Re: Higgenbotham's Dark Age Hovel
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2026 10:23 am
I like to strictly stick with the really big picture, but a couple side comments this morning about recent news items that relate back to the big picture.
I discussed some years ago in this Dark Age Hovel why this happened and, no, it's not because the burgers and chicken are really good.
Now we move on to the nature of social relationships and, specifically, what I called transactional relationships a few years ago, and why they occur and why they are now endemic.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/20/cnbc-ex ... oday-.htmlSORKIN: Well, let me ask you about the anger, because there seems to be anger, at least from certain political sides of this. And AOC recently said in a podcast, I’m just curious how you think about this, says there’s a certain level of wealth and accumulation that is unearned, she says. You can’t earn $1 billion, just can’t earn that, she says. You can get market power. You can break rules. You can abuse labor laws. You can pay people less than what they’re worth, but you can’t earn that.
BEZOS: Yeah.
SORKIN: By the way, you’ve earned an extraordinary amount of money. You employ, largest employer, if not one of them in the whole country. When you read that, what do you think?
BEZOS: Well, it’s, it’s not correct on its face. Let’s give you, let me give you a simple example. Let’s say you start a burger joint—
SORKIN: Right.
BEZOS: And you have ten employees and you make a little bit of money.
SORKIN: Right.
BEZOS: Until you have this is, this one outlet. And by the way, these are the most delicious burgers in the world. People love your burgers, Andrew. And so then you open a second outlet. And now you’re making a little bit more money and you have 20 employees and you open a third outlet. By the time you’ve opened 1,000 outlets, you are a billionaire.
SORKIN: Right.
BEZOS: And by the way, this is a real life story. It happens all the time. It’s In-N-Out burger. It’s, you know, Raising Cane’s Chicken. At what point did that money all of a sudden become unethical or it didn’t? There was one outlet, and then there were two, and then there were three. What you’re doing, the way, the way you make $1 billion or $100 million or $10 million or anything, is you create a service that people love. And if millions of people choose your service, you’re going to end up with $1 billion.
SORKIN: Right.
BEZOS: And you can, you know, just try it with a chicken franchise.
SORKIN: Do you think though—
BEZOS: But your chicken has to be good.
I discussed some years ago in this Dark Age Hovel why this happened and, no, it's not because the burgers and chicken are really good.
Higgenbotham wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:49 pm During the early stages of this breakdown, many of the new corporate nomads gathered together in suburbs of large cities and, being first generation nomads, attempted to re-create the kinds of social bonds that were present in the places they came from. This worked pretty well for a time, until those people died off and the second and third generations stopped doing this. I think this was described best in a book called Bowling Alone and thought it had been discussed here, but don't find anything offhand. I'll continue to look for that.
Also, during the early stages of this breakdown, there were economic losers and beneficiaries. The beneficiaries were the corporations who could cookie cutter their outlets across a previously interesting and varied landscape, producing the forlorn, bland, and ugly architectural landscape that now exists across America. McDonalds perhaps being one of the first and best examples. During the heyday of the expansion of McDonalds, along came the "great investors" who realized they could make a lot of money investing in this concept, people like Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch. Lynch described what he called the "ten-bagger" which was a stock where you could invest a dollar and that investment would multiply quickly to 10 dollars as these corporations cookie-cuttered their outlets across the country. Expanding in this way made a corporation hungry for capital and there was a class of people who got rich providing it, including many corporate nomads who recognized what was happening from observing their own lives. However, many more missed the boat, even though it was somewhat obvious.
It now appears this stage has been winding down for some time. Again, there are those who recognize this.
Sorry to say, but AOC, while not entirely correct, is on the right side of the argument.Higgenbotham wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:23 pm As an aside to the above, this was when the definition of quality was, let's say, adjusted. Quality no longer primarily means you get something really good. It primarily means, for example, as you travel across the country and go from McDonald's outlet to McDonald's outlet, it means you know what you are going to get and it will be very close to being the same thing.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... %20generic.quality
1 of 2
noun
qual·i·ty ˈkwä-lə-tē
pluralqualities
1
a
: peculiar and essential character : NATURE
her ethereal quality
—Gay Talese
b
: an inherent feature : PROPERTY
had a quality of stridence, dissonance
—Roald Dahl
c
: CAPACITY, ROLE
in the quality of reader and companion
—Joseph Conrad
2
a
: degree of excellence : GRADE
the quality of competing air service
—Current Biography
b
: superiority in kind
merchandise of quality
3
a
: social status : RANK
b
: ARISTOCRACY
4
a
: a distinguishing attribute : CHARACTERISTIC
possesses many fine qualities
b
archaic : an acquired skill : ACCOMPLISHMENT
5
: the character in a logical proposition of being affirmative or negative
6
: vividness of hue
7
a
: TIMBRE
b
: the identifying character of a vowel sound determined chiefly by the resonance of the vocal chambers in uttering it
8
: the attribute of an elementary sensation that makes it fundamentally unlike any other sensation
This change in concept was pushed heavily by the cookie-cutter corporations and business schools starting in the 1970s and is well documented.
Now we move on to the nature of social relationships and, specifically, what I called transactional relationships a few years ago, and why they occur and why they are now endemic.
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/polic ... 00498.htmlBloomberg
Palantir, Apple and Microsoft Brace for Democrats to Go on Offensive
New lobbying registrations have exploded this fall as companies sign up representatives with ties to Democrats.
Ted Mann and Joshua Green
Fri, October 16, 2026 at 6:00 AM CDT 9 min read
(Bloomberg) -- For two years, congressional Democrats furious over corporate America's cooperation with the Trump administration have been limited to the sternly worded letter.
After the midterm elections, some of them will likely have subpoena power. Companies in their sights are armoring up accordingly.
Tech and defense leaders like Palantir Technologies Inc., Apple Inc., and Microsoft Corp. are hiring Democratic Party insiders including former Senator Mark Begich and mega-lobbyist Steve Elmendorf. Other companies that scored contracts helping to facilitate mass immigration raids or sought favor by bankrolling presidential pet projects are scouring internal documents in advance of a push of subpoenas. CEOs are bracing for an uncomfortable inevitability: public testimony before hostile questioners about how they cooperated with a domineering president's demands, and why.
Insiders across K Street describe the flurry of preparations as unprecedented, driven by an acknowledgment of the unusually transactional nature of President Donald Trump's second term — and outrage from Democrats toward those they see as complicit.
Higgenbotham wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 6:28 pm I said there are two opposite modes of living in the United States. The first is an expectation that you will spend your entire life in one area with other people who will spend their entire lives in that area. The second is an expectation that you will go to high school in one place, college in another place, then career in several places (no longer at one company) with sole focus on that. Everything else is something in between. The first mode engenders real connections while the second mode engenders transactional relationships. An example of a transactional relationship would be something like, "I have a buddy who is also 420 friendly. He finds me really good dope cheap and I fix all his computers." The best example of a transactional encounter I can think of is prostitution. Also, in a big city, encounters are briefer. That's not to say there isn't some overlap.
I told her in the second mode of living, people are taught from an early age to look to the next step in their progression and to primarily engage in transactional relationships as a means to get to that next step. A high school kid might be told to be friendly to the teachers because they will be writing college recommendations or whatever. They would not be encouraged to be friendly to teachers they genuinely like and not be friendly to teachers they genuinely do not like. And so on when the kid gets to college. I should add as an aside that girls are better at that than boys. I told her that while coping with the stress of getting from step to step, people who find themselves in the same boat will bond somewhat. But they know those bonds are likely temporary and will be broken when they get to the next step unless there is a practical reason to keep them. I also told her that people who have lived in transactional relationship mode for several generations do not even know how to live differently and can't. Many do not understand what a real connection is.
I would also add that high tech is making people more and more into transactions versus customers. Google is the best example I can think of.