Economic Corner 42 07/26/2026

I wonder if Pioneer1 heard when the interviewee said he doesn't believe in class?

That reminds me of Troy not believing in race. Class/race/rank/clan/grouping/peoples/species/gender/community are all the same, words meaning sets of things based on some factor.

If he doesn't believe in class, then he doesn't believe in rich and poor? what?

then he says "They" and I didn't listen to the whole thing, but I assume he didn't clarify who they are ,but he says "they" want to make a permanent underclass.

Well, What does that mean? Is not the fiscal poor a permanent class in fiscal capitalism? can fiscal capitalism exists without the fiscal poor?

Is he suggesting fiscal capitalism doesn't require the poor in modernity? I argue if you take all of humanity, that argument has no basis what's so ever in fianncial reality in humanity, on the whole planet earth, in the past five centirues.

Is he suggesting that "they" , whomever they are, want to eliminate the commonly named but falsely labeled, Upward Mobility?

Again, simple fiscal history proves people moving from lower to higher financial evaluations, whether that is up or not, has never been a majority movement among the fiscal poor.

Then I finally get some clarification on the "they" he calls them the shadow people. They are not shadow people, they are the one percent, they have always existed . We used to call them kings and queens in various languages. The USA with its individualism aside criminal suggestion to public proclamations of blood right from those who have the most potent levels of wealth or governmental influence has led to this definition of the powerful as some shadow peoples. The heads of the pack will always exists among humans, whether they are publicly advertised or not.

Then he suggests "they" meaning the fiscal wealthiest want to delete the commonly while falsely called " middle class" and push them into the poor class.

Well first, I have in the economic corner always challenges the idea of the financial middle class. I argue, the financial middle class has never existed.

There are have's and have nots. Their are rich and poor. But even in the times of the pharoah the rich or the poor the haves or the have nots have ranges.

The pharoach isn't the only one with fiscal wealth. the head priest, the lead scribe, the military head are all have's. They are not the pharoah but they are have's. In the same way ,

The penniless beggar's floating from town to town are not the only fiscal poor. The farmer's living season to season. The minors, the sculptors, the shopkeepers, are all poor. No they are not as poor as the penniless beggar but they are poor.

Debt in the usa circa 2025 was at seventeen trillion and five hundred billion dollars. The USA has a military, nuclear powered military, which protects the usa from debt collection ,it is that simple. This is why nuclear power countries : usa/russia/china/india/pakistan/france/england/israel all work to lessen other countries from joining the club. the club has financial benefits.

If someone ows one hundred thousand dollars they are poor. I don't care that they have a two bed room house and and a car and whatever else. HAve's don't have debt they can't handle. This is why Musk can get loans from the bank when fiscal poor people can not, his wealth, no matter how arithmetic it is, it isn't in solid value, means he can cover his debts.

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/average-american-debt-statisitics.html

He makes the sars cov 2 financial situation more complicated than it was. I have said this a trillion times over, many fiscal firms in the usa are not positive. If you look at the cost of operation and the revenue, they require a constancy of funds and don't have any way to handle a time absent financial income. A better example is sports teams. Small business are obvious but few think about how most sports teams in the usa were able to get millions or in come cases billions of dollars to cover their debt or financial failure with the suspension of fiscal activities. But what they means is those businesses were poorly run. Again, Goldman sachs is deemed some sort of arithmetic genuis place for financial manipulations or calculations but they went bankrupt by using evaluations from various private banks that they didn't fully comprehend or control and when said banks activities put said bansk in the red they dragged the goldman's of the world down with them. But, while small businesses are told they have to be better, goldman and company were given welfare checks becaus egoldman and company have the accounts of the wealthy who also went bankrupt with them. So, the key is financial mismanagement led by a country, the usa, who is safe from debt collection through its military power.

he says the fiscal wealthy have ways of avoiding being taxed, well the way has a clear name, poorly constructed financial law. Now some will say, the law will be done that way cause of the way the law is, but that is more unnecessary vagueness. Lobby's entire fucntion is to pay elected officials to make laws favaorable to their clients needs. And whenanyone says, lets end lobbies, all of a sudden, you have unity among the left /right/male/female/white/black/immigrant/native american /et cetera because the business of lobbies is the real backbone of the financial design of the usa. It isn't hard, it isn't shadow people. The usa military has lobbies. the nypd has lobbies the hospitals have lobbies. all groups with money have lobbies. and those lobbie smake sure the fiscal laws have loopholes.

So the issue is lobbies, not "ways"

As I have said in other economic corners, this is inevitable. He words it as an assault, it isn't an assault. The labor pool can not maintain the populace in the usa or the larger humanity.

Are human beings needed to build computer chips/cars/planes/turn iron into steel. Automation requires human design , or the computers that design automation were themselves designed by humans straightly or through the lineage of computers that designed them.But, the building is becoming less and less human. So what jobs are needeD? nurse? can everybody be a nurse? law enforcer? can everybody be a law enforcer? It isnt' an attack, it is an inevitability based on the technological possibility in modernity.

The real problem as I have said many times over isn't the deletion of human laborers, it is the a deletion of the myth of the earned laborer lifestyle.

The whole merit labor philosophy no longer serves an honest function. You can't ask people to be civil, absent criminal activity, while telling them they must be fiscally poor. The speaker in the video an dothers who go against the universal basic income have no solution for the lack of labor opportunity, except for, something will come up, which means nothing.

The jobs are gone. The usa's best time for the job market was during enslavement when non blacks forced blacks to labors, absent any pay or amenities or descency comparable to the value of the labors. the quantity of workers has only decreased since those times in the usa, remembering famring is labor.

So absent universal basic income, with the real estate and stock market and banking industries and health industry and scholastic industry designed as they are, in an ever increasing financial value to acquire, how can people pay for healthcare/schools/rent/food absent a grander welfare program?

Then he admits jobs are dying as computers and mechincal bodies are the majority workforce. but he makes it seem like some negative scheme..

He is wrong in one thing, the usa federal government has been considering this since the 1960s when it was already clear the job market long term wouldn't be able to provide the opportunity for the populace to sustain the market needs of firms: hospital/schools/residentials/et cetera

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Pilot_programs_and_experiments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/08/19/universal-guaranteed-income-experiment-economy

In defense, not all the people or most of the people supporting universal basic income are suggesting it comes with fealty . I can't recall one of the pilot programs happening with fealty , so he is trying to act prescient.

@Pioneer1 you say Universal basic income is a trap aligning to his stated position that universal basic income will force people to adhere to whatever government mandates or policies to retain the money needed for them to survive in the usa, in which their rent, food, clothing, ehalthcare, schools, holiday costs are more than most can afford.

Now while I contest his attempt at prescience, assuming universal basic income will come with fealty of a petty nature, let us assume it will happen. Ok. Then the fears you or he have are warranted with the assumption. But, let us look at the environment, the financial environment in the usa?

Now he admitted in the very same video that the labor market for humans in the usa is dwindling. He admitted it. Now, it is also commonly comprehended that ninety percent of wealth in the usa is inherited, meaning, acquired by geniture, or bloodline descendency. It si also commonly known that ninety percent of the wealth is in the hands f a one percent ... sometimes one percent of a one percent.

So

overwhelming majority of wealth being inherited +

most wealth in an extremely small percentage of the populace,+

a dying human labor fiscal need =

the fiscal sitaution in the usa today

said fiscal situation in the usa today +univeral basic income = maintenance of the current system of debt, wealth, inheritance, market manipulation or structures. or cost in various industries.

Absent this elevated welfare, what do you propose for people to do to pay for rent/food.healthcare? I didn't listen to the whole video but he didn't offer solutions.

Are you suggesting fiscal poor people kill themselves? yeah ok, I know a number of blacks throughout the years, all ages, have said that. Most in humanity will never do it. Do you know why I know? nothing black people went through in the usa was harder than legal enslavement on the mind + body+ spirit and yet they as humans foun ways to survive, not thrive, but survive such that they didn't kill themselves. Even if that meant being a shell or empty vessel just breathing till you die. But they didn't kill themselves.

Most humans will not kill themselves today and especially with the option of Universal basic income.

The problem with every single person opposed to universal basic income is the absence of an alternative from them.

you say it is a trap but I still think it is an inevitability based on the environment.

I live in NYC, the rent is too high, the food is too hgih, the healthcare is too high. Now you can sya, people should move. But, move where? Is los angeles cheap? is louisiana safe? Remember, right now, the carpet industry, based in georgia, has multiple lawsuits from white people , fiscal poor white people, from south carolina to alabama, over their air and water being cancer causing for decades, at least fifty years easy.

Moving isn't going to help most people in the usa.

Then the learn skills argument . But here is the problem with the skills argument. the history of labor in the usa proves labor was never given for skills, that is another myth in the usa.

Black people were used as enslaved labor not because of merit or their skills but cheapness, affordability. The second legal ensalvement ended, circa 1865, white people went about entrapping black people in bad contracts which whether legal or illegal were expensive to contest in a court of law and since 99% of black person born before 1965 in the usa had no money , no financial inheritance, they had no money to afford the legal fees necessary to challenge all the legal traps whtite people terrorized black people into from 1865 to 1980.

When the immigration act came in the mid nineteen hundred and sixties, the whites used uneducated immigrants, not because of skills but because of cheapness of labor.

The use of robots/computer programs/machines of various levels began taking over human laborers in the usa before said electronics were a skillwise replacement for human labor.

So what is the answer?

At the end of the day, all movements anywhere in humanity to be stopped need an alaternative and in absence of the alterantive, the movement will kee moving to its inevitability.

pioneer1

On 7/27/2026 at 8:30 PM, Pioneer1 said:

That's what the "public option" was supposed to offer, but your boy Obama cut that out of his Obamacare deal.

the affordable care act was from nancy pelosi, not obama so it should be called pelosicare

and it wasn't obama who cut it out, the congress did. Obama told pelosi whatever she could get through congress he would sign, and he did. PElosi couldn't get the votes without the public option going away. The reason was simple, the usa is a country of over three hundred and fifty million people cut up in fifty states that are uneven financially.

What that means is, healthcare and the cost of living shifts from state to state and from region to region in states, thus the affordable care act, trying to make healthcare affordable for all the fiscal poor in the usa while in fifty different financial regions which are themselves cut up into various fiscal zones is a hard challenge.

Many donkeys opposed the public option which people don't realize, because healthcare is different in each state.

On 7/27/2026 at 8:30 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Petition their respective governments to provide these basic necessities for it's citizens in a limited and strategic way so that nobody goes without them and this will provide a decent "competition" with private sources to discourage them from raising the prices too high.

hasn't the whole world been petitioning? when you say petition what do you mean? people write letters the government all the time? what do you mean by petition? The UA doesn't allow for direct democracy to be applicable at the federal level so....

On 7/27/2026 at 8:30 PM, Pioneer1 said:

But millions DID NOT survive....they succumbed.

well with at least over ninety percent of black people enslaved from 1492 to 1865 in the lands that make up the modern usa, I am certain all those enslaved in said period survived.

On 7/27/2026 at 8:30 PM, Pioneer1 said:

The answer is for AfroAmericans to carve out a piece of America to focus our political and economic power on and try to control as much of our collective destiny as we can instead of relying on the ideas and schemes of Whites to save us.

We should try to get as much political and legal power as we can.
That way if UBI becomes a reality here in the United States, we can atleast control:
....how much of it we get.
....what terms and conditions must be met for individuals to get it.

ok ,

1) carve out a piece of the usa in which one historically impotent populace within the usa has governmental + financial power to control its destiny

2)if UBI gets implemented , in said carved out piece, said historically impotent populace will be able to dictate how ubi will relate

Your plan is not impossible , but it requires alot of considerations.

1) what percent of black people are not interested in carving out a piece of the usa. whatever percent that is , is a deterrent. I can't say how large but it will include, all black individualist, which has a long history in the usa, these are black people who simply do for themselves as individuals , and view collective black life through the lens of black individuals. Some black people will be part of other black groups that will oppose carving a piece out of the usa. so black donkeys[ party of andrew jackson] black elephants[ party of abraham lincoln] all the black wealthy whose financial wealth is tied to an integrated existence with the non black, black integrationists, who have along history in the usa, who want mixed communities, they don't want individualism but they want black populaces to coexist intermingled with the nonblack. I am missing many others of course, but I can easily assume, maybe twenty percent of the populace of black people in the usa will be willing to carve out a piece of the usa for governmental plus financial control.

2) beyond who among the blacks will be part of this, what part of the usa is to be carved out?

2-A) for a piece of the usa to have the power to relate to federal law on its own, it must be a state in the union. I restate, Universal basic income will be a federal action , the only legal way to dictte how any federal action relates to a particular region is for a place to be a state. countis or cities don't have the legal power to relate to federal law. This is why NYC continually begs NY state for money. Even though NYC is the engine, the federal government gives money to new york state so nyc , even though it earns most of the money, ike los angeles with california, , new york city has to beg new york state for money. So, the only way to make a distinct relationship to a federal law under the current constitution is to be astate in the union. cities nor counties have the power. So, what state will this be?

2-B)The whole purpose of Jim Crow in southern states was to get black people to run out of the southern states so that black people would not have a majority populace in any state in the union. and no, black people today are not running into the likes of georgia, mississippi, south carolina or other So with no state having a majority black populace and each states, majority non black populace 100% opposed to being the minority, I don't see how you can get any state in the union to become majority black which can then allow the scenario you want.

2-C) maybe you can get a state to split. The law in the usa allows a state to split if the state legislature + the congress approve. Based on this, you only have four states with a black populace percentage that can yield such a situation. Louisiana/Mississippi/Alabama/South Carolina

all other states black populaces are too small a percentage.

The problem is all of those states legislatures have been engineered to make sure black legislation in those states is a smaller percentage than the black population. And beyond that, I doubt the white legislatures in those states will ever vote for a split, absent violence or money. Violence I doubt will be accepted by black people let alone non blacks, and money... well... the black wealthy will not finance such a movement for what I stated already so even if you get the numbers this will be a movement absent money so I don't see how it will be able to pay white elected officials to support spliting a state, not to mention paying the congressional members of various other states who will demand money as they have nothing to lose in saying no.

It is possible to consider a movement of black people to one of the sparsely populated northwest states, ala exodusters, but such a move will require money to move said black people and maintain them in a northwest state. But if you have the money It can be done. For example south dakota or north dakota or wyoming each have less than a million people. the poorest state in the union with at least a million black people is mississippi. so if you had money, you could move the million black people of mississppi to one of wyoming or northd akota or south dakota and you would had a majority black state. All three of those states already offer land for sale. so even if the land is small and it forces an urban existence, the populance is the population and thus your strategy manfest.

Your strategy isn't bad, but it requires focus. It will not be a mass movement within the black populace of the usa, that time has passed. It can't involve violence cause black people aren't willing. So with it being legal, that narrows what can be done or where. But as I explained, possible.

On 7/28/2026 at 6:17 PM, frankster said:

Did industrialization help or hinder us?

AI is about to empower the individual way beyond what y'all thinking....

frankster

The truth is, all technology, from the wheel to ionic pulse drives powered by nuclear fission reactors [ not science fiction, both are being developed by the usa+russia as we type] has positive or negative effects, no technology is all good or all bad. The problem is humans when a technology benefit don't like to admit who isn't and when a technology malfit don't like to admit who isn't. It's always both.

22 hours ago, frankster said:

Yes Ionic drives are in use today and is no longer theoretical

What is moving from the realm of science fiction to theoretically feasible is Warp Drives....prototypes are being developed as we type - though not to scale as of yet.

frankster

Ionic drives haven't been theoretical since the early 1900s.

well, science fiction is theory absent arithmetic support. but theoretical feasibility is determined based on what one decides feasibility comes from. From base feasibility on arithmetics, others on lab work, others on fiscal capitalistic presence. so... in the current environment, until any technology is in the fiscal capitalistic markets, it is functionally unfeasible.

When you say warp drives, do you mean warp space ? or do you mean attaining levels of speed significantly above the projected next new heights at the current time?

No tech is neutral, all in nature is positive plus negative, at the same time, it isn't that anything is neutral , but all things influence is collectively neutral as all things have positive plus negative emissions of force. By saying tech is neutral, that is going inline with the dysfunctional philosophy that humans must investigate and learn new and sequentially, the learning of new isn't a negatibe, but only the use. but the flaw in that thinking is the imbalance that a human being can be eternally eager to learn something new, gain knowledge or erudition but the same human being is unwilling to comprehend what is known and act in respect to that. To restate, oppenheimer is to lame for making th eatom bomb, not because the generals used it, but because in his search to make nw tech he didn't respect what he alreayd knew about the generals use of technology, which means he rejected or ignored what knowledge he knew and what it meant to acquire knowledge he didn't, that is pure dysfunction and immaturity. Acts of immaturity don't warrant evasion of criminal behavior.

And his position on uranium proves immaturity. All nuclear fissions reactos, including molten salt reactors produce deadly toxic waste, all of them, I repeat all of them. And it can not be avoided because of the science, what is known. The problem is plus isn't the technology. Advocacy in the usa tends to come with absence of criminality, The usa is forgiven for enslavement by its advocates. the various manufacturers are forgiven for making fortunes or riaisng the financial power of the usa. Tech like juman beings does positive plus negative, regardless of intention or nature.