Culturalism · investing · Personal Finance

Goldman Takes Third Blood

In my last video, I warned folks about Wall Street’s likely attempt to weaponize the Coronavirus panic in service of their financial interests. I also noted that Goldman Sachs has cultivated such a close relationship with the federal government that it managed to completely destroy a competitor (Lehman Brothers) during the bailout negotiations of 2008.

But there is more. As markets reel from the virus’ impact, our lovely friends have released an updated report on U.S. GDP for the second quarter, suggesting an upcoming 24 percent drop.

How convenient. Sounds like a great way to further tank the economy, allowing the Goldmanites freedom to make a killing on shorting strategies, plus accumulate dirt cheap shares.

Now hold on, the skeptic might say, what happens if the market declines so Goldman Sachs is also in trouble?

It’s quite simple. They just give a ring to the Treasury Department, led by none other than Steven Mnuchin, the retired Chief Information Officer for Goldman.

If you watch your 401k undergo further decline in the following weeks, just remember who is walking in “Fields of Gold.”

Culturalism

How Technology Destroys Customer Service

“Dynamic technology is changing our lives for the better.”

We have all heard something along these lines over the past two decades. First it was the Internet.com, then smartphones, now smart everything. The oft-celebrated Internet of Things is forecast to make existence more convenient, less time-consuming, and more user-friendly.

Sure, tech has created positive change and unified people across the world. It has given us new industries, aspirations, and means of communication. All one must do is dream, and type in a Google search.

But there is something else: the wondrous change has  allowed corporations to turn a middle finger to the individual consumer. The customer is no longer “right” in our world; as an entity we hardly exist. In fact, we remain little more than a credit card swipe and a flicker of lights in the data center’s tower aisle.

I was thinking about this yesterday as I picked out an appliance for my new house. Being the deal-sensitive person I am, I went on the Bank of America app to change my cashback category to home improvement stores. After all, why not get twenty bucks back on a sizable purchase?

As it turned out, the app did not permit me to change the category, and advised logging in to online banking, which I did. On the website, I received a message saying I needed to use to app to change the category, or login to online banking. Obviously, neither option worked.

Feeling rather annoyed, I tried using “Erica,” the virtual assistant. When I inquired about the category change, she feigned digital ignorance by asking me to repeat the question. BOA’s customer service number was no better, leading me through a maze of menu options before claiming to “not understand” the request.

You might say this is a one off, but I’m seeing it regularly. Last year I booked an appointment with Best Buy to have a remote start installed in my rover. I paid the fee, got numerous reminder emails, and drove almost an hour to the GeekSquad bay. The door was locked, and no one answered the phone. After finally getting in touch with the manager, she bluntly announced that her technician had quit the previous week.

Instead of exploding, I calmly called Best Buy’s customer service, where I ended up speaking with five different representatives, each holding unique titles and demanding I repeat the story over again, before they made up an excuse to transfer me. I was stonewalled continuously, and eventually disconnected from the “Customer Care Manager” who could barely speak English.

Around the same time frame, I ordered a video game on Amazon as a Christmas present for a family member. After my other items showed up, I saw that the game was delayed by almost a month. I promptly attempted to contact Amazon and cancel the order. Like with the others, I was led through an endless maze of virtual assistants, disconnected numbers, and general indifference. All for something that should have been a simple, one-click solution.

Of course one cannot email any of these companies anymore, because they don’t want a paper trail if the underlings screw up and promise something they refuse to afford.  At best you’ll get to use chat, or maybe a 1-800 number. How joyous.

But at least we have “smart” refrigerators.

Culturalism

Let’s Talk About Sexism

It wasn’t moments after Elizabeth Warren called it quits that our girls at Hufflepuff had put out an article attempting to deflect her failure onto the alleged “sexism“ of primary voters. The article, which reads like a winsome, brooding teenager, features the following quotation from Rebecca Katz:

“At a certain point, the narrative that a woman can’t win and that a white man would be the safest candidate to take on Trump became self-fulfilling.”

Fascinating. At what point was that? When John Delaney and Seth Moulton dropped out? Before or after Buttigieg conceded? Somewhere in Tulsi Gabbard’s universe?

The argument is a ridiculous one, seeing the advantages that Warren held going in, including superior name recognition, and a status as one of the two main progressive options for voters. She even led in primary polling for a period last fall, and had no shortage of speaking time at debates, especially towards the end of the cycle.

No, this post-disaster claim about leftist women who lose needs to be put in its place. Whenever a man is forced into the position of losing to a woman, society will relentlessly mock him for it using crude gender assumptions, but still insist he be a “good sport” and concede honorably.

On the flip side, a progressive woman is NEVER at fault for failing to win in her own right. We all remember 2016, when Clinton’s demise was explained away using the sexism crutch, with special emphasis on Trump’s “looming” behind her on a debate stage. As if that was too much for her to handle.

 If humans want to achieve real equality, then we should stop giving leftist women an easy way out of moments when they lose face.

Does that make me sexist?

Culturalism · investing

How The Spanish Flu Hit Stocks

There’s been a gross deal of speculation about an (even bigger) Coronavirus outbreak, one that could cost countless lives and send the world economy into tailspin. It makes jolly good fodder for the internet activists of our time, but how accurate is the claim?

That depends. The folks over at Global Financial Data put together some nice info looking at the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, which killed tens of millions of people. The first graph shows the various peaks of the outbreak those years ago:

Credit: GFD

Next we have a trace of the stock market:

Credit: GFD

As you can see, the market was not visibly impaired by the rise of the flu, although the period also encompassed part of World War I.  After the nominal end of the flu wave, which was relatively close to the finish of the First World War, the market experienced a period of handsome growth.

The applicability of the 1918 situation to today, or vice a versa, remains dubious, and yet it suggests that hysteria may not be the proper answer.

Culturalism

Does Anyone Bother Reading?

Sure, Breitbart’s comment section is a poor sample size, but let’s humor the gods for a moment. We have a story entitled “Italian Governor Quarantines Himself After Staffer Tests Positive for Coronavirus”.

While the piece doesn’t explicitly name Attilio Fontana’s political affiliation, it helps clue readers in by noting his criticism of the Conte Government’s response to Coronavirus. Additionally, there is mention of  Matteo Salvini’s negative opinion of Conte, suggesting kindred feelings on at least that issue.

Fontana is also regional president of Lombardia, one of the two more reliably right-wing provinces of the Mediterranean country, and  a hotbed of support for Salvini’s Lega.

With all that information available, how does the empowered Breitbart reader respond? By assuming he’s a leftist. Here we go:

“Oh poor baby leftist runs and hides!!! No lossless he does the better off the country will be. Whata bunch of flakes the Italians are.”

The same commenter made this reply to a different article, also on Italy:

“WHY was Salvini voted out?!?!?!!? These people are nutz and get what they deserve!!!!!!”

Folks, with the advent of the Google search, it’s not that hard to square information before making a statement. Just count to ten and breathe.

Culturalism · investing · Personal Finance

How China Got Away With Murder

We have already established that China is untrustworthy and corrupt. But the story gets a lot worse, and it goes back years.

In 1874, the Treaty of Bern was signed, establishing the Universal Postal Union, which served to set international carrier rates for mail and shipping. Because China was considered a “developing country,” then, and explicable still is today, it got a sweetheart deal on shipping to the United States. Although less of a problem intially, the growth of China’s exports resulted in a system where the USPS was paying between $300-500 million annually subsidizing foreign imports.

The bizarre impact of the old policy meant that a New Jersey-based company like Mighty Mugs had to spend $6.30 to deliver a single mug, while a counterfeit version could be sent from China for only $1.40. According to Mighty Mugs owner Jayme Smaldone, it gets worse with heavier packages:

“We pay up to $17.61 to mail a four-pound package, but a shipper in China pays $3.67.”

It should come as no surprise that Chinese knockoff sellers can easily undercut American products by offering significantly lower prices.

Thankfully, things are changing. Under a new agreement that goes into effect in July 2020, the United States will be permitted to self-declare shipping rates, hopefully leveling the playing field for struggling small businesses within its borders. As Pete Navarro said:

“China is certainly going to pay more for the privilege of shipping to our market.”

And it only look over 100 years.

Culturalism · Personal Finance

Money Doesn’t Equal Dignity

“You need money to have human dignity.”

Nowadays we have a lot of public discussion revolving this concept. People claim increasing the minimum wage, expanding healthcare, or offering free education serves to avoid the negative outcome. And that sex workers and porn artistry are “last resorts” for women struggling in a moribund, patriarchal world.

But oddly enough, having more means nothing if your personal code is bankrupt. Take Steven Spielberg. He’s a world famous influencer with a fantastic career, and more money than most could imagine. Yet reality is a cruel mistress.

His adopted daughter, Mikaela, recently came out about her pornography career, which she describes in the following terms:

“I’m doing this, not out of an urge to hurt anybody or be spiteful about it, I’m doing this because I want to honor my body (emphasis added) in a way that’s lucrative.”

Remember, this is the child of a mega-rich Hollywood power couple (who are apparently supportive of her choice). She likely had access to expansive educational, healthcare, and career-oriented resources throughout her life. Even if we want to ascribe the cause to various forms of abuse she experienced growing up, the specific avenue of pornography was certainly not a “last resort” for her in terms of a career, which she admits to pursuing.

So Bernie and Lizbeth can continue waving their hands, but having more means nothing if you possess no dignity.


Culturalism · Personal Finance

The Masks of China

As some of you already know, Xi Jingping was photographed at the Beijing Coronavirus hospital wearing the transmission prevention mask which has become iconic during the crisis. This is while reports suggest he has failed to visit Wuhan, where the outbreak originated.

From what we can see now, there are a few possible takeaways:

1. The virus threat is not serious, and Xi simply has to put up the image of containment, in a (non-malicious) propaganda act.

2. A massive calamity is being covered up in China, but we still need take the Thomas Friedman approach, because their government is honest.

3. It’s the Russians.

Thoughts?

Culturalism

Mitt Romney Has No Conscience

Much has been made of Willard Romney’s decision to vote for the “Abuse of Power” article in the Senate’s impeachment trial. Republicans are angry, while Hollywood leftists can’t stop praising Corporations are People for his brilliant move.

 As it turns out, the actual process remains less interesting than Romney’s justifications. In a speech beforehand and an interview with Fox News, Romney did the prototypical. He appealed to God, the Constitution, and his conscience.

Yet it’s highly doubtful that he has one. Let’s turn back time for a second. In 1994 and 2002, Romney staunchly defended the right to abortion, and then bounced back in 2006 as he prepared to run for president, now “firmly pro-life.”

In 2005, Romney vetoed emergency contraception for rape victims, only to cycle back and support access for all women in 2012.

Romney famously declared “Let Detroit go bankrupt,” but proceeded to defend the Wall Street bailout as a way to prevent an economic meltdown.

For all his love affairs with the Constitution, Romney endorsed waterboarding, denial of Miranda rights, and the Patriot Act. He also responded to a debate question on congressional military authorization by saying “You sit down with your attorneys and tell you watcha have to do”

As if that’s not enough, Romney has been on both sides of the Obamacare and immigration debates.

Then we have Romney’s famous “phony” speech, where he roundly attacked Donald Trump as a fraud. Of course he infamously proceeded to congratulate Trump on winning, and audition for Secretary of State.

But yes, he is a man with a conscience.

Culturalism

No One Cares That You Were “Right”

“He’s been saying the same thing for decades!”

It’s a common theme in politics: roll out the clips of an elder statesman railing against some unholy creation of government or corporations, and use it as reason to vote for them today. After all, he was right.

But no one really cares. When Ron Paul ran in 2008 and 2012, supporters made a big deal of pointing it out. “Ron’s been consistent,” they’d say. “We have to vote for him!”

The result? About 11 percent of the primary ballots, and not even a VP nod.

Fans of Bernie are trying to do the same thing, and on his second national go around he still isn’t wiping the floor with the opposition, at least not on THAT point.

We can explain it simply enough by considering normal human attitudes. When you try to persuade someone who’s convinced otherwise, how frequently do they concede the point? Typically never. And even if you successfully nudge them in the right direction, the chances of getting recognized for it is almost zero. Perhaps the key is to blame human pride, yet that doesn’t make things any better.

Another factor revolves around how the collective outrage consensus shifts over time. A conservative likely saw Ronnie as the best thing ever in 1984, while a Gary Hart supporter probably disagreed. Neither of them knew the precise impact various policies would have, or future economic developments. That’s because 1984 is not 2020, and the most important issues were different at that time. They were blinded by their environment.

Hope should prevail though, because GenZ types will have plenty of TikTok videos to use in their campaign ads for the tech plutocracy.