loan out actual cash; in fact the amount of cash in circulation is very small percent of the dollars in circulation electronically. So if the Federal Reserve gives a zero or near zero interest loan of a few hundred billion dollars to the rich, the rich banks can mint 9 times that amount in real dollars electronically that are repaid with real dollars. In effect the Federal Reserve is continuously giving free money to the rich- north of 16 trillion dollars so far with quantitative easing and there is more than that that has been lent. Giving the poor a few crumbs of what goes to the rich is quite reasonable. Especially since the money goes to Americans who directly invest the money in the economy rather than sending it to some foreign nation (the rich are the ones sending direct investment in foreign nations like China).

It should be mentioned that the last dozen years of Republican presidential leadership experienced some of the greatest deficit spending in world history- they are not people with invariably good economic ideas for the public rather than for-themselves and in fact reinvented permanent Keynesian deficit spending for pump priming as a Lafferian supply-side way of life. Former VP Dick Cheney apparently believed that the private sector should plunder the public sector and Republicans have tended toward occasionally selling those $9000 gold-plated wrenches to the U.S. government. The poor seldom benefit from that high-level brand of piracy.

Economics shouldn’t require a degree in economics to well understand, yet it does. I have only read a few books on the topic and would like a better more simplified foundation for global sustainable economics that disambiguate topics like the meaning of public debt.

Physics advances since Einstein are remarkable

 Sure; even Einstein’s cosmological constant that he set aside turned out to be apparently true with the expansion rate of the Universe. There may be not cosmological energy expanding things so much as space itself expanding, or some oddity related to the Higgs field that is itself a great discovery in physics.

One likes all of the discoveries in particle physics especially, and the insight that particles that are massless acquire energy when slowing down through the Higgs field as a third dimension is added to them.

Cosmology watchers have a wealth of discoveries since Einstein to consider, and the insights of relativity- general and special, are fundamental tools of philosophical thought as timeless as the spinning bucket thought experiment or the ideas of motion and volume of the pre-Socratic philosophers Parmenides and Heraclitus.

If time is an apparent phenomenon of the subluminal quanta of the Higgs, is the field itself atemporal, and how does that compare to an atemporal singularity at T=0? Ideas concerning quantum entanglement and ‘spooky action at a distance’, all possible worldlines and quantum jitters as analogues of infinite variable positions have been produced to provide new ways of regarding the field phenomena that is the Universe of appearance-for others.

On the question 'should inheritance be abolished'

 Inherited wealth should be taxed, as should capital generally, when the amount reaches a level that is harmful to society. Capital grows faster than wages so wealth concentrates and inherited wealth concentrates without new effort by those with the inheritance.

That being said, inheritance is a good thing for the poor and middle classes that should have zero inheritance tax. Inherited intellectual capital and culture shouldn’t be easily dissipated as the inertia of intelligence, technology and capitol can be hard to achieve from the ground-up in a single generation. The imbalance in wealth distribution between the 1% and the 99% can be reduced by taxing the rich and not taxing the poor.

Concentrated wealth brings an effective end to democracy, free enterprise and ingenuity by the majority and control of the economy and politics to the tiniest minority. People need to disambiguate the relationships of democracy to wealth and power to consider if opinions of the majority can Trump the will to control the social order and kind of infrastructure and political economy a society has.

Piketty’s book ‘Capital in the 21st Century’ has an informative chapter on inherited wealth. Capital in the Twenty-First Century: Piketty, Thomas, Goldhammer, Arthur: 9780674979857: Amazon.com: Books

There is a related question concerning the contemporary practice of giving an inheritance to children before death that avoids the issue of inheritance and taxes. The rich have a zillion ways to avoid inheritance taxes.

Answering the 'what if' of Alaska independence

 If the United States wanted to get rid of Alaska and Alaska was therefore forced to be an independent nation it would need to rely on the United States or some other nation to supply military defense for it. Alaska of course does have a lot of natural resources to sell, yet I am skeptical about its prospects for defending against Chinese, Russian or Canadian invasions relying just on the national guard.

Alaska would need to become a nuclear power and develop a fleet of nuclear armed Kamikaze drones submarines and aircraft to assure mutual destruction to its attackers. That would be costly and in violation of a few treaties that it hasn’t signed yet though other nations have.

Alaskans could stay alive until they died eating fish and buffalo or caribou. Man does not live by bread alone though, and Alaska would need some kind of immigration policy to attract more quality people economically speaking to live there and the harm to the environment would be substantial with the increased population that presently is fewer than 800,000 people.

People can live in very poor circumstances and so could Alaskans although they might fare pretty well for-themselves. When Alaska participates in a trade fair with an advanced nation like China, it has art, carvings of ivory, snowshoes, oil barrels and smoked fish etc. while China has super-computers, super-tankers, jet aircraft and so forth and a million manufactures. Exporting logs used to be a prime Alaska business and then they upgraded to manufacturing log homes to sell to the Japanese and others who like those for some reason.

In a peaceful environment Alaska could get on fine, while in a war environment it just would not have the trillions invested to defeat an enemy that is well founded. Tourists could arrive by the millions annually to spend cash looking at lem sheds and huts in remote rural locations and Hollywood could make brave movies there with harrowing adventures of people fighting and climbing on the last glaciers in North America.

Inflation of dollars vs bitcoin

 If a high rate of inflation occurred with wages and prices skyrocketing it might be easier for people to pay off mortgages and student loans. For sure inflation would not be good to people on fixed incomes. Contracts written at a particular pre-inflation price could be paid off with inflated dollars. Since the Fed hates inflation as apparently do the rich, because perhaps, capital usually increases faster than wages except during periods of inflation (I believe), it’s unlikely to happen.

It is interesting to compare bitcoin inflation or value with that of a dollar. Inflated bitcoin value is regarded as good, while that of the dollar is bad.