Allegedly "toxic" labor talks, Schrödinger’s retirement, soccer moguls, Dog Fister, the deaths of the British and American Empires, and “Whoomp There it Is."
“Also, I find it amusing that Passan, and a lot of other people who write about sports labor, say things like “everyone knows there’s an easy path to a deal here, but no one is taking it.” Is there an easy path? If so, what is it?”
This is my problem with the likes of Passan, Schefter, Woj, and the vast majority of these other national reporters. They’re either mouthpieces or they take this “well they know what they need to do but they won’t do it and I don’t know why!” stance. And then if you were to ask them, they’d have no answer. It’d be like an Always Sunny scene.
Exactly. It's not just owners vs. players, but also small market owners vs. large market owners. Which is evergreen and contributed to the 1994 strike.
I think you need to realize that spawrtz jernilists suffer from the literary equivalent of penis envy. While folks they know or know of stagger in from the battle front ("Well, it's big and terrible. More frightening than I ever thought possible!") or from the towers of late capitalism ("Final steps were taken in or near Washington today to secure the merger of the US government with TMZ General Corp"), spawrtz jernilists need to be constantly coming up with reasons to convince their readers, or more urgently themselves, that what they do is worth doodly squat in the first place.
PS - a free homemade raspberry cheesecake if you can attribute the "big and terrible" quote. The only other person who ever received one was a lawyer in Schenectady who came up with the winning name for my pet pigmy rattlesnake (Friendo).
Now anyone who can type that quote into a search engine will find it immediately! Takes all the fun out of the situation. One is not allowed to use one's phone to look up the answers during trivia, right? Still, that's a nice pastry. The original Gozdilla, King Of The Monsters/Gojira, then. (Autocorrect tried to change 'Gojira' to 'Godiva'. That's a very different potential monster film...)
I think it's because they work for ESPN, a broadcast rights holder, and the expectation is that the respective leagues and unions will come to agreement to ensure games are played.
So many people mocked Rosenthal a while back when he set forth his path to (what he considered) a reasonable settlement. And look what happened to him. So, nobody who wants continued access is going to propose anything that the owners might grumble at, even if they might ultimately accept it a few months or (hopefully not) years down the road.
The lock out didn't help, but in the end no substantive pressure to compromise was going to occur until much closer to opening day when they would start losing games anyway. They could have continued to meet and talk without any compromise in the meantime, and perhaps hammered out some of the less controversial issues. But the big things were never going to be resolved until there was danger of the shit hitting the fan.
"Which sounds more like an MLB/clubs problem than an Eaton problem" - It sounds very much like an Eaton problem, because he's the one who gets hurt by being out of a job. He's not the cause of the problem, but it's his problem.
From what I read the issue is that Eaton is still technically under contract for 2022, and he’s due some sort of buyout as part of his release last year. So until that payout is finalized, he’s still a player. You’d think the MLBPA and the league could have a quick chat about his case just to let him move on with his life.
It’s all a big shame because everyone knows there’s a path to a deal but no one is talking it.
I had no idea pinball machines were even still being made. I can't tell you the last time I saw a pinball machine. And if I saw one I'd expect it was old and there for it's retro vibe.
Absolutely - that place is amazing! Although to bol’s point, all of their games are retro (ASFIK) and I’d be surprised to walk in there and see a brand new pinball machine
when I was a tyke we spent a week each summer at the Berkely-Cateret Hotel and my folks would give me a few buck and I'd go to the boardwalk and mostly play skee-ball.
So, pinball is basically run by Stern now. They're the last man standing from the old guard, and the new companies making new tables tend to be a lot more video board-focused, which is cool, but not for me as much.
Anyway, this is their model. There are a lot fewer arcades, candlepin bowling alleys, and corners of movie theaters these days, so the traditional "Release a machine, put it in the amusements catalog, wait for people to buy it" model kind of dried up. Hence the industry getting fucked.
What Stern's been doing though, is creating limited-run licensed tables, and releasing them, mainly angling toward the home market, and specifically, people who are fans of Rush or AC/DC, or Kiss, and releasing several models at slightly different price points, where the top-of-the-line table is the equivalent of what you would see at an arcade, but, since these won't get nearly as much abuse in a house, there's a use case for a cheaper model, with, say, plastic ramps instead of metal ramps.
For people actually into pinball, there have also been re-releases of popular tables, licensed from the original companies, and made by smaller non-Stern companies.
If you wanted a new Medieval Madness or Attack from Mars table, those were released a few years ago, and there were two more (vastly less popular in first run) Bally/Williams tables re-released too, all by Chicago gaming. They do the similar segmenting, but also take the opportunity to add in fun things to their higher-end tables, so people with the cheaper model still feel like they have the "whole" game.
Our neighbor has a 1980s pinball machine in his garage. He often invites me over for a pretentious craft beer and a few games. He and his wife are getting divorced and might have to sell their house. So, if any of you guys know how to start a conversation with my wife over the possible acquisition of their pinball assets IM ALL EARS
Last summer, my family took a road trip vacation, which included crashing for a couple night's at my wife's maid of honor's house. Her husband had rehabbed an old tabletop video game console, plus a pinball machine and skee-ball table in the basement. I played Qix for the first time in decades. It was a highlight of the trip.
Five months later, they're separated, pending divorce. So maybe it's a trend.
"Hey Honey, Larry is moving so I was planning on buying his pinball machine. But I had a better idea. I think we should invest in an NFT. Take a look at these monkeys and tell me which one looks best to you. This one here is less than $10,000."
She will drag you over to Larry's garage with cash in hand.
Here’s a post we’re going to see 6 months from now:
My neighbor Aaron Cameron has a 1980s pinball machine in his garage. He often invites me over for a pretentious craft beer and a few games. He and his wife are getting divorced…
As a wife, I suggest ... you need to make it a win-win. Sample scenario: you offer to re-org/ clean the garage, clearing space both for what you want (pinball!) and something she wants (snazzy new shelving for her garden supplies, or a treadmill, or ...)
Or by clearing up, you have room to move something that is in the house (that she would like gone) into the garage...
Don't usually comment but I can't miss an opportunity to vent my spleen/throw in my tuppence on the demise of the UK/Britain! It doesn't really get mentioned in that Atlantic piece so much, but the mention of the US fragmenting 'from within' strikes a chord with me.
Living in one of the non-London bits of England, you kind of take it for granted, but it's pretty incredible how big the gap is between how the country is set up to function politically and economically (London has overwhelming primacy in England, England has primacy in Britain, Britain has primacy in the UK) and how it's actually lived/experienced by people who don't benefit from that bubble. Whether it's the slow, quiet erosion or big bang stupid stuff like Brexit, it makes sense that the shared bonds and sense of identity would disintegrate even outside of the national bounds. I'm sure this dynamic isn't unique but between the geography and the entrenched institutional arrogance I wonder if it's more powerful here.
I've been trying to be more open-minded about the charms of Blackpool, but I definitely wasn't thinking of it as the capital of anything! I'd settle for a Lancastrian Republic personally, but that seems like even more of a pipe dream.
I'm sure York would be the historical choice, but I would love for it to be Bradford. Just because. But Blackpool would be a more appropriate place for politcians to hang out.
Yeah, I'd say Manchester or York are the most sensible choices depending how strong your preference for history/tradition etc is. Bradford and Blackpool are both excellent banter choices though.
Blitzer also owns 45% of the Bundesliga team FC Augsburg, which led to the recent transfer of the young American (Bowie reference) phenom Ricardo Pepi. In Germany, with the 50+1 rule, owners aren’t allowed, but as the biggest investor, he is most definitely calling the shots.
Now that I think about it, I don't think Craig even mentioned the purchase of Southampton by Serbian billionaire Dragan Šolak. I have no idea what this means for the future but Southampton supporters on Twitter are universally happy to be rid of the absentee Chinese billionaire that had owned the club.
The decline of America as the world power bothers me less than who is going to replace it. Which seems inevitably to be China. The US world influence as its preeminent power hasn't always been for good, but I expect China's to be far worse.
Or Russia, but as you say, most likely China. I wonder how this would play out in the world stage ? China funneling money to the Middle East to support worldwide terrorism ? With no US to kinda keep them in line, will they just continue to move towards taking over countries in the Far East and other places they deem belonging to them ? Will they push communism on other countries they way the US pushes democracy?
Look what China is doing in Xinjiang. The CCP is not exactly building bridges to the Islamic world. Their focus has been on sub-Saharan Africa and eastern Europe, getting access to natural resources and creating buffer zones by dangling Belt and Road debt trap schemes. They're also seeking regional hegemony through a combination of economic bribes and military threats--the Party wants to avoid the equivalent of Russia's situation with creeping NATO initiatives.
The CCP is not interested in pushing communism--the Party these days is not something Mao, much less Marx, would recognize. The driving ideologies these days are nationalism, consumerism, and, in the Xi era, a militant form of authoritarian autocracy that seeks to displace democracy as a global aspirational standard. The US becoming Kazakhstan would only help them to achieve that goal.
They are imperialistic. Their economy is centrally directed and controlled. They have a one-party system with a strong leader directing it. The legal system and media serve the interests of the government at the expense of individual human rights.
This is a good example of the mindset that the modern American propaganda machine has produced. At this point, the majority of Americans understand on at least some level that our hegemonic power is being used to do bad things, so they're not really able to fight that battle anymore. But at the same time, they've convinced so many that China is such a uniquely perverse evil that we can't possible give up the power we have.
Considering they're already a co-world power in a lot of ways, they would probably just keep doing what they're already doing. Unlikely to be materially/noticeably better or worse for most of the world's population, but at least they probably won't invade Iraq again.
The world order was established by the US and its western allies. China's political and economic system does not conform to those standards. There's going to be a lot of problems.
China's ascent is dependent upon America and the West being stable/prosperous enough to gobble up all of the slop that's produced in factories in Asia.
I don't foresee them changing things up terribly drastically. If anything, the kind of technocratic elite control that the CPC operates under seems to be what the Democratic Party has aspired to since the Third Way broke through.
Kinda seems like ultimately there will be a billionaire shift over toward Asia; who will just work with/bribe various dictatorships or sham democracies.
I don't think you can realistically argue that China isn't a much more authoritarian regime with less personal freedoms than the US, and that will no doubt be reflected in their international relations. And as I said, I'm not worried about us giving up our international power. If that left, say, the EU as the world power, that wouldn't overly worry me, though they have issues too.
But to some extent, whoever is the world power is going to operate in their own self interest. And if some nation in the world is going to control the world in their own self interest, one might think "Well, at least it's my nation benefiting at the expense of others". So to that degree I'll concede your point.
Depends on your definition of "freedom" I guess. I'm not going to make any definitive argument (bc that's impossible and I don't have strong feelings about any definitive answer), but I will say there are both negative freedoms (ie. we imprison way more people) and positive freedoms (I live in a city of 2 million people and don't have access to a passenger train line) in which we are clearly inferior. The "much more authoritarian" comment may be true in certain contexts, but I think the emphasis on those contexts reveals more about the ideology of the person pushing them than it does about any US-China conflict.
I read an article a while ago, maybe at the start of the pandemic, and the author's takeaway was "the empire is always the last to know it's fallen." And it's stuck with me. Not in a good way, but more an impending sense of doom" way.
China is the obvious choice, but they will have to solve their cataclysmic labor shortage issue to really become #1. The 2-child policy severely decimated their labor pool, and although the policy was terminated, the Chinese who have become accustomed to a better standard of living don't seem to want to have more kids.
The solution at the government level is to increase their outreach by offering economic 'help' to foreign nations (especially in Africa) as a way to tap in to markets with available labor to shore up the loss of at-home production.
Just think about it -- a country that is expected to dominate global affairs has been limiting how many children their citizens can have. That's pretty absurd.
The problem is, let’s say you do have only 60% of Republicans (a slight majority of a minority) who support overthrowing democracy and installing a fascist leader. The issue is the other 40% of Republicans and a good portion of those who identify as independents will say “Well, I don’t support their democracy killing policies, but I do support their Democrat killing policies!” and still vote for the Republicans. And while they’re doing that, a good portion of Democrats and independents will say “I would never vote for those Republicans! Now we must do everything possible to cater to them, and we cannot do anything at all to upset them, because obviously they want to negotiate in good faith on everything”.
So at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter how many people support that one specific “overthrowing democracy” thing, because people will still vote against their best interests because a news station keeps telling them the other side is worse.
Absolutely right. as a nation, we have an attention span and an education of a middle schooler. You actually can't have a platform or lay out a plan for people to understand. It is who how the loudest hot take and will "own " the other side. I mean it is easier to just "Say let's go Brandon" than actually read, learn , and have discourse on ideas and policies. It is especially hard when one side opposes any kind of change whatsoever.
The spin the owners will use is "those damned rich players are ruining it for everyone" with an undertone of "aren't unions terrible?" That has always worked in the past to get the public on their side, truth be damned.
I'm convinced that the "20% above asking price" narrative is ginned up by realtors to get people to jump in to the market.
When I read real estate journalism stories on CNN breathlessly saying, "They listed their house and had THIRTY SEVEN OFFERS within 48 hours!" My real takeaway is, "Well damn, they must not be asking for enough money. That's a failure of the owner and their realtor for underpricing their house."
I have a 2018 Toyota Camry. If I wanted to, I'm sure I could get THIRTY SEVEN OFFERS for it on Craigslist in 48 hours if I listed the price as $2500. That doesn't mean that the used car market is crazy; it means I'm selling my asset for much less than it's worth.
You are probably right about the realtors, but the market here does seem that hot. Have talked to a few people - young buyers are certainly being shut out by cash offers, and my neighbors had several offers within 24 hours
We got desktop underwriting, which allowed us to be really aggressive with contingencies and such, despite not being cash buyers and we still had to pay $50k over asking. Other places we offered on went for as much as $150k over asking.
That just makes it seem like sellers are leaving money on the table.
I suppose that might be an intentional strategy: "Ask for a price that we know is well below market, because that way we can create a bidding war among a few of the people who are interested."
I think that is likely the plan. I could probably sell my house for between 525 - 550K. Maybe I price it at 499K, get the people who have the top of their budget at 500K to check out, fall in love, and drive up the bidding.
Re: the "death of democracy" topic, I think conflict among otherwise agreeable parties on this matter stems from unspoken assumptions that different people/groups hold. Broadly speaking, some assume the fundamentals of our democracy are still good (meaning that R machinations are viewed as an existential threat), while others assume that our democracy has been functionally dead for some time (meaning that R machinations, while still very bad, are really just more of the same slow death). This leads to the former camp saying that 1/6 could have ended our democracy and the latter camp saying that 1/6 was a itself a harmless thing and that the real crime against democracy is how existing powers will use it as a pretext to further Patriot Act-ify our country. Both are true but both understandings are incomplete on their own. As such, I think debate about this matter with a full understanding of where everyone is coming from is critical.
The conflict you describe at the top is one of the toughest challenges I find trying to talk politics.
For folks who remember a version of American democracy that functioned, it's very hard to convince them to look at the past few decades with an objective eye.
I find the reporting about the status of the CBA talks to be interesting only what is revealed between the lines. Parties leak to the press all the time. That is, has been, and always will be part of a negotiating strategy. But figuring out who is saying what off the record to whom can be mildly telling and sometimes entertaining.
...
I made my career in the mortgage industry. The W-2 issue has been around for a while, but became more extreme post 2008 when Dodd-Frank pushed the regulating authorities like FHA, FHFA and the like, to have much more strict guidelines for proof of ability to repay the loan. It isn't 100% impossible, but, like Ivory Soap, is about 99.77% purely impossible to get a traditionally underwritten Fannie or Freddie conforming loan based on 1099 or similar income streams.
There are, however, work arounds with private label lending where the loan isn't essentially and effectively backed by the GSEs. Some banks have products that are designed just for that purpose. But well intentioned legislation and regulation giving significant hardship and increased costs to the consumer is not exactly an unheard of event.
The logic of the mortgage industry escapes me. A dozen years ago, my wife and I bought a house in the US. In deciding whether to approve the loan, the bank considered only my wife's income, even though mine was three times hers and was as stable as hers. The sticking point for the bank was that I was working overseas, which apparently was too scary for them to contemplate. We got the loan, but the math the bank came up with in order to justify it was pretty screwy.
Not to defend all underwriting processes but that one seems pretty sound. Work in county A but own a house in county B makes it much more likely an average borrower will eventually relocate to A and absent significant equity just walk away from the debt. Underwriting is based on average behavior not yours particularly.
I know someone who owns and runs a business who recently qualified for a mortgage. I'm guessing it's because their mortgage is a "jumbo loan", which do not conform to Fannie mae and Freddie mac standards.
Renting ain't so bad. We sold the McMansion in late 2017 and moved 60 miles south to Richmond VA to get out of the DC commuting range and to downsize dramatically after my wife's bout with cancer. (She's 5+ year cancer free now...) Richmond was a temporary stop for a year while we decided where we wanted to move so we rented. It's been over 4 years now and we are still here and still renting. Turns out I like renting. It'll suck if the homeowner decided to take advantage of the inflated market and sell soon, but since it's just the two of us moving is inconvenient but not the PITA it could be if we had kids at home. Anyway, I think I'm plenty safe as my landlord appears to building himself a little real estate empire of passive income in the area so I don't think he's selling. And I'm the perfect renter as after 25+ years of home ownership when small stuff breaks I just fix it and don't even bother to tell him about it, as it's easier than coordinating with some contractor he sends over.
“Also, I find it amusing that Passan, and a lot of other people who write about sports labor, say things like “everyone knows there’s an easy path to a deal here, but no one is taking it.” Is there an easy path? If so, what is it?”
This is my problem with the likes of Passan, Schefter, Woj, and the vast majority of these other national reporters. They’re either mouthpieces or they take this “well they know what they need to do but they won’t do it and I don’t know why!” stance. And then if you were to ask them, they’d have no answer. It’d be like an Always Sunny scene.
https://youtu.be/UZDbuHXuGQw
Exactly. It's not just owners vs. players, but also small market owners vs. large market owners. Which is evergreen and contributed to the 1994 strike.
I think you need to realize that spawrtz jernilists suffer from the literary equivalent of penis envy. While folks they know or know of stagger in from the battle front ("Well, it's big and terrible. More frightening than I ever thought possible!") or from the towers of late capitalism ("Final steps were taken in or near Washington today to secure the merger of the US government with TMZ General Corp"), spawrtz jernilists need to be constantly coming up with reasons to convince their readers, or more urgently themselves, that what they do is worth doodly squat in the first place.
"I do not want to put myself in a confrontatory position with the United Snakes or...THEM."
And you can believe me, because I never lie and I'm always right!
PS - a free homemade raspberry cheesecake if you can attribute the "big and terrible" quote. The only other person who ever received one was a lawyer in Schenectady who came up with the winning name for my pet pigmy rattlesnake (Friendo).
The internet has made it too easy, Gator.
Yeah? So?
Now anyone who can type that quote into a search engine will find it immediately! Takes all the fun out of the situation. One is not allowed to use one's phone to look up the answers during trivia, right? Still, that's a nice pastry. The original Gozdilla, King Of The Monsters/Gojira, then. (Autocorrect tried to change 'Gojira' to 'Godiva'. That's a very different potential monster film...)
I think it's because they work for ESPN, a broadcast rights holder, and the expectation is that the respective leagues and unions will come to agreement to ensure games are played.
So many people mocked Rosenthal a while back when he set forth his path to (what he considered) a reasonable settlement. And look what happened to him. So, nobody who wants continued access is going to propose anything that the owners might grumble at, even if they might ultimately accept it a few months or (hopefully not) years down the road.
It's difficult to imagine any Republican not wanting to be a dick.
It’s part of the GOP Hypocritic Oath.
First, do no more good.
The lock out didn't help, but in the end no substantive pressure to compromise was going to occur until much closer to opening day when they would start losing games anyway. They could have continued to meet and talk without any compromise in the meantime, and perhaps hammered out some of the less controversial issues. But the big things were never going to be resolved until there was danger of the shit hitting the fan.
You rarely settle until you’re on the Courthouse steps.
Or they're ready to select jurors...
Don’t worry about a screed that will have the entire world treat you as a pariah. 1/2 the world is good enough for me. Keep it up.
"Which sounds more like an MLB/clubs problem than an Eaton problem" - It sounds very much like an Eaton problem, because he's the one who gets hurt by being out of a job. He's not the cause of the problem, but it's his problem.
From what I read the issue is that Eaton is still technically under contract for 2022, and he’s due some sort of buyout as part of his release last year. So until that payout is finalized, he’s still a player. You’d think the MLBPA and the league could have a quick chat about his case just to let him move on with his life.
It’s all a big shame because everyone knows there’s a path to a deal but no one is talking it.
I had no idea pinball machines were even still being made. I can't tell you the last time I saw a pinball machine. And if I saw one I'd expect it was old and there for it's retro vibe.
One of the many fun places to hang out on the Jersey Shore while waiting for a show at the Stone Pony: https://www.silverballmuseum.com/asbury-park/about/our-machines/
Absolutely - that place is amazing! Although to bol’s point, all of their games are retro (ASFIK) and I’d be surprised to walk in there and see a brand new pinball machine
when I was a tyke we spent a week each summer at the Berkely-Cateret Hotel and my folks would give me a few buck and I'd go to the boardwalk and mostly play skee-ball.
So, pinball is basically run by Stern now. They're the last man standing from the old guard, and the new companies making new tables tend to be a lot more video board-focused, which is cool, but not for me as much.
Anyway, this is their model. There are a lot fewer arcades, candlepin bowling alleys, and corners of movie theaters these days, so the traditional "Release a machine, put it in the amusements catalog, wait for people to buy it" model kind of dried up. Hence the industry getting fucked.
What Stern's been doing though, is creating limited-run licensed tables, and releasing them, mainly angling toward the home market, and specifically, people who are fans of Rush or AC/DC, or Kiss, and releasing several models at slightly different price points, where the top-of-the-line table is the equivalent of what you would see at an arcade, but, since these won't get nearly as much abuse in a house, there's a use case for a cheaper model, with, say, plastic ramps instead of metal ramps.
For people actually into pinball, there have also been re-releases of popular tables, licensed from the original companies, and made by smaller non-Stern companies.
If you wanted a new Medieval Madness or Attack from Mars table, those were released a few years ago, and there were two more (vastly less popular in first run) Bally/Williams tables re-released too, all by Chicago gaming. They do the similar segmenting, but also take the opportunity to add in fun things to their higher-end tables, so people with the cheaper model still feel like they have the "whole" game.
What a cool rundown! Thanks.
Our neighbor has a 1980s pinball machine in his garage. He often invites me over for a pretentious craft beer and a few games. He and his wife are getting divorced and might have to sell their house. So, if any of you guys know how to start a conversation with my wife over the possible acquisition of their pinball assets IM ALL EARS
Kick around the idea of buying a boat first, and then "backtrack" to the pinball machine instead.
Or a camper/fifth wheel. Might as well get a nice Galaga machine too while you're at it. :)
A while back I was in a conversation with a couple friends.
Friend 1: "Oh man, I used to LOVE Galaga"
Friend 2, without hesitation: "Galaga? Ain't that the guy that used to smash watermelons with a hammer?"
It's been, like, 15 years and I still laugh about that every time somebody brings up Galaga.
Last summer, my family took a road trip vacation, which included crashing for a couple night's at my wife's maid of honor's house. Her husband had rehabbed an old tabletop video game console, plus a pinball machine and skee-ball table in the basement. I played Qix for the first time in decades. It was a highlight of the trip.
Five months later, they're separated, pending divorce. So maybe it's a trend.
I can't think of any thing/behavior more likely to cause a divorce than a pinball machine.
Maybe Larry King had a garage full of pinball machines!
"Hey Honey, Larry is moving so I was planning on buying his pinball machine. But I had a better idea. I think we should invest in an NFT. Take a look at these monkeys and tell me which one looks best to you. This one here is less than $10,000."
She will drag you over to Larry's garage with cash in hand.
Here’s a post we’re going to see 6 months from now:
My neighbor Aaron Cameron has a 1980s pinball machine in his garage. He often invites me over for a pretentious craft beer and a few games. He and his wife are getting divorced…
Have you considered just asking?
God, no.
As a wife, I suggest ... you need to make it a win-win. Sample scenario: you offer to re-org/ clean the garage, clearing space both for what you want (pinball!) and something she wants (snazzy new shelving for her garden supplies, or a treadmill, or ...)
Or by clearing up, you have room to move something that is in the house (that she would like gone) into the garage...
Don't usually comment but I can't miss an opportunity to vent my spleen/throw in my tuppence on the demise of the UK/Britain! It doesn't really get mentioned in that Atlantic piece so much, but the mention of the US fragmenting 'from within' strikes a chord with me.
Living in one of the non-London bits of England, you kind of take it for granted, but it's pretty incredible how big the gap is between how the country is set up to function politically and economically (London has overwhelming primacy in England, England has primacy in Britain, Britain has primacy in the UK) and how it's actually lived/experienced by people who don't benefit from that bubble. Whether it's the slow, quiet erosion or big bang stupid stuff like Brexit, it makes sense that the shared bonds and sense of identity would disintegrate even outside of the national bounds. I'm sure this dynamic isn't unique but between the geography and the entrenched institutional arrogance I wonder if it's more powerful here.
Anyway: an Independent Northern Republic Now!
You talking about Northern Ireland, or just 'the North'. With Blackpool as capital? Good luck with that.
I've been trying to be more open-minded about the charms of Blackpool, but I definitely wasn't thinking of it as the capital of anything! I'd settle for a Lancastrian Republic personally, but that seems like even more of a pipe dream.
I'm sure York would be the historical choice, but I would love for it to be Bradford. Just because. But Blackpool would be a more appropriate place for politcians to hang out.
Yeah, I'd say Manchester or York are the most sensible choices depending how strong your preference for history/tradition etc is. Bradford and Blackpool are both excellent banter choices though.
You might like this Twitter account... they've got colors and everything! @FreeNorthNow
If there were true justice in the world, Newcastle would be the capitol.
A travesty that it took so long for the Rush pinball machine. Instead we had this: https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/ted-nugent-sits-in-a-new-nugent-pinball-machine-on-the-assemblyline-picture-id856372596?s=2048x2048
Blitzer also owns 45% of the Bundesliga team FC Augsburg, which led to the recent transfer of the young American (Bowie reference) phenom Ricardo Pepi. In Germany, with the 50+1 rule, owners aren’t allowed, but as the biggest investor, he is most definitely calling the shots.
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/sport/zweistelliger-millionenbetrag-fuer-einen-18-jaehrigen-alle-muessen-sparen-nur-der-fc-augsburg-laesst-es-krachen/27942578.html
Now that I think about it, I don't think Craig even mentioned the purchase of Southampton by Serbian billionaire Dragan Šolak. I have no idea what this means for the future but Southampton supporters on Twitter are universally happy to be rid of the absentee Chinese billionaire that had owned the club.
The decline of America as the world power bothers me less than who is going to replace it. Which seems inevitably to be China. The US world influence as its preeminent power hasn't always been for good, but I expect China's to be far worse.
Word.
Or Russia, but as you say, most likely China. I wonder how this would play out in the world stage ? China funneling money to the Middle East to support worldwide terrorism ? With no US to kinda keep them in line, will they just continue to move towards taking over countries in the Far East and other places they deem belonging to them ? Will they push communism on other countries they way the US pushes democracy?
China wouldn't be supporting worldwide terrorism if they took the top spot, because the terrorism would be done in China and against China's allies.
Look what China is doing in Xinjiang. The CCP is not exactly building bridges to the Islamic world. Their focus has been on sub-Saharan Africa and eastern Europe, getting access to natural resources and creating buffer zones by dangling Belt and Road debt trap schemes. They're also seeking regional hegemony through a combination of economic bribes and military threats--the Party wants to avoid the equivalent of Russia's situation with creeping NATO initiatives.
The CCP is not interested in pushing communism--the Party these days is not something Mao, much less Marx, would recognize. The driving ideologies these days are nationalism, consumerism, and, in the Xi era, a militant form of authoritarian autocracy that seeks to displace democracy as a global aspirational standard. The US becoming Kazakhstan would only help them to achieve that goal.
They are imperialistic. Their economy is centrally directed and controlled. They have a one-party system with a strong leader directing it. The legal system and media serve the interests of the government at the expense of individual human rights.
This is a good example of the mindset that the modern American propaganda machine has produced. At this point, the majority of Americans understand on at least some level that our hegemonic power is being used to do bad things, so they're not really able to fight that battle anymore. But at the same time, they've convinced so many that China is such a uniquely perverse evil that we can't possible give up the power we have.
If the US moves into the background, similar to what Craig mentions above about Holland, in your opinion what does China do ? Or not do ?
Considering they're already a co-world power in a lot of ways, they would probably just keep doing what they're already doing. Unlikely to be materially/noticeably better or worse for most of the world's population, but at least they probably won't invade Iraq again.
The world order was established by the US and its western allies. China's political and economic system does not conform to those standards. There's going to be a lot of problems.
China's ascent is dependent upon America and the West being stable/prosperous enough to gobble up all of the slop that's produced in factories in Asia.
I don't foresee them changing things up terribly drastically. If anything, the kind of technocratic elite control that the CPC operates under seems to be what the Democratic Party has aspired to since the Third Way broke through.
Kinda seems like ultimately there will be a billionaire shift over toward Asia; who will just work with/bribe various dictatorships or sham democracies.
I don't think you can realistically argue that China isn't a much more authoritarian regime with less personal freedoms than the US, and that will no doubt be reflected in their international relations. And as I said, I'm not worried about us giving up our international power. If that left, say, the EU as the world power, that wouldn't overly worry me, though they have issues too.
But to some extent, whoever is the world power is going to operate in their own self interest. And if some nation in the world is going to control the world in their own self interest, one might think "Well, at least it's my nation benefiting at the expense of others". So to that degree I'll concede your point.
Depends on your definition of "freedom" I guess. I'm not going to make any definitive argument (bc that's impossible and I don't have strong feelings about any definitive answer), but I will say there are both negative freedoms (ie. we imprison way more people) and positive freedoms (I live in a city of 2 million people and don't have access to a passenger train line) in which we are clearly inferior. The "much more authoritarian" comment may be true in certain contexts, but I think the emphasis on those contexts reveals more about the ideology of the person pushing them than it does about any US-China conflict.
It would probably be good for Americans to encounter a vision of freedom that didn't amount to "the right to go to Wendy's whenever I want."
I say we hear Xi out.
This is tangential to the larger US-China conversation, but probably best sums up what I think of both: https://bnet.substack.com/p/the-minimum-level-of-suckage
I read an article a while ago, maybe at the start of the pandemic, and the author's takeaway was "the empire is always the last to know it's fallen." And it's stuck with me. Not in a good way, but more an impending sense of doom" way.
China is the obvious choice, but they will have to solve their cataclysmic labor shortage issue to really become #1. The 2-child policy severely decimated their labor pool, and although the policy was terminated, the Chinese who have become accustomed to a better standard of living don't seem to want to have more kids.
The solution at the government level is to increase their outreach by offering economic 'help' to foreign nations (especially in Africa) as a way to tap in to markets with available labor to shore up the loss of at-home production.
Just think about it -- a country that is expected to dominate global affairs has been limiting how many children their citizens can have. That's pretty absurd.
The problem is, let’s say you do have only 60% of Republicans (a slight majority of a minority) who support overthrowing democracy and installing a fascist leader. The issue is the other 40% of Republicans and a good portion of those who identify as independents will say “Well, I don’t support their democracy killing policies, but I do support their Democrat killing policies!” and still vote for the Republicans. And while they’re doing that, a good portion of Democrats and independents will say “I would never vote for those Republicans! Now we must do everything possible to cater to them, and we cannot do anything at all to upset them, because obviously they want to negotiate in good faith on everything”.
So at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter how many people support that one specific “overthrowing democracy” thing, because people will still vote against their best interests because a news station keeps telling them the other side is worse.
Absolutely right. as a nation, we have an attention span and an education of a middle schooler. You actually can't have a platform or lay out a plan for people to understand. It is who how the loudest hot take and will "own " the other side. I mean it is easier to just "Say let's go Brandon" than actually read, learn , and have discourse on ideas and policies. It is especially hard when one side opposes any kind of change whatsoever.
And you can have a generally unpopular demagogue rise to the top of his primary, when all that's needed is a plurality.
The spin the owners will use is "those damned rich players are ruining it for everyone" with an undertone of "aren't unions terrible?" That has always worked in the past to get the public on their side, truth be damned.
Craig, when you move pay cash, sell your baseball cards, etc! Then you won’t need a mortgage!
Where I live in the Berkshires, it takes cash AND an offer 20% above asking price ;>}
I'm convinced that the "20% above asking price" narrative is ginned up by realtors to get people to jump in to the market.
When I read real estate journalism stories on CNN breathlessly saying, "They listed their house and had THIRTY SEVEN OFFERS within 48 hours!" My real takeaway is, "Well damn, they must not be asking for enough money. That's a failure of the owner and their realtor for underpricing their house."
I have a 2018 Toyota Camry. If I wanted to, I'm sure I could get THIRTY SEVEN OFFERS for it on Craigslist in 48 hours if I listed the price as $2500. That doesn't mean that the used car market is crazy; it means I'm selling my asset for much less than it's worth.
You are probably right about the realtors, but the market here does seem that hot. Have talked to a few people - young buyers are certainly being shut out by cash offers, and my neighbors had several offers within 24 hours
We got desktop underwriting, which allowed us to be really aggressive with contingencies and such, despite not being cash buyers and we still had to pay $50k over asking. Other places we offered on went for as much as $150k over asking.
That just makes it seem like sellers are leaving money on the table.
I suppose that might be an intentional strategy: "Ask for a price that we know is well below market, because that way we can create a bidding war among a few of the people who are interested."
That's possible. For reference, this in LA, so I suppose even an $800+ list price could be below market.
I think that is likely the plan. I could probably sell my house for between 525 - 550K. Maybe I price it at 499K, get the people who have the top of their budget at 500K to check out, fall in love, and drive up the bidding.
Re: the "death of democracy" topic, I think conflict among otherwise agreeable parties on this matter stems from unspoken assumptions that different people/groups hold. Broadly speaking, some assume the fundamentals of our democracy are still good (meaning that R machinations are viewed as an existential threat), while others assume that our democracy has been functionally dead for some time (meaning that R machinations, while still very bad, are really just more of the same slow death). This leads to the former camp saying that 1/6 could have ended our democracy and the latter camp saying that 1/6 was a itself a harmless thing and that the real crime against democracy is how existing powers will use it as a pretext to further Patriot Act-ify our country. Both are true but both understandings are incomplete on their own. As such, I think debate about this matter with a full understanding of where everyone is coming from is critical.
lol Bernie Sanders' comms team said it better than I did: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1479128459171483648?s=20
The conflict you describe at the top is one of the toughest challenges I find trying to talk politics.
For folks who remember a version of American democracy that functioned, it's very hard to convince them to look at the past few decades with an objective eye.
I find the reporting about the status of the CBA talks to be interesting only what is revealed between the lines. Parties leak to the press all the time. That is, has been, and always will be part of a negotiating strategy. But figuring out who is saying what off the record to whom can be mildly telling and sometimes entertaining.
...
I made my career in the mortgage industry. The W-2 issue has been around for a while, but became more extreme post 2008 when Dodd-Frank pushed the regulating authorities like FHA, FHFA and the like, to have much more strict guidelines for proof of ability to repay the loan. It isn't 100% impossible, but, like Ivory Soap, is about 99.77% purely impossible to get a traditionally underwritten Fannie or Freddie conforming loan based on 1099 or similar income streams.
There are, however, work arounds with private label lending where the loan isn't essentially and effectively backed by the GSEs. Some banks have products that are designed just for that purpose. But well intentioned legislation and regulation giving significant hardship and increased costs to the consumer is not exactly an unheard of event.
The logic of the mortgage industry escapes me. A dozen years ago, my wife and I bought a house in the US. In deciding whether to approve the loan, the bank considered only my wife's income, even though mine was three times hers and was as stable as hers. The sticking point for the bank was that I was working overseas, which apparently was too scary for them to contemplate. We got the loan, but the math the bank came up with in order to justify it was pretty screwy.
Not to defend all underwriting processes but that one seems pretty sound. Work in county A but own a house in county B makes it much more likely an average borrower will eventually relocate to A and absent significant equity just walk away from the debt. Underwriting is based on average behavior not yours particularly.
I know someone who owns and runs a business who recently qualified for a mortgage. I'm guessing it's because their mortgage is a "jumbo loan", which do not conform to Fannie mae and Freddie mac standards.
Renting ain't so bad. We sold the McMansion in late 2017 and moved 60 miles south to Richmond VA to get out of the DC commuting range and to downsize dramatically after my wife's bout with cancer. (She's 5+ year cancer free now...) Richmond was a temporary stop for a year while we decided where we wanted to move so we rented. It's been over 4 years now and we are still here and still renting. Turns out I like renting. It'll suck if the homeowner decided to take advantage of the inflated market and sell soon, but since it's just the two of us moving is inconvenient but not the PITA it could be if we had kids at home. Anyway, I think I'm plenty safe as my landlord appears to building himself a little real estate empire of passive income in the area so I don't think he's selling. And I'm the perfect renter as after 25+ years of home ownership when small stuff breaks I just fix it and don't even bother to tell him about it, as it's easier than coordinating with some contractor he sends over.
Best wishes to your wife.