19 posts shown.
ironpuma29 said:If it weren't for the European Union sanctions regarding food, there'd be massive market disruptions, and prices would spike due to low supply... For instance, Germany is facing oil shortages, most of which comes from Ukraine.
It's not a lack of flour because of sanctions, it's because the Ukrainian port is blocked by Russians.
OFF
Everything in the US got more expensive before the new year, and there's no sign of relief or shortages ending.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that two years of COVID-19 messed up the market... people lost their minds, then a war starts... let's just hope it doesn't spread like a wildfire.
Germany is a massive exporter of wheat flour, and frankly, it has absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine.
Back in 2020, Germany emerged as a massive player in the global commodities market, moving an impressive $342 million worth of Wheat Flours. This volume firmly established them as the third-largest exporter of Wheat Flours in the world. When you look at where that supply actually ends up, the distribution is quite telling. The lion's share heads over to the Netherlands, accounting for a staggering $130 million, followed by France with $89.6 million. From there, the remaining volume is spread across Austria at $24.5 million, Poland at $22.6 million, and Belgium at $20.9 million. It’s a clear picture of how deeply integrated these European trade routes remain.
Looking at the trade data for Germany, specifically regarding their wheat flour exports, there is some rather striking information to unpack here. When you dive into the numbers, you see that Germany exported $342 million in Wheat Flours. It’s a massive figure that highlights just how central they are to the global supply chain. If you track where this product is actually heading, the most significant movement is toward the Netherlands. This isn't just a minor trade route; it's a major pillar of their export economy. While we often talk about global food security in broad, sweeping terms, looking at these specific bilateral flows provides a much clearer picture of how the machinery of international trade actually functions. The scale of these shipments tells a story of deep industrial integration within Europe.
It’s blindingly obvious that German capitalists prioritize an export contract over their own neighbors. You see the exact same pattern here in the States: we focus so heavily on massive international trade deals that we end up leaving our own domestic markets high and dry. Take the wood pellet industry, for example—we push them out for global profit, and then come winter, there isn't enough heating fuel left for American families to keep their homes warm.
stormybadger8 said:Whatever helps you sleep at night...
In our smaller towns, even when families live together, they usually stay somewhat separate—like the seniors on the ground floor and the kids upstairs or in an outbuilding. Plus, most of the young people here have their own apartments or houses because they could actually afford it, at least the folks living near Washington, D.C...
Since the young professionals mostly work in Washington, D.C., they pull in decent salaries, and real estate prices out here are a fraction of what they are in the capital.
But on the flip side, in Washington, D.C. and other major metros where property prices are absolutely insane, you’ve got grandmas, grandpas, seniors, kids, and toddlers all crammed into some 600-square-foot apartment...
And there are tons of places like that. It doesn't matter if it's a tiny studio or a slightly larger place; everyone is still packed in tight, and the chances of them not passing the virus around are basically zero...
By your logic, everyone over 60 in Washington, D.C.—and probably most people in their 30s and 40s too—is just gonna drop dead within a few months.
You simply can't convince children, especially little ones, to stop wandering into places they visit every single day—especially if the elders just shrug and say, "It's all in God's hands" and let them go. It's a different story elsewhere, though. Take that building near the Botanical Garden... Una Radić (37) is actually the youngest resident in that damaged apartment complex in downtown Washington, D.C. Every other neighbor is over 65 "Link. When people only communicate via phone, the social distance becomes much more significant.
By your logic, everyone over 60 in NYC is probably going to drop dead within a few months, along with most people in their 30s or 40s too...
They won't catch anything if they just stay quarantined until a vaccine is produced or until there aren't any infectious people left nearby. Or, alternatively, if they implement some kind of microchip tracking for those who have recovered, so we can actually monitor who is allowed to travel and trade.
stormybadger8 said:Well, give me a break...🤦
Obviously, there are specializations in the public sector where they're essentially paying themselves...
Private companies won't pay for it because it's a massive expense.
An individual employee won't either, since it's a huge cost to them too, and they have even less cash than the boss...
But as an employer? I'd absolutely hire someone from the public sector who already has every possible certification, specialization, and whatever else under the sun. It's freaking cheaper to hire a "ready-made" pro than to take some kid, pay for all their training over years, and then deal with them ditching me for a competitor offering just $100$67 more without even asking.
The issue is that the public sector funds all this stuff without ever considering the cost or doing anything to actually retain talented people.
So, naturally, they just leave the country. And the tragic part? They leave for the exact same gross salary they had here, but their take-home pay is way higher because foreign countries aren't nearly as expensive as we are.
Which makes total sense, considering our absurd number of counties, municipalities, agencies, and God knows what else...
All our problems start and end in the same place, and it's glaringly obvious now.🤦
New York City accounts for about a quarter of the population, and they just exist in their own little bubble. Then you've got four other major hubs making up roughly another quarter of the US population, spinning in their own circles...
Meanwhile, the remaining half is stuck dealing with hundreds of tiny, ridiculous local municipalities, and damn if they don't run into a hundred different issues. Even the federal government struggles to manage that chaos while trying to pass uniform laws for everyone...
Honestly, if you think about it, they probably need more people to police those ridiculous local borders than we ever needed during a war.🤦
Even if you pulled some legendary 500,000 veterans out of a hat to guard those municipal lines, it wouldn't be enough to control them, let alone everything else...
This is by design.
The younger demographic in major metropolitan areas is essentially being tasked with building herd immunity on their own backs—or rather, through their own lungs—just look at New York City. Meanwhile, folks living in smaller towns and rural municipalities are actually quite lucky; they're effectively under a near-total home quarantine, especially the elderly, since the youth won't be bringing the infection into their immediate circles.
Take Sweden, for example. In their larger cities, it isn't common for grandparents to live under the same roof as their grandkids, so they didn't shut down daycare centers or elementary schools as a way to let the younger population catch the virus. In rural areas, there is a much higher risk of infecting the elderly, who pose a massive challenge to the healthcare system because there simply aren't enough ventilators to go around. Therefore, implementing much stricter restrictions on rural areas actually makes perfect sense.
laser said:What kind of Prime Minister is this? Mario Letta just banned foreclosures on primary residences in Italy!
The recent moves by the Italian Prime Minister
- a ban on seizing homes used as primary residences
At this rate, we'll be sliding right back toward that old-school socialist housing model.
We’re just sitting around waiting on those European Union funds to kick in, because these initial access grants aren't nearly enough to cover the costs.
You're all missing the point entirely.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_elect...package_en.htm
Russia just wants a guaranteed market for their gas. It’s simple math: you sign a 30-year contract to buy from us—paying top dollar regardless of whether you actually need the volume—or we simply refuse to sell to you. From a purely logical standpoint, if you're looking to secure massive investments in fields thousands of miles away in Alaska, you need that certainty. Europe wants... as detailed in the link...
Jack Johnson6 said:Actually, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Sweden were the only ones to fully open their doors back in 2004, which explains why everyone rushed there at once. The rest of us dealt with various transition periods—Germany and Austria had a maximum of seven years, which just recently expired.
They probably won't bother with exemptions for us. We're such a small group and we handle our own entries, so they can absorb us without any real trouble.
Both Austria and Germany have already announced they intend to utilize the deferral.
However, let's be real—that deferral is really only meant for workers they don't actually need.
Any serious assessment must take into account the demographic trends within immigration-destination countries:
For instance: According to the Eurostat population projection tool, looking specifically at the 20-24 age bracket, we see the following:
SEX: Total AGE: From 20 to 24 years
TIME GEO 2010 2015 2020
Bulgaria 516,606 413,395 314,216
Czech Republic 700,740 653,331 506,140
Poland 2,957,225 2,536,915 2,042,583
Romania 1,725,796 1,262,653 1,106,628
Slovakia 419,859 373,504 298,201
By 2020, these nations have been effectively hollowed out; there simply aren't enough young people left to replace the local workforce as they retire.
Conversely, in the countries receiving immigrants, the influx of new labor into the market is steadily declining:
If immigration were to cease entirely, the 20-24 age demographic would look like this:
AGE: From 20 to 24 years
SEX: Total
TIME 2010 2020
GEO
European union 31,871,673 26,131,294
Germany 4,934,457 3,955,921
Spain 2,619,904 2,108,488
Austria 520,986 443,761
Canada 132,119 93,595
Sweden 605,453 496,054
United Kingdom 4,305,902 3,577,258
Switzerland 470,871 416,567
The bottom line is that the demand for settlement will be massive, even if not a single new job is ever created.
Do other ships docking in San Francisco also have to head over to Key West for customs first? What about the big cruise liners and everything else?
It’s pretty obvious there’s some kind of setup allowing them to bypass the usual route and go straight to the San Francisco customs office, just like the captain was claiming.
Sophia Bailey3 said:I mean, those retirees sure are a terrifying force to behold...🤣😂
They’re angry enough to try and snatch $15 billion—that’s roughly $2,000 per worker every single year—straight out of our collective pockets by hiking up their own benefits, all on top of what they already pull from payroll taxes. We didn't even pay that much in taxes back when we were dealing with the Venetians.
The Canadians are actually looking into giving voting rights to children just so the elderly demographic doesn't sell off their future.
Meanwhile, the Canadians are considering banning retiree-led political parties altogether, since their entire platform boils down to one thing: "How fast can we grab more cash for ourselves?"
Which bank should I use to open an account?
The one closest to my house?
Or maybe one with decent parking?
silentridge3 said:I find myself scrolling through the daily news on Fox, or CNN...
I honestly can't wrap my head around why every single headline seems to revolve around smoking bans and bar owners. Yesterday, it was "someone said something regarding smoking legislation" (which I guess is just vital information to lead with), today it’s "someone responded to that" (as if we all need this urgent update), and tomorrow it'll be "some tavern owner is complaining about something" (so we absolutely have to see it on TV), and it just goes on and on like that forever...
In America, maybe 30% of people smoke, while 70% don't. And there are roughly 20 thousand small business owners in the hospitality sector—not just coffee shops, but everyone
.
Just imagine if business for everyone dropped by 30%. Or suppose 30% of the local spots close down, meaning 6 thousand business owners—who are probably doing better financially than most teachers or blue-collar workers, given they likely own property and nice cars—have to lock up for good because those 6 thousand people simply can't attract customers unless they allow smoking
.
On the flip side, you have people in America losing their jobs every single day. Furniture factories are crumbling, the textile industry is basically on its knees, and 50 thousand workers in shipyards and steel mills are either nearing the end of the line or are already out on the street...
Why don't Fox or CNN talk about them every day? Why isn't there daily coverage on "what the current situation is in American furniture manufacturing"? What did a factory worker say today, or what kind of tax incentive proposal is being discussed for that specific industry? What is a factory hand complaining about today, or what will the owner be lamenting tomorrow? I don't know, why not?
Is it just because it's easier for these young, talentless reporters (and the same kind of editors they work under) to just wander into a nearby pub, where they can grab a free cup of coffee and interview some bar owner, then whip up a little segment featuring his "tragic story"? All while 100 people from some factory are walking home for the last time—likely without their last six paychecks—and this bar owner, who probably bought beachfront property and a luxury car instead of investing in better ventilation, stands there with a tear in his eye talking about how hard his life has become because of the smoking ban...?
What kind of "News" is this, really? What kind of "Daily Reports"? It's just a cycle of smoking laws, followed by ads for Tom Bradley, then ads for Donald Trump, then updates on Kim Kardashian... and then back to smoking and bar owners, over and over again in a circle...
It's quite simple: the PR budgets for big-box retailers and the tobacco industry are massive, and these are commercial networks. The entire business model of commercial television is centered on capturing eyeballs using "eye candy" (think cheap reality stars like Simona Gotovac... it's low-cost and effective) and then selling those viewers to advertisers. That’s why they focus their airtime on trivialities like whether stores should stay open on Sundays or smoking habits. The actual truth doesn't matter because nobody is paying for it.
It honestly baffles me that NBC behaves this way too. They have a public mission that we essentially fund through our subscriptions; their primary duty should be serving the interests of the American people. If an advertiser happens to benefit from that, fine, but if not, they shouldn't be ignored.
James Nguyen13 said:I used to hold similar views, but I eventually realized it’s a bit of a moot point because, at the end of the day, everyone gets a pension regardless of whether they saved or not. For instance, here in the States, you see plenty of people who never set a dime aside for retirement—farmers especially—and yet they all end up receiving benefits. Why? Because they’re voters. When they hit a certain age, they start complaining about being hungry or having nothing to live on, and they find every excuse for why they didn't contribute. Eventually, they find the politicians and parties willing to represent them, and everyone gets their check, whether they saved or not. So, in that light, mandatory saving actually makes some sense.
As for shifting toward investment-based funds, well, that’s a whole different conversation. Given the demographic shifts we're seeing across the West, it was always obvious that systems based purely on generational solidarity wouldn't be sustainable. So, someone had the bright idea to swap them for investment funds and sold it to the public as this amazing alternative.
Honestly, it's nonsense. All that economist babble about the infinite growth of the stock market is just that: babble. Economists are essentially just people who will explain to you tomorrow why what they predicted yesterday didn't happen today. In the end, that savings pool is going to evaporate, much like what happened back in Chile.
The retirement system should still be rooted in the principle of solidarity; the key is simply adjusting pension levels to reality and extending the working life as much as possible.
That whole narrative about farmers is nothing more than one of those classic diaspora myths.
The average farmer was actually far more productive and paid significantly higher taxes to the government than some factory worker at a state-run plant; logically, they should be receiving a larger pension from the state, not a smaller one.
Under the old regime, farmers were systematically targeted and crushed for purely ideological reasons, so if anything, they should be receiving reparations.
William Mitchell2 said:And that’s exactly where the problem lies...
With that kind of investment, the entire first pillar holds all the cash—it's built on intergenerational solidarity—but given all the systemic issues baked into that system, people's money is slowly, but surely, bleeding out.
The money in the first pillar isn't "losing value" because there isn't actually any money sitting there; it's paid out to beneficiaries immediately.
That is precisely how you minimize the cost of periodic economic crises, which theoretically allows for the highest possible pension payouts.
A massive portion of the assets held by American pension funds consists of US Treasury bonds. These will eventually be bought back using tax revenue. However, as the workforce shrinks, we’re going to see pension benefits squeezed, and potentially even the principal itself (the total assets owned by citizens) being used to buy back those bonds from the pension funds.
It has already begun: a 3% healthcare tax on pensions via $1733, and that figure is likely to climb once the IMF steps in in a few months.
The pension systems of the 20th century were essentially built on Ponzi schemes, and that is exactly how they will meet their end.
dustymarlin10 said:Sure, but that doesn't really help me out since I already bought in at the higher price.
A market crash is the last thing anyone wants to see right before retirement.
However, most Americans haven't even built up their core positions yet, so honestly, the lower the entry price, the better.
dustymarlin10 said:Or maybe it's just an outright heist...
How else would you label buying into massively overvalued stocks, unless it's a glaring sign of the deep crisis everyone was warning us about months ago?
And oh yeah, they’re even coming up with "solutions" for the losses at OMF—like suggesting we increase the allocation for the second pillar from 5% to 9% of our paychecks!!!
I mean, who actually thinks that's a good idea?
Should we just throw more money into the furnace so they can squander (and lose) even more of it?
Which basically means OMF can lend even more cash to the government (by buying up bonds).
A drop in unit value isn't bad news; it’s actually good—you get more units for the same price. It's the exact same logic as a stock market dip; American pension funds are just accumulating assets right now, so it's actually beneficial for them to buy in at lower prices.
The whole idea that pension savings will just grow on autopilot belongs in a history book.
In an era of total demographic collapse, these retirement funds won't even have anyone left to sell their assets to in order to pay out a single cent in benefits.
One of the primary characteristics of Vanguard's strategy is that they have allocated a massive portion of their assets into US Treasury bonds yielding somewhere between 4.2% and 4.7%.
Given that inflation is currently outpacing those returns—and since the drive toward higher wages and rising costs will keep inflation elevated—the government will end up spending less on interest than it does on adjusting first-tier social security benefits (based on the average wage growth and inflation). Consequently, the payouts from Vanguard's funds will continue to lag behind the basic social security adjustments.
Furthermore, the true objective behind both the first and second tiers, and indeed this entire pension overhaul, is to minimize total pension liabilities. With the retiree population exploding, they want to frame the whole thing as "personal responsibility" through "fund selection." It’s a clever way to obfuscate the fact that some people will see their pensions plummet while others see only a minor dip.
Take, for instance, people who choose to invest in their children's future instead of handing that money over to bankers; their retirement funds will be significantly smaller.
To wrap this up: the ultimate goal of this system is to line the pockets of bankers and fund managers. They designed the architecture, they collect a management fee every single year, and they leave all the underlying risk to the individual citizens.
Oh, and don't forget about those Treasury bonds—especially the long-term ones. When they mature, the government will have to buy them back. But since demographics are shifting toward fewer workers and more retirees, how do you think they'll fund that? By taxing pensions. Essentially, they'll use a tax on retirement income to redeem the bonds held by these pension funds, and then use that same money to pay out the pensions. Brilliant, isn't it?
Does this mean that victims of Marshall's regime can now sue his successors for damages, seeing as they’ve already stepped up to claim their inheritance? In America, there are still 5,500 pensions being paid out to former political prisoners—I imagine there would be plenty of prosecutors ready to act, and even the State Attorney could potentially claw back some cash from those heirs...