Economic Corner 47 10/09/2026

From the web to the world, the following are my comments in a post from Troy

HIS ARTICLE

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12912-a-search-engine-you-have-to-consider/

MY COMMENTS

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12912-a-search-engine-you-have-to-consider/#findComment-83635

In all earnest, the web directory is the best model, it isn't just keywords relating to content but also the quality of the website. the web search does away with the quality standard.

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12912-a-search-engine-you-have-to-consider/#findComment-83643

@admin

19 hours ago, admin said:
Directories definitely had their time but the problem with them is they simply don’t scale.

IT is interesting, I argue, the directory developers were not good programmers. Like many systems, from email to directories to large language models that are the basis for the commonly called AI the programmers were and are poor. Everything they create is speed based but not efficient based, andI do comprehend that working for the private sector with the investment firms constantly hounding for what they are owed aside the publicly traded mechanism who are filled with those constantly hounding for increased revenue, this falls upon programmers to be focused on speed over efficiency, sequentially the search engine is preferred over the directory.

But I think the directories needed smarter algorithms.

The question is why didn't web directories scale?

The reason why is the web directories weren't designed to let their usage have a role to play in the categorization. For example, the internet was flooded with websites , from humans or non humans, at a high speed secondly, as the internet has global usage at all hours, sequentially having a manual categorization even with twenty four hour cycles will never keep up with the rate of creation, what you say is a failure to scale. But, i see it as a simply problem of categorixzation. They could had inputted the uncategorized websites in the directory in an expansive category designed to grow but not to be rated. So, all the websites online are in. Then, let the users of the directory dictate the quality rating. How so? for example, when someone types, an authors name, the website of the author will not be in the rated category if it was just put in a half hour before the query. but if it is in the unrated category, the directory can simply state it doesn't have a rated directory entry for the author and then display best search case, based on the index words for the website. And then if a user clicks it, it gets a positive search rating but not a quality rating.

Thus the directory will have two segments, rated + unrated, the rated is curated, tested, proven, assured, grown manually. The unrated is grown programattically, but all of its entries are rated with the lowest value and only vary from each other by traffic usage, and when one reaches a certain quality of traffic it will be tested onto the rated segment.

This way the scaling aspect you and other speak about happens while the quality of the directory isn't diminished. All it requires is a modulating algorithm which can be adjusted for various factors to qualify when one from the unrated can be brought into the rated.

What is my final argument? yes, the internet has tons of many different websites and addresses but i argue, most of them or at least 99% of websites or webpages , do not warrant being placed into a rated directory, by quality of the page or website or the traffic to said site or page.

But again, I Comprehend the larger problem with my strategic approach.

search engine optimization from the search engines allows for two key financial aspects, one people can pay for better rating in the optimization and two the influence of low quality social media content on wealthy websites can push through search engine optimization.

My directory system as i described has a manual system for the best content, and places the rest as available but ranked equally, no matter their quality which doesn't allow for businesses to pay for a better rating or position in the directory, and thus losses the financial avenue that the search engine optimization provides.

19 hours ago, admin said:
AI did exactly the same thing., but at scale. Again, AI will gut the Internet. Steal from all types of content from creators, artists, writers, musicians, you name it monetize or and never compensate the original creators.

I know artists who had work stolen by humans so the computer programs called ai, designed to scrape and use simply do it faster But, when you say monetize, you mean the humans or some humans are getting ai money. ai's don't actually monetize right? are you suggesting AI's have bank accounts? Even if AI's do, what do they do with their money?

19 hours ago, admin said:
The bullshit lawsuits won’t do a damn thing to stem the tide.

lawsuits aren't bullshit, don't knock the power of lawsuits and in modernity all countries including the china's and russia's of the world have legal systems even though many in the usa don't seem to think they do. The lawsuits may not manipulate the programs but they will manipulate the firms that made or operate the programs and that will lead to an interesting thing. This is why the AI firms want protection, they want protection because even if computer programs can't go to court, the humans who made them or their owners can and they can lose everything in court. Remember, the Social media firms got away with that nonsense, the federal government gave them a protection from lawsuit cause it was coming and i argue should had occurred.

@ProfD

8 hours ago, ProfD said:
The objective under capitalism is to make as much money as possible by any means necessary.😎

Yes, but I wish we all would also add that the usa is taking away the risk element. One part of fiscal capitalism is making money by nay means necessary The Other part and I Argue most important in modernity is the losing property or other valuables when one fails to make money.

From 1990 to 2026 we have all witnessed the entire banking industry collapse, the entire real estate industry collapsed three times i think, the entire automotive industry collapsed, the airline industry hasn't recovered since pan am was lawsuited out of existence, the arms makes like boeing and lockheed martin are all bankrupt. All the major industries in the usa are bakrupt. the film industry and entertainment industry is bankrupt, thus all the mergers. Now all of these industries have been saved by discretionary policy but discretionary policy isn't fiscal capitalism. Discretionary policy as used in the usa isn't about fiscal capitalims but macroeconomics. And the usa is showing that regardless of fiscal capitalistic quality, since all of the industries in the usa have failed completely within my lifetime, a macroeconomic protectionism , in terms of bailouts/monetary injections or other similars , all supported by a militaristic quality , which the usa doesn't have the ability to extend, allows for negative fiscal capitalistic quality to be protected.

yes, kill people for their land, enslave other people for cheapest labor... yes, by any means necessary. But what people miss today is the safety net.

Unwarranted macroeconomic protectionism keeps the fiscal capitalistic activity in the usa organized, notice i didnt' say positive or negative, regardless of its fiscal capitalistic quality in the USA.

to me Unwarranted Macroeconomic protectionism is the correct label for the usa today, to suggest the usa is acting as fiscal capitalistic I argue is unwarranted when all the industries have failed or are failing in modern memory. Fiscal capitalism isn't just making as much money as possible it is losing money when you fail to make money, it is others buying your assets when you go bankrupt. That is important you know. When black people were enslaved, whites in the usa went bankrupt and other whites would buy what other whites formerly owned. I just dont see how the industries in the usa are making money. I Argue they all are in the red, and are simply being propped up by welfare checks.

Unwarranted Macroeconomic protectionism is keeping the organization, the haves and have nots, financial alignment of the various demographs consistent in the usa. But unwarranted macroeconomic protectionism is not fiscal capitalism. I argue it is a monarchic system ,and monarchic systems are not about money but military power. And human history proves that little countries can have far better fiscal capitalistic quality than bigger countries, ala holland next to its peers in europe, but those bigger peers are still stronger militaristically and that militaristic might has its own influence. But I repeat that power is not a symbol of fiscal capitalism , simply a symbol of militaristic power.

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12912-a-search-engine-you-have-to-consider/#findComment-83650

@ProfD

3 hours ago, ProfD said:
The economists know exactly what & how to keep the USA propped up.

The government keeps printing money & moving the goal line on its debt.

If any creditor decides to call in the markers, the USA has the military might to strongly suggest they take a hike.🤣😎

but this is my point,

the economist dont, the fiscal capitalist have failed. Your suggesting the economist have value but I don't see any evidence of that.

the macroeconomic proteciton that the government provides through the power of the military is the only potent part.

For me, the military and the government are the real system. And if anything the government and military have the power to and need to demand a change that the fiscal capitalist clearly are unable to do on their own. the people you call economist are to me the true welfare mothers whites falsely claimed black women were.

We both see how the usa is operates but you give value to the economist while I view the economist as a dysfunctional aspect that the government + military will have to eventually get rid of or change in potent ways.

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12912-a-search-engine-you-have-to-consider/#findComment-83653

@ProfD

5 hours ago, ProfD said:
Somewhere between the Federal Reserve playing with interest rates & the stock market turning folks into millionaires & billionaires, seems like aome fiscal capitalists are allowed to thrive & survive.

I concur some/many are thriving or surviving but are they fiscal capitalist or simply nepo babies? Are they merely people who are inheriting a position of wealth. Many government officials are related to former government officials. many athletes are related to former athletes.

5 hours ago, ProfD said:
The question is who or what is going to bring that house of cards to collapse.😎

the trillion dollar question.

The one thing is certain is the usa military is the primary engine of this system, not fiscal capitalist or financial marketeers or government guidance or laws.

and the usa military has a dual problem, it doesnt have the legal right to manipulate the government but clearly its role is the key to the usa's fianncial condition. to be blunt, the usa military can protect the usa while all the business [whole industries or individual firms] that the government bailed out in the last thirty years were allowed to go bankrupt and all their assets put up for auction. But as long as the military of the usa protects it but doesn't demand better fiscal capitalism or better government, the private sector + goveernment sector will continue their failing and bailing ways.

And the usa military is looking more and more impotent in protecting international places. if the usa can't use its force to manipulate the world's governments they will force an action against the usa

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12912-a-search-engine-you-have-to-consider/#findComment-83685

@Troy

19 hours ago, Troy said:
OK so who determines what is the "best" content? Who anoints them? Are they volunteers? Volunteerism does not scale and if they are paid the money must come from somewhere, then we are back to the same problem we are in now...

I will restate what I wrote, the directory i suggest has two tiers , the top tier is manual, the bottom tier is programmed.. The top tier checks entries based on popularity fro teh bottom tier but only accepts based on a quality review. So the bottom tier is based purely on popularity done by computer program and with adding quality labels things that are highly viewed can still be given a low quality which will flesh out the bottom tier.

19 hours ago, Troy said:
I dunno, but following your logic they can use the money to secure more resources and manipulate humans.

Interesting, I don't see how you come to that destination from my logic but ok

19 hours ago, Troy said:
Yes, you've made my point ;-)

yes, the protections is why they got away BUT laws can change to and metoo has shown something else that people aren't thinking about in the future, laws may become more retroactive. in nature in the future which is uncommon for the usa, usa historically generates laws that dont allow retroactive application based on the heritage of whites wanting to get away with enslaving + terrorizing black people but... I ponder.

19 hours ago, Troy said:
Hubris reflecting being raised in this country. But I guess it really depends on how long you think you will be around and what metric(s) you are basing you rankings.

your point to measures is key, being a super power is a military distinction which is fully warranted by the usa, but the problem is when many people, and I add profd to this speak of superpower they tend to attach alot of other aspects that to me are unfounded, the usa is fiscally crap. it isn't planned well, the government is crap. the fiscal environment is the weakest power, the government is the weakest power, but the military is the sole superpower. And yes, like the roman empire whose last age capitoled in nova roma was quite long but was in truth based on their military strength which eventually waned, their government, their fiscal quality was negative that whole time.

@ProfD

19 hours ago, ProfD said:
My idea of collapse is the USA no longer being the most powerful nation on the planet.

As a Super-Power, I do not foresee the USA sliding into 2nd or 3rd place within our lifetime.😎

the usa is the most powerful government in the college of human governments but only militaristically and that is what I keep trying to explain to you . fiscally the usa is done man. the fiscal environment in the usa is a bunch of welfare recipients who masquerade as free market capitalist, when in truth they are props for a government that is a welfare state with the military that allows the ledger dysfunction to be righted by non fiscal capitalistic means.

And to superpowerdom the usa has a deeper problem, china doesn't want to be one, nor does the european union. The usa has wanted china to have a war for the top chair but china realizes, correctly, that being second is better than first. the chinese government is the government no other government in humanity can do without, including the usa, which the usa itself stupidly but expectedly as a white country set up. But, looking at the usa, why would china want to be number 1? to get into wars? china already has control over its economy, even russia has a level of control over itself that is superior to what any other country in europe has. China has a space station all on its own, the usa has never had a space station all on its own. the iss is a joint project between russia and the usa. This is why the isolationist movement is growing in the usa, even though the internalization movement is growing alongside it in the usa. because of modern international financial activity, you don't need to be first to be ahead financially, and the usa proves being the global law enforcer just means a ton of resources spent that give nothing in return really. the afgahn war, the iraq war, the vietnam war, the ...iran war... all these wars are very costly. yes, the arms dealers love it, but overall none of these wars helped the domestic financial situation in the usa to a wide effect. Vietnam I argue the usa has never recovered from. yes, the usa has gone on but, I don't think the usa has ever actually helped any country it has gone in similarly since vietnam. Germany aside western europe and japan post world war two, because of the soviet union were rebuilt and prospered by the usa. south korea was made by the usa post korean war but south korea prospered by the usa. but vietnam onwards, all are horror stories. HAiti/Venezuela/Colombia/Iran/Afghanistan/Egypt- with the coups from the usa giving the country to its generals/IRan... why would china want to be like the usa. China does business with governments all over the world but they are not their bullies. It isn't china's fault that many, more honestly most, governments throughout humanity are functionally poor. The only place that chine contest is Taiwan and if you know your history the truth is Taiwan should be a part of china proper. Chiang kai shek fled to formosa at the end of a war between chinese peoples over the future of china. Taiwan is merely like hong kong or macau , two other places that were always chinese but through the international environment were allowed to act foreign from china. But, china hasn't wasted time in wars all over the world or in schemes destroying countries all over the world. YUgoslavia is the usa's fault, its dissolution and all of its parts chaos, s the usa's fault.

Why would any intelligent country, remember, china has been led by my fellow engineers not lawyers since the 1980s, want to be doing what the usa does? silly .

The history of empire's shows clearly most empires spend their last phase of life all military and nothing else. The usa clearly is in that phase. IF anything china should be frightened to be number 1 cause they will eventually share the fate of all other empires.

POST URL

Not needed, comments in the referred to post

PRIOR EDITION

https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/798-economic-corner-46-08282026/

NEXT EDITION