Breaking News
08/29/22  Post by Yves Smith, Will Europe Go Down to Defeat Before Ukraine?. "With the Ukraine conflict, commentators have fixated on the timetable for prosecuting the war, trying to argue that the fact that Russia has not already 'won' (whatever 'won' means) implies Russia is losing, despite Russia and its allies having taken over 20% of Ukraine and continuing to gain ground with a mere peacetime expeditionary force. Russian officials have also made clear that they aren't following a timetable. ... However, there is also a big difference between when a war is won or lost versus when the vanquished is finally prostrated. For instance, Germany's World War II fate was sealed in the Battle of Kursk, but it was nearly two full years more before Germany surrendered. Some Western military experts have argued that Ukraine lost within weeks of the start of the Russian forces' attack. ... In other words, while officials, armchair generals, and the press have been paying at least intermittent attention to the calendar for the military campaign, they've not paid much heed to the timeline for the economic war. We will be so bold as to posit that not only has the sanctions war against Russia backfired spectacularly, but the damage to the West, most of all Europe, is accelerating rapidly. And this is not the result of Russia taking active measures but the costs of the loss or reduction of key Russian resources compounding over time. So due to the intensity of the energy shock, the economic timetable is moving faster than the military. Unless Europe engages in a major course correction, and we don't see how this can happen, the European economic crisis looks set to become devastating before Ukraine is formally defeated. ... We'll stick to the energy crisis for now. As we'll explain, this shock will be so severe if nothing is done (and as we'll explain, it's hard to see anything meaningful enough being done), that the result will be not a recession, but a depression in Europe. The 1970s oil embargo produced a rapid four-fold increase in US prices, which led to both a serious recession and inflation, the now - infamous stagflation. By contrast, at the end of last week, the one-year forward contacts for electricity in France and Germany were more than ten times higher than a year ago. ... As a result, there will be large scale company failures. ... So the outcome seems inevitable: many Europeans businesses will fail, leading to job losses, business loan defaults, loss of government revenues, foreclosures. And with governments thinking they'd maybe spent a bit too freely with Covid relief, their emergency energy fillups will be too little to make all that much difference. At some point, the economic contraction will lead to a financial crisis. If the downdraft is rapid enough, it could be the result as much of (well warranted) loss of confidence as actual losses and defaults to date."
ALM comments: "As I understand it, the mainstream European press is not blaming European leadership for any part of their energy and cost of living crises which they brought upon themselves by imposing a brutal trade embargo on their own governments and people to teach Russia a lesson. The mainstream press in the U.S. is equally guilty. Here, to the extent that it's even covered, you get the impression that somehow, inflation in the U.S. is entirely the fault of the Russian and Chinese governments due to the bad faith withholding of much needed resources by a demonic Putin and supply chain disruptions for which China is responsible for having the nerve to protect its own people with Covid lockdowns. Profiteering by corporations and the rentier class are not blamed except rarely and without conviction. It beggars belief that Europe, with the encouragement of the U.S., is ready, willing, and able to commit economic suicide which will surely swamp many other boats. The European leadership class and the U.S.'s for that matter, are an embarrassment of brain dead lunatics. How did this happen?"
Major Stories
08/24/22 Post by Yves Smith, Biden's Gimmie to the Higher Educational Complex and Well-Off, Dem Leaning Voters: The $10,000 Student Loan Writeoff. "Before those of you who are in 'I've got mine' mode about the widely anticipated announcement that Biden will be forgiving $10,000 of student loans for every borrower making less than $125,000 a year: your humble blogger has for many many years advocated debt relief along with fundamental reforms of the student loan program. This Biden scheme doesn't even rise to the level of a band-aid over a gunshot wound. It leaves the system that has grotesquely inflated the cost of higher education. For any child not born of affluent parents (or say getting a very hefty scholarship), the choice is foregoing college or taking on a lot of debt. Long gone are the days when kids could earn enough to go to a pretty to very good state school by working over the summer. Why not direct less money to debt relief, particularly as we'll discuss soon, it is mainly a subsidy to the better-off, and start giving more Federal support to state colleges and universities? And this grotesque system, of loading up young people with debt even before they've made key life decisions, like where to live, whether to get married and have kids, has created a new rentier class, in the form of a greatly enlarged and overpaid cohort of administrators ... who have a very strong propensity to vote Democrat. So Biden has kept the subsidies to this voter block very much intact by refusing to do anything about out of control, unsupervised lending. Remember: nothing, not a single thing, is being demanded of banks who made questionable student loans or the schools who gave students unrealistic information about their future earning prospects. One would think it would be a no-brainer to impose automatic penalties on lenders and schools whose borrowers had delinquency rates over a certain level, and inspected the next tier and imposed fines for bad practices. So what are we going to do, keep throwing money at a bloated, elitist higher educational complex, and then pretend that this isn't as grotesque a system as it appears to be by large scale writeoffs every decade or so? Doesn't the magnitude of the debt cancellation say the time is overdue for root and branch reform? But oh noes, can't break those rice bowls. Or how about, as we and many other proposed, having student loans be dischargable in bankruptcy, as they were before the 2005 bankruptcy 'reform' that Biden, as Senator from MBNA (a major credit card lender) helped push through? Businesses that make bad decisions get to restructure their debts and carry on. Individuals who have a run of bad luck (big medical bills, job loss, divorce) can also either write off their debts or enter into a court-supervised repayment plan ... except for student debt. It's perverse to have this one type of lending be carved out as sacrosanct."
fraibert comments: "The Biden Administration's offering selective student debt 'relief' smells of buying loyalty among aspiring members of the PMC that were not too 'successful' (as that term is usually used today). Federal policies relating to higher education financing (both in terms of loan program and bankruptcy rules) probably are the main reasons for sky high prices. Offering a loan 'discount' only to some people implies that the general student borrower population for the last few decades did not overpay, but that is not the case because prices were artificially elevated. My view remains that any debt forgiveness must be tied to direct reforms in pricing, and price controls may even be the most appropriate policy in this one area of higher education. I think that some kind of claw back must be implemented for schools where too many students have trouble paying loans - in fact, I would institute such a program on a degree/certificate basis because some individual programs may be financial traps while the school in general has a good reputation. Regardless of the method, however, giving current borrowers a discount doesn't resolve the problem for next year's borrowers, etc. And because debt relief has this limitation (unless it's going to be a regular action every year?), this underlying reality reinforces (to me) the sense that the present relief proposal is just vote buying."
08/14/22 Post by Lambert Strether, A Marine's Assessment of Russia's Military 'Operation' in Ukraine (a 'Profound Appreciation of All Three Realms in Which Wars Are Waged'). "We - I'll use the royal 'we' here - at NC have long been aware that analysis and coverage of Russia's tactics and strategy in Ukraine that is not dictated by organs of state security here in the United States is an inverted pyramid resting on a very small point: A small group of dissidents willing to go on the record with their views. These dissidents - Mercouris, Military Summary, Martynov, Moon of Alabama, Lira, New Atlas, and Ritter, among others - are all variously monetized and have been marginalized in one way or another, and their analysis rests in turn on an even narrower point: Telegram accounts and Russian/Ukrainian sources that are not available to us. But now we have evidence that the dissidents are not alone, and analysis parallel to their own has been taking place. ... First, the avoidance of collateral damage ... Second, the relatively gentle treatment of the rail system. ... I've always been a little non-plussed with all the claims of Russian brutality - beyond the brutality of war itself - when the trains are still running, the electrical power grid is still on, the Internet functions, and there's potable water. Very different from, say, Fallujah. (Granted, the Russians want to integrate the Zaporizhzhia power plant into their own grid, but that's consistent with their policy of making outcomes more stringent the longer the war goes on.) Third, artillery really is 'the king of battles' ... Fourth, Kiev really was a 'feint' (or 'raid,' as 'Marinus' characterizes it)."
Soredemos comments: "My take, for whatever it's worth, is that Russia went in with a set of contingency plans. The first month or so may indeed have been a genuine attempt to end the war quickly and force Kiev to negotiate. Not by taking the city, but by making it clear they could attack it whenever they wanted. Or it was a multi-function action that might work by itself to end things quickly, or would function as a feint for a slower plan if it didn't work. Either way, when the quick surrender didn't happen, Russia shrugged and said 'alright, guess we're doing this the hard way', and transitioned to the backup plan. For all the cries about 'Putin is running out of tanks/men/ammo/missiles/food/fuel/whatever, it should be abundantly clear by now that Russia not only has no supply problems, but went in fully prepared to maintain its supplies over a multi-month campaign. They went in fully prepared for a slow war if it was required. One thing that has always stood out to me is that Russia was hitting key Ukrainian military infrastructure from day one. I think it's clear that they were laying the ground work for a prolonged campaign, if that's what things came to, from the beginning. At no point did they suddenly switch to hitting key infrastructure; they've been doing that from the start and have merely ramped up the number of strikes over time."
08/01/22 Post by Lambert Strether, Air Travel and Covid in the Biden 'Let 'Er Rip' Era: A Personal Risk Assessment. "We know that persons with Covid travel on airplanes; the question becomes how to protect ourselves from them - assuming that we our selves are not infected - under conditions of state abandonment such as those prevailing under the Biden Administration (for example, no mask mandates after the airlines and an aggressive minority of passengers successfully discredited their use). The answer given by government experts is that people should perform a 'personal risk assessment'. Unfortunately for this paradigm, breathing is a social relation. There is no risk of catching Covid when one is alone. However, since Covid is airborne 40% of Covid infections are asymptomatic, there's no way to assess risk when one is with others, sharing their air. Thus, the 'Personal Risk Assessment' paradigm has the amusing characteristic of being impossible to perform exactly when it is most needed. It follows that one cannot perform a 'Personal Risk Assessment' during a flight on an airplane, at least in the general case where one is not sitting next to somebody with a persistent cough. So we must fall back on heuristics. This post will supply many. My view is that even if Covid is a long-tail phenomenon, the result of my catching it would be ruin, even if the case were not mortal (possibly due to vascular or neurological effects, almost certainly due to financial effects if I end up hospitalized). I think what is true for me is also true for the great majority of the country, so although I may be an outlier in my views, I'm not an outlier on Covid's potentially ruinous effects. Hence, my standard for safe air is outside air, as measured by CO2 concentration, the lowest possible (Covid is airborne, and although we cannot measure the concentration of virus, CO2 serves as an adequate proxy, since people breathe it out along with the virus, if they have it.) The USDA sets the baseline:'CO2 levels in outdoor air typically range from 300 to 400 ppm (0.03% to 0.04%) but can be as high as 600-900 ppm in metropolitan areas.' In this post, I'll see how far the airlines get in meeting my baseline (generously, I'll take the level of 600-900ppm as acceptable, although 400 is really what I have in mind). First, I'll look at how the airlines frame their safety concerns (essentially, that ventilation systems make airlines as safe as operating rooms). Next, I'll look at the realities of safety in the air and on the ground. As we shall see, the airlines' public relations strategy of focusing on the aircraft cabin is deceptive in a number of ways."
BobK comments: "Thanks for the helpful info. It's outrageous that the airlines can make such BS air circulation claims. I want to visit my parents, who are in their 90s and live 2,000 miles away. There's no urgent need - just want to see them. Pre-pandemic, I'd go twice a year. I'm healthy and double-boosted, and so are they. I've worn an N95 from the start (had a box of them for fire season here in the Bay Area). My folks are healthy for their age and living at home. But I'd be devastated if I contracted Covid on a flight and spread it to them and either it killed them or they got long Covid. The chances of this worst-case-scenario playing out may be low, but the stakes are high. Short of that, I just don't want to get Covid, period. I know several people who've gotten it (pre-BA5). Not one of them has said 'no biggie - it's just a little cold.' One of them, a fit guy in his early 30s with a generally upbeat demeanor, said 'you don't want to get this.' My last visit was December 2021. That was bad enough; the OAK to STL nonstop had been eliminated, terminals were crowded, and Southwest employees did nothing when I pointed out un-masked people in the terminals. (One of the Southwest gate attendants even wore her mask under her nose during boarding.) I'm reminded of the second rule of neoliberalism (which I read here recently): 'go die!' To which I'll add, in this case, 'prefarably AFTER you're returned from your round-trip flight on our airline.'"
08/25/22 Post by Yves Smith, Yet More Medically Bogus Covid Vaccine Profiteering: Requiring 'Primary' Covid Shots to Get Omicron 'Booster'. "If you harbored any doubt, the latest Covid policy tidbit should convince you that US Covid policy has nothing to do with public health and everything to do with drug industry grifting and the desire of big business to pretend everything is fine so as to maximize their profits. The case study is the eligibility policy for the long-promised, finally-about-to-be-launched variant-specific vaccines. Remember how one of the much-touted benefits of mRNA vaccines was the ease of modifying them, supposedly within weeks, to combat new variants? Yet the great unwashed public has been urged to get 'boosters' as in repeats of the original formula, designed for the wild type of Covid, when the Omicron variants almost entirely escape the vaccine. But now ... drumroll ... we are finally about to get Omicron shots. But there's a catch. From CNBC: 'Newly updated Covid booster shots designed to target omicron's BA.5 subvariant should be available within in the next three weeks. That begs an important question: Who's going to be eligible to get them? The short answer: anyone ages 12 and up who has completed a primary vaccination series, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spokesperson tells CNBC Make It. It's unlikely to matter whether you've received any other booster doses or not before, the spokesperson says - but if you're unvaccinated, you won't be eligible for the updated formula until you complete a primary series with the existing Covid vaccines.' IM Doc was incensed: 'If we need evidence of a massive fraud- look no further. The moral of the story- only those with the initial vaxx series will be eligible for the Omicron boosters. In decades of medical practice- this requirement to get the initial series has never been done. If so- we would be giving basically no flu shots. And what scientific fraud this is ... Explain to me what good this will do for any patient to be vaccinated against strains of virus that have been extinct for two years. I guess it really does not matter anyway for the vaxxed- the Omicron boosters will likely be largely against already extinct variants.'"
rainlover comments: "This (no Omicron shot without taking the initial mRNA series first) tracks with my experience in trying to obtain the covid prophylactic shots (Evusheld) recommended by my doctor for cancer patients. I was initially told I could not get Evusheld without being fully vaccinated AND boosted (four shots). And that wasn't going to happen. I need my t-cells. When I mentioned that to my current doctor, she said that was ridiculous and wrote a letter to the county health people waiving the shot requirements. Thank goodness there are still some docs out there with common sense."
Business/Finance
08/03/22  Post by Thomas A. Cox, Think the Financial Crisis Is Over? Mortgage Servicers Still Abusing Borrowers For 10+ Years, Thanks to Lax Fannie/Freddie Oversight. "Yves here: For the benefit of those of you who are relatively new to the site: in the wake of the financial crisis, many fought hard and sadly in the end with mixed success to combat predatory practices by mortgage services. Thomas Cox, a retired Maine attorney who represented struggling borrowers pro bono. The Portland Press Herald gave an overview of his work in 2012 after Cox won $100,000 from the Purpose Prize, which recognizes people over 60 who do public service: 'Cox's second career dates to the late 1990s, when the emotional toll of his work with banks [doing debt collection and foreclosures] led him to 'major-league depression. ... After retirement and intense therapy, he started a second career as a carpenter. But he returned to law in April 2008, joining the Maine Attorneys Saving Homes project, started by Pine Tree Legal Assistance in conjunction with the Maine Volunteer Lawyers Project in Portland. His expertise in foreclosures and his contacts in Maine's legal community helped desperate Mainers find free lawyers. In September 2009, Cox took up the case of Nicolle Bradbury, whose home was being foreclosed on by GMAC Mortgage, which was the nation's fifth-largest mortgage servicer and is now facing Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In a deposition, the company's 'limited signing officer' admitted to signing thousands of foreclosure affidavits in 23 states, including Bradbury's, 'without ever knowing if any of the information was true,' Cox said. By exposing the practice, which soon became known as 'robo-signing,' Cox 'blew the lid off' systematic foreclosure fraud by some of the country's biggest banks, wrote Encore.org, which distributes the Purpose Prize. As a result of Cox's work, GMAC suspended foreclosure activity nationwide on September 18, 2010. JP Morgan/Chase, Citibank and PNC Bank soon did the same, and tens of thousands of homes were saveed. Some of the foreclosures were legitimate and proper procedure just wasn't followed, Cox said. Activists and foreclosure defense attorneys like Cox sought to stop foreclosures resulting from servicer misconduct, obtain mortgage modifications for borrowers who had adequate income, and help borrowers who could not save their homes minimize the damage. These abuses were the byproduct of a major change in mortgage lending, from having banks own the mortgages they originates, to selling them to securitization trusts. The cash flows from borrower mortgage payments were 'structured.' Servicers did not own mortgage loans, but instead handles mortgage payment processing, and when applicable, delinquencies and foreclosures for these securitizations. The financial crisis exposed the considerable shortcomings of this 'innovation'. When banks owned mortgage loans and a borrower got behind in payments, the bank would modify the mortgage if the homeowner still had a viable level of income. By contrast, bank servicers were not paid to modify but they were paid to foreclose. And they set up high volume processes so they could foreclose as cheaply as possible, regularly cutting corners and even foreclosing when they'd misapplied borrower payments. It's bad enough that there ten million homeowners lost their homes to foreclosure between 2006 and 2016, out of roughly 55 million homes with mortgages. Even worse, as Cox illustrates below, there are still borrowers fighting to clear up foreclosures initiated over a decade ago. In case you think this is just an oddball example, Cox is about to send a second letter to the Inspector General for Federal Housing Finance Agency about a Maine borrower who defaulted in 2013. Only seven years after the default, and five years after her bankruptcy, in 2020, did Fannie Mae attempt to foreclose. The case was dismissed in 2021 over lack of Fannie Mae's standing to foreclose. The servicer has left the borrower with a Sword of Damocles over her head and the community with an effectively abandoned property: 'To this date, Fannie Mae's servicers and lawyers have been unwilling to negotiate with the Borrower to induce her convey her remaining title in return for a cash payment. So, this house will just sit there, empty and deteriorating, while Fannie Mae continues to incur annual costs more than $6,000 for paying taxes and insurance and maintaining the property. Fannie Mae cannot sue the Borrower for money since she was discharged from personal liability for this debt in her 2015 bankruptcy, leaving Fannie Mae' only recourse being against the mortgaged property.'"
JBird4049 comments: "And then there is the little problem of the increasing numbers both in percentage and absolute numbers of the homeless. Also most people are paying an ever greater amount of their income for housing. When I hear people complaining about it's the drug users, the crazy ones, and the lazy ones own fault for being homeless, I want ask them if they are stupid. Sixty years ago almost everyone could afford a decent place to live. If you were really badly off, an SRO was easily gotten. Now? And people do not want to accept that much of the mental illness and drug abuse comes from being homeless and not the other way around. Maybe, and I could be crazy for suggesting this I know, states and municipalities could use eminent domain and just take the empty buildings? Lord knows that back in the 50s and 60s whole neighborhoods were taken for pennies on the dollar and then obliterated for more freeways. But that's not socialism for the connected, or minority or poor people removal, it's urban renewal, while getting people a decent place to live is Stalinist. My country is insane."
08/26/22 Post by Yves Smith, Quiet Quitting: White Collar Workers No Longer in the Mood to Give More at Work Than They Are Paid For. "Apparently the executive hive mind is finding out, now that a fair number of recent work-at-home staffers have been bludgeoned into coming back into the office, that they just aren't that into overproducing to keep the bosses happy. The perception is that some (and any is too many in the eyes of our corporate slavemasters) are now willing to do only what the job demands, and not any more. The horror of having workers who aren't fawning and fearful! This new (bad) attitude is called quiet quitting. It's become enough of a thing that both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have written about it in the last week. Mind you, there does not seem to be any actual data, which makes sense. Why would employers really want to know the degree to which employees aren't in to them any more? And why would employees trust that any survey would be anonymous? So this newly visible lack of worker enthusiasm for jumping through hoops may be limited to once uber-competitive workplaces, where any decline in anxiety and aggression levels would be evident. And since those highly neurotic workplaces are often those of the supposedly most desirable companies, they'd be more intensely followed by the media than, say, Taco Bell franchises in the Southwest. ... Personally, I'm delighted to see this long-overdue backlash against the 'passion' requirement, that all goodthinking Serious Professionals were supposed to regularly and ritually show how passionate they were about their career. Jobs should not be put on the same plane as objects of lust. Although bosses have been demanding more in an era of rising precarity and inequality (where a fall in income and status has far more dramatic effects than in the much more egalitarian 1960s and 1970s), my dim sense is it took a big ratchet up in the dot-com era. First, most startups were hot air, and the promoters were selling their spin skills. And working to death to garner all those eyeballs was usually a key part of the business pitch. Second, the Internet era ushered in the expectation that employees (ex ones in lines of work like elite law and consulting firms, where new hires understood their lives were not their own) were on call, either to a degree or a lot, More and more companies expected as a matter of course that white collar workers were expected to monitor their e-mails and respond outside workplace hours. By contrast, in the old normal, a supervisor would have had to have a damned good reason to call a worker at home and expect them to Do Something. So the Internet encouraged bosses to be disorganized, intrusive, and demanding. No wonder now that workers have gained some leverage that they've made it clear that enough is enough."
nick comments: "My wife works FT remotely and has gotten her average workday down to 4-5 hours, including all the BS meetings. Employer has been pretty cheap on salary but she found the best way to get a raise is to reduce the denominator, that is, time worked. One reason it works is because they can't practically replace her. Ok, her expertise is fairly rare, and so there are many other tasks that almost no one else could do, and others that would take someone twice as long. But also there has been such turnover in her office the past year or so that even for basic, common things she has become an authority and without short, simple insights from her the whole office would lag. She's still early, maybe mid, career and I wonder if this is happening elsewhere with such high rates of job hopping."
08/22/22 Post by Yves Smith, Republicans Are Being Mean to the IRS, Not That the Democrats Are Helping. "It may seem peculiar to offer a defense of sort to the IRS, since most people here regard doing their taxes with even less enthusiasm than a visit to the dentist (although attitudes depend very much on the state of one's finances and teeth). However, the reporting on the Democratic Party plan to increase IRS funding and staffing has been so bad that it's not hard to feel a bit sorry for a generally unloved agency being kicked for mainly bogus reasons. The Financial Times does the helpful job, in a new, prominently placed story, of explaining how the barrage of whinging about the idea of a chronically budget-starved agency getting the additional dough to do a less bad job is coming almost entirely from the Republican side. Republicans hate taxes, ergo any mention of more taxes or more tax collection must be depicted as an evil feasting on productive American enterprise. Oh, once in a while they'll also express faux concern for small fry taxpayers, but that's just for optics, the same way that big banks get community banks to act as the front men in opposing legislation. However, taxes serve to validate the currency, drain demand, provide incentives and disincentives, and can be used to redistribute income. Team Dem puts up a PR defense of its IRS funding plans, without acknowledging that it's a pretense to claim that the Federal government needs to tax to spend. Those are entirely political constraints. Do you see anyone worrying about where the money for the next bombing run in Iraq or weapons shipment to Ukraine is coming from?"
John Zelnicker comments: "Yves - Thank you so much for taking on the misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda that is clogging up the media over the extra money for the IRS. As a tax accountant I deal with the IRS on a regular basis. Over the past 10-15 years they have become quite good at customer service (if you can get someone on the phone, a separate issue). All of the IRS employees I have dealt with have tried their best, within the legal limitations, to take care of my clients and give them the best result possible. Intuit (Turbo-Tax) has been as aggressive in preventing the IRS from providing pre-filled returns as H&R Block. Block may be losing ground in their retail division (the storefronts), but that is likely due to both their own software as well as Turbo-Tax. Intuit has also been the instrumental in preventing the IRS from simply offering free tax return software for completion by taxpayers. It wouldn't be as good as pre-filled forms for simple returns, but would allow for those with slightly more complex returns."
08/05/22 Post by Nick Corbishley, The Dystopian Dream of Global Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) Hits Another Snag: The Japanese People's Love of Cash. "Japan is not the only G7 economy where cash is still King, and that could complicate the roll out of CBDCs in so-called 'advanced' economies. On June 20, Asia Times ran an op-ed by Sayuri Shirai, a former policy board member of the Bank of Japan, on the Bank of Japan's recent decision to shelve its plans to introduce a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Given Japan is the third largest economy on the planet and is often at the leading edge of technological advances, this is a major development. Yet it received virtually no airtime in the international mainstream press.... In tech-obsessed Japan, the country that first popularized mobile wallets and smartphones, cash is still king. As I noted in an article for WOLF STREET back in 2016, the value of banknotes in circulation, at ¥90 trillion ($885 billion), or about a fifth of gross domestic product, is the highest in the world as a proportion of the economy. Demand for cash remains solid, to the increasing consternation of global credit card companies. In a 2013 report, MasterCard estimated that 38% of the total value of the country's retail transactions were in cash - almost twice the rate in the U.S. and five times the rate in France. It is not just credit card companies that have been left scratching their heads frustratingly at Japanese people's soft spot for physical lucre. In October 2016, Tim Cook vented his spleen against cash during a visit to Tokyo, telling the Nikkei that 'we don't think the consumer particularly likes cash.' It was a bizarre conclusion to reach in a country where cash is offered and accepted reverentially even when paying for groceries and where every ¥10,000-note is treated with utmost care. As a rule, they are pristine. Six years on, the Japanese affection for cash remains undimmed, despite the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the demonization of cash as a vector of contagion. In a survey by Statista in January 2021, more than 90% of respondents named cash as their preferred payment method, citing reasons such as security and reliability. Fifty-five percent of respondents expressed concerns about the risk of personal data leakage when using electronic payment methods. Nearly 42% worried about credit cards and account details being stolen while around 38% said cashless options made them less aware of the amount of money they are spending, increasing the risk of spending too much. Shirai proffers another reason why cash has not lost its luster - namely the Bank of Japan's application of a zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) over the past decade and a half."
rob comments: "How is it even a question as to let the 'powers that be', control EVERYTHING we use money for? In this age where the vast majority of people , on any given subject; for various and opposing reasons; all seriously DISTRUST/HATE their government leaders, government programs, corporate leaders, and most institutions of any size.... WHY would we want the TSA agent at the airport, version of a 'money cop' ... deciding what we can do. THAT is worse than current freedeoms kept by prisoners today in jails. at least they have something they can use to buy contraband. After all, a persons contraband right now could be ... Getting a daughter abortion services/counseling ... or even birth control in some people's minds. or buying medicine from canada, because you just can't afford the US price. Or deciding the bag of weed or mushrooms your buying is medicine, and you want some.. and a thousand other things ... maybe even donating to website blogs who peddle disinformation(as cited by the tsa censor..) who want to tell the people the truth. some decisions have 'cons' so bad ... . it outweighs the 'pros' ... no matter what. What hasn't been hacked into? What isn't controlled by people that are undeserving of 'the benefit of the doubt' cash is a 'check and balance' against tyranny. absolute tyranny."
08/08/22 Post by John McGregor, The Future of Copper and the Future of Bougainville. "The mass transition to renewable energy will require a fundamental redesign of much of our technology and the infrastructure that supports it. Copper will be required in far greater quantities than it is currently. A July 2022 analysis by S&P Global has identified that there will be a shortfall in the supply of copper as economies try to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Without the available copper, it will not be possible to implement the technological changes required for a renewable economy. Even if major economies can't reach their reduction targets (a likely outcome), there will nevertheless be a notable increase in demand for copper and an eventual shortfall. This predictable shortfall will drive strategic national decisions. As copper is, or will be, so central to the economy of the emerging nation of Bougainville, this global demand for copper will direct Bougainville's politics in the coming decades. Due to its resources and location in the Pacific, Bougainville will find itself at the center of the Western Powers ongoing campaign against China. The S&P Global report analyzes the technological solutions that are currently being implemented to achieve the net-zero emissions goals established by different nations and finds that all aspects of the renewable energy transition will need more copper than current alternatives. The automotive sector is projected to be the biggest driver of copper demand because electric vehicles require significantly more copper than their internal combustion equivalents, but there are also smaller projected increases from transmission and distribution, and power generation. Emerging economies will also contribute to this greater demand for copper. ... To maintain these high levels, China is the world's largest importer of copper ores and concentrates. China has invested heavily in overseas copper projects, particularly in Africa and is also expanding its diplomatic and commercial presence in the Pacific, where the nation of Bougainville is looking to re-open its large copper mine, which has been shut for over 30 years. "
PlutoniumKun comments: "There are vast copper mines in the US - but its a notoriously cyclical mineral- Butte Montana has gone through a remarkable series of booms and busts thanks to copper prices. The streets there are eerily quiet now, but if you see photos from the 1920's the town looks like Chicago or San Francisco. Copper miners have always had to be mobile. There are ancient deposits in the very south western corner of Ireland that have been mined for 5,000 years or more- some of the early Bronze Age mines are still visible (the tin for bronze came from Cornwall). There is a nice twitter thread here on a beautiful forest in Beara- it regenerated when the family who owned it moved to Montana to work the mines there. It is of course polluting- my uncle in Tipperary had problems from an old exploratory copper mineshaft on his land (I still have nuggets of copper rich stone he gave me as a child). Although its not nearly as bad as the old lead or silver mines. So much depends on what else is in the mineral deposits. Copper itself isn't a big problem- its lead and other minerals that are often in the same deposit that can poison the land for centuries."
Continuing Themes
08/11/22 Post by Yves Smith, Is the US Underestimating China's Space and Counterspace Capabilities? "[T]he US defense-intel complex has come to believe its own PR about the supposed superiority of US equipment and methods. After all, we must be getting a lot for the vast sums we spend on our armed forces. So what might our blind spots be regarding China? Former Colonel Douglas MacGregor at 16:50 points out that the Chinese are worried about America's nuclear subs, since they could park themselves off China's coast and stop all inbound and outbound ships (the neighbors in the region wouldn't like that). But MacGregor points out the US would be nuts to fight a war on China's doorstep given the distance. ... The Space Review article discusses how China has systematically, since 2010, been seeking space dominance. China has presented many of its tests and maneuvers as having peaceful application, when they could also be used offensively. China has been practicing 'proximity operations' as in moving devices close in and then away from satellites and also grappling and moving them, to the degree that it changed a satellite's altitude by over 100 kilometers. China has also used robotic arms on space vehicles to pick up debris. The Space Review article points out it could also be used to cripple a satellite. China could also simply use a so-called rendezvous and proximity operations to crash one of its satellites into one of ours. ... China also has anti-satellite missiles and has been practicing by shooting down dead weather satellites. It has also been successful at GPS jamming and includes that capability in military drills"
David comments: "As I always argue, there is no such thing as objective military 'capability.' There is only capability to carry out particular missions and attain particular objectives. The issue is really, can the Chinese prevent the US, at least in part, from doing what it wants to do, in peace and war, and can the Chinese achieve their own objectives. This means it's pointless to compare examples of the same capability equipment, you have to compare the ability to carry out tasks with the ability to frustrate them. It looks like the Chinese are doing OK."
08/04/22 Post by Thomas Neuburger, The Dying American Southwest. "I live in the Pacific Northwest. Opinion here, about schemes to take water from the Columbia River to feed the Californias of the world, is also 'Hell no.' Everyone I know in Chicago feels the same way about sending Great Lakes water to the drying Southwest. 'Hell no,' they say, with almost a single voice. Of course, there's more than one problem with schemes to rob water from ... somewhere ... to make the Southwest viable again. In the case of the Mississippi River scheme, that problem is this, from the same op-ed: 'Yes, this would require massive pumping stations to lift the water up the Continental Divide at some point (the lowest lift would be 4,000 feet in Campbell, New Mexico, close to Albuquerque), but then it would be all downhill using gravity to Lake Powell or somewhere else on the Colorado above the Glen Canyon Dam. One writer suggested a series of windmills to generate the electricity, but, of course, you would need holding basins for those times when the wind isn't blowing. That would be the Corps' job to figure out exactly how to generate the electricity.' 'That would be the Corps' job' to figure all this out. I don't know the political affiliation of this Palm Springs resident, but I can guess. He wants to take water from someone else's river, raise it 4,000 feet, pipe it 1,400 miles away, and use the Army (not taxes) to do the job- all so he can live in a dying desert town for a few more years. Perhaps he's a government-hater only on weekdays. Face it- the great American Southwest is in trouble, real trouble. From that same Desert Sun, 'Coachella Valley is experiencing one of its hottest summers on record- again. Surprised? Here are the stats On June 15 and July 10, 2021, the daily maximum temperature records were broken at 120 degrees. Aug. 3 and 4 of that year also saw records fall, with the thermometer hitting 119 and 122, respectively. And on June 17, 2021, Palm Springs hit 123 degrees, tying the record for the hottest day ever. By the time fall hit, and temperatures dropped back into the double-digits, eight daily maximum temperature records had fallen.' ... And the op-ed writer wants to solve the problem by creating a 1,400-mile pipeline over the Rockies so he can continue to live there ... instead of, let's say, moving. It's a silly idea, of course, and it won't happen, just as all the other silly ideas - drain water from the Columbia and send it to the south, drain water from the Great Lakes and send it to west, desalinate the salty blue Pacific- none of these are going to happen. Which leaves two unappealing choices: The op-ed writer and all his friends can move, destroying whatever towns and cities they're fleeing; or they can stay put and fight with everyone else in the dying Southwest desert for the last scraps of water left to them. And then they can move."
MRLost comments: "In the late 1960s / early 1970s my father, a geologist with the Texas Water Development Board, worked with the Texas branch of US Committee On Large Dams (USCOLD, now the International Commission on Large Dams) to examine exactly this problem and propose solutions. They identified three sources of water to hydrate the American Southwest including southern California. The first was to divert flood water from the Mississippi River, build a canal from that river to the Sabine River (the border between Texas and Louisiana) and build a dam on the Sabine sufficiently large to make the Sabine flow backwards to a point where another canal could be dug to join the Red River (the border between Texas and Oklahoma.) The Red River would be channelized and have locks installed so it could be reversed and, in step-wise fashion, raise this water from the Mississippi to the high plains of the Texas Panhandle. From there the water would be pumped via pipelines over the southern (lower altitude) Rockies until the water could be added to the Colorado River in Arizona. The electrical power for this pumping was to be supplied by a nuclear power complex so large that only the Gulf of Mexico could supply sufficient cooling power. The second source of water for the Southwest was Lake Superior. A series of canals and locks would be built extending from that lake ultimately over the Front Range of Colorado and into the Colorado River somewhere west of Denver, likely the Dillon Reservoir. Sections of both the Missouri and Platte Rivers were to be used as channels, but open canals and a large number of locks would have necessary. A tunnel through the mountains, similar to the Eisenhower Tunnel but lower and hence longer, would have been necessary to limit just how high the water would need to be lifted to get it across the Rockies. The third source of water was the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington State. This likely would have used the Willamette River to move water south and then pipelines built and tunnels dug to move the water into California's Imperial Valley. This possible source was rejected early in the analysis because it was deemed that insufficient water was available from the Columbia River and it would have only (and incompletely) supplied California but not Arizona or Nevada. A fourth source of water, Canada, was never considered due to Canadian opposition even at this preliminary stage. All of these possibilities faced additional difficulties such as each State the water crossed wanting a substantial cut of the water and evaporation from the channels and canals. This is all so long ago it was pre-Global Warming and increased temperatures."
08/03/22 Post by KLG, Serotonin and the Unsubstantiated Chemical Imbalance Theory of Mental Disorders. "To channel our inner Leonard Cohen, the Chemical Imbalance Theory of Mental Disorders is something 'everybody knows.' And everybody knows this largely because of direct-to-consumer (sic) advertising that dysregulation of serotonin synapses in the brain causes depression, and other perhaps related disorders. But is this 'something' true? Current disinterested 'science' basically says 'No.' ... An extensive analysis of the serotonin theory of depression was published online on 20 July 2022 in the well-established journal Molecular Psychiatry (SpringerNature): The Serotonin Theory of Depression: A Systematic Umbrella Review of the Evidence. To state the conclusion at the outset, to be followed by the evidence presented: 'The main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations. Some evidence was consistent with the possibility that long-term antidepressant use reduces serotonin concentration.' ... So, on to the umbrella review of The Serotonin Theory of Depression, which has followed the rules, and given the full year between submission and acceptance, peer review and revision have likely been extensive. The authors first conducted a scoping review to identify the six areas of support for the serotonin hypothesis: (1) Are there lower levels of serotonin and 5-HIAA in body fluids of depressed individuals; (2) Are serotonin receptor levels altered in people with depression, which would dysregulate the response to serotonin; (3) Do higher levels of SERT, the serotonin transporter, account for lower levels of serotonin in seratonergic synapses; (4) Depletion studies- does depletion of tryptophan, which would lower levels of serotonin, cause depression; (5) SERT gene- are there higher levels of the SERT gene in people with depression; and (6) Is there an interaction between the SERT gene and stress in depression."
John Moffett comments: "I am a neuroscientist and your readers should know there are two types of neuroscientist, the ones who look for new drugs, and the ones who want to do basic research to find out how the brain works. I am the latter type. We have always doubted the serotonin hypothesis, as it is too simplistic when talking about something as complex as the brain. But because it can slightly improve mood in some people, and thus paper over the underlying depression, it has been the go-to solution for doctors treating depressed patients. I don't expect any change in behavior from doctors now that this review debunks the hypothesis, because patients really do just want 'a pill for that'. I have a friend with depression, and he really wants a pill for it. So until basic science comes up with a more holistic theory of depression and its causes (many of which probably are sociogenic) doctors will continue to prescribe these drugs, which are not good for the patients in the long run."
Other Politics
08/02/22 Post by Nick Corbishley, Is Mexico's AMLO Willing to Walk Away from USMCA? "As the Mexican government's commitment to energy independence smashes into US financial interests, President López Obrador threatens to put sovereignty above the USMCA trade deal. The US is not only fighting (and to all intents and purposes losing) a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine while escalating tensions with its biggest geostrategic rival, China; it is also locked in a high-stakes game of economic brinkmanship with its second largest trading partner, Mexico, which could, in an extreme case scenario, end up shattering the US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) Trade Agreement just four years after its inauguration. The latest escalation occurred on July 20 when the US Trade Representative Katherine Tai revealed that the US has requested dispute settlement consultations with Mexico under USMCA over alleged violations of the trade agreement in the energy sphere. The news came just days after Mexican President Andres Manuel López Obrador, or AMLO for short, had met with President Joe Biden to discuss shared policy interests. In her statement Ambassador Tai accused Mexico's government of: • Granting competitive advantage to the Mexican state-owned companies to the detriment of private companies. • Obstructing the operation of private companies, particularly in the renewable energy sector; in the import, export and storage of fuels and electricity, as well as in the construction and operation of fuel stations. • Granting Mexico's state-owned oil company Petroleos de Mexico (Aka Pemex) a deadline extension to comply with sulphur content limits in automotive diesel. • Favoring Pemex, the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) and their products in the use of Mexico's natural gas transportation system, again to the detriment of private companies. Canada quickly followed suit and requested its own consultations on the matter. Last Thursday, AMLO responded by upping the ante. In his daily morning press conference he argued that the US's decision to request consultations under the USMCA trade deal is not only unfounded but infringes on Mexico's sovereignty. Using his strongest language yet in the dispute, AMLO declared that if it came down to a choice between national sovereignty and the USMCA Agreement, he would choose the former."
Grateful Dude comments: "I have acquired great respect and admiration of AMLO. I think he's for real. He talks about the menace of neo-liberalism in public. And I think Mexico is a safer place to be now, except, I guess, in areas that are run by cartels, all of whom are fed by $ for drugs across the border. Why is cocaine still illegal? Oh wait, growing pot in the US is the federal crime of drug manufacturing to this day. Oy. AMLO pointed out recently that Mexico City is a safer city than NYC."
08/19/22 Post by Nick Corbishley, Latin America Is Back on the Grand Chessboard, As Race for Resources and Strategic Influence Intensifies in New Cold War. "Latin America is once again in the cross-hairs of the world's great (but in some cases, declining) powers as the new Cold War heats up. Vladimir Putin upped the ante this week in his standoff with the West by offering Russia's allies in Latin America, Asia and Africa advanced Russian weaponry - all in the name of safeguarding 'peace and security' in the emerging multipolar world. Speaking at the opening ceremony of the International Military and Technical Forum 2022 and the International Army Games-2022, the Russian leader heaped praise on non-aligned countries for not kowtowing to the global hegemon and instead choosing to steer a more independent course of development: 'We highly appreciate the fact that our country has many like-minded allies and partners on different continents. These are the states that do not succumb to the so-called hegemon. Their leaders show a real masculine character and do not bend." Putin did not name any names but when it comes to Latin America it is not hard to decipher which countries he is probably referring to. While there may be a growing roster of nations in the region wishing to steer a more independent course of Washington, three of the region's countries already enjoy close military ties with Russia: Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua."
Stephen comments: "I guess the bottom line is that the EU (and US) are not bringing so much that helps Latin America. But the EU wants resources and the US (despite the comments noted from the Biden administration) wants to retain its geo political dominance in the region. Feels that this could be an area where conflict may erupt at some point too. Let's hope not."
08/10/22 Post by Conor Gallagher, Italy's Upcoming Election and Its Ongoing Neoliberal Project. "The media is predictably up in arms over the 'fascist' Brothers of Italy Party (Fratelli d'Italia or FdI) that looks set to lead the country's next government after the Sept. 25 election. While the party does not yet meet the qualifications for Fascism, it is fiercely anti-immigrant and nationalistic. The Brothers are expected to join forces with the anti-immigrant, pro-business League Party and Silvio Berlusconi's 'catch-all' party Forza Italia to form a coalition government. For the legions of dissatisfied Italian voters the Brothers are their latest hope. It will be the 14th government since the turn of the century, and from the voters' perspective there is a recurring theme: the decades-long decline in Italians' standard of living. ... Not surprisingly, distrust, pessimism, and frustration with the government have remained widespread throughout the previous 13 ruling coalitions. Despite the frequent changing from center-left to right to center-right, Italians have a harder time getting by, and the post-WWII welfare state, chronically underfunded, continues to crumble like the ruins of Pompeii. So how to continue to sell the austerity policies prescribed by the EU? Italian governments in recent years have either embraced neoliberal reforms or been handcuffed by Brussels. ... Despite all the media panic over the resurrection of Mussolini, Meloni and the Brothers are focusing primarily on anti-immigration efforts coupled with piecemeal financial assistance. The economic proposals don't go nearly as far as Five Stars' in 2018, but they do include the creation of free nurseries and the introduction of €400 per month for families with children under 6 years old in an effort to boost the country's birth rate. It remains to be seen, however, if the budget can absorb such line items without drawing the ire of Brussels."
Ignacio comments: "It is sad to witness how politics are being degraded in many countries and particularly how the EU turned to be the enforcer of TINA politics. Supposedly liberal outfits like El PaÃs are already missing the very beloved figure from the PMC, Mario Draghi and will surely fall in horror when the yet to qualify as neofascits form the new government. Sad times indeed. But, welcome here Conor Gallagher!"
08/22/22 Post by John McGregor, The Australian Labor Party Embraces the Authoritarianism of a Political System in Crisis. "Australia is currently lurching from one revelation to another through a constitutional crisis that nobody near power will acknowledge the severity of. As it emerges that the former Liberal Prime Minister Scott Morrison secretly appropriated a number of ministerships for himself, the now-ruling Labor Party is protecting the institutions of power instead of acknowledging the terrifying precedent established by Morrison's hidden maneuvers. Labor is not shy of adopting authoritarian powers itself, and would prefer to make political gains out of the situation than dismantle a dangerous system. In the past week, it has emerged that the former Australian PM Scott Morrison contrived to hold five other federal ministries while leading the government without the public knowing. A member of the conservative Liberal Party, he was replaced as PM at the May 2022 election by the Australian Labor Party's Anthony Albanese but continues to sit in parliament. In March 2020, Morrison appointed himself to the Department of Health and the Department of Finance. In April 2021, he appointed himself Minister of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. In May 2021, Morrison appointed himself to the Treasury and Home Affairs ministries. In each case, the appointments were not made public, and the existing ministers were not removed. As such, there were periods when there were two ministers, each empowered to act: one known to the public, and the other secret. In Australia, some of these ministries have extraordinary powers with very little to balance them. ... By making himself Minister of Home Affairs, Morrison granted himself the power to cancel visas and remove people from the country. By making himself Health Minister, Morrison gave himself the power to close the border. By making himself Minister of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Morrison gave himself control of Australia's significant natural resources. That any elected government minister has such wide discretion is in itself outrageous, but that Morrison managed to accumulate all these powers without the public even knowing is a mockery of the entire system."
Valerie comments: "The biggest problem - other than what should be illegal behaviour on the part of Scott Morrison - is that the Governor General is not accountable to the public for knowing about the anti-democratic behaviour of the Prime Minister and having no official obligation to make this information public. My last two choices when voting were Labour/Albanese and (dead last) Liberal/Morrison because the two major parties are the Australian versions of the Democratic and Republican duopoly. When we moved to Australia ten years ago, I really hoped it would be better than the U.S. but I have a bad feeling of deja vu. I see no difference in foreign policy and unlike the courageous leadership of Obrador, Albanese is happy to throw an Australian citizen, Julian Assange, to the wolves."
And another thing ... .
08/24/22 Lexx comments: Spent yesterday morning at CSU Veterinary Teaching Hospital getting our dog's pacemaker checked out ... again* ... via the emergency room, in an end run around the system that would have had us waiting weeks to get an appointment on the schedule of yet another resident cardiologist. Our dog's heart and lungs were fine; it's his back that's bothering him to the point of effecting his breathing. The cost was $611 of an $865 (80%) upfront deposit on the estimate, just to begin the process of getting him some serious medical attention. I waited for an hour to get that estimate in the Urgent Care room, directly across the hall from the hospital director's office, while watching the 'propaganda/marketing channel' streaming baby animal rescue documentaries (mostly baby raccoons in Nova Scotia), where apparently the entirety of those dedicated teams do that exhausting round-the-clock work out of the goodness of their highly educated and virtuous hearts. Money is never mentioned ... or what happens to those cute little trash pandas once they get too big and numerous for their three hots and cot.* I grumbled about the money and those two chipper young women (emergency medicine resident and a tech from UC Davis) suggested serenely that 'we should have purchased insurance' for our dog. I countered with how rescue schnauzers these days almost always came with pre-existing conditions, if the owner bothered to look or take their new furry friend to a veterinarian, and that insurance companies are not charities, they're in the business of making money and inclined to take a dim view of that breed, while the pet owner is highly likely to be using that insurance early and often, and so the owner was looking from the get-go at higher premiums to the point they may wonder, why bother? Much like health insurance for humans. Were they put off by my argument? Not in the least. They're in training for spending thousands of other people's money (carte blanche to their credit cards) without a shred of guilt, in a room where the mark is being softened up by streaming cute baby raccoons attended by highly educated, not yet canonized selfless saints walking the Earth righting wrongs, cross from director's office who seems to have an 'open door' policy. Re: he's listening and watching.) Bear with me, I have a point around here somewhere (pats pockets) ... After fifteen years of taking our dogs to that teaching institution I've been witness to its slow transformation from humble cheaper alternative to local private practice veterinarians, to CSU cash cow much like the football stadium. I can instantly tell which of the techs/residents before me in consultation took out student loans to be there, and which had their educations paid for in advance (mom and dad, grandparents, trust funds, scholarships, grants).** They would graduate debt free (or an amount so small as to be quickly dispensed with). The two in front of me in the Urgent Care waiting room double-teaming to jack up the bill were in the latter category. When I say 'jack-up', I mean making sure that as many departments as possible 'got a piece of the action'- billable hours/billable procedures - all well reasoned requests x 4 departments = $611. Oh, and while I made an appointment on the phone for Urgent Care, they still billed through the Emergency Dept. (at the higher rate) to gain the attention of Cardiology (and the cardiologist recommended by the last resident, now teaching at the University of Georgia (and the one before that got hired to teach at Cornell ... the last two internists joined specialty veterinary practices).*** Will $10K in debt forgiveness make much of a difference for those students? Most of them don't need the help, and for rest who borrowed, it's far too little. They are almost guaranteed jobs when they graduate but will spend decades paying it off and may have incomes too high (just) to qualify for the $10K. Yeah, I knew there was some kinda point to this too long missive. *I kept wondering if raccoon coats were making a comeback in Nova Scotia. So many little raccoons who would become bigger raccoons, and then released back into the wild to fend for themselves after being raised in captivity? **Something in their carefree or careworn demeanor. The trust fund babies look fresher and better dressed. I could hear the indebted residents complaining to the techs walking beside them (usually about money) from across the parking lot. The students in the program these days tend to be mostly female and from monied backgrounds. It threw me when I heard the name of the new cardiologist. A male?! Until I heard his last name ... 'ah, that explains it, he's Chinese.' ***CSU is graduating and then training a lot of future professors for universities who would like a piece of CSU's action for their own veterinary programs, by marketing the new staff's college pedigree. Like selling puppies born of an AKC registered mother. It's all about the breeding, grooming, and training. Thus the medical care at CSU feels increasingly elitist, and the price tag all around for services rendered for both students and owners. |
No comments:
Post a Comment