Tag: economics

Rethinking University

Now even women are beginning to realize that a college degree is a terrible investment of time and money that accomplishes little more than put a young person into lifelong debt. And this is in the UK, where the degrees are less expensive and the debt can be eliminated after 30 years.

I was 18, full of hope and expectation, with three years ahead of me studying English Literature and the authors I loved, from Chaucer and Shakespeare to Virginia Woolf.Seven years on, though, and life looks very different.
Yes, I had a great time. I read a lot of books, made lifelong friends and played masses of sport. But was any of it truly worth it? Financially, professionally, socially and even in terms of ‘real’ education – would I have been better off turning around, dumping my gown on the floor of my halls, heading back down the M1 and buckling down to a proper job?
Let’s take the money first. By the time I’d finished my undergraduate degree in 2022 – followed by a one-year Masters in English Literature at Bristol University then a journalism qualification – I’d borrowed nearly £60,000, despite doing part-time jobs throughout.
Two years on from finishing my further education, and now that I’m earning a fairly typical graduate salary, thanks to the appalling interest rate my student loan balance stands at £76,227.49. In the past five months, I’ve contributed £335 towards the loan, yet the total amount has risen by £627.49.
I’m essentially paying a ‘graduate tax’ of nine per cent of my gross income for the course of my working life. I may never pay the loan back – 44 per cent of graduates won’t, according to the Government’s own figures – and it’s only scant comfort that the debt will be wiped after 30 years.
Durham is generally seen as one of Britain’s better universities, perhaps second only to Oxbridge. So if I feel like this, what about the 2.86 million other students currently enrolled in other universities across the country?

Only ten percent of men used to attend university back in the time when a university degree actually meant something, and that was largely because only the true cognitive elite attended. There is absolutely no reason for most men and virtually all women to pursue a university degree, as doing so virtually guarantees a suboptimal life track compared to not wasting 4-5 years out of the workforce, gaining no experience, being ideologically indoctrinated by wicked retards, and ending up saddled with lifelong debt.

UPDATE: Here is a comprehensive return-on-investment calculator for virtually every institution of post-high school learning in the USA, but keep in mind that the return-on-investment doesn’t include debt, so the debt calculations need to be compared to the hypothetical ROI.

DISCUSS ON SG

Who’s Locking Out Who?

The EU attempting to sanction China tends to remind one of Rorshach. They’re not locking China out of the global economy, they’re locking themselves out of it.

The European Union has taken yet another step in its long-running confrontation with Russia. But what now stands out is not only the scale – it is the restless, almost reflexive expansion of sanctions as a default instrument of policy. In April, EU authorities unveiled their 20th round of sanctions targeting Russia and Belarus, while pointedly extending their reach toward China.

What was once framed as a targeted response now resembles a sanctions regime without clear geographic or strategic limits. By including 56 designations tied to Russia’s military-industrial complex – 17 of them in China, the United Arab Emirates, Belarus, and Central Asia – the EU has effectively dissolved the boundaries of its own confrontation. Another 60 entities now face tightened export controls tied to alleged contributions to Russia’s defense sector.

For the first time, even a Chinese state-owned entity has been targeted by anti-Belarusian sanctions. In Brussels, this is justified through the language of “dual-use” goods. But outside Europe, the perception is of a growing tendency toward economic coercion that stretches legal authority across borders, fueled by an escalating appetite for pressure.

China’s response was swift: officials condemned what they described as “long-arm jurisdiction,” rejecting the EU’s attempt to discipline Chinese firms operating far beyond European territory. More importantly, Beijing read the move as a signal of the EU’s shifting posture toward China itself. Within a day, China placed seven European entities on its control list over arms sales to Taiwan, imposing restrictions that mirror the EU’s own extraterritorial reach. These measures prohibit the transfer of Chinese goods to the targeted firms, extending the ripple effects well beyond those directly sanctioned.

These EU leaders don’t seem to understand that they don’t really matter anymore. They can preen and posture all they like, but there is nothing that Europe has that China needs. It’s understandable if the US politicians don’t grasp that they’re no longer the center of global power, since the lessons of the recent debacle in the Middle East are still being learned.

But all the nations of Europe can’t even defend themselves against invasion from the south and east; their ability to do anything at all about China is nonexistent. They can’t even do much about Russia except hold their own breath, refuse to buy Russian energy, and kill their own economies.

It does seem that those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

DISCUSS ON SG

Two Can Play That Game

China will seize property of corporations that respect US sanctions:

On April 7 and 13, 2026, China’s State Council enacted two new regulations, [Decree No. 834 (Supply Chain Security)] and [Decree No. 835 (Countering Foreign Improper Extraterritorial Jurisdiction)], allowing the seizure of assets from foreign entities deemed to violate China’s anti-sanctions laws or disrupt industrial supply chains.

These regulations, effective immediately, allow for freezing assets, restricting transactions, and visa bans, targeting companies that comply with foreign sanctions against China.

Key Aspects of the New Regulations

Regulations on Countering Foreign Improper Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (Decree No. 835): Focuses on preventing foreign states’ sanctions from being enforced on Chinese entities and allows for lawsuits against those enforcing such measures.

Regulations on the Security of Industrial and Supply Chains (Decree No. 834): Targets “malicious entities” that disrupt Chinese supply chains through unfair restrictions or, for example, complying with US-led, or similar, “de-risking” efforts.

Targeted Measures: Authorities can seize or freeze assets located in China, restrict transactions with Chinese partners, and ban entry to individuals connected to the targeted foreign entities.

Malicious Entity List: A, created list will identify foreign organizations or individuals that act in ways that are deemed harmful to Chinese sovereignty or security.

Context: These measures expand on the 2021 Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law (AFSL), providing a legal framework for retaliation against foreign governments and firms.

These rules increase risk for multinational corporations, particularly those in high-tech sectors, as compliance with foreign sanctions may directly violate Chinese law.

And so the Great Bifurcation continues. Now we get to find out who the real economic big dog is.

DISCUSS ON SG

Scratch and Claw

On the one hand, it’s a very bad sign that the middle class is now beginning to sell plasma in order to meet their debt burdens. On the other, it’s good that people are finally beginning to get a little more realistic about the fact that this is the new normal and multiple revenue streams are vital for families as they used to be prior to the post-WWII era.

Pressure is starting to show up in places people do not usually look first, and the numbers behind it suggest households and small businesses are both getting pulled tighter at the same time.

Middle class Americans are selling plasma to make ends meet while small businesses are dealing with rising cost pressures tied to tariffs and fuel prices, according to recent reporting from NBC News alongside related coverage on small business conditions.

On the household side, plasma donation has become a recurring source of cash for a growing number of Americans, with roughly 200,000 people donating plasma each day across the country, a scale that reflects how widespread participation has become.

The most important thing is to shed debt. That’s not news to most people here, but it remains far and away the most important thing. The second most important thing is to reduce unnecessary expenses. Do you really need that solo apartment? Is a vacation in Florida really vital or can you simply enjoy an excellent staycation at home for one-quarter the cost?

You don’t need to degrade your quality of life in order to lower your expenses. But you do need to think about what your priorities are. I can personally testify that staying home surrounded by excellent books to read is among the very highest qualities of life to which one can ascend.

DISCUSS ON SG

No Children, No Economy

By the time the next economic depression bottoms, it will be illegal for women to not have children in many countries:

Underneath all of this, slower than any war and more permanent than any crisis, is something the financial press doesn’t really mention:

People aren’t having any children.

US fertility hit an all-time low in 2024. The general fertility rate is still falling. IMPLAN puts 1.4 million fewer Americans contributing to housing demand, retail spending, and service consumption in 2025 than trends would have predicted. To put that in numbers: $104 billion in GDP. Not exactly gone, not really disappeared. It just never existed in the first place.

It’s a vicious circle: housing is too expensive, so young people delay children. Fewer children means less future housing demand. Which should eventually reduce prices, except the lag is 20-30 years, and in the meantime housing stays expensive, so the people who couldn’t afford a house still can’t, still don’t have children, and the loop tightens at its own pace regardless of what the Fed does or what happens somewhere in the narrow waterways in exotic places.

Added: the boomers are saying bye sayonara.

The generation that inflated every asset class for 40 years through automatic 401k contributions is, somewhere around now, flipping from net buyers to net sellers. Of course it’s impossible to say like “March, 17: boomers start to cash out their 401ks”… Nope, the tide just turns. The same passive machine that provided an inexorable, automatic bid for equities and bonds and real estate – every payday, every year, for four decades – begins to redeem. Quietly. Continuously. For the next twenty-some years. Every asset they inflated on the way up faces a headwind on the way out. Not a crash. A long, grinding, demographically-inevitable ratchet.

That’s why the central planners of the world turned toward mass immigration. You need consumers to keep the GDP growth going, and with fewer children, there were going to be fewer consumers. Of course, the problem is that the macroeconomic models don’t account for quality of consumer, so it’s only very recently that the mainstream economists have begun to realize that lending to immigrants from grasshopper cultures is absolutely guaranteed to crash the banking system because none of those loans will ever be repaid.

And this is just on the consumption side. Imagine what lowering IQ, time preferences, and productivity does on the production side, although you don’t need to imagine it anymore. We already know what a calamity diversity and inclusion have turned out to be for the US corpocracy.

Indeed, based on a 2025 Danish study, it may even be necessary to ban paid female employment. Such a policy would indubitably be sexist, anti-feminist, and currently illegal in most Western countries. But no one living in any society that elects to show up for the future is going to care what the norms of a few long-dead 21st-century societies happened to be.

Egalitarianism is already conceptually dead. It won’t be many more decades before people stop believing in it.

DISCUSS ON SG

The German Meltdown

The amazing thing is that the Germans managed to destroy their economy without even electing the Greens to power:

The EU’s largest automaker, Volkswagen (VW), has announced that it will cut about 50,000 jobs in Germany, citing plunging profits, soaring energy costs and mounting trade pressures. In its annual report on Tuesday, VW said that net income nearly halved in 2025, falling to €6.9 billion (over $8 billion), its weakest result since the 2016 diesel scandal, while revenues slipped to just under €322 billion.

VW will “systematically reduce our costs” in the coming years, executives said, confirming that tens of thousands of positions will be slashed across the group’s German operations by 2030 on top of previously announced headcount reductions. In 2024, the company reached a deal with unions to avoid involuntary redundancies and plant closures at production sites in Germany.

“The year 2025 was characterized by geopolitical tensions, tariffs, and intense competition,” VW’s chief financial officer Arno Antlitz said, adding that 50,000 jobs would be cut by 2030 and that further cost-cutting measures could follow in order to make the automaker more competitive.

Of course, if it’s this bad, imagine how much worse it would be without all those economically beneficial immigrants…

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 015

VI. The Usury Connection: How Capture Was Funded

The rhetorical victory required material support. Ideas do not propagate themselves; they require patrons, publishers, institutions, and time. The Enlightenment had all of these in abundance, and the abundance was made possible by the financial revolution that Part One described.

The traditional prohibition on usury had constrained the accumulation and deployment of capital. Lending at interest was limited, regulated, morally suspect. Wealth accumulated slowly, through production and trade, and was dissipated across generations through inheritance, charity, and the sheer friction of economic life. No one could amass the resources to reshape civilization according to a plan.

The legitimization of usury changed this calculus. Central banking created money ex nihilo. Fractional reserve lending multiplied it. National debt allowed governments to spend beyond their revenues. Patient capital could now be accumulated and deployed over decades, over generations, with compound interest working in its favor. Those who controlled credit creation could fund projects of civilizational transformation that would have been inconceivable under the old dispensation.

The Enlightenment’s patrons understood this. The salons were funded. The journals were subsidized. The academies were endowed. The chairs were established. The process was gradual, as it had to be, to avoid provoking too violent a reaction, but it was relentless. Each generation formed by Enlightenment institutions produced the teachers, publishers, and patrons of the next generation. The compound interest was intellectual as well as financial.

The tradition, operating on honest money, could not compete. Its patrons were the old aristocracy and the Church, both increasingly constrained by the new financial order. Its institutions were ancient foundations that could be infiltrated and captured. Its defenders were individual scholars, working without coordination, without resources, without a long-term strategy. They brought arguments to a financial war.

This is not to reduce the intellectual contest to mere economics. The ideas mattered; the arguments mattered; the truth mattered. But ideas need vectors, arguments need platforms, and truth needs defenders who can sustain the fight for decades across generations. The usury revolution gave the Enlightenment the resources to wage a multigenerational campaign. The tradition had no comparable resources and no strategy for acquiring them, and in both England and in France, the Church had been deprived of a significant portion of its historical property.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Shuns US Debt

From BRICS News:

JUST IN: China instructs banks to reduce US Treasury holdings.

This isn’t a massive surprise. It’s obviously been in the works for some time; I even wrote about it three years ago. But the quiet reduction from $1.3 trillion to $680 billion has been gradual, while this public announcement may reflect a more aggressive policy of dumping the dollar.

It also suggests that BRICS will very soon unveil an alternative payment structure, not just for the BRICS nations, but for the world. Which, given the fragility of the current US-based payment processing systems, would be a very welcome alternative for many neutral parties.

DISCUSS ON SG

Ricardo’s Deliberate Deception

I recently had the privilege of assisting one of the world’s greatest economists in his detective work that comprehensively completes the great work of demolishing the conceptual foundation of the free trade cancer that, far from enriching them, has destroyed the economies of the West. The subsequent paper, The Deliberate Deception in Ricardo’s Defence of Comparative Advantage, was published today by the lead author, Steve Keen. And while it’s a pure coincidence that he happened to notice Ricardo’s textual amphiboly at about the same time that I noticed Kimura’s algebraic amphiboly, I don’t think it’s entirely accidental that two intellectual fixtures of modernity should prove to be constructed on such fundamentally flawed foundations.

Abstract
Ricardo’s arithmetical example of the gains from trade considers only the transfer of labour between industries, and ignores the need to transfer physical capital as well. He discusses the transfer of capital in the subsequent paragraph in Principles, but uses a textual amphiboly: whereas exploiting comparative advantage involves transferring resources from one industry to another in the same country, Ricardo speaks instead of the transfer of resources “from one province to another”. The fact that this verbal deception has escaped attention for over two centuries is in itself notable. When considered in the light of subsequent discussions of capital immobility by Ricardo, this implies that the person whose model led to the allocation of existing resources becoming the foundation of economic analysis, was aware that this foundation was fallacious.

Introduction
The theory of comparative advantage is perhaps the most influential and celebrated result in economics. Challenged by a mathematician to nominate an economic concept that was both “logically true” and “non-obvious”, Samuelson nominated the theory of comparative advantage:

That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that it is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them.(Samuelson 1969, pp. 1-11)

From Ricardo’s original demonstration in 1817, to modern trade theory, the conclusion has remained constant: even if one nation is more efficient at producing everything than all others, it and its trading partners will gain from specialization and trade.

However, there is an obvious flaw in the logic: while labor can hypothetically be moved between industries at will, fixed capital cannot. Ricardo’s own text contains evidence that he knew that this reality invalidated his theory, since his defense of comparative advantage relied on an amphiboly that conflates two categorically different forms of capital mobility. Remarkably, though this evidence was hiding in plain sight, it has not been noted until now.

The Amphiboly: Province Versus Industry

In Chapter VII of the Principles, Ricardo presents his famous example of England and Portugal trading cloth and wine. Portugal has an absolute advantage in both goods but a comparative advantage in wine; England has a comparative advantage in cloth. Gains to both countries result from specialization according to comparative advantage. Portugal ceases cloth production and England ceases wine production, both countries focus their resources on the industries where they have a comparative advantage, and total output of both cloth and wine rises:

England may be so circumstanced, that to produce the cloth may require the labour of 100 men for one year; and if she attempted to make the wine, it might require the labour of 120 men for the same time. England would therefore find it her interest to import wine, and to purchase it by the exportation of cloth. To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the labour of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the same country, might require the labour of 90 men for the same time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place, notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be produced there with less labour than in England. Though she could make the cloth with the labour of 90 men, she would import it from a country where it required the labour of 100 men to produce it, because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her capital in the production of wine, for which she would obtain more cloth from England, than she could produce by diverting a portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the manufacture of cloth. (Ricardo, Sraffa, and Dobb 1951, p. 135)

Ricardo next explains that international trade means that “England would give the produce of the labour of 100 men, for the produce of the labour of 80”, something which is not sensible with domestic trade. He then states that:

The difference in this respect, between a single country and many, is easily accounted for, by considering the difficulty with which capital moves from one country to another, to seek a more profitable employment, and the activity with which it invariably passes from one province to another in the same country. (Ricardo, Sraffa, and Dobb 1951, p. 136. Emphasis added)

“Province”? Why does Ricardo give the example of moving capital between provinces here? His model involves something categorically different: to exploit comparative advantage, capital must move between industries—from cloth production to wine production.

This is not a minor distinction. Geographic mobility of financial capital means that financial resources can flow to wherever returns are highest—a bank in London can lend to a manufacturer in Yorkshire. Geographic mobility of physical capital means moving equipment by road or canal, rather than by sea and ship. But sectoral mobility of physical capital means that the physical means of production in one industry can become the physical means of production in another—that looms can become wine presses, and vice versa. These are entirely different forms of mobility—one feasible, the other impossible.

Ricardo elsewhere in the Principles demonstrates his awareness of the distinction between physical and financial capital, and the fallacy inherent in treating physical capital as if it has the fungible characteristics of financial capital. In Chapter IV, “On Natural and Market Price,” he explains how the profit rate equalizes across industries: “the clothier does not remove with his capital to the silk trade” (Ricardo, Sraffa, and Dobb 1951, p. 89). Adjustment happens through the financial system, not through physical transformation of productive equipment. Only money moves between industries, and only relative prices change; the looms and the wine presses stay where and as they are.

Read the whole thing on Steve Keen’s site.

DISCUSS ON SG