Friday, January 2, 2026

The Quantitative Formulation Of Nonlinear Alfven Waves: Part I (Using MHD Eqns.)

 In this post I show a quantitative formulation of nonlinear Alfven waves.    We begin with the standard equations of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD):

1)    ¶r/ t  +  Ñ ·(r v) 0

      2) r v / t  +  r(v·Ñ )v =   J X B - Ñ p


      3)  E  +  v x B   =  0

      4) P/ rγ  = const.

 (Where the exponent for density in (4) is the ratio of specific heats)Also include two of the Maxwell equations:

5) Ñ x E  =  - B /


 6) Ñ x B = m 0  J  

From (3) and (5) We get:   Ñ x (v x B)  =  B /

Or:  Ñ X  (Ñ X B) =   (B ·Ñ  ) v  -   (v·Ñ)  B   - B (Ñ ·v ) 

Assuming incompressibility: (Ñ·v )  =  0

Then:   ¶r/ t  +  v·    +  r Ñ v =  0

(N.B.  For an incompressible flow dr / dt = 0  and r is constant along a stream line.)

Introduce a fluctuation such that: B  =  B 0  +  b

Where:  b >  B 0 

Step II.  

Assume  B 0    = const., also assume: r   = r 0  =  const.  (uniform plasma)

Then:  (B 0 ·Ñ ) v   - b / t   =  (v·Ñ)b -  (b ·Ñ  ) v 

 Now sub substitute equation (6) into (1):

r v / t  +  r(v·Ñ )v =   1/m 0   ( Ñ x B) x B -  Ñp

B x (Ñ x B)  =   ½ Ñ 2   -   (B ·Ñ  ) B 

=   ½ Ñ (2 B 0 ·b) + ½ Ñ 2   - (B 0 · Ñ ) b – (b · Ñ ) b

Combine last 3 terms:

 ½ Ñ 2   - (B 0 · Ñ ) b – (b · Ñ ) b  =

 Ñ ( B 0 ·b) - (B 0 ·Ñ ) b + b x (Ñ  x  b)


Use the momentum equation:

r v / t  +  r (v·Ñ )v + 1/m 0  Ñ (B 0 ·b) =

1/m 0  (B 0 · Ñ ) b  - 1/m 0  b  x (Ñ  x  b)  Ñp

 Now apply the identity:

B x (Ñ x B)  =   ½ Ñ 2   -   (B ·Ñ  ) B 

 

à    1/m 0 r  (B 0 · Ñ ) b  - v / =

 1/m 0 r Ñ (B 0 ·b) + 1/m 0 r  x (Ñ  x  b) 

+   1/ r   Ñp   +   Ñ v 2 /2  -   v  x (Ñ ·v)


Whence we arrive at two nonlinear equations:


(A)           ( B 0 · Ñ ) v -    b / t  =  (v·Ñ )b  -  (b·Ñ )v 

(B)           1/m 0 r  (B 0 · Ñ ) b  - v / t  = 1/m 0 r  b x (Ñ  x  b)  -  v x (Ñ  x  v)  + 1/ r   Ñ [(p +  1/m ( B 0   ·b)]  + Ñ v 2 /2 


Step 1b towards a solution requires noting the relation of v to b in the preceding equations. 

Then:  v  =  +   b/ Ö mr 0

This leads to Step (2), substituting v into the nonlinear equations (A) and (B).


1/ r 0   Ñ [(p +  1/m ( B 0   ·b)]  + Ñ ( b 2 /2 mr 0  )  =


1/ r 0   Ñ [(p +  1/m ( B 0  b)  + b 2 /2 m 0  


=   1/ r 0   Ñ [(p +  1/ 2m ( B 0  + b) 2  -  B 0  2 /2 m 0  ]

 

Note that a key part of the solution is the pressure balance condition:


P +  B 2 /2 m 0    = const.

Since Pr - g  = const.,  then r is constant then P is constant.

à   B 2 =  const.,   b 2  = const. 

 This means that nonlinear Alfven waves must be circularly polarizedWe have for the phase velocity:

 v f     +  B 0 / Ö m 0 r 0

i.e.   For  v  =  +  b/ Ö m 0 r 0

Then if  B 0 , b  are parallel the directions of propagation must be anti-parallel.


Suggested Problem:

Show that:   f     =  +  B 0 / Ö m r 0

Hint: Check solutions for dz/dt.

Consider: b =  b 0  f (z  -   v f   t)

And:  v f      >   0

 Let:  x =    (z  -   v f   t)

0 =   dz/dt   - v f          And:    v f       = dz/dt  

You will also need the following partials:

b / z ,   b / t, ¶r / z  and   b / x


See Also:


Mensa Tangent Line Algebra & Geometry Solution.

 

                                         Elaborated tangent line and circles diagram


The problem is easily solved by first doing a smaller triangle construction such as shown in the diagram.  Here we designate L as the line that passes through the centers of the two circles.  We then designate CTL as the common tangent line, i.e. on the side opposite the x-axis.

We then designate  qL as the angle between line L and the x-axis.  In like manner we designate qCTL as the angle between line CTL and the x-axis.

From inspection,  tan (qL ) = 9/40, i.e. the slope between the centers of the two circles.   But note that line L bisects the angle created by the4 x-axis and the line CTL.  Hence we can write:  

qCTL  = 2 qL

By the tangent double angle formula:

tan (2 qL) =  2 tan qL /   (1 - tan 2 qL ) =

2 (9/40) / (1 - 81/ 1600)  = 18/40 / (1519/1600)

=  720/ 1519   

Which is the slope m of the line CTL

Lines L and CTL intersect the x-axis at the same point.

The slope formula is y = mx + b 

Solve for b using the line L, i.e.

16 =  (9/40) 4 + b

à

b = 16  -  (36/40) = 151/ 10

Then the equation of the common tangent line (on the opposite side of the x-axis) is:

y = ( 720 x/ 1519) + 151/10







Dixie's Victory? America Goes Full Hayseed With Even Blue States Into Honky Tonk - After Trump's Re-Election

 

Header of article from Wall Street Journal, Dec. 20-21, p. C 3


Recall that 15 years ago multiple media stories emerged on how the Confederacy actually prevailed in seizing American culture. Chief among these, the article 'Dixie's Victory' in American Heritage magazine:

Dixie’s Victory (August/September 2002, Volume 53, Issue 4) n:60896

Noting:

"In the mid 20th century the arrival of Southern rural traditions in the urban marketplace created a new breed of Southern culture that exploded on the national scene. At the same time millions of white Southerners planted new roots in the North and introduced the rest of the country to their conservative religious and political culture. and to once regional pastimes like stock car racing and country music.

Country music was a highly lucrative industry as early as the 1930s, when advances i recording and radio helped institutionalize the 'hillbilly' sounds Southerners had invented. Small stations carried local country talent from the beginning, and in 1922, the Atlanta Journal’s radio station, WSB, became the first high-power outlet to feature what Americans soon called “hillbilly music,” and for the first time millions of listeners heard authentic country talent like “Fiddlin’ John” Carson.

 Following the success of WSB, WBAP in Fort Worth invented the first-ever broadcast “barn dance,” a live country-music and talk program that proved immensely popular with Southern listeners. By the late 1920s, WLS (Chicago) and WMS (Nashville) had perfected the form with “National Barn Dance” and “Grand Ole Opry,” two mainstays of American radio culture: “Barn Dance” ran for a quarter-century,...

Already enjoying a national profile, country music continued to evolve in the 1950s and 1960s in much the same way it had originally ambled onto the airwaves and 78s in the 1920s: by melding tradition and commercialism. As home to the “Opry,” Nashville attracted considerable recording talent. In the 1950s, the city gave birth to what was termed the “Nashville sound” or the Chet Atkins Compromise, a highly electrified pop-country blend, made wildly popular by rising talents like Atkins, Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Jim Reeves, and Patsy Cline, the cowgirl sensation who always felt most comfortable with country music and never quite reconciled herself to performing pop hits like “Walking After Midnight,” “I Fall to Pieces,” and “Crazy.” Country music—now electrified and rhythmic and spread to the North and West—set out to conquer television." ...

Robbie Robertson’s wistful composition “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” was also recorded by many others, including Bob Dylan and the Band. Its title is revealing enough, but the final verse, uttered by the former Confederate, Virgil Caine, is more poignant still: “Like my father before me, I will work the land/Like my brother above me who took a rebel stand/He was just 18, proud and brave, but a Yankee laid him in his grave/I swear by the mud below my feet, you can’t raise a Caine back up when he’s in defeat.”

In truth, the Virgil Caines of the world stopped working the land several decades ago. They moved to Nashville, Atlanta, Chicago, and Los Angeles. They went to work in factories and offices. They took their culture, their music, and their religion with them, and they have changed America.

And they have embedded it with Southern sympathies, embrace of its music and even dancing.   Turned it into Dixie's Victory, especially since the election of a convicted felon, Confederacy lover and traitor Donald Trump. 

Bolstering Zeitz’s take was Denver Post columnist Ed Quillen (How the South Finally Won, April 18, 2011), which more or less takes off where Dixie's Victory ends. Quillen writes:


"The sesquicentennial commemoration of the American Civil War began last week with the 150th anniversary of the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in South Carolina, and the observations will continue for the next four years through the defeat of the Confederacy as its generals surrendered to Union commanders in 1865.

But one might make the argument that if you take the long view, the Confederacy actually triumphed. In capturing the Republican Party, the political descendants of the Confederates accomplished through politics what their ideological ancestors failed to accomplish on the battlefield."


Quillen is also spot on in observing:

"To be sure, chattel slavery has long been abolished in this nation. But you could consider slavery a form of cheap labor with no legal protections for the laborers. Now consider the GOP current efforts to bust unions, cut wages and benefits, and reduce workplace safety regulations.

In other words, one essence of the antebellum South's economic system is becoming part of the national economic system.
"

Adding:

"One might also ponder income distribution in pre-war Dixie. It was extremely skewed with a few rich folks, mostly planters, sitting on most of the wealth, and outside of their slaves, lots of "poor white trash" scrounging for a meager livelihood at the bottom. It was close to feudal, 

There you have the origin of this vapid craze, seizing the nation's remaining mental faculties since Trump's election (according to the WSJ Review article by Will Groff).   How did it conquer dancing and entertainment via the emergence of the current honky tonk craze noted in the Dec. 20-21, Wall Street Journal piece, 'American Nightlife has gone Honky Tonk.' ? (See caption and image of line dancers in LA at top).

How can this be? How could the rebel, traitor South so convincingly have snatched this nation from right under our noses? Well, because we let it - by stupid, ignorant choices, pathetic voting against our interests and repeatedly making onerous category errors by taking Confederate-rural-rebel culture to be superior to any other and "real American".  Want to understand how the deleterious political-economic changes now under way (like letting Obamacare premiums spike) were gestated? Go back to the origins described in Zeitz's and Quillen's pieces. For those lacking a historical bearing here, “Southern style” governance" - as noted by Quillen-  means a basic formula including:


- No church-state separation and bibles mandated in schools as well as  teaching creationism taught instead of evolution (Already being done in OK)

- No unions at all, period, in no manner, shape or form

-         All Confederate statues restored to “places of honor”

- Minimal government spending on social services, and repeal of Social Security, Medicare

- Massive government spending on anything military, including building as many bombers, fighters and new missiles as possible.

-         The lowest (slave) wages, would predominate throughout the land. No benefits, no health care.

- Total outlawing of abortion as well as contraception and also rendering illegal a host of sexual acts, including masturbation, oral sex.

- Imprisoning all pregnant women who are deemed to be risking the life of their unborn by any “reckless” acts – such as motorcycling, skiing or drinking alcohol.

-        - Corporal punishment (e.g. paddling using monster paddles 2' long)  mandated nationwide at all high schools for both sexes, as is the case today. (e.g. in MS, AL, GA, NC),

- Keeping all females barefoot and pregnant, by outlawing abortion in the interest of “biblical mores and family values”

The WSJ piece, after  several paragraphs with sickening huzzahs on the spread of Southern honky tonk even to blue cities, concedes:

“Some see the trend as part of a broader, conservative shift that accompanied Trump’s re-election.”

And why not? Given in his 1st term Trump often had words of adulation for Confederate traitors like Robert E. Lee and even advocated renaming military bases for these traitors and restoring statues. See e.g.

Trump defends 2017 'very fine people' comments, calls Robert E. Lee 'a great general' - ABC News

So when I read comments in the WSJ piece from delirious blue state bozos like this:

"It just seems now we all like country music and we all like the Southern vibe".

It translates to: "We all ache for the down home Southern sympathies and rule that Trump offers."  And a successful cultural meme has burrowed into your brains, converting you into unconscious Johnny Rebs. Let's hope it's just a mild vibe and not full on white supremacism like Trump embraces.

See Also:

Brane Space: Did the South Finally Win The Civil War? Maybe!

And:

And:

by Lawrence Wittner | December 30, 2025 - 5:46am | permalink

Although President Donald Trump’s Department of Labor announced in April 2025 that “Trump’s Golden Age puts American workers first,” that contention is contradicted by the facts.

Indeed, Trump has taken the lead in reducing workers’ incomes. One of his key actions along these lines occurred on March 14, 2025, when he issued an executive order that scrapped a Biden-era regulation raising the minimum wage for employees of private companies with federal contracts. Some 327,300 workers had benefited from former President Joe Biden’s measure, which produced an average wage increase of $5,228 per year. With Trump’s reversal of policy, they became ripe for pay cuts of up to 25%.

» article continues...

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

WSJ's Wm McGurn Boffs It Again, Exalting the Little Sisters of the Poor Over Hard Reality

                                                                          

                              William McGurn - an Obamacare troll to the end

The irrepressible WSJ troll William McGurn is at it again (‘When Nuns Fight Back’, p. A13, Dec. 23) , this time going after Obamacare and plaintives in NJ and Pennsylvania, writing:

After two defeats at the Supreme Court, you would think even the dullest lower-court judge would get the message: Stop messing with the Little Sisters of the Poor. But for 12 years state and federal authorities have dragged this religious community through the courts because they deem it essential that Catholic nuns be forced to provide contraceptives to their employees. In 2016 and 2020 the Supreme Court came down on the sisters’ side: Enough already.

That should have been the end of it. But Pennsylvania and New Jersey won’t take no for an answer. On Aug. 13, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in Philadelphia obliged these plaintiff states by tossing the Trump administration rule that allowed the Little Sisters an exemption. The rule, she wrote, is “arbitrary and capricious.

The fact escaping McGurn is that the nuns are in the wrong. Let us agree here  that logically, you can't have it "both ways". The Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious zealots have argued constantly and vocally that their precious beliefs are being "disrespected" by being forced to pay for contraception for their employees. This is even after President Obama loosened the rules, i.e. so the religious institutions didn't have to pay for the contraceptives directly (their insurance companies did), and yet they still squawked.

But given that artificial contraception is the optimal way to family plan, and also avoid unnecessary abortions, if you then cut out affordable access to the first you will have to expect the second. You can't have it both ways: No contraception and no abortion. To me and many others, if abortion is the last thing we want then we must permit family planning via artificial contraception. It is deliriously unrealistic to expect poor or even moderate income families to simply make 'baby roulette' bets with their lives. Yet that is what these Catholic false dogmatists expect.

Recall that contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the ACA health care law.  (It is also a basic matter of human dignity in enabling poorer women, families to control the number of mouths to feed and clothe.) At the time, the Obama administration pointed to research showing that the high cost of some methods of contraception discourages women from using them. (A very effective means of birth control, the intrauterine device, can cost up to $1,000.)

Birth control pills are also not exactly cheap and to be effective they have to be taken over a lengthy period, not stopped on weekends, for example.  It is estimated currently that Trump's new order will cost poor women - who need family planning the most - an added $1,000 a year. Some may sneer at that amount but consider what it may mean for a single mom earning barely $22,000 a year at Walmart to support 2 or 3 kids - and risk having another.

The Little Sisters' argument  that their religious convictions and rights are being violated by providing contraception for SECULAR employees is totally bogus. If indeed, they’re all about preventing SECULAR employees – say atheists like me – from accessing artificial  birth control- then they are indeed imposing their faith. It also demolishes the WSJ editorial argument yesterday that the ACA contraceptive mandate us an "infamous regulation".   It also rips the added WSJ claim that the Little Sisters "still need relief in court". No, they do not. They need to get their heads screwed on straight as to what's being required of them vis-a -vis secular employees.

Hence, in the latter case the withholding of the ACA- allowed measures violates secular workers'  rights as taxpayers!  The point missed by the WSJ editors and others is that given the Church is funded by default via MY taxpayer dollars (since they don't have to pay taxes that I must) then I have to expect that if my wife or myself attends THEIR hospitals they will deliver the services WE need, not forbid us access to some subset they prohibit for their own flock!  (And note, these religious groups are perfectly free to prevent their own members from obtaining the contraceptives, or abortions.)

This is also why an array of organizations have argued in the courts that the Dotard -mandated changes in policy  unfairly imposes employers' beliefs on their workers. Which it does.  A worker's contraceptive coverage ought not depend on her employer's beliefs. An additional argument brought by three states' attorneys general is that the Dotard ruling amounts to sexual discrimination, as well as religious discrimination.  In the words of Hal Lawrence, chief executive of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

"To take this away from women does nothing to improve the health of the United States and actually increases the risk of maternal mortality and some kinds of cancers."

As a senior staff attorney at the ACLU has put it in the first Supreme Court face off:

"This is an affront to women's rights and women's health and we are prepared to see the government in court."

When one gets right down to it this whole brouhaha is a cultural storm in a teacup that originates because the Catholic religious extremists either: a) don't understand their own basic principles or doctrines or b) do understand but wish to exploit public ignorance of them to get their way in the courts.

As pointed out by Theologian Hans Kung ('Infallible?') the birth control proscription comes from the Church's TEACHING OFFICE or Magisteriumnot ex cathedra or "from the chair of St. Peter".

If a ruling comes from the Magisterium or teaching office, then it isn't binding! It isn't binding on Catholics and it isn't binding on those they would serve, say in their hospitals (patients who need contraceptives) or institutions (workers there, who aren't even Catholics!).

There are even more suspect moral overtones on this than meet the eye. For example, the majority of Catholics are probably totally unaware that the Church DID ALLOW abortions to be performed up until the third trimester, and until 1869. John Connery, S.J. a leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, has been quoted as citing a long standing collection of Canon Law that “it was not until 1869 that abortion for any reason became grounds for excommunication” (See, e.g. Druyan and Sagan, PARADE, April 22, 1990). At the time the lack of dogmatic ruling created such furore that conservatives in the Church pushed for a higher dogma that would transcend the wishy-washy Magisterium ruling. They thereby succeeded in foisting the very late (1870) doctrine of "infallibility" which was more a rear guard action -addition to protect the Church from any possible subsequent alterations of moral teaching

Thus, if a ruling came "ex cathedra" and applied to faith or morals, the Pope couldn't make a mistake. (Of course, as the “papal infallibility” doctrine was only first proclaimed in 1870, it conveniently didn't apply to rulings made earlier such as the ones on abortions allowed up to the 3rd trimester). But the larger point here is that clearly, the fact the Church already changed its doctrine on abortion shows its moral positions are malleable and not set in stone!

What this means is that the Church itself cannot be free of errors in faith or morals if it has already made one that was since covered up. Obviously, if you can alter a position, it is hardly "absolute". In his marvelous book, Infallible?, Hans Kung observes (p. 143):

no one, neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor the textbook theologians, has shown that the Church - its leadership or its theology - is able to put forward propositions which inherently cannot be erroneous."

This is a serious statement which basically shows the "dogmas" being cited by the religious extremists like the Little Sisters have no gravitas or genuine spiritual import. If propositions posed as dogmas inherently "cannot be erroneous" then ultimately they rest on relative foundations. If the latter is the case, then employers and their employees can choose to ignore them.  The Little Sisters and their ilk aren't even being asked to do that - by way of the Obama original exemption. Merely to allow their insurance company to pay for them.

As I've posted before if these religious zealots are truly against the scourge of abortion then they should have no qualms about allowing the most effective means of contraception (note: the Catholics 'rhythm method' doesn't count). The fact they oppose effective contraception paid for by their insurance companies tells me they are okay with a tide of abortions- which will become the default method of birth control now for most poor women.


See Also:


And:

 'Little Sisters of the Poor' Need an Education In Artificial Birth Control

Monday, December 29, 2025

A Skewed Economic System (Weighted for the Wealthy) Explains Why Gen Z Is Embracing "Financial Nihilism"

 

                    How Gen Z (blue) has fallen under Trump's 'super' economy
                               Gen Z protest against a biased economic system

''Why My Generation Is Turning To Financial Nihilism"(WSJ, Dec. 20-21, p. C1) by Gen Z'er Kyla Scanlon, explains a lot about why her generation is turning to desperate financial gambles to try to survive. Especially in Dotard's AI- bubbling, crypto-addicted, tariff torn economy. As she explains the term in her header in the lead paragraph: 

"My generation is accused of treating finance like a game. We trade options, buy meme coins, play prediction markets, venture into crypto and bet on sports as if the entire economy was a casino. 

But what seems like recklessness to parents and grandparents is actually a form of financial adaptation. It's known as financial nihilism, a term coined by Demetri Kofinas several years ago. It describes an economic system that no longer rewards prudence or long term planning."

She wastes no time getting down to specifics:

"For many young people education has become a liability. Student loan debt now totals $1.6 trillion, according to the New York Federal Reserve. Even the college wage premium has slipped...falling to about 75% of what it was in 2023.  This has happened even as the cost of college has climbed by roughly 40% over the same period.  Early career roles have eroded too. 

Entry level jobs have thinned out due to automation and cost pressures, with only 35 percent of 2025 college graduates able to find entry level jobs - a dropoff of 11 percent since 2024. And then there is homeownership. Only about 32% of 27 year olds owned a home in 2024."

This last data point was also reinforced in a separate Dec. 23rd  WaPo article ('Abandoning homeownership may be changing how people behave at work and home' by Julie Weil, asking: What happens when a generation gives up on ever owning a home? 

 Weil writes:

"With home affordability increasingly out of reach, many young adults are making choices that are reshaping the economy — and mostly for the worse — a new research paper says. They don’t think they’ll ever be homeowners. So they stop trying, and focus on the here and now.

That’s the interpretation put forth by economists Seung Hyeong Lee and Younggeun Yoo — doctoral candidates at Northwestern University and the University of Chicago, respectively — who built a mathematical model of consumer behavior. When people conclude they will never be able to afford a home, they put less effort into their jobs, tend to spend more on luxuries and do less long-term saving, and are more likely to invest in riskier assets such as cryptocurrencies, the economists’ findings suggested."

The outcome? Those affected just give up. No surprise the authors posted "Giving Up,” a draft of which they posted online last month. 

Kyla Scanlon, in her WSJ piece, delves into a lot of the financial futility of the young and also the "reckless reactions" e.g.

"Crypto, prediction markets and online betting have rapidly expanded among younger adults because they offer the immediacy of outsized gains, something the S&P 500 can't always do."

Scanlon, alas, is not aware that a cosseted minority has access to vastly superior investment opportunities - and has accrued enormous wealth from them (see e.g. 'Inside the Stock Market For The Wealthy (It's Invitation Only)'. WSJ. Business Exchange, Dec. 13-14, p. B1).  As noted in the piece:

"For most Americans, the universe of stocks they can invest in is rapidly shrinking.  The number of public companies in the U.S. is half its peak from the late 1990s. This is not a problem for the rich.  The ultra wealthy are able to buy and sell shares at the buzziest private companies via invitation-only transactions long before their shares are listed on public stock exchanges.

That has created a two-tier market where a privileged group can obtain shares of companies still in their early growth stages. Everyone else is left with older, slower growing names.  The dynamic is exacerbating the wealth disparity in the U.S. as the growth in the net worth of the richest Americans is far outpacing all other income groups."

And those other income groups being outpaced include Scanlon's Gen Z lot, now forced to engage in risky practices like crypto, sports betting, and prediction markets to try and just break even. As she emphasizes:

"The mistake is in assuming young people want chaos. They don't...They are engaging in these risky activities in an attempt to find personal agency in a system that's increasingly denied to."

Thus, with no access to the high profile, invitation -only stocks, or multi-millions in inheritance, or the benefits of legacy college attendance, they congregate in digital commons like Reddit and Discord to find answers. And who can blame them, given the costs of food, housing and health have all been rising faster than the incomes of most working Americans - especially the Gen Z cohort.   Add in the mounting costs of education in overdue student loans i.e.

Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026

And one can see why the young tilt to financial nihilism. Which turns out to be the sole rational option for agency and potential financial benefits, given all others have been foreclosed. So let's not bark outrage at our younger citizens but hope they also see how and why the nation's economic system mutated so harshly against them. A topic I cover in Chapter 6 ('The Market Corporatocracy') in my 2011 book, The Elements of the Corporatocracy. 

See Also:

by Thom Hartmann | December 25, 2025 - 6:50am | permalink

— from The Hartmann Report

“The only thing wrong with the U.S. economy is the failure of the Republican Party to play Santa Claus.”
—Jude Wanniski, March 6, 1976

The Washington Post published an article this week titled A Middle-Class Family’s Only Option: A $43,000 Health Insurance Premium about how the GOP’s refusal to extend ACA/Obamacare subsidies means that Stacy Newton’s family in Jackson Hole, Wyoming will have to pay $43,000 a year for health insurance if they want to stay covered.

If, however, the United States had an extra trillion dollars a year — the amount we’re now spending every year on interest payments against the GOP’s $38 trillion national debt — the Newtons would only pay a few hundred dollars a month and we could also have Universal Childcare & Pre-K, Paid Family & Medical Leave, Tuition-Free College, Affordable Housing & No More Homelessness, End Child Poverty & Hunger, and, as mentioned, Affordable Healthcare for all Americans.

» article continues...

And:


And:

by Thom Hartmann | December 30, 2025 - 6:18am | permalink

— from The Hartmann Report

Yesterday, both Trump and his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development told us that 50-year home mortgages may soon be a thing. While seemingly insane (you could end up paying more than three times the cost of the house and never escape the burden of debt before you die), this is just the latest iteration of one of American businesses’ most profitable scams: the rental economy.

It’s a growing threat to the American middle class that rarely gets named, even as it reshapes our lives every day. Over the past two decades, it’s snuck in quietly, disguised as convenience, efficiency, and “innovation.”

As a result, nothing is “ours” any more. Instead, we’re renting our lives away.

There was a time when you bought things.

» article continues...

And:

by Lindsay Owens | December 28, 2025 - 5:57am | permalink

— from Inequality.org

Somewhere, a mom taps through her grocery app while waiting in the school pickup line, purchasing a box of Wheat Thins for $5.99. Across town, someone else scrolls through the same grocery app and adds the exact same box of Wheat Thins to their cart. For them, the crackers ring up at $6.99. It is the same item, from the same store, at the same time, but one unlucky shopper is stuck paying a higher price. Neither shopper has any idea this pricing game is even being played.

This is not a hypothetical scenario. Increasingly, it’s happening all over the country. Right now, grocery delivery app Instacart is conducting large-scale, hidden pricing experiments on unsuspecting shoppers to determine just how much money they can extract from customers on the groceries they buy to feed their families.

How do we know? Our team at Groundwork Collaborative had a feeling Instacart might be experimenting on shoppers, so we decided to run an experiment on them. Alongside our partners at Consumer Reports and More Perfect Union, we recruited over 400 volunteer secret shoppers to shop for the same basket of 20 items at the same grocery store at the same time. We ran the experiment in four different stores across the country.

» article continues...