Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Americans aren’t losing their jobs. The stock market isn’t in freefall. And the official recession call is nowhere in sight. But Goldman Sachs is sounding an alarm about something quieter and more insidious: the purchasing power of the American paycheck is eroding at a pace the economy almost never sees unless it’s already in a downturn.

Neither tax refunds nor savings can last as buffers. Goldman expects real consumer cash-flow growth to slow to just 0.3% year over year by the fourth quarter as the tax refund boost fades. And with the savings rate already near the floor, there’s little room left to offset the income squeeze by drawing down further.

Six decades of data show that real income per worker contracting at this rate almost exclusively happens when the economy is already in a formal downturn. Right now, it isn’t. But Goldman’s message is clear: your paycheck doesn’t know that.

Report: Billionaire Peter Thiel Flees America, Moves Family to Argentina

Billionaire investor Peter Thiel has reportedly moved his family to Buenos Aires, Argentina, in order to get away from high taxes in the United States — and to flee what he suspects will be a nuclear war and runaway AI.

Police handcuffed and arrested an 18-year-old while he was bleeding out from multiple stabbings because the stabber, a Sikh, accused the victim, a white man, of racism.

The stabber showed no signs of being the victim of violence. He said the man lying in his own blood on the ground had knocked off his turban in a drunken racist attack. And for that, the police arrested and handcuffed the victim.

The victim had been stabbed once in the face, twice in the legs while trying to escape over a fence, and once in the lung. But somehow the police claim not to have been aware of his wounds.

Vickrum Digwa, the 23-year-old stabber, was carrying two blades: an 8-inch “shastar” openly, and a smaller “kirpan” around his neck and under his clothing. During the trial, the prosecutor said that Digwa had “been training with weapons since the age of 12,” slept with weapons, and used “loving terms” when speaking about the murder weapon.

Digwa’s defense barrister claimed religious allowance for openly carrying knives that are illegal for the rest of us to carry. And the judge instructed the jury to consider whether the stabber had a good reason, such as self-defense or religion, to carry his weapons. The national government says that courts should decide what is legal to carry. The police federation says there is no limit on the size of the blade that can be carried with religious allowance.

Atlanta train passenger stabbed about 20 times after maniac allegedly slit her throat in random attack

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun May 31, 2026 11:46 am It wouldn't surprise me if an insurrection starts out on the periphery within the next year. If so, it'll come out of nowhere and be a total surprise. Most were shocked when the Soviet Union fell, as it was thought their control system was bulletproof. Reference - Ceausescu.

Were most shocked when the Soviet Union fell, as it was thought their control system was bulletproof?

AI Overview

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was one of the most surprising geopolitical events of the 20th century. Because the Soviet regime’s totalitarian control and security apparatus seemed bulletproof, the sudden dissolution caught virtually everyone off guard.

Who Was Shocked?

Western Experts and the CIA: The most notable figures caught off guard were Western Sovietologists and U.S. intelligence agencies. They widely believed the Soviet system was far too entrenched and stable to simply disappear. Prominent Cold War strategist George F. Kennan famously called the sudden disintegration "the most strange and startling, and at first glance inexplicable" event in modern international affairs.

Soviet Citizens: The average Soviet citizen was largely stunned. The population had been used to trusting official state media, and the rapid dismantling of their country happened with surprising speed, even going against the results of a 1991 referendum where the majority voted to preserve the Union.

The Communist Hardliners: Ironically, even the hardline Soviet leaders who attempted a coup in August 1991 to save the regime were shocked when their actions backfired. Their clumsy power grab only accelerated the independence movements and the ultimate demise of the USSR.

Why Did It Fall Despite Its "Bulletproof" Control?

The control mechanisms of the USSR ultimately failed because the system was secretly suffering from profound decay. Rather than being toppled by an outside military force, the collapse was a result of:

Economic Bankruptcy: The Soviet leadership, particularly under Mikhail Gorbachev, lost control over their own currency and ran out of money to run both their massive military-industrial complex and their domestic civil economy.

Reforms Backfiring: Gorbachev's attempts to reform and open the system through Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring) destroyed the state’s media monopoly and unleashed pent-up grievances.

Rise of Nationalism: Instead of rallying the country, the political loosening allowed suppressed nationalist and separatist movements to blossom in the Baltic states and other republics.

Higgenbotham wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:01 pm Always remember that the world runs at approximately the 97th percentile (in terms of ability).

Yes, the smartest people on average are at the centers of power. But just on average.

The absolute ablest individuals always exist on the periphery. Attila the Hun for example. Some of these individuals will rise to the top when the center collapses and the bailouts are no longer possible.

Historically speaking, are the absolute ablest individuals always distributed to the centers of political and economic power or to the periphery?

AI Overview

Historically, the "ablest" individuals—measured by metrics like innovation, intellectual output, and exceptional talent—have not always centralized in the seats of ultimate political or economic power. Instead, the distribution of peak talent depends heavily on whether the era favors centralized conformity or decentralized competition.

Here is how the distribution of exceptional ability has shifted throughout history:

1. The Periphery as an Incubator of Ability

Historically, periods of major paradigm shifts and radical innovation frequently saw the ablest individuals thrive outside or on the fringes of centralized power.

Institutional Constraints: Rigid, centralized bureaucracies (such as imperial courts or highly regulated guilds) often prioritize conformity and tradition over merit and disruption. As a result, radical thinkers and innovators are frequently marginalized or forced to the periphery.

Historical Examples: During the European Scientific Revolution, figures like Galileo Galilei and Johannes Copernicus operated far from the absolute centers of papal power. Similarly, during the Industrial Revolution, many of the most transformative inventions were developed by provincial tinkerers (e.g., James Watt in Scotland) rather than established elites in London.

2. The Center as a Magnet for Execution and Scale

While the periphery is often the breeding ground for radical innovation, the center historically attracts the ablest individuals in execution, organization, and statecraft.

Resource Allocation: Capital, infrastructure, and political patronage are concentrated in urban and administrative hubs. Highly capable administrators, military leaders, and financiers migrate to these centers to scale their impact.

Historical Examples: The Roman Empire pulled the most capable engineers, administrators, and orators to Rome to manage its vast bureaucracy. In the modern era, global financial centers like New York and London, or tech hubs like Silicon Valley, act as magnets for top-tier operational and entrepreneurial talent.

3. Decentralized Competition vs. Centralized Stagnation

The distribution of top talent is cyclical, depending on the openness of the society in question:

Decentralized Eras: Periods featuring decentralized competition (e.g., Renaissance Italy, the fractured German states prior to unification, or the modern globalized internet) tend to disperse top talent widely. Competition between city-states or nations forces rulers to welcome and reward able individuals, regardless of their background.

Centralized Eras: In contrast, highly centralized empires often experience a "brain drain" from the periphery to the capital, which can eventually lead to stagnation. When all power and resources are hoarded at the center, political loyalty often eclipses raw ability, driving independent thinkers to the fringes.

In summary, the ablest individuals are not exclusively distributed to either. Radical innovators and iconoclasts frequently thrive on the periphery, while those capable of organizing, funding, and scaling massive systems are drawn to the centers of power.

Higgenbotham wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2024 7:58 pm Last weekend, I had a wide ranging 2 hour conversation with a young woman (age 18) who is the daughter of immigrants to the US. I've noticed many immigrants don't think this is the land of milk and honey once they've been here for awhile, but some of the things this young woman said were quite surprising to me.

I don't use the words "dark age" when talking to people in real life, but several topics that have been discussed in this virtual dark age hovel came up. She asked me what I thought of AI. I said the first thing that comes to mind with regard to any new technology is whether you believe the civilization is on the ascent or the decline. If you believe the civilization is on the ascent, and you are right about that, then AI will probably on net be a positive and force for good. However, if you believe that the civilization is on the decline...at which point she interjected, "Oh, definitely!"...and then I finished my thought.

She is a bright girl and has been accepted to The University of Texas at Austin to study Chemical Engineering. However, her plan is to attend community college for 2 years to save money, then transfer. She also told me she plans to leave the United States.

Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, but looking in someone's eyes and seeing their conviction might be a little different than reading about a poll.

I mean, there's no limit to how much you can fine-tune and control. Oh, they don't have so much power. They can't control, you know, millions of people. Well, this is what the drive to build all these hundreds, in fact, thousands of data centers is about. It is an organizational challenge to micromanage the world's population through the new um financial world order. Yes, but they're working on solving that. AI is really about that. If AI was about helping us to be more productive, the principle of decentralization would be applied because any human organization and any use and any anything where humans are involved. If you introduce the principle of decentralization, subsidiarity, it will be more productive. No doubt more efficient, more productive. That's been demonstrated in many contexts. I mentioned the the warfare military but and businesses and so on. It's true for everything. But that's not what they're doing. They're creating highly centralized structures which proves that it's not about actual productivity. It's about control controlling us. That's why they need these huge resources.

Higgenbotham wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:01 pm Always remember that the world runs at approximately the 97th percentile (in terms of ability).

Yes, the smartest people on average are at the centers of power. But just on average.

The absolute ablest individuals always exist on the periphery. Attila the Hun for example. Some of these individuals will rise to the top when the center collapses and the bailouts are no longer possible.

Realize who has the built in advantages, what those advantages are, and that they are "in charge" for the time being. Being clever isn't everything.