Showing posts with label Capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Capitalism. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 2. Distributism

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with t...

Much of this, indeed the lion's share, could be fixed by reordering the economy to be Distributist.


That may seem extreme, but then, in the modern world, this is extreme, and frankly, we're in an extreme situation that we need to find a way out of or events of one kind or another will take us out of them for us.  

To be more extreme, we'd note what Cardinal Sarah has above, once again, the barbarians are alrady inside the city.

I've started off with agrarianism, and I mean it, but I'd also note that an aspect of agrarianism is distributism. All agraraians are distributists, not all distributist are agrarians.  We'll start with distributism.  

What the hecks is it, anyway.  We'll, we'll turn to an old Lex Anteinternet post, where we discussed that (we just bumped that post up here).






A Distributist economy, therefore, would discourage, or perhaps even prohibit, the concentration of the means of retail distribution in the hands of corporations in favor of family or individual enterprises.  So, rather than have a Walmart, you'd have a family owned appliance store, a family owned clothing store, a family owned grocery store, etc.  That's a pretty simple illustration the retail end of the economy, but that's a major aspect of Distributism. Distributism also has an agricultural aspect to it that's frankly agrarian, although agrarianism predates Distributism.  What that means is that farms would be owned and operated by the actual farmer.  That sounds simplistic but it stands contrary to much of what we see today, with agricultural land held by absentee owners, or by the wealthy who do not work it, or by agricultural corporations.


In short, Distributism favors the smallest economic unit possible.  And it does this on a philosophical basis, that being that small freeholders, or small businessmen, or small artisans, should hold the reins of the economy, as that concentrates wealth in their hands, those being middle class hands.  By doing that, that makes much of the middle class more or less economically independent, but not wealthy, stabilizes wealthy in the hands of the largest number of people, and strengthens the ability of the people to decide things locally.  In other words, that sort of economy "distributes" economic wealth and production to the largest number of people, and accordingly "distributes" political power to the largest number of people, on the theory that this is best for the largest number of people.



So why is that important here?

Because what people don't have, is well. . . anything.  People are consumers, and servants.  They lack something of their own, and they accordingly lack stability.  Increasingly, on certain things, including economics and science, they lack education.

And, like the ignorant and have-nots tend to be, they're unhappy and made.

The unhappy and mad masses always make for ignorant revolutions, whether it be the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, or the revolutionary period of the Weimar Republic that concluded with the Nazis coming to power.  Not having anything, they're willing to try something, whether that something be Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, or Donald Trump.

It was Jefferson who noted that republics were grounded in yeomen farmers, for the reason that they were independent men.  Through Corporate Capitalism, we've been working on destroying the yeomanry for quite some time now.

The failure of people to have their own has been significant in creating the crisis that we face today.  People who worked for other entities, and that's most people, find themselves either adrift without them or slaves to them.  People live where they don't want to at jobs and careers they don't want to, in conditions they don't want to, even if they do not fully realize it, as their corporate masters compel them to.  It gets worse, all the time, and people are powerless against it.

Indeed, not only are they powerless, but they can be compelled to act against their own best interests, and often do.  People who love one thing as their true selves, will work to destroy the ability to do it for their corporate masters.  You don't have to look much beyond the Wyoming legislature to see this, where some advocate policies that would deprive average Wyomingites to access to public lands, for example, something that only serves the interest of the wealthy.

 What does a Distributist Economy look like?












Banks, as concentrations of economic maladies, usually only develop real problems when they are largely unregulated. When the old school Distributist formed their thoughts on the matter, that was the case. And the recent banking problems the United States has had largely flowed from the concept that regulation of banks was passe, followed by an actual effort on the part of the government to encourage banks in areas that they shouldn't go.  An overarching aspect of all of this is that an old policy of encouraging home ownership via home loans is a remaining nonsensical central American governmental goal that creates problems in and of itself.  Finally, the consolidation of banking into larger and larger remotely owned banks contributes to the problem. There still are locally owned or regionally owned banks, but not nearly as many as there once was.



Large banking has given us credit cards, an aspect of the economy wholly unknown to the original Distributist.  Of course ,they were unknown to earlier Capitalist as well, and have just sort of occurred. This too may be an area where the ship has sailed, but on the other hand, it would be one that I'd have a hard time imagining modern Distributist avoiding.  But how that would be handled in the new economy, which only saw the introduction of widespread use of credit cards starting in the 1970s, is an open question.  Credit cards now make up a huge percentage of the "money" in our economy, and they are interesting an huge unregulated sector, to a significant degree.  That is ,the percentage of interest they charge are regulated, but the creation of them is not.  It's been an amazing change in the economy.


It's an interesting topic, but one that I won't be able to address fully, which is one of the problems when discussing a modern Distributist economy (we'll get to problems in a minute). As there's been no real development of the theory in decades, and as it's never been fully implemented anywhere, some of these topics need to be completely re-thought by Distributists.

Among those topics are topics like insurance.  Americans like to complain about insurance, but by and large the insurance industry is amazingly capable and it really can't be done efficiently on a local level.  This is true of all types of insurance, to include most particularly liability insurance, which people don't think about much but which is particularly important to the economy.  Indeed, topics like banking and insurance do indeed suggest that a Distributist economy might be a bad idea.



How Distributist would handle this aspect of their economic theory is an interesting question, and I don't know the answer.  Some would borrow from Socialist examples, all of which are problematic.  Some might borrow from Theodore Roosevelt's progressive era suggestion and require public ownership of a certain percentage of large corporations, to give a voice in their affairs.  Some might restrict organizing in the corporate forum until a business reached a certain size.  All in all, I don't know how this topic would be approached.  It might be approached in the same way that modern Socialism tends to approach it, which is basically not to except by regulation and taxation, which really takes a person outside of the context of the theory in general and into something else.  What is clear is that in this area the example of Corporate Capitalism would have to largely suffice for Distributist as well.




















Before going on to Distributism, which is actually a species of capitalism, I'll note the same for Socialism. Socialism in its classic form is pretty easy to grasp, thesis wise.  Socialist argue that capitalism creates an unequal distribution of wealth favoring the owners of the means of production over the actual producers, and the solution to this is to have the state be the owner and distribute back to the worker.  As Socialism fails pretty badly in the execution, modern Socialist by and large don't actually advocate that, however, and instead focus on social activism and engineering, thereby taking themselves quite some distance from their economic theorist origins.  Indeed, many Socialist now appear to actually be some sort of capitalist, but of the state intervention variety.  The interesting thing about that is that it takes them in the direction of the "managed economy", which is basically what most western nations had, including the United States, from about 1932 through about 1980, when corporate capitalism reasserted itself.

Socialism was a reaction to early laissez faire capitalism, which was really early Corporate Capitalism.  It's undoubtedly the case that early industrialization lead to a very unequal distribution of wealth, but taking the long view, any early Capitalist economic enterprise does that.  Sure, factory owners of the 19th Century were vastly wealthy and their workers on the edge of poverty, but then the creators of electronic and internet based enterprises have become vastly wealthy in our modern age as well.  This is not to say that things were not unfair on the factory floor, but often missed in that story is that those jobs attracted a steady stream of applicants in any event, indicating that they were better than whatever they were fleeing from, which was probably rural poverty for those who did not own their own land.  At any rate, Socialism was an attempt, and a radical one, to address the ills of Corporate Capitalism of its day.  Ironically, Socialism in its real forms turned out to be worse, and the antidote to that nearly everywhere was Corporate Capitalism to at least some degree, often with a fair amount of state management in the old Communist countries.  










It would matter, if it does, because the net effect would be to push down the economy to a much more local and personal level.  To be blunt, is it better to have really cheap prices, but remote ownership, and lower wages (Corporate Capitalism) vs. higher prices and locally owned self sustaining middle class business (Distributism)?  That's pretty much what it boils down to.  Under a Distributism model, assuming that it would actually work, there'd be fewer very rich people and more middle class business owners. But even being in the middle class would be probably at least somewhat more expensive than it current is, and it'd be more the middle class of fifty years ago, which most people in the middle class were in the middle, or bottom, of the middle class back, with few in the upper areas of it.  Now, quite a few in the middle class are upper middle class, and of course we have more super wealthy than every before.  So, by getting more in the middle, on both ends, we take some out of the bottom and some out of the top.

Some would argue that the depression of economic classes from the upper end down, while taking the bottom and bringing it up, was a good collateral byproduct from a social point of view, although that really takes us out of economics, and Distributist economics, into something else.  Certainly bringing the bottom up undoubtedly has it merits, and is the point of any economic theory really.  Depressing the top down is another matter when it extends into the middle class, and very few in our economy would openly admit that. Even modern Socialist always claim to be acting on behalf of the Middle Class, when formerly they would have condemned as being bourgeois.  The arguments on that would vary, but basically it would be that there's something bad about having too much wealth in an economy, which again really gets beyond economics and into social theory. That's a problematic theory, but it is interesting to note that wealthy societies do tend to become effete. 



Well, one reason may be in that in the long history of Corporate Capitalism it seemingly goes through stages over time where it truly does concentrate vast wealth into the hands of very few, with bad results for almost everyone else.  The mid 19th Century history of Corporate Capitalism heavily featured that, which as we know gave rise to Communism and hardcore radical Socialism.  In the US, it gave rise to Progressiveness, a movement that flirted with Socialist ideas (and which flirted with some Distributist ones).  The ills of the mid 19th Century ended up being addressed, one way or another, and in most localities that ended up with labor coming out pretty well. But in our new highly global economy that does seem to be not so much the case anymore, at least if the arguments of individuals like Thomas Piketty are to be believed.  Indeed, individuals like Piketty argue that the economy is yielding to a new type of oligarchy, at the expense of everyone except the oligarchs.


As part of that, the high state of development of Corporate Capitalism like we know have has very much worked to divest people from business. That is, localism has really suffered as a result of it.  People have little connection to the stores that provide much of their goods, and for that matter the people providing them have little connection with the people they're providing them to.  In some agricultural sectors the people owning land have next to no connection with the states where they own them.  Indeed, one of hte more amusing, and at the same time sad, aspects of modern Western ranching is that sooner or later everyone doing it is going to run across a photo in some journal of a smiling wealthy man whom the journalist writes up as a "rancher", when what he really is a hobbyist with clothing that makes him look a bit absurd to locals. But that same individual keeps those locals from actually being ranchers, as they cannot compete with him economically. All of that hurts the local, and over time people become divorced form their own localities, with negative results.

For these reasons, I suspect, we're starting to see some really serious flirting with Socialism for the first time in about thirty years, which is interesting, and scary to anyone who has any passing familiarity with the history of Socialism in actual practice.  By and large, people are doing well economically but there is something they don't like about what their seeing, maybe.  Bernie Saunders now stands a real chance of being the nominee of the Democratic Party even though he's an avowed Socialist, the first time that a Socialist has advanced in Democratic politics since the late 1940s.  While none of this may have anything to do with economic thought, as earlier noted Australia and Canada have taken slight left turns in recent parliamentary elections, and Greece took a huge left turn.  Of course, some nations, like Denmark and Hungary, have taken sharp right turns.  We can assume that all of these voters don't know what they are doing, but that's not a safe assumption.  Some state of general discontent on something seems to be lurking out there, with some pretty radical solutions in the mix here and there.

And for that reason, it's to be lamented that there aren't any Distributist candidates in any party, anywhere.  Distributism is a subtle economic theory, but it's clearly more of a realistic one than Socialism is, and yet it seems to address many of the aspects of discontent that drive people into leftist economic theories.  As with our national politics, in which everyone has to be a Republican or a Democrat, no matter what they actually think, in our economy it seems you have to be a (Corporate) Capitalist or a Social Democrat, which makes very little sense.  There's no reason to believe that these two camps are the only natural ones, and taking a look at some Distributist ideas seems to be well overdue.  It's clear that no purely Distributist economy is going to come about in our day and age, but that doesn't mean that some of the ideas do not indeed have merit.  Some should be looked at.  Indeed, that's where the disappointment in a lack of such ideas being floated, except by some theorist and seemingly the Pope, is a shame.  It isn't as if any modern country is going to wholesale adopt Distributism.  But maybe some Distributist ideas are worth seriously considering, and right now they aren't getting any air.  It would be nice if they could, particularly when we see the failed theory of Socialism getting some, amazingly.

So, what about agriculture, and this agrarian thing?

Wednesday, December 27, 2023

Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally, Part XVI. And then the day arrived.

Our lifestyle, our wildlife, our land and our water remain critical to our definition of Wyoming and to our economic future.

Dave Freudenthal, former Governor of Wyoming/

 

December 3, 2023


Oil field, Grass Creek, Wyo, April 9, 1916

Snippets of news articles from this morning:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Fifty oil companies representing nearly half of global production pledged to reach near-zero methane emissions and end routine flaring in their operations by 2030, the president of this year’s United Nations climate talks said Saturday, a move environmental groups called a “smokescreen.”

 Smokescreen it doesn't seem to be. That's a major commitment.  But not as big as this one:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- The United States committed Saturday to the idea of phasing out coal power plants, joining 56 other nations in kicking the coal habit that's a huge factor in global warming.

U.S. Special Envoy John Kerry announced that America was joining the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which means the Biden Administration commits to building no new coal plants and phasing out existing plants. No date was given for when the existing plants would have to go, but other Biden regulatory actions and international commitments already in the works had meant no coal by 2035.

None of this should be a surprise.  This is where we've been heading for some time, and it's inevitable.  Indeed, I touched on this back in 2017 here:

Coal: Understanding the time line of an industry

And I cautiously dipped my toe in the water, wondering if Wyoming should ponder a fossil fuel free future here:

Lex Anteinternet: Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 1 (a). The Economy again. . . the extractive industries


And here:


Well, now it's coming.

Not that we'll accept it. We'll do anything but.  Our senior Senator in Washington will claim its part of Joe Biden's "radical green agenda", a radical agenda now sought after by the majority of people in the United States, and in the World.  He doesn't believe that, but it sells back home.  With a Republican Party in the state that was ready to boil Governor Gordon in WD40 for daring to say that Wyoming needed to look at a carbon-neutral future, he doesn't dare say anything else as it would imperil his position.  Our junior Senator will likely say nothing at all.

Well, the voices are getting too loud to ignore, and they include people in the oil industry and now even entire nations that depend on petroleum.  From the President, to the Pope, to the Governor of the state, the message is getting pretty clear.  We're going to have to figure out a post fossil fuel economy here.

Quickly.

But, we'll choose not to.  We'll pretend that somehow we can force others to consume the product that we wish to produce, as we've produced it for over a century and a half, and it's our economy.

That, however, isn't the way economies work.
Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.
Kurt Vonnegut


On another topic, the current owners of Remington are closing the doors this week to its Ilion, New York factor.  The company had been headquartered there since 1816.

It'd gone through hard times in the past.  It nearly went bankrupt after World War One when the United States Government cancelled contracts for M1917 Enfield rifles overnight, leaving them with a large stock of unfinished and partially finished rifles.  The Wilson Administration proved to be quite bad at demobilizing.  

Remington, while profitable, had the very bad fortune to be bought by the aptly named Cerebus which focused on AR15 production and drove the company under. Our prior thread on it is here:


Cerebus is virtually a symbol of all that is wrong with corporate capitalism.  Named for the three-headed dog that mythologically guards the gates of Hades to contain the dead therein, it might well be recalled, at least since Dante included it, that the creature is in Hell and of it.

Remington's history was mostly associated, over its long existence, with hunting rifles.  That's what the company was founded on in 1816.  It did manufacture military arms on occasion, however.  For example, it was a large scale supplier of contract rifles for the Union during the Civil War.  It's widely admired by riflemen rolling block rifle had a military variant that was purchased by some states in preference to the Trapdoor Springfield series of rifles, and it was in fact better than the Trapdoor.  The rolling block was widely sold overseas as a military rifle.

By and large, however, it never invested heavily in military sales until the Great War, when the British first contracted with it to produce the rifle that had been intended to replace the SMLE, but adapted to .303 British.  The P14 was a major British rifle of the war, but its production ceased in 1917 when the US entered the war, and the same rifle was adopted to the .30-06 and used by the U.S. as the M1917 Enfield.  Remington's production capacity was so vast that somewhat over half of all U.S. troops in World War One carried that rifle, rather than the M1903, and it continued to be used into World War Two.  But the experienced badly burned Remington and nearly left it bankrupt. After that it was extremely reluctant to make military arms, and it only reluctantly took to producing, ironically, M1903s during the Second World War when the government again needed help.  No original Remington arms were invented for the war as Remington didn't try to undertake that as a project, although it did make a continual series of changes in the M1903 which resulted in the M1903A3, nearly a new rifle in some ways.

After the war and into the Cold War, Remington didn't bother with military arms.  It wasn't a contractor to the M14 like H&R was.  It didn't try to enter a rifle into light rifle contests, like Colt did with the AR15 and Winchester did with its M1 Carbine derived competitor.  That all changed when Cerebus bought the company in 2007.

Cerebus also bought the AR15 manufacturer Bushmaster, which was highly regarded in that field.  By 2012 Remington was making M4 Carbines for the Army.  It leaped wholesale into the "America's Rifle" baloney with a hunting variant of the AR15.  It reentered the pistol market, which it had not been in since a brief foray after the Civil War, with a version of the M1911 pistol.  Cerebus didn't seem to understand what it was that Remington actually made.

Indeed, it was telling that a brilliant move by Remington to introduce a fairly cheap 98 Mauser hunting rifle, the 798, came in 2006, the year before Cerebus bought the company, and it quit offering it in 2008, the year after.

In name, it still exists, but now it's headquartered in Madison, NC.  It was the oldest manufacturer in the United States at the time of its bankruptcy, and it died a victim of American capitalism.

December 13, 2023

Governments gathered in Dubai agreed to the:

transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science."
and; 
accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power" and for "tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030.

This is a major action, if the committing countries are able to stick to it.  Environmentalist will complain that it is too little, too late, but as economists have shown in the past once efforts are made to really commit to a goal, it tends to be reached much more rapidly than anticipated. 

In Wyoming, where the Governor has been taking flak by noting that Wyoming will have to transition away from a carbon based economy, this is going to result in howls of derision, including claims that its part of a "radical green agenda" and "impossible".  It's neither.

December 14, 2023

We can’t reverse market trends, but we can be prepared. Blaming OSMRE — or, more ridiculously, President Biden — only provides another distraction as Wyoming politicians continue to whistle past the graveyard, averting our attention from planning for our future — a new lower-carbon economy that is coming whether we like it or not.

Bob LeResche former Alaska Commissioner, former Executive Director of the Alaska Energy Authority, in the Casper Star Tribune, December 14, 2023.

I used the same phrase, "whistling past the graveyard" here recently at least twice.

But some, it would appear, are not:


This will likely spark outrage in certain quarters of Wyoming, particularly in the GOP far right.   There were howls of derision concerning Governor Gordon's statements that Wyoming needs to plan for a carbon neutral future.  But that future is coming.  Moreover, what this demonstrates is that there are quarters of Wyoming, and Wyomingites, who see things much differently.  

Fremont County does have an interesting mix of residents, people who have retired there, people who have moved there (which includes everywhere else in Wyoming now), people who work in oil and gas (and live mostly in Riverton), people involved in outdoor industries, and residents of the Reservation.  Lander is the county seat, and borders the Reservation, but it is not an oil town.  The same resolution would likely pass easily in Jackson, maybe Pinedale, and Laramie. Cheyenne?  It might.

What about Evanston?

Well, probably, maybe, not, but Evanston is mad at the Wyoming Department of Transportation's plan to put in a semi tractor/trailer parking lot that will hold over 350 trucks and trailers during emergencies.  They don't like it, even though not all that long ago, almost any Wyoming Interstate highway town would have just shrugged their shoulders and figured that some of those truckers would at least order pizzas while stranded.

December 15, 2023

Global coal demand, on the other hand, was at an all-time high last year, due to use in developing countries.

General Motors is closing two plants and laying off 1,300 workers.

Closer to home, it's clear that Governor Gordon, who will not be running for office again (too bad) feels himself free to speak what he really believes.

Gov. Gordon Agrees Climate Change is Real, Says Decarbonizing the West is Possible

On national TV and in Idaho workshop, Gordon promotes his ‘all of the above’ energy strategy

This is of course going to get him a lot of criticism, including the class "he's a RINO" by people not realizing that they're the ones who are departing from the traditional Republican mindset.

December 18, 2023

All new cars in Canada must be zero emissions starting in 2035.

December 27, 2023

10,000,000 Americans will receive raises with boosted state minimum wages on January 1. The new rates apply in 22 states.

December 28, 2023

From the AP:

MEXICO CITY — Mexico launched its army-run airline  Tuesday when the first Mexicana  airlines flight took off from Mexico City bound for the Caribbean  resort of Tulum.

Also, from the AP:

So far in 2023, Americans have bought a record 1 million-plus hybrids — up 76% from the same period last year, according to Edmunds.com. As recently as last year, purchases had fallen below 2021’s total. This year’s figures don’t even include sales of 148,000 plug-in hybrids, which drive a short distance on battery power before a gas-electric system kicks in.

Last Prior Edition:

Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally, Part XV. The 2% solution?

Sunday, December 24, 2023

The Reformation as unmixed evil.

I am firmly convinced that the Reformation of the sixteenth century was as near as any mortal thing can come to unmixed evil. Even the parts of it that might appear plausible and enlightened from a purely secular standpoint have turned out rotten and reactionary, also from a purely secular standpoint. 

By substituting the Bible for the sacrament, it created a pedantic caste of those who could read, superstitiously identified with those who could think. By destroying the monks, it took social work from the poor philanthropists who chose to deny themselves, and gave it to the rich philanthropists who chose to assert themselves. By preaching individualism while preserving inequality, it produced modern capitalism. It destroyed the only league of nations that ever had a chance. It produced the worst wars of nations that ever existed. It produced the most efficient form of Protestantism, which is Prussia. And it is producing the worst part of paganism, which is slavery.

G. K. Chesterton

Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Wars and Rumors of War, 2023, Part VIII. The high cost of freedom.


September 3, 2023

Russo Ukrainian War

President Zelenskyy has replaced the Ukrainian Minister of Defense.

Russian drones hit the Danube River port infrastructure in Ukraine.

September 6, 2023

Russo Ukrainian War

Ukraine has designates PepsiCo and the Mars candy company as :international war sponsors" due to their continued operations, and continued tax payments in and to Russia since the start of the Russo Ukrainian War.

PepiCo has operated in Russia, if you consider the USSR its predecessor, since 1974, as opposed to Coca-Cola which did not until 1985.  It has nineteen plants in the company and employs 20,000 people directly, and 40,000 agricultural employees indirectly.  It's Russia' fourth-largest food and beverage company.  Since the war started, its net profits have increased by 333%.

Mars profits have increased 59% since the start of the war.

To give an illustration of the absurd nature of consolidation and market domination in corporate capitalism, PepsiCo trademarks (brands) include the following (list courtesy of Wikipedia):

  • Agousha (Russia)
  • Alvalle (Spain)[3]
  • AMP Energy
  • Aquafina
  • Aquafina Flavorsplash
  • Aunt Jemima/Pearl Milling Company
  • Baconzitos (Brazil)
  • Cap'n Crunch
  • Cheetos
  • Chester's
  • Chipsy (Egypt, Serbia)
  • Chudo
  • Cracker Jack
  • Crunchy
  • Diet Mountain Dew
  • Diet Mug
  • Diet Pepsi
  • Diet 7UP (only outside of the United States)
  • Diet Sierra Mist
  • Domik v Derevne (Russia)
  • Doritos
  • Duyvis (Netherlands)
  • Elma Chips (Brazil)
  • Emperador (Mexico)
  • Evervess (Russia)
  • Fandangos (Brazil)
  • Frito-Lay
  • Fritos
  • Fruktoviy Sad (Russia)
  • Frustyle (Russia)
  • G2
  • Gatorade
  • Gatorade Zero
  • Grandma's
  • Imunele (Russia)
  • Izze
  • Ivi (Albania, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia)
  • Kas
  • KhrusTeam (Russia)
  • Kurkure (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan)
  • Lay's
  • Life
  • Lifewater
  • Lubimy (Russia)
  • Manzanita Sol
  • Marias Gamesa
  • Matutano (Spain, Portugal)
  • Marbo (Serbia)
  • Mirinda
  • Miss Vickie's
  • Mountain Dew
  • Mountain Dew Code Red
  • Mountain Dew Game Fuel
  • Mountain Dew Kickstart
  • Mug
  • Munchies
  • Naked (naked?)
  • Near East
  • O.N.E.
  • Paso de los Toros (Uruguay)
  • Pasta Roni
  • Pepsi
  • Pepsi Max
  • Pepsi Next
  • Pepsi Zero Sugar
  • Pioneer Foods
  • Propel
  • Quaker
  • Quaker Chewy
  • Rice-A-Roni
  • Rold Gold
  • Rosquinhas Mabel (Brazil)
  • Ruffles
  • Russkiy Dar (Russia)
  • Sabritas
  • Sakata (Australia)
  • Saladitas
  • Sandora (Ukraine)
  • Santitas
  • 7UP (only outside of the United States)
  • 7UP Free (only outside of the United States)
  • Sierra Mist
  • Simba (Southern Africa)
  • Smartfood
  • Smith's (Australia)
  • Snack a Jacks
  • SoBe
  • SoBe Lifewater
  • SoBe V Water
  • Sonric’s
  • Stacy’s
  • Star
  • Starry
  • Stiksy (Brazil)
  • Sting
  • SunChips
  • Tonus
  • Tostitos
  • Trop 50
  • Tropicana
  • Tropicana Farmstand
  • Tropicana Pure Premium
  • Tropicana Twister
  • Twisties (Oceania Region)
  • Vesely Molochnik
  • Walkers (United Kingdom)
  • Ya (Russia)
  • Yedigün (Turkey)
Hopefully that list will help reduce their profits.

Mars, which also owns Wrigley, is also gigantic, and its brands are:

  • 3 Musketeers
  • Ben's Original
  • Bounty
  • Celebrations
  • Cirku
  • CocoaVia
  • Combos
  • Dolmio
  • Dove
  • Ebly
  • Ethel M
  • FLAVIA
  • Fling
  • Flyte
  • Forever Yours
  • Galaxy
  • Galaxy Bubbles
  • Galaxy Minstrels
  • A Twix bar
  • M-Azing
  • M&M's
  • Maltesers
  • Marathon
  • Mars
  • Masterfoods
  • Milky Way
  • Munch
  • Promite
  • Revels
  • Seeds of Change
  • Snickers
  • Topic
  • Tracker
  • Treets
  • Twix
  • 5 gum cobalt packaging
  • 5 (gum)
  • Airwaves
  • Alpine
  • Altoids
  • Big Red
  • Bubble Tape
  • Doublemint
  • Eclipse
  • Eclipse Ice
  • Excel
  • Extra
  • Freedent
  • Hubba Bubba
  • Juicy Fruit
  • Life Savers
  • Lockets
  • Orbit
  • Ouch!
  • Rondo
  • Skittles
  • Spearmint
  • Starburst
  • Surpass
  • Tunes
  • Winterfresh
  • Wrigley's
Mars also manufactures products for pets, including:
  • Pedigree dry dog food
  • ADVANCE (Australia and New Zealand only)
  • Aquarium Pharmaceuticals
  • Buckeye Nutrition
  • Cesar
  • Chappi
  • Crave
  • Dreamies/Catisfactions
  • Dine (Australia and New Zealand version of Sheba)
  • Exelcat
  • Eukanuba
  • Exelpet
  • Frolic
  • The Goodlife Recipe
  • Good-o
  • Greenies
  • Iams
  • James Wellbeloved
  • Kit-e-Kat
  • My Dog
  • Natura
  • Natusan
  • Nutro Products
  • Optimum
  • Pedigree
  • Pill Pockets
  • Royal Canin
  • Schmackos
  • Sheba
  • Teasers
  • Techni-Cal
  • Temptations
  • Trill
  • Whiskas
  • Winergy
Obviously, the two companies are hard to avoid, and people can make their own judgements, but even from an economic social justice standpoint, this is absurd.

September 7, 2023

Armenia

The United States will participate in military exercises with Armenia next week.  Russia has voiced concerns.

Syrian Civil War

By Thespoondragon - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82968413


The Syrian Democratic Forces captured Diban.  The alliance of anti-government Syrian rebels is the army of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, which controls approximately 1/4 of the country.

ISW reports that protests against the government have been increasing.

Russo Ukrainian War

Ukrainian forces continue to advance in the south, with there being indications that some Ukrainian elements have advanced past prepared Russian positions.

September 8, 2023

North Korea

North Korea has announced that it has launched a nuclear attack submarine. Assuming this is true, this is a massive upgrade in its nuclear warfare capabilities and may very well be one that makes it invulnerable, as a practical matter, to being attacked. 

September 9, 2023

Russo Ukrainian War
Russian forces have reportedly made notable changes to their command and control (C2) in Ukraine to protect command infrastructure and improve information sharing, although Russian force deployments are likely still exacerbating issues with horizontal integration. Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) Deputy Director of Analysis Magarita Konaev and CSET Fellow Owen Daniels stated on September 6 that Russian forces moved headquarters out of range of most Ukrainian strike systems and have placed forward command posts further underground and behind heavily defended positions.[1] It is unclear if Russian forces have employed this more protected command infrastructure throughout Ukraine and to what degree these defensive efforts have impeded Ukraine’s ongoing interdiction campaign.[2] Konaev and Daniels stated that Russian forces have improved communications between command posts and units at the front by laying field cables and using safer radio communications.[3] The Royal United Services Insitute (RUSI) stated on September 4 that Russian forces are also trying to improve signals through the wider use of application-based C2 services that require less training.[4] Konaev and Daniels noted that signals at the battalion level downward are still often unencrypted and that Russian personnel still frequently communicate sensitive information through unsecure channels.[5]

The Russians, the same ISW report notes, are changing their artillery tactics to emphasize accuracy over mass fire, a change that was long ago implemented in Western armies but comes about here due to ammunition shortages.

These changes, it should be noted, if successful, would amount to improvements in Russian capabilities.

North Korea

The Old Salt's Blog, which is linked in at the side, reports that there are reasons to doubt the capabilities of North Korea's new, and diesel, powered submarine.

September 12, 2023

Russo Ukrainian War

Kim Jong Un has traveled to Russia to meet with Putin.  He traveled by armored train, an anachronism if ever there was one.

The Russo Ukrainian War has served to make Kim relevant in ways he was not before, one of the ways being that, given the fall of the Warsaw Pact following the end of the Cold War, it's one of the few countries in the world manufacturing the old Soviet patter munitions that Russia is consuming which will also export to Russia.

South Korea, for its part, has became an arms supplier as well, shipping armor to Ukraine and Poland, and artillery to Ukraine.

Ukrainian forces advanced near Bakhmut and in western Zaporizhia Oblast.

Last edition:

Wars and Rumors of War, 2023, Part 7. Summer.