<div class="text-justify">


New winter tyres were fitted this morning, with the timing being "pretty good" this year, as it is expected to be the 4 degrees colder than average for the start of November, and snow is going to fall tomorrow. It was -8C (17F) last night already, but it warmed up to -2C when I was driving this morning. 

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23tm9eRc7hn3W2EeZho7rbr14mhN5MAi5Au3neezvE1npk7aCLzQwSZLXvGxA2awWVnKX.png)

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23tmHnoubRLadVnest5zwrqey3pzP6Cc8AiqNydUGPXv3givqFF9wJDpDAKLUgWbbcQ73.png)

Have you ever thought how silly Fahrenheit is and how clever the metric system is? For the Americans who may be reading. Water freezes at 0 Celsius and boils at 100C. But, it doesn't end there. At the maximum density (at 3.98C), one gram of water is one cubic centimeter. One liter is 1000 cm3 and weighs one kilogram. One meter is 100 centimeters, one centimeter is 10 millimeters. One kilometer is 1000 meters. 

>You get the idea....  

Oh, the tyres are made by Nokian Tyres and are called ["Hakkapeliitta"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta) which has its own Finnish history that dates back about 500 years to a light infantry brigade and their battle cry of, Hakkaa Päällä, which effectively means *Cut them down,* though the straight translation is "Beat on them". They carried broadswords and two [wheellock pistols](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheellock). 

<center>
![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/AJbjsuNcjr9mFRfkE8YZuapEkcjRTNcapmDg2UE759Hi8fbyeQHvvdRN37kGxJ5.png)
[](https://www.nokiantires.com/snow-winter-tires/nokian-tyres-hakkapeliitta-10/)
</center>


What was interesting, was when I ordered the tyre change last week, I thought I was going to get last season's model, the Hakkapellitta 9s, as the price was "lower" than expected. But once fitted, I was surprised to find they are the 10s. The Finnish maker of these also has the largest chain of tyre stores, and *exactly the same* model is 22% more expensive there. I knew it would be a bit cheaper at this place, but that is ludicrous. It was still more than I wanted to pay.

>Is it ever *less than* wanted to pay?

That might be an interesting question to explore, because it may require evaluating what we are actually paying for. For instance, most people will complain about the cost of healthcare and believe nurses should get paid more, yet the same people will not bat an eyelid at a sports star getting a 300 million dollar, five year contract. That is about the average salary for over 700 registered nurses in the US. Is one player worth that?

>Supply and Demand.

We essentially *want to pay more* for nurses when we believe that they should get paid more, but at a practical level, we won't actually pay more. We'd rather be entertained. For instance, the average NBA player gets about 11,000,000 per year in salary, and with 450 players, that amounts to 4,950,000,000 (4.95B) in a year. If the average salary of a registered nurse is 90K (it is quite a bit lower in reality), the NBA salaries cover 55,000 *additional* nurses. The average age of a registered nurse is 52, and there are almost 200,000 job openings per year in the US. 

But obviously, it isn't just about nurses, as there are a whole lot of positions that probably should be better paid, but aren't, because there *just isn't enough money* to pay them. Which is kind of interesting to consider, isn't it? Because, using the NBA salaries as an example, the consumer isn't paying that directly, so it doesn't come as "entertainment budget". 


![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/Eo2AwLDN51NMQfR2TzBMuZ5gu8g4B4m5WAVZhagDN6htsEM9LZhHy4RhSHTUBn6tDZF.png)

> $288 on Entertainment

There are 131M households in the US, which means that 452 billion dollars is spent on entertainment each year. However, how much of the food is entertainment related, how much of the apparel and services? For instance, digging a little deeper, the "Food category" can be split into groceries ($475) and takeout/restaurants ($303) - meaning over a third of the food could potentially be considered entertainment. 80 more is spent on alcohol ($49) and tobacco ($31) - are they entertainment too? Personal care products and services ($72) could also include potential entertainment and leisure activities, though I will give that a pass as self-care is important. 

But adding these up and being generous, around 14% of the monthly income is spent on entertainment in some form, whilst only 8% is spent on healthcare directly. Remember though, taxpayer funded healthcare is also paid for through salaries. This means that healthcare costs are subsidized, so they are actually higher. 

While entertainment is important for our health, I wonder where the balance is in what we are willing to spend, against what it is costing us in other important areas, like our own wellbeing. Can there be a state of too much entertainment to the point that it has a negative impact on us?

>I believe so.

And it isn't just in the monetary costs, because it affects us at every other level also. The more we consume entertainment on average, the less creative we become, the less motivated to act, the more sedentary. We think less, we move less, we aspire to less. Not only is it a money spinner, it has the added benefit of drawing and controlling attention in a way that degrades the audience, making us less able to change course. It is an attention capture machine, and we increasingly become a captured audience, with few tools and even less will to escape. 

>Pets.

Over the years, I have found the conversation around "value" from different perspectives very interesting, as many people seem to have some kind of intuition as to the worth of something, but they haven't necessarily thought explicitly about it. This likely means that we have been conditioned to value something higher or lower, even if we would be better off valuing something else instead. 

What that "something else" might be is a personal decision, but as a group, all of our decisions move towards trends, and those trends are both influenced by the suppliers in the market, as well as jumped upon and encouraged to generate even more demand. It doesn't matter if it is in our best interest to turn our attention to something else, because the people who make money from our attention, are incentivized to draw us to where they will make the most. 

Entertainment is a fantastic industry for generating wealth, because it is compelling due to its nature of not requiring us to do much, and in large enough quantities, will degrade us in multiple ways, meaning that it will spin into generate income in other industries too, like food, apparel and especially pharmaceutical. It is a brilliant monetary model, and not only this, it is built to be the platform for all of the advertising that influences us to consume more of it, as well as the other industries that get the indirect benefits of us getting worse.

It is not that all entertainment is bad, but like anything, there is a balance point. I believe that many of us have crossed that balance point willingly, without realizing the costs it is having on our culture, communities and personal wellbeing. But, instead of investigating the true value of what we spend our attention on, we have endless opportunities to distract us away. 

>Hakkaa Päällä

We are being beaten. We are being cutdown.
*And we are paying for the privilege.* 

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]

</div>
 

Posted Using [InLeo Alpha](https://inleo.io/@tarazkp/cut-them-down)