Low-energy Leaks

This is a new genre of pouting that’s increasingly popular with people of low intelligence.

“We should have used the money that went to Ukraine to solve poverty in the US!”

The project of giving out cash to citizens has been tried very recently and created a historic inflation. We have all seen that it’s extremely counterproductive, yet the pouting continues.

“We should have used this money to close the border!”

Again, we have seen very recently that the border will not be closed because there’s no political will to do it. Even voting for a president whose main slogan was “build the wall” resulted in no wall. It’s not a money problem. It’s a “there’s no politician willing to do this” problem. Still, the pouting continues.

“We should be used the money to solve the opioid crisis!”

How? How do you solve the opioid crisis with money? This is one of the most maddening leftist obsessions that I’ve been writing about for years and that consists of the belief that everything is about money. If there’s a problem, throw money at it! But that’s not how things work. Some problems can be solved by money but others can’t. There’s absolutely no amount of money that will make people stop being addicted or make everybody do equally well in school.

“The money to Ukraine” isn’t actually “money.” It’s getting rid of existing but outdated weaponry that creates a vacuum and spurs manufacturing at home. It’s a tried-and-true conservative method of reducing inflation. Pumping more cash into an inflationary economy does not reduce inflation. It worsens it. Investing into military production does.

But the people who engage in this pouting don’t really care about inflation or the economy. They are in a grip of an anxiety caused by low energy. To our subconscious, money is energy. If you have dreams where you are running out of money, it’s your subconscious warning you that your energy is low. The mistake in this situation is to open yourself up to a further loss of inner resources by leaking resentment and woundedness. Of course, this is all too complex for the pouters. Instead of getting themselves under control, they will continue to leak, get weaker, become more anxious, and so on. This is yet another problem that cannot be solved with money, by the way, because it requires an effort of individual will and a certain degree of intellectual capacity.

9 thoughts on “Low-energy Leaks

  1. OT (a little): Found another russian on twitter that I can stand (for a total so far… of two).

    Great thread here about how Ukraine is managing its war narrative (and russia… isn’t)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t think it will be possible to finance reconstruction without dealing with Wall Street.

      It’s not unprecedented. The UK finished paying its WW2 debt in 2006.


      1. I get that. But it reeks of the old IMF/Worldbank scam, where we “loaned” financially-strapped countries money for “infrastructure” with all sorts of strings attached: they could only spend the money with certain well-connected US contractors, for example. Everything was structured so that they could never quite build what they needed (like, say, a fully functional electric grid), so the promised economic boom from the promised infrastructure could never actually happen… and the loan could never be paid. For which the country basically forfeits autonomy to the lender, and US interests pillage its natural resources at no benefit to the population of the country.

        It’s not good if Zelensky is making deals with these people. It’s signing away Ukraine’s future. I get it, if he feels like there’s no future anyway if Russia wins this thing. But it’s a devil’s bargain, trading an easily-identifiable invader for a more insidious one that’s harder to shoot at.


        1. Wall Street isn’t the same as the IMF. I expect the stuff they build will need to work well enough to generate profits. This does of course leave the issue of having most infrastructure owned by foreigners.


  2. “If there’s a problem, throw money at it!”

    Usually said by people who have no understanding of the primary uses of money.

    Money primarily gets you one or more of these: separateness, speed, access, linear force multipliers.

    It does very little in the way of these: togetherness, network effects, non-linear force multipliers.

    And so when some New Urbanist thing goes up, the people pushing it want to believe that they will get more network effects if they over-build, over-design, and over-quality the ever living crap out of that community on the basis that throwing money at it will create the network effects that result in “a tide that raises all ships”.

    Money got thrown like you would never believe at certain coastal parts of Walton and Okaloosa counties in Florida, and what happened? They’re nice places, but nothing serious ever gets done there.

    I mention this because it’s an analogue to the opioid problem: these people threw such money at what they perceived to be the problem, which was one of a lack of walkable communities, in such a way that the primary concern isn’t that it’s walkable but instead that it drives out affordable businesses.

    And so the problem isn’t just that throwing money at the problem doesn’t solve the problem, it’s that it doesn’t solve any of the other problems that arise by throwing around money.

    But sometimes it works.

    Ed Snowden is right: you can collect passports like Pokemon, especially if they’re economic citizenships.

    These exist primarily so you have a foot already out the door, but you are actually throwing money at some country’s problem.

    That’s what happens in Saint Kitts and Nevis where economic citizenship money gets thrown into the Sugar Fund, which is a big bucket full of economic citizenship income meant to provide giros to those formerly employed by the sugar trade.

    But it has no real future because neighbours in Caricom noticed that they could get into the same business for the kinds of things they would like to fund but have no real political desire to fund directly.

    Eventually Saint Kitts and Nevis has to imagine life after the Sugar Fund’s eventual collapse.

    People who want solutions to opioid crisis interventions should also imagine life after the collapse of their best intentions.

    And people in America who have been supporting “jobs for our people” programmes via military hardware build-ups should imagine the worst-case scenario, where the stuff being produced is so non-competitive and so horrid to use that you can’t sell it or even give it away.

    That’s the Patriot missile system in a nutshell: it takes a well-trained crew of 90 to manage the system.

    Doing that was only sustainable when the Patriot missile system didn’t have any global competition.

    If you want to see how long the Patriot missile system has been a giant boondoggle, see if you can find the bit where the event quantum of 1/1024 sec was substituted for 1/1000 sec and vice versa, with the result that the time desync for missile systems left powered up meant they were unable to fire.

    By all means, throw more money at that … and Raytheon thanks you all for your support! 🙂

    (BTW, yes, I’m out of the hospital, with an actual pain in my backside removed that someone put there around fifteen years ago. In Captain Obviousland, someone would point out that healing from such a thing isn’t anywhere near instant, but as I am now a pain in my own backside …)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.