A few reasons:

1. States are not currency sovereigns in that they do not create and control their own currency. All the money the state uses come from revenues they collect in taxes, fees, sales, etc. This is not the case for a national government, which creates all the money it needs for whatever it wants to spend money on. This gives the national government a lot more spending power than any state could possibly have, regardless of the state’s GDP.

More importantly, though,

2. All states except Vermont have statutory or (state) constitutional requirements to have a balanced budget every year. This means they cannot run a budget surplus or deficit. Any surplus has to be spent or returned to taxpayers and any deficit needs to be resolved that year. This makes it incredibly difficult to run large programs like a M4A over time. When the state runs into a budget shortfall, the M4A system would be the first on the chopping block.

3. Insurance companies fight HARD against anything that hurts their business. This is specifically why Obamacare (the ACA) didn’t include a public option despite Obama campaigning hard for a public option in the 2008 election. Insurance companies got their stooges in the Democratic Party to kill the public option when the ACA debates were going through Congress. They do the same in states when states try to do something about the healthcare industry. And if insurance companies publicly talk about a proposed bill causing them to raise rates or pull out of a market, that’s a huge political stick to swing.

I’m not talking about rich people. I’m talking about people whose only investment assets are their mortgage and their 401k.

If you genuinely belive most people have a year’s worth of money saved up they can just live off of if needed then you’re incredibly out of touch.

Whichever you put more alcohol into.

Typically, the only difference between a frozen margarita and one on the rocks is that the frozen has been blended. But they still have the same amount of tequila and triple sec (usually 1 shot of tequila and 2/3 shot of triple sec).

Belgium

Of course, when I went it was part of an school exchange trip when I was 17. I was almost always with a large group of American teenagers with only a few teachers as chaperones. It’s 100% understandable why people wouldn’t want to be particularly friendly to us.

Two things:

1. People see because they see the markets going down and want to get out before it hits bottom.

2. The bigger issue, though, is that a hell of a lot of people will lose their jobs and have no money. Remember the Great Recession? When the job market is that shitty and you lose your job, there aren’t other ones available. No job means no income. You can apply for unemployment insurance, but that only covers a fraction of the income from your last job. So people can’t afford to pay their bills. When you can’t afford utilities, rent, gas, etc, but you have a 401k sitting there, it becomes the only option to pull money out of that. It’s a super shitty decision to have to make, but when it’s a question of losing your home or sacrificing your retirement, short-term material needs win out.

The egg is the only possible correct answer to this.

Modern chickens didn’t exist until something like 10,000 years ago. The egg was a key development in allowing animals to live on land, and first came about somewhere around 300 million years ago.

But if you want to narrow it down to just chicken eggs, then you have it right. The immediate predecessor to the first thing that can be called a ‘chicken’ laid a chicken egg from which hatched a chicken.

The egg absolutely came first.

Yes, I thoroughly enjoy vinegar.

I’m not turning a blind eye to anything. I’m just not making up conspiracies where there’s clearly none. There isn’t some hyper intelligent grandmaster planning everything out 15 moves in advance. This isn’t Lex Luthor or Doctor Doom running the show. It’s a bunch of morons whose understanding of economics ended with mercantilism asking ChatGPT how to run an economy.

It makes complete sense if you are looking at it from the perspective of an oligarch. They are just trying to tank the economy to hoover up even more assets. They’re banking on an eventual recovery, after which they’ll be even richer and more powerful than they are now.

As with most things in life, assuming some grander Machiavellian scheme is usually wrong. People don’t think and plan like that outside of movies and TV. Most people, especially the very rich and powerful, only plan for the short term.

There is no 3-4 steps down the road. They’re just trying to repeat exactly what they did during/after the COVID recession. And the Great Recession. And the '01 dot-com recession, etc, etc, etc.

1. Belgium for 10 days as part of a school exchange trip in high school. Was a lot of fun. We saw a lot of touristy stuff, but also the first time I was able to legally buy alcohol or go to a bar. That was over 20 years ago and I still have a pair of bowling shoes I stole from a bowling alley on that trip.

2. Belize. I’ve been twice. The first was for 2 weeks when my uncle was marrying a woman from Belize. We spent a week near where her family is from so we could meet that side of the family, then a week on the island where the wedding was. The second time was for a week for a vacation. My friend’s dad owns a house in Belize, so we had a free place to stay. Second trip was MUCH less touristy than the first one, which was nice. We mostly hung out in local bars.

3. Guatemala. During my first trip to Belize we took a day trip to visit Tikal. I really wouldn’t say I “visited” the country as Tikal was the only place we stopped, but my passport got stamped, so I’ll include it.

4. Mexico. Spent a week on vacation. We stayed in Playa del Carmen and did some very touristy things.

5. Costa Rica. Again, for a week. Again, pretty touristy. I liked Costa Rica a lot.

6. China. Went for the first week of my honeymoon. I have friends who live in Beijing. We spent the first half of the week there, mostly going to restaurants, bars, parks, and other places my friends hang out at. We also went to the Great Wall. For the second half of the week we went to Xian to see the Terracotta Soldiers.

7. Malaysia. Spent the second week of our honeymoon here. First few days were on a resort island to do the SUPER honeymoon resort thing. Second half was in Kulala Lumpur where we mostly just wandered around checking out the city.

8. Japan. Spent an hour layover there on our flight home from Malaysia. Again, I wouldn’t really count it, but they stamped my passport.

9. Cuba. Spent a week in Cuba on vacation. By far, the most enjoyable country I’ve ever visited and most fun vacation I’ve ever had. Before getting to the country, the only prep we did was book a room for our first night. Everything else we just figured out along the way and stayed where people suggested might be fun. Also the only country I’ve felt a strong desire to visit again. (Not that the others were bad, but I tend to want to go somewhere I’ve never been when I vacation).

Maybe dumb people who bought the Trump line on tariffs think that, but most people know it’s not true.

All the talk about bringing back manufacturing is just a smoke screen to cover the fact they’re intentionally tanking the economy so the oligarchs can buy the dip and get even richer when the economy recovers. That’s all it is.

It’s not that complex or Machiavellian.

Look at what rich people have done after every recession of the past 40 years and how what’s happened to their wealth after the recovery. The economy crashes forcing middle-class people to sell off what scant assets they own. Even people on the lower end of upper-class tend to sell off assets when the stock market crashes. Super rich people who have enough money to weather the economic downturn buy the dip, gobbling up all those assets people are selling. Then when the economy recovers the rich people make out like bandits (which they are).

That’s all that’s happening. He’s tanking the economy so Musk and his other rich friends can buy the dip and increase their wealth even more when the economy improves.

WFH isn’t available to most people. To have a WFH opportunity, you have to have a job that’s almost entirely done on a computer with no need to be on-site almost ever. That’s just not a reality for most people. For some? Sure. But even most people with jobs that are largely WFH still have to go into their office once or twice a week.

All the President’s Men is my favorite political movie.

It was a gradual thing. I remember when my uncle got married in 2006 he told me that he had met his wife on Match.com, but it was a bit of a secret. My uncle didn’t mind if I and my siblings knew (I was 20 at the time), but didn’t want my dad or grandparents to learn because he felt there would be some stigma because they met online.

It was my generation (I was born in '86) that kicked off the apps/online dating thing. I started dating my (now) wife in 2010. We met at a party and neither of us ever did online dating or the dating apps. But so many of our friends did/do.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that we were the fist generation to socialize on the internet on a large scale. We grew up in high school on AOL Instant Messenger and Myspace. We got on Facebook back in 2004/2005 when it launched. We were just very primed to be open to online socializing, which is just a step away from dating.

As soon as we became old enough to be in charge of our own finances and be a demographic group businesses were willing to market to, the online dating world opened up in a BIG way.

Friendliest country I’ve ever been to was Cuba. Everyone was incredibly nice and helpful with anything we could want. Malaysia was a close second.

Least friendliest was Belgium, but I went as part of a school exchange trip, so I was pretty much always in a large group of mostly teenage Americans with a few teachers. Understandable why people might not have been as friendly.

It’s democratic confederalism

No, the idea of authority is not necessarily contrary to anarchism. You need to first examine the source of that authority’s power, the structures which put them into power, and how that power is enforced.

If it’s coercive in any way, that is, if you are threatened with violence in some way if you do not comply, then it is indeed counter to anarchism. However, that’s not how anarchist brigades in 1930s Spain, the Makhnovshchina, the Korean People’s Association in Manchuria, the anarchist brigades during the Russian Civil War, etc worked. First, membership was pretty much always voluntary. If you didn’t want to follow an order, you didn’t have to and you wouldn’t be executed or tried as deserter or whatever like in most traditional armies. If you didn’t want to follow an order, it was generally accepted that it was your right to refuse.

Second, there weren’t set terms between elections like you might be thinking of within a modern representative democracy. If an elected officer was issuing commands the rest of the soldiers didn’t agree with or like, they could be voted out at any moment, including in the middle of battle. This tended to present problems in the Spanish Civil War where the Soviet Union tried to exert complete control over everyone on the anti-fascist side. They’d send in Soviet officers to lead anarchist battalions. As soon as the Soviet gave an order that the rest didn’t like, they’d vote him out. When the Soviets refused to give up authority, the entire battalion would disband, steal all their supplies, and reform a few miles away as a “new” battalion and elect their own leader.

They also weren’t usually structured like we tend to think of military units with a mass of enlisted and a few detached officers issuing orders. The officers tended to come from the enlisted ranks. The officer position was less of a leader and more of a coordinator. Plans were usually made collaboratively by the whole unit (or those who cared to take part). If the heat of battle when snap decisions needed to be made, the officer tended to be the one who made those decisions, but there was no expectation that anyone who disobeyed would be killed or court-marshalled. People obeyed because they knew the person making the decision, why they were making the decision they made, and that if it was a bad decision they could replace that person.

It was called the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno as part of the Makhnovschina movement.

There was also the anarchist CNT-FAI which had an army of decentralized militias, collectively organized by Buenaventura Durruti during the Spanish Civil war of the 1930s.

During the Russian Revolution and early parts of the Russian Civil War, there were also a lot of anarchist militias and military units, most notably the Kronstadt sailors. The various groups never coalesced as a single army, and, therefore, were easily crushed by the Bolsheviks.

There was also the Korean People’s Association in Manchuria, which was an anarchist society of more than 2 million people in the late 20s/early 30s. They never had a whole army, but they did organize militias along anarchist principles.

The Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico, founded in 1994 and still active today, is organized along decentralized principles and is closely associated with anarchism.

More recently, the YPJ and PKK operating in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the militias fighting the ongoing revolution in Myanmar are not entirely anarchist, but have strong principles of direct democracy at their core.

In all instances, the overall organization of the militaries were not entirely dissimilar to a traditional military. There were enlisted soldiers led by officers who gave orders that were expected to be followed. There was a higher level command structure which organized the army to distribute resources and coordinate strategy and tactics. The big difference, however, was that the leaders (officers) tended to all be elected democratically by the people they led and could be replaced/voted out democratically whenever the people who they led decided they needed to go…

There’s a common myth that anarchists are opposed to organization. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. Anarchists are all about organization. The thing we oppose is hierarchical power structures. Systems that place someone, anyone, above anyone else and say, “you must do what your superior tells you on threat of punishment” are inherently evil. But free associations are not. Rather than thinking of an officer in an anarchist militia/army as a leader whose commands must be followed or you’ll face steep punishment, think of them as a central coordinator. Their directives aren’t followed because you’ll be court marshalled or otherwise punished if you don’t obey. They’re followed because people at every level are included in the process and allowed to have their voices heard. Everyone has a degree of ownership and influence over the process. People follow directives because they understand where they’re coming from and why the decisions were made. Yet, if at any time someone decides they no longer want to take part, they have the option to just leave.