31 sats \ 3 replies \ @freetx 12h \ on: Bryan Caplan on The Demagogic Case for Open Borders econ
I share lots of the same feelings regarding "govts have no right to restrict travel"
But you can't have open immigration and welfare at the same time (now they are adding to it, saying that immigrants will also be included in ObamaCare). The whole thing is a recipe for a currency crisis.
I'm not for cigarette smoking in general, HOWEVER I think Nicotine is an unfairly demonized drug that actually has many good aspects to it.
I would further add, that I believe in the unproven pet-theory that the rise in pharmaceutical prescriptions for various mental issues (ADHD, etc) is directly correlated to the decline of people smoking (ie. we were largely self-medicating with nicotine for centuries).
On the last point, it is also interesting that the "Enlightenment Era" corresponded with both coffee and nicotine being introduced to European public.
Why was Gloria on the CIA payroll?
What is often missed, or mischaracterized, however, is the work she did as a CIA agent: Steinem was a spook. CIA agents are tight-lipped, but Steinem spoke openly about her relationship to The Agency in the 1950s and ’60s after a magazine revealed her employment by a CIA front organization, the Independent Research Service.While popularly pilloried because of her paymaster, Steinem defended the CIA relationship, saying: “In my experience The Agency was completely different from its image; it was liberal, nonviolent and honorable.” ... Long before the formalized concept of soft power, Steinem personified and promoted abroad the vigor and progressive nature of the U.S. youth movement.
Men are so weak when it comes to sex lol
For sure, I'm actually convinced that the best way to influence weak leaders is to not send mean tweets to them, but to send mean tweets to their wives. A wife, who is publicly belittled and criticized, would do more to shape her weak husbands beliefs than what another man could. (note: I'm not actually promoting this and I don't even have social media accounts, nor do I read them....just pointing out that influencing wives is the key to social change).
I'm not claiming this was a full-on premeditated conspiracy....but it is interesting that Gloria Steinem (the famous feminist) was outed that she was on CIA payroll.
Very coincidental that the moment the feminist movement started pushing for "women should join the workforce" was same time US went off Gold Standard (1971)
The days of single-earner households are largely a thing of the past, and due to inflation, now it requires both parents to work. So...I guess it was a good strategy that they convinced women that it would be more fulfilling for them to spend their life in a cubicle, rather then being at home with kids.
Its a gripping story, it certainly captured my interest.
I have no idea if that is autobiographical or not (don't feel compelled to answer), but it certainly read as if it were true.
You are correct that in any case where an outside investor held the bond, this does not cause any direct shrinkage of money supply. This is probably the "normal case".
However, in the case that it was the Fed itself holding the bond, then the payoff will cause a reduction in its balance sheet.
As an example, lets assume a scenario where there is $0 in circulation:
- US Treasury issues a bond for $100
- Fed conjures $100 in Federal Reserve Notes into existence and buys bond with that.
- US Treasury now has $100 and it spends that into economy, total money supply is $100
- At this moment, the Feds Balance Sheet is: Assets $100 US Bonds / Liabilities $100 FRN
- After some time, the US Treasury pays off bond. Now the balance sheet of the Fed is Assets $0 / Liabilities $0
- In order to issue more money into circulation, the Fed must have some Asset on its Balance Sheet to issue Federal Reserve Notes against, thus another Asset is needed, so for the time being that money is taken out of circulation.
This is all of course theoretical, since the US never pays off its debt anymore. They simply rollover existing debt with new debt. I was simply trying to make the best case for the system - pretending to be a defender of it.
Getting wealthy might be about taking risks and opportunities. Staying wealthy involves humility, frugality, and avoiding overreach.
+100
yeh.
I have no idea how this corresponds to what Saylor is doing, as I'm not interested in either, thus cant be bothered to dig into them.
Anyone else enjoy these types of movies?
These days I hardly consume any media. I got rid of TV about 10 years ago, however for the final 5 or 6 years I had a TV I would watch old TV shows from 60s/70s. Things like Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Little House on the Prairie, etc.
It was refreshing at the time to watch stories not imbued with all the current insidious political messages, which I imagine you notice watching vintage movies?
You know, I think the average "gold, bitcoin, anti-fed" person could actually do a better job of both explaining / defending the current system than these guys can.
-
The government is not technically "printing the money". It has outsourced currency creation to the Fed. The US gov is printing bonds, which it sells to Fed/Banks in exchange for a "US Dollar simulacrum" (ie. Fed Reserve Notes).
-
This approach of borrowing a currency you could just directly print, while byzantine in structure, was instituted with the idea that the resulting debt provides a natural counterbalance against the issuance. Therefore, it is the counterweight to prevent unbridled and endless printing, since the gov will need to pay off those loans to expire the debt.
-
Lastly, when (if) the gov pays off the bonds, it technically extinguishes that currency out of existence, thus shrinks the monetary base (ie. less dollars in existence).
Its sad when the systems harshest critics understand it better than those running it.
Well Musk could do that because he bought out all the shareholders and is the single and only boss.
The CEO of a public company is just the "manager for the shareholders". The role, in fact, has little autonomy.
I think its possible to also take a more charitable view of him. After all, Jack was just a tech kid building websites because he liked to code.
Running a company of that size is hard. Damn near impossible. Its hard to control 1000s of different view points and 1000s of different agendas, when each may be working against your own in various ways.
Moreover, in the end Twitter was compromised by the intelligence community. It should be no surprise that they were successful, since that is their entire job. They know how to push narratives into organizations, find internal champions for those narratives, and then apply subtle external pressure to force the organization into the path it wants them to go.
The idea that a tech wizkid was going to be suited to control that beast or able to deflect against the government attacks is naive. I dont know this, but I suspect that Jack is overjoyed he is out of Twitter and probably will never seek to ever get involved with another "social media company" ever again.
We need some well-funded BTC-focused lobbyist / litigation group.
Its hard to kickstart that at the pleb-level as it requires some big names (large stack holders) to champion it. Problem is (as I've said before), all the really large stack holders are either: (a) Playing jurisdictional arbitrage thus dont feel threatened, or (b) Already part of WallStreet machine, thus don't feel threatened.
(Obviously the counter to their view is that helping secure BTC in USA is probably the number #1 most important regulatory market in the world. Many positive effects will flow out from having sensible policies in US)
Musk is going to have to secure lots of energy to power his AI data centers.
I wonder if this will cause him to reconsider his rather simpleton view of BTC energy requirements.
Dean was represented by a law firm in South Carolina that also represented Boeing whistleblower John “Mitch” Barnett. Barnett was found dead in an apparent suicide in March.
Probably all just a big coincidence....
One thing to be cognizant of, is that
sudo does some tricks to integrate with your current session, which run0 may not do...so I don't think it will be a "drop in" replacement.Example:
$ export TEST=hello $ echo $TEST hello $ sudo echo $TEST hello
You can see that
sudo has inherited the local variables to make things work in a more seemless manner. From what I've read, run0 is the equivalent of logging in as root, thus will probably not (by default) inherit local variables.How are other protocols fairing?
Has TCP/IP seen any recent changes? What about SMTP?
(I'm not being snarky, I honestly don't know). But my deeper point is I think at some point widely used protocols tend to ossify naturally as the risk of disruption becomes too great.
There is a theory that the brain is a sensory organ, an antenna of sorts, and not itself the fount of consciousness.
It makes sense if true. The eyes perceive light, the ears sound pressure changes, the skin touch, the tongue / nose senses chemicals....and the brain is a sensory organ that receives consciousness waves.