I absolutely hate this on practically every conceivable level.

First, do Google really need more power? They already control the web browser market and essentially the entire financial apparatus which runs the web itself via its advertising empire, not to mention the mobile phone market, and their vast stores of personal user information. I don't think it's at all ridiculous to avoid this service just based on not wanting Google to grow larger.

Second, do you really trust Google to be good stewards of art? If you thought Nintendo's censorship of "Mortal Kombat" or the hoopla over "Night Trap" were ridiculous, then you haven't seen anything yet. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that Google will actively censor video game content that their West Coast elite, limousine liberal YouTube executives deem to be "hateful" (which is anything they disagree with). This will extend to banning video game studios who make any kind of content which Google does not like. What's more, there is similarly no doubt that their first party studio will be pushing nothing but racist Cultural Marxist themes and overt political propaganda, masquerading as games. Yuck, yuck, and yuck.

Third, this would put the final nail in the coffin of game preservation. Already games on contemporary consoles-- Switch largely excluded, pleasantly enough-- are utterly dependent on massive, tens-of-gigabytes day one patches to fix crippling bugs, or for the game to even launch at all. What happens when those update servers are retired? This streaming concept takes things to even the next level after that: games could disappear, reappear, and disappear at the drop of a hat with a "service" like this! I'm sure there will be tons of legalese in their EULA, "content subject to change at service provider's discretion".

Fourth, I've noticed that huge swathes of games are barely playable with the input latency of modern controllers and displays. I even wrote about this observation in a recent review. Now you're saying, on top of all of that, you want to stream the freaking game itself over the internet? Good luck playing half of the hobby's genres. Hilariously, numerous commenters said the unveiling live stream video for this service had a massive "hiccup" pause right in the middle of it!

I could go on, but you get the point by now.

First, calling Ben Shapiro an "idiot", while you're hysterically calling for authoritarian top-down levels of censorship-- because that approach has such a great historical track record-- simply because you've failed to establish a healthy trusting and open relationship with your own son... well let's just say "idiot" is perhaps an apt description-- just not for Mr. Shapiro.

That, and Ben was a prolific childhood pianist who skipped two full grades and became a fully-barred attorney by age 23. I'm not saying I'm a big fan of his or agree with him about everything, but the guy probably has an IQ of 150, and would completely obliterate you in a debate-- name the time and place so I can grab some popcorn.

Second, I simply can't process the way so many people today-- and let's just be honest, they're basically all on the political Left-- knee-jerk reach for censorship, intimidation, and even physical violence the instant they become uncomfortable. This is from where the pejorative "snowflake" emerged.

If one of my kids started watching pro-Communist videos online, I'd welcome it as an opportunity to have an open non-hostile conversation about history, economics, death counts, and so on: a productive battle of ideas. Versus, petitioning Google to make YouTube's content match my own opinions. The idea itself is plain silly.

A couple of things in particular jumped out at me from the Crowder Tommy Robinson interview. This might be a little disjointed-- I finally decided to fire up an Yngwie Malmsteen album for the first time ever, and I'm absolutely mesmorized-- so bear with me.

First, how unbelievably sleazy can you get? I mean, this is so insanely crooked that I'd expect it in some kind of Hollywood film about the mafia or something. Or, as it turns out in real life, the BBC-- a difference without a distinction?

Second, Mark Dice has been warning that Amazon would start book burning by simply removing books which went counter to its political narrative. Well Mark, here ya' go! Nailed it.

In any event, Ellyn is with H at Girl Scouts, and D is at home with me playing Minecraft, while I sit here blaring virtuoso guitar riffs while pounding away in Emacs. Next up: write my "Sega Rally" review!

Back when Brian Robison was with the club and was doing his YouTube "96 Questions" segments, one guy who routinely stood out to me as just being a nice, high character guy was Anthony Barr.

So it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that he would not only treat changing teams as a very solemn life event decision, but that he would ultimately recognize that his happiness was more contingent on camaraderie than getting the largest bottom-number paycheck.

This reminds me of all of the nanny stuff they're putting into contemporary cars: even when sensors are functioning, when the car starts pulling left or braking on its own, people are going to try to wrestle against it.

And then to the sensors: in Minnesota, summers can be over one hundred degrees F, while winters can be negative sixty-- that's a one hundred and sixty degree swing in temperature, in any twelve month period. This is combined with extreme humidity, extreme dry, and extreme ice during the winter. All it takes is one sensor malfunction to cause a fatal accident, as the driver and the car get their wires crossed-- just like what seems to have occurred with the pilots discussed in the article.

You know that old adage "let computers do what computers do best, and let people do what people do best"? The corollary is the same with cars or airplanes: aside from some extremely inobstrusive things-- think ABS-- or items which can be toggled on and off in a highly visible manner-- cruise control, or auto-pilot-- the car or plane should do what the pilot inputs, and nothing else!

What if Nancy Pelosi declared tomorrow that everyone must wear turtlenecks, or they'd be fined or tossed in prison? You'd see clothes manufacturers matter-of-factly stating, "Well, as we move into a bright new turtleneck future...", as if it's some kind of foregone, totally logical, organic-driven sort of trend.

Well, I want to wear turtlenecks as much as I want to own an electric car.

Yes, I know people have been getting fleeced by money changers since the time of Christ, today in the form of central banking. I'm also well aware that Gen X'ers in Wall Street defrauded millions of people in the lead-up to the financial crisis. Those points aren't lost on me.

But holy baloney, what I get out of this is that people today spend thirteen years in conventional schools, yet aren't even taught the most basic financial concepts, like interest rates or how loans work. Even though there are immoral people in the world, most of the article's bullets are self-inflicted, like signing up for eight year car loans, or putting thirty grand on an 18% interest rate credit card.

What a great idea! In fact, it doesn't go far enough!

Why should governments stop at doling out free internet access to everyone-- why not free cable television too? It's tough to feel a sense of cultural belonging when you've missed the latest episode of "Empire"! Let's not create a society of haves and have-nots, I say!

Governments should not only and absolutely guarantee that every single server on the internet stays up all of the time, but why not even open up "web admin gulags" for the ones whose servers go dark? It would add a whole new meaning to the expression "downtime", catch my drift?

As for you private companies, not only must you make sure that every single person's Comcast bill is as affordable as a McDouble from Mac 'n' D's, but you need to provide premium PornHub subscriptions too: how is the web supposed to be a place free from fear if Joe can't even watch the latest BBW DP vids while bottling down some opioids, to generate those positive feelies?!

And every single person needs to feel safe and welcome online-- duh! How is one person supposed to know what makes a given random, anonymous stranger feel unsafe, you ask? Don't worry, we've got you covered: Mark Zuckerberg is personally collaborating with Snopes and the New York Times to replace all online mentions of "Donald Trump" with "Ronald Pump", and "snowflake" with "pancake".

So don't forget to fight for an open web, by voting for politicians who will regulate the living hell out of it, every chance you get baby! Just email your friendly local DNC operative to get a Michelle Obama-approved list of endorsed candidates!

And if you don't find us credible, make sure to check out our seemingly bottomless list of supporters! While you may be correct in noticing that ninety five percent of these sponsors are either politicians or tax siphoning not-for-profits, we do have the twin private sector benevolences Google and Microsoft onboard, neither of which have any conflict of interest whatsoever in supporting this-- it's all about the fuzzies (literally and figuratively!).

First off, the fact that imagining "life" without the latest silly tech gadgets, without which humans survived for tens of thousands of years, as some kind of difficulty is downright absurd. Heck, as recently as fifteen years ago most people didn't have these things.

Second, I've never bought an Apple product in my entire life, I could replace Amazon with a million other options in a heart beat, have literally never used Facebook, have been using "DuckDuckGo" for years instead of Google, and I have zero exposure to Microsoft products outside of work, where my company-provided laptop runs Winbloze. I do have an Android phone, but could chuck it into the lake tomorrow and would probably be happier without it-- I'd just use email to talk to the few people via which I presently chat on Signal.

Gee, that was tough!

In other news, there's this. I'm trying to figure out how the remarks are even remotely controversial to any rational person: Ilhan Omar-- who is a walking parody I might add-- is devoutly religious, as evidenced by her hijab; Muslims and Jews have been in conflict for thousands of years, especially recently regarding the Israel situation; why wouldn't Omar's deep-seated religious world view influence her perspective regarding the Jewish influence on American politics? To me it's like stating the obvious. And I'm not even sure there's anything wrong that being the case; if she is ideologically opposed to Israel, why shouldn't she be resentful?

And on that note, why were Ilhan Omar's original statements controversial? America's entire foreign policy-- especially in the Middle East, where like 90% of US global involvement is centered-- is built around preemptively protecting Israel, who as I'm reminded constantly by creeps like Marco Rubio is America's "wonderful sacred shining light Democratic ally!", blah blah blah. In fact, in every Republican primary debate isn't it implicitly-- if not explicitly-- explained what a large role Zionism plays in American foreign policy, as a matter of pride? Again, it's a statement of the obvious. But as Omar is finding out, if you want to know who controls things, look at who you're not allowed to criticize...

Finally, I really like Molyneux's theory wherein he links evolutionary theory with both racial qualities such as IQ and aggression trends, and current events. I don't know if he's right, but it sure ties into a nice bow. Fascinating stuff!

This is a fascinating infographic. While undoubtedly even what vestages of "capitalism"-- people voluntarily exchanging goods and services-- we have left can take credit for everything in the graphic, and while I wouldn't choose to swap my house for a dirt-floored thatch hut, there is another side to the story.

These graphs are all oriented around modern Western values. By downtown Minneapolis standards, a small fishing village off the East coast of Africa or people running a vegetable cart in the middle of Mumbai are "living in poverty", in the sense that they don't have a 4K television or Ralph Lauren designer shoes. And yet, they are certainly not starving, and look more fit than the average McAmerican.

"Education" and "literacy" are others: these "impoverished" people don't have Harvard degrees in women studies and can't necessarily digest Joyce's "Ulysses", but they are taught the survival tools of the trade and communication skills within the context of their own cultures. I've written about the topic of "education" before.

"Democracy" especially draws my ire, since I think it as a political system is a complete debacle. Frankly, people were meddled with and paid far less in taxes living as serfs under kings and landlords, because the only way that kind of leader could expand his power was the "honest" way: through cannon fire. By contrast, under a "democracy" weasles obtain and retain power through subterfuge-- "watch my left hand while I covertly pick your pocket with my right hand." We've quite literally never had despotism on the mass levels observed today, and it's because of "democracy".

Once again, let me re-iterate that alleviating poverty is a good thing! Nor do I want to perpetuate the "noble savage" myth, as many of those cultures practice cannibalism and infanticide, among other horrors. In 1800, when you got sick you often died. But at the same time, these graphs seem to be judging the well-being of people against the utterly unsustainable suburban Fortune 500 McMansion Wayzata High School "infinite expansion of credit" standards, which is in utter spiritual and cultural collapse, and in general is deep in "late stage" sinking ship mode.

In terms of spiritual fulfillment, sense of community, a feeling of place in the world, and probably overall contentment, I think the chart might look opposite of the ones in this graphic. That's why I say there are two sides to the story. There's no reason why we can't have the best of both worlds, but that's for another post on another day.

My kids loved "Google Cardboard", especially that solar system app they heavily promoted for it, where you could "fly" around space and look at the planets in 3d. So I'm pretty sure they'll like the Big N's new "Labo VR" set too-- in fact, I think I'll throw that into the budget for April right now.

If it sells enough, I wonder if someone will make a head strap for it, and add support to it in actual games? The system already has separate-hand wireless controllers and a headphone jack, so it's got all the bases covered. Of course, the graphics would be absurdly low-res to be able to render high fps scenes for each eye given the Switch's meager power, but that'd just give the games more charm imo.

The more I read of Eric Peters, the more I appreciate the quality of his writing. Here he is with a phenomenal treatment of the so-called "cash for clunkers" program, and the war on used cars.

Trump ticking away at a 48% approval rating. Extrapolated, that's 157 million people who approve of the job he's doing.

Can you imagine what that number would read if he didn't have almost the entirety of the media, elementary schools, universities, big corporations, and Washington non-stop, 24/7/365 brain washing and propagandizing against him?

Even Al Sharpton, Hitlery, and 90% of Hollywood were best buds with the life-long Democrat right up until the moment he threatened to take the swamp gravy train away! The mark of good friends, for sure.

The thing I don't get: if you have "significant ethical concerns" about something, then why are you doing it? I see this pattern a lot.

The answer is that these scientists, who get the majority if not the entirety of their funding from the State, think that for whatever evil they bring into the world, government can just "regulate" it, and everything will be "fine".

I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but I cringed throughout this video every time John said "DAY-mon".

"Daemon" is just the original spelling for "demon", in the same way that "encyclopaedia" is the original for "encyclopedia", and "archaeologist" is the original for "archeologist". Or what about "oesophagus"? Or "aether"? Or "aeon"? I could go on and on, you don't pronounce any of them differently just because a letter was removed when the spellings were anglicized.

But on to the game itself, the frame pacing is shocking, it was absolutely jarring the entire time I was playing the demo. I'm also surprised that the resolution is as high as it is, because in handheld mode is looked as poor to me as "Xenoblade Chronicles 2". That said, it was a beta: I'd be surprised if they didn't improve things by the time comes out.

Funny part is, I'll probably just buy the game anyway: I really liked the aesthetic, the large amounts of electric guitar in the music, and core gameplay loop.

Time to start making yet another round of "Peter Schiff was right" videos.

He said over and over again-- even when "QT" was well in progress, and people were saying he was wrong-- that the Fed simply can not shrink the balance sheet even close to what it was pre-"QE", because that would crash the bond market: "what happens when the largest net buyer of Treasuries becomes a net seller?", he would rhetorically ask.

Turns out the eggheads at the Fed knew the answer too.

I've noticed that "Crazy Bernie" is making the news headlines again, so I just figured I'd toss out a couple of anecdotes.

For starters, this short Jan Helfeld interview is a must. If you have a bit more time, listen to Molyneux's "The Truth About Fidel Castro" presentation, then read this article.

I have two takes about this.

The first take is that I agree with him wholeheartedly: when it comes to "rights", conservatives and liberals are only different in the sense that they "feel" authoritarian about different things-- whereas the libertarian, despite having personal values of his own, understands that with an institution with powers as crazy and unwise as a monopoly on force, some kind of clear principle is required as to what governs that institution's behavior. To my knowledge, and I've spent over a decade on this issue, no one has yet presented a viable, consistent alternative to the libertarian's "delegation of self-defense". Which of course rules out taxation, which in turn means voluntaryism-- hence, "anarcho capitalism". It's one hundred percent water-tight as models go.

This doesn't mean that people can't form communities with other people who share their values: freedom of association is a natural right. Rather, it just means that they can't codify those values into gun-point enforced laws, especially when they won't let people who don't share their values secede from said community. Just ask the South in the build-up to the American Civil War, or the Catalans in this very decade, how secession went for them. And that secession has to be permitted down to the individual level: chaining one man into slavery is wrong, whether that singular wrong is then multiplied by one, ten, a million, or so on.

And there is no question: "Do as we say or we'll shoot you"-- and you're not allowed to leave either-- is slavery. Both conservatives and liberals support this model: every two years they "vote" so that they can take turns beating each other over the heads for supremacy in a never-ending spiral path towards ever-increasing autocracy. Historically, the government has grown equally when either side is in power, because neither side has the libertarian's all-important limiting principle.

The second take though is that for their lack of principles, in the moment there is a sub-movement within conservatism which is interested in pulling for a "night watchman"-style, Ayn Rand-like minarchism. If we somehow actually achieved that kind of situation, where one could do as he pleased as long as he didn't harm anyone, and the only trade-off was a tiny annual or per-transaction tithe just to fund the two or three things the government still did, it would be so close to ideal that, for me at least, other things would then be much more important expenditures of my energy. I have my doubts that it would stay that way absent pure liberterianism-- the Constitution's "minarchism" has already failed once, for Jefferson's sake!-- but we could cross that bridge once we got there if it became necessary; "eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty", and all that.

Beyond that, a friend once told me a joke: there are a million branches of Protestant denominations, who all endlessly bicker with each other over singular Bible verses-- yet when the Soviets took over, those same Protestants all got to share the same jail cells. Put into the current American political context, many of today's conservatives are pulling in the same direction as are libertarians: why not unite against the common enemy versus quibbling about academics, in a world where we're a million miles from any kind of minimalistic model, and trending in the wrong direction to boot?

Remember this recent post, where I wondered if Microsoft would offer streaming to the Switch? It's starting to sound like I may have been right!

My copy of "Monster Boy" came in a couple of days ago, and I've been meaning to post this picture since then: it's the only Switch game in my collection which came with a manual (and stickers, incidentally). And holy buckets does it make me realize how much I miss instruction books:



It doesn't come across in the picture very well, but the "instruction book clips" and game case design necessitates that the manuals be itty-bitty small. Opening this was like going back to the "N-Gage" days: cute little "game cards" and cute little instruction books, in cute little cases.

I've found that it's almost useless to compare sales of one video game system to an older one, such as what is done here, because the game market is always growing. It's like comparing nominal consumer product prices over time, without taking inflation into account. In other words, we need some kind of "video game sales inflation adjustor" to account for the changing times.

For example, I remember reading that something crazy like 40% of US households had an NES. Yet it "only" sold 34 million units in America in its entire lifetime, which would be considered a failure by today's sales metrics. By that standard, the Wii's sales numbers-- which are even nominally larger than Switch's-- are especially impressive considering that it came out thirteen years ago.

As a follow-up to this post, I'm done with "The Grand Tour" as a show; just in the past two episodes, they've talked about how great electric cars are and how important it is for more women to be in motorsports-- complementing a constant stream of Trump and anti-Brexit jokes to boot. Going into this "Era of the Libtards", I never thought these guys would be victims-- but here we are. Beyond the fact, of course, that State-approved "cars"-- which are basically just iPads with wheels-- are boring as all hell. A Lamborghini cute-ute? Unbelievable.

And on that bombshell, let me segue into a related topic. In 2015, the UN published-- and got member states to sign-- an agreement called "The Sustainable Development Agenda". You can read the entire document, along with supporting facts, straight off of the UN's site.

If you click into the little colored boxes on the right-hand side, you'll see that they propose nation states provide free income and food to poor people, free clean water, free healthcare, free education, make laws to force equality-of-outcomes for women in the workplace and in terms of wages, free jobs, and on and on it goes. Not only that, but every box discusses how "developing countries" are "lagging behind", and that these "global issues" do "not respect national borders." You can see where this is going. But if you still have any doubts, check out the "how much will this bullshit cost" section of their FAQ, bold emphasis is mine:



See? Your family already has a savings account in the bank, it's just a matter of an unelected UN or EU bureaucrat confiscating it, so they can "direct" how it's "invested"! Don't believe me?



And American white men: you know those billions of dollars you've been forced to pay over the decades in reparations to inner-city minorities, so they can afford booze, $50k Cadillacs, the latest iPhone, and twelve illegitimate children per woman, many of whom go on to become violent criminals? Now you get to pay for the people in Africa too, because the model worked so well here!



So, how does one opt out of this "New World Order Utopia"? What if one doesn't want to participate? Too bad for you:



See, Leftists want to enact a global "one world government", if not explicitly-- like via Hitlery Clinton's actual calls for a "Western Hemisphere government"-- then de facto, by having supra-national "organizations" like the UN or the EU override the voting public within nation states. This new world order will take the form of a Communist-Green Soviet "ten year plan"-style utopia, which will forcefully extract resources from the Cultural Marxist-defined "oppressors"-- white men, primarily-- and redistribute those plundered goods to the "oppressed", like women and black people.

When the Bolsheviks came to town, they took anyone who disagreed with them out to the garden behind the house, and shot them on their knees in the back of the head, execution-style. Ditto for Che Guevara in Cuba when Castro took over. Same with Kim il Sung in Korea. Same with Mao, in China. If you don't think this new "plan", with its "expectations" that everyone "participate" in the "mobilization" of "private sector savings" to achieve "social justice goals" will result in the same kind of door-to-door violence, then I just don't know what to tell you. After all, do sexist, racist, Fascist bigots who stand between you and utopia deserve anything other than that sort of fate?

Or, why don't I just let the hideously obese violent multiple-times divorced Jeremy Clarkson put it straight for us? According to him, pro-Brexit voters are just "coffin-dodging idiots who don't want to live next to Syrians." See how that works? They're just racist old bigots who have outlived their usefulness-- why not just confiscate their property "for the greater good"? I guess he'd say the same thing about the hundreds of millions of people who support Viktor Orban in Hungary, who voted for Trump, or who support the Five Star Movement in Italy, just to name a few examples? Yes Jeremy: you and Occasional Cortex and Nancy Pelosi and Jeremy Corbyn are just so wise, and so much smarter than the rest of us.

How anyone with any grasp of history, basic human psychology, or "day one lecture" economics principles-- hell, even the ability to apply basic, independent reasoning skills-- could not see where this is all headed, and how important it is to support movements like Brexit, is totally beyond my comprehension. The reality is though, virtue-signaling wins the day.

Remember when Colin Kaepernick voluntarily chose to terminate his own contract with the 49'ers? Fast forward to today, when I read that he was offered a professional contract in the AAF, but held his nose-- probably while sipping champagne with the other hand, CNN blaring in the background-- and proclaimed in a nasal voice, "Eww, I won't ever play under a contract worth less than twenty million!"

I'm seriously getting annoyed at Clarkson's obnoxious anti-Brexit jokes during this current series of "The Grand Tour", to the point where I'm considering just not watching the show anymore. If I wanted to listen to Hillary Clinton talk, I'd go look up her coughing-fit campaign speeches. It's sad when I can't tell my Jeremy's apart-- Corbyn from Clarkson.

James May as well threw his weight behind "Remain". All this tells me is that they are idiotic empty-headed celebrities, just like those in America's Hollywood. Interestingly, I can't find any quotes from Richard Hammond-- maybe he's kept his brain while the rest of Britain's metropolitan limousine liberals lost theirs.

I've seen this phenomenon many times with so-called "fact checkers", where they "disprove" an argument by either being ridiculously pedantic, or by offering some kind of non-sequitur.

One of my favorites was their response to Trump saying that "dangerous criminals" come over the Southern border. "That's a false statement", the "fact-checkers" pronounced, "because, did you know that crime is lower on average in border cities than some other cities in America?" Which, of course, has nothing to do with what Trump actually said-- and who is to say crime wouldn't be even lower in those cities, if border security were stronger?

If you're going to end the whole model of the "nation state", fine by me! But then that means no more welfare state, since there won't be... a state anymore! Duh! I swear that these mobs of crazy American Leftists, chanting like a bunch of brainless automatons, haven't thought these concepts through for even thirty seconds.

What they want is almost everything status quo, but increased, not eliminated: the huge multi-trillion dollar American state apparatus funded by its current monopolistic banking cartel, with its present-- or even higher-- rate of confiscatory taxes, combined with mass-censorship, and unparalleled-in-human-history wealth redistribution via this so-called "Green New Deal". The only part of "America" which they no longer want are the borders-- specifically, the Southern one. This is so that as many third-world welfare single moms as possible will come in, because that group will reliably vote Democrat.

So when they stand around and shout that they want "no America at all"-- no nation state-- what they actually want is more America, amped up to eleven, except the actual borders. Clear as mud?

As I wrote in yesterday's review, playing an EGA DOS game on the Switch hardware is positively surreal. I wasn't kidding in the review when I said I've already had more fun playing this than "Super Mario Odyssey".

I especially love how Tom Hall and his programmer friends futzed with the aspect ratio, so that it's a good compromise between viewport size, and not having enormous black bars along the sides of the screen. It makes 4:3 gaming on a 16:9 display palatable!

Can you imagine if this release paves the way for similarly adapted ports of games like "X-COM: UFO Defense", "Ultima Underworld", or even other genres such as "One Must Fall: 2097" or "Aces of the Pacific"? One can dream!

Leftists love to constantly try to poke holes in markets, showing how "imperfect" they are if they show any signs of "monopoly", accumulated power, "asymmetric information", or any other number of economics buzzwords.

So I'm going to play the game the other way: here is an example of a lack of intense competition leading to the world getting better innovation than it otherwise would have in a more balanced market: hardware-based, real-time ray tracing technology!

If AMD had been neck-in-neck with Nvidia, there is no chance in heck the latter would have taken that risk-- what became the RTX 20x0 line would have simply been more of the boring old same: using the silicon budget just to push higher framerates. Instead, Nvidia's execs said, "Because we have a bit of a lead, why not try something different?"

Of course, there are lots of other examples of "imperfect" markets providing phenomenal services and prices to consumers: in fact, these markets are "imperfect" because one player has done such a fantastic job! One example which comes to mind immediately is Amazon: where else can one buy pretty much any consumer good, for the lowest price around, and have it arrive on his doorstep by the next morning?

The end goal isn't to have competition: rather, it's to have good and innovative products and services, at low prices. Those goals can and are almost always achieved by diverse sets of market conditions, no matter how "imperfect" they may appear to "equality means everyone has the same stuff" closet-or-otherwise Marxists.

In this interview, an "advisor" to "Crazy Eyes Cortez"-- we'll call him "Wig Man"-- says that we needn't worry about the creation of the trillions of dollars needed to enact the so-called "Green New Deal", because "inflation is just a ratio", he explains, between the amount of goods and the amount of money. As long as lots of "stuff" is created with the money, general prices won't rise!

In all my years of listening to Leftists and studying economics, I'd never heard this one before! Unfortunately, there are one or two problems with it.

"Inflation is just a ratio" implies that there is no upward bound. So, why stop at trillions, and just shoot for the heavens and lots of prosperity by printing ten quadrillion dollars, which will give each American a government constructed and paid-for Earthen home-- or a deluxe-sized igloo for those in the Northern climates-- in communities totally free from such unpleasantness as farting cows? Heck, why not throw in a bonus $150k Tesla Model X for each family too? Or three or four? I mean, if Uncle Elon doesn't deserve to be rewarded for being a man ahead of the times, then who does?

Of course, what happens when the appetite for dollar foreign reserves begins to reach its limit? That appetite is significant still which is what enables people like "Wig Man" or the "MMT" fellows to come up with ex-post-facto, pseudo-academic "explanations" as to why infinite or near-infinite government profligacy, in fact, doesn't matter. It would be a bit like a small child saying that gravity doesn't exist, when in fact a parent is holding the back of their shirt, preventing them from tumbling over a high precipice.

I think the thing I'm most excited for with these alternative gridiron leagues is the possibility that they become just popular enough to warrant attention from video game makers-- can we say "AAF 2K20"?-- but not so popular that EA just moneyhats them like they did with the NFL.

To put it another way, if we can't have more NFL games, then maybe we can just have more NFL-like leagues, each with its own game. I took a look at the "Monster League Football" reboot, but I want something a bit more serious.