Flight into the home was only part of a general postwar retreat from the World—a flight that would have occurred without Baby and Child Care. The phenomena was established as a pattern after the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil, which spawned many home renovations and renovation television programs. This was in response to the World seeming like a dangerous place and people wanting somewhere they can go and feel safe, comfortable, protected, and have a sophisticated environment. The pattern continued during the 2020 COVID pandemic. Only this time, houses got larger, became multigenerational, and outdoor living was seen as a major aspect of homeownership. Not only did people want to feel more comfortable at home, but they wanted space to work, party, and enjoy the great outdoors without leaving their home. No revolution produces total change—much of the old machinery is retained more or less intact. Those intimate with the machinery are in the best position to facilitate the rootling and redirection. We live in a culture that is preoccupied with tradition, with community, with relationships—with many things that would reinstate the validity of accumulated wisdom. From ordinary psychology, and from ordinary thinking, we know that the intellectual functions, thoughts, and so on, are controlled or produced by a certain center which we call “mind” or “intellect,” or “the brain.” And this is quite right. Only, to be fully right, we must understand that other functions are also controlled each by its own mind or center. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

Thus, from the point of view of the system, there are four minds or centers which control our ordinary actions: intellectual mind, emotional mind, moving mind, and instinctive mind. In further references to them we shall call them centers. Each center is quite independent of the others, has its own sphere of action, its own powers, and its own ways of development. Centers, that is, their structure, capacities, strong sides, and defects, belong to essence. Their contents, that is, all that a center acquires, belong to personality. The contents of centers will be explained later. Personality is as equally necessary for the development of a man as is essence, only it must stand it its right place. This is hardly possible, because personality is full of wrong ideas about itself. It does not wish to stand in its right place, because its right place is secondary and subordinate; and it does not wish to know the truth about itself, for to know the truth will mean abandoning its falsely dominant position, and occupying the inferior position which rightly belongs to it. The wrong relative positions of essence and personality determine the present disharmonious state of man. And the only way to get out of this disharmonious state is by self-knowledge. To know oneself—this was the first principle and the first demand of old psychological schools. We sill remember these words, but have lost their meaning. We think that to know ourselves means to know our peculiarities, our desires, our tastes, our capacities, and our intentions, when in reality it means to know ourselves as machines, that is, to know the structure of one’s machine, its parts, functions of different parts, the conditions governing their work, and so on. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

We must remember this in relation to ourselves and must remember this in relation to ourselves and must study our own machines as machines. The means of study is self-observation. There is no other way and no one can do this work for us. We must do it ourselves. However, before we must learn how to observe. I mean, we must understand the technical side of observation: we must know that it is necessary to observe different function and distinguish between them, remembering, at the same time, about different states of consciousness, about our sleep, and about the many “I’s” in us. Such observations will very soon give results. First of all a man will notice that he cannot observe everything he finds in himself impartially. Some thins may please him, and other things will annoy him, irritate him, even horrify him. And it cannot be otherwise. Man cannot study himself as a remote star, or as a curious fossil. Quite naturally he will like in himself what helps his development and dislike what makes his development more difficult, or even impossible. This means that very soon after starting to observe oneself, he will begin to distinguish useful features or and harmful features in oneself, that is, useful or harmful from the point of view of his possible self-knowledge, his possible awakening, his possible development. He will see sides of himself which can become conscious, and side which cannot become conscious and must be eliminated. In observing himself, he must always remember that his self-study is the first step towards his possible evolution. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

Now we must see what are those harmful features that man finds in himself. Speaking in general, they are all mechanical manifestations. The first, as has already been said, is lying. Lying is unavoidable in mechanical life. No one can escape it, and the more one thinks that one is free from lying, the more one is in it. Life as it is could not exist without lying. However, from the psychological side, lying has a different meaning. It means speaking about things one does not know, and even cannot know, as though one knows and can know. You must understand that I do not speak from any moral point of view. We have not yet come to question of what is good, and what is bad, by itself. I speak only from a practical point of view, of what is useful and what is harmful to self-study and self-development. Starting in this way, man very soon learns to discover signs by which he can know harmful manifestations in himself. He discovers that the more he can control a manifestation, the less harmful it can be, and that the less he can control it, that is, the more mechanical it is, the more harmful it can become. When man understands this, he becomes afraid of lying, again not on moral grounds, but on the grounds that he cannot control his lying, an that lying controls him, that is, his other functions. The second dangerous feature he finds in himself is imagination. Very soon after starting his observation of himself he comes to the conclusion that the chief obstacle to observation is imagination. He wishes to observe something, but instead of that, imagination starts him on the same subject, and he forgets about observation. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Very soon he realizes that people ascribe to the word “imagination” a quite artificial and quite underserved meaning in the sense of creative or selective faculty. He realizes that imagination is a destructive faculty, that he can never control it, and that it always carries him away from his more conscious decisions in a direction in which he had no intention of going. Imagination is almost as bad as lying; it is, in fact, lying to oneself. Man starts to imagine something in order to please himself, and very soon he begins to believe what he imagines, or at least some of it. Further, or even before that, one finds many very dangerous effects in the expression of negative emotions.  The term “negative emotions” means all emotions of violence or depression: self-pity, anger, suspicion, fer, annoyance, boredom, mistrust, jealousy, and so one. Ordinarily, one accepts this expression of negative emotions as quite natural and even necessary. Very often people call it “sincerity.” Of course it has nothing to do with sincerity; it is simply a sign of weakness in man, a sign of bad temper and of incapacity to keep his grievances to himself. Man realizes this when he tries to oppose it. And by this he learns another lesson. He realizes that in relation to mechanical manifestations it is not enough to observe them, it is necessary to resist them, because without resisting them one cannot observe them. They happen so quickly, so habitually, and so imperceptibly, that one cannot notice them if one does not make sufficient efforts to create obstacles for them. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

After the expression of negative emotions one notices in oneself or in other people another curious mechanical feature. This is talking. There is no harm in talking by itself. However, with some people, especially with those who notice it least, it really becomes a vice. They talk all the time, everywhere they happen to be, while working, while traveling, even while sleeping. They never stop talking to someone if there is someone to talk to, and if there is no one, they talk to themselves. This too must not only be observed, but resisted as much as possible. With unresisted talking one cannot observe anything, and all the results of a man’s observations will immediately evaporate in talking. When working with the mentally ill or dealing with the public in general, especially around the holidays, it is important to have impulse control. Impulse control is the degree to which a person can control the desire for immediate gratification or other; impulse control may be the single most important indicator of a person’s future adaptation in terms of number of friends, school performance and future employment. Our society is enmeshed in a major social transformation, driven in part by, and deriving much of its distinctive character from the amazing advances in technologies of information. The rate of technical change in processing, storage, bandwidth, sensing, and effecting is dizzying. The technical changes in turn facilitate large shifts in most of our fundamental institutions: in nation-states, communication industries, churches, armies, factories, friendship networks, and more. The rate of social change is intoxicating, disorienting, and probably accelerating. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

The transitions underway as referred to as the “Information Revolution,” although forces other than information technology are also deeply involved. Transportation, biotechnology, marketing, and a host of other technologies have expanded dramatically in the last half-century. Information technology has fueled these expansions and been shaped by them. While acknowledging these complications, we concentrate here on the Information Revolution, the aspect of our era that seems to us to have the most novel and transforming properties. An Information Revolution seems to demand policy interventions at every level of social organization. What shall notion-states do about encryption of boundary-spanning financial crimes? What shall families do about unsavory materials their children can easily access? What shall armies do to prepare for attacks on “infostructure”? What shall charitable organizations and business firms do about the privacy of records kept in their clienteles? In all these cases and thousands more, deep questions are being asked about how interventions—designs and policies—can steer future developments in beneficial directions. In an era in which so many customary social, political, and economic arrangements seem up for grabs, what interventions will bring us to a future we would prefer? In all of these settings, people often ask how the likely consequences of actions can be foreseen. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

Using our framework, we depart sharply from conventional efforts to foretell the future and draw policy implications for the unfolding Information Revolution. Instead, we offer a way to analyze the situations and intervention possibilities that flow unceasingly from this enormous change. We have offered purposeful questions where general answers can be known. We can start by considering why at this historical and technological juncture we should expect the future events in an Information Revolution to be especially difficult to discern. Our answer lies in the complexity of the social and technical processes whose rates of change are accelerated. Our view of the relevance of work on Complex Adaptive Systems can be grounded by examining two arguments. They relate the concept of information to complexity and adaptation. Of course, not all the images and words used are cannibalized from serious or sacred contexts, and one must admit tht as things stand at the moment it is quite unthinkable for the image of Jesus Christ to be used to sell wine. At least no a chardonnay. On the other hands, his birthday is used as an occasion for commerce to exhaust nearly the entire repertoire of Christian symbology. The constraints are so few that we may call this a form of cultural rape, sanctioned by an ideology that gives boundless supremacy to technological progress and is indifferent to the unraveling of tradition. In putting it this way, I mean to say that mass advertising is not the cause of great symbol drain. Such cultural abuse could not have occurred without technologies to make it possible and a World-view to make it desirable. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

In the institutional form it has taken in the United States of America, advertising is a symptom of a World-view that see tradition as an obstacle to its claims. There can, of course, be no functioning sense of tradition without a measure of respect for symbols. Tradition is, in fact, nothing but the acknowledgement of the authority of symbols and the relevance of the narratives tht gave birth to them. With the erosion of symbols there follows a loss of narrative, which is one of the most debilitating consequences of Technopoly’s power. We may take as an example the field of education. In Technoply, we improve the education of our youth by improving what are called “learning technologies.” At the moment, it is considered necessary to introduce computers to the classroom, as it once was thought necessary to bring closed-circuit television and film to the classroom. To the question “Why should we do this?” the answer is: “To make learning more efficient and more interesting.” Such an answer is considered entirely adequate, since in Technopoly efficiency and interest need no justification. It is, therefore, usually not noticed that this answer does not address the questions “What is learning for?” “Efficiency and interest” is a technical answer, an answer about means, not ends; and it offer no pathway to a consideration of educational philosophy. Indeed, it blocks the way to such a consideration by beginning with the question of how we should proceed rather than with the question of why. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

It is probably not necessary to say that, by definition, there can be no education philosophy that does not address what learning is for. Confucius, Plato, Quintilian, Cicero, Comenius, Erasmus, Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Russell, Montessori, Whitehead, and Dewey—each believed that there was some transcendent political, spiritual, or social idea that must be advance through education. Confucius advocated teaching, “the Way” because in tradition he saw the best hope of social order. As our first systematic fascist, Plato wished education to produce philosopher kinds. Cicero argued that education must free the student from the tyranny of the present. Jefferson thought the purpose of education is to teach the young how to protect their liberties. Rousseau wished education to free the young from the unnatural constraints of a wicked and arbitrary social order. And among John Dewey’s aims was to help the student function without certainty in a World of constant change and puzzling ambiguities. Only in knowing something of the reasons why they advocated education can we make sense of the means the suggest. However, to understand their reason we must also understand the narratives that governed their view of the World. By narrative, present a human history that fives meaning to the past, explains the present, and provides guidance for the future. It is a story whose principles help a culture to organize its institutions, to develop ideals, and to find authority for its actions. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

Once again, the resource of the World’s greatest narratives has been religion, as found, for example, in Genesis or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Koran. There are those who believe—as did the great historian Arnold Toynbee—that without a comprehensive religious narrative at its center a culture must decline. Perhaps. There are, after all, other sources—mythology, politics, philosophy, and science, for example—but it is certain that no culture can flourish without narratives of transcendent origin and power. This does not mean that the mere existence of such a narrative ensures a culture’s stability and strength. There are destructive narratives. A narrative provides meaning, not necessarily survival—as, for example, the story provided by Adolph Hitler to the German nation in the 1930s. Drawing on sources in Teutonic mythology and resurrecting ancient and primitive symbolism, Hitler wove a tale of Aryan supremacy that lifted German spirits, gave point to their labours, eased their distress, and provided explicit ideals. The story glorified the past, elucidated the present, and foretold the future, which was to last a thousand years. The Third Reich lasted exactly twelve years. It is not my point to dwell on the reasons why the story of Aryan supremacy is facing challenges enduring. Cultures must have narratives and will find them where they will, even if they lead to catastrophe. The alternative is to love without meaning, the ultimate negation of life itself. It is also to point to say that each narrative is given its form and its emotional texture through a cluster of symbols that call for respect and allegiance, even devotion. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

The United States of America’s Constitution, for example, is only in a part a legal document, and, a small part. Democratic nations—England, for one—do not require a written constitution to ensure legal order and the protection of liberties. The importance of the American Constitution is largely in its function as a symbol of the story of our origins. It is our political equivalent of Genesis. To mock it, to ignore it, to circumvent it is to declare the irrelevance of the story of the United States of America as a moral light unto the World. In like fashion, the American Flag is the key symbol of the story of America as the natural home of the teeming masses, for anywhere, yearning to be free. There are, of course, several reasons why such stories lose their force. The growth of Technopoly has overwhelmed earlier, more meaningful stories. However, in all cases, the trivialization of the symbols that express, support, and dramatize the story will accompany the decline. Symbol drain is both a symptom and a cause of a loss of narrative. In Guys and Dolls, gambler Sky Masterson relates this valuable advice from his father: “Son, one of these days in your travels a guy is going to come to you and show you a nice brand-new deck of cards on which the deal is not yet broken, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But son, do not bet this man, for as sure as you stand there you are going to wind up with cider in your ear.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

The context of the story is that Nathan Detroit had offered Sky Masterson a bet about whether Mindy’s sold more strudel or cheesecake. Nathan had just discovered the answer (strudel) and was willing to bet if Sky would bet on cheesecake. This example may sound somewhat extreme. Of course no one would take such a sucker bet. However, look at the market for futures contracts on the Chicago Board of Exchange. If another speculator offers to sell you a future contract, he will make money only if you lose money. This deal is a zero-sum game, just like sports competitions, in which one team’s victory is the other’s loss. Hence if someone is willing to sell a futures contract, you should not be willing to buy it. And vice versa. The strategic insight is that other people’s actions tell us something about what they know, and we should use such information to guide our own action. Of course, we should use this in conjunction with our own information concerning the matter and use all strategic devices to elicit more from others. In the Guys and Dolls example, there is a simple device of this kind. Sky should ask Nathan at what odds he would be willing to take the cheesecake side of the bet. If the answer is “not at any odds,” then Sky can infer that the answer must be strudel. If Nathan offers the same odds for both strudel and cheesecake, he is hiding his information at the cost of giving Sky the opportunity to take an advantageous gamble. In stock markets, foreign exchange markets, and other financial markets, people are free to take either side of the bet in just this way. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

Indeed, in some organized exchanges, including the London stock market, when you ask for a quote on a stock the market-maker is required to state both the buying and selling prices before he knows which side of the transaction you want. Without such a safeguard, market-makers could stand to profit from private information, and the outside investors’ fear of being suckered might cause the entire market to fold. The buy and sell prices are not quite the same; the difference is called the bid-ask spread. In liquid markets the spread is quite small, indicating that little information contained in any buy or sell order. On the other hand, Nathan Detroit is willing to bet on strudel at any price and on cheesecake at no price; his bid-ask spread is infinity. Beware of such market-makers. We should add that Sky had not really learned his father’s teaching very well. A minute later he bet Nathan that Nathan did not know the colour of his own bowtie. Sky cannot win: if Nathan knows the colour, he takes the bet and wins; if he does not, he declines the bet and does not lose. If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one’s own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes. It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of double-think are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the World as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion: the more intelligent, the less sane. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

The United States of America and Europe increasingly differ in their relationships not only to the deep economic fundamentals of time and space but to the knowledge as well—including knowledge-intensive technologies. In 2022, the PC market in Europe generated $68 billion U.S. dollars in revenue as against the $10.4 billion by the United States of America and $57.7 by Japan. Of the top ten I.T. companies in the World in 2022—including Microsoft Corporation, IBM, Accenture, Oracle, SAP, TCS, DXC, Delloite Consulting, Capgemini, Cognizant—only SAP and Capgemini are European. Only thirty European producers make it onto the list of the World’s three hundred biggest software companies, and only two—Capgemini and SAP are in the top ten. Like North America and Japan, Europe is a leading player in the generation of scientific and technological competencies. The combined R&D budget of the EU-25 is more than two-thirds that of the United States of America, and nearly double that of Japan. The output of the EU is substantially higher than the of the United States of America, but strongly reflects the size of the EU, which has a population much larger than the USA or Japan. However, Europe is losing ground in the most dynamic and technologically advanced part of the economy. The concern about an increasing technological gap is certainly not new: as early as the 1960s we heard about “the American challenge,” and similar concerned were reiterated in the 1980s and in the 1990s. Europe is not the only region concerned about its technological performance. Similar worries were echoed in America, and we would doubtless find comparable statements in the Far East as well. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

However, saying that the neighbour’s grass is always greener cannot dismiss the issue of poor performance by the European economy in key aspects of knowledge-based production. The gap in living standards between the European Union and the U.S.A. is now wider than it has ever been in the past 25 years. The commission also warned that Europe is about to miss the boat on the biotech revolution. The commission also found that both the United States of America and Japan invest more per capita in nanotechnology R&D than the European Union, and that “the gap is expected to widen.” Innovation is a key to economic success, but it is an area where Europe needs to excel quickly. Some people believe the European Union needs to do a better job of catching up with America. The union’s economy matches that of the United States of America in the late 1970s. Europe’s leaders are still shortchanging research and development, science and science education, still brushing off the “new economy” and complaining about de-industrialization. Europe is the planet’s leading industrial power. However, the United States of America is the planet’s leading “no-longer-industrial power.” And Europe, with some important exceptions, has still not adequately altered its relationship to the deep fundamental of knowledge—and to revolutionary wealth. In the years ahead, the big countries of Western Europe could see many of their low-tech manufacturing jobs migrate to the lower-cost E.U. member states in for former Soviet bloc or elsewhere. Failure to replace these jobs through a faster transition to services and knowledge-based, innovation-intensive, and higher-value-added production will increase unemployment levels—already significantly higher than those in the United States of America or Japan. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

In turn, this will further increase anti-immigrant tensions—and the potential for escalating militancy and terrorism in Europe’s large Muslim underclass. The car-burning riots in France may only be a foreshadow of things to come. Part of Western Europe’s problem is deep-seated hostility toward technology. Its trade unions fear job losses. Its NGOs offer knee-jerk opposition to new technologies often because of imagined dangers. While a technophiliac Asia races to adopt the latest advances, technophobic Western Europeans create obstacles to their development and application. This technophobia is somewhat less apparent as one moves eastward to the former Communist countries. The Czech Republic, with one of the World’s highest percentages of science and engineering graduates compared with all degrees awarded there, has attracted projects by IMB, Accenture, Logica and Olympus. Slovenia has all the attributes of a top destination for smaller knowledge-economy projects, high-tech centers, distribution and logistic hubs and call centers. Hungary already claims Nokia’s largest R&D center outside Finland, and ExxonMobil has opened a new headquarters in Budapest to consolidate its European I.T and accounting support operations. The European Union itself, the value of Hungary’s high-tech exports already rivaled those of Denmark or Spain. Eastern European members may soon be scouting high-tech, value added niches ignored by slower-moving Western European—and pondering the possibility of actually leaping ahead of some of their neighbours. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

With respect, therefore, to all three of the deep fundamentals we have explored—time, space and knowledge—the United States of America and Europe are moving apart. And that would be happening even if differences over the war in the Ukraine had never been an issue. To reverse that process, the United States of America would need to stall or drive in reverse as Europe, with a new map, accelerates its transition to a Third Wave wealth system. Someday, if one listens to its triumphalists, Europe could become a global counterweight to what may see as excessive American power. However, the geopolitical power of nations presupposes economic and military might—both of which now increasingly depend on that softest of all resources: Knowledge. Regrettably, it would appear, Europe has still not received that lost-in-the spam folder message. The best surviving example of feudal organization today is found in the university, where each department is a barony, professors are ranked and rule over graduate assistants, who make up the body of serfs. This feudal holdover is embedded within (and often war with) the bureaucratic administrative structure of the university. Another example is the Congress of the United States of America, where 535 elected “barons” rule over a huge bureaucratic staff. A similar combination of industrial bureaucracy and feudal barony is found in the Big Eight accounting firms, in large law offices, in brokerage houses, and in the military, where each service—army, navy, or air force—is a fiercely independent fiefdom. Generals and admirals in charge of these fiefdoms may have more real power than higher-ranked officers in staff positions who command no troops. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

In “buro-baronies” the barons war with one another, often forming alliances to weaken central control. Such feudal elements are still found in business as well, along with what we might call “vestigial vassalage.” George Masters is a veteran engineer who has worked for several U.S. electronics manufacturers and now serves as the administrative aide to Philip Ames, a corporate VP in one of the World’s largest computer firms. If anyone in personnel took the trouble to check, they would discover that Masters came into the company shortly after Ames arrived. And if they were to check further, they would discover the same thing happened in the company that employed both of them before they took their present jobs. And the one before that. Hard-drinking buddies as well as workmates, Masters and Ames socialize together. They and their wives take vacations together. In fact, Masters and Ames (the people are real, the names are not) have worked together for more than fifteen years, Masters always following Ames as Ames hopped to successively higher positions. This pattern, whether called “hitching your wagon to a star” or “riding on someone’s coattails, is found in almost every large firm. Because it sharply reduces the need for communication—the two men know each other so well they can anticipate each other’s reactions—it is highly efficient for some purposes, even though it violates formal personnel rules that call for “objective” selection. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

The psychology of “vassalage” is extremely complex, involving everything from mentorships to the exchange of financial, pleasures of the flesh, or other favors. At its heart, however, the system is feudal and subjective, rather than bureaucratic and impersonal. The power relationships are similarly complicated. At one level the “vassal,” or junior, is dependent upon the “lord,” or senior, who is higher up in the table of organization. Yet the top dog can be totally dependent upon his or her underling, whose chief unofficial function may be to conceal from others the weaknesses of the boss. This may be as common as fronting for the boss when he or she is too drunk to do one’s job. It may be as unusual as reading to one and making presentations for one because, unbeknownest to the company, the boss is dyslexic. As bureaucracy weakens and its channels and cubbyholes become clogged, other neo-feudal forms and practices are likely to proliferate also, and find a place in the flex-firm. When it comes to energy, it was once thought that nuclear power would lead to “power too cheap to meter.” This assertion, attributed to the early nuclear era, has passed into folklore as a warning to be skeptical of technologists promising free goodies. Does the warning apply here? Anyone claiming that something is free does not really understand economics. Using something always has a cost equal to the most valuable alternative use for the thing. Choosing one alternative sacrifices another, and that sacrifice is the cost. There is no such things as a free opportunity, since opportunities always cost (at least) time and attention. Nanotechnology will not mean free goodies. #RandolphHarris 20 or 21

Nuclear reactors boil water to make steam to turn turbines to turn generators to drive electrical power through power lines to transformers to local power lines to houses, factories, and so forth. The wildest optimist could never have claimed that nuclear power was a free source of anything more than heat, and a realist would have added in the cost of the reactor equipment, fuel, waste disposal, hazards, and the rest. Even our wild optimist would have had to include the cost of building the boiler, the turbines, the generators, the power lines, and the transformers, and the cost of maintenance on all these. These costs were known to be a major part of the cost of power, so free heat would not have meant free power. Thus, the claim was absurd the day it was made—not merely in hindsight. In the early 1960s, Alvin Weinberg, head of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was a strong advocate of nuclear power, and argued that it would provide “cheap energy.” He was optimistic, but did his sums. First, he assumed that nuclear-power plants could be built a little more cheaply than coal-fire powered plants of the same size. Then he assumed that the cost of fuel, waste disposal, operations, and maintenance for nuclear plants would be not much more than the cost of operations and maintenance alone for coal plants. Then he assumed that they might last for more than thirty years. Finally, he assumed that they would be publicly operated, tax free at low interest (which merely moves costs elsewhere) and that after thirty years the cost of the equipment would be written off (which is an accounting fiction). With all of that, he derived a power cost that “might be” as low as one half the cost of the cheapest coal-fired plant he mentions. He was clearly an optimist, but he did not come close to arguing for power too cheap to meter. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

MEADOWS| HOMESITE 48

New HomesCresleigh Meadows at Plumas RanchMeadows| Homesite 48

4 Bedrooms – 3.5 Bathrooms – 2,781 sq. ft. – $597,852

Homesite 48 is a Residence Three, the largest single story home offered in Cresleigh Meadows. At 2,781 square feet you’ll be hard pressed to find a contemporary floorplan that offers this much space.

There are four bedrooms, three and one half bathrooms, including a multi-generational living option with separate bedroom suite with kitchenette, and a three car garage. The Dining Room and Kitchen are well situated to make entertaining a breeze.

This home is fully complete and includes some great features including upgrades like painted cabinetry and contemporary kitchen backsplash. Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes fully equipped with an All Ready connected home!

This smart home package comes included with your home and features great tools including: video door bell and digital deadbolt for the front door, connect home hub so you can set scenes and routines to make life just a little easier.

Two smart switches and USB outlets are also included, plus we’ll gift you a Google Home Hub and Google Mini to help connect everything together! https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-meadows-at-plumas-ranch/quick-move-homesite-48/

#CresleighHomes