What you really need to understand about inflation, is that we've had particularly exceptionally low long-term inflation in America for the last 50 years, outside of stagflation in the '70s.

And this is all enabled by globalization and global trade. Globalization fundamentally provides arbitrage for two things. Labor costs, and environmental regulation.

Because there were a lot of poor desperate countries that would build your stuff for near slave labor conditions.

In particular, China of course. But China has now passed through its phase of poor desperation. It is now an urbanized economy. So of a lot of other poor desperate countries aren't quite as poor desperate.

Globalization is fundamentally enabled by the US Navy and US military supremacy guaranteeing shipping trade on the oceans.

This has not been the historical Norm. It's actually historical anomaly caused by the power vacuum of world war II, and secondarily by the fact that the Cold war was between the US and maritime power and Russia, who are effectively landlocked.

Some scholars term China as a continental power, especially cuz of their history of invasion like the Mongols, but unlike Russia, China has a very large coastline with a lot of ports that aren't locked in by Arctic ice.

They are a hybrid Continental and a maritime power, and based on their shipbuilding, their ambitions are to become a maritime power.

This combined with American lack of enthusiasm for maintaining this global order, likely means that globalization will come to an end.

And that means onshoring production back from China.

We'll see if this actually happens, but that is the trend long-term.

And that involves a huge amount of switching costs, which essentially is going to be inflation.

I'm certainly not going to sit here and say that Trump's economic policies are correct. Of course, the proper way to handle a transition of reonshoring our production from our previous 50 years of globalization would be gradual and controlled.

Not a bunch of stupid chaotic tariff policies.

But essentially what Trump is doing is in line with everything I've described.

"Large" is very vague.

The leaderboard shows (50 of) 166385 registered accounts* on https://www.lesswrong.com/leaderboard

This is simultaneously a large body and an insignificant minority.

* How many are junk accounts? IDK. But I do know it's international, because I live in Berlin, Germany, and socialise regularly.

“they have little, low quality sex”

This is funny to mention, because studies on sex life show the opposite: https://www.peterhaas.org/why-church-attendees-have-the-best...

It knows that there are far too many powerful players in market, who are far too emotionally invested in Numbers Go Up - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41423231

At least one popular passive investment guide, _A Random Walk Through Wall Street,_ explicitly recommends investing in a real estate fund. Or at least it did last time I looked.

The question is not "Would a randomly selected demographic be a good pool for this mission"

The question is "Could we create a cadre of 400 highly effective people that could sustain a colony on a spaceship.

I argue the answer to the first is "No" for any demographic but the answer to the second is a clear "Yes".

You said that Israelites dehumanize Palestinians.

> Israelites

The demonym for someone from Israel is Israeli.

> Instead of recognizing Palestinian humanity

There are ~2m Palestinians in Israel, making up about 21% percent of the population of Israel and Palestinians in Israel have had the right to vote since 1949.

According to my research, there are 10 Palestinians in the Knesset.

So I don't know that your claim is accurate.