Greenland and the NATO/EU/UN

[sinewav]

Holy Christ, the stuff kyle actually believes is terrifying.

[kyle]

kyle wrote: ↑26 Jan 2026 22:07
...judges ... make judgement calls

THAT IS THEIR ******* JOB. IT IS LITERALLY IN THE LANGUAGE (well, the 'judgement calls' are called 'verdicts', but no matter). THAT IS THEIR ROLE IN THE SYSTEM. LAWMAKERS MAKE LAWS, JUDGES INTERPRET LAWS. THAT IS THE BASIS OF THE RULE OF LAW.

Yes, but they make politically motivated calls, on in the case of Elon's compensation, they ruled it was basically excessive and took it away despite shareholders agreeing to it multiple times.

DICTATOR? Seriously? (Every accusation is a confession...)

I'll admit I went far on that one, but he's got a like a zombie mob following him that claims everything ICE is doing is bad and wrong, When you have that perception, the sheep he herds are going to believe it and fight back, resist even doing anything. Good is who I was talking about, to me, although at different angles you can see different things, from the ICE agents point of view, that shot her, the car started moving towards him, he had to take action, I know if you look at other views you can see the tires are turned. But it never should have gotten to that point, I never saw, and maybe there is something where they show her actually cooperating and handing over identification, but from my understanding she didn't do that, was told so many lies that ICE is horrible and wanted to take action.

kyle wrote: ↑26 Jan 2026 22:07
While I don't fully agree with everything ICE is doing,..

Dunno if it is just me, but that sentence structure is beginning to sound a lot like "I'm not racist, but...".

I only placed the preface in there because I truly do not support ICE removing all illigal immigrants, if they are here, non-violent, and working, and not taking handouts from the corrupt system, I'd prefer they just be given a pathway to citizenship without having to exit and come back, But that is not what the Trump administration wants, he wants to go all illegal immigrants.

kyle wrote: ↑26 Jan 2026 22:07
...It has always operated under all past presidents,

Always? Both ICE and Homeland Security are from this century, created under Bush Junior.

Got me here, but that is literally my entire adult life, that they have been around

Holy Christ, the stuff kyle actually believes is terrifying.

It's terrifying to understand what surface level stuff you all believe, when you look into more of the data points, you either have to write everyone off as incompetent, or highly competent with an agenda. I guess I just don't believe people are this dumb.

Follow the freaking money flow, follow the incentives, see how they form outcomes. People in power want to keep the average person poor, and set up incentives for if you are able to break through their systems of keeping you poor.

America under both parties have a spending problem, and they are trying to pass that off as more taxes, taxes that even if people paid up, it would actually screw over the poor even more. How dose that work? if California's proposed billionaire 2% tax went into effect. Most billionaires owe companies, their wealth is tied up in the companies. Lets say they own about 20% of the company's shares, they would have to sell nearly 4 tenths of the company to pay the tax bill, this is a massive amount of downward pressure on the stock, and it reduces their ownership and influence over the company. If you have any retirement account, your retirement account goes down because of this transaction, because most people are in some form of index funds that track the market, That money is not going back into the market, it's going to fund government programs. Now that your retirement crashes, you have to delay, some people already in and panic, to sell out at the lows, This whole thing drives into fear and gets you back working endlessly, never to retire because only about 70% of what you make goes to supporting your life and the rest goes to funding endless programs that are most of the time, not a positive for society. Please sinewave, I encourage you to explain to me how I have the money, tax and government spending wrong. I'm just curious.

[Z-Man]

kyle wrote: ↑26 Jan 2026 22:07
...judges ... make judgement calls

THAT IS THEIR ******* JOB. IT IS LITERALLY IN THE LANGUAGE (well, the 'judgement calls' are called 'verdicts', but no matter). THAT IS THEIR ROLE IN THE SYSTEM. LAWMAKERS MAKE LAWS, JUDGES INTERPRET LAWS. THAT IS THE BASIS OF THE RULE OF LAW.

Yes, but they make politically motivated calls, on in the case of Elon's compensation, they ruled it was basically excessive and took it away despite shareholders agreeing to it multiple times.

Even if a majority of shareholders want it, it still can be illegal (because it can violate the rights of the minority in this case, I would guess), and then it's a judge's job to stop it. You just call it politically motivated because you don't agree with it

DICTATOR? Seriously? (Every accusation is a confession...)

I'll admit I went far on that one, but he's got a like a zombie mob following him that claims everything ICE is doing is bad and wrong, When you have that perception, the sheep he herds are going to believe it and fight back, resist even doing anything.

Heh, that elaboration does not make it better

I know if you look at other views you can see the tires are turned.

I don't watch any of those videos. But in the situation, his eyes and other senses would also have given more complete information about what was going on. Looks like there might be investigations after all now, we'll see.

kyle wrote: ↑26 Jan 2026 22:07
While I don't fully agree with everything ICE is doing,..

Dunno if it is just me, but that sentence structure is beginning to sound a lot like "I'm not racist, but...".

I only placed the preface in there because I truly do not support ICE removing all illigal immigrants, if they are here, non-violent, and working,

Yeah, that would be most of them. Most immigrants, legal or not, come to work and build a better life for themselves. Well, some also flee their country because the situation there is unbearable for one reason or another, for these you used to have the asylum path... now closed. I suppose they either try elsewhere or try to enter illegally. With that filter applied, sounds like you should oppose everything ICE is doing right now? After all, the violent or otherwise criminal ones should be caught by the regular police (also not unproblematic, see (systemic) racism), then handed over.

People in power want to keep the average person poor, and set up incentives for if you are able to break through their systems of keeping you poor.

That I agree 110% with. The rich and powerful need a poor workforce desperate to take any job they can get.

America under both parties have a spending problem, and they are trying to pass that off as more taxes, taxes that even if people paid up, it would actually screw over the poor even more. How dose that work? if California's proposed billionaire 2% tax went into effect. Most billionaires owe companies, their wealth is tied up in the companies.

With you so far.

Lets say they own about 20% of the company's shares, they would have to sell nearly 4 tenths of the company to pay the tax bill, this is a massive amount of downward pressure on the stock, and it reduces their ownership and influence over the company.

Uuh, 2% of 20% of the company is four thousandth of the company. And them losing influence is part of the desired effect, at least according to me You are right that it would lower the stock price, but not as dramatically as you make it out to be. After all, the company has an intrinsic value, has it not? For example, measured via the expected payout to shareholders over the next ten years. That does not change when someone has to sell shares to pay taxes. Of course, the stock price is determined by the perceived value, not the real one, plus pure speculation... but what little pressure the sales do apply is constant. The market is elastic, like a spring*, and will react with a constant deformation, not a downward plunge. Nothing fundamentally changes.

* exactly like a spring. Elastic with proportional response to small perturbations up to a point. Overstress it and it breaks.

[kyle]

Lets say they own about 20% of the company's shares, they would have to sell nearly 4 tenths of the company to pay the tax bill, this is a massive amount of downward pressure on the stock, and it reduces their ownership and influence over the company.

Uuh, 2% of 20% of the company is four thousandth of the company. And them losing influence is part of the desired effect, at least according to me You are right that it would lower the stock price, but not as dramatically as you make it out to be. After all, the company has an intrinsic value, has it not? For example, measured via the expected payout to shareholders over the next ten years. That does not change when someone has to sell shares to pay taxes. Of course, the stock price is determined by the perceived value, not the real one, plus pure speculation... but what little pressure the sales do apply is constant. The market is elastic, like a spring*, and will react with a constant deformation, not a downward plunge. Nothing fundamentally changes.

* exactly like a spring. Elastic with proportional response to small perturbations up to a point. Overstress it and it breaks.

I'll comment on more (after others respond, but you forced me to grok it because I thought I was wrong for a minute, turns out I was not

If you currently own 20% of the company and are forced to sell 2% of your ownership, that means you're selling 2% of your 20% stake — not 2% of the whole company.
Here's the math:

2% of your 20% = 0.02 × 20% = 0.4% of the entire company

So you would be selling 0.4% of the overall company.
After the sale:

Your remaining ownership = 20% − 0.4% = 19.6%

Quick summary:

You sell → 0.4% of the total company
You keep → 19.6% of the total company

(If the question had instead meant "forced to sell 2% of the whole company", that would be different — but the wording "2% of my ownership" clearly refers to 2% of your existing stake.)

[Z-Man]

Grok is correct, but 0.4% is four thousandth, not four tenth. One percent is one hundredth. 0.4 is four tenth, but the % reduces it by another factor of 100.

For a healthily priced stock, not overinflated by speculation, 2% of what you own should easily be covered from the yearly payouts. Of course, that is not the case for the individual and company you're thinking of

[sinewav]

Please sinewave, I encourage you to explain to me how I have the money, tax and government spending wrong. I'm just curious.

No you've got it right, you just don't understand the source of the problem. The US government and economy is a product of capitalism run amok and what you've described is exactly what Marx and Engles warned against in the 19th Century. The system cannot be saved without a complete restructuring of society and electing a government that actually works for people, not businesses. I don't care if a billionaire loses ownership and influence of a company, the company should be owned by the employees. And if the company is critical for the welfare of the population (like electricity) it should be owned by the state. And this idea that we need a system where people's welfare is tied to an elaborate financial gambling platform (the stock market) is insanity. It's those big gamblers who buy influence in the government and dictate where our tax dollars go (to them, of course).

You're angry at the wrong folks. You're not in the special club of the people you idolize.

[kyle]

Please sinewave, I encourage you to explain to me how I have the money, tax and government spending wrong. I'm just curious.

No you've got it right, you just don't understand the source of the problem. The US government and economy is a product of capitalism run amok and what you've described is exactly what Marx and Engles warned against in the 19th Century. The system cannot be saved without a complete restructuring of society and electing a government that actually works for people, not businesses. I don't care if a billionaire loses ownership and influence of a company, the company should be owned by the employees. And if the company is critical for the welfare of the population (like electricity) it should be owned by the state. And this idea that we need a system where people's welfare is tied to an elaborate financial gambling platform (the stock market) is insanity. It's those big gamblers who buy influence in the government and dictate where our tax dollars go (to them, of course).

You're angry at the wrong folks. You're not in the special club of the people you idolize.

EDIT: This is NOT what I originally had ready to post

[Word]

And now Elon is in the Epstein files! Because of course he is.

[Z-Man]

Well done, comrade sinewav, you completely broke kyle
(I interpret kyle's response as 'you know what, I'm not even bothering to say anything here')

That the stock market is essentially gambling is not in itself a problem, I think. After all, most economic endeavors are inherently bets on the future. If I build this factory for bellybutton piercings now, will people buy bellybutton piercings in five years when the factory is finished? Will my competitor Piercing Pete produce better and/or cheaper bellybutton piercings than me and grab the whole market away from me? Who knows! I can do research and whatnot and control demand with advertising, but ultimately, it's still a bet. Whether it's individuals or the central committee doing the planning does not matter. So it's just an inevitable consequence of reality.
However, everything on top of that is problematic One of the fundamental reason for that is, of course, that the "Homo Economicus" hypothesis is just wrong, we're not well-informed beings acting rationally based on all the information available. We're more driven by stories and emotions. And the big players in the market know how to influence those. That's how they get richer and more powerful even in times of crisis. Especially in times of crisis.
I shared this before and I share it again, because it lives rent-free in my head: Even in a completely fair system where there is no systemic advantage to being rich, the state converges to one super rich guy owning almost everything there is to own. Taxing billionaires would be a step in the right direction.

kyle: How is your homework going? Why was that single California reservoir (of many) empty when the fires hit?

[sinewav]

Fascinating article on inequality, I bookmarked it to share later, thanks! Loved this quote "The free market is essentially a casino that you can never leave." Rather than Elon Musk's "X" I prefer the wealth redistribution fraction X (or “chi”) flat wealth tax in that 2017 Tufts paper.

After all, most economic endeavors are inherently bets on the future.

True, true. I generally argue dramatic and extreme positions I don't fully agree with myself because the people I find myself arguing with usually don't think about things too deeply. For instance, a good friend of mine works in insurance claims for Berkshire Hathaway and he hand-waves the negative effects of for-profit insurance because he feels that risk pools are the best way to achieve certain goals and there is no alternative. And I agree that risk pools are super effective with no alternative, but disagree on which ones should be for-profit.

[kyle]

Well done, comrade sinewav, you completely broke kyle

Be honest did you edit my post? I don't think you did, I suspect it was because as I posted I had to log back in and I literally saw there is content and just posted. and reading just your post, without looking at mine, I was like really?

Let me try to rewrite what i said, I clicked the keep me signed in this time (sometimes my password manager fills it in and I don't get it checked)

We'll start this time with the homework

kyle: How is your homework going? Why was that single California reservoir (of many) empty when the fires hit?

According to my sources it was in need of repair after an inspection in January 2024, a year prior to the fires, because of government bureaucracy, it was not urgently prioritized to get fixed, despite the impact on safety or residents.

Also the selling 0.4% of the company is not a super big deal per say, however, I'll get into that a bit further.

The system cannot be saved without a complete restructuring of society and electing a government that actually works for people, not businesses.

I agree it would be very hard to do this now, that's why I have to settle with deciding which side of the corruption to support. Even though I'd love for us to be able to beat it.

I don't care if a billionaire loses ownership and influence of a company, the company should be owned by the employees.

I agree the company should be owned by the employees, this is a great way to motivate employees by offering them stock options so they can own a share in the companies success. Did you know that Tesla does this and gives their employees options to buy the stock at a discount too? This has created many millionaires within the company.

The problem with forcing a founder or leader to sell is the troubling part. Do you understand who gets to buy up most of those shares? usually they are bought up by fund managers, and funds combined own around 50% of the market. They have the rights to vote, despite many of them setting in 401k's or them managing some pensions. You see when you are taking shares away from the founders that started the companies, or successfully lead the companies, you are handing the companies over the the government influencers. You see they give you a 401k, the let you be lazy and place your money in a fund, a fund that takes fees right out of the money that you have in it. The simpler it is for you, the more profit these corporations get, the more power they have over influencing what companies they want to succeed or not. They are the billionaires you should be angry at, they are the ones with more control over the economy and government than any CEO.

Not to say some companies will have evil CEO's, take a look into Trevor Milton, that pretty much so eliminated pretty early. Enron on the other hand grew big and then went out of control, there is always risk in investing in single stocks, that's why ETF's or index funds are nice, but underneath they are the very cruel thing.

And if the company is critical for the welfare of the population (like electricity) it should be owned by the state.

There are already a lot of government oversight in the public utilities, it actually makes sense in this structure, allow the public to invest in them if they want, but they can fail or just build a stable amount of income, so that they can invest and perform necessary upgrades. sometimes the Government actually cripples the ability for them to upgrades.

And now Elon is in the Epstein files! Because of course he is.

Did you actually read that article or did you fall for the fluff and headlines. Elon never went to the island, nor was in his plane, I suspect some of it was just hard core trolling on Elon's part pretending to be extremely interested they cancelling last minute. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2017734278805917924?s=20

[Z-Man]

Well done, comrade sinewav, you completely broke kyle

Be honest did you edit my post?

Nope, would never* do that, and the moderator logs say nobody else did. I occasionally hit "edit" instead of "reply with quote" and notice only after I hit submit... but of course I try to repair that and publish what I did.

* maybe in a non-serious topic, for comedic effect, and only if I can be 100% certain everyone gets it, and even then I probably will leave a "harr" edit note to make sure, and probably only on Word or Lucifer, because they deserve it.

[Word]

And now Elon is in the Epstein files! Because of course he is.

Did you actually read that article or did you fall for the fluff and headlines. Elon never went to the island, nor was in his plane, I suspect some of it was just hard core trolling on Elon's part pretending to be extremely interested they cancelling last minute. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2017734278805917924?s=20

Wait wait wait, I just said he's in the files, which is what the new documents revealed. That's funny on its own, because a few months ago Musk was like "Trump is in the Epstein files!" when everybody already knew. However, while I still think both are awful people regardless of their Epstein connection, I'm also sure that Trump has much more to hide when it comes to his dealings with "the mysterious Jeffrey" as he called him. So to recap, I just stated he's in the files and you're instantly rushing to Musk's defense like I implied he's also a pedophile, then you pull a list of excuses out from your behind (he wasn't on the plane! he was never on the island! But he said on his twitter that he didn't want to go there!) to reply to things I haven't said while the mails show that Epstein and Musk at least had some friendly rapport and it was Musk asking Epstein if he and his wife can go to Epstein's island (and maybe later he changed his mind or didn't have time), not the other way round. So you say I didn't read the article and fall for the fluff headlines when you completely overinterpret my post and fall for a rich guy's half-baked excuse, again.

* maybe in a non-serious topic, for comedic effect, and only if I can be 100% certain everyone gets it, and even then I probably will leave a "harr" edit note to make sure, and probably only on Word or Lucifer, because they deserve it.

Lucifer's unedited posts are ******* funny. I wish he'd release a book of a collection of those some day. Or maybe write a novel that's based on his forum activity here and where he's just calling out people. A bit like Secret Diary of Adrian Mole but for adults. He could organize it in chapters based on his profile pictures haha.

[Z-Man]

We'll start this time with the homework

kyle: How is your homework going? Why was that single California reservoir (of many) empty when the fires hit?

According to my sources it was in need of repair after an inspection in January 2024, a year prior to the fires, because of government bureaucracy, it was not urgently prioritized to get fixed, despite the impact on safety or residents.

I don't know about priorities, but the bureaucracy you blame comes from anti-corruption measurements. Source says the majority of the delays came from the requirement to collect multiple bids from different companies. Could and should that have gone faster? I'm no administration expert, but probably yes. It was only about repairs and for a drinking water reservoir. Could it have been left filled while waiting for repairs? Probably not, the damage would have gotten worse (it was a tear in the cover, and again no domain expert here, but tears tend to start small and get bigger).
So, basically, yes, you are correct.

The propaganda lesson is, of course, that I had to modify the question. You were originally complaining about a much bigger problem, probably planted by some false statements by JD Vance and others. And GOOD propaganda lies have a core of truth to them. First you get angry about the original claim, and then even as that gets refuted, you find the true core and get angry at that, with the same intensity you originally had for the lie, because there is nothing our brain hates more than having been wrong, it takes any path out it can find.
And of course, they never properly take back their lies. If someone pulls such a stunt, it's an instant loss of trust from me.

So to repeat, while it is conceivable that things could have gone better, only one reservoir, that for drinking water, was empty for repairs.

The problem with forcing a founder or leader to sell is the troubling part. Do you understand who gets to buy up most of those shares? usually they are bought up by fund managers, and funds combined own around 50% of the market.

Thanks for bringing that to my heightened attention, as a systemic problem. I was aware of it as an individual problem with Blackrock, which I avoided like the plague when shopping for a new fond to invest in last week. I'll go and check not only what my eventual pick INVESTS in, but also how they VOTE (if they do).

And yeah, that also is the solution to your stated problem. Nobody should invest blindly. I mean, that is true before you think of politics But especially with politics in mind. Research what the people you are giving your money are actually doing. Don't like it, go somewhere else. There are so many other fish in the sea.

You see they give you a 401k, the let you be lazy and place your money in a fund, a fund that takes fees right out of the money that you have in it.

Invest in banks, then, then that money flows right back to you Z-Wife is with a bank that has that as one of its principles, it encourages customers to also buy its shares.

Not to say some companies will have evil CEO's, take a look into Trevor Milton, that pretty much so eliminated pretty early.

Ah, he is the guy I wanted to bring up at some point, pardoned by Trump presumably as a "thank you" for campaign donations, and he does not even have to give back the money he embezzled. Yep, a scumbag all right.

I suspect some of it was just hard core trolling on Elon's part pretending to be extremely interested they cancelling last minute.

"I don't want to believe my Hero considered going to pedo island, so instead I am going to believe he was just being a dick." Whatever works for you.
Of course the now published mails are not terribly damning on their own. There is no hint that he knew what was going on there. They just contradict what Musk said earlier.

[sinewav]

They are the billionaires you should be angry at, they are the ones with more control over the economy and government than any CEO.

I can and will be angry at both because even moderately wealthy millionaires and industry heads have major influence on the government. Also, no one needs a billion dollars. And I know you like to parrot the propaganda that these ultra-rich CEOs don't aren't really rich because their wealth isn't liquid. The way you describe it, you would think they are driving Toyota Corollas and living in two-flats. No one earns a billion dollars. You can only get it through exploitation, and that is a bug in the system we need to correct.

Aside: I have some wealthy friends. One of them isn't comfortable with the corruption in our government even though he benefits from it. I said we should have major wealth taxes and laws that prevent the concentration of wealth. He didn't like the idea. I asked him, "what is the ideal number of oligarchs for our democracy?" He hasn't gotten back to me on that.