Something that bothered me in the past was thinking about how different Eloheem (God/Elohim) seemed to be in the Old Testament versus New Testament. It seemed that in the New Testament we are not to kill at all, and in the Old Testament there is promotion of genocide. I’ve had conversations about this throughout my life and I’ve had different views on this at different stages of my life. During my youth I was able to brush it aside because “the old Law was done away with” and that old Law was for a more broken people, we are more sophisticated now – or something. In my more agnostic years it was evidence to me that scripture was faulty. Now I have a firm conviction in both the Old and New Testament and I’ve been digging in deeper than I had in the past.

The last five or so years I’ve been utilizing the “Strong’s Concordance” in an attempt to analyze the root Hebrew and Greek words to try and open my understanding a little further. It has really helped and I now think that scriptures are not translated all that accurately. I’ve looked through and compared quite a few translations and they are all very similar and I believe off to some extent. But they are still very worth reading in whatever your favorite rendition is and even if some of the translation is off you can get to know the word of Eloheem and come to know our Messiah. The Bible is a priceless book.

I’ve heard it is by far the best to read the Quran in Arabic, but I don’t know Arabic so I’ve only read it in English. I’m sure it is better in Arabic but I still get a lot out of it in English. I think this is also true of the Old and New Testaments. It’s probably best if read in Hebrew and Greek. However I don’t know old Hebrew or Greek so I have to rely on concordances. I think it’s also true that those who do read old Hebrew and Greek probably still have error in their understanding because time has morphed language so much and the cultural information is fragmented and limited. But with guidance from the Ruakh (Spirit) we can get more understanding. What I believe is that if you put effort into scripture no matter how you go about it with truthful intent, the Ruakh will open up further understanding. Combining the Strong’s Concordance with prayer and effort I hope is giving me further insights than I would by just casual readings. It is an enriching and lovely experience; I’m enjoying the process even if it is slow.

I’m coming to the understanding that YHWH (The Lord or Self Existent One) is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In that, He is the same and teaching the same principles in the Old Testament and the New Testament. I have a good friend I’ve talked about some of these ideas with and we both have different viewpoints on the matter. He believes that there were exceptions to the rules. Like in a contract there can be clauses that are outside the rule. Such as “Thou shall not kill,” except for these people and those people as directed by YHWH. I think it’s quite different. I believe there was no exception to the rule. And I believe that the higher Laws taught through the Messiah is what was desired from the beginning. It seems to me that YHWH was attempting to guide His people into the higher Laws and He wanted to fight their battles for them. But His people did not want that, they wanted to fight their own battles – so He let them. Eloheem loves free agency and wants us to desire to follow the Laws of Heaven, not be coerced into it.

I’ve been slowly going through Genesis again with the Strong’s Concordance and I think I’ve run into the first situation that promotes the killing of man, but I don’t think it really does at all. Here it is:

Genesis chapter 9 verses 1-6

KJV:

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.

6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.

ESV:

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.

3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

Hebrew root words in English with nothing added:

1 Eloheem [God] barakh [blessed] Noakh [Noah] ben [sons] amar [to say], “parah [fruitful] ravah [multiply] male [abundance] erets [land/earth].

2 Mora [awe-inspiring] chat [terror] hayah [to be] al [upon] kol [all] khay-yah [living thing] erets [land/earth] al [upon] kol [all] oph [bird] shamayim [sky or heavens] kol [all] asher [which] ramas [creep/move lightly] adamah [soil] kol [all] dag [fish] yam [sea] yad [hand] natan [to gift].

3 Kol [all] remes [gliding animals of the sea] asher [which] chay [alive] hayah [to be] okhlah [food] k [like/as] yereq [green/green plants] esev [vegetation, herbage] natan [to gift] kol [all].

4 Akh [surely, but] lo [not] akhal [to eat] basar [flesh] nephesh [soul/life] dam [blood]

5 Akh [surely, but] nephesh [soul/life] dam [blood] darash [reckoning, answer to God] yad [hand] kol [all] chayah [living thing] darash [reckoning, answer to God] yad [hand] adam [man] yad [hand] akh [fellow man, brother] ish [person, anyone] darash [reckoning, answer to God] nephesh [soul/life] adam [man]

6 Shaphakh [pour, spill, kill] dam [blood] adam [man] adam [man] dam [blood] shaphakh [pour, spill, kill] Eloheem [God] asah [to make] adam [man] tselem [image, likeness]

So something like:

Genesis 9

1 Eloheem blessed Noakh and his sons and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and help the land bring forth abundance.

2 You will be awe-inspiring and bring about fear within all the animals of the earth and upon all the birds of the sky, and upon all which creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. They are gift to your hand.

3 Every moving animal that lives has become food like the green plants, I gift you everything.

4 However do not eat flesh with its life blood.

5 Surely if you take its life you will have to answer for it. Every beast that goes into the hand of man will be answered for. And from every fellow man I will require an answer for the life of man:

6 that is, the shedding of the blood of man, if man’s blood is spilled, because Eloheem made man in their likeness.” (in other words, whoever spills blood will have to answer to God as to why, and even more so if a fellow man kills another human they will be held accountable before God.)

Something of note here. In old Hebrew when something is repeated twice it is often just emphasizing that word or string of words. So the “Shaphakh [pour, spill, kill] dam [blood] adam [man] adam [man] dam [blood] shaphakh [pour, spill, kill]” may just be “Spilling the blood of man!”

The first killing in the Old Testament is Cain killing Abel. What did Eloheem do about that? He cursed him and Cain left the community to go build up his own. And if anyone killed Cain Eloheem would curse them even further. So why now after the flood is it that they are to kill whoever kills? I don’t think that is the case. If one spills the blood of man! They are to answer to God in the day of judgment. Not only that, you better have a reason to kill any living animal because you will answer for it. And I believe culling the herd to feed your family is a good reason for shedding animal blood. Especially if that means spending less money in the economy of man for your sustenance.

Keep in mind the context here. The flood just devastated the land, and they are lacking in food. There likely is no vegetation around to feed this family and much of the land would be water logged. So they can eat all living things. Perhaps they are especially to eat “remes” which would likely be the swarms of the sea – which may be abundant at this time.

Anyways, I find it inspirational and awesome finding nuggets in scripture that promote the same principles our Messiah taught while in the flesh. Why justify killing of man? Perhaps scripture does not do such a thing. Allowing people to flounder, disobey Eloheem, and fight their own battles is not the same thing as commanding and desiring such a thing.

I believe the same problem is happening today with the Zionist-Jews and Zionist-Christians. They want to fight their own battles. And they are using faulty translations of scripture and the Talmud to justify the slaughtering their brothers. Many of those in and around Israel are descendants of Noakh and Abraham, they are Semites (of Shem – Shemites). So Israel is the true anti-Semites killing their brothers of Philistine (Gaza) many of which are Shemites. Eloheem continually told Yisrawale (Israel) that what He did in Egypt He would do for them again. They didn’t believe Him and still don’t. They just want to use the arm of flesh to destroy and kill their fellow man. They will be held accountable before Eloheem in the day of their personal judgment.

Do not kill.

A dead little baby bird is lying trampled on the pavewalk; it didn’t make the flight, it plummeted straight down.

The tiny head severed from its little died up corpse for some reason, lying dead among the broken bottles, the shattered glass shimmering like glitter in the sunlight

And I hear the rustling of leaves and the singing of seagulls, happily feasting on a Danish someone dropped on the road nearby

And in this world, nevertheless, I am happy

#poetry

First day being out of office. I did not have time to really process being off work because I was going to take today off anyway to volunteer at a local event in town. I was distracted for most of the day and it felt completely normal.

I think I do feel a little bit down. I am having a hard time finding joy or motivation for things. This is actually two days late because I couldn’t bring myself to acknowledge how I felt at the time.

I will keep hope up and continue to stay busy during this transitional phase. Thanks for being around.

Thank you for your message. I am currently out of office with no set return date. I will get back to you when the time is right.

-Istanbul first week of July. -Dresden last week of August. -Maybe maybe New York City sometime in the Fall.

In addition to having done Houston earlier this year, this is admittedly more travel than I'd like. I'd rather just hole up in the studio and work without disruption.

#travel

Let me say it again: Once you become a target, you will always be a target. There is no clean slate. Even if you win a lawsuit against someone in which it is decided by the court that the opposing party is in the wrong, nothing will ever be the same. It is like being in a relationship where your partner engages in sexual infidelity: No matter how much you forgive and no matter if the cheater says they are going to turn their life around, you, the aggrieved party, will never forget. This inability to forget will guide your future actions. As more time passes, the more invested you become and the harder it is to break it off. The more self-talk you must engage in. The more rationalizing you will do. And the cheater knows this and it will surely guide their future actions, but not in your favor.

I totally understand why one of the first attorneys I consulted told me to just walk away from all of this Homeowners Association stuff. I thought I could persist. But I am tired of this part of the journey and am ready for change. Attempting to “win” costs money because justice is not free. And that money could be better spent elsewhere.

Since I am having trouble detailing my present situation with my Homeowners Association of Vista Palms in Wimauma, Florida (including the property management company: Unique Properties Services, Inc.), I am going to take this story back to the beginning in subsequent posts. Just know that, right now, the HOA is still aggressively pursing me on multiple fronts.

“Discover more about Dr Edward Bach and the Origins of the Bach Flower Remedies”:

Click on Watch on YouTube link, if needed.

“Learn how Dr. Edward Bach, a visionary British physician, created an entirely new system of healing based on emotional and spiritual wellbeing. This excerpt from my Exploring Bach Flower Remedies workshop dives into: The philosophy behind the remedies 🌼 How the 38 remedies were developed 💫 The connection between emotions and healing 📖 Stories from Dr. Bach's life and legacy”:

https://youtu.be/KotJtGk36QQ?si=oq8lHxafBXIKGCvZ

My rock4 — a Radxa RockPi4 running DietPi with four SATA SSDs on a Penta HAT — has never rebooted cleanly. For as long as I've had it in the rack, issuing sudo shutdown -r now meant walking over to the machine, waiting ten minutes to confirm it was definitely stuck, and flipping the power switch. Every single time.

It worked perfectly otherwise. Services ran fine. Drives mounted fine. The machine was solid right up until the moment you asked it to restart.

This is the story of finding the actual cause — and why the fix I thought would work made no difference at all.

---

The obvious culprit (that wasn't)

When you have a server that hangs on shutdown, the usual suspects are slow-stopping services, or so I was led to believe. The systemd-analyze blame output on rock4 had an obvious candidate: unattended-upgrades.service, which by default gets a TimeoutStopSec of 1800 seconds — 30 minutes. If an apt upgrade happened to be running at shutdown time, systemd would sit there for half an hour waiting for it to finish before giving up.

I applied a drop-in to cap it at 5 minutes. It still hung. For over two hours.

I dug deeper and found a second culprit: apt-daily-upgrade.service, a separate timer-triggered unit that calls unattended-upgrades. It has its own TimeoutStopSec of 900 seconds. I capped that too.

Still hung.

At this point I was fairly sure the apt theory was wrong, but I didn't have a better one yet.

---

The diagnostic that changed everything

Here's the thing about a “hung” server: it's worth checking whether the machine is actually dead or just systemd that's stuck.

After triggering a shutdown and watching rock4 go dark, I opened LanScan and scanned the local network. rock4 was still there. Still responding to pings. Port 111 (rpcbind) still open.

That's not a dead machine. That's a machine with a live kernel where systemd has frozen mid-shutdown.

systemd shuts down in phases, supposedly: it stops services, then unmounts filesystems, then hands off to the kernel for the actual reboot. If it gets stuck at the filesystem unmount step, the kernel never gets the reboot signal — the machine just idles there indefinitely, still on the network, lights still on, going nowhere.

The question was: which mount was blocking?

rock4 has four local SATA drives and one NFS mount — /mnt/media, served from my itx machine over the local network. I pulled up the running containers:

docker inspect jackett --format '{{ json .Mounts }}'

There it was:

/mnt/media/media/Downloads → /downloads

jackett — my torrent indexer — had an NFS-backed path bound as a Docker volume.

---

Why this hangs forever

When Docker mounts a volume into a container, the kernel creates a bind mount that keeps a reference count on that filesystem. Even after Docker stops the container, the overlay filesystem machinery can retain a reference to the underlying mountpoint.

So when systemd later runs umount /mnt/media, the kernel sees that something still holds a reference to that mount and returns EBUSY. Systemd retries. The NFS server is still up, healthy, and reachable — but that doesn't matter. The umount call isn't failing because the server is gone; it's failing because the local kernel thinks something still has the filesystem open.

And here's the critical part: umount has no timeout. The TimeoutStopSec settings on services don't help. The soft,timeo=30 NFS mount option doesn't help — that governs read/write operation timeouts, not the unmount syscall itself. Without something explicitly forcing a lazy unmount, systemd will wait forever.

---

The fix

jackett is a torrent indexer. It speaks to tracker APIs and returns search results to Radarr and Sonarr. It does not need to read or write files on disk. The downloads volume was there because at some point, someone (me, almost certainly) copy-pasted a docker-compose snippet from the internet without thinking about whether every line was necessary.

The fix was removing one line from services/jackett.yml:

# Before
volumes:
  - /bricks/rock4-2/jackett:/config
  - /mnt/media/media/Downloads:/downloads  # ← this line

# After
volumes:
  - /bricks/rock4-2/jackett:/config

Redeployed jackett, issued sudo shutdown -r now, and watched. Three minutes later, rock4 was back online. No power cycle. First clean reboot in years.

---

The general rule

If you're running Docker containers on a machine that also has NFS mounts, think hard before binding any NFS-backed path into a container volume. The risk isn't that Docker will do something wrong — it's that the combination of Docker's bind mount lifecycle and the kernel's umount semantics creates a window where shutdown can hang indefinitely with no error message and no timeout.

If you genuinely need an NFS path inside a container, the belt-and-suspenders fix is to add x-systemd.mount-timeout=30 to the relevant fstab entry. This caps the mount's teardown time at 30 seconds rather than forever — not ideal, but it bounds the hang.

itx.local:/mnt/media  /mnt/media  nfs  soft,timeo=30,x-systemd.mount-timeout=30  0  0

But better is to audit your container volume mounts and ask: does this service actually need filesystem access, or is it just inheriting a volume that was copy-pasted into the config at some point?

---

Why it was so hard to diagnose

A few things made this particularly hard to spot:

No error message. The machine doesn't log “stuck waiting for NFS umount.” It just sits there. Systemd is doing exactly what it's supposed to do: retrying an unmount that keeps returning EBUSY. There's nothing in the journal because journald itself has already stopped by the time the hang happens.

The wrong hypothesis was plausible. Unattended-upgrades with a 1800s timeout genuinely can cause shutdown hangs. Capping it was the right thing to do regardless. It just wasn't the root cause here.

The symptom was intermittent enough to seem random. Sometimes rock4 rebooted. When the NFS server (itx) was down or the jackett container had been recently restarted, Docker might have already released the reference by the time shutdown reached the umount step. This made it feel like a timing issue rather than a deterministic one.

The diagnostic breakthrough — checking whether the machine was still pingable after it “hung” — was the key. A dead machine and a machine stuck mid-shutdown look identical from across the room. They look very different from a network scanner.

---

The problem is probably older than NFS

After fixing the hang, I realised something. rock4 ran GlusterFS for years before the NFS migration — a distributed filesystem where each node contributes “brick” drives to a replicated pool. The containers on rock4 mounted GlusterFS paths like /mnt/storage/jackett, and those mounts have the same property as NFS: they're network-backed filesystems that can't unmount cleanly while something holds a kernel reference to them.

GlusterFS uses FUSE (Filesystem in Userspace) to expose its mounts locally. FUSE unmounts are actually harder to complete cleanly than NFS: to release a GlusterFS FUSE mount, the glusterd daemon has to coordinate across the network, consult its peers, and tear down brick connections in order. If Docker is still holding a reference to the mountpoint, glusterd can't complete that teardown, and umount returns EBUSY — the same outcome as NFS, but with more moving parts and more ways to stall.

So the sequence was almost certainly: Docker container with GlusterFS volume → indefinite hang → GlusterFS decommissioned → NFS mounted → same container config carried across with updated paths → Docker container with NFS volume → still hangs.

Different filesystem, identical mechanism, years of continuity. The jackett config probably got its downloads volume added once, years ago, and nobody thought to question it during the storage migration.

The GlusterFS angle matters beyond this one machine. Between roughly 2018 and 2022, GlusterFS was enormously popular in self-hosted circles — TrueNAS Scale shipped it as the default clustered storage backend, and countless homelab builds adopted it for redundant storage across a few nodes. Many of those setups ran Docker containers with GlusterFS-backed volumes. Many of those setups probably had machines that wouldn't reboot cleanly. It's a reasonable bet that a lot of those people never connected the reboot hang to the storage layer.

RedHat deprecated GlusterFS in RHEL 9 (announced 2022). The official framing was “focus on other storage solutions,” but the operational complexity was a significant part of the story: GlusterFS was difficult to run at small scale, prone to split-brain, and had long-running issues with graceful shutdown and FUSE lifecycle management. The Docker reboot hang described here is a concrete example of that class of problem — the kind of subtle, hard-to-diagnose operational failure that accumulates over time and eventually makes a piece of software too difficult to maintain and recommend.

If you ran GlusterFS and your server never quite rebooted cleanly: this was probably why.

---

Setup

• rock4: Radxa RockPi4, DietPi (Armbian kernel 6.18), 4× 3.6TB SATA SSDs via Penta HAT
• itx: Rock 5 ITX, NFS server, mergerfs pool at /mnt/media
• Container management: uncloud
• jackett: lscr.io/linuxserver/jackett

Le soleil entaille la brume en faisant un bruit d'usine. Sur la route en terre trottine une file indienne de tourterelles des bois. En bas, un bout de planche sur un reste d'eau qui, plus loin, devient souterraine, fait passer la ravine et remonter [vers soi]. On entend le rire acide et cruel d'un martin-chasseur (Halcyon senegalensis) et quelques notes flutées de bulbuls communs. Le soleil coupe déjà la peau. On ne sait avec précision en quelle saison nous sommes, [le soi, perplexe, se taisant, rendu après la nuit incapable de discerner à même sa propre peau sous le soleil]. Qui coupe pourtant. Le jour et la nuit sont des couteaux qui tranchent le temps dans la cervelle. Il y a des nuages, petits et grands, ou le gris lumineux d’une plaque de fer, comme un écran. [Le soi, distant du ciel, regarde à ses pieds les trous, les ornières, où s’accrochent toutes sortes de choses résiduelles.] Malgré toutes ces choses [en soi, dans la tête, délavées par les pluies], l’on suit un itinéraire grâce au numérotage des rues, qui fait du trou de la ville un livre décousu.

#Fenêtresurville #Didascalies

-—

### **Anatomy of Rent**

Right to the future,

Savings create credit,

Capture of the flow.

-—

-—

# **The Mirage of the Safe: Anatomy of Asymmetric Scarcity**

The image is almost childishly simplistic: a trillionaire sitting atop a mountain of gold coins, physically withdrawing currency from circulation that the rest of the world would supposedly lack. This vision of a *“fixed monetary pie”* haunts public debate and fuels a tenacious popular intuition: if the rich are too rich, it must be because the poor have been stripped of an essential liquid substance.

Yet this intuition, while politically powerful, rests on a largely flawed technical foundation. To grasp the reality of extreme wealth concentration in the first quarter of the 21st century, we must abandon the metaphor of *stock* for that of *flow*, and the idea of *theft* for that of *capture*. The fortune of the ultra-rich is not a dormant pile of cash; it is a structural reorganization of the global economy.

Here is a lucid analysis of the mechanisms by which extreme accumulation does not *“empty”* bank accounts but preempts the future.

-—

-—

## **I. The Great Monetary Misunderstanding: Why the “Fixed Pie” Doesn’t Exist**

To approach the subject with rigor, we must first dispel a fundamental misconception: the idea that the money supply is a finite quantity. In our contemporary system, **money is endogenous**. As the Bank of England noted in its 2014 bulletin, money is created through bank lending. When a bank grants a loan, it creates a deposit: it does not move existing money; it invents it.

Consequently, the classic argument based on the equation of exchange (*MV = PQ*), where the rich *“freeze”* the velocity of circulation (*V*), is an analytical dead end. This equation is an accounting identity, not a causal law. Claiming that billionaires *“dry up”* global liquidity is a mistake that any neoclassical economist would dismiss out of hand.

The reality is more subtle. The problem is not the *quantity* of money available but its *distribution* and, above all, the nature of the rights that this money allows one to exercise over real production.

-—

## **II. Wealth as a Capitalized Claim on Future Labor**

If Elon Musk’s or Jeff Bezos’s fortune is not cash, then what is it? It is what finance calls a **capitalized claim**.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the price of a stock today equals the present value of expected future income streams (dividends, share buybacks). In short, the stock market valuation of the ultra-rich—which stood at **$18.3 trillion in 2025** according to Oxfam—is a promise. It is the promise that the workers, consumers, and engineers of tomorrow will produce enough value to justify today’s prices.

Here we reach the heart of the mechanism: **extreme wealth is not a withdrawal of money; it is a title to extract from others’ future production**. This is Thomas Piketty’s famous *“r”* (the return on capital). When the return on capital (*r*) durably exceeds economic growth (*g*), accumulated wealth grows faster than labor income. Concentration is not an instantaneous theft but a **continuous siphoning of produced value toward title holders**.

-—

## **III. The Trap of Indebted Demand**

One of the most robust academic supports for the idea of structural impoverishment through wealth comes from the work of Mian, Straub, and Sufi on the **“Saving Glut of the Rich.”**

Unlike modest households, the ultra-rich have an **extremely low Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC)**. A 2019 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston shows that the MPC of poor households is **ten times higher** than that of the rich. In short: give **€1,000 to a worker**, and they will immediately inject it into the real economy; give it to a billionaire, and they will save it.

This excess savings does not remain in a vault. It flows into the financial system, lowering interest rates and fueling a massive supply of credit. But who benefits from this credit? **The bottom 90%, whose incomes stagnate.**

The mechanism is dizzying: **the savings of the rich finance the indebtedness of the middle class**. Instead of seeing their purchasing power increase through wages, the latter maintain it through debt. The wealth of some literally becomes a **claim on the lives of others**. Between 1978 and 2007, the net debt position of the top 1% fell by **15 percentage points of national income**, while that of the bottom 90% rose by **40 points**.

-—

## **IV. Exclusion Through Positional Goods: The Housing War**

The economy is not globally zero-sum, but some of its most vital sectors are. This is the concept of **positional goods**, theorized by Fred Hirsch as early as 1976.

A positional good is one whose value depends on its **relative scarcity and exclusivity**. Real estate in high-demand areas (Paris, New York, San Francisco) is the perfect example. **You cannot “create” more land in the center of London or Manhattan.**

When wealth becomes extremely concentrated, capital holders **outbid each other for these fixed-quantity goods**. This real estate inflation—disconnected from the rise in median wages—**mechanically displaces the middle and working classes**. In the United States, the **median home price-to-income ratio** rose from **3.5 in the 1980s to 7.6 in 2024**. In Los Angeles, it reaches **12.5**.

Here, the popular intuition is rigorously accurate: **the opulence of some directly drives up the cost of survival for others**. Housing ceases to be a shelter and becomes a **financial asset**, making ownership inaccessible to those who live only by their labor.

-—

## **V. The Wage Markdown: When Capital Compresses Labor**

For the return on capital to remain high, the share of value added captured by labor must be contained. This is where the concept of **monopsony** or labor market power comes into play.

Several studies document a **wage markdown** (the gap between a worker’s productivity and their actual wage). Research from the Upjohn Institute shows that in the U.S. manufacturing industry, a worker receives on average **only 65 cents for every dollar of marginal value they generate**.

This decoupling of productivity and wages, observed in most OECD countries for thirty years, is not an accident. It is the **necessary condition for the multiplication of dividends and share buybacks**. In 2024, S&P 500 companies distributed a record **$1.57 trillion to their shareholders**, including **$942 billion in share buybacks**. This money, which could have funded wages or productive investment, is **extracted from the economic flow to inflate the value of the capitalized claim** mentioned earlier.

-—

## **VI. The Trickle-Down Mirage Facing the Facts**

Faced with this diagnosis, defenders of extreme concentration often invoke the theory of **“trickle-down economics”**: tax cuts for the rich would stimulate investment and, ultimately, growth for all.

The lucid response to this argument is no longer a matter of opinion but of **empirical observation**. A monumental study by the London School of Economics (Hope & Limberg, 2020), covering **50 years of tax reforms in 18 OECD countries**, is unequivocal: **major tax cuts for the rich increase inequality but have no significant effect on economic growth or unemployment.**

The idea that wealth concentration is a driver of efficiency is a **myth that does not survive data analysis**. On the contrary, the OECD and IMF now agree that **excessive inequality harms long-term growth**, particularly by limiting investment in human capital (education, health) among modest households.

-—

-—

## **VII. Nuances and Global Realities: The Economy Is Not a Zero-Sum Game**

To remain factual, it should be noted that this picture is not one of total collapse. While billionaires saw their fortunes explode, **global extreme poverty fell from 2.3 billion people in 1990 to about 800 million in 2025**. This escape from destitution, driven mainly by East Asia, proves that the enrichment of some does not prevent the **absolute improvement of the poorest on a global scale**.

However, this decline in absolute poverty **masks a near-universal increase in within-country inequality**. The debate is not about biological survival but about the **structure of our societies**: an economy where the top 1% captures **38% of all wealth created since 1995** (compared to **2% for the bottom 50%**) is a **rent-seeking economy**, not a merit-based one.

-—

-—

## **Conclusion: Toward a Theory of Asymmetric Scarcity**

At the end of this analysis, we can rigorously reformulate the initial intuition. **Extreme wealth concentration does not impoverish the rest of society through a “theft” of circulating money but through a triple structural capture:**

1. **Capture of the Future:** By transforming produced value into capitalized claims, it imposes a **perpetual levy on future labor**.

2. **Capture of Space:** By financializing positional goods like housing, it makes **essential goods inaccessible to labor income**.

3. **Capture of Demand:** By transforming the unproductive savings of the rich into debt for the poor, it **substitutes credit for wages**.

The billionaire is not a man sitting on a pile of gold. **He is a man who owns the deeds to the future.** Lucidity lies in recognizing that the problem is not the size of his fortune but the **economic coercion** that this fortune exerts over the very organization of production and consumption.

Extreme concentration is not a flaw in the system; **it is an operating mode where rent ultimately devours its own engine: the real economy.**

-—

-—

Trill, baby, trill

But the future’s a scam, still.

Trill, baby, trill

Twitter’s a dump, X is a pill.

Trill, baby, trill

Neuralink’s pain, DOGE’s thrill —

How many lies in a trillion will?

誰もいない観覧車に乗る。 今日も乗っているのは俺だけだ。

ゴンドラが上がっていく。街がだんだん小さくなって、人の形が点になって、信号の色が判別できなくなる。高さが増すごとに、視界から情報が削られていく。 観覧車のゴンドラは風に揺れる。支柱が軋む音が、遠くから聞こえてくる。

てっぺん近くで止まる。 風がゴンドラを揺らす。 揺れは小さい。でも確かに質量を持って伝わってくる。

子供の頃、大人になっても透明なままでいられると思っていた。誰にも汚されない、美しいままの自分が、ずっと続いていくような気がしていた。 今は違う。 大人になるということは、輪郭ができることだ。輪郭があるということは、外の空気に触れる面積が増えるということだ。優しい言葉が暴力に変わる瞬間を、何度か見た。 見たあとでも、自分は自分だと思っていたい。 天使のままで、美しいままで、このまま歳を重ねられたらいいのに、という願いが、昔からたぶんずっとある。

ゴンドラの窓に映る自分の顔を見る。 顔は変わっていない。でも、中身はたぶん、思っていたよりずいぶん変わった。

多くの人は、この願いを抱えたまま、現実を無理やりにでも捻じ曲げる方向で進むか、創作という折衷案で落とし込むかのどちらかなんだろう。 どちらも、本当に触れることはできない。 テキストは軽い。映像は平面だ。音は空気を震わせるだけだ。 VRもARも、拡張すればするほど、失われるものが大きいような気がする。 人間はたぶん、もっと重くて、確かに手のひらに収まる何かを待っている。 冷たさとか、温かさとか、質量のあるものの応答を。

何かを言葉にするということは、それを手放すことでもある。 言葉になる前の思考は、もっと重くて、湿っていて、形が定まらない。 言葉になったあとの思考は、軽くて、乾いていて、誰かに渡せる形をしている。 渡せるということは、もう自分のものではないということだ。 そのあいだに、何かが落ちている。 落ちたものには、もう触れられない。

観覧車が動き出す。降りる時間だ。

降りたら夕方だったので、スーパーで丁寧に自炊するための材料を買い込む事にした。