Comments by "Louis Giokas" (@louisgiokas2206) on "Econ Lessons" channel.

  1. The Russian oil is bad (so are the equivalents used in the rest of the world for the same reasons), but the worst food quality is in China. There they have things like "gutter oil" where people skim oil literally out of the gutter and reuse it. Then you have cooking oils transported in the same trucks that transport hydrocarbons (fuel) without proper, or in some cases any, cleaning. And that is just the tip of the iceberg in China. It is truly frightening.
    1
  2. GDP is, in general, a flawed measure. It is totally invalid to use GDP to compare economies in very different situations, or that have very different system of political economy. For example, to compare a country at war, like Russia, to the rest of Europe is clearly invalid. Another example is China. There, in addition to the clear manipulation of the numbers, one also has the fact that it is a centrally controlled economy. In fact, much of the growth of the Chinese economy has been counterproductive. Sure, they have all that High-Speed Rail (HSR). That goosed their GDP, but now the system is $1T in debt and that debt is only growing. The same with the whole property sector debacle. Yes, that increased GDP for a while. Now they are overbuilt by, some say, up to 100%. Now it is dragging down GDP. In fact, there is no way that China has GDP growth when consumption is anemic, and the property sector is going bust. Those are two of the three pillars of the economy. People who have studied this in some detail believe that they are actually in recession in GDP terms. Even the prior premier of China, an economist by education, Li Keqiang, stated that he did not trust the numbers. To expect anything different from Russia, an oligarchic kleptocracy, is the height of madness. I agree with you about the Economist. I used to read it avidly as well, then I started to notice a lot of stuff I was familiar with which was just plain wrong.
    1
  3. Finally, a cogent video. The whole idea of nuclear war, especially with unstoppable (for now) weapons like ICBMs, is sort of absurd. They are only good as a defense. During the Cold War we had the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The understanding was that the Soviet leaders would do everything they could to protect the motherland. They would not want to see it destroyed. So, unless you threatened Moscow or St. Petersburg, they would respond in other ways. Putin came up through that system. That is also the thinking on the US side. For example, during the Korean War Douglas MacArthur wanted to use nukes to take out the Chinese hordes that were attacking. That would have been effective but would also have crossed a threshold no one else was willing to cross. During the Vietnam War there was talk about using nukes to destroy Haiphong Harbor to stop the flow of Soviet weapons. Same thing happened. By the way, in the Korean War context there were no ICBMs. The US did not really fear the Soviets escalating to a full-scale nuclear exchange because of the reasons given in the previous paragraph. They would not have sacrificed the motherland for either Korea or Vietnam. They would have been pissed, and would have responded in other ways, but all out nuclear war was not on the table. As for WWIII, it is best to listen to Tom Lehrer's song "So Long, Mom (A Song for World War III)". He makes a statement about the duration of the war (an hour and a half). That about sums it up.
    1
  4. Mark, I think you may be correct, but there is a wildcard in the equation. That wildcard is China. The situation is outside of pure economic theory and is political. Perhaps you should also talk to a political economist. China is likely to try to prop up Russia, for obvious geopolitical reasons. While this may not be effective in the long run, Xi and the CCP are playing some very dangerous games right now. Frankly, it seems like we are already in the beginnings of Cold War 2.0 (I miss the Cold War; I got to do a lot of interesting research with unlimited budgets). Russia, China and their allies will not do well in that environment. Actually, Russia and China have stated that they want a multipolar world order. They will get it. The world is basically heading back to the times before WWII. The last 30 years saw the genesis of a rules-based liberal world order. Then Putin, followed by Xi, came along and decided that wasn't what they wanted or needed. Prior to that we had the bipolar world order. The prior to WWII we had straight out imperialism and colonialism. That is the natural state of the world. China and Russia did not do too well in that milieu. There is no reason to believe it will be any different this time.
    1
  5. Germany went through hyperinflation in the 1920s. It did not kill them off. Something to keep in mind.
    1
  6. By the way, by the beginning of the 20th century, the US was one of the largest exporting nations in the world. I believe that the percentage of world trade originating in the US was higher than China's share today. After WWII the US share of world GDP was 50%. The US "bought" an alliance to counter the Soviet Union by opening up its markets to partners. That was a special case. The US has lower energy costs than any major developed economy. Many European companies have moved some operations to the US for this reason. There is every reason to expect it to have a favorable balance of trade. Consider the breadth of US industrial and technology activity compared to Russia and China. The whole comparative advantage argument assumes that the goods coming from places like China will be of similar quality. This is patently not the case. You may want to reconsider your argument.
    1
  7.  @johnridout6540  As far as I am aware it does. Check your sources.
    1
  8. It takes years to get an economy to be organized in a military industrial way? Really? What about the US in WWII? What about Soviet production in WWII?
    1
  9. I love that you reference Gogol the way you do. When I read that book, I had the same revelation. Nothing has changed. China is much the same. Neither Russia nor China is going to turn into a liberal democracy when their current regimes fall. It is the culture, not the individuals. People from both countries do well in the outside world. Take the cases of Germany and Japan. They did not turn into liberal democracies because of internal dynamics. It was imposed from outside after a devastating defeat. No one in the west has any interest in taking over Russia and China. Russia has lots of natural resources, but they are in very inhospitable areas. That and their farmland is poor. China is worse off. They have few natural resources and poor farmland. That and there are all those Chinese and Russians there. The future looks bleak for both.
    1
  10.  @regular-k2t  You should be. It is not that they are all bad, but it is a well-established tactic to infiltrate some agents with refugees and migrants. I fear that this is what the Chinese are doing as well.
    1
  11. You are economist. Economics is a data driven science. And yet you make a statement about what your circle thinks. What kind of economist is that? Let me give you an example of how foolish making any statement based on "your circle" can be. Right before Bill Clinton's first election win, I was with a group of people I worked with. There were 13 of us. We took a poll. George H. W. Bush (the incumbent) got six votes, Ross Perot (the third-party candidate) got six votes and Clinton got one vote. How is that for the "power" of informal polls of one's own circle. Any decent statistician will tell you the same thing.
    1
  12. Interesting, but I think a little deeper analysis would have to be done. For one thing, we see all this great stuff being done, mostly by Ukraine, with drones. On the other hand, we see on both sides the need for more and more infantry and mechanized formations. Drones will not take over. The US has used drones for over two decades now. There are more effective weapons, like artillery. There are two things coming on the horizon. One is F-16s. The other is the permission for Ukraine to attack military targets in neighboring areas of Russia. Ukraine has been doing a stellar job with what they have, but they are not nearly up to NATO standards. Just a simple example is instructive. Their southern counteroffensive went nowhere because of the minefields and trench lines the Russians had installed. Take a similar example in the Gulf War, where Iraq had done something similar. The US used air power to suppress the Iraqis near this line so that paths through the minefields could be opened. Whenever you do this, you are vulnerable. This allowed major armored formations to move through and attack. In Ukraine the situation is the same, but the Ukrainians do not have capability to suppress Russian artillery or airpower to clear and path through the Russian fortifications. With F-16s and more mine clearing equipment they could easily do this. In the recent offensive in the north, in the Kharkiv region, the Russians were able to amass forces without hindrance. If Ukraine were able to attack those concentrations, then they would never have been able to launch the attacks. A change in policy, which seems to be coming, will allow Ukraine to defend itself and degrade Russian combat power even faster. I have also said many times that the EU and UK should be able to handle all this themselves. Their economy is ten times as large as Russia's and their population is three times as large. I am not saying the US shouldn't be heavily involved, but Europe should be able to handle this on their own. They relied too heavily on the US for their security and now they pay the price. Some European countries keep acting like they can separate themselves from US policy. That is just foolish. The cost for them to catch up is staggering.
    1
  13. Wow! Just discovered this channel. Very interesting. I do whole heartedly agree with you on the Keynesians. I tend to agree about Zeihan. By the way, I am a big fan of his and have read all his books. As far geopolitical trends, he is basically right on the mark. Watching the news on China, for example, it is like seeing his prognostications play out in real time. I do agree with you, especially on the flexibility of the capitalist, entrepreneurial system, and your comments on productivity driving economics. In the case of Zeihan, especially his pronouncements on the difficulty of moving supply chains, I totally disagree with him. Look at how quickly China went from a dirt-poor peasant economy to an industrial economy. Moving that now would take a fraction of the time, and the CCP is giving lots of incentives to do so. Let me give a couple of examples. One involving moving production to China from the dawn of their expansion and another going the opposite way and happening now. The first case is the production of cell phones. I live in the Chicago area. Many years ago, Motorola built a cell phone plant in the Chicago exurbs. It was a great win for the area. Then, not long after building that plant they up and moved it to China. All it took was a few engineers and managers and they were up and running. I was familiar with the US plant as they were a customer of the software company I worked for at the time. I was also familiar with some of the people involved in the move as an IEEE member. In the second case, happening right now, US companies involved in building equipment for AI are setting up shop in Mexico. Their manufacturing contractors, like Foxconn, are a part of the process. This was just reported in the WSJ yesterday. Also, you need to look at the type of production and processing done in China. It is low tech and in the case of materials processing very, very, very dirty. Such processes would never be allowed in the west, and it is a crime that western governments support it. We have just exported massive pollution to save a few bucks. Back to production, look at iPhone production. Look at the pictures and videos of the inside of the Foxconn facilities that produce them. Some plants have at least 100K workers. The plants are giant conglomerations of low-tech workbenches mostly staffed by local peasants. This is not an exaggeration. It really came home to me when, during the height of COVID, at one of the plants many of the workers, who lived in dormitories on-site, became concerned about outbreaks. They decided to leave, and the police tried to stop them. Many left anyway, and as it was put some walked the day or two it took to return to their villages. By the way, some of this production has already been moved and that was done quickly. As for the demographics, Zeihan has admitted that the US situation is not dire. The latest generation able to do so has had kids, so the base is stable and not shrinking. It is smaller than the baby-boomers, but so are all of them. His comments about the effect on capital formation do have some merit. In addition, the US is the destination of many immigrants. This has always been the case for the US. For example, my grandparents came to the US with fourth grade educations and did well. Some of their kids went to university. ALL of their grandkids did with a lot of MS, PhD and MD degrees among them. This is not an unusual case. Keep up the good work, and I will be watching.
    1
  14. Good video and a good application of game theory. My only disagreement is with the prognosis for Russia once the current regime falls. I see a much bleaker picture. The issue is with the society, not individuals. I am willing to guess that you are familiar with Gogol. Have you read "Dead Souls"? It was written in the middle of the 19th century, but it accurately describes Russian society today. We see Russian and Chinese individuals who come to the west becoming ardent supporters of western values. We do not see this in Russia or China. I fully expect both countries to break into pieces, most probably run by warlords. This is actually the norm for China throughout its history. Russia, like China, has become so riddled by corruption, at all levels of society, that a rules-based liberal democracy is not a very likely outcome. They already had one chance and blew it. Why should anything be different today? Heck, the only way the Russian landmass has been kept together from imperial times through Soviet times through the current kleptocracy is by strong and repressive cental power. If you look at the examples of Germany and Japan after WWII, you will see that their current liberal democratic systems were imposed. Who is going to do that in Russia?
    1
  15. Liberty and justice for all. That is a fine ideal and one I share. The thing you leave out is that those countries that helped the US were generally monarchies where people had fewer rights that the people of England or the American colonies. On the other hand, how much blood and treasure (other's, not yours by the way) are you willing to spend to make that true worldwide? According to your rhetoric in this video that is what is required. You really need to brush up on your history. Given your argument then how do you explain why the US was totally absent in the revolutions in Europe in 1848. The US was pacificist prior to WWI and WWII. How do you explain that? The American people only responded when attacked directly. The US had a policy, the Monroe Doctrine which was specifically aimed at keeping the western hemisphere free from European wars. The US was pulling back after the Cold War from foreign entanglements. That was the will of the American electorate. Democracy, remember. Kuwait was driven by the issue of energy supply security for the US and its allies, not the desire for the freedom of the Kuwaiti people. The GWT was a detour. It was taken because, again, the US was attacked directly. So, Mark, if you are going to use history (obviously not your area of expertise) and you want to sway people you need to use a little (a lot?) more nuance. To say the Ukrainians in the 21st century are the same as the British colonists in the Americas in the 18th century is a stretch. That is both wrong and you will not sway people. You will, in fact, for those that look more deeply into it, raise doubts.
    1
  16.  @rafflesmaos  Well, you miss the point, for one thing. Do you really want to assign guilt to the US for those wars? Are you really saying that the US caused all that death and destruction? Did you not get what I said about the US electorate not wanting to get involved? Do you have any idea of what democracy means and how it works? Do you understand sovereignty? If you want to assign guilt for WWII, for example, it would be to the UK and especially France. They could have gone into Germany at the very beginning and ended Hitler. Don't forget that they declared war on Germany for their invasion of Poland. At that time, they probably had superior forces. Why don't you talk about that? You would do better to get a good understanding of history rather than just having a knee-jerk anti-American reaction.
    1
  17.  @rafflesmaos  Your first statement is just plain silly. You clearly haven't read your history. The French tanks at the beginning of the war were considered superior to the German tanks. The problem France had was that they were poorly deployed. de Gaulle had a lot to say about that before and during the war. The Germans would have had a two-front war on their hands. As it was, they were allowed to take care of Poland and then concentrate their forces on the west because of the treaty with the Soviets. Not only that, but they were given a lot of time to prepare (remember the sitzkrieg?). What were the UK and France expecting? Some sort of negotiation?
    1
  18.  @rafflesmaos  I never said that the UK did not deploy its army. What was the British expeditionary force that had to be rescued at Dunkirk? Do they just get there a couple of weeks before. France had their forces fully mobilized fairy quickly. The attacked into Saarland to weak German opposition then withdrew. They retired to their barracks. You might want to quit while you are ahead. At this point you are just making stuff up.
    1
  19.  @rafflesmaos  The US by this time had not been attacked. It had no alliance with either France or the UK. Are you saying that it had an obligation to attack in that case? You are saying that the US has an obligation to get involved in all wars, anywhere. That is one of the more perverted things I have ever heard. It is also not something that would be supported by Americans on any part of the political spectrum. France had declared war, went in and then withdrew voluntarily, all without getting any concessions from Germany. So, why did they declare war then? You don't declare war and then not forcefully attack when you can.
    1
  20.  @rafflesmaos  You are just making stuff up at this point. The Saarland incursion came on September 7 while Germany was still fully engaged in Poland. France did have very good forces, and if they had done a few things differently things could have turned out differently. For one thing, they declined to extend the Maginot Line all along their eastern border. They did not want to upset the other countries, such as Belgium, for example. Considering what had happened in WWI, this was always seen as a bad move. It was never a certainty that the US would have been drawn directly into WWII. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise. It was not necessary for Japan and was based on a scenario that turned out to be incorrect. They knew full well that they had to fully knock out the US Navy in the first blow and didn't. Even Yamamoto had his reservations about the whole enterprise. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, then the US would have continued supplying the British and then gotten on with the attack on Japan. Even in the first months of the war with Germany there were plenty of people that wanted to concentrate on Japan. To say that the US "should have" and that isolationism does not deter totalitarian regimes just shows ignorance of history. History is not about what would of should have happened. It is the study of what did happen. So, to say the people of the time should have done something based on what happened later disregards what was really happening at the time.
    1
  21.  @rafflesmaos  What does the Munich Agreement have to do with the US and its policies? Who said it was a fantastic proposal? You are just being stupid now. And I wouldn't be throwing around the imperialist label if I was a European. At the time of WWII, the UK and France still had large empires. In fact, let's talk about those empires. One of the reasons for the American people not wanting to support the Brits and French prior to WWI and WWII is that what that such support would allow them to maintain their empires. In fact, after WWII the US pressured the UK to dissolve its empire. Remember the Suez Crisis. As for what I said about what France did before the war, that was contemporary thought, not speculation. People at the time pointed that out, prior to the war. It was a part of the conversation at the time. In other words, history.
    1
  22. I didn't know that about the eighths. Learn something every day. Thanks.
    1
  23. By the way, the Amish voted overwhelmingly for Trump and there are claims that he won the state of Pennsylvania for him.
    1
  24. Russia doesn't have a long-term future. If he really had a long game, he would have a succession plan and would be building up his cadres. He has none of that going on. The Putin regime is a mafia style kleptocracy. They are simply continuing what the Soviets were doing, because that is where they came from. As for the spies, infiltration, etc. that has been going on since right after the Russian Revolution. Lenin seriously thought that the workers in Germany and elsewhere would spontaneously rise up and overthrow their governments, just as they had done in Russia. Of course. this didn't happen, so they quickly set up organizations to try to destabilize western, and other, nations from within. For example, the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) was funded by and coordinated with the Soviets. Many similar operations were ongoing in Europe. Even recently the Germans were infiltrated, with the Russians coopting some of their prominent politicians, such as Gerhard Schröder. This was done to increase dependence on Russian natural gas which would, it was believed, make it easier for Russia to influence the EU and subvert NATO. You may recall that President Trump made a point of pointing this out to the Germans and they laughed at him. The videos are on YouTube. Who's laughing now? You, and most in the west, seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that the last twenty years or so represent the norm. There is a term for that which I can't quite put my finger on right now. Of course, we see in the case of Schröder in Germany, that the Russians were openly doing all this during this time. The war changes nothing. It is just an extension of what has been going on in geopolitics for a long time. So, if this is, as it seems, a revelation to you and the rest of the commentariat, then your historical perspective is severely lacking.
    1
  25. I am a supporter of Ukraine, but to say that the US needs Ukraine more than Ukraine needs the US is just plain wrong, and stupid.
    1
  26.  @ibrahimtall6209  Well, you say basically nothing. If you have a better view, then let's hear it. We might learn something. Otherwise, comments like yours only show ignorance and/or a lack of thought.
    1
  27. You are broadly correct. You are also not the only one saying it. There is a channel I occasionally watch, Joe Blogs, where he has gone into details about this very issue of the national wealth fund where he projected it to run out this year. The problem with the Soviets and now the Russians is that they want to play with the big boys, and they are, at best, second tier. During the Cold War, even during the Viet Nam War, US share of GDP was not over 10%, and generally lower. The Soviet Union, to try to keep up, was spending somewhere between 20% and 40% of GDP on defense (the numbers are hard to pin down). Military power, especially in the industrial age, comes from economic power.
    1
  28. Mark, I would be interested in your take on the Chinese currency and stock market. The issues are similar. The government intervenes in both the currency and stock markets directly.
    1
  29.  @zeromodulus1679  I decidedly did not say that. You may need to work on your comprehension skills.
    1
  30.  @bobbafett1849  Yes, no that you mention it I remember that. See, it is a grand tradition.
    1
  31.  @bobbafett1849  What about the bailouts of the banks in the 2008 crisis? The problem is that there are often industries and businesses that, if they fail will have a detrimental effect of a lot of people. By the way, the government took an ownership in many of those financial institutions. They eventually unwound it and even made a little money. In the case of the car companies those companies went on to make good profits and pay taxes on their profits. So do their employees. So, what would you prefer? A lot of lives ruined an even bigger burden on the government (taxpayers) or corrective action.
    1
  32.  @terjeoseberg990  Of course not. That would be included in the "excesses" I talked about.
    1
  33.  @terjeoseberg990  It seems that you are advocating the government taking an stake in those homes. Did you think about that? Bailing those people out would not have solved the problem and would have cost more. It would also not have yielded back the small profit that bailing out the banks did. The problem was basically caused by Obama's policy of giving mortgages to people who would generally not qualify for them. For one thing the investment banks packaged those loans with high quality loans into CDOs. These were then traded as investment grade when they were not. We now have regulations to deal with that. I am in favor of such regulation. It contributes to the safety of the system.
    1
  34.  @terjeoseberg990  Regulations do not disappear. Generally, they become more rational. As for smog, see my response above.
    1
  35.  @terjeoseberg990  I assumed you meant something like that. Do you remember all the talk about moral hazard. There are a number of issues with your plan. First, you are transferring the risk from the banks to the taxpayers who don't have a problem with their mortgages. Second, those people who didn't really qualify for a loan in the first place are not likely to for a new loan. Making loans without credit checks is, frankly, bonkers. By the way, anyone who qualifies can refinance. As rates were coming down in the 1990s, I had neighbors who refinanced with fixed rate loans annually. I did it once.
    1
  36.  @JohnSmith-fl6qd  And I disagree with almost everything she says. So?
    1
  37.  @terjeoseberg990  Well, I would say the same about you. That is your opinion. Actually, the government would not get the growth in the investments. In addition, you missed what I said about many of those buyers being unqualified in the first place. What are the odds that things will really turn out differently the next time around? So, you are still looking at high default rates. And another thing. Have you ever wondered why something like that has never been tried before?
    1
  38.  @jt95124  There is some merit to what you are saying, but you seem to miss two points. The board of directors, and the decisions made by the board are critical to the business. The other thing you leave out as you talk about the similarities is the differences. Look, any complex human activity will have all the things you talk about. Government bureaucracy has been around since time immemorial. What you leave out goals, and responsibility. That is what "they" are getting at not the organizational structure.
    1
  39. From what I have seen and read, there are very few "good" Russians outside of Russia. Most (not all) that I see are clowns. The politicians who have left Russia are also a joke. I see few that openly call for an end to the war and that call the war unjust, a mistake, or something. They tend to concentrate more on opposing Putin. Frankly, they probably just want to replace him.
    1
  40. Let me start by saying that I support Ukraine. I do this not because of the Ukrainian people, although I have come to respect them because of their conduct in this war, but because of the utter illegality and danger to world order of Russia's actions. On the other hand, Ukraine has a history of corruption since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Most of this I fully understand was "inherited" from the Soviet system. I think they are doing a fairly good job of dealing with that legacy, but it is a reality. Did you forget about Burisma and Hunter Biden? Look at the list of issues that Ukraine must clear up for European membership (list taken from Wikipedia): Reform of the Constitutional Court. Continuation of judicial reform. Anti-corruption, including the appointment of the head of the SAPO. Anti-money laundering. Implementation of the anti-oligarchic law, including recommendations of the Venice Commission. Harmonization of audio-visual media legislation with that of the European Union. Change in legislation on national minorities. Ukraine has a lot to do.
    1
  41.  @surfmanx796  Did you hear what he at 1:00 where he explicitly mentions the bankers and that they were proposing it as an alternative to the dollar. Go back and read what I wrote.
    1
  42. Oh, good, Mark, you are standing on dry land.
    1
  43. Trump bad for the economy? You just hurt your credibility as an economist. Compare the economy in Trump's first term (pre-COVID) to Biden's economy. Data, not ideology, remember?
    1
  44. As for the North Korean troops, Europe should not only speak out, but they should be sending troops en masse to Ukraine. All this speaking out and not acting is what got Ukraine into this mess in the first place. Act now! Heck, if the Europeans used their airpower and troops solely on the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine then Ukraine would be free to take over all the provinces of Russia bordering Ukraine. They have a good justification for doing so. That would put an end to things rather quickly and would almost certainly lead to Putin's downfall and most probably lead to the dissolution of the Russian Federation. There would be no foreign troops in Russia, besides Ukrainians, who have a direct reason to take such action. In case you are worried about nuclear retaliation from Russia, don't forget that Europe has its own nuclear deterrent (France and the UK) and are still protected by the US nuclear umbrella. In addition, the US has conventional systems that could rapidly hit back at Russia.
    1
  45. You seem to believe that the Russian people want something different. What do you base that on? I see no evidence of that. Even the Russian dissidents like Navalny were more concerned about corruption rather than any real change to the system or foreign policy. The same is true of China. The protests there (and there are many) are about unpaid wages (not working conditions, which we would consider horrible) and unfinished housing. If the system was just a little fairer to them, they would all be fine with it. The dominant Han ethnicity is fine with what is happening with the Uighurs and Tibetans, for example. I am not advocating for any of these systems, but the issue is that many people in the world are fine with them. There are few places like the US in the world. It represents a unique set of circumstances. Those circumstances allow for the prosperity and freedoms we have. Even western Europe is only the way they are because of the American presence after WWII. Just look at their history prior to that. Look at the EU today. It is an anti-democratic mess.
    1
  46. Well, Mark, you have given us a lot to think about and respond to. The prognosis for Russia is not good. Look at the history. In the aftermath of WWI, the Germans were left pretty much to themselves. I am sure you are aware of the result. Unlike WWI, where Germany itself was not invaded, in WWII the country was invaded and completely taken over. In the west, the western allies imposed a system on the Germans, and it took, and Germany is now not likely to slip back into its old ways. Those ways, by the way, predated the Nazis. Of course, in the East of Germany one had the Soviets/Russians taking over. Isn't that where Putin did a lot of his work? Japan experienced a similar trajectory. I mention all this because I do not believe that Russia will experience anything like a full-scale invasion (although the Ukrainians might be able to pull it off) and thus will not experience an occupation. The Russians are basically serfs. I think I have mentioned this before, but you should read Gogol's "Dead Souls". It was written in the middle of the 19th century, and it completely describes Russia today. Look at all the videos online of the babushkas appealing to the czar, I mean Vladimir Vladimirovich, for a redress of grievances. Pathetic. This is the Russian polity. As Konstantin states at the beginning of his videos, he is the unusual Russian. You mention Anna from Ukraine. I am a big fan of hers. There is one thing I have a problem with though. It is that she in effect blames the west for Belarus sinking into autocracy and becoming a satellite of Russia. What she, and many others, do not understand is that the only way to change those things is through the expenditure of lots of blood and treasure. She, like many in the west, seem to blame the west for these things. As President Joe likes to say, come on man.
    1
  47. Hundred-year plans are bunk. End of story! Several years ago, I took a series of graduate level marketing courses. Our professors were academics, many of whom also consulted for big companies. Some were the authors of primary textbooks. This was in the late 1990s. They were all gaga over the Japanese companies' 100-year plans, and they were sometimes contributors. How has that worked out for the Japanese companies and economy? Marxist-Leninist ideology had the ambition to take over the world and remake humanity. How has that worked out? The only country left standing is China and they are falling apart. In fact, they might not last this decade. Russia's empire has been shrinking since the end of the Cold War. Their military has proven to be a paper tiger. So, how are they going to recreate the Russian Empire? As President Joe likes to say, "C'mon, man!"
    1
  48. There is a term that describes all those Americans you talk about that are religious and more conservative. Richard Nixon used it first, I believe. The term is "silent majority". The reality is that Harris' character, while different from Trump's, is nothing to get excited about. Look into her background and history. It is not pretty. Also, don't forget that she competed in the primaries in 2020. How many voted did she get within the Democratic electorate? She was the worst choice they could have made.
    1
  49. Mark, your characterization of autonomous zones in the former Soviet Union is off base. You claim to have a strong connection with the area, but you seem to have forgotten the history. This is especially true of the Caucasus region. On top of that is the long, long history of Russification and the forced movement of peoples under the Russian Empire and continued under the Soviet Union. Things are a lot more complex than you make out. I also find your characterization of the countries in Africa where mineral wealth is being extracted as "beautiful". That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Look into those "beautiful" countries. They are violent and sick places. A good example is Sudan, where Wagner and its successors operate gold mines. Have you heard of Darfur? It is now as bad as it ever was for the people there. That is only one of many examples. Texas is a bad example. The idea of a free Texas has been around for a very long time. Texas was actually a republic outside of the United States for ten years before becoming a state. The zeitgeist is Texas is different. I remember during the oil shocks of the 1970s when the US government wouldn't do anything about the Saudi expropriation of the oil companies that Texas should be allowed to secede and that they would then "do something about it". That was a joke, sort of. Just because you read something on social media does not mean that it is real or new. You should know that. I tend to support Ukraine and its goals, but it has become clear that they can't win a military victory with the military they have now. Everyone is wowed by their drones and other technology, but it is only good at defense. Think of their successful offensives. They were the result of subterfuge (a good thing in military situations) and incompetence on the part of the Russians. Then think about the southern counteroffensive in 2022 which failed when going against prepared defenses. Ukraine's only hope is that Russia will collapse, which could well happen. The question is when. How much blood and treasure should the west pump into this conflict? Frankly, Joe Biden only gave Ukraine enough to not be defeated. That is not me saying it but many US retired military generals such as Ben Hodges. Trump, during his first term, actually gave Ukraine the weapons they used to blunt the initial Russian offensive after Obama had blocked them. On top of all that, both Ukraine and Russia were already in demographic decline, hence the comments from Trump that the killing has to stop. How that happens will have to be negotiated. As far as the west, why isn't the EU in there with both troops (especially airpower which Ukraine sorely lacks) and money. Think about it. The economy of the EU plus the UK is ten times as large as Russia's and the population three times as large. They are the ones at risk. Why do they even need the US?
    1
  50.  @Lyle-In-NO  Interesting take. I was referring to the governments and societies. I assumed that was what Mark was referring to as well. For example, I have met people who were from Africa who initially refused to answer the question of where they were from until I pressed them. I have never run into that with people from anywhere else. I have lived in other countries as well. One was a colleague of mine and the other a professor. Both PhDs, by the way. The former was from Uganda and the latter was from Eritrea. They were ashamed of what their countries had been or had become.
    1