What are you watching?

YouTube · Post by **Catoptric** » Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:12 pm

Nicolas Cage was making $20 million per film (a total of $150 in a decade of acting,) and yet his networth is currently $25 million.

https://financebuzz.com/finance-nicolas ... ying-spree

https://www.quora.com/Is-Nicholas-Cage- ... he-macabre

I suspect a lot of his eccentric acting was from coke addiction.

Nicolas Cage caused his own financial ills, ex-business manager says
https://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/17/ ... e.lawsuit/

Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- Nicolas Cage brought about his own financial ruin with a spending spree that included two castles, 15 palatial homes, a flotilla of yachts and a squadron of Rolls Royces, his former business manager said.

"Cage discovered that he is now forced to sell major assets and investments at a significant loss and is faced with huge tax liabilities because of Levin's incompetence, misrepresentations and recklessness," Cage's lawsuit said. He asked the Los Angeles Superior Court for $20 million in damages from Levin.

. . .

It might be easily overlooked that his real last name is Coppola (related to Francis Coppola.)

****************

Jeremy Rifkin; a lot of his points sound "logical" but contradict the message he imparts (such as around 1hr 27 minutes he describes the sustainability of farm agriculture and supporting local farming so as not to waste resources in transport, when in fact places like New Zealand are significantly more viable for lamb than elsewhere, and some farming simply can't be done in certain parts of the world.) I think what he's really trying to admit is that the capitalist framework people have clung so greatly to is exploiting human psychology to address corporate greed, which in turn creates a society that is unsustainable. He also seems to believe with technologies limited progression in alternative energy sectors, that it isn't inherently biased towards eliminating the very hand that feeds it.

That many economic models take advantage of the infrastructure that helped to support it, often at the expense of the infrastructure which then must mold around that change to their paradigm. He suggests people will need to expect less and "be happy," which would go along with a pro-green idea where people get away from fuel and rely on new methods of sustainability.

The idea is that the limited amount of freshwater available, as well as fossil fuels, put a large number of resources into relying on it for economic and consumer interest. He was saying that just the energy infrastructure alone of France relies on half of all water consumption to generate electricity, for the water that also relies on electricity in order to facilate water purification and transport.

I’m looking into this a bit more, though I am only finding this video, and it might be anecdotal. The British man named Thomas Gaisford had an online presence a year or two after the 2014 disappearance and rediscovery 4 days after, though strangely never mentions anything in any of his social media presence.

It seems pretty clear from reading this that it was one source of information, though nothing supernatural is being described; she interprets his experience as if it had some paranormal undertone.
https://nehandaradio.com/2014/08/30/bri ... in-ordeal/

******************
The Age of Fraud: the link between capitalism and profiteering by deception
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/201 ... deception/

Start reading at the red-lettered quote section, as the beginning is just redundant.

It pretty much highlights my understandings of cultural malfeasance endemic to modern society, where people are dependent on manipulation and gaming a system.

Because capitalism also depends on faith in the system, the bigger the institution (as in commerce much like government and currency) the more leverage and continued transactions; inherently squashes the "little man," who must depend on the lure of recognition and identity, albeit through exploiting human nature and what conditions reward social influences.

The article was written by the person conducting this interview:

You might notice it's really talking about Africa (but hinting at a much broader influence from the historical imperialism roots that dominated it's recent history; though it shies away from any clear declaration apart from implying.