Anyone listen to Dave Smith on Coleman Hughes' podcast? It's loonnnggg (3.5 hours), and I can't understand how Coleman can stand to play nice with one of the most dishonest "pundits" in media right now, but it was fascinating to hear how full of shit Smith is. 

 

Despite his ignorance, Smith is a pretty good example of why libertarianism is an unworkable political philosophy and is more of a starting point for American thought. 

 

There's definitely too many comedians parading around as political historians and analysts. 

Coleman is a brilliant young thinker along the lines of a Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell, or William F Buckley type figure.

His podcasts never disappoint, even with a weak debate partner like Dave.

Edited October 6, 2025Oct 6 by bfargin
English

At the end of the day, they're all just grasping at a different part of the elephant.  Still blind.

If I hear Rogan say one more time that the Fire Department (public utility) is socialism (central planning the means of production) again...

Palmer Luckey on Rogan is pretty good. Hearing a defense contractor talk about designing weaponry that can be manufactured in an auto factory is refreshing. At the end of the next war I don't think the current defense giants will be on top anymore. How many F-22/35s are we going to crank out in the next global conflict?

Edited October 17, 2025Oct 17 by Lord Ratner

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Palmer Luckey on Rogan is pretty good. Hearing a defense contractor talk about designing weaponry that can be manufactured in an auto factory is refreshing. At the end of the next war I don't think the current defense giants will be on top anymore. How many F-22/35s are we going to crank out in the next global conflict?

Don't listen much to Rogan anymore but this one is pretty good.  I had been reading about the Eagle Eye system prior to his appearance.  It's pretty cool but lots of questions obviously.  He's definitely on the right track of MORE for LESS (money and time)

22 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

How many F-22/35s are we going to crank out in the next global conflict?

 Not a lot. The simple problem is we’ve let “perfect” become the enemy of good (and industry is greedy as fuck and doesn’t give a shit about the country). The days of pumping out war materiel like WW2 will never return.

Eh, I have full confidence that these companies will be threatened into submission, or nationalized if democrats are in power.

17 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

I have full confidence that these companies will be threatened into submission

Zero chance. If you get enough time in/around industry, you’ll understand. 

58 minutes ago, brabus said:

(and industry is greedy as fuck and doesn’t give a shit about the country)

This is the Crux of it. You either have to believe all of them are stupid, which is true for the majority but not the entirety of our executive and general officer class, or they just don't care.

 

The ugly reality is that the F22 is a completely useless airframe in a great conflict, purely by merit of its scarcity. And the F32 is most likely not far behind based on how difficult it would be to ramp up production.

 

And just like all the bankers during the great financial crisis, these "leaders" will skitter away into the shadows like the cockroaches they are, never to be held accountable, while dudes like Luckey end up being the secret ingredient to winning the next war. 

Edited October 18, 2025Oct 18 by Lord Ratner

55 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Eh, I have full confidence that these companies will be threatened into submission, or nationalized if democrats are in power.

That's not really the issue though. I agree with you that they will do us they're told (and right now they are just being told to make money).

 

The issue is that what they produce is fundamentally unhelpful in a great war.

 

China will be in a better position to manufacture the precision components required to mass-produce F-35s. That's a result of companies like Apple funding both the industrial capabilities and the intellectual capabilities required. They can convert their existing infrastructure towards wartime production.

 

We can too, just not for the types of weaponry that we currently procure. 

 

One of the more fascinating things lucky pointed out was how China mandated all of the civilian Maritime assets be designed to military spec. So a ferry that is used to shuttle cars and semi trucks from Port to Port still has the ability to handle tanks. That type of foresight simply does not exist in America.

2 hours ago, brabus said:

Zero chance. If you get enough time in/around industry, you’ll understand. 

Can you explain? Are we talking defense CEOs refusing to do what the government asks of them during an existential crisis, or they won't be capable of doing what's asked because they lack the manufacturing capability/personnel etc., or something else?

- I’ll give them one thing before I bash them: current day tech is insanely more complicated than the 1940s. Our manufacturing advances are awesome, but somewhat “nullified” by how complicated our products are. So to even match 1940s manufacturing rates of current day tech is a pipe dream.

- Industry is very bureaucratic and moves slower than molasses. They suffer the same bloat as the gov. They would have to fire thousands of middle managers to start to even have a chance at actual efficiency. They would have to substantially overhaul their processes, from R&D to production. They would need to shelve a lot of attorneys - litigation and legalese adds years to the overall process. Basically, imagine how badly the fed gov needs to be gutted and apply the same level to industry. Example: there is a thing that I was working on in 2015 - it’s nearly 2026 and it’s still a thing, but it’s still not in production. 11 years, still nothing operational to show for it. And it’s a very important, needed thing. I’ve got many examples just like this one; this type of situation happens routinely - a “straighten up guys!” from the gov will not fix that malaise. We’re basically at a burn it all to the ground and rebuild state.

- The C-suite down to middle management  are driven solely by profit; there is no patriotism involved. This mindset is woven deep into everything the company does, including slimy contracting tactics that the fed gov seems too stupid to ever see. They’re not willing to lift a finger on a fix to their fuck up until max, additional profit is extracted. Contracts and processes are purposely dragged out to max profit (e.g. they know problems will arise from X, but they will purposely let it happen so they can achieve the aforementioned). It is criminal negligence at some points in my opinion; they’re basically stealing taxpayer dollars and not doing what they’re paid to do. The “worker bees” are patriots, they just don’t have any say. Could these upper guys be shaken awake and become patriots over profit? Sure, hopefully - but it is this problem that has built the monolithic beast they now have. It will take years to undo, and they’ll be the proverbial “a day late and a dollar short.”

- There are smaller, more agile companies (subs) that are decent at what they do, but they cannot overcome the above that the primes have. They don’t have the capital, size, etc. to be the solution.

Those are the highlights.

 

 

So when these companies are nationalized we just fire/kill their bobs and lawyers. Easy fix 🤌

3 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

So when these companies are nationalized we just fire/kill their bobs and lawyers. Easy fix 🤌

Considering our "nationalized" federal government is closed for business, I am not too sure an easy fix will be that easy or effective.

Idk if you understand the significance of the 🤌...

This one is sort of political, sort of economic, but does anybody follow Mike Green? His substack is "Yes I give a fig" and I'm pretty sure he's one of the most intelligent people I read.

He's been in the news a bit because he's decided to deviate from his usual market and passive investing commentary and take a look at what's happening to the middle class. He recently put out a piece showing that the real poverty line, if you use similar assumptions to what was used in the '60s when it was created, is a hell of a lot closer to $100,000 a year than it is to to $35,000. There's a lot of nuance in there, but it's a fascinating theory.

He most recently looked at why why there is such a divide between The haves and the have-nots, and he put it together in a three-piece article that I am pretty sure is in front of the paywall on substack. The short version is, bringing back a very aggressive estate tax maybe the only practical solution to the increasingly divided economy. Anyone who's interested in this type of thing, I strongly advise taking a look.

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

He most recently looked at why why there is such a divide between The haves and the have-nots, and he put it together in a three-piece article that I am pretty sure is in front of the paywall on substack. The short version is, bringing back a very aggressive estate tax maybe the only practical solution to the increasingly divided economy. Anyone who's interested in this type of thing, I strongly advise taking a look.

Ooorrrr, we could you know, stop putting all the old-people on welfare. Social security (in certain cases) functions to allow old people to stay in multi-million dollar homes in lieu of selling them. Homes which are then passed on to their heirs largely tax free. So, social security really functions as a wealth transfer vehicle from present-day workers to the descendants of property owners. We're not going to fix that though. So in a case like this, I could see an "estate" tax as being a legitimate recoupment of social security paid out which allowed someone to stay in their home until they died.

Oorrrr, we could do the same thing for people who absorb massive medicare dollars in lieu of paying for their own healthcare.

Orrrrr, we could stop the infinite deficit spend binge we're on, which will irrevocably result in continued and runaway inflation.

Or yeah, I guess we could just take people's property too.

I would have zero issue with people's estates owing taxes on income they claimed during their lives which they want their estates to pay after death. I'd have a major issue though, with just confiscating people's inheritance who aren't net minuses. I'd just rather it be characterized as a recoupment tax to identify it as a bill owed for benefits received. Most estate taxes are not "that."

Is the article you reference the "Summer Slide" series?

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by ViperMan

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Ooorrrr, we could you know, stop putting all the old-people on welfare. Social security (in certain cases) functions to allow old people to stay in multi-million dollar homes in lieu of selling them. Homes which are then passed on to their heirs largely tax free. So, social security really functions as a wealth transfer vehicle from present-day workers to the descendants of property owners. We're not going to fix that though. So in a case like this, I could see an "estate" tax as being a legitimate recoupment of social security paid out which allowed someone to stay in their home until they died.

Oorrrr, we could do the same thing for people who absorb massive medicare dollars in lieu of paying for their own healthcare.

Orrrrr, we could stop the infinite deficit spend binge we're on, which will irrevocably result in continued and runaway inflation.

Or yeah, I guess we could just take people's property too.

I would have zero issue with people's estates owing taxes on income they claimed during their lives which they want their estates to pay after death. I'd have a major issue though, with just confiscating people's inheritance who aren't net minuses. I'd just rather it be characterized as a recoupment tax to identify it as a bill owed for benefits received. Most estate taxes are not "that."

Is the article you reference the "Summer Slide" series?

Yep, summerslide covers the estate tax concept. It's also worth reading his series that starts with "My life is a lie.

He's not some sort of lifelong progressive who is just now finding the spotlight. His research has changed his perspective (and mine) rather profoundly, and I think it's identified a blind spot in a lot of wealthy and or conservative people's philosophy.

@ViperMan

The estate tax/gift tax allows for tax free exemptions of $30M over a lifetime for a married couple to pass on. You really think that our billionaire overlords must be allowed to establish untaxed dynasties? The propaganda is hilarious.

As a reminder, $30M is a lot of money. The largest of “family farm” operations in the top 1% - which is typically given as the propaganda reason why the estate tax is bad - is approximately $15M.

When America was great - after WWII - the top marginal tax rate was >90%, with estate taxes >77%. There is literally no cogent reason why a society that touts itself as the land of equal opportunity would not support our society being based on a meritocracy - in which people don’t start a poker game with all the chips - as opposed to an oligarchy.

Except, your brains have been conditioned via over 40 years of Reagan era policies to believe that allowing the rich to exist forever has always been the case during American prosperity. And you probably want to call me a socialist right now for some reason, even though I’ve literally only told you about American policies.

Solution is simple - increase taxes on the ultra rich and their families, as we used to.

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by Negat0ry

1 hour ago, Negat0ry said:

@ViperMan

The estate tax/gift tax allows for tax free exemptions of $30M over a lifetime for a married couple to pass on. You really think that our billionaire overlords must be allowed to establish untaxed dynasties? The propaganda is hilarious.

As a reminder, $30M is a lot of money. The largest of “family farm” operations in the top 1% - which is typically given as the propaganda reason why the estate tax is bad - is approximately $15M.

When America was great - after WWII - the top marginal tax rate was >90%, with estate taxes >77%. There is literally no cogent reason why a society that touts itself as the land of equal opportunity would not support our society being based on a meritocracy - in which people don’t start a poker game with all the chips - as opposed to an oligarchy.

Except, your brains have been conditioned via over 40 years of Reagan era policies to believe that allowing the rich to exist forever has always been the case during American prosperity. And you probably want to call me a socialist right now for some reason, even though I’ve literally only told you about American policies.

Solution is simple - increase taxes on the ultra rich and their families, as we used to.

One of the reasons these conversations are so unproductive is because people like you, clearly motivated by bitterness and spite, approach the solution from a position of vengeance. Intent matters, and if everything you say is dripping with contempt, then the possible policy solutions being suggested will be poisoned and fail.

The best thing you could do, if you truly care about the issue, is to simply keep quiet. Just look at the last few years of your conversations here. What have you accomplished? Even when everyone is in agreement, you somehow find a way to turn it back into a fight. I was impressed when you admitted you were wrong during covid, but it doesn't appear to have had any meaningful effect on your overall disposition.

If all you're shooting for is to feel superior, then by all means, carry on. At least then your actions are aligned with your intent. But if you're trying to change minds, you're just not the right tool for the job.

37 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

..... But if you're trying to change minds, you're just not the right tool for the job.

Bravo sir. Overall an incredibly level headed, honest broker critique.

2 hours ago, Negat0ry said:

@ViperMan

The estate tax/gift tax allows for tax free exemptions of $30M over a lifetime for a married couple to pass on. You really think that our billionaire overlords must be allowed to establish untaxed dynasties? The propaganda is hilarious.

As a reminder, $30M is a lot of money. The largest of “family farm” operations in the top 1% - which is typically given as the propaganda reason why the estate tax is bad - is approximately $15M.

When America was great - after WWII - the top marginal tax rate was >90%, with estate taxes >77%. There is literally no cogent reason why a society that touts itself as the land of equal opportunity would not support our society being based on a meritocracy - in which people don’t start a poker game with all the chips - as opposed to an oligarchy.

Except, your brains have been conditioned via over 40 years of Reagan era policies to believe that allowing the rich to exist forever has always been the case during American prosperity. And you probably want to call me a socialist right now for some reason, even though I’ve literally only told you about American policies.

Solution is simple - increase taxes on the ultra rich and their families, as we used to.

@Negat0ry, if you know we used to have tax rates that high, then you also know that nearly no one actually paid taxes at those rates. Or if you don't, then you just consumed a "fact" and regurgitated the sound byte. So I don't know why you referenced it other than to imply that you think increasing taxes on billionaires will solve all our woes. I'll spare you the suspense though, it won't. And for many reasons. I'll give you two practical ones. First, mostly because the amount of "money" you think billionaires possess is actually tied up in capital assets - things that produce income or enable other people to be productive (factories, websites, logistics facilities, buildings, digital networks, communication infrastructure, supercomputers, etc). The second reason, and most important one, is there just isn't enough juice to squeeze from them. Meaning, if you confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires it wouldn't cover the fiscal outlays and promises our government has made. Those are practical reasons. Those are mathematical reasons. Those are logical reasons. Those are reasons you should be able to buy into regardless of your political affiliation. I won't try to convince you that there are additional moral reasons you shouldn't confiscate wealth, but it'd be a waste of time - not only because you come from a different moral and ethical perspective, but because it doesn't matter on a practical basis - we can't get there from where we are. Your suggestion (assumed solution) won't work for practical (mathematical) reasons. Which, by the way, is why I think you promulgate a moral position.

Yes dude, I believe that people should be able to stay rich forever. And honestly so do you. You don't think you do though, because you can't (or haven't) conceive of a world in which money keeps it's value and relative wealth means relatively less. I mean seriously dude, do you honestly think that every generation should start from zero? Like what's the point from a humanity-centered perspective to force individuals to have to suffer and grind from square one? I suspect you'd say "fairness" and "opportunity." I want fairness and opportunity in our country for everyone as well. Those are two things I think you and I would agree on, and I'm sure we just disagree about the mechanism, and honestly, that comes from just a different fact-pattern that you and I see. Problem is though, you have a math problem to address. You can moralize about it all you want, but the numbers don't work.

You are right in that the $30 (15) million dollar exclusion is a lot of money, and you're also right that the crux of the problem doesn't lie in a few 'outlier' farmers who are able to pass on their $100M dollar farms to their heirs. Rather, the core problem is much broader and more subtle than that. The problems we have are all underneath the surface, and exist in ways most of us never think of or pause to consider - i.e. the wealth transfer mechanism that is social security, wherein it transfers my present day wages to the sons and daughters of people who bought homes in the 1960s and 1970s. Boomers, who are consuming end-of-life care and consuming dollars which my labor produced. These people should be putting their homes on the market in order to generate the 'income' they need to eat and to pay for their medical care. Instead, the government provides them with income and medical care (from me), and then when they die, their kids inherit many millions of dollars - much of it being MY MONEY. So in some cases it functions purely as a pass-thru mechanism from one set of people (produces) to another (consumers). I think you would agree that is an unintended and let's just say, sub-optimal, outcome of SS.

I point at something like this because it's but one of an innumerable set of problems and dynamics which when they operate at scale, create all the problems you and I lament. You want a solution, and so do I - I respect that. You just haven't identified the problem yet.