Tag: We Are So Fucked

Things Are Quiet

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Things are pretty quiet at the moment. A lot of this is due to it being the end of summer. It does make me wonder if this is the lull before something spectacular happens.

But I have my doubts.

I think other than Trump continuing to consolidate power in a slipshod manner that we’re going to cruise into 2026.

I do worry that the FBI is so busy sucking its own cock for MAGA that it might miss some terrorist shenanigans. But if that happened, Trump wouldn’t be blamed, he would just use it to do the final neck wringing of what’s left of our democracy.

So…lulz?

Anyway. Here’s to hoping that things will remain quite for the foreseeable future. My own life is going to start to suck a lot worse in the coming days. But at least I have air in my lungs, which should account for something.

The Only Way We’re Getting Meaningful UBI Is To ‘Bribe’ The Elites

As automation accelerates and artificial intelligence reshapes entire industries, we’re rapidly approaching what feels like an inevitable crossroads: a future where traditional employment simply can’t provide for everyone. In this landscape, Universal Basic Income (UBI) isn’t just an idealistic policy proposal—it’s becoming an economic necessity. But if the pandemic taught us anything about large-scale government payouts, it’s that UBI won’t come without strings attached, and those strings might fundamentally transform how America collects taxes.

The Automation Avalanche

We’re not just talking about robots taking factory jobs anymore. AI is poised to disrupt everything from legal research to creative writing, from medical diagnostics to financial analysis. When ChatGPT can draft contracts, when autonomous vehicles threaten millions of driving jobs, and when machine learning algorithms can outperform humans at pattern recognition across countless fields, we’re looking at unemployment levels that could make the Great Depression seem manageable.

The math is stark: if technology continues advancing at its current pace while productivity gains don’t translate into proportional job creation, we’ll need a new economic model. UBI represents the most straightforward solution—a direct cash transfer that provides everyone with basic economic security regardless of employment status.

Lessons from the Pandemic: The Political Economy of Stimulus

But here’s where it gets complicated. The COVID-19 stimulus payments offer a revealing preview of how UBI might actually come to pass—and it’s not through progressive idealism.

Remember how we got those stimulus checks? It wasn’t because Congress suddenly embraced wealth redistribution. The “stimmies” were politically viable only because they came packaged with the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)—a system that ultimately funneled hundreds of billions to business owners, many of whom didn’t actually need the money. For every $1,400 check that went to working families, multiples of that amount flowed to corporations and high earners through PPP loans that were largely forgiven.

This pattern reveals something crucial about American political economy: major redistributive programs require buy-in from powerful interests, and that buy-in typically comes at a steep price.

The Tax System Trade-Off

Here’s my prediction: when UBI finally arrives, it will come with a radical restructuring of our tax system. The wealthy and powerful will extract their pound of flesh, and that extraction will likely take the form of eliminating the complex, progressive tax code in favor of something much simpler—and much more regressive.

Imagine this scenario: The IRS, that bureaucratic behemoth that the wealthy have always despised, gets largely dismantled. In its place, we implement a single 30% Value Added Tax (VAT) on all goods and services. Suddenly, tax compliance becomes automatic—embedded in every transaction rather than requiring annual filings, audits, and the massive enforcement apparatus that currently exists.

For the wealthy, this represents a dream scenario. No more worrying about capital gains rates, estate taxes, or complex loopholes. No more audits, no more tax lawyers, no more IRS. Just a flat consumption tax that, while nominally affecting everyone equally, actually represents a massive tax cut for high earners who save and invest large portions of their income.

Why This Trade-Off Makes Sense (Unfortunately)

From a purely political perspective, this bargain has an almost inevitable logic:

For the wealthy: They get to eliminate the progressive tax system they’ve spent decades trying to dismantle. A 30% VAT might sound high, but for someone currently paying 37% income tax plus state taxes plus capital gains, it represents significant savings—especially since the wealthy consume a smaller percentage of their income than the poor.

For the middle class: They get economic security through UBI, even as they face higher consumption taxes. For many, this could still be a net positive if the UBI amount exceeds their VAT burden.

For the poor: They get a guaranteed income floor, which could be life-changing even if they pay more in consumption taxes.

For politicians: They get to claim they’ve solved both unemployment and tax complexity in one fell swoop.

The Regressive Reality

Of course, this system would be fundamentally regressive. VATs hit the poor hardest because they spend nearly all their income on consumption, while the wealthy save and invest significant portions of theirs. A person spending $30,000 annually would pay $9,000 in VAT (30% of their consumption), while a wealthy person spending $100,000 but earning $1 million would pay only $30,000—just 3% of their total income.

But here’s the political genius of coupling this with UBI: if the universal payment is large enough, it could offset the regressive effects for lower-income Americans while still delivering massive tax savings to the wealthy.

The Inevitability Factor

The more I think about it, the more this feels inevitable. Not because it’s the best policy outcome, but because it’s the only politically viable path to UBI in America. Our system simply doesn’t allow for large-scale progressive redistribution without providing even larger benefits to those who already have the most.

We saw this dynamic with pandemic relief, with the bank bailouts of 2008, and with virtually every major economic intervention in recent decades. The pattern is consistent: help for ordinary Americans comes only when it’s packaged with even greater help for the wealthy and powerful.

What This Means for the Future

If this prediction proves correct, we’re heading toward a profound economic transformation. UBI would provide unprecedented economic security for millions of Americans, potentially eliminating poverty and giving workers the freedom to take risks, pursue education, or care for family members without fear of destitution.

But it would come at the cost of permanently entrenching a less progressive tax system, potentially increasing wealth inequality even as it provides a social safety net. The rich would get richer faster, but everyone would have a guaranteed minimum.

The Questions We Should Be Asking

As we hurtle toward this potential future, we need to grapple with some difficult questions:

  • Is a regressive-but-universal system better than our current progressive-but-incomplete one?
  • Can UBI be large enough to offset the regressive effects of VAT for those who need it most?
  • What happens to public services when we shift from progressive taxation to consumption taxes?
  • Will this bargain actually deliver on its promises, or will it simply be another way for the wealthy to extract more from the system?

Preparing for the Inevitable

Whether this scenario plays out exactly as I’ve described, some version of it feels increasingly likely. The combination of technological displacement and political economy suggests that UBI will come, but it will come with trade-offs that progressive advocates might find uncomfortable.

Rather than fighting this reality, perhaps we should be preparing for it. How do we ensure that a UBI-VAT system actually serves working people? How do we prevent it from becoming just another wealth transfer upward disguised as social policy?

The answers to these questions will shape whether the coming economic transformation represents genuine progress or just another iteration of America’s long tradition of socializing costs while privatizing benefits. One way or another, change is coming. The question is whether we’ll be ready for it.

The Strange Case Of The ‘Long 90s’ When It Comes To Clothes

Picture this: you’re watching a movie from 1985, and the characters are wearing distinctly 1980s clothing—shoulder pads, neon colors, geometric patterns that scream “decade.” Now imagine watching a movie from 1995, then 2005, then 2015, and finally 2025. Here’s the strange part: the clothing looks remarkably similar across all three decades. Jeans, t-shirts, hoodies, sneakers, basic dresses—the fundamental silhouettes and styles have remained largely unchanged for thirty years.

This fashion stagnation is so pervasive that even Hollywood noticed. The 2013 film “Her,” set in a near-future that coincidentally aligns with our present day, made this very phenomenon an in-joke. The filmmakers deliberately dressed characters in unusual, exaggerated styles—high-waisted pants, bold patterns, quirky accessories—as a commentary on how we expected fashion to evolve. The irony? Here we are in 2025, and most people still dress exactly like they did in the mid-90s, not like the characters in “Her.”

The Economics of Style

So what’s behind this unprecedented period of fashion stasis? One compelling explanation points to economic inequality and stagnant wages. Unlike previous decades where rising prosperity allowed people to experiment with new trends and regularly refresh their wardrobes, today’s economic reality is different. When disposable income shrinks, fashion becomes about practicality rather than expression.

Consider the fashion cycles of the 20th century: the dramatic shifts from the 1920s to the 1930s, the post-war optimism reflected in 1950s fashion, the revolutionary changes of the 1960s, and the bold experimentation of the 1970s and 1980s. Each decade had its distinct visual identity, driven partly by economic growth that gave people the means to participate in fashion trends. But as income inequality has widened since the 1990s, fewer people have the economic freedom to chase the latest styles.

The rise of fast fashion has paradoxically contributed to this stagnation. While it made trendy clothing more accessible, it also democratized a narrow range of “safe” styles—primarily casual wear that works for most situations. Why risk investing in bold, distinctive pieces when you can stick with jeans and t-shirts that work everywhere from the office to weekend errands?

The Post-Pandemic Fashion Experiment

The period immediately following the COVID-19 pandemic offered a fascinating glimpse into what might have been. Wealthy fashion enthusiasts and influencers briefly embraced a distinctly futuristic aesthetic—metallic fabrics, reflective surfaces, space-age silhouettes that wouldn’t have looked out of place in “Her” or “Blade Runner 2049.” This shiny, tech-inspired fashion felt like a genuine attempt to break free from the endless 90s loop.

But the experiment was short-lived. Despite its visual impact and media coverage, the metallic trend failed to gain mainstream adoption. Perhaps it was too radical a departure from our established comfort zone, or maybe the economic realities that created the fashion freeze in the first place were simply too strong to overcome. The trend remained largely confined to red carpets, fashion weeks, and social media feeds—visible but not transformative.

This failed fashion moment raises intriguing questions about how trends spread in our current era. Previous fashion revolutions often started with youth culture or subcultural movements before filtering up to mainstream acceptance. But our current media landscape, dominated by social media and celebrity culture, might actually make it harder for genuine grassroots fashion movements to develop and spread.

Breaking the Cycle

If economic constraints are indeed the primary driver of our fashion freeze, then what might eventually break us out of this thirty-year style loop? The answer might lie in the very technology that’s reshaping our economy.

As artificial intelligence continues to automate various industries, there’s growing discussion about universal basic income (UBI) as a potential solution to widespread job displacement. While UBI remains controversial and experimental, it’s intriguing to consider its potential impact on fashion. If people had more economic security and disposable income, would we see a return to the kind of regular fashion evolution that characterized much of the 20th century?

The technology driving AI development might also directly influence fashion trends. As our daily lives become more integrated with digital interfaces, virtual reality, and smart devices, our clothing might finally need to evolve to accommodate these new realities. Perhaps we’ll see the rise of truly functional fashion—clothing designed around wearable technology, new materials that interact with digital devices, or styles that reflect our increasingly hybrid physical-digital existence.

The Long View

Fashion stagnation isn’t necessarily negative—there’s something to be said for finding styles that work and sticking with them. The environmental impact of constant fashion turnover is significant, and the pressure to constantly update one’s wardrobe can be both financially and psychologically exhausting.

But fashion has always served as a mirror to society’s values, aspirations, and technological capabilities. The fact that our clothing has remained largely unchanged for three decades might reflect a deeper cultural stasis—a society that’s become more risk-averse, more economically constrained, and perhaps less optimistic about the future than previous generations.

Whether our eventual emergence from this fashion freeze will be driven by economic changes, technological necessity, or simply the natural human desire for novelty remains to be seen. What’s certain is that when it finally happens, the shift will likely be as dramatic as the stagnation that preceded it.

Until then, we continue to live in fashion’s equivalent of Groundhog Day—forever dressed like it’s 1995, waiting for something to break the loop.

What I Want From The Future

Look, I’ve accepted it. We’re barreling toward a future where corporations know everything about us, algorithms predict our every move, and privacy is about as quaint a concept as handwritten letters or knowing your neighbors’ names. The surveillance capitalism ship has sailed, the data has been harvested, and resistance is futile.

But if we’re going to live in this dystopian hellscape—and it seems we are—I have one humble request: Can we at least make the advertising good?

The Current State of Irrelevant Interruption

Right now, I’m bombarded with ads that seem designed by someone who’s never met me, never seen my bank account, and has apparently never heard of the concept of “target demographic.” I get ads for:

  • $80,000 luxury SUVs (my car is held together by hope and duct tape)
  • $300 skincare serums (I buy my moisturizer at the grocery store)
  • Investment opportunities requiring six-figure minimums (my investment portfolio consists of loose change in my couch cushions)
  • High-end vacation packages to destinations I couldn’t afford to fly to, let alone stay at

It’s like being stuck in a magazine meant for someone living in a completely different economic reality. These aren’t aspirational—they’re just annoying reminders that I exist in the wrong tax bracket for most of the modern economy.

The Promise of True Personalization

Here’s where it gets interesting: we’re living through the rise of AI that can apparently write poetry, pass medical exams, and beat grandmasters at chess. Surely, surely, this same technology could figure out that someone who clips grocery store coupons probably isn’t in the market for a $15,000 handbag.

Imagine a world where every advertisement you see is actually relevant to your life:

  • Ads for affordable meal delivery services instead of $200-per-person restaurants
  • Promotions for streaming services in your price range, not luxury experiences you’ll never try
  • Deals on products that actually fit your lifestyle, budget, and genuine interests
  • Sales on things you were already planning to buy anyway

The Dystopian Bargain

I’m not naive about what this would require. True advertising personalization would mean surrendering even more privacy than we already have. Companies would need to know not just what we search for, but how much money we have, what we worry about, what keeps us up at night, and what small luxuries actually bring us joy.

They’d need access to our bank accounts, our shopping patterns, our social media sentiment, our location data, our stress levels, and probably our dreams while we’re at it. The level of surveillance required would make current data collection look like amateur hour.

But here’s the thing: they’re probably going to collect all that data anyway. The question isn’t whether we’ll live in a surveillance state—it’s whether that surveillance state will at least have the courtesy to show us ads for things we might actually want.

The Efficiency Argument

From a purely practical standpoint, wouldn’t this be better for everyone? Companies would waste less money advertising $5,000 vacation packages to people who can’t afford a weekend camping trip. Consumers would see fewer irrelevant ads and maybe—just maybe—discover products that actually improve their lives.

Instead of being constantly reminded of everything we can’t afford, we’d see deals on things we actually need: cheaper alternatives to products we already use, sales at stores we actually shop at, and services that solve problems we actually have.

The Strange Comfort of Being Truly Known

There’s something almost comforting about the idea of being so thoroughly understood by the algorithmic overlords that every piece of marketing feels personally curated. Sure, it’s creepy. But it’s also kind of… nice?

Instead of feeling like an outsider looking into a world of luxury I’ll never access, I’d exist in an advertising ecosystem that actually acknowledges my reality. The algorithms would know that I comparison shop for everything, that I read reviews obsessively, that I care more about durability than brand names, and that my idea of splurging is buying name-brand cereal.

A Future Worth Surveilling For

So here’s my proposition to our future AI overlords: if you’re going to know everything about us anyway, at least use that knowledge responsibly. Make the ads so good, so relevant, so perfectly tailored to our actual lives that we almost forget we’re being manipulated.

Create a world where advertising isn’t an interruption but a service—where every ad is something we might genuinely want to know about. Where the surveillance state at least has the decency to understand what we can actually afford.

It’s not much to ask for from our dystopian future. But in a world where privacy is dead and corporations run everything, maybe “relevant advertising” is the small comfort we can hope for.

After all, if Big Brother is watching, the least he could do is recommend products in our price range.

‘authenticity’

There’s something deeply ironic happening in the advertising world right now, and once you notice it, you can’t unsee it. Walk through any social media feed, flip through streaming commercials, or even glance at billboards, and you’ll spot them everywhere: ads that are trying desperately hard to look like they’re not trying at all.

The Rise of Faux Authenticity

We’ve entered an era where the most calculated marketing campaigns masquerade as candid moments. Shaky camera work that screams “shot on an Android phone in someone’s bedroom” has become a legitimate creative direction in Madison Avenue boardrooms. Influencers stumble over their words in perfectly imperfect takes, delivering what feels like spontaneous testimonials that were actually scripted, rehearsed, and approved by three different marketing teams.

This isn’t accidental. It’s the advertising industry’s response to a generation that grew up skeptical of traditional marketing. We learned to tune out the glossy, overproduced commercials of our parents’ era. So advertisers pivoted, adopting the aesthetic language of genuine user-generated content, TikTok videos, and authentic social media posts.

The Lo-Fi Aesthetic Takes Over

The technical term might be “lo-fi advertising,” but what we’re really talking about is manufactured authenticity. These campaigns feature:

  • Deliberately grainy footage that mimics smartphone cameras
  • “Natural” lighting that’s actually carefully staged
  • Influencers who seem relatable but are paid handsomely for their relatability
  • “Candid” testimonials from real customers who happen to have perfect skin and impeccable timing
  • Brands inserting themselves into memes and viral trends with the subtlety of a neon sign

The aesthetic borrows heavily from amateur content creation, but strip away the calculated casualness and you’ll find the same old marketing machinery humming beneath the surface.

Everything Is Content, Everything Is Sales

Perhaps what’s most exhausting about this trend is how it reflects a broader reality: we’ve reached a point where every possible human experience has been weaponized for commerce. Your morning routine? Content. Your workout struggle? Content. Your mental health journey? Definitely content, and probably sponsored by a meditation app.

The “authentic” advertising trend isn’t just about selling products—it’s about colonizing the last spaces where genuine human expression existed. When brands successfully mimic the look and feel of real, unfiltered human moments, they’re not just selling widgets; they’re training us to question whether anything we see is truly authentic.

The Authenticity Arms Race

This creates a fascinating paradox. As consumers become savvier about recognizing manufactured authenticity, advertisers have to work even harder to seem genuine. It becomes an arms race of realness, where each side tries to outmaneuver the other. Brands study viral content like anthropologists, analyzing why certain low-quality videos resonate while their high-budget campaigns fall flat.

Meanwhile, actual content creators find themselves caught in the middle. The platforms that reward authentic content are the same ones flooded with brands imitating that authenticity. It becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between someone sharing a genuine moment and someone whose genuine moment happens to include strategic product placement.

The Fatigue Is Real

There’s a particular kind of exhaustion that comes with navigating this landscape. It’s the mental effort required to constantly evaluate: Is this real? Is this sponsored? Is this person genuinely excited about this face cream, or are they really excited about their mortgage payment?

The lo-fi advertising trend preys on our desire for connection and authenticity, packaging those feelings back to us as products to purchase. It’s emotionally manipulative in a way that traditional advertising, for all its flaws, never quite managed to be.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The irony is thick: in an attempt to seem more human, advertising has become more artificial than ever. The energy spent crafting the perfect “imperfect” moment, the resources devoted to seeming effortless, the calculations behind appearing genuine—it’s all deeply, absurdly inauthentic.

Perhaps the only authentic response is to acknowledge the absurdity. We live in a world where every possible thing is being done to sell widgets to people one way or another, as you put it. Recognizing this reality doesn’t make us cynics; it makes us informed consumers navigating an increasingly complex media landscape.

The challenge isn’t to find truly authentic advertising—that might be an oxymoron. Instead, it’s to maintain our ability to recognize and value genuine human connection, even in a world that’s constantly trying to monetize those very connections.

After all, the most authentic thing we can do might be to admit that we’re all a little tired of the performance.

I Still Hate MAGA, But…

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I really like Sabrina Carpenter’s music, it’s just, there’s something to be said for metaphor and all this business about getting “wet” in her latest songs makes me blanch.

It’s not the graphic nature of the songs that bothers me — I love dirty songs — it’s that there’s no metaphor. It’s just blunt dirty talk for the sake of being provocative (I think.)

So, in that sense, her songs are no better than country music songs that are absolutely literal and, also, have no metaphor.

All of this gets me thinking about what the fuck has happened to the center-Left. The economic message of the center-Left is really popular. It’s the cultural stuff that gets us in trouble.

I hate to break it to Leftist, but getting so worked up about “trans kids” just isn’t popular. And there really aren’t in real terms, that many “trans kids” to “protect.” But the way the two sides fight over this niche issue, you’d think hundreds of thousands of 8-year-olds wanted “gender affirming care.”

Whatever. I still hate MAGA with a fucking passion. I just wish the center-Left took into consideration real politics and not the politics found on BlueSky.

There Are No Quick Fixes To MAGA

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Twitter was a twitter with a rumor last night that Trump had died. This is so dumb. Trump is going nowhere. We will be amazingly lucky if he doesn’t run for an illegal third term the way things are going, much less him dying.

But there’s an even more important point to consider — Trump is just a symptom to some pretty deep systemic problems with the United States. As such, he could die and the problems that led to him being popular in the first place would remain and someone just as bad — or worse — would take the reigns.

I’m pretty much clueless about JD Vance’s ability to press forward with the MAGA autocratic ethnostate experiment. He seems, at least, to be a far more traditional politician.

And, yet, who knows. Maybe the genii that Trump let out of the bottle can never be put back in and, by definition, Vance will be just as autocratic as Trump. It could be that we really are fucked in the sense that it’s autocrats all the way down no matter what.

I do believe that 2024 was our last free and fair election. We’re an autocratic state now and we just have a weird quirk — for the time being — where we have free speech on an individual basis. Only time will tell how long that particular issue lasts.

We Could Really Use Some ‘Radical Moderates’ Right About Now

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

It’s clear with these weird mid-decade redistricting efforts that Red States are doing that the centrifugal forces tearing the USA apart are only accelerating. The thing is, if Democrats step up and do what they should do — redistrict too — the likelihood of revolution or civil war grows significantly.

It’s all a prime example of how fucked the country is. If Republicans don’t get what they want, then they seem willing to literally destroy the country. They have become a Trump death cult equal to the Nazis and Hitler.

I continue to mull the possibility of a civil war or revolution and for the moment I have my doubts that any such thing will happen. Blues just don’t have it in them to go mano-to-mano with the absolutely terrifying Reds.

And when they ever get around to be willing to do that, that’s when the bad stuff happens. That’s when the country implodes, race wars break out in the South and WMD are used by both sides. Then we hope the “Good Guys” (Blues) win and we wait about 40 years for the country to recover while the world moves on and China takes over the world.

Sigh.

To put it another way — either the USA slides into an autocratic managed democracy peacefully or a lot and I mean A LOT of people die in a revolution / civil war that will reduce much of the United States to rubble.

Good times!

I Have To Prepare Myself To Be Detained By ICE Eventually

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I don’t know how or why it’s going to happen, but I am — have always been — a loudmouth crank and, as such, as we zoom towards full blown autocracy I’m sure to cross the State at some point.

I’m a man of peace, a man of ideas, but I’m also a man of principles. As such, if some fucking cocksucker ICE agent comes after me simply for using my 1st Amendment rights, I’m going to stand my ground.

Of course, I say that now when who knows what will happen when I’m getting the shit beat out of me by some GED failing tubby piece of shit.

And let me be clear — it’s not like I’m going to be violent or hostile in any way in this hypothetical scenario. In my imagination, they will come for me for what I post on this blog or just because I happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

That’s the specific point I’m trying to make — if I’m not doing anything illegal and some fat fuck ICE agent comes for me, I’m prepared to be detained. Fuck ICE and fuck MAGA.

‘New World Order’

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

All of this is very speculative, but if you take Trump’s expressed desires to their logical conclusion, it seem inevitable there will be some sort of “New World Order” established by him soon.

What I imagine it would look like is something like this — the USA will destroy NATO and, instead, align itself with Russia, Hungary and Turkey. It will begin to pull troops out of nations across the globe, the better to police the streets of an ever-more-militarized America.

All of this will happen in the context of taxes being cut and cut and cut for the wealthy — probably to zero, the rise of AI / androids and maybe, just maybe the replacement of the entire social safety net with a very weak and low UBI. And there probably will be a 30% VAT.

That, my dear friends, seems to be our “day after tomorrow” future.

The only potential “zag” that might happen is, well, some sort of revolution / civil war. If that happened, it would be very, very nasty. I could definitely see a race war happening in the USA as well as the use of WMD throughout the country by both sides.

Anyway. That seems like one potential future for us going forward.