“[C]ultivate a studied ignorance of the candidates and their positions so that even if you were forced at gunpoint into a voting booth…you wouldn’t have any idea which lever to pull…Most anything else you can imagine doing with your time other than paying attention to politicians…would be more beneficial to you, to your loved ones, and to your community.” ~David Gross, blogger.
When I was a kid we used to visit a cavern that had a giant pendulum suspended from the ceiling. If you grew up in ⚜️St. Louis⚜️ you probably remember it. It was probably at Meramec Caverns or Onandaga Cave. Anyway, this giant pendulum went forth and back—as pendula are wont to do🤪–but unlike a grandfather clock’s pendulum, this one didn’t adhere to a single two-dimensional plane. It worked its way around a giant ring that they’d laid out on the ground, periodically knocking over these little dominos that they’d arranged around the ring’s perimeter.
As I was growing up I would hear punditry about election cycles and administration changes. I kept hearing chatter about the “pendulum” taking another “swing” farther to the left or to the right. And me, I’m just a dumb kid; I’m saying, pendulums don’t swing left and right! (Yeah, I learned to yell at the radio at a very early age—what?📣📻)
Foucault Pendulum at the Elliott Museum By Jared - https://www.flickr.com/photos/jared422/35601353230/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=85595471
Fast forward⏩ to adulthood, and I find that most people tend to agree, once you point it out, that the left-right paradigm is awfully narrow. You’d think humans weren’t capable of dealing with more than two choices! (One could argue that two choices are all people really want nowadays, but that would just bolster the case for distancing yourself, wouldn’t it?)
(Article continues below, but first a bulletin for my Latin American subscribers: Canada’s imposition of visa restrictions for Mexican🇲🇽 nationals has already impacted me and my business. At first they promised that the LMIA program was not impacted, but in fact, the new requirements are pretty onerous, especially for an under-educated laborer with few resources. Also after this article about the false left-right spectrum, I will persuade you to audit your portfolio for Canada exposure. Lastly, we ask ChatGPT why we might consider getting our money out of Hong Kong, then Canada.)
Some folks consider themselves “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”, and therefore can’t subscribe to either of the two political parties that are prevalent in the United States. Others just want to see a fair shake for the little guy, but are skeptical that any policymakers out there really care. Some people think less should be spent on defense (why do we still call it that?) and more on infrastructure.
Still others ask, Is there a way we can invest in infrastructure without entrusting the task to THOSE people?
One could argue that humans are the most inventive creatures ever to walk this planet. I won’t get into whether that’s been for better or for worse, but I will take that thought a step farther and posit that humans have developed an uncanny ability to cooperate with one another—giant ant colonies and beehives notwithstanding.
Inventiveness and cooperability—two features of the human species that will replace the current means of funding social projects. Are you with me so far?
Imagine what we humans could come up with if we emphasized our inventiveness and our uncanny ability to cooperate, rather than focusing on which lesser of two evils will best manipulate the levers of the tried-and-failed tools of coercion?
Do you want to live in a society where the marginalized are left to dangle? Me neither. People generally agree that some level of social safety net should exist. Not a lot of controversy there—other than the usual talk of freeloaders. The controversy, as I see it, arises with the assumption that the State is the institution best suited to build and maintain that safety net, and that coercion, the only tool the State has or can ever have, is the only instrument by which it can be funded.
I, too, used uncritically to assume safety nets must be run by governments. Too late in life did I realize that assumption is vulnerable to challenge.
Why the bloody blue blazes aren’t we all sitting around the campfire saying, OK, folks. Coercion is off the table. How are we going to ensure a basic minimum income, quality affordable healthcare, and retirement with dignity for all?
Given a choice between solving a problem using coercion, and solving it using cooperation, most folks would choose the latter.
The problem is we aren’t presented with that choice, are we? Instead the two choices we’re presented with always involve coercion. My candidate’s going to spend your neighbor’s money more wisely than your candidate.
If the only way to get a bridge built, or a hospital, or to get a school lunch to the Cunningham kids, was to kick down your neighbor’s door and force them to open their safe, most people wouldn’t do it. Not respectable. Not civilized. They’d hire someone else to do it. And they’d want to distance themselves as far from the gun-to-the-head as possible.
Me, too. I want to distance myself as far as possible from that coercion. And carrying that voter registration card is too bloody close for my conscience. How about you?
But what about all those brave heroes who struggled for women and black suffrage? Are we to leave their efforts in the dustbin of history? Yes. They had their time and place in history, and kudos to them. But since those days, when giving a voice to women and minorities mattered, the US is on a trajectory that voting has no influence over. This country has been bought, sold and paid for long ago, as George Carlin said.
If you still belong to a political party, when was the last time you asked yourself why? I was talking to an American neighbour of mine who has lived up in Canada since the early 1970s. He has CNN running all day, every day. He told me he has alway voted straight Democrat his whole life. To which I replied, well, if you already know how you’re going to vote, then why waste your time watching debates and pretending to be informed? Why not do something more useful with your time?
How about you? Is 2024 going to be the year you tear up that party membership card? Assuming you don’t live in a country that forces you to vote🇦🇺🇺🇾🇱🇺🇨🇱🇧🇪🇧🇷🇦🇷, is 2024 the year you tear up that voter registration card?
As long as you keep accepting one or the other of the false choices, they’re just going to keep presenting you with crappy choices.
Think about all the mental energy you waste fooling yourself you’re informed on the issues, fooling yourself you’re informed about the candidates, fooling yourself you’re informed about who’s running the show. Think of all the time you waste scrolling on 𝕏 or watching debates.
Instead, you could be educating yourself about all the many ways social problems are being solved around the world that involve cooperation and voluntary interaction and not politicians with their wasteful management of your earnings.
You could be educating yourself on strategies and vehicles to protect your nest egg from being plundered. Like setting up a base in another country, for example.
Would you voluntarily choose these people to manage your finances? No? Then why give them another moment of your time?
Get off the spectrum today, and reallocate your time imagining all the ways you could improve your community if they weren’t (mis)managing such a big chunk of your earnings.
Thanks for reading!
Gene Basler
🇨🇦Why you should audit your portfolio for Canadian exposure. As I stated last week on X, not even Canada believes in Canada. Capital flight matters. Regime uncertainty matters. Just as money is fleeing🇭🇰 Hong Kong, money should be fleeing Canada as well. Be very wary of Deputy Prime Minister and WEF darling Chrystia Freeland’s real motives when she says, “The federal government will work collaboratively with Canadian pension funds to create an environment that encourages and identifies more opportunities for investments in Canada by pension funds.”
Yes, Freeland is trying to get the federal government to pressure pension fund managers into investing more in Canada. They’re pushing back, saying stimulating the economy is not their mission.
Ask yourself, if Canada itself is only allocating 4% of their pension funds domestically (down from 28% in 2000), then what % of your portfolio should be in Canada, eh?
🇭🇰We ask ChatGPT: “Why should I get my money out of Hong Kong? Here was its verbatim answer:
(begin AI text) Deciding whether to withdraw money from Hong Kong depends on various factors, including your financial situation, risk tolerance, and geopolitical considerations. Here are some reasons you might consider withdrawing your money:
Geopolitical instability: Hong Kong has experienced significant political unrest in recent years, particularly with the implementation of the National Security Law by China. This law has raised concerns about the erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms. If you're worried about the political situation escalating further, you may consider moving your assets to a more stable jurisdiction.
Currency risk: The Hong Kong dollar (HKD) is pegged to the US dollar within a narrow trading band. However, ongoing political tensions or economic instability could put pressure on the peg or lead to a depreciation of the HKD. If you're concerned about currency risk, diversifying your holdings into other currencies or assets could be prudent.
Financial regulations: Changes in financial regulations or increased scrutiny from authorities could affect the accessibility and security of your assets in Hong Kong. Be aware of any regulatory changes that might impact your ability to access or transfer funds.
Diversification: Holding all your assets in one location, especially if that location is experiencing uncertainty, exposes you to higher risk. Diversifying your holdings across different jurisdictions can help mitigate this risk and provide a buffer against adverse events in any one location.
Ease of access: If you anticipate difficulties accessing your funds in Hong Kong due to political unrest, bank freezes, or other disruptions, you may prefer to move your money to a jurisdiction where you have more confidence in maintaining access to your assets.
Personal considerations: Your individual circumstances, such as residency status, investment goals, and future plans, will also influence your decision. Consulting with a financial advisor who understands your specific situation can help you make an informed choice.
Ultimately, the decision to withdraw money from Hong Kong should be based on a careful assessment of your risk tolerance, financial objectives, and the prevailing geopolitical and economic conditions. It's essential to weigh the potential benefits of moving your assets against any associated costs or risks.(end AI text)
Then I asked why one should pull one’s investments from Canada. Here was ChatGPT’s verbatim answer:
(Begin AI text) Deciding whether to pull your investments from Canada depends on various factors, including your investment strategy, risk tolerance, and outlook on the Canadian economy and financial markets. Here are some reasons you might consider withdrawing your investments from Canada:
Economic outlook: If you have concerns about the Canadian economy's future prospects, such as high levels of debt, sluggish growth, or reliance on certain industries like commodities, you might choose to reallocate your investments to regions with more favorable economic conditions.
Market volatility: Canadian financial markets can experience periods of volatility due to factors like commodity price fluctuations, changes in global trade dynamics, or domestic policy uncertainty. If you're uncomfortable with the level of volatility in Canadian markets, you may opt to diversify your portfolio internationally.
Currency risk: Holding investments denominated in Canadian dollars exposes you to currency risk, especially if you expect the Canadian dollar to depreciate relative to other currencies. If you're concerned about currency fluctuations impacting your investment returns, you might consider reallocating your assets to currencies perceived as more stable or likely to appreciate.
Sector-specific risks: Canada's economy is heavily weighted toward certain sectors, such as energy and financial services. If you believe these sectors face significant headwinds or if you prefer a more diversified portfolio across industries, you may decide to reduce your exposure to Canadian stocks.
Geopolitical considerations: Political and regulatory changes in Canada, such as shifts in tax policies, trade agreements, or environmental regulations, can impact the business environment and investor sentiment. If you anticipate adverse policy changes that could affect your investments, you might adjust your portfolio accordingly.
Global diversification: Spreading your investments across multiple countries and regions can help reduce risk and enhance long-term returns by capturing growth opportunities in different markets. If you're seeking greater geographic diversification, withdrawing investments from Canada could be part of a broader strategy to achieve this goal.
Personal circumstances: Your individual circumstances, such as your investment objectives, time horizon, and liquidity needs, will also influence your decision. It's essential to align your investment strategy with your financial goals and risk tolerance.
Before making any decisions to withdraw investments from Canada or any other country, it's advisable to consult with a financial advisor who can provide personalized guidance based on your specific situation and objectives. Additionally, consider the potential tax implications and transaction costs associated with reallocating your investments.(End AI text)
Note that both answers are pretty vanilla. At least the Hong Kong answer mentions the National Security Law. I really like how ChatGPT made a case for planting multiple flags by saying, “Diversifying your holdings across different jurisdictions can help mitigate this risk and provide a buffer against adverse events in any one location.” And the Canada answer, while being much more generic than the Hong Kong answer, at least supported my claim, oft-repeated in this newsletter, that changing horses midstream is bad for investment. Not bad for a basic-bitch answer.
Again, thanks for reading.