James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

With the Milano Cortina Olympics officially under way, it’s time to spend the next two weeks becoming ridiculously obsessed with a group of elite winter athletes. Oh, but there are so many sports and so many cuties, and your boss says it’s “unprofessional” to have Peacock streaming on your second monitor all day? I’ve got you. Here, all the stars, moments, and cafeteria dispatches you should know about from the Winter Olympics.

Tomàs-Llorenç Guarino Sabaté

There was a point last week when it looked like Guarino Sabaté wasn’t going to be allowed to perform his Minions-inspired short program. However, if enough people get upset about something, suddenly a “copyright-clearance issue” can disappear. Thankfully for all of us, Guarino Sabaté took to the ice in his full Minions regalia and had a blast doing it.

Sturla Holm Lægreid

Men will really air out your business on the world stage instead of going to therapy! After winning a bronze medal, Norwegian biathlete Sturla Holm Lægreid told the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation that he cheated on his girlfriend three months ago and came clean just before the Games. “I told her a week ago. And it’s been the worst week of my life,” Lægreid said. The athlete admitted that she dumped him (good for her) and that he hoped “committing social suicide” by coming clean on TV “might show her how much I love her.” I hope he has a backup plan.

Team USA’s first gold medal at the Games came from downhill skier Breezy Johnson. Unfortunately, it broke almost immediately. Following her podium ceremony, Johnson’s medal became disconnected from its ribbon and broke into three pieces. This may be something for the International Olympic Committee to look into — Alysa Liu’s gold medal also broke almost immediately. Hopefully, they have hot-glue guns in Italy.

The Curling Baby!

Switzerland’s mixed-doubles curling team is a married couple: Briar Schwaller-Hürlimann and Yannick Schwaller. That is already cute, but they brought their 18-month-old, River, to the Olympics as well. To make matters even cuter, the kid clearly has a knack for his parents’ sport. A not-insignificant chunk of NBC’s curling coverage was focused on River, who already handles the broom like a pro.

.

Photo-Illustration: by The Cut; Photos: Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article (plus associated videos and post):

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The former chief described his conversation with Mr. Trump to the F.B.I. in October 2019, two months after Mr. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, the memo shows. Mr. Reiter told The Miami Herald, which reported on the document earlier, that the call with Mr. Trump occurred in July 2006.

The account highlights the shifting explanations Mr. Trump has given about what he knew — and didn’t know — about Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. He has denied knowledge of Mr. Epstein abusing underage girls, but also said last year that the financier “stole” young women who worked at his Mar-a-Lago club. The White House has said Mr. Trump barred Mr. Epstein from the club “for being a creep.”

After Ms. Maxwell was arrested, Mr. Trump did not raise any concerns about her behavior. “I just wish her well, frankly,” Mr. Trump said of Ms. Maxwell in 2020. “I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach.”

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said she could not confirm the call had taken place but that, if it had, it would corroborate Mr. Trump’s statements that he had kicked Mr. Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago.

She said the phone call “may or may not have happened in 2006 — I don’t know the answer to that question.”

“What I’m telling you is that what President Trump has always said is that he kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club, because Jeffrey Epstein was a creep,” she added. “And that remains true, and this call, if it did happen, corroborates exactly what President Trump has said from the beginning.”

In the F.B.I.’s written account of the interview with Mr. Reiter, Mr. Trump is depicted as someone eager to relay to the police his concerns about Mr. Epstein’s conduct.

But in July 2019, shortly after Mr. Epstein’s arrest, Mr. Trump was asked by reporters if he had “any suspicions” that Mr. Epstein “was molesting young women, underaged women.”

“No, I had no idea. I had no idea,” Mr. Trump said at the time. “I haven’t spoken to him in many, many years. But I had — I didn’t have no idea.”

The White House on Tuesday referred questions about Mr. Reiter’s account to the Justice Department. The Justice Department, in a statement, said it had not corroborated the chief’s recollection of the conversation: “We are not aware of any corroborating evidence that the president contacted law enforcement 20 years ago.”

Mr. Reiter declined to comment.

Speaker Mike Johnson last year described Mr. Trump as an “informant” against Mr. Epstein. Mr. Johnson later clarified his remarks, saying he was not sure he used the right word, but that “President Trump was never a hindrance to the Epstein investigation. He was trying to assist in that.”

Mr. Trump has said that he “didn’t know” why Mr. Epstein was recruiting employees from Mar-a-Lago, but claimed that he threw him out of the club amid a dispute over stealing spa workers.

But other documents in the Epstein files appear to undercut that account, according to Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, who reviewed unredacted portions of the documents this week.

“Epstein’s lawyers synopsized and quoted Trump as saying that Jeffrey Epstein was not a member of his club at Mar-a-Lago, but he was a guest at Mar-a-Lago, and he had never been asked to leave,” Mr. Raskin said.

“It seems to be at odds with some things that President Trump has been saying recently about how he had kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of the club,” he added.

Revelations about Mr. Trump’s connections to Mr. Epstein have been a constant source of headache for the White House as it has tried to distance the president from the notorious sex offender.

Mr. Trump was friendly for at least 15 years with Mr. Epstein, and they were repeatedly spotted together at parties. But Mr. Trump has frequently tried to downplay their relationship.

Mr. Trump has said that the men broke off contact years ago, though there have been several explanations for the falling out.

In 2002, Mr. Trump told New York magazine, “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

But two years after Mr. Trump called Mr. Epstein a “terrific guy,” the two men became rivals over an oceanfront Palm Beach mansion that had fallen into foreclosure.

.

The former police chief’s account highlights the inconsistent statements President Trump has made over the years about his relationship with both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Credit…Kenny Holston/The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The latest bout of brutally cold weather that has beset the eastern U.S. for weeks sent wind chills into the negative teens and 20s Fahrenheit (negative mid-20s to negative low 30s Celsius) in the U.S. Northeast over the weekend. Meanwhile, out West, winter has brought record-breaking warmth that is more suited for spring and even summer. “I’m sitting here in a T-shirt in early February, a mile high in Colorado,” says climate scientist Daniel Swain of the California Institute for Water Resources.

This stark disparity is the product of a persistent atmospheric pattern. That pattern is about to break, however, and the weather fortunes of the two halves of the country are set to switch.

To explain what’s happening, let’s review a favorite winter weather bugaboo: the polar vortex. The vortex is like a circular rushing river of wind that corrals the bitterest cold air up in the Arctic. When the vortex weakens, that tight circle becomes wavier, akin to how a slow-moving river tends to meander in bends across the landscape, Swain says.

Where the vortex bends southward, cold air follows. And if it bends southward in one spot, it must bend northward in adjacent areas. In this case, the northward bend is happening over the western U.S., where it has pulled up warmer air.

Those bends tend to be set up in ways that reinforce background conditions related to Earth’s geography, Swain says. In the case of the U.S., the location of the Rockies, as well as the boundary between the Pacific Ocean and the land, means that, on average, a weak ridge (a northward bend in the jet stream) forms over the West and a weak trough (a southward bend) establishes over the East. The present dichotomy “is an amplification of that background pattern—a dramatic one,” Swain says.

The rapid warming of the Arctic may be making such weakening of the polar vortex more common, but researchers aren’t yet sure. “To the extent that it’s doing so, it hasn’t been enough to overcome the fact that that source of bitterly cold air isn’t as bitterly cold as it used to be,” Swain says.

This effect bears on the current situation. For the period of December 2025 to January 2026, no part of the contiguous U.S. had record cold. But 21 percent of the country had the warmest such period since 1940, according to climatologist Brian Brettschneider.

And as winters get warmer overall, these bouts of bitter cold become more disruptive because they are so unusual. People are less acclimated to freezing weather, and businesses may not make contingency plans. “For someone who is 25 or 30 years old, they may have had the coldest week in their life,” Swain says, whereas, for those out West, “it’s been the warmest winter regardless of age.”

Though the consequences of the cold have been widespread and acute—with travel disruptions, power outages, and scores of deaths—the warm western winter will also take a toll. Its consequences, however, will be delayed, with the potential for drought, water shortages, and a higher risk of wildfires in the coming months.

The upcoming weather switch up likely comes down to a subtle atmospheric shift. Understanding the details would take a dedicated study to unpack all the influences, Swain says, but it could be a change in where storms in the tropical Pacific are occurring, which can knock things around in the atmosphere like dominoes. Whatever the cause, temperatures will rise to more seasonable levels in the eastern U.S., and cooler, wetter weather will come to the West. Any rain or snow will be welcome, Swain says, but will be unlikely to erase the current deficit.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Socialism and capitalism are the two main economic systems used in most countries today. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is the extent to which the government controls the economy.

Key Takeaways: Socialism vs. Capitalism

• Socialism is an economic and political system under which the means of production are publicly owned. Production and consumer prices are controlled by the government to best meet the needs of the people.
• Capitalism is an economic system under which the means of production are privately owned. Production and consumer prices are based on a free-market system of “supply and demand.”
• Socialism is most often criticized for its provision of social services programs requiring high taxes that may decelerate economic growth.
• Capitalism is most often criticized for its tendency to allow income inequality and stratification of socio-economic classes.

Socialist governments strive to eliminate economic inequality by tightly controlling businesses and distributing wealth through programs that benefit the poor, such as free education and healthcare. Capitalism, on the other hand, holds that private enterprise utilizes economic resources more efficiently than the government and that society benefits when the distribution of wealth is determined by a freely-operating market. The United States is generally considered to be a capitalist country, while many Scandinavian and Western European countries are considered socialist democracies. In reality, however, most medium- and high-income countries—including the U.S.—employ a mixture of socialist and capitalist programs.

Capitalism Definition

Capitalism is an economic system under which private individuals own and control businesses, property, and capital—the “means of production.” The volume of goods and services produced is based on a system of “supply and demand,” which encourages businesses to manufacture quality products as efficiently and inexpensively as possible.

In the purest form of capitalism—free market or laissez-faire capitalism—individuals are unrestrained in participating in the economy. They decide where to invest their money, as well as what to produce and sell at what prices. True laissez-faire capitalism operates without government controls. In reality, however, most capitalist countries employ some degree of government regulation of business and private investment.

Capitalist systems make little or no effort to prevent income inequality. Theoretically, financial inequality encourages competition and innovation, which drive economic growth. Under capitalism, the government does not employ the general workforce. As a result, unemployment can increase during economic downturns. Under capitalism, individuals contribute to the economy based on the needs of the market and are rewarded by the economy based on their personal wealth.

Socialism Definition 

Socialism describes a variety of economic systems under which the means of production are owned equally by everyone in society. In some socialist economies, the democratically elected government owns and controls major businesses and industries. In other socialist economies, production is controlled by worker cooperatives. In a few others, individual ownership of enterprise and property is allowed, but with high taxes and government control. 

The mantra of socialism is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This means that each person in society gets a share of the economy’s collective production—goods and wealth—based on how much they need. Workers are paid their share of production after a percentage has been deducted to help pay for social programs that serve “the common good.” 

In contrast to capitalism, the main concern of socialism is the elimination of “rich” and “poor” socio-economic classes by ensuring an equal distribution of wealth among the people. To accomplish this, the socialist government controls the labor market, sometimes to the extent of being the primary employer. This allows the government to ensure full employment even during economic downturns. 

The Socialism vs. Capitalism Debate 

The key arguments in the socialism vs. capitalism debate focus on socio-economic equality and the extent to which the government controls wealth and production.

Ownership and Income Equality 

Capitalists argue that private ownership of property (land, businesses, goods, and wealth) is essential to ensuring the natural right of people to control their own affairs. Capitalists believe that because private-sector enterprise uses resources more efficiently than government, society is better off when the free market decides who profits and who does not. In addition, private ownership of property makes it possible for people to borrow and invest money, thus growing the economy. 

Socialists, on the other hand, believe that property should be owned by everyone. They argue that capitalism’s private ownership allows a relatively few wealthy people to acquire most of the property. The resulting income inequality leaves those less well off at the mercy of the rich. Socialists believe that since income inequality hurts the entire society, the government should reduce it through programs that benefit the poor, such as free education and healthcare and higher taxes on the wealthy. 

Consumer Prices

Under capitalism, consumer prices are determined by free market forces. Socialists argue that this can enable businesses that have become monopolies to exploit their power by charging excessively higher prices than warranted by their production costs. 

In socialist economies, consumer prices are usually controlled by the government. Capitalists say this can lead to shortages and surpluses of essential products. Venezuela is often cited as an example. According to UNHCR, “inflation…as well as shortages of food, medicine and essential services have forced millions to seek refuge…” Hyperinflation and deteriorating health conditions under the socialist economic policies of President Nicolás Maduro have driven an estimated 7.7 million people to leave the country as food became a political weapon. 

Efficiency and Innovation 

The profit incentive of capitalism’s private ownership encourages businesses to be more efficient and innovative, enabling them to manufacture better products at lower costs. While businesses often fail under capitalism, these failures give rise to new, more efficient businesses through a process known as “creative destruction.” 

Socialists say that state ownership prevents business failures, prevents monopolies, and allows the government to control production to best meet the needs of the people. However, say capitalists, state ownership breeds inefficiency and indifference as labor and management have no personal profit incentive.  

Healthcare and Taxation 

Socialists argue that governments have a moral responsibility to provide essential social services. They believe that universally needed services like healthcare, as a natural right, should be provided free to everyone by the government. To this end, hospitals and clinics in socialist countries are often owned and controlled by the government. 

Capitalists contend that state, rather than private control, leads to inefficiency and lengthy delays in providing healthcare services. In addition, the costs of providing healthcare and other social services force socialist governments to impose high progressive taxes while increasing government spending, both of which have a strong effect on the economy. However, in some capitalist countries such as the U.S., healthcare is unbearably expensive for the consumer.

Capitalist and Socialist Countries Today 

Today, there are few if any, medium- and high- countries that are 100% capitalist or socialist. Indeed, the economies of most countries combine elements of socialism and capitalism.

In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark—generally considered socialist—the government provides healthcare, education, and pensions. However, private ownership of property creates a degree of income inequality. An average of 65% of each nation’s wealth is held by only 10% of the people—a characteristic of capitalism.

The economies of Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, and North Korea incorporate characteristics of both socialism and communism.

While countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Ireland have strong socialist parties, and their governments provide many social support programs, most businesses are privately owned, making them essentially capitalist.

Though long considered the prototype of capitalism, the United States employs certain socialist-like social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and housing assistance. This is set in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, with one of the nation’s goals being to “promote the general welfare.”

Socialism

Contrary to popular belief, socialism did not evolve from Marxism. Societies that were to varying degrees “socialist” have existed or have been imagined since ancient times. Examples of actual socialist societies that predated or were uninfluenced by German philosopher and economic critic Karl Marx were Christian monastic enclaves during and after the Roman Empire and the 19th-century utopian social experiments proposed by Welsh philanthropist Robert Owen. Premodern or non-Marxist literature that envisioned ideal socialist societies include The Republic by Plato, Utopia by Sir Thomas More, and Social Destiny of Man by Charles Fourier. 

Socialism vs. Communism

Unlike socialism, communism is both an ideology and a form of government. As an ideology, it predicts the establishment of a dictatorship controlled by the working-class proletariat established through violent revolution and the eventual disappearance of social and economic class and state. As a form of government, communism is equivalent in principle to the dictatorship of the proletariat and in practice to a dictatorship of communists. In contrast, socialism is not tied to any specific ideology. It presupposes the existence of the state and is compatible with democracy, and allows for peaceful political change.

Capitalism 

While no single person can be said to have invented capitalism, capitalist-like systems existed as far back as ancient times. The ideology of modern capitalism is usually attributed to Scottish political economist Adam Smith in his classic 1776 economic treatise “The Wealth of Nations”. The origins of capitalism as a functional economic system can be traced to 16th to 18th century England, where the early Industrial Revolution gave rise to mass enterprises, such as the textile industry, iron, and steam power. These industrial advancements led to a system in which accumulated profit was invested to increase productivity—the essence of capitalism.

Despite its modern status as the world’s predominant economic system, capitalism has been criticized for several reasons throughout history. These include the unpredictable and unstable nature of capitalist growth, social harms, such as pollution and abusive treatment of workers, and forms of economic disparity, such as income inequality. Some historians connect profit-driven economic models such as capitalism to the rise of oppressive institutions such as human enslavement, colonialism, and imperialism.

.

Hand flips a dice and changes the word “Socialism” to “Capitalism”, or vice versa. Fokusiert / Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Bad Bunny made history at the Super Bowl on Sunday, giving voice to Puerto Rican history and culture, and doing so in Spanish at a time when that alone could get you picked up by masked immigration agents. Though Bad Bunny did not yell “ICE out” or otherwise call out the Trump administration directly, his performance was unapologetically political.

And you know what? It was a party, too, complete with live salsa, perreo dancing, and even a wedding. You didn’t have to understand Spanish or know anything of what he was talking about to enjoy it. But if you do speak Spanish, it was so much more.

We knew he would probably use the show to make a statement, but even we weren’t prepared for the emotional roller coaster Bad Bunny, a.k.a. Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, took us on. It felt subversive to see this display of joy, pride, and resistance. It often felt as though there were two different shows unfolding — one for America and one for América.

His 13-minute set opened with a man dressed in white, guitar in hand and wearing a pava, the classic straw hat worn by the Puerto Rican jíbaro, or small farmer, a contradictory symbol who is the embodiment of Puerto Rican national culture. “Que rico es ser Latino,” he said, holding his guitar. “How wonderful it is to be Latino.” That line tugged on the heartstrings of Latinos, immigrants, and others who, like Bad Bunny, have been told they don’t belong here.

At times, Bad Bunny looked into the camera and spoke to us directly — in Spanish, telling us to believe in ourselves, that we are so much more than we think we are. He sang, “Este es P.R.” — “This is P.R.” — and winked through the camera to those of us at home. And of course, there were the white plastic chairs that have come to symbolize the displacement addressed in his recent album and that sit in and on patios, porches, and marquesinas, or carports, all over the Americas.

People magazine described the performance as a “fun-filled dance party” that largely abandoned politics in favor of sexiness, joy, and tropical flavor. A friend texted to say she was especially annoyed when one media outlet referred to the plants onstage as “shrubbery,” oblivious to how those sugar cane fields recalled a long history of chattel slavery and colonialism in the Caribbean.

During the set, Bad Bunny performed “El Apagón,” a searing critique of Puerto Rico’s failing electrical grid and the long legacy of colonialism behind it. The jíbaros were recast as electrical workers, evoking the ingenuity of Puerto Ricans rebuilding after Hurricane Maria amid federal negligence. Where some viewers may have seen only electrical poles, we saw an acknowledgment of one of the most painful chapters in Puerto Rico’s recent history. And yet, the workers and Bad Bunny still danced, still partied, still lived.

Our friends in Los Angeles cheered when they saw the popular Villa’s Tacos stand, while those in Brooklyn lit up when Toñita of Williamsburg’s Caribbean Social Club handed Bad Bunny a drink. Nearly halfway through the show, the music stopped, and the camera cut to a real couple — two fans who had originally invited Bad Bunny to their wedding — being pronounced husband and wife during the performance.

In the reception scene that followed, the sight of a child dozing across the chairs reminded us of family parties and the endless waiting for our parents to call it a night. We saw ourselves in the little girl Bad Bunny spun around — memories of itchy puffy dresses at family gatherings, dancing with uncles, weaving between grown-ups to chase cousins. “Baila sin miedo, ama sin miedo,” Bad Bunny shouted. “Dance without fear. Love without fear.”

But there was more than feel-good nostalgia wrapped up in that halftime show. In one particularly poignant moment, Ricky Martin appeared sitting on a white chair in the Puerto Rican countryside to sing “Lo Que Le Pasó a Hawaii,” one of Bad Bunny’s most explicit pro-independence anthems. In the song, Bad Bunny urges Puerto Ricans to hold onto their culture and their land in the face of gentrification and displacement.

Mr. Martin crossed over into the English-language market during the 1990s, helping usher in the Latin pop boom. To do so, he embodied many of the stereotypes associated with Latinos. Many likely remember him as the happy-go-lucky, hip-thrusting Latin lover who urged you to “shake your bon-bon.” Since then, he has come out as gay and become a vocal advocate for Puerto Rican sovereignty, joining Bad Bunny at the 2019 protests that led to the ouster of the governor at the time, Ricardo Rosselló.

In Mr. Martin’s autobiography, he wrote that he feared that acknowledging he was gay would ruin his career. He didn’t publicly come out until he was in his late 30s. As he sang, our minds flashed back to a scene moments earlier, where two male dancers grinded together as they stared at each other, sin miedo. It was a quiet yet defiant statement about queerness, visibility, and Latin identity.

Bad Bunny showed us that when he said, “We are Americans” at the Grammys, he wasn’t merely referring to citizenship status. He was challenging this country’s ever-narrowing definitions of who is — and is not — American.

Through a celebration of wedding, family, joy, and community, he created a showcase in which many Latinos, especially Puerto Ricans, felt seen, heard, and represented at every turn, with millions dancing along at home, even if they didn’t know exactly what was going on. He invited us all to join the party. And that might just be the biggest form of resistance for all.

.

Adam Hunger/Associated Press

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com/

.

__________________________________________

.

.

“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king, the palace instead becomes a circus. — Turkish proverb,”

 

Hmmmmm…History is repeating itself yet again!

 

Isaiah 59:14

New Living Translation

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

You might find these videos enlightening!

.

A. R. Bernard: one of many

.

.

Click the link below for the videos:

https://www.youtube.com

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

For the first time in more than a decade, the Seattle Seahawks are playing in the Super Bowl—but what exactly is the team’s mascot? There’s no one bird officially dubbed the seahawk, but a few different species have taken on the nickname. Meanwhile, the team’s imagery and live animals at events seem to portray different bird species entirely.

The history of the name dates back to 1975, when fans suggested the “Seahawks” appellation for the city’s then-nameless team that would begin playing the next year. According to the government of Anacortes, Wash.—a city north of Seattle that claims to be the original home of the name seahawk for its high school mascot—the name arose as a nickname for the osprey because of its talons that are uniquely fit to catch fish. Ospreys go by other names, too, including river hawk and fish hawk, and they “embark on these long, arduous journeys and have to survive a lot of obstacles,” says Robert Domenech, executive director of the Raptor View Research Institute in Montana. “The Seahawks have had to survive and overcome lots of challenges and adversities to be able to make it to the Super Bowl, much like an osprey.”

Skuas, large predatory birds from the North Atlantic, have been referred to as seahawks as well. This species is known for its broad shoulders and its habit of aggressively attacking other birds—perhaps providing some inspiration for the team’s players as Sunday approaches. Skuas, however, are not technically hawks, because they don’t seize and grasp prey with their feet, Domenech says.

So do Ospreys or Skuas appear as the Seahawk mascot? The answer seems to be no: all different types of birds are used in the team’s imagery. The blues and greens of the Seahawks’ logo don’t match either species, with some saying the art instead nods to the brightly colored ceremonial masks of Seattle’s Indigenous communities. One ornithologist noted in 2015 that the logo looks strikingly similar to sea eagles, a group of birds including the bald eagle—the mascot for the 2025 Super Bowl–winning Philadelphia Eagles.

A live bird named Taima can be seen at some Seahawks games, but he is in fact an Augur Hawk, which could be because it’s illegal to use ospreys for commercial purposes. And finally, the Seahawks’ official costumed mascot, Blitz, does have an online profile to go by, but he claims no species—only that he’s 6’1” and loves reading, fitness, and bird-watching.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Elon Musk sits comfortably at the top of the billionaires list as the world’s richest person.

Key Takeaways

• Despite an estimated net worth of $662 billion, Elon Musk supports the idea that money does not guarantee happiness.
• Musk advises people to focus on building useful products and services, saying that money should be a byproduct of creating value.
• Sociologist David Bartram suggests that at a certain threshold of wealth, money adds little value to people’s overall happiness.

With a net worth of $662 billion, Elon Musk is the richest person in the world. He is also firmly at the top — the divide between him and the second-richest person in the world, Google co-founder Larry Page, is nearly $400 billion. 

Despite all of that wealth, Musk recently questioned the power of money to make life happier. In a post on X earlier this week, Musk wrote, “Whoever said ‘money can’t buy happiness’ really knew what they were talking about.” The post has accumulated over 96 million views at the time of this writing. Musk did not elaborate further on what sparked his public musings. 

The Tesla CEO has spoken before about the role of money in his life. In a November conversation with investor Nikhil Kamath on the podcast People by WTF, he advised people to aim to be a “net contributor to society” rather than obsessing over how much money they make. 

“Aim to make more than you take,” Musk said on the podcast. 

He compared the pursuit of money to the pursuit of happiness, saying that if you make either your main goal, you will probably end up disappointed. Instead, he suggested focusing on creating useful products and services. “If you do that, then money will come as a natural consequence, as opposed to pursuing money directly,” he said. 

In November, Tesla approved a historic $1 trillion pay package for Musk that hinges on him meeting several product and financial milestones. The unprecedented pay is the biggest executive compensation proposal ever approved in corporate history. For Musk to receive the full pay, Tesla must hit an $8.5 trillion market cap, a feat never achieved before by any other company.

What experts have said about money and happiness

Sociologist David Bartram, an associate professor at the University of Leicester, told Business Insider that there is a link between wealth and happiness. Money does increase happiness, especially when people move out of poverty and into financial security. Higher income can reduce daily stress, improve health outcomes, and provide access to better housing, education, and leisure, all of which tend to boost life satisfaction, he said. 

However, Bartram cautioned that the relationship weakens as people become richer. These benefits follow a pattern of diminishing returns: each extra dollar matters less once basic needs and some comforts are covered. After a certain point, more money adds very little to how happy people feel day-to-day.

“Once you’ve got a few million, anything extra is meaningless for happiness,” Bartram told the outlet. 

Another expert, psychologist Matthew Killingsworth, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, presented a contrasting take. He found in a 2021 study that happiness increased parallel to a person’s rising income, and there was no limit to the positive effect money had on happiness. So, the more money someone had, the happier they tended to be — no matter how much money they made. 

Killingsworth explained the findings to The Guardian, stating that he was shocked by the marked difference in happiness between those who are wealthy and those who are low-income. 

“If the differences in income/wealth are very large, the differences in happiness can be, too,” he told the publication. 

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________