https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-troops-suffer-acute-radiation-083839177.html

This sounds like a good move, perhaps involving sabotage carried out by US aircraft.

I'm not involved in sharing serious thoughts/ideas on the conflict any more, but don't underestimate the "hidden economics-related effects" of removing the Russian ability to cause a large nuclear explosion in Ukraine while claiming, with some plausibility in the eyes of some media consumers, that it was maybe "an accident."

I assert that from an economics perspective, that alleviates a lot of the threat from Russia and the "failure to perform a task that the two nations are responsible for" for Ukraine and the US; I believe that the economy will "be pleased and grateful," vaguely speaking, to the Ukrainian and US nations and forces much more over this. You could visualize struggling German and French business owners and investors, for example, making financial decisions based on this conflict that they have no direct involvement in based on the perceived and quietly carefully and in-an-unknown-way calculated/forecasted impacts of it on various economies, especially including the global economy. If you imagine a sort of "stock price" for "the value of Ukrainian and US leadership" and "Ukrainian GDP," both of those values will likely be less imperiled and go up, in a sense, based on the move to push Russia out of a possibly "Ukraine-destruction-complete problem" area.

I don't think anyone knows all of the dynamics of the global economy...imagine the idea that there might be, say, 5000 economics research developments that could be identified in the next 20 years, and maybe only 500 of them will actually be known. There is a lot of unknown science and dynamics-understanding to economics, but in general, I think it is safe to say that "helping the economy in a big way" yields big strategic dividends, even if you haven't extracted explicit contractual payment for good actions in any way.. I think that in particular, people involved in high-stakes and dangerous situations--like me being held captive illegally by the US government--are wise to try to take reasonable strategic actions to help promote the economy, which includes promoting good value and human health worldwide. (That doesn't mean anyone should give more than they are willing or always beyond fair obligations; slavery is bad.)

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-troops-suffer-acute-radiation-083839177.html
>
> This sounds like a good move, perhaps involving sabotage carried out by US aircraft.
>
> I'm not involved in sharing serious thoughts/ideas on the conflict any more, but don't underestimate the "hidden economics-related effects" of removing the Russian ability to cause a large nuclear explosion in Ukraine while claiming, with some plausibility in the eyes of some media consumers, that it was maybe "an accident."
>
> I assert that from an economics perspective, that alleviates a lot of the threat from Russia and the "failure to perform a task that the two nations are responsible for" for Ukraine and the US; I believe that the economy will "be pleased and grateful," vaguely speaking, to the Ukrainian and US nations and forces much more over this. You could visualize struggling German and French business owners and investors, for example, making financial decisions based on this conflict that they have no direct involvement in based on the perceived and quietly carefully and in-an-unknown-way calculated/forecasted impacts of it on various economies, especially including the global economy. If you imagine a sort of "stock price" for "the value of Ukrainian and US leadership" and "Ukrainian GDP," both of those values will likely be less imperiled and go up, in a sense, based on the move to push Russia out of a possibly "Ukraine-destruction-complete problem" area.
>
> I don't think anyone knows all of the dynamics of the global economy...imagine the idea that there might be, say, 5000 economics research developments that could be identified in the next 20 years, and maybe only 500 of them will actually be known. There is a lot of unknown science and dynamics-understanding to economics, but in general, I think it is safe to say that "helping the economy in a big way" yields big strategic dividends, even if you haven't extracted explicit contractual payment for good actions in any way. I think that in particular, people involved in high-stakes and dangerous situations--like me being held captive illegally by the US government--are wise to try to take reasonable strategic actions to help promote the economy, which includes promoting good value and human health worldwide. (That doesn't mean anyone should give more than they are willing or always beyond fair obligations; slavery is bad.)
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

A good corollary:

"If your career is well-known to be very helpful to the economy, then the smartest investors globally/nationally, big and small, will want to donate/invest/whatever more resources to further your career in the spirit of trying to help a career that is very good for the economy."

The idea is that the economy is not a zero-sum game; every business wins more, generating more money for employees and shareholders, when the national/global GDP and other economic health indicators are looking healthier.

Indeed, I've been relying on that principle to work to secure my freedom; you'll note that opponents of my freedom have been "shorted" a lot, in the investing sense, in accordance with my plans. I will probably eventually get out, given that it is becoming increasingly obviously "strategically stupid, anti-the-economy, and anti-US-strategic interests" to support me being illegally held. You've noticed what has happened to the people that I've exposed as opposing my highly productive, economy-supporting, and certainly eventually mass-living-saving career that I would have if I were freed, right?

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:29:05 AM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-4, B.H. wrote:
> > https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-troops-suffer-acute-radiation-083839177.html
> >
> > This sounds like a good move, perhaps involving sabotage carried out by US aircraft.
> >
> > I'm not involved in sharing serious thoughts/ideas on the conflict any more, but don't underestimate the "hidden economics-related effects" of removing the Russian ability to cause a large nuclear explosion in Ukraine while claiming, with some plausibility in the eyes of some media consumers, that it was maybe "an accident."
> >
> > I assert that from an economics perspective, that alleviates a lot of the threat from Russia and the "failure to perform a task that the two nations are responsible for" for Ukraine and the US; I believe that the economy will "be pleased and grateful," vaguely speaking, to the Ukrainian and US nations and forces much more over this. You could visualize struggling German and French business owners and investors, for example, making financial decisions based on this conflict that they have no direct involvement in based on the perceived and quietly carefully and in-an-unknown-way calculated/forecasted impacts of it on various economies, especially including the global economy. If you imagine a sort of "stock price" for "the value of Ukrainian and US leadership" and "Ukrainian GDP," both of those values will likely be less imperiled and go up, in a sense, based on the move to push Russia out of a possibly "Ukraine-destruction-complete problem" area.
> >
> > I don't think anyone knows all of the dynamics of the global economy...imagine the idea that there might be, say, 5000 economics research developments that could be identified in the next 20 years, and maybe only 500 of them will actually be known. There is a lot of unknown science and dynamics-understanding to economics, but in general, I think it is safe to say that "helping the economy in a big way" yields big strategic dividends, even if you haven't extracted explicit contractual payment for good actions in any way. I think that in particular, people involved in high-stakes and dangerous situations--like me being held captive illegally by the US government--are wise to try to take reasonable strategic actions to help promote the economy, which includes promoting good value and human health worldwide. (That doesn't mean anyone should give more than they are willing or always beyond fair obligations; slavery is bad.)
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> A good corollary:
>
> "If your career is well-known to be very helpful to the economy, then the smartest investors globally/nationally, big and small, will want to donate/invest/whatever more resources to further your career in the spirit of trying to help a career that is very good for the economy."
>
> The idea is that the economy is not a zero-sum game; every business wins more, generating more money for employees and shareholders, when the national/global GDP and other economic health indicators are looking healthier.
>
> Indeed, I've been relying on that principle to work to secure my freedom; you'll note that opponents of my freedom have been "shorted" a lot, in the investing sense, in accordance with my plans. I will probably eventually get out, given that it is becoming increasingly obviously "strategically stupid, anti-the-economy, and anti-US-strategic interests" to support me being illegally held. You've noticed what has happened to the people that I've exposed as opposing my highly productive, economy-supporting, and certainly eventually mass-living-saving career that I would have if I were freed, right?
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

I said life-saving, not "living-saving."

The CIA is dumb and un-American.