Ted Barnett retweeted
That the Communist hammer and sickle isn’t commonly regarded as evil and offensive as the Nazi swastika is a failure of education.
“Dear Italian students, who today take to the streets carrying flags with the hammer and sickle and wearing T-shirts emblazoned with ‘CCCP’,” began an open letter in Italian by Lithuanian expat Neringa Budryt.
“I would like to ask you a question: do you truly know what the symbols you carry represent? And do you know what would have happened to many of you had you openly demonstrated in countries living under the oppression of communist regimes?
Let me tell you something. It is easy to display a red flag when, for you, communism is merely an abstract idea of equality, social justice, and rebellion against the system. It is easy to wear a T-shirt with "CCCP" on it when you have never experienced the reality of a communist regime.
We come from that part of Europe where communism was not a T-shirt, a symbol of rebellion, or a romanticized notion of equality. It was the system in which we lived—a system we never chose.
We know the history of Soviet repression, Stalinist purges, the Gulags, and mass deportations. Above all, we know the word "Siberia"—a place to which thousands of innocent people were forcibly deported, simply for thinking differently.
In Siberia—amidst freezing cold, starvation, and forced labor—many lost their lives; those who survived carried the scars of that experience forever. Entire families were torn apart, and generations were denied the chance to live freely in their own homeland.
In the countries of the Soviet bloc, censorship, political police, surveillance, and the suppression of dissent drastically curtailed individual freedoms.
We grew up in a system where state control permeated even our daily lives. At school, we were required to wear the red necktie of the "Pioneers." We were monitored; they tracked where we went and even whether we attended church. Even faith—a choice that should belong to an individual’s own conscience—could become a cause for suspicion.
We used to celebrate Christmas with our windows blacked out, to ensure no one would see us and report us. Because it was forbidden—just like so many other things: jeans, rock music, and all the symbols of a Western lifestyle. My mother returned from a Soviet labor camp. And do you know what happened to her? She was barred from continuing her education because she had been labeled an enemy of communism.
Under a communist regime, you could not protest. You risked arrest, imprisonment, interrogation, persecution—and, in certain historical contexts, even death. In the Soviet Union and other communist regimes, political dissent could cost you your freedom and your life.
Demonstrations independent of the authorities were not a guaranteed right; they were often suppressed by force.
That is why it strikes me to see young Italians proudly displaying the hammer and sickle—symbols associated with regimes that persecuted and imprisoned millions of people.
Today, you are free to take to the streets, shout against the government, criticize institutions, and wave your flags precisely because you live in a democracy that grants you these freedoms. Under an authoritarian regime of that kind, protesting against those in power could have landed you in prison.
This is not about denying the existence of social injustices, inequalities, or the right to fight for a better world. You are free to take to the streets to demand a more just society—but you should not idealize a system that denied so many people the very things you are free to exercise today: the right to choose, to believe, to speak, and to dissent. Before wearing a T-shirt with "CCCP" on it, listen to those who experienced that world. Talk to the deportees and their descendants; read the accounts of those who endured the gulags and forced exile to Siberia. Learn what it meant to be stripped of your freedom, your home, your loved ones—and even any prospect of a normal life—simply because of your background or your beliefs.
Before waving the hammer and sickle, please, study history thoroughly.”
Ted Barnett retweeted
So far, humanity hasn't really run out of anything.
humanprogress.org/hang-on-ar…
This won’t age well.
techcrunch.com/2026/10/25/ai…
Ted Barnett retweeted
The Rise & Fall of Blockbuster Video In The United States in 60 Seconds
credit: V1 Analytics (YouTube)
Full video with timeline: brilliantmaps.com/the-rise-f…
Ted Barnett retweeted
Sweden’s experiment with state ownership produced mounting losses and an eventual turn to privatization, offering a cautionary tale for the United States today. Learn more from Cato’s @johanknorberg.
ow.ly/CeAI50ZXPIM
#CatoRFE
Ted Barnett retweeted
The Percent of Residents Living in Their Birth State, by County.
Credit: @toddrjones
35 More Great Todd Jones Maps: brilliantmaps.com/maps-from-…
Ted Barnett retweeted
If (when?) the Dems take full control of Congress, @SenWarren will become even more influential than she already is. Her understanding of economics, regulation, and commerce is vibe-based and wrong in almost every particular.
In 1986, the US had 25,000 malls. In 2023, it had just 1,200. @ewarren says private equity caused bankruptcies of mall-based businesses like @claires. Despite shocking economic ignorance, @SenWarren will be even more powerful after the midterms. reason.com/2026/10/19/be-pre…
Ted Barnett retweeted
🧵In 2019, California billionaire tax crusader Gabriel Zucman made an astonishing claim to the NY Times: billionaires pay a lower avg tax rate than poor people in the US.
I noticed something fishy though: Zucman's NYT chart did not match his own published data from a 2018 paper
Ted Barnett retweeted
Yesterday the New York City Council passed the "Community Option to Purchase Act," a law that is designed to move apartment buildings from private ownership to favored "community" nonprofits. It's a massive grab for private property, as I described in the thread below.
Replying to @FreeRangeLawyer
OK, so at step 1 the city regulates buildings into distress, and at step 2 the city objects to the sale to willing private buyers.
Now step 3: The last step in the scheme is to force the sale of the distressed buildings to public owners -- either favored "community" non-profits (directly and indirectly subsidized by the government) or the city itself.
Cea Weaver herself made this explicit in an essay she published late last year:
In other words: The government-created crisis in the apartment market will open up a "long-due conversation" and--ultimately--allow the city to step in and "purchase buildings where the landlord is no longer interested in ownership."
And isn't that a lovely phrase? "No longer interested in ownership." It makes it sound like building owners will just wake up one day and decide on a whim they no longer feel like owning their buildings. They'd rather be done with the whole "private property" thing. But let's be clear about what's really going on: The idea is that the city's regulations will create so much economic pain that building owners will be forced to sell to the city at fire sale prices.
And if the city doesn't step in directly, it will direct the sale of the buildings to favored non-profit organizations. That's the aim of the "Community Option to Purchase Act"--legislation proposed late last year before the NY City Council. COPA would give favored non-profits a right of first refusal whenever distressed properties come onto the market:
Well, you might say, no harm since the owner gets paid. Not really: The owner gets a fire-sale price, reflecting the fact that the building has been forced into distress and can't be profitably operated. Already, rent stabilized buildings in New York are selling at roughly half the value they might have commanded not too long ago. And with calls to freeze the rent, that's only going to get worse.
Bottom line: Private owners are forced by city regulations to sell their buildings at rock bottom prices, and then the city either takes them over itself or transfers ownership to its non-profit friends.
Ted Barnett retweeted
There’s a world of difference between user-authorized agents (Muse, Instinct, Grokbot, etc.) and true unauthorized/rogue agents that could constitute cyberattacks.
Most of the activity described in the Axios story appears to be the former: customers sharing credentials with agents so they can take actions on their behalf. This may violate bank terms requiring humans to log in themselves, but these are in no way cyberattacks.
The direction banks should go is to support user-directed agents. For example, Amex is an authorized connection in Muse, making it easy for users to grant, limit, and revoke access.
Read-only permission levels are a sensible interim step. Several banks already support or are moving toward them. Full write access (with user credentials) is a different risk category and should be approached carefully.
Frightening the public by blurring the line between user-authorized agentic behavior and cyberattacks is irresponsible.
SCOOP: Major U.S. banks are detecting unauthorized third-party AI agents inside customer accounts, including some attempting to take actions that appear to be independent of user instructions, sources told Axios.
The findings have alarmed banking executives, who are racing to restrict access to their systems as AI moves at a velocity faster than financial institutions can respond, multiple industry and bank executives told Axios.
Several banks are now preparing for worst-case and even “day after” scenarios, including how to rapidly secure or restore customer accounts if things go wrong, the people said.
Several bank executives told Axios they're struggling to distinguish between human users and AI agents. One executive said banks also struggle to determine whether agents are authorized by customers or potentially operating without their permission, more akin to rogue agent behavior.
Read my latest for Axios here: axios.com/2026/10/22/ai-agen…
Ted Barnett retweeted
How has global poverty changed in our lifetimes?
No matter what poverty line you choose, the share below it has declined globally.
Ted Barnett retweeted
My latest essay on the likelihood of each person training their own AI to be the most improbable verion of themselves. kevinkelly.substack.com/p/mo…
Ted Barnett retweeted
The past--even the recent past--is littered with corporate goliaths once thought to be unstoppable (Borders, RedBox, AOL, PanAm, A&P...). Worth remembering in an era of rising calls for economic regulation.
Ted Barnett retweeted
The Fed recently released data suggesting that young adults are getting poorer. As the WSJ put it, "wealth increased 37% for Americans 75 and older, while it declined 23% for people under 35." But "under 35" in 2022 and "under 35" in 2025 are different people. If you follow the same people over time you can see that everybody—even young adults—are getting richer.
Ted Barnett retweeted
Except... It did basically solve world hunger.
Capitalism FTW.
USSR collapsed more than 30 years ago and capitalism is yet to solve world hunger, world poverty or people dying from curable infections
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Poverty/hunger isn't solved but poverty fell from about 2.3 billion in 1990 to 831 million in 2025, while 645 million still faced hunger. Both progress and hardship are real.
worldbank.org/ext/en/topic/p…
data.unicef.org/topic/child-su…
fao.org/hunger/en
Ted Barnett retweeted
The Republicans deserve to lose control of Congress. Sadly, that will mean empowering @SenWarren, whose understanding of basic economics comes in around zero. See, for instance, her fears of hot sauce mergers and failure to acknowledge declines in malls. reason.com/2026/10/19/be-pre…
Ted Barnett retweeted
Your wallet. Now with email. 🟣
Create a Cloaked wallet with your email. Share one name. Receive payments at fresh addresses. Manage everything in one place.
Try it → app.clkd.xyz
Well said...
On my way to the office this morning, I passed a group of young people protesting, a Palestinian flag draped over their shoulders.
And I asked myself a question I can't shake: why does this generation always fall into the same trap? No matter the history. No matter the context. Even the ones from wealthy families, who went to the best schools, who were dealt every good card. Always the same trap.
I don't think it's stupidity. I think it's a mechanism. And a mechanism can be taken apart, piece by piece.
A. The observation: everything the state touches becomes unaffordable.
Look at economist Mark Perry's famous chart, the one people call "the chart of the century." It tracks US prices since 2000.
At the top, what explodes: hospital services, college tuition, textbooks, childcare, housing. Increases of +100%, +150%, up to +250%, far above general inflation.
At the bottom, what collapses: TVs, software, phones, toys, clothing. A TV today costs a fraction of what it did in 2000, for an infinitely better product.
Look at what separates the two groups. It isn't technology. It isn't complexity. It's one variable: how much the state is involved.
At the top, sectors that are subsidized, regulated, shielded from competition, where the state funds demand and blocks supply. At the bottom, sectors where companies fight every single morning to serve you better and cheaper.
B. The mechanism: why it's systematic.
When the state subsidizes demand without freeing supply, prices rise. Every time. Guaranteed student loans, and universities raise tuition. Housing aid plus blocked building permits, and rents skyrocket. Administered healthcare, and bureaucracy eats the budget before it ever reaches the patient.
In France it's even more vicious, because the price doesn't disappear: it hides. You never see the hospital bill, you pay it through payroll contributions. You never see the cost of school, you pay it through taxes. Public spending at 57% of GDP, one of the heaviest tax burdens in the world, more than €3.4 trillion in debt. And the result? Overflowing ERs, falling PISA scores, young people who can't afford to live in the city where they work.
The market didn't fail in these sectors. It was never allowed in.
C. Suffering demands a culprit.
A 22-year-old lives all of this in their bones. They can't find a place to live. Their degree either buries them in debt or opens no doors. The future feels blocked. That suffering is real, and I don't deny it for a second.
But human beings can't stand suffering without a culprit. They need a face. A scapegoat.
And this is where everything is decided: who taught them how to read the world?
D. Whoever tells the story picks the villain.
Schools are public. Universities are public. Culture runs on grants. Film goes through funding committees. Public broadcasting shapes the narratives. The people handing down the interpretive framework are, overwhelmingly, paid by the very system that creates the problem.
Do you really think that system is going to name itself as the culprit?
No. It names the capitalist. The boss. The landlord. "The rich." The multinational. The commercial West. Same role, same casting, every time.
E. One lens, a thousand causes.
And this brings me back to that flag. A generation taught to read every situation through a single lens, oppressor on one side, rich, Western, capitalist, oppressed on the other, will apply that lens everywhere. To housing. To climate. To conflicts on the other side of the world. The cause changes, the lens stays. That's why the trap is always the same: it's not the cause that draws them in, it's the way of thinking that was installed in them.
F. The perfect inversion.
Here's the irony. Capitalism is the force that drove down the price of almost everything it touched. The state is the force that blew up the price of almost everything it captured. And young people blame the first for the crimes of the second.
It's like blaming the firefighter for the fire because you saw him at the scene.
G. The ballot box confirms it.
In the US, a few weeks out from the midterms, a large share of urban young voters is getting ready to vote Democrat for more state, more spending, more regulation. New York elected a self-described socialist mayor, carried by young voters, on promises of rent freezes and city-run grocery stores. Rent freezes, the policy that has made housing scarcer everywhere it's been tried. The cure that worsens the disease.
In France, it's the same play in two acts. Part of the youth votes for the radical left, which promises more state. Another part votes for the center, which promises to "manage" the state well, and has dug the debt deeper than ever. Two different ballots, one shared assumption: the problem is the market, the solution is the state.
H. The way out.
These young people aren't stupid. They're right to be angry. They're just aiming at the wrong target.
The day they understand that their rent, their tuition and their hospital are expensive precisely because the state runs them, their anger will change direction. They'll stop protesting against those who create. They'll start protesting against those who capture.
That day, the greatest intellectual scam of our time will be over.
Ted Barnett retweeted
new feature just dropped 👀 🚨
you can now track your portfolio performance across all your cloaked stealth addresses in a single view.
sign up now: app.clkd.xyz
want to take cloaked with you?
download the extension: clkd.xyz/extension




































