Politics

[VertigoBE]

China fishing fleet causing chaos as usual....

‘Mad fishing’: the super-size fleet of squid catchers plundering the high seas | Oceans | The Guardian https://share.google/9myzfiJDGHRBPUhUO

Their fishing fleet should be stopped, as it is threatening global fish numbers.

 

[mark-hunter]

Their fishing fleet should be stopped, as it is threatening global fish numbers.

Very hard to accomplish.
If the fishing fleet is fishing in international waters, which countries jurisdiction it is?
Hint: no jurisdiction.
It is very similar problem with piracy in international waters.

EU managed to do something with tuna fishing quotas, but just because all member states signed for qoutas, controlled by licensing.

On the other hand, nobody ever stopped Japanese to hunt whales for "scietific research" purposes.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/30/asia/japan-whaling-mothership-kangei-maru-intl-hnk

 

[Tanks]

Guess it was about denying oil to China.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/venezuela-us-talks-export-venezuelan-oil-us-sources-say-2026-01-06/

 

[Foxi]

I assume this would trigger the NATO Article 5 Collective Defense clause. It would also likely trigger meaningful Republican opposition. One can only hope it is some sort of posturing. Rubio must occasionally have to be put on suicide watch.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/06/trump-greenland-military-white-house.html

That would be the end of NATO with its 32 member states, because then no one would give a damn about the Americans' statements and assurances anymore.
Rubio can then march into other countries with his boss and annex them.
The House of Habsburg also collapsed due to overextension.
The Russians and Chinese will remain the victors of this world.
It's a good thing I'm already so old .

 

[VertigoBE]

Very hard to accomplish.
If the fishing fleet is fishing in international waters, which countries jurisdiction it is?
Hint: no jurisdiction.
It is very similar problem with piracy in international waters.

EU managed to do something with tuna fishing quotas, but just because all member states signed for qoutas, controlled by licensing.

On the other hand, nobody ever stopped Japanese to hunt whales for "scietific research" purposes.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/30/asia/japan-whaling-mothership-kangei-maru-intl-hnk

I know about the international waters, but couldn't the UN make itself useful in this case, like concerning the arctic and antarctic regions, and impose some rules and restrictions?

The hunting of whales in and of itself is for me not more or less problematic than the hunting of elephant. A strict quota system and control needs to be implemented and it must happen in a sustainable model, that will be a net benefit for the overall environment

 

[Altitude sickness]

The Trump Doctrine. (Strengthening of the U.S. dominance of our hemisphere, Tariffs and U.S. first policy ). Is a worthy goal. It’s a shame that China and Russia have been allowed to exert more and more influence over South and North America over previous decades.

Now Trump is trying to course correct decades of negligence by past U.S. leaders in one 4 year presidency. It’s too much in a short time frame and may actually end up displacing the U.S. as the world leader.

More concerning and more realistic consequences of the U.S. going alone on too many geopolitical stages. Is this Distrust and instability will escalate the speed of nations moving away from the Dollar as the Reserve Currency.

The fall of past empires were not from military defeats. But their currency being replaced.

 

[RLD]

The Trump Doctrine. (Strengthening of the U.S. dominance of our hemisphere, Tariffs and U.S. first policy ). Is a worthy goal. It’s a shame that China and Russia have been allowed to exert more and more influence over South and North America over previous decades.

Now Trump is trying to course correct decades of negligence by past U.S. leaders in one 4 year presidency. It’s too much in a short time frame and may actually end up displacing the U.S. as the world leader.

More concerning and more realistic consequences of the U.S. going alone on too many geopolitical stages. Is this Distrust and instability will escalate the speed of nations moving away from the Dollar as the Reserve Currency.

The fall of past empires were not from military defeats. But their currency being replaced.

The Trump doctrine (if there is such a thing) is a worthy goal if it is what you articulate it to be.

However, one can still question whether or not his methods of achieving that goal are effective, and what the price is, both in literal terms, and in what loses in other theaters. For instance if this strike against Maduro weakens or destabilizes the positions in Taiwan, or Ukraine than I think the price was too high.

We also need to see if it will work long term. I don't think one can argue that removing Maduro was a bad thing (the guy was a bad actor) but it remains to be seen what Venezuela will look like in 10 years or so now that he has gone. So far his party still runs the country.

I don't think tariffs are part of a doctrine, they are a tool to achieve a doctrine, and I don't think over any stretch they will achieve what they are supposed to achieve, that is the return of various industries to the United States or a better balance of trade. To be honest I don't think the United States people are well served by trying to return those industries from say Asia in particular to the United States (Europe and Canada are different cases).

 

[Altitude sickness]

Of course Trump didn’t cause or start this shift of the Reserve Currency. That path escalated in the 1970s.

Trump is simply trying to slow the replacement of the Dollar as Reserve Currency. And that usually speeds the decent.

This video gives a quick version of why and where we sit.

 

[atrious]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskThe_Donald/comments/1q56p6d/and_they_say_maga_is_a_cult_they_cant_even

 

[Altitude sickness]

^^^ staged, fake video

 

[Brent in Az]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskThe_Donald/comments/1q56p6d/and_they_say_maga_is_a_cult_they_cant_even

Fake bullshit. Those staged videos are all over social media. YouTube is a cesspool of that type of nonsense

 

[rookhawk]

I heard a great stat today that is relevant to this group:

In 1975 the average home was only $40,000, but that was 250 ounces of gold equivalent.

In 2025 the average home was $400,000, but that was 100 ounces of gold equivalent.

The real enemy is fiat currency and lack of sound money. Our larger salaries are simply an illusion.

 

[mark-hunter]

I know about the international waters, but couldn't the UN make itself useful in this case, like concerning the arctic and antarctic regions, and impose some rules and restrictions?

There is internal waters (harbors, bays, estuaries, channels, etc.
There is territorial waters 12 miles from base line.
Economic zone 200 miles.
Those are within some coastal state jurisdiction.

The rest is open waters, no jurisdiction.
No policeman to charge the fine,
No fleet to run patrols in international waters.

If the coastal state bans whaling, than the vessels flying that flag will not do the whaling.
If the coastal state does not ban whaling, commercial vessels, under that state flag can do the whaling.

The UN and its organisation IMO (International maritime organization) do make some international legislative, mostly under MARPOL convetion (Polution prevention), and SOLAS (safety od life at sea, covention), and ILO (Labor convention) and this is enforced by IMO member flag and coastal states.

And than it is enforced within jurisdiction of coastal state through national coast guard or port state control agencies.
But to enforce this, subject vessel must first come into the harbor, or at least within territorial waters of coastal state, where agencies can do the policing.
If the vessel sails from japan and return to japan full of whales, UN and IMO cannot do anything.

Generally speaking, you can not detain, stop, or inspect ship flying different flag at high seas by some coastguard vessel flying different flag.

Exemptions are in some cases piracy, gun smuggling, human trafficking, but generally there is no permanently assigned international fleet to do police work.
It is organized on specific areas and specific cases.
Like coalition forces in gulf of Aden to prevent and tackle piracy.

I dont see any state assigning some naval destroyers and cruisers to do police work in Antarctic to prevent whaling. This would be highly unusual.

Edit.
Numbers of whales are increasing in Antartica. Fin whales, blue whales, and humpback whales. This means whatever Japanese are doing, it is not massacre of whales, or it is not un-sustaining practice.
So while politically correct world is "disgusted" with this practice after "whale wars" series, greenpeace actions, and national geographic and discovery channel movies, in reality japanese whaling has minimal effect on whale population.

 

[rookhawk]

More inflation fun facts:

Average U.S. Wages Measured in Gold​

1975​

• Average annual U.S. wage: ≈ $12,400
  (BLS average wage per worker, mid-1970s)
• Average gold price (1975): ≈ $161 / oz

Wages in gold (1975):
$12,400÷$161≈77 oz of gold\$12{,}400 \div \$161 \approx \mathbf{77\ oz\ of\ gold}$12,400÷$161≈77 oz of gold

---

2025​

• Average annual U.S. wage: ≈ $63,800
  (BLS average wage / compensation per employee, 2024–2025 range)
• Average gold price (2025): ≈ $3,470 / oz

Wages in gold (2025):
$63,800÷$3,470≈18 oz of gold\$63{,}800 \div \$3{,}470 \approx \mathbf{18\ oz\ of\ gold}$63,800÷$3,470≈18 oz of gold

---

Home Prices and Wages in Gold (Side-by-Side)​

Year	Avg Wage (USD)	Wage (oz Gold)	Avg Home (USD)	Home (oz Gold)
1975	~$12,400	~77 oz	~$39,500	~245 oz
2025	~$63,800	~18 oz	~$410,800	~118 oz

---

Key Ratios (Gold-Based)​

Homes priced in annual wages (gold-adjusted)​

• 1975:
  245 oz÷77 oz≈3.2 years of wages245\ oz \div 77\ oz \approx \mathbf{3.2\ years\ of\ wages}245 oz÷77 oz≈3.2 years of wages
• 2025:
  118 oz÷18 oz≈6.6 years of wages118\ oz \div 18\ oz \approx \mathbf{6.6\ years\ of\ wages}118 oz÷18 oz≈6.6 years of wages

---

What This Reveals (Very Important)​

1. Wages collapsed in gold terms
   • Average wages fell from ~77 oz → ~18 oz
   • That’s a ~77% loss of purchasing power vs. gold
2. Homes got cheaper in gold
   • Homes fell from ~245 oz → ~118 oz
   • Roughly 50% cheaper in real (gold) terms
3. Housing affordability still worsened
   • Because wages fell faster than home prices
   • Gold-based affordability doubled in difficulty

The core issue is not housing inflation — it’s wage debasement.

Final Answer​

The present wage equivalent (in 2025 dollars) of the 1975 average wage, measured in gold, is:​

~77 ounces of gold per year
≈ $265,000–$270,000 per year (2025 USD)

---

What This Means (the important part)​

• A worker earning the average wage in 1975, if paid in gold, would today earn:
  
  • ~4.2× more dollars than the current average U.S. wage (~$64k)
• In gold terms:
  
  • 1975 average worker: ~77 oz
  • 2025 average worker: ~18 oz

That’s a ~77% loss of labor purchasing power vs. gold.

---

One-Line Takeaway​

The “middle-class” wage of 1975, preserved in gold, would be a quarter-million-dollar income today.

To answer this cleanly, we keep housing affordability constant relative to wages.

We already established that in 1975:

• Average wage: ~$12,400
• Average home price: ~$39,500

That implies:

Home price÷Wage≈3.2× annual income\text{Home price} \div \text{Wage} \approx \mathbf{3.2\times\ annual\ income}Home price÷Wage≈3.2× annual income

---

Apply the Same Ratio to $267,000 Annual Earnings (2025)​

If a household earned $267,000 per year (the gold-equivalent of the 1975 average wage), and housing cost the same multiple of income:

$267,000×3.2≈$854,000\$267{,}000 \times 3.2 \approx \mathbf{\$854{,}000}$267,000×3.2≈$854,000

---

Final Answer​

The “equivalent” average U.S. home price in 2025 would be about
$850,000–$860,000

— if housing affordability matched 1975 conditions.

---

Reality Check (Why This Matters)​

• Actual 2025 median home price: ~$410,000
• Implied fair-price at 1975 affordability: ~$855,000

This tells us:

• Homes are cheap relative to gold
• Homes are expensive relative to wages
• The constraint is income purchasing power, not physical housing scarcity

---

One-Line Insight​

If wages had not been debased, today’s “average” home would be an $850k asset—and still just as affordable as in 1975.

I heard a great stat today that is relevant to this group:

In 1975 the average home was only $40,000, but that was 250 ounces of gold equivalent.

In 2025 the average home was $400,000, but that was 100 ounces of gold equivalent.

The real enemy is fiat currency and lack of sound money. Our larger salaries are simply an illusion.

 

[Tanks]

Now do the same in Bitcoin from when it was first introduced.

 

[rookhawk]

Now do the same in Bitcoin from when it was first introduced.

Only if we do tulip bulbs in Holland from 1500 to present. (I'm kidding)

I'm not a Bitcoin fan for a few reasons. 1.) anchored by no utility. 2.) Traceable, contrary to the blockchain pledge. 3.) Hackable/destroyable in the next 20 years due to post-quantum computing. 4.) Not a currency of utility. Buying goods and services with it in total privacy was the promise, it has not been the reality. 5.) No universal standard. BTC is a leader, but there are thousands of them, most blow up as typical crypto scams.

In the long run, I think gold and silver will have greater lasting value than crypto because it can be traded as an ETF for liquidity without privacy, or it can be held in raw form and exchanged between buyers and sellers.

 

[wesheltonj]

There is internal waters (harbors, bays, estuaries, channels, etc.
There is territorial waters 12 miles from base line.
Economic zone 200 miles.
Those are within some coastal state jurisdiction.

The rest is open waters, no jurisdiction.
No policeman to charge the fine,
No fleet to run patrols in international waters.

If the coastal state bans whaling, than the vessels flying that flag will not do the whaling.
If the coastal state does not ban whaling, commercial vessels, under that state flag can do the whaling.

The UN and its organisation IMO (International maritime organization) do make some international legislative, mostly under MARPOL convetion (Polution prevention), and SOLAS (safety od life at sea, covention), and ILO (Labor convention) and this is enforced by IMO member flag and coastal states.

And than it is enforced within jurisdiction of coastal state through national coast guard or port state control agencies.
But to enforce this, subject vessel must first come into the harbor, or at least within territorial waters of coastal state, where agencies can do the policing.
If the vessel sails from japan and return to japan full of whales, UN and IMO cannot do anything.

Generally speaking, you can not detain, stop, or inspect ship flying different flag at high seas by some coastguard vessel flying different flag.

Exemptions are in some cases piracy, gun smuggling, human trafficking, but generally there is no permanently assigned international fleet to do police work.
It is organized on specific areas and specific cases.
Like coalition forces in gulf of Aden to prevent and tackle piracy.

I dont see any state assigning some naval destroyers and cruisers to do police work in Antarctic to prevent whaling. This would be highly unusual.

Edit.
Numbers of whales are increasing in Antartica. Fin whales, blue whales, and humpback whales. This means whatever Japanese are doing, it is not massacre of whales, or it is not un-sustaining practice.
So while politically correct world is "disgusted" with this practice after "whale wars" series, greenpeace actions, and national geographic and discovery channel movies, in reality japanese whaling has minimal effect on whale population.

While this is true, the real problem is the over fishing of Krill in the Southern Ocean. That is having the greatest effect on Whale and Pinguin populations.

 

[RLD]

More inflation fun facts:

Average U.S. Wages Measured in Gold​

1975​

• Average annual U.S. wage: ≈ $12,400
  (BLS average wage per worker, mid-1970s)
• Average gold price (1975): ≈ $161 / oz

Wages in gold (1975):
$12,400÷$161≈77 oz of gold\$12{,}400 \div \$161 \approx \mathbf{77\ oz\ of\ gold}$12,400÷$161≈77 oz of gold

---

2025​

• Average annual U.S. wage: ≈ $63,800
  (BLS average wage / compensation per employee, 2024–2025 range)
• Average gold price (2025): ≈ $3,470 / oz

Wages in gold (2025):
$63,800÷$3,470≈18 oz of gold\$63{,}800 \div \$3{,}470 \approx \mathbf{18\ oz\ of\ gold}$63,800÷$3,470≈18 oz of gold

---

Home Prices and Wages in Gold (Side-by-Side)​

Year	Avg Wage (USD)	Wage (oz Gold)	Avg Home (USD)	Home (oz Gold)
1975	~$12,400	~77 oz	~$39,500	~245 oz
2025	~$63,800	~18 oz	~$410,800	~118 oz

---

Key Ratios (Gold-Based)​

Homes priced in annual wages (gold-adjusted)​

• 1975:
  245 oz÷77 oz≈3.2 years of wages245\ oz \div 77\ oz \approx \mathbf{3.2\ years\ of\ wages}245 oz÷77 oz≈3.2 years of wages
• 2025:
  118 oz÷18 oz≈6.6 years of wages118\ oz \div 18\ oz \approx \mathbf{6.6\ years\ of\ wages}118 oz÷18 oz≈6.6 years of wages

---

What This Reveals (Very Important)​

1. Wages collapsed in gold terms
   • Average wages fell from ~77 oz → ~18 oz
   • That’s a ~77% loss of purchasing power vs. gold
2. Homes got cheaper in gold
   • Homes fell from ~245 oz → ~118 oz
   • Roughly 50% cheaper in real (gold) terms
3. Housing affordability still worsened
   • Because wages fell faster than home prices
   • Gold-based affordability doubled in difficulty

The core issue is not housing inflation — it’s wage debasement.

Final Answer​

The present wage equivalent (in 2025 dollars) of the 1975 average wage, measured in gold, is:​

---

What This Means (the important part)​

• A worker earning the average wage in 1975, if paid in gold, would today earn:
  • ~4.2× more dollars than the current average U.S. wage (~$64k)
• In gold terms:
  • 1975 average worker: ~77 oz
  • 2025 average worker: ~18 oz

That’s a ~77% loss of labor purchasing power vs. gold.

---

One-Line Takeaway​

To answer this cleanly, we keep housing affordability constant relative to wages.

We already established that in 1975:

• Average wage: ~$12,400
• Average home price: ~$39,500

That implies:

Home price÷Wage≈3.2× annual income\text{Home price} \div \text{Wage} \approx \mathbf{3.2\times\ annual\ income}Home price÷Wage≈3.2× annual income

---

Apply the Same Ratio to $267,000 Annual Earnings (2025)​

If a household earned $267,000 per year (the gold-equivalent of the 1975 average wage), and housing cost the same multiple of income:

$267,000×3.2≈$854,000\$267{,}000 \times 3.2 \approx \mathbf{\$854{,}000}$267,000×3.2≈$854,000

---

Final Answer​

— if housing affordability matched 1975 conditions.

---

Reality Check (Why This Matters)​

• Actual 2025 median home price: ~$410,000
• Implied fair-price at 1975 affordability: ~$855,000

This tells us:

• Homes are cheap relative to gold
• Homes are expensive relative to wages
• The constraint is income purchasing power, not physical housing scarcity

---

One-Line Insight​

While interesting I am not sure where this takes us.

All it does is take an arbitrary asset and compare what inflation has done to that resource compared to housing and wages. You could do the same thing with copper, diamonds, Ford Escorts, iron ingots, the price of soy beans or whatever. It really doesn't take you anywhere practically speaking.

Even under Bretton Woods gold had to be pegged to an artificial level of $35 an ounce for the whole damned thing to work.

No one I know was paid in gold in 1975 and no one I know is paid in gold now.

I also think the final conclusion is just plain inaccurate. The cost of housing is impacted by multiple factors including scarcity, cost, demographic issues etc. Using a gold pegged currency doesn't solve any of them.

 

[bowjijohn]

Trump is the bar room bully

Place him in the effeminate world of the cocktail bar and he is a load mouthed oaf

I don’t like him

However….

I suspect that history will write him up as a major leaguer

I suspect rightly so

Though not every decision is a good one

Most are on the button

 

[CJW]