dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
In the last few days stock market panicked about potential invasion of Russia to Ukraine.
I decided to find out who is spreading this panic.
I found that the primary source of the panic is Jake Sullivan.
He was born in 1976-11-28, so Jake Sullivan is half a year younger than me and about the same age as Putin was when he became the head of the Federal Security Service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Sullivan#Biden_administration
On November 22, 2020, Sullivan was announced as President-elect Joe Biden's choice to be National Security Advisor.
Jake Sullivan serves as a National Security Advisor for 1.5 years already.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/08/16/afghanistan-disaster-why-bidens-foreign-policy-team-failed-america/8145997002/
Biden wanted out of Afghanistan. It was on Sullivan to figure out how to achieve the president’s goal while ensuring we avoided potential pitfalls and problems. That’s clearly not what happened.
This is what Jake Sullivan said about potential Russian invasion to Ukraine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Sullivan#Biden_administration
On December 7, 2021, Sullivan warned that Russia's Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project will end in the event of Russian invasion of Ukraine.[39]

On January 14, 2022, Sullivan accused Russia of sending saboteurs into Ukraine to stage "a false-flag operation" that would create a pretext for Russia to invade Ukraine.[40] Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dismissed the U.S. claim as "total disinformation."[41]

On February 11, 2022, Sullivan publicly warned about the likelihood of a Russian invasion of Ukraine prior to the end the 2022 Winter Olympics, urging all Americans to leave Ukraine immediately and indicating that there may be "no prospect of a U.S. military evacuation" once the invasion commences.[42] He claimed that "Russia has all the forces it needs to conduct a major military action."[43] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that warnings of an imminent Russian invasion are "causing panic and not helping" and asked for firm proof that Russia plans to invade Ukraine.[44]

Jake Sullivan claims remind me claims of Bush W crew about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq in 2002-2003. Somebody else was connecting the same dots:
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/11/1080164367/russia-ukraine-invasion-olympics-sullivan?t=1644670750017
Asked about past U.S. intelligence estimates that were proved wrong, including in the runup to the Iraq War, when Bush administration officials claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, Sullivan said things are different this time.

"In the situation in Iraq, intelligence was used and deployed from this very podium to start a war. We are trying to stop a war, to prevent a war, to avert a war," he said.
I think that Jake Sullivan prediction that "Russia is about to invade Ukraine" - is a false alarm.
Even if Putin will invade Ukraine, it is unlikely to happen now when everyone is watching.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
Donald Trump said today: "in the war against Chinese virus".

So Trump implies that the US is kind of in a war with China.

WTF?
Trump should have known that the problem is not the Coronavirus itself, but our society panic about it.
Bringing up that war reference and blaming Chinese for detecting Coronavirus - will make the panic situation worse, not better.

I think that Trump will lose the next presidential election (2020-11-03).
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
If you are a social network, what country do you show for a location that is disputed between two countries?
Instagram shows "Europe/Simferopol" instead of "Simferopol, Russia" or "Simferopol, Ukraine".
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia try to adjust the Roe vs Wade balance and reduce the maximum pregnancy length when it is still legal to do an abortion [down to ~10-12 weeks of pregnancy].

I am ok with such attempts to experiment on a state level. For me it is even interesting to compare what would be the consequences of such abortion ban in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia relative to other states.

However Georgia's legislators went too far:
~~~~~
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/hb-481-georgia-law-criminalizes-abortion-subjects-women-to-life-in-prison.html
Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.
~~~~~

That part of Georgia State legislation is stupid. It infringes or important civil freedoms we enjoy in the US (freedom of travel and freedom of states to define what is legal or not on their territory).
Georgian legislators could have stayed reasonable and actually reduce max legal term for abortions (inside of Georgia state). But now it is more likely that the whole Georgian anti-abortion legislation will get thrown out [by the Supreme Court].

I would also recommend these righteous legislators to learn from the fate of Elena and Nicolae Ceaușescu. Ceaușescu couple, effectively, got killed by the fetuses Ceaușescus saved earlier in their anti-abortion ban -- when these former fetuses grew up.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
Election system needs to be simple and fair.
That is why in a democratic elections -- one citizen has one vote.

However there is a problem with "one person - one vote system": there are a lot of poor citizens with voting power who do are not able to manage their personal finances well. If elections were completely fair, then this poor majority would define how country's economic system runs. The end result will be similar to what Venezuela has right now (oil-rich country has struggles with even getting food and electricity, thanks to the socialism that breaks Venezuela's economy).

In order to prevent catastrophic economic decisions, more government power should be transferred to the people who understand how to manage the economy better -- the relatively small group of rich people.

One way to do that -- would be to elect the government -- proportionally to how much taxes a person pay to the government (private corporations elect their corporate boards in a similar way). For example, $10,000 in taxes that a household paid in the last 4 years prior to the election -- would represent 1 vote.

But such strong "taxes -> government power" link will lead to a lot of people who do not pay taxes (or pay very little taxes) to have almost no representation in the government. Such powerless situation frustrate people. Collectively, poor majority still has a lot of "people power" even though they do not have money. "People power" should have a legitimate representation in the government.

The adjustment "taxes power" solution is to mix in "people power" solution.
So every $10,000 paid in taxes would get 1 vote, but also every person would get a vote.
I, personally, am in favor of such mixed "taxes power + people power" system. But such mixed system is too complex to understand for most citizens.

So most democracies (including the United States democracy) evolved to apply "corruption" fix to their democracy.
"Taxes power" is substituted with "corruption power". So now rich people can sponsor politicians in order to influence the outcome of the democratic election and get some power back from economically clueless majority.

Unfortunately, corruption has a lot of negative side effects. For example, it may be very tempting for a business to spend $1M kickback on a politician in order to get $10M in form of government handouts. In well-functioning democracies (such as the US democracy) kickbacks are illegal.
But some forms of corruption are explicitly legal. In particular, it is legal to sponsor politicians' campaigns, so the corrupting money will be spent on convincing the voters to support the politician. That form of corruption results in brainwashing campaigns which may also have some negative effects, but these negative effects are not nearly as bad as negative effects from kickbacks.
If corrupting sponsor-politician deal is too bad -- the brainwashing campaign will not be able to convince the voters to accept the bad deal (at least not in a society that respects a free speech).
And even if brainwashed majority accepts a bad deal, they do NOT riot against it, because they had a chance at election to reject that deal, and have another chance at the next election to reject that bad deal.

To summarize:
1) "Sponsoring election campaign" form of corruption is a practical way to improve performance of a pure "people power" democracy.
2) "Sponsoring election campaign" corruption still has significant disadvantages, but these disadvantages are not nearly as bad as allowing economically clueless majority to run the country unchecked.
3) It is possible to setup a well-functioning democracy without legalizing any corruption at all, but the alternatives (such as "taxes power + people power" system) are more complex than existing "1 citizen - 1 vote" election system.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
In order to protect Facebook business in France, Mark Zuckerberg put on his business suit with a tie and fly to Paris to please Emmanuel Macron:


What would you do to protect your business (or your job)?
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
28 years old actress thinks that she knows better than billionaires how to manage the country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k

Jennifer is a smart, energetic and successful young woman, so in this video she correctly describes how political system works (in particular, that big money have huge influence on the political decisions in the US).

But due to her youth and inexperience Jennifer failed to understand the root cause of why billionaires have such strong influence on the politics. It is not just because billionaires can use their money to influence politics. The political system is, actually, working much better when people who are able to earn and accumulate wealth have stronger influence over the politics.
Both billionaires and [relatively] poor people majority benefit from billionaires having stronger influence over the US politics.

Consider Venezuela where billionaires failed to control the government power and allowed socialism to take over. The whole Venezuelan population is suffering now as a result.

I will take "average billionaire" opinion over "average voter" opinion any day.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
Today I learned that:
1) Jeff Bezos divorced recently (2019-01-09).

2) Donald Trump's henchman blackmailed Jeff Bezos with some photos [of naked Bezos and his mistress].

How National Enquirer prepared for blackmailing Jeff Bezos:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted Jan 28, 2019 @ 9:19AM
Jeff Bezos Shared Wife’s Pillow Talk With Mistress Lauren Sanchez

MORE SHAME FOR BEZOS! THE NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN TEXTS SENT TO HIS MISTRESS
“I love you, alive girl. I will show you with my body, and my lips and my eyes."
.....
SHOCKING PHOTOS!
JEFF BEZOS CREEPS OUT OF MISTRESS' LOVE NEST
The billionaire cheater was caught red-handed!
Posted Jan 23, 2019 @ 17:23PM
.....
Posted Jan 14, 2019 @ 18:45PM
Jeff Bezos Shared Wife’s Pillow Talk With Mistress Lauren Sanchez
ULTIMATE BETRAYAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Discussion on Hacker News
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
I voted today. Natasha reminded me about the voting twice. I would forget about it otherwise (in favor of my business).

Mid-term elections are not as exciting (the most charismatic candidates are running for President).

I spent ~40 minutes researching long list of candidates. So I am not sure if in all cases I made the best choice.

When voting - I focused on economic issues. If candidate is clearly declaring importance of lowering or not raising taxes - I pick that candidate.
So I voted for 3 Republicans because they had a better stand on economic issues.
Then I voted for 3 other Republicans (Florida state-level), because I did not even have time to research and identify economic position (and had to rely on "Republican" label).

Judges - keep the same ("If it ain't broke, don't fix it.").
New judge - picked Linda L. Gaustad because she is a former entrepreneur (he opponent Ryan Will is a career politician).

"Mosquito Control", and "Airport Authority" -- sorry guys -- did not vote for any of you this time -- no time to research and compare.


Then the most interesting part of the election -- the amendments.

- "Increased Homestead Property Tax Exemption": Yes.
This amendment should (in theory) lower my house property tax.
However I am not sure if it was the right choice. It may be better to pay more property taxes and less other taxes. By my personal greed determined the outcome.

- "Limitations on Property Tax Assessments": Yes.
If property prices rise in a bubble - it may hurt to pay quickly raising property taxes. That amendment would limit the assessed price growth by 10%/year.

- "Voter control of Gambling in Florida": No.
Why would I limit State revenue that does not cost me any taxes?
Besides, "live and let live". That "No" was an easy and obvious choice.

- "Voting Restoration Amendment": Yes.
Felons should have voting rights. That should reduce prison population and abuse of majority over minority. This amendment is a step in the right direction.

- "Supermajority Vote Required to Impose, Authorize, or Raise State Taxes or Fees": Yes.
I want to make introduction of new taxes harder for lawmakers.

- "Rights of Crime Victims; Judges": No.
I could not understand that amendment. I do not like complicated laws.

- "First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits; Public Colleges and Universities": No.
I do not like special treatment on legal level.

- "Prohibits Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling; Prohibits Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces": No.
Oil & Gas drilling is an important source of State revenue. "Live and let live".

"State and Local GOvernment Structure and Operation": No.
Could not understand it. Sounded phishy.

"Property Rights; Removal of Obsolete Provision; Criminal Statutes": No.
Could not understand it.

"Lobbying and Abuse of Office by Public Officers": No.
Lobbying is an important part of election system that increases influence of people with capital. I prefer people who know how to accumulate and keep money -- to have more influence on how government works.

"Ends Dog Racing": No. "Live and let live".
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
As a result of all these "Trump vs Putin" discussions, I asked myself: am I qualified to evaluate Putin and Trump's relationships?

Considering how much effort over the years I put to understand these two populist politicians -- I think I am well qualified.

One interesting sign is that I voted in both Putin and Trump Presidential elections (in 2000 and in 2016).

My guesstimate is that there are only about several thousand people like that in the entire world.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
It is fun to watch how smart people make choices against their own interest -- simply because they do not have clear understanding of basic micro-economics principles (such as Law of Supply and Demand).

Here is an example:
Population of Bay Area has been struggling with traffic congestions for decades.
So in 2018 they launched Regional Measure 3

"Regional Measure 3" is clearly in the interest of most of Bay Area residents, but many, driven by stinginess, still complain.

======
https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/advocate-lead/regional-measure-3
To help solve the Bay Area's growing congestion problems, MTC worked with the state Legislature to authorize a new ballot measure that would finance a comprehensive suite of highway and transit improvements through an increase tolls on the region's seven state-owned toll bridges.
======

So, the overall intent is right: Bay Area has traffic congestion problems that need to be fixed.

======
toll revenues would be used to finance a $4.45 billion slate of highway and transit improvements in the toll bridge corridors and their approach routes.
======

1) Tolls would decrease number of cars on the roads, which would decrease traffic congestions.

2) Highway improvements would allow more cars to pass faster.

However stingy residents do not like to pay ($3 per single passing) and forget that the alternative is to spend a lot of their valuable time in traffic jams.


======
Major projects in the RM 3 expenditure plan include new BART cars to accommodate growing ridership
======

[personal profile] juan_gandhi considers this measure unfair ("why should tall payments from car drivers - go to improve BART?").
That is a reasonable objection, however there are 2 strong reasons why that "BART financing from cars toll system" is an important part of "Regional Measure 3":
Reason #1: Without sponsoring BART it will be hard to make "Regional Measure 3" to pass (poor people are not going to vote for toll payments increase).
Reason #2: Sponsoring BART is likely to be a relatively small expense (relative to the spendings that would go to the improvement of the highway system).

So, overall, that "Regional Measure 3" campaign was designed quite well. It is a quite reasonable way to reduce traffic jams that Bay Area has.
It makes sense that largest employers (Google, Facebook, ...) supported "Regional Measure 3".

It is good for Bay Area residents (and business) that "Regional Measure 3" passed.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
I think these sanctions would end up being mostly symbolic and would have no real effect. Which is exactly how it should be, considering that some limited lobbying of US elections by other countries is a good thing (it keeps countries together).

=====
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/14/senate_approves_new_russia_sanctions_limits_on_trump_134193.html
The overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 97-2 sent a message to Vladimir Putin that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are serious about punishing Russia for its actions last year -- and sent a message to Trump that they're serious about ensuring that those sanctions stay in place until Congress is ready to lift them.
=====

---
https://www.reuters.com/.../us-usa-russia-sanctions...
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman ... said it was "strange" that sanctions intended to punish Russia for alleged interference in the U.S. elections could also trigger penalties against European companies.
---
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
===========
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmNN2MCJ-7U&feature=youtu.be&t=1004
Letterman: But you are worth like 4 billion dollars or something?
Trump: I hope so.
...
Trump: We are living in very precarious times. If you look at what certain countries are doing to this country, such as Japan. I mean, they've totally taken advantage of the country. ...
===========

Trump did not change.

Back then he was vague about his wealth he is vague about his wealth now.

Back then he was blaming other countries (Japan) for taking advantage of the US. Now he is blaming other countries (China and Mexico) for taking advantage of the US.

More Trump history.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
Donald Trump suggested to pay for the wall from the new 20% tax on Mexican imports. Lawmakers refused to cooperate. So Trump changed his mind.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/donald-trump-mexico-import-tax-border-wall/index.html

That made me think if Trump understands what he is going to do with the economy.
But the thing is that economy is not the only Trump's consideration. More importantly, he has to comply with public opinion. Unfortunately that public opinion is self-destructive on multiple issues.
So balancing public opinion vs practical economic goals is hard.

I believe that in order to increase our economic benefits - we should reduce government regulations ~5x (or, at least, 2x for starters).
Which means that government should work mostly on reducing regulations, not on introducing new ones.

However that thing with reducing government regulations is actually not that simple.
Complex government regulations could serve an important role of circumventing popular (but dumb) public opinion.
For example:
1) Complex tax code (such as tax deductions) allows to effectively reduce taxes without offending popular public opinion that we should tax rich people a lot.
2) Introducing legal minimum wage allows to discriminate against low skill people and keep them away from affluent neighborhoods.
Etc.

Politics is really complex and hard to grasp.
dennisgorelik: (2009)
Warren Buffett

-------
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/11/investing/warren-buffett-donald-trump-stock
Warren Buffett: It was clearly an election none other I've ever seen.
... I'm sure we've set a record for what I call negative votes.
.....
Poppy Harlow: Do you support Donald Trump as the next President?
Warren Buffett: I support any President of the United States. It is very important that American people coalesce behind the President.
.....
Warren Buffett: Much of the American public did not like any of the candidates very well.
.....
Warren Buffett: By far the most important thing is what person is likely as a President to minimize the chances of weapons of mass destruction being used.
.....
Warren Buffett: I had exit polls of one of the best news organizations around. At 7pm EST ... they were off by 6 or 7 points.
.....
Poppy Harlow: So all these predictions that the market is going to tank under President Trump
Warren Buffett: They are silly.
.....
Warren Buffett: This is not exclusive to Donald Trump - there are a lot of things said in campaigns that don't happen after the election.
.....
Poppy Harlow: Are you concerned about his ability to operate big businesses?
Warren Buffett: I don't have to worry about him operating big business at all. That does not really in my judgement determine whether somebody makes a great President. Harry Truman went broke in a Haberdashery store near Kansas City or in Kansas City. He wasn't much of a businessman. He turned out to be a terrific president.

Warren Buffett: That is what Mario Cuomo said: "You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose."
.....
Poppy Harlow: You often picked up the telephone when President Obama called you for your advice. If a President Trump calls you to come to the White House to help him to advise with economic policy - would you do that?
Warren Buffett: I would do that with any President... that's part of being a citizen.
.....
Poppy Harlow: Have you spoken with Hillary Clinton since she conceded?
Warren Buffett: No. No.
-------

1) It's interesting that Buffet's concerns about WMD usage is not that much about using WMD in a war, but more like terrorist usage.
Poppy Harlow did not catch that and suggested that the problem is with Trump's temperament.
Buffett did not notice that Poppy Harlow did not catch the meaning of his words and just extended "Temperament and Judgement".

2) Does Buffett still believe that the news organization that measured exit polls is really one of the best?
dennisgorelik: (2009)
My 8-years old son would have voted for Hillary today (if he was old enough for that).
He is definite about it.
His reasoning:
1) First woman President.
2) Care for the environment.

His source of information: YouTube ads.

Hillary raised 64% more funds for her campaign than Trump:
----
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/
MONEY RAISED AS OF OCT. 19
Hillary Clinton campaign:
$1.3 B

Donald Trump campaign:
$795 M

$486.7 million
Party and joint fundraising committees
$60.1 million
Super PACs
----

These money went to political ads and probably significantly influenced the outcome of this Presidential election.

---
My vote is not as easy to buy though. I voted for Gary Johnson - to send a message to whoever would win this race in what direction they should adjust their political positions.

Profile

dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)
Dennis Gorelik

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 22nd, 2025 05:13 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
OSZAR »