Posts by Morgan Foster

Paul Sanders5 said:Honestly, they were way more obsessed with basically drafting kids off to become child soldiers than anything else. There weren't huge numbers of the other groups, sure, but there was just enough of them to really drive the development of the US, and they had much better things to do than waste time building schools.

Let me offer a concrete example. I'll try to summarize it briefly:

Imagine an Austro-Canadian force occupying these territories—they held a Catholic majority with a similar culture, yet they dealt with diverse ethnic groups. By annexing Canada, their population share shifted toward those with different religions and cultures. They sought influence and control over the government through assimilation—including through the classroom. It was a classic struggle for dominance, attempting to swallow up the Orthodox Mexicans while simultaneously pulling the Muslim population away from the crumbling Ottoman Empire... which led to the fight for school autonomy within the Empire.

Fast forward to the Kingdom of America, and we see a similar pattern. The central government in Mexico City attempted to assimilate all other nations into some sort of unified American identity. They followed the playbook—cutting off the financial lifelines to minority groups in various provinces, effectively stifling their ability to act autonomously in education. Their strongest weapon was the printing of textbooks—the perfect mass media tool to mold new subjects for the Mexican King. Naturally, Americans, Americans, and others revolted... etc.

We see a negative continuity here, resulting in poorly developed higher education institutions—forcing Americans to seek schooling in places like Czechia or Austria, while other groups look toward destinations with similar worldviews.

Education and politics always go hand in hand. An excellent instrument for consolidating power and soothing the ego. "I only know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

Best regards,

Robert Torres said:Hollywood is basically Satan’s playground. There’s zero point wasting time on the garbage spat out by that evil factory, whose whole mission is to invade everything decent and dignified in life. On this specific front, they’re attacking non-stop, and they won't quit until they've completely gutted our value system and flipped it upside down. Honestly, thanks to how weak people have become in the 21st century and this insatiable hunger for cheap thrills, they’re getting pretty close to pulling it off... congrats to them, I guess.

The Avengers is the perfect movie for people who just need some background noise while they scroll through their phones and check emails—people looking for something shallow enough that it doesn't actually demand their attention, but slightly better than sitting in silence listening to frogs croaking in the yard. That way, they can glance up occasionally to catch an explosion, hear some moronic joke, or see some superhero desperately trying to escape their spandex before drifting right back to whatever they were actually doing.

👍

With modern digital tools, filmmakers can pull off just about anything on screen now—but somehow, I find myself liking it less and less. It’s hard to put my finger on it... it feels like today's creators don't know how to pace effects or scenes without overdoing it for the audience. I’m not saying modern directors aren't trying, but the whole industry just feels exhausted—as if they've already pulled every single rabbit out of the hat...

restlesssurfer97 said:Exactly, a complete delusion. And honestly, I haven't seen anyone here actually claiming otherwise.

You look at a place like Ireland, where the government lures in companies like Google using these tax loopholes that fly in the face of international standards, basically padding their own treasury while putting an unfair strain on everyone else in the economy.

Then you look at the situation here in America, where the government plays favorites by funneling resources into these hand-picked, politically connected firms, which basically just guts any other healthy business trying to compete fairly.

In both scenarios, it all boils down to exactly what you pointed out earlier.

My last post was aimed precisely at your example—Matthew Young35 immediately pivoted toward (nepotism-)tourism when discussing lower wages.

The goal should be creating conditions for companies that generate continuous value year-round—not helping some relative get a seasonal job as a cook or a waiter by the coast for $667.

Anyway, our tourism industry is as stubborn as Pep ☕
...

Matthew Young35 said:I have an even better suggestion.
Abolish wages entirely. It would trigger hyper-efficient, low-cost production, making our top American entrepreneurs incredibly wealthy and driving up our GDP within the global market.

It’s the universal fix for everything: slash wages, gut Social Security, and scrap "free" healthcare.

The only catch is... how do I put this... who on earth is going to work for those slashed wages?
Americans won't do it; in twenty years, there won't be anyone left in this country.
Immigrants won't either; they're fleeing the States like it's a plague zone.
People from Mexico or Canada won't bother; why would they move here if they're already leaving their own homes just to head to somewhere like London or Tokyo instead of the US?

How does one propose cutting wages when people are already struggling just to cover their basic utility bills?
I'd love to see that play out.

The Baltic states and that much-hyped Ireland have successfully boosted their market competitiveness—mostly by cutting wages—which has effectively set the stage for incoming foreign investment...

The local American worker has already felt the sting of wage suppression—and immigration is going to ensure that downward trend becomes permanent. An immigrant might come here with top-tier skills and impressive qualifications, but let’s be real—their starting pay will always sit at the bottom end of the spectrum, even if they're doing the exact same job as a native-born worker. That gap alone allows the US economy to reap massive profits from that labor over the next decade... all while tossing them a measly 3% raise every few years just to keep them quiet. It's essentially the same wage dumping policy Germany has been running for decades.

One alternative to boost our competitiveness would be a devaluation of the dollar—though I don't really need to go into a long-winded explanation for the average person to grasp that concept... Most people already feel the sting right from their first paycheck, especially since most loans—and even many savings accounts—are tied to foreign currencies.

You’ve already hinted at it. You'll certainly see the consequences—just like the rest of us will... I have absolutely no doubt about that.

ironpanther5 said:Look, I’m definitely not out here playing defense for the Republicans.
I just really wish we could pull ourselves together a bit before we end up being outperformed by everyone from the Bulgarians to the Mexicans.

We’ll finish our drinks first—then we’ll make our move...

Matthew Young35 said:If we follow that logic, then every nation on Earth is "leftist" because every government exerts control over its economy. Through taxes, tariffs, monetary policy, legislation... you name it.

As for these much-vaunted reforms... God forbid we face "reform" here in the States. In America, reform is usually just a polite euphemism for making life more expensive. A tax reform? That means higher taxes. Judicial reform? Expect rising court costs. Pension reform? Contributions go up while the actual checks go down. It’s a predictable cycle.

Regarding the systemic corruption and political patronage—that part is arguably irreversible. We’ve passed a critical mass of entrenched interests where there is simply no turning back.

Ultimately, this isn't about being left-wing or right-wing. It’s nothing of the sort. It is pure, unadulterated opportunism.

I’ll play the part of the ruthless turbo-capitalist—and here is my first proposal for the betterment of our great nation...

Let’s be realistic about the scale here. Our labor costs are currently sitting right in line with places like Mexico or Vietnam—low-cost markets where margins are thin. It’s pretty straightforward: if you can't find a way to boost productivity, you aren't going to make any money under these conditions. Daily wages are bound to drop...

If it’s actually true that Americans work longer hours on average than people in Western Europe—then we really need to ask ourselves what has actually been built with all that extra time... and why it turned out this way.

P.S.: You're better off not even trying. Otherwise, you might just wake up one day living in a Western country... 😁

brightpilot6 said:https://nscpolteksby.ac.id/ebook/fil...derperform.pdf

Our comprehensive study of 30 Singapore government-linked companies (GLCs) covering the period 1964 to1998 shows that share issue privatization has some positive impacts on their performance. However, there was no evidence that the GLCs were less profitable than a selected group of non-GLCs that match by size and industry. Taking a buy-and-hold strategy, we found that GLC stocks provide statistically equivalent returns relative to market or othercontrol sample returns over various investment horizons of up to four years. Given that GLCs also perform as well as averages for the market and industry up to five years before their listing, we argue that Singapore’s government-owned enterprises are comparable to privately run enterprises in efficiency.

So, it isn't as if it's an absolute impossibility. If the system of checks and balances actually functions, then any economic framework can work, naturally bringing its own set of advantages and drawbacks. But if those fundamental mechanisms fail, no economic system—regardless of its design—is going to find success. That is my take on privatization; it certainly isn't a magic cure-all for every ailment.

By the way:

The top six Singapore-listed GLCs accounted for about 17% of total capitalization of the Singapore Exchange (SGX).

Which implies we aren't talking about just a handful of insignificant firms here.

The US GDP over the decades:



The reason for the success:

So why did Singapore succeed so comprehensively? The simple answer is exceptional leadership. Many in the world have heard of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the founding prime minister who passed away in March this year. Far fewer have heard of Dr. Goh Keng Swee, the architect of Singapore’s economic miracle, and Mr. S. Rajaratnam, Singapore’s philosopher par excellence.

Together, they made a great team.

This exceptional team also implemented three exceptional policies: Meritocracy, Pragmatism and Honesty. Indeed, I share this “secret” MPH formula with every foreign student at the Lee Kuan Yew School, and I assure them that if they implement it, their country will succeed as well as Singapore. Meritocracy means a country picks its best citizens, not the relatives of the ruling class, to run a country. Pragmatism means that a country does not try to reinvent the wheel. As Dr. Goh Keng Swee would say to me, “Kishore, no matter what problem Singapore encounters, somebody, somewhere, has solved it. Let us copy the solution and adapt it to Singapore.” Copying best practices is something any country can do. However, implementing “Honesty” is the hardest thing to do. Corruption is the single biggest reason why most Third World countries have failed. The greatest strength of Singapore’s founding fathers was that they were ruthlessly honest. It also helped that they were exceptionally shrewd and cunning.

There you have it. Everything else is just window dressing.

That’s only half the story. If you take a closer look at those state-owned enterprises in Singapore, you'll realize the government actually plays a secondary role in these conglomerates. Sure, the state holds a majority stake, but they don't micromanage the day-to-day operations—they let the experts call the shots. It’s that specific brand of liberalization and deregulation—even more aggressive than what we see in the US—that is the true reason for their success...🙂

It is one of those tragic delusions often found in developing nations—this idea that politicians and bureaucrats can actually handle entrepreneurial roles effectively. It’s strange how that belief sticks around, even when the evidence says otherwise... And so, under the guise of social programs, equity, and justice, millions are robbed of the chance to break free from systemic poverty—a cycle that only rapid, market-driven economic growth could truly break...

Dr. Ken Swee...
Department of Defense—
New York City, 1975...

The man explained... ☕

wiredfalcon2 said:I didn't quite catch that. What are you getting at? Which example? Of what?

Look at what happened with companies like ExxonMobil—it wasn't some freak accident where the government just decided to rot from the inside out. A private corporation walked in and bought them off. Plain and simple. You read these threads and you’d think everyone believes private owners are some kind of saints who couldn't dream of a bribe, but that's just naive. When you have weak institutions like we do here in the States, a massive corporation can bend the system to its will without breaking a sweat. And this grand plan of yours? This idea that more and more privatization is going to somehow "strengthen" the nation? It's a joke. All it does is leave the door wide open for these guys to corrupt the state even faster down the road.

Look, an efficient legal system is the backbone of any society that actually works, whether you’re running a hardcore capitalist machine like the US or something a bit more moderate. But honestly? Let's stop beating around the bush and focus on one specific word: precision.

It’s an interesting point. Especially when you use a specific term like "shipyards," even though some of them have already been privatized—something I’m pretty sure you and restlesssurfer97 both knew. When you guys were typing out "shipyards," you weren't just regurgitating memorized talking points like someone who doesn't have a clue how this industry works. You actually know the ownership structures behind these American shipyards. Right?

Look, if you’re gonna sit there acting like an absolute expert on shipyard ownership structures without actually knowing how they work, you just look like a total moron. It’s honestly embarrassing—like someone who thinks they understand the entire economy just by scrolling through some random influencer's Facebook feed.

We’re calling for honest entrepreneurs🐔

If companies like Sears were actually examples of "honest ownership," they wouldn't be facing bankruptcy right now. They brag about being massive retail giants, yet they bleed their employees dry and squeeze suppliers until they snap. They squeezed wages from the bottom and took out massive bank loans to fuel unrealistic growth—growth that was unsustainable for them—and eventually, the whole thing imploded. And now we're supposed to bail out this circus run by a handful of mid-level managers and their cronies? No. Shut it all down... there's no point in anything else.

This is a textbook example of predatory American capitalism—a tumor that really started growing back in the old industrial era. Someone pockets the cash, pushes a business forward just to protect their initial capital, and couldn't care less if the company remains competitive in the long run once the government inevitably steps in to save it.

Healthy corporate growth doesn't happen this way—that's the core issue. Competition is what keeps a business alive; it forces you to improve every single day. If you actually bring value to the market, you survive... otherwise, the market cleans you out.

I think brightpilot6 hit the nail on the head regarding our current climate. Trust in our society has completely eroded, and everything eventually boils down to a "us versus them" mentality.

We’ll end up paying off this rotting debt by taking out even larger, "more affordable" loans—the kind approved by a Swedish bank under some trivial conditions... Of course, they'll pull the pension funds into this little fairy tale, handing out shares to the naive enough to let their remaining cash vanish into a black hole. An IPO in the name of individual liberty 🙂

Since we're already discussing inflated bubbles, it reminds me of those clowns who take balloons and shape them into planes or dogs for kids—everyone stays delighted and happy while doing it. Meanwhile, we're still left wondering why.

To all you "constructives" celebrating... Happy Easter!

And as for anyone else who hasn't discovered faith yet—you certainly will in a few years. 😁

shadowmarlin22 said:The problem right now is that the media landscape is way too skewed to the left. You want the perfect example? Just look at this whole circus surrounding Cambridge Analytica and Trump. Everyone is losing their minds over it, but if you go back ten years, everyone was practically worshiping Obama for doing the exact same thing. He leveraged big data and high-level analytics to win—back then, the conservatives just complained that the Democrats had outmaneuvered them strategically. Now, Trump pours a massive amount of money into those same tactics, and suddenly he’s the villain stealing data. It’s the same playbook; the players just changed.🙏🙏It isn't just about what the news outlets are reporting—it’s about how that media influence actually guts platforms like Facebook. They lost a massive chunk of their market cap in a single day because of it. People tend to follow the herd, and honestly, the most effective way to control a crowd these days is through the media. It’s become incredibly easy to profile users and feed them exactly what they want to hear while keeping everything else quiet. Look, Trump might be an idiot, but that’s not really the point here.

People love to trash the current system these days—and honestly, I get it—but let’s be real: the framework we have in most developed nations right now is still the best one we've ever managed to put together. That said, if anyone actually believes we have true freedom of speech today, especially in the media, they’re dead wrong. In a dictatorship, sure, the news outlets just follow whatever orders the ruling party hands down. But in a free society, the theory is that everyone should be reporting the truth. The problem is that "truth" isn't exactly served up on a silver platter. Instead, you're fed a constant stream of one-sided perspectives from a specific ideological bubble—mostly on the left—which shapes your worldview before you even realize it. And today? They have the most sophisticated technology imaginable—basically a high-tech weapon—designed specifically to feed you exactly what they want you to hear until you eventually just nod along.

The logic behind free speech is fundamentally broken if you try to balance it by giving every minority group total license to do whatever they want. It’s a contradiction. If you start placing restrictions on people just because their words might offend someone, you aren't actually protecting expression—you're effectively shielding the very people whose freedom of speech forms the foundation of this entire system.

If you’re under the impression that what we have here is actual democracy, you’re mistaken. Real democracy exists in Switzerland—not here in the States. What we’re dealing with in America is really just another incremental step toward a democratic system, nothing more. Think about the progression: you had monarchies where one person ruled indefinitely based purely on bloodlines. Then you had totalitarian regimes where a small group held absolute power for an unlimited time, all driven by ideology. Now, we’ve moved to a stage where a group leads with a single head of state, but for a limited term. Some might argue we’ve simply shortened the duration of a one-party dictatorship, but the distinction is that the people actually get a say in who they want. Of course, "the people" are essentially choosing from whatever is served to them—a menu of empty promises that politicians have zero intention of actually keeping. True direct democracy—the kind they practice in Switzerland—is the only real deal. It’s a system where citizens head to the polls for referendums on every major issue and law. If the public decides they hate a specific law, they can vote it down. That creates the only legitimate check on power: the government doesn't get to do whatever it wants because the people hold the ultimate control.

Naturally, the big question is how this would actually play out in other places—like here in America. Is the public actually self-aware enough to vote for the long-term good of the country rather than just what lines their own pockets? And can the media truly stay independent, or will they just spin the narrative to push people toward a specific vote before a referendum even happens? In my opinion, the answer is no—and we’re nowhere near being ready for that level of maturity. I'm just saying, you don't really have a true democracy, or actual power in the hands of the people, without a system like this in place. Anything else is just a facade—you're basically just picking which group gets to rule over you for a set term.

Right. Sure. Just give us direct democracy so we can spend every single Sunday fulfilling our patriotic democratic duty—dragging some fallen underdog out of the mud. Everything else is just rigged nonsense...🙏

If you followed last night's local elections, you’d understand what I mean above. All I'm saying is the road to the ballot box is long and treacherous—much like something out of a fantasy novel—and only the most determined somehow manage to get their vote in the box.

I’ve noticed a fundamental difference in the social landscape over there compared to what we see here in America. I’m not saying we don't have people of significant means in our own backyard—we certainly do—but they remain a very small minority...

A Scandinavian tycoon rolls into his office on a bicycle over freshly laid asphalt—meanwhile, our local mogul chases him down in a brand-new Audi Q7 through gravel roads, probably hoping your cow drops dead along the way...

ruggedjackal46 said:Everyone was predicting total collapse, yet somehow they bounced back pretty well. And honestly, I don't see how things could have gone any better for the public if they had used their own money to bail out failing banks. Wouldn't that have been the ultimate belt-tightening?

Take the mortgage holders back then—overnight, people found themselves facing double the debt because property values plummeted... essentially. The government steps in just to prevent a massive wave of bankruptcies among citizens who took out loans. We shouldn't build this myth about Iceland... Their politicians are also quite "creative" when it comes to pulling money from pockets—and when that fails, they just devalue the currency and pose for photos again.

Where does the state even get the funds to stop an epic national catastrophe? They start with IMF emergency loans, but ultimately, they're forced to invent new taxes or hike existing ones—which, predictably, the citizens end up paying. Inflation was used as a tool to wipe out part of the debt and boost domestic exports, but on the flip side, it stripped away what the average person had built for themselves.

The UK compensated its citizens and turned its attention toward Iceland. Since those banks were private entities, the British authorities didn't really care. Citizens tried to block the debt repayment through a referendum, but the government eventually had to pass legislation ensuring the money went back to the Brits and other foreign investors—to everyone's mutual satisfaction. Not that the British are known for empathy, of course... They certainly aren't known for being bullied into letting competitors clear the market.

Debt forgiveness is like a chain reaction. You forgive it once, you have to forgive it for everyone—otherwise, you lose all credibility in the international markets. That's a luxury something like a member of the EU simply can't afford... there are too many sharks circling that market.

Irresponsible bankers need to face justice—there's no debate there. But part of the problem lies with the states themselves. They are the ones guaranteeing stability, securing the currency, regulating, incentivizing, and so on. The average citizen will always be the one getting squeezed, because they can. In the end, it all boils down to the same thing—it's not that the situation is bad, it's just that the system failed itself...

ruggedjackal46 said:The American people? 😕 Iceland didn't run out to bail out the big banks; instead, the banks collapsed along with their clients—most of whom weren't even locals. But I suppose we're supposed to believe the banks are solely responsible for that mess rather than the government. Right?

The devaluation of the Icelandic króna, tax hikes, slashed social spending, public sector pay cuts—all of that meant the citizens who had skin in those banks only saw a fraction of their money returned. The rest just vanished... gone. Foreign investment won't really return until they lift the capital controls.

How exactly did the American people avoid paying for this? They might have recovered, sure—but don't pretend the average guy didn't feel the squeeze...

ruggedjackal46 said:An island?

Yes, Iceland. And what happens now? Once again, the ordinary citizens are the ones footing the bill for that massive reset—it’s always the same. You can't just declare bankruptcy and expect everything to vanish... debts have to be settled eventually. It isn't as simple as just throwing up your hands and claiming you're broke to start over from scratch...

Sandra Johnson58 said:Strawman.☕ Just because there's regulation doesn't mean it's automatically communism. I mean, look at those mega capitalists in the West you're always swearing by—the second a crisis hits, they're the first ones running to bail out the banks and the auto industry using money they squeezed out of regular citizens. Like, seriously, if something goes wrong with Volkswagen or even Airbus, France and Germany jump in immediately to protect them, whether it's through under-the-table deals, guarantees, or just heavy political lobbying to make sure those companies land global contracts. When they do that, everyone calls it capitalism and thinks it's cool, right? But the moment we try to save our own shipyards, suddenly it's "terrible" and we get lectured by all these hypocrites from the West. Since we have such spineless people in charge here, they just take those lectures lying down and apologize, instead of showing some backbone and throwing their own interference and corporate favoritism right back in their faces. Now, my opinion that we shouldn't bother saving anything because we should just keep doing things the old way... well, that's a different story and probably our own fault.

I see where you're coming from, but it isn't quite that simple. You've lumped too many different types of companies into one category—companies that exploit the federal budget for very different reasons.
Regarding Boeing or Ford, policy has to account for the fact that the state often holds a stake in these entities. Not to mention the massive socio-political fallout if these giants were to stumble or collapse.

Banks are another hot-button issue. Their insatiable greed triggered the financial crisis, which created the exact kind of fallout our country is dealing with right now. The only flawed part of this argument is suggesting this is a national issue rather than a global one—this sector operates with global investors and sovereign states.
Those governments essentially had no choice but to pull an immediate bailout from the public coffers.

March 22, 2018—agreement reached between Sberbank and Agrokor regarding debt restructuring.

[read: Kolinda spoke with Vladimir via telephone]

March 24, 2018—some protest over some random nonsense about sheep...

[read: Vlado, the coast is clear, use the back entrance. Jacob went out for a walk with the kids...]

Jonathan Barnes5 said:It seems most of you haven't spent much time handling the daily grind of retail trading, yet somehow you possess an intuitive grasp of how high-stakes options play out on a massive scale.🙏
I suppose it’s because you've all devoured Michael Lewis's work...😁..

To be honest, I don't quite understand why a handful of you don't just power through all three levels of the CFA program and dive straight into the feast of collecting management fees. It would certainly be a kindness to the rest of this forum if you did.

Alternatively, you could join the ranks of the big investment banks and go after conquering the market head-on.

😁

We didn't really say anything out of the ordinary—just pointed out a few facts that you can find on any news site if you bother to look... It’s worth having a debate now and then, just a bit of back-and-forth, but I'll leave everyone to draw their own conclusions. I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone...

I know—this gray theme could use a little more life. I’d suggest starting with a black and red combo... they say that combination always works. ☕

And what exactly makes you think that guarantees you'll be crushing it on the stock market...

Typical average thinking on these forums. Just move aside—let me pass... I have my paperwork ready and I'm heading out to claim my success, a career, money, whatever... 🙏

James Anderson5 said:If I remember correctly, the Swiss franc was one of the last currencies partially backed by gold, maybe around 10%... this whole other situation just feels like a massive manipulation designed to benefit the most powerful players.

Take LIBOR, for example. Major banks like Deutsche Bank and Barclays had to pay huge fines for rigging those interest rates on the London interbank market, and they only faced consequences because the U.S. government stepped in and sued them.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-libor-probes

It’s the same story with gold prices. We all know what happened with the subprime crisis, and we definitely know who ended up footing the bill. It makes you wonder how much of the economic success in Western nations is actually due to efficient systems versus things like neo-colonialism, financial manipulation, or even using intelligence agencies for economic gain... nobody really does a deep dive into that. Even our own economy would look different if we were paying interest on bonds like the Americans have been doing for the last 20 years. The same goes for the financing costs for our businesses and citizens, whether it's mortgages or personal loans. Sure, we dealt with higher interest rates because we were labeled a high-risk economy, but when you realize the same agencies giving us those ratings were also slapping AAA labels on ultra-junk American bonds, it really makes you think...

Before our recent financial reset, we were essentially Greece—bankrupt and economically dead. We split off just as we were, and naturally, nobody wanted to touch the American banking sector. I won't dwell too much on this, but the administration at the time saw big European banks as our only potential buyers—provided we handed over the keys to our entire economic engine. Some of our banks were actually bailed out using taxpayer money right before they were sold, just so they could be handed over...
You simply can't function without banks, and let's be honest—those foreign conglomerates charged us a massive premium for our sovereignty. The rating agencies—if you can even call them that—did their dirty work back then; every player involved in that criminal privatization walked away without losing a shred of dignity. Everything else is just history...

Justin James10, I wouldn't say James Anderson5 is venturing into conspiracy theory territory here. This situation can't be boiled down to anything simple—it’s just too convoluted, with far too many players and conflicting interests involved...

We touched on the Chinese earlier. You should look into how they operate within the banking sector—how they established "their own" financial institutions to funnel investments into critical infrastructure, like energy sectors and major airports, across the UK. Essentially, British state assets have shifted toward Chinese state ownership, while the UK government does nothing to stop Chinese steel from being dumped on their market to undercut and dismantle their own heavy industry.

Take another example—our reliable ally, Germany. In early September 2015, right in the middle of a financial crisis, the German giant VW opened an engine plant in Kaluga, Russia. They poured 250 million euros into a facility capable of churning out 150,000 units a year, creating 400 new jobs for locals—not to mention the secondary boost to small businesses like local bakeries and shops...

And what happens just fourteen days later? A report breaks publicly claiming VW manipulated diesel emissions, lawsuits start flying, and the infamous diesel scandal erupts.

Look at what’s happening with Daimler (Mercedes). Last summer, they opened a plant near Moscow. To welcome them, the Russians granted them tax exemptions for a set period. For weeks, Mercedes denied any involvement in emission manipulation, only to eventually admit they were cutting corners too. Now, they're facing massive lawsuits in the US. It’s worth noting that General Motors pulled out of Russia just before this mess hit the fan...

If you browse any international news portal these days, you'll see reports about Trump wanting to slap tariffs on foreign steel, alloys, and aluminum. Ask yourself why—and specifically who those sanctions are designed to hit.

This isn't just mindless conspiracy theorizing; it is a ruthless struggle within the global capital markets.

Yes, launching a business in this swamp is a double-edged sword. Once again, I find myself sounding like a broken record about how this country desperately needs a mental reset...

A quick example from an acquaintance of mine. Imagine you lose a steady job, you have some land, and you decide to start growing produce. You try to make a connection with some mid-level manager at Monsanto and begin the whole dance—the brown-nosing, the networking, all that nonsense required just to secure a decent contract for your harvest. Things actually start looking okay, and you begin considering taking out a loan to reinvest in the farm rather than blowing it on Mercedes cars or other luxury toys...

And then everything goes to hell because incompetent hacks have spent years playing dress-up as big-time entrepreneurs. You have these massive American conglomerates while the actual workers struggle for pennies—just sheer $1000 misery. Who can you even complain to when these people spend years fudging their balance sheets just to line their pockets, or taking out loans they never intended to repay—all with the government's blessing?

These ratings are pure fiction, especially coming out of so-called emerging markets like China or India. I’m not denying those countries have significant growth, but they also love to arbitrarily pad their books with extra zeros—I mean, honestly, who is actually going to verify the true turnover in those places? And they’ll elbow anyone out of the way to grab credit, even if they have to step over bodies to get it...