502 Comments
User's avatar
gt's avatar
Feb 20Edited

Sad to hear about the SS United States. Use some recovered taxpayer money that was going to illegal-alien-funneling NGOs to fix her up!

I recently went down the rabbit hole of the USS Sachem which is currently decaying in the woods near Cincinnati. Quite a colorful history, but the most amazing part is where a guy bought the derelict ship in the mid 80s, swapped on "a Murray & Thregurtha Z-drive propulsion unit installed on the rear deck with a reused General Motors bulldozer engine to power it" then tried to move the thing closer to home on the Ohio River near Cincinnati. "He set up a lawn chair on the upper deck as the helm and a broomstick tied to the propulsion unit controls below, and was able to operate and steer the Sachem at a maximum speed of 8 knots, and at no more than 2 knots against the current"

So it was like one of those clickbait "first start in 30 years will it run and drive 700 miles home" except it's a huge old boat that needed to make it 2600 miles.

Link for anyone else curious:

https://uss-sachem.org/history

Expand full comment
Frank's avatar

Great story on the Sachem. The Z-drive looks like a giant outboard. I bet that cruise was real adventure. Too bad it was all for nothing and the poor ship is too far gone now.

But you all now the saying about ships being a hole in the water, in which you throw money.

Expand full comment
gt's avatar

The way I look at it the guy successfully took it on an amazing last journey, if nothing else. My hat's off to him

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

Piecing together a few additional things about Cars & Bids:

-Doug had at least one other co-founder, Blake Machado (the developer)

-Cars & Bids subsequently sold a piece of the business to Phillip Sarofim’s Trousdale Ventures entity, which was also an investor in Hagerty

-In February of 2023, Cars & Bids sold > 50% of the business (i.e., a change of control transaction) - also including Doug’s YouTube channel(s) on a go-forward basis - for $37MM, implying a maximum value of the business at ~$74MM two years ago

-So Doug took less than $37MM - because of his co-founder, other early employees who would’ve received equity (some of whom may have had change of control vesting agreements), and Trousdale’s investment - before taxes; I would assume that he filed an 83(b) election, of course

-The business is probably worth less today than it was two years ago, which means that Doug’s remaining equity, which is the reason he is still a public figure making YouTube videos and appearing on podcasts, would be worth less, as well

“It would bother me if my business failed in public for no other reason than the fact that it sucks balls compared to a slew of remarkably incompetent competitors…”

The (likely) decline in value transpired after the business was no longer under Doug’s control! He could make the argument that HE created and grew a business and then sold it to professional, smart money operators who struggled to run it effectively.

Expand full comment
Drshanbo's avatar

I think Doug made closer to $10m from the deal, not that it really matters

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

Impossible to say with public information.

If he wanted me to know, he would tell me. I haven’t asked, obviously.

Expand full comment
S2kChris's avatar

Wild if true considering he ran out and bought a $1M+ CGT basically the next day. I get he was already rich, but wow, blow 10% straight away. You could argue he’s storing money I suppose.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

If someone gave me five million bucks, I'd have an LMP2 tomorrow evening. TEn percent or not. I want to race a God-damned LMP2.

The equivalent to Doug would be prancing around in a Carrera GT yelling LOOK AT MEEEEE, so maybe it WAS ten percent!

Expand full comment
S2kChris's avatar

Yes but we already know you’re financially irresponsible, Dougie seems kinda preachy about money sometimes.

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

He was also shopping for an F40, and still sort of is.

Don’t forget the house in SD and the house on Nantucket.

Plus a wife and two kids.

I don’t think it was $10MM; probably at least double that (pre-tax), plus he has some remaining equity in the business.

Expand full comment
Colin's avatar

I would get an F40 YEARS before a CGT. I would have one in my driveway 7 days after I won the lottery.

Expand full comment
Julian's avatar

Also can't discount him negotiating some sort of (inflated) ongoing salary from the business since he's still "working" on it. I've seen some sharp operators do that, and do quite well with it.

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

My IT guy told me a story about his brother spending an entire paycheck on a watch. Maybe you guys are related.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

That sounds made-up.

It was more like three consecutive paychecks.

Expand full comment
S2kChris's avatar

I just celebrated my pending 43rd birthday with the purchase of a new Ecodrive Diver. Cost me just shy of $400. Pretty sure I can sell my Apple Watch Ultra and come out of the transaction basically $0.

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

I got paid a bonus in 2019 and had a watch on my wrist two days later that cost more than my 993 had cost.

Expand full comment
Will's avatar

OMG really?!

Expand full comment
Tom Klockau's avatar

I would buy a large warehouse building.

Then go Brougham hunting.

Expand full comment
-Nate's avatar

Maybe I could get the rust on my old VW Beetle repaired.....

-Nate

(hey, we're just dreaming here, right ?)

Expand full comment
Frank's avatar

+1 on the warehouse. For me it would be cheap XK8s. Lots of them. Then updating the chain tensioners on each and every one of them. When I get bored with the coupes I would graduate to convertibles with the hydraulic fluid in the roof mechanism turning to gel.

Expand full comment
sgeffe's avatar

I don’t think there’d be a 1977-1992 full-size Caddy in survivor condition left in the COUNTRY!

“Talk to the Brougham Whisperer in Iowa!” 😂😂

You might even buy SUVs occasionally and start a demolition derby series with them, or just occasional Viking funerals!

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

I’m guessing he financed the CGT.

Expand full comment
S2kChris's avatar

I mean sure but spending $1M is spending $1M whether you do it on day 1 or day 1 through day 3,600. What’s the max term on a CGT anyways, 10 years?

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

Agreed, I’m a cheapskate so that would be my logic. But when you have another $10mm producing investment income, he probably doesn’t care what the monthly nut on the CGT is. Plus I’m guessing that there are finance options available to people above my lowly tax bracket that make buying the CGT an afterthought. Also, there may be a small tax benefit to him whenever he features the car in a video. Not sure how making the CGT a business expense might work.

Expand full comment
-Nate's avatar

1%'ers problems are always so interesting =8-) .

-Nate

Expand full comment
KoR's avatar

Is kinda wild, but he was already a fairly rich man from YouTube. Getting hundreds of millions of views per year or whatever it was will set you up just fine.

To add to that, the CGT isn’t gonna depreciate anytime soon. It’s parking money into something enjoyable rather than just an index fund. The money is still there, and I bet he can get every penny he put in out of it if he wanted.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

Doug already made it known that he likes to be noticed in the CGT. Much easier than taking his Vanguard Total Stock Market fund statement to the bar and waving it around.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

Either way, he'd look like a dork.

The CGT purely impressed men. Women think it's a Boxster.

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

you mean its not

i thought the c stood for cayman

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

Red blooded American man here who also thinks it looks like a Boxster. Its looks never impressed me.

Same thing with the 918 Spyder. One drove past me when I still lived in the Chicago suburbs and it also has the Boxster vibe.

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

Does he like watches too?

Expand full comment
KoR's avatar

He’s been married a long time right? Maybe he wanted it just because he likes the car. Not everything needs some ulterior motive of chasing sex…

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

I've been doing it wrong this whole time! "I've got an 825 credit score and a substantial IRA here!" has gotten me nowhere

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

You're 25 points below "BigTruckSeriesReviews", who once framed his 850.

I was at 831 until my most recent round of Piper-Archer-related credit-card charges hit.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

It got me a brief moment of satisfaction when I was able to walk away from my job.

Expand full comment
Julian's avatar

Sure, but what happens when you're no longer popular on YouTube or doesn't want to be the clown show anymore? Having the capital rather than fickle income stream from views is a smart move, make someone else hold the risk that the "business" won't work anymore.

CGT is a good call for exactly what you're thinking -- it's fun, can be driven a bit, and you won't lose too much because it's already a modern classic

Expand full comment
CLN's avatar

I'm ok to blow 10%, but disagree on the car, as I'd rather have 10 x 100k cars instead. Or some other combination that allows me to pick up a few '70s & '80s fantasies. Or a lot of Saabs & Volvos.

Expand full comment
Colin's avatar

Sherman FTW!

All points make sense. Is this all personal knowledge, or is there some registry where these things and their details are listed?

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

That’s all public information.

-I knew Doug had at least one co-founder, Blake Machado

-I am assuming other employees got some equity (unsure if they had accelerated vesting schedules on a change of control; I am a co-founder of a startup and negotiated that for myself given my background as an M&A banker)

-Trousdale - https://trousdale.vc/company/cars-bids/

-The rest is just back of the envelope math

Expand full comment
Colin's avatar

Their portfolio is chock full of cos I've never heard of... They are all in on the venture part of VC.

edit: Well here ya go... he doesn't have to make money: He is the son of Fayez Sarofim, an Egyptian-American billionaire

Expand full comment
Julian's avatar

The first check if you're interviewing (or interested in a portco) is to check where the PE/VC holder gets the money from. There's a lot of those inheritance types, and they can be interesting to work "for"

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

That’s Phillip Sarofim, not Peter Chernin

Sarofim is the Meyers Manx Outlaw guy.

Expand full comment
Colin's avatar

Yeah I can see that, what with the same names and what not…

TCG, unlike Trousdale, has invested in companies whose shit is inside my house, as we speak. Seems to me they’re winning, if we’re going to be comparing.

Ya ya, the numbers, etc.

Also I would be shocked, SHOCKED I SAY!! If the Myers Manx ever turns a profit.

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

I doubt it does, notwithstanding the variables of the SpaceX position.

But that’s fine since Phillip’s a billionaire heir.

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

whats so special about those outlaws?

Expand full comment
Will's avatar

Jesus Christ that’s not a real VC. Who the hell would take them seriously?

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

Have you ever heard of SpaceX?

https://trousdale.vc/company/spacex/

Expand full comment
Will's avatar

I mean to be a follow on investor isn’t really the sign of a good VC. Most of their portfolio is filled with ass companies that any serious VC wouldn’t touch. I’m not sure spacex will exist anytime soon unless it just becomes a defense company.

Still, that’s a joke investor. I’d take their money only cause they probably don’t understand a thing.

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

Depending on when they got into SpaceX, that could wash away the sins of the remainder of Trousdale’s portfolio!

Returns are the mark of a “good” VC, or any other steward of capital, come on!

Expand full comment
SBO-very online guy's avatar

the steep ascent and now decline in (likely) value of C&B is tied directly to the secondary market for enthusiast vehicles. government lockdown-era bubble inflated the value of the asset; the ride down has been the same. claiming doug had anything to do with either instead of just being basically a carnival barker for a programmer and some sales staff seems like a gross exaggeration of his involvement and skills.

good for him to capitalize on the opportunity when it presented itself, but thats all i think you can really say.

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

Well the deal closed in February of ‘23, but the high water mark for “esoteric” assets was late ‘21 (when rates were still zero).

Doug started the business. He was - and remains - the face of it. There was always the opportunity for someone else to do that, or at least attempt it.

Expand full comment
SBO-very online guy's avatar

right, february of 23 means he was marketing on 22 numbers with the same (insane and fundamentally unachievable) hockey stick projections baked into his forecast, im sure, from the prior two years. the bottom started to fall out in nov 22 but by feb 23 most were still convinced this was a short duration turn (vs what we all now know)

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

Did he trick a smart money billionaire?

Expand full comment
Julian's avatar

I've seen worse, I'm sure you have too.

Sounds like Doug sold the vision of what it could be (with his popularity) and found someone who thought the numbers were achievable. What is the stat, 90% of businesses fail in 5 years?

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

90% of business don't sell for 37mm dollars! We have clients doing PE buyouts on the sell side now. Very profitable companies going for 3-4 x cash flows. Insane what these "tech companies" go for.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

The funniest part on the dumb buyout of C&B was that BaT was there for comparison the whole time. Literally the elephant in the room

Expand full comment
Scout_Number_4's avatar

That last paragraph… Amen brother.

Expand full comment
Fat Baby Driver's avatar

I remember where I was on the days that Reagan got shot, the space shuttle exploded, and Jethro Tull won the Grammy.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

Not necessarily in order of negative world impact!

Expand full comment
David Florida's avatar

For me at least, the last was a pleasant surprise.

Expand full comment
Fat Baby Driver's avatar

I was rooting for Metallica at the time, but I’ve made peace with it.

Expand full comment
David Florida's avatar

As was I, but later I counted the albums in my collection and found that I had the same number by Megadeth and Metallica - but more Tull than both put together. So, not entirely an unhappy surprise.

Expand full comment
Fat Baby Driver's avatar

Same here, but substitute Steely Dan for Jethro Tull.

Expand full comment
David Florida's avatar

That’s a failure which I haven’t yet rectified. Decades ago I placed Steely Dan albums in the same category as Zeppelin or The Who- why buy what’s in constant rotation on FM radio? I think I need a “Dukes of September” dvd while I’m at it.

ETA: I later realized the connection here: “Lowdown” with its flute riff and a (controversial?) Grammy Award for Best R&B Song. I don’t know anything about Boz Scaggs’ career that didn’t get airplay fifty years ago. But retirement is near!

Expand full comment
Fat Baby Driver's avatar

The only Dan tunes I remember getting airplay in my town were Rikki don’t lose that number and do it again.

Expand full comment
JT's avatar

I have not.

Expand full comment
John Marks's avatar

The day JFK was killed, my Mom showed up to pick us up at school, and her face was white, and she could hardly talk.

You see, despite my Jewish surname, I was raised so Irish that, as a child, I heard Gaelic being spoken.

And, my mother's brother had been in charge of Training for the Bay of Pigs Invasion. CIA, obviously.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, my mother was so spooked by the constant TV updates that our Navy was THAT close to the Russian ships, that she phoned her brother, to ask what to do.

He told her, "Take the kids to Mass every day. That way, you will be together."

You can figure out what he meant.

So, when JFK died because Lee Harvey Oswald had begged his wife for sex, the night before, and was refused, my mother thought that it was the Russians' revenge for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/08/horseshoe-nails-rhythm-history-general-motors/

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

so we can blame the jfk assassination on women

neat

Expand full comment
John Marks's avatar

That was Marina Prusakova Oswald's story, and she is sticking with it.

The guy who is currently occupying Bill Clinton's "Oral Office" has a long history of over-promising and under-delivering. So I have zero confidence that ALL US Government Documents on the JFK assassination will be revealed in full.

Even if Oswald was a "Lone Nut" (Jackie Kennedy was offended that her hubby had been killed by a "silly little Communist"), several Federal agencies have a lot of explaining to do.

Oswald had been a radar operator at the base from which U2 spy planes launched to overfly Russia. He had some kind of Security Clearance, and he knew the Climb Rate and Operational Ceiling of the U2. Which the Russians did not know, until Oswald defected and settled down in Russia.

Russia had never been able to shoot down a U2--until Oswald defected.

I think it entirely possible that ONI or the CIA had sent Oswald to Russia specifically to embarrass Eisenhower. The CIA had told Eisenhower that the U2 could not be shot down. So Eisenhower lied to Kruschev, telling him that the US was not overflying Russia.

Shooting down Gary Powers in his U2 put the Kibosh on the tentative Peace Feelers Kruschev and Eisenhower had been exchanging. The CIA on its part was terrified that "Peace Might Break Out."

Francis Gary Powers stated that when he was in Lubyanka Prison, the Judas Gate in his cell door opened, and somebody who spoke Russian with an American accent looked in and said in Russian, "Yes, that's him."

Powers later said he was sure it had been Oswald.

Yet when Oswald decided to come back home with the woman he had married on six weeks' acquaintance, the US provided travel money.

BTW, Oswald's Federal Income Tax returns are better guarded than the formula for Coca-Cola. JFK Assassination students believe that Oswald stupidly declared on his taxes the money he was being paid as an informant.

Sleep tight, America!

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

didnt see that one coming

cant belive this guy was the reason the u2 got shot down in the first place and that all of this was even being orchestrated in the first place

Expand full comment
John Marks's avatar

When my totally amazing son was chosen for the Defense Language Institute, in my best Fatherly Voice I urged him to keep his eyes peeled for a very superior officer, smartly walk up to the guy, salute, and then ask:

"BEGGING YOUR PARDON, SIR! COULD YOU PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE THE LITTLE PLAQUE IS, THAT SAYS 'LEE HARVEY OSWALD SLEPT HERE'?"

That's right, Citizens! Your parents' tax dollars went into teaching Lee Oswald how to speak Russian. Why, I can only ask!

In the event, when Comrade Lee was working at a radio factory in Minsk, at a party he met Marina Prusakova. Six weeks later, they were married. (She was more than a little hot.)

There is a theory that, over and above messing with Eisenhower's agenda, Oswald was in Russia to "extract" a relative of a high-ranking Russian General who wanted to defect, and who did not want his niece to suffer from his actions.

An audio chum of mine with degrees from Harvard and MIT and who had been a contract employee of the CIA, told me that he was sure that JFK's assassination was a "False Flag Operation" that was hijacked.

But there is also the theory that it was a "False Flag Operation" that went haywire when a untrained Secret Service Driver who had been assigned "Riding Shotgun" duty mishandled an AR-15 that was totally new to him, and shot JFK in the back of the head... hence all the covering up.

Back when supposedly they could use audio waveform analysis to detect whether someone was lying, one of those types declared that when Oswald said "I'm just a patsy," he was telling the truth.

Something that gives pause is that reportedly, when relatives went to break the news of JFK's death to his very infirm father, they at first said that it was a "terrible accident."

But never forget that Roger Stone wrote a book claiming that Nixon believed that LBJ had tasked his personal Hit Man to get rid of JFK, because LBJ's own legal problems were mounting.

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

you mean to say the united states governemnt trained someone that would in the future turn on them? im just glad this was an isolated incident and nothing like it ever happened again

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

If the 1964 IRS is anything like the 2025 IRS, they probably just lost them.

Expand full comment
Jim K's avatar

Any books/resources you recommend on researching these topics. I love this stuff but there is a lot of garbage to sift through. TIA.

Expand full comment
John Marks's avatar

I agree that there is a lot of weird stuff out there. My ex-CIA friend was a Moonbat; he was convinced that Nov. 22, 1963 was, in Reality, a "Masonic Ritual Execution of a King." Hard to respond to that.

A few to start:

"Mortal Error": JFK was accidentally shot by a Secret Service Rookie.

"The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ" Self-explanatory.

"Live by the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK" Self-explanatory.

"A Death in November: America in Vietnam, 1963" JFK's complicity in the murder of Ngo Dinh Diem.

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

Marks is Jewish? learn something new every day.

Expand full comment
John Marks's avatar

Was that irony?

Anyway, the family name was originally Marx, as in "Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin." Supposedly my Marxist ancestors had relatives who were entitled to the "Von."

Between World War One and the Russian Revolution, there were incentives to re-spell the name. New England was a center of hysterical anti-German paranoia during WWI. Every issue of the Providence "Journal" newspaper had on its front page a warning:

ALL PERSONS OF AUSTRIAN OR GERMAN BIRTH,

UNLESS KNOWN BY LONG ACQUAINTANCE TO BE LOYAL,

SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE POSSIBLE SPIES OR SABOTEURS.

Which totally missed the point that most of the people who emigrated from Germany or Austria at least in part were motivated by a desire to live in a Democracy, and not be under the risk of being conscripted for the Prussian War Machine.

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

I really didn't know. Marx I would've picked up on but it never occurred to me Marks also is.

Expand full comment
John Marks's avatar

In US Jewish culture, such names as Marks are called "Changeniks."

Whereas, when you change "Tolchinsky" to "Tolin," that is a "Chopnik."

Supposedly, the name Marks is also original to the borderlands between Wales and England. And there is a Portuguese variant.

By the way, Elvis Presley was not Bar Mitzvah'ed, and I don't believe that he ever set foot in a synagogue. But, under Rabbinical Law, Elvis was entitled to claim Jewish identity, because his mother was a Jewish woman who had been born to a Jewish woman. Elvis's middle name was Biblical--Aaron.

The stone marker memorializing Elvis's mother at Graceland has a large Star of David on it.

Expand full comment
John Van Stry's avatar

As an author (and a best-selling one at that) I have zero regard or even respect for awards. They've always been nothing more than popularity contests among small cliques, and over the last couple of decades they have almost all veered to the hard left. They've almost all been taken over by the mainstream publishers on Madison Ave in NYC as well.

The whole debacle around the Hugos and 'Sad Puppies' which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the awards were rigged and proved it quite clearly. They clearly showed as well that it doesn't matter what you write or how much you sell - it just matters that you have the right politics. I know very successful authors who were completely black-listed, overnight, when their personal politics were discovered.

The 'award' that we all like to go on about these days, in the 'politically incorrect' circles are the 'Benjamin Award'. How many Benjamins did your fans award you with?

Because in the end, that's the only reward that really has any meaning: How many people are willing to give you their hard-earned money for your work?

Expand full comment
Ronnie Schreiber's avatar

Success in the marketplace is an important proof of concept.

Expand full comment
John Van Stry's avatar

Not in the writing/publishing market - or rather it wasn't until Independent Publishing (Indy) came along. Until then all of the books being published had to go through gate-keepers, who in the 80's nearly all became very left-wing and whom all of those marched in lockstep.

Indy changed that, somewhat, in that more people had access to the market, and suddenly books you weren't allowed to read were now being published (see ALL of my catalog - I'm a 'niche' writer, I write books for men).

Even with all of that, writing is still a very nasty market/business. Publishers actually pay people to go out and give bad reviews to the competition. And folks at a certain bookseller often have very political opinions that they'll exercise via their workplace powers - not to mention the ones who just simply do it for money (i.e. they accept bribes).

Expand full comment
Morgan's avatar

John - if I were to read some of your stuff where would you recommend I begin?

Expand full comment
John Van Stry's avatar

That would depend on what you like, to be honest. If you like hard scifi, Summer's End. If you like something a bit more 'Space Opera', Stand Alone. Urban Fantasy? Either Portals of Infinity, book 1 or Hammer Commission.

Expand full comment
Morgan's avatar

Thank you.

Expand full comment
TL's avatar

As a reader I really enjoyed Portals of Infinity and Summer's End.

Expand full comment
Dan's avatar

Thanks for the advice. I'll probably check out Summer's end. Is there any difference in royalties/payout you get based on format or seller?

Expand full comment
John Van Stry's avatar

Yeah, there is, but don't worry about it. On Summer's End, which is from Baen Books, one of the trad pubs, I make more on the ebook, but they're happier when I sell print. Which is weird, because they make more on the ebook too.

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

Kamala harris went from making $0 as a writer to making 350k is USAID money laundered through a publishing house. It amused me how blatant it was

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

they really arent even trying to hide it so either theyre dumb or brazen

or both

Expand full comment
John Van Stry's avatar

That's because she got the money afterwards, therefore, according to liberals everywhere, it's not a bribe!

I'm serious, they believe that and will actually YELL at you about how no one pays a bribe AFTERWARDS.

The stupidity of these folks is impressive.

Expand full comment
Ronnie Schreiber's avatar

One could say that your success in the indy publishing market is proof that your concepts for the books have been sound.

I'm not saying that every market success is a proof that the idea is superior, see VHS vs Betamax as well as corrupt markets like you mentioned, but being able to sell an idea to someone else is some measure of how good the idea is.

Expand full comment
John Van Stry's avatar

VHS vs Betamax was because Sony got greedy and acted stupidly.

Expand full comment
Julian's avatar

Aren't all awards essentially some sort of popularity contest or advertising payoff?

It all depends on who's judging and once you know how that works, you'll see through any of them. Various "product of the year" type of awards in any industry are the same game, just paid for directly by the manufacturer rather than the publisher and typically less political than "art"

Expand full comment
John Van Stry's avatar

Yes and no. They're supposed to have some standards to them, and they're not supposed to be rigged. Especially not if they're being given by a non-profit (there are actual laws against that).

When people say that 'anyone can win if they get enough votes' and then suddenly when someone they don't like gets waaaay too many votes and all of the sudden dodgy shit starts happening? Then you know that a lot of these awards are actually rigged by the small group of people in charge of them.

The thing is, there are awards that used to be serious and had high standards in the industry. None of those have any standards and more and are all rigged. And heaven help you if you expose it. Even USA today will come after you and slander you.

Expand full comment
Boom's avatar

Can't agree with your last paragraph more, even as a (mostly unwanted) 'non-immigrant'.

First: Is that warning at the top because I engaged and challenged AK47isthetool to justify his statement in the other thread? If so, let me aplogise, since my intent is not to attack anyone, but perhaps firmly challenge beliefs or assumptions.

"Let’s put aside for a moment the facts that nobody who has a null entry in their birthdate field should be collecting Social Security. How is this not universally agreed upon? I spoke with a professional in the retirement field recently who told me, “I used to go through and take people off pension rolls for having a null birthdate, or other missing but important information, all the time. I’d tell the clients to call the person and see if they could come to the phone — and if not, why.”"

Why should we put this aside? This is literally the only thing that needs to be addressed.... nobody wants to even touch this...

"The Social Security Administration knows it has a serious data issue, so in 2015 they handled it in the laziest and most blunt-trauma way possible: by no longer paying benefits to anyone who is over 115 years old but not marked “dead” in the database. The SSA database, by the way, has 18.9 million “undead” people who fall into that bucket, which seems like a problem in and of itself. Occam’s Razor tells us that the SSA almost certainly has millions of dead people to whom benefits are still being paid, unless, you know, the “undead” issue is magically non-applicable to people born after 1911."

This needs to be still trimmed further, judiciously so, with follow up and a paper trail... why did it take Trump in the second term to find this out? Again something nobody wants to talk about... Isn't this somebody's full time job in the SSA? Why do these people still have a job? They should be sued for dereliction of duty and their salary for the last decade clawed back...

"The moral of the story here is that there’s a very real contingent of the media, the Twitterati, and the social-media universe that likes to play at being scientists, programmers, and other “smart people”. Because these people are not scientists or programmers, they fail to understand the iterative, zero-thrills, plodding nature of these enterprises, and therefore they are easily seduced by things that sound scientific or programmer-y."

Anybody with a brain doesn't fall into this trap - you're being charitable saying that these are midwits, they're utter morons, the people that fall for this shit.

Expand full comment
John Van Stry's avatar

It's the BIG LIE. That's all. Say something loud enough and long enough and people will believe it. The Clinton's did it with impunity, and proved that it still worked quite well.

Also don't forget that a lot of people posting on the internet are bots owned and run by left wing organizations. They got into that whole thing quite early. Look at Media Matters - they and their boiler rooms full of paid internet posters are still around and still active.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

'First: Is that warning at the top because I engaged and challenged AK47isthetool to justify his statement in the other thread? If so, let me aplogise, since my intent is not to attack anyone, but perhaps firmly challenge beliefs or assumptions.'

No sir, you've always played fair. I have zero issue with anything you've written here or in any other context. Sometimes you hurt my feeeewings but I'm a grown man!

Expand full comment
JasonS's avatar

1. SS is a hand grenade for both parties.

2. "This needs to be still trimmed further, judiciously so, with follow up and a paper trail... why did it take Trump in the second term to find this out?" Putting my tinfoil hat on for a second, party because much of the federal government tried to undermine Trump and his policies.

Expand full comment
Boom's avatar

I should have phrased my concern differently.

Under what professional accounting scheme or CFO would this sort of continuing malfeasance be not grounds for immediate audits down to the penny, if not jail time for all involved and bankruptcy?

Also isn't this the JOB of someone in SS? I'm not saying reduce or change SS benefits I'm saying everyone on the recipients list needs to be confirmed to be a real person and also not one assuming someone else's identity.

The 250 year old still collecting benefits was 230 years old 20 years ago... What sort of stupidity is this? FRAUD should be prosecuted and examples made of every single incorrect recipient and the money clawed back or jail time for all involved. This is a bare minimum.

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

man all of that programming talk went straight over my head (i seriously need to get a grip on that but have no idea what language is even useful and for what since everyone seems to have the opinion that theirs is the only one that isnt a waste of time) but when you look at who is posting it you can just check their background to find that theyve never posted literally anything programming related before and it all clicks

"What’s in the COVID-19 vaccine?"

aids, maybe. something something clot shot

tragic to hear about the ss united states and turning it into a reef is a colossal waste and an insult and i wonder who made that decision and why. fuck them fishes i want the boat

Expand full comment
Colin's avatar

Few things are simultaneously worth less and cost more than old boats.

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

and theres nothing the govt like more than dumping money into useless causes so its clearly a match made in heaven

if they can dump 83 million dollars for gay interracial disabled weddings in myanmar then they could absolutely afford to resurrect the better titanic

or maybe the whole thing is just a demoralization campaign

Expand full comment
John Marks's avatar

Hmmm...

Sorry, I thought that was for Quadriplegic Lesbian Weddings, in Gaza?

The worst thing Hillary Clinton did, after giving cover to Rapist Bill, was to decree that local/native US Embassy and Counselate employees all over the world had to show up and cheer at Gay Pride events.

Expand full comment
sgeffe's avatar

The Armless Transgendered couple in the Ivory Coast would like to have a word with you!

Expand full comment
Adam 12's avatar

I hate to see the ship go this way, but will definitely visit the reef.

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

We have a client with an old yacht. It's huge. They spent about 1mm on repairs and improvements last year. Just insane.

Expand full comment
Steve Ward's avatar

Yacht are just holes in the ocean into which you pour $$$.

Expand full comment
JPDFR's avatar

“Old boats”

That comment might summon Sherman, who will no doubt talk about his father’s wooden boats, and then somehow spin that anecdote into a story about some billionaire he met in a sauna once.

Expand full comment
Steve Ward's avatar

I seem to recall reading a number of years ago that the SS United States was in really really bad condition and restoring it would have been enormously expensive.

Expand full comment
Colin's avatar

They should melt it down and make another boat

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

a slightly smaller scale version of the ss united states

Expand full comment
Ethny's avatar

Jack you summed it up beautifully!

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

The most interesting nugget in the Autopian article was that when the PE guys bought C&B, the site was only doing 25 auctions per day. It went up briefly to 29 auctions, now it’s back down below 25 auctions per day. It is mind blowing that they “invested” $37 million with those daily auction numbers.

What kind of due diligence did the PE guys do? If they thought that they could grow the business and be Burger King to BaT’s McDonalds franchise, they were delusional.

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

37mil for 25 auctions a day and you could probably buy every single car there for an entire year or two

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

Yeah and that's also a hammer-blow to the face for the Doug fans who will say, and *ARE* saying on Autopian, that "PRIVATE EQUITY DROVE IT INTO TEH GROUNDS". Nah, bro, it was already there.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

The Autopian comments are mostly a lefty echo chamber. But there are way more comments critical of DeMuro than I thought would be. I think these layoffs are damaging to his personal brand, but the PE guys are stuck with him as the face of C&B.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

The Internet goes from "adulation" to "crab bucket" in a heartbeat, and the cringier and more beta the male consumers are for a particular item, the more risk one runs of such a transition.

Doug's appeal was that he was nonthreatening and in no way cool. Then he got rich. Now "he" is laying people off. It's like when Fat Brad Brownell voluntarily became a slum lord and started bragging about his real estate.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

This is a weird YouTube thing, but these beta males who have some online success just cannot help themselves and have to display their newfound wealth, and then further, always talk about money in every other video. I don’t begrudge anyone who’s done well, but the beta males doing bling videos are total cringe.

It’s not a winning brand strategy, and you can see Demuro’s brand equity slipping away in the Autopian comments, because doubt about Demuro’s character has entered the room, deserved or not. The commenters there are working through their cognitive dissonance and it’s come down to the Carrera GT vs. laid off workers. It’s hard for an Autopian lefty to be pro CGT.

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

https://tcg.co/portfolio/

They don’t need every investment to be a home run.

Peter Chernin is a billionaire who swans around at The Yellowstone Club - he’s good.

Expand full comment
Craig Yirush's avatar

That was a useful corrective, but didn’t they also fire everyone on probation (not understanding that probation = new at the job, not performing badly)? Agree with your last para (save for the fact that they had a hard time agreeing on how to structure those institutions!).

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

Some of that falls under the heading of "Start by making a 180 degree turn". In other words, stop hiring people and let go some of the most recent hires, whether or not they are better or worse than the people around them, because much of the government works on seniority anyway and there's always the unpleasant spectre of the public sector unions.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

Since the national debt is so out of control, they need to fire as many people as possible, then hire back if they cut too deep. It sounds cruel but it’s a way to figure out what staff is needed. Corporations do it all the time.

Expand full comment
JasonS's avatar

The thing I don't get is that I was under the impression congress had to issue a RIF. Maybe that is only for union jobs?

I am awfully tired of headlines saying "Trump fired National Park Employees" when in fact they were laid off. Yes, Trump has fired employees, many of which were previously appointed employees. Headlines keep acting like these are all "firings".

Expand full comment
Sam's avatar

Has anyone heard what the government plans to do with all these supposed savings that are being realized by the DOGE boys? The reported savings being broadcasted reminds me of a controller I used to work with that used to say during engineering cost out meetings that he only wanted to discuss savings initiatives in number of head count reduced instead of dollars saved because without reducing FTEs you didn't actually save anything. What good is "saving" 55 billion if they don't issue a tax rebate to the taxpayers or clearly disclose where that money will now go,? I'm not saying we should continue to give it away, but identifying the waste is only half the battle.

Expand full comment
S2kChris's avatar

This is wife math in the extreme. What are they going to do with the savings? Not go as deep into the red every single month. We’re in the “stop the bleeding” phase.

Expand full comment
bluebarchetta's avatar

Exactly. Pay down the debt, then reduce taxes. The Feds should never send a damn "stimulus" check again. The only thing stimulated was inflation.

Expand full comment
Acd's avatar

Until the government runs a surplus there isn't any money to pay down the debt, we just slow the rate of going deeper in debt which would be a step in the right direction at this point.

Expand full comment
Sam's avatar

You're making an assumption that they will "stop the bleeding" all I'm asking is for a confirmation with data showing that is what is being done. Otherwise how do we know it isn't going to some other not beneficial program, this is our Government after all. If they are going to left pocket/right pocket the money with little transparency then I am all for "wife math" and taking my portion of that back so I can squander it as I choose.

Expand full comment
redlineblue's avatar

If by ‘“left pocket / right pocket” you mean “120% of the NASA savings becomes SpaceX contracts” then yes, do enjoy the show.

We’ll get our placebo piece of the action, but not til a few months before elections.

Expand full comment
Rick T.'s avatar

I believe Musk has floated the idea of $5k rebates to the taxpayers. Which raises all sorts of questions such as taxpayers who didn’t pay in $5k or even the negative taxpayers who get credits.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

The original proposal from the private citizen in Arizona limited the $5k rebates to actual tax payers. I don’t think that would fly, even though it’s logical.

Expand full comment
MD Streeter's avatar

Would these $5K checks lead to further inflation?

Expand full comment
Rick T.'s avatar

That’s always been the $100,000 er $1,000,000 question. Joking aside, there’s been several tranches of various stimulus over the last several decades but I don’t think the answer is clear.

Expand full comment
Hex168's avatar

Depends on what else is happening in the economy. I think we are pretty solidly in "bad time for stimulus by deficit spending" territory right now.

In 2008-2009 it would not have been inflationary.

Short-term stimulus to offset the economic dip from COVID made sense, to the extent the dip was not a self-inflicted wound. Keeping the stimulus going was nuts. There are models for all this stuff. The simple ones sort of work, at least enough for good idea/bad idea.

Just edited, probably too late for anyone to see: Thought about this a little more and it is not inflationary. It replaces $5K of gov't spending with $5K of private spending. No significant difference. At an in-the-weeds level, different items might be purchased and each would be affected as per supply and demand. I'd rather see less debt than a check, but I'd take the check.

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

We are 33 trillion dollars in debt. Pay a little more than the minimum on the next credit card bill would be a good start.

Expand full comment
G Jetson's avatar

Dates in COBOL can also be stored as text (as can just about anything), which makes calculations on them even more fun. Better yet, use multiple variations of YYYYMMDD in the same space just to mix it up a bit. This was seen in one chunk of COBOL code within one program using one copybook at a small part of one fed agency. Despite COBOL being relatively understandable, ancient programmers can and have made it difficult by being idiots.

Expand full comment
KoR's avatar
Feb 20Edited

The SS United States always made going over the Walt Whitman to Philly such a joy.

For very nearly my entire life it’s sat as a sad, hulk of a thing haunting the Delaware. Out of commission for decades longer than it was ever in service, what was there left to do?

Whoever owned it in the 80s is apparently the one that let it go to rot… A dozen failed ideas to save it from a condo, to a casino, to a hotel, to a hospital ship, to a Hawaiian cruise line. All fell apart and lacked funding. The interest was never really there. It was a noble curiosity, but not much more.

At least now the beast can rest and still be useful. The real tragedy would’ve been it turning to razor blades or washing machines. Its new mission gives it some purpose for what it’s worth, other than to rust the waters around the Philly Navy Yard.

One, I assume, will be able to visit it and pay respects as a reef if you want. It’s not the finale it should have had, but at least it gets one.

Expand full comment
Gianni's avatar

Kind of like the sad story of the MV Kalakala in Seattle. I remember as a kid, the old timers talking about her and then driving by her where she was tied up on lake Union after they refloated her and towed her down from Alaska. A series of owners had grand plans to restore her, but they all fell through. She was scrapped in 2015 after being declared a navigation hazard. She probably came back as Chinese spatulas, hanging on pegs at Walmart

Expand full comment
Tom Klockau's avatar

I seem to recall the biggest problem is all the fittings, decor, interior features etc. were all auctioned off around 1981. There was basically nothing left inside except the helm. Everything inside would have to be recreated.

That doesn't mean it should be turned into a reef, but I think it's past the point of no return by now. A shame any way you slice it.

Expand full comment
anatoly arutunoff's avatar

i heard funding was available but all the required permits pushed any work off into the uneconomic future

Expand full comment
Jim Trainor's avatar

Great read. As always.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

And as always, sir, thank you for reading -- you know I particularly value your opinion over, say, that of the "Speed" fellow*

* hope he doesn't see this

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

BRO WHAT DID I DO

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

Oh, you don't know?

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

thats my secret jack

i never know whats going on

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

Me neither. We should work together.

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

you got it chief

Expand full comment
Jason Kodat's avatar

Yeah, I suppose we're less like 1939 Germany and more like 1938 France/UK/Italy, meeting to decide the future of a European country under its oppressor without involving said European country.

But hey, if we give Putin what he wants, we can have peace for our time, right?

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

Fairly, if tartly, said -- but recall, if you will, that this European country is dangerously close to a modern invention of the United States in the first place; it was considerably less "real" than, say, Prussia. And the war only continues because NATO funds it.

Perhaps history will judge me harshly for this, and perhaps Mr. Putin's bankrupt and population-starved state is, in fact, on its way to becoming an unstoppable juggernaut of oppression, but: I have zero interest in any Ohio kids, especially MY Ohio kid, dying to protect one group of "Ukranians" from another group of "Russians".

If Putin wants to invade Morrow County, the kid and I will die in our trench preventing it. If Putin wants to invade San Francisco, we'll work in a factory making drones. If he wants to invade a percentage of a place that was part of Russia during my adult life, that doesn't feel like it should be what starts World War III. Call me an appeaser, I suppose.

Expand full comment
S2kChris's avatar

One again, Syriana had it (conceptually) right:

“ But what do you need a financial advisor for? Twenty years ago you had the highest Gross National Product in the world, now you're tied with Albania. Your second largest export is secondhand goods, closely followed by dates which you're losing five cents a pound on... You know what the business community thinks of you? They think that a hundred years ago you were living in tents out here in the desert chopping each other's heads off and that's where you'll be in another hundred years, so, yes, on behalf of my firm I accept your money.”

It’s not my place to stand between two countries on the other side of the world that want to destroy each other.

Expand full comment
Henry C.'s avatar

It's worse than that. The Maidan Revolution is 100% on us. DoS, USAID, CIA all balls deep in kicking over that beehive and promising backup. "Let's you and him fight".

Proxy wars and toppling regimes has been the go-to since the end of WW2.

Expand full comment
Jason Kodat's avatar

"recall, if you will, that this European country is dangerously close to a modern invention of the United States in the first place; it was considerably less "real" than, say, Prussia."

If you insist, yes...I will recall....

Ukraine was ruled by various conquerors over the years until it was established as a Ukrainian Republic in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, then absorbed by the Soviet Union as the Ukrainian SSR...little American involvement there...and then separated as a whole in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. Putin initially just wanted Crimea, that sliver that was ethnically Russian rather than Ukrainian per se.

Czechoslovakia was also an invented country, in the aftermath of WWI ending the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and was not really a country before then (and even after, there was friction between the majority ethnic Czechs and minority Slovaks, but I digress). Hitler initially just wanted the Sudetenland, that sliver that was ethnically German rather than Czech/Slovak per se.

At the time the whole Munich conference was going on, a rising power in Asia was thinking about regions it thought it had historic claims to....

I don't particularly relish the thought of our kids dying to protect Ukraine from Russia, but given the rhymes of history I'm seeing here, I do feel that throwing Ukraine to the wolves is likely to kill more American troops than sending them some missiles.

It's very telling that Poland plans to spend 4.7% of GDP on its military for FY 2025, more than any other NATO member.

Expand full comment
ZG's avatar

Is there a number of missiles that could be sent to Ukraine that would meaningfully change the outcome of the war without creating an actual hot war with Russia? There are also some echoes of history with the "neutral" US providing a flood of weapons to one side. That time at least they only had torpedoes for the first strike..

I think it's also worth recalling that in 1939 Hitler was 50 years old and leading a newly resurgent Germany. Putin is 72 and I can't imagine the Russian people are all that enthusiastic about this war continuing.

Expand full comment
Jason Kodat's avatar

Yeah, I didn't think about the age thing--that might be our one advantage in the modern timeline. Though I don't have much info about a potential successor, and their commitment to keeping this going.

As for the missiles--I think we can send any number of non-nuclear missiles we want. What's Putin going to do, now that he has a military that used to be rated as the second most powerful in the world, but is now rated as the second most powerful in Ukraine?

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

If his military is the second most powerful in Ukraine, why should I ever worry about him invading Poland, much less Germany, much less Ohio?

Expand full comment
Steve Ward's avatar

The Russian people don’t have much of a say in it.

Expand full comment
Henry C.'s avatar

Russia is a nuclear armed superpower. They have a moral right and obligation to determine what happens on their doorstep as much we do on ours. A doorstep that at one point cost them 10M lives to defend. It is understandably a sore spot. And now it's basically 'Iraq' or 'Libya'. The American neocons and spooks and Europeans were warned and their bluff was called. Simple as. This didn't have to go this way. Ukraine could have stayed a neutral backwater of rampant corruption, crime and prostitution and Europe could have gotten as much cheap gas and oil as it could guzzle just by playing ball and not being such petty little twats. Nothing is gained by inflaming and arming festering ethnic grudges. What a stupendous waste of human life. At least we didn't blow up the world, because dammit, it sure looked like they were trying.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

Even worse that our funding of the war was simply for kickbacks to the globalists.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

Hear, hear!

Expand full comment
Harry's avatar

The US doesn't have any particular moral right to determine what happens on its doorstep, nor does Russia.

The US has the ability to determine what happens on its doorstep. It is an ability we would be well served to deny others.

This history of Russia determining what happens on its doorstep is a pretty bad one. There are a few people who write on on here with first hand knowledge of it.

Expand full comment
Henry C.'s avatar

If a government does not have a duty to protect the security and interests of its own citizens then it should not exist.

Expand full comment
Steve Ward's avatar

And just who was going to invade Russia? Other than China. Not Ukraine, not NATO, no one. The Ukraine “problem” is all in Putin’s KGB mindset dreams of greater USSR empire. The Russian people are as ill served by Putin as they were by the Tsars.

Expand full comment
Harry's avatar

A basic disagreement of our worldviews, and what we SHOULD do boils down to this.

I propose it is the case that expending treasure to export this conflict with Russia/others to the Ukraine is a good investment that will decrease the likelihood, in the next say, 27 years (a reasonable timeline for your progeny to be on the pointy end of things) dying in full scale armed conflict with a peer/near peer.

It possibly increases the likelihood of such an occurrence in a brushfire, but with the benefit of an overall decreased number of American youth dying in armed conflict overall.

I cannot prove this.

Additionally, I am upset to my core with this "betrayal" of Ukraine as it stands at the moment. The rational part of me can reconcile it as needed to kick the Ukraine leadership in the ass to end this killing. I cannot comprehend how the Russians have not in anyway gotten their shit together from a production, training, combined arms coordination, fucking anything standpoint. I am actively rooting against them but this senseless slaughter is sickening. How they can't do better is beyond anything I can fathom.

It is understandable that Ukraine is unable to develop a defense industrial base within the timeline of this conflict to win without western/US support, and we won't give them enough to win. That is my want. In the absence of that, just end this bullshit.

If Ukraine wants that portion of the steppe back, I think Russia has more to be afraid of in 20 years than Ukraine does. Especially if the west invests.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

I dont see any scenario in which the United States is ever threatened, UNLESS we escalate in Ukraine to the point where someone launches an SSBN.

Russia is broke and landlocked. We should be thinking about prepping the Navy for China, not doing the equivalent of torturing a handicapped kid holding a box of grenades.

Expand full comment
Steve Ward's avatar

This is one thing I agree with - if we don’t get our Navy ready pretty damn soon then we will be massively screwed in the Pacific. PH will seem like a minor setback in comparison. And from my house I can see Naval Station SD and North Island NAS. Ugh.

Need to start by getting the 5th fleet completely out of the Persian Gulf. And whichever fleet is in the Med. Redeploy to the Pacific. Build up missile defenses on the island bases. Build a shit ton more ASMs, and load them on anything and everything that floats. And FFS figure out how to reload VLS tubes at sea. And so on. Sadly I have no confidence that the happy band of three year olds in DC can figure it out.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

The Navy has been losing capability since Obama, and the rate of decline is accelerating.

Expand full comment
Steve Ward's avatar

Oh the rot precedes Obama by many many years. And to me the admirals are way more to blame than the various presidents.

Expand full comment
JasonS's avatar

China doesn't need a navy when it is the number one manufacturer of drones. We are at least 5 years behind the Chinese here.

Expand full comment
Jason Kodat's avatar

China is indeed the real threat...but if we tell Europe to go screw itself and they want an ally to counterbalance Russia and we aren't it, does that push them towards China? (China and Russia go back years, of course, and are no doubt watching Putin's misadventure with glee.)

At that point, we've recreated the Axis and Allies. I don't particularly relish going up against China and Europe with Russia as our ally this time around....

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

We can't beat China anyway. They can put ten soldiers in the field for every one we can muster, and fifty drones for each of ours. We would be in the position of Albert Speer in 1944.

Expand full comment
Scott A's avatar

LA to Shanghai is 6,500 miles. How does that war even work? China drops 100mm excess male paratroopers over the midwest ad patrick swayzee saves us all? Or they all just come on student visas. Probably easier.

Expand full comment
Henry C.'s avatar

I agree on the first point. Otherwise, mostly landlocked perhaps, but not broke. Natural resources, land and food production are more important than fiat. We had a chance to normalize relations with them and blew it. It may have been as tenuous a rivalry as we have with China, but still. The old grudges were held onto too tightly.

Expand full comment
Harry's avatar

It is difficult to envision that threat to the mainland US because we treat all of conflicts an export. If we allow, if not our "enemies", but regimes hostile to our values to flourish and achieve their goals through armed adventurism, we're going to see a lot more armed adventurism. Follow that to a natural conclusion then you can see a scenario where things do get that bad, it is simply so far removed from the current reality that is seems like Red Dawn nonsense. Let's keep it that way.

There is no us escalating in the Ukraine, it is a full high intensity air sea and land war. We are starving our ally of the resources to win. From the beginning the posture of the US has been to let Russia win slowly.

Expand full comment
Henry C.'s avatar

The United States has been involved in armed adventurism for nearly all of the twentieth century and all of the twenty first. In the last twenty years it has been to spread abortion and sodomy in the same way the (now dead) Soviets spread Marxism across the world.

Who gave us the right?

Ukraine is not an ally. They are at best a cats paw in a proxy war against a perceived enemy that collapsed when the Cold War that ended.

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

The enemy of our enemy is our friend. We should be leveraging Russia against China.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

Better than any foreign policy Albright ever had thats for sure

Expand full comment
Jason Kodat's avatar

We were allies with the USSR during WWII and immediately followed it with the Cold War. We spent years arming Bin Laden against the Soviets.

The enemy of your enemy might be useful, but he is most definitely NOT the same thing as a friend. :)

Expand full comment
Ataraxis's avatar

Agreed, but he could be useful against the Chinese, within our terms.

Expand full comment
Matthew Horgan's avatar

Spend $$$/shove Ukrainian kids into the meat grinder to degrade Russia military capabilities and possibly decrease future chances of American kids getting blown up That is a heavy lift, but fine-but make the argument rather than sketch it. I think it needs to be fleshed out if that’s the justification for propagating this conflict.

Expand full comment
Harry's avatar

Spending money to shove Ukrainian kids into the meat grinder is what we are doing, and is reprehensible. Russia has the resources to improve is military efficiency, and sufficient modern examples of how combined arms can overcome and enemy with the resources available to the Ukranians, to win. That they have chosen the path they have for the last two years is baffling.

My proposal is to not starve the Ukrainians of the resources they need to eject the Russians from their territory, and degrade the Russian military, but humiliate it, along with those currently in power. It is a lot harder to do that now than if that was the goal when the shooting most recently started. It would have been better to have used the time between downing Flight 17 and the time shooting started in earnest to provide Ukraine with the resources to have deterred the shooting in the first place. The absurdity of "strategic ambiguity" has been on full display since at least the first Obama admin.

Exactly how much, the type, and the cost of resources to do that is beyond my ability to tap out on a phone.

The benefit of doing so is humiliation of an enemy regime, and a clear message about the cost of adventurism. That is a good way to fight fewer conflicts. No one starts wars they don't think they can win.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

All of this is cogently and accurately said -- but I wonder how we would feel if Russia started actively helping the cartels in Mexico whenever we do "law enforcement" south of the border.

I don't know how much moral right we have to be helping Ukraine in the first place, let alone giving them what they might need to "win", whatever that currently means. (Return to the original borders? Sack Moscow?) For a country that was ready to nuke Eastern Europe over a couple missiles in Cuba, we sure seem awfully certain that we have the right to determine what happens on the Russian border.

Expand full comment
Harry's avatar

In my opinion a "win" would be the ejection of Russian troops from the pre 22 borders, I think recovering the Crimea is a more ambiguous goal and I see a RUssian Crimea as a carrot for the normalization of Russian/Ukrainian relations in the future, with the idea that in the future both countries would be richer with increased trade and development.

The other side of the "win" would be the establishment of a sufficient military industrial base in the Ukraine that in a decades time it would more more self sufficient in its defence, as adding it to NATO is a non starter.

I am not a believer in the moral rights of one nation to interfere with another, at best I believe in a responsibility, or more accurately a universal good, in preventing nations from using armed conflict to interfere with each other. This fits well with war as an export and the idea of a land conflict in North America with an external power seeming absurd.

I do believe in American-ish exceptionalism, and I am OK with the good for me and not for thee hypocrisy that can go along with it.

Expand full comment
Matthew Horgan's avatar

Real easy to stand against monsters when other people have to do the dying

Expand full comment
Will's avatar

Why do you irrationally hate Russia? It hasn’t been a threat to us since the USSR collapsed. The hatred of the Russia is an old Cold War boomer stupid mentality that I don’t understand. Our enemy is china, and anyone who can help there is better than preserving a decaying continent that is Europe. Real politik matters.

Expand full comment
Jack Baruth's avatar

We have to kill a million white and black Americans in Europe to make our country safe for Gutemalans, Haitians, and Somalis. It's obvious!

Expand full comment
Speed's avatar

we have a situation in which there is both a glut of people who shouldnt be in america and a meat grinder of a conflict in europe

there is in fact a solution to both of these problems

Expand full comment
sgeffe's avatar

Bwahahahaha!!

Expand full comment
CJinSD's avatar

We are supposed to hate Russia because Russia isn't conducting war on its white Christian native population. This will not be tolerated!

Expand full comment
Sherman McCoy's avatar

Here’s a great article on COBOL in banking that I have shared with Jack more than once:

https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-ca/magazine/cobol-controls-your-money

Expand full comment
Steve Ward's avatar

I remember learning a bit of COBOL in the 70’s and thinking at the time “this is a really primitive crappy programming language”. Some day all those COBOL screens are just going to go blank.

Expand full comment
sgeffe's avatar

Hell, there’s a couple vendors peddling development environments that produce Windows and Web applications which run on COBOL.

It’s a niche.

Expand full comment