Most disruptive technologies are so because they're primarily used for some purpose. Trains transport cargo and people. Semiconductors conduct electricity. The Internet moves around information. When such things are built, it is because someone will pay to make use of a thing for its primary purpose.
If I buy a train ticket, it's not because trains are such a great investment and I can sell the ticket for more later, it's because I want to get from point A to point B and a train is the best option to do so. If I buy Internet access, it isn't because the Internet is such a great investment and I can sell the Internet for more later, it's because I want to argue with spergs on the Internet. If I buy a device like a computer with semiconductors inside, it isn't because computers are such a great investment and I can sell it for more later, it's because I want something I can play vidya on. In fact, over time the cost of those disruptive technologies went down and the quality went up. That's one of the things that made them disruptive.
By contrast, cryptocurrencies aren't primarily used as currencies. Their primary purpose is being purchased by people using fiat currency so they can be sold at a later date for a larger amount of fiat currency, and then people use the acquired fiat currency to buy goods and services. If people stop thinking it's going to go up, then demand will collapse because virtually nobody is acquiring cryptocurrency to use as a medium of exchange.
It's this fact that makes people think they're a ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme.
If I buy a train ticket, it's not because trains are such a great investment and I can sell the ticket for more later, it's because I want to get from point A to point B and a train is the best option to do so. If I buy Internet access, it isn't because the Internet is such a great investment and I can sell the Internet for more later, it's because I want to argue with spergs on the Internet. If I buy a device like a computer with semiconductors inside, it isn't because computers are such a great investment and I can sell it for more later, it's because I want something I can play vidya on. In fact, over time the cost of those disruptive technologies went down and the quality went up. That's one of the things that made them disruptive.
By contrast, cryptocurrencies aren't primarily used as currencies. Their primary purpose is being purchased by people using fiat currency so they can be sold at a later date for a larger amount of fiat currency, and then people use the acquired fiat currency to buy goods and services. If people stop thinking it's going to go up, then demand will collapse because virtually nobody is acquiring cryptocurrency to use as a medium of exchange.
It's this fact that makes people think they're a ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme.
I don't give the good stuff to kids. I keep the good stuff for myself.
That's what being an adult is about.
That's what being an adult is about.
I can't believe this far right Nazi would side with the j6 insurrectionists!
>HRC
Oh, I mean what a wonderful saintly goddess who was s totally right and she's right and we need to storm congress!
>HRC
Oh, I mean what a wonderful saintly goddess who was s totally right and she's right and we need to storm congress!
I was thinking about that.
The NPCs are stuck in 2004. Someday they're going to get George W. Bush out of power and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and achieve gay marriage.
Except it's not 2004 anymore. The world moved on and new truths are constantly emerging.
The NPCs are stuck in 2004. Someday they're going to get George W. Bush out of power and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and achieve gay marriage.
Except it's not 2004 anymore. The world moved on and new truths are constantly emerging.
It seems like most people who have been doing this for a long time are stuck in 2004 and they've got George W. Bush on the run!
But it hasn't been 2004 for almost 20 years, George W. Bush hasn't been president for 15 years, and the world is nothing like what it was back then.
This storyline really seems to be directly alluding to that. Having Biden two-face say 'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists' was artful. They don't realize they became everything they once hated but are so stuck in the past they refuse to see.
But it hasn't been 2004 for almost 20 years, George W. Bush hasn't been president for 15 years, and the world is nothing like what it was back then.
This storyline really seems to be directly alluding to that. Having Biden two-face say 'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists' was artful. They don't realize they became everything they once hated but are so stuck in the past they refuse to see.
Ah, so it's fine right right now, but that can change in a heartbeat. That makes sense.
Wonder why that's happening? Seems like natgas should be a pretty troublesome commodity right on the verge of winter...
I've always enjoyed something I once saw, people call politics "sports for pretentious people"
I expected this to happen during the 2021 election, but it's turning into a truism that governments tend to last just a little bit longer than you expect. Because of that though, governments that are on the way out start to think that they are immortal, and it's in the last term or two that they really go off the rails and think that they can do whatever they want, and in so doing they dig their grave.
I actually want competitive elections between multiple parties that I would be okay with winning, so I want to see the cataclysmic failure of all these parties that think that they can do whatever they want without consequence. That way they can start the painful process of rebuilding.
I actually want competitive elections between multiple parties that I would be okay with winning, so I want to see the cataclysmic failure of all these parties that think that they can do whatever they want without consequence. That way they can start the painful process of rebuilding.
The elites don't want you to know this, but wearing a ranger costume is free. I own 241 ranger costumes.
Let me tell you exactly what would happen.
Someone with a million dollar mortgage on their million dollar Toronto house would suddenly be debt free, with absolutely no pain, and they would walk into the bank, take out a million dollar loan, and buy a $2 million Toronto house (or maybe a $5 million Toronto house since they have a million dollars in equity in their existing home!), and they would probably believe that the government would come pay off all their debt for them again at some point in the future.
Economics is the study of incentives, and so if you base your macro off of completely ignoring the incentives that you're creating then you're going to make the situation worse. Deleveraging absolutely must come with pain, because that pain is the lesson being taught to the people who took out excess debt. It's the lesson that taking out excess debt will cause you pain, and people learn that in their gut and stay deleveraged unless there's a great reason to lever up. By contrast, if you just pay off everyone's loans, the lesson that you will be teaching those people is that if they rack up massive amounts of death then someone's going to swoop in and save them. It's going to teach them to stay levered.
It's also going to keep the cost of those assets way up. People aren't going to be short on cash, they will not have had any reason to learn that their crappy house in downtown Toronto isn't actually worth $3 million dollars, so prices will just continue to rise. Without the pain, asset prices won't be able to return to sanity, and the bubble will get worse.
And on the topic of incentives, you know who's going to be really badly punished by what you're talking about? Responsible people. People who didn't take out too much debt aren't going to get a giant payday. They're going to end up comparatively speaking behind because instead of racking up irresponsible debts, they only took out loans that they could afford to pay back. They probably didn't go on vacations that they could have, they probably chose to live in a different city, they probably chose to live a much different life with a much different vehicle and different toys.
So how do people deleverage otherwise? A few different ways. For those people living in toronto, they're going to have to sell their house. For people who took out too much debt to possibly pay back, they'll have to go bankrupt. Going bankrupt is going to hurt them in various ways, but it's going to help them in terms of getting out of debt, and it's going to hurt the bank because they're going to have to swallow the consequences of the bankruptcy. In this way, people who have just taken out way too much debt will get relief, and they will also get punished for their excesses, and the people who delivers by either just paying down debts or by selling assets responsibly will not be punished except by the pain of having to do those things. The banks are punished because they will take a hit on many of those loans, and people who at no point had that they couldn't pay off will end up ahead because they didn't have any leverage in the first place.
Someone with a million dollar mortgage on their million dollar Toronto house would suddenly be debt free, with absolutely no pain, and they would walk into the bank, take out a million dollar loan, and buy a $2 million Toronto house (or maybe a $5 million Toronto house since they have a million dollars in equity in their existing home!), and they would probably believe that the government would come pay off all their debt for them again at some point in the future.
Economics is the study of incentives, and so if you base your macro off of completely ignoring the incentives that you're creating then you're going to make the situation worse. Deleveraging absolutely must come with pain, because that pain is the lesson being taught to the people who took out excess debt. It's the lesson that taking out excess debt will cause you pain, and people learn that in their gut and stay deleveraged unless there's a great reason to lever up. By contrast, if you just pay off everyone's loans, the lesson that you will be teaching those people is that if they rack up massive amounts of death then someone's going to swoop in and save them. It's going to teach them to stay levered.
It's also going to keep the cost of those assets way up. People aren't going to be short on cash, they will not have had any reason to learn that their crappy house in downtown Toronto isn't actually worth $3 million dollars, so prices will just continue to rise. Without the pain, asset prices won't be able to return to sanity, and the bubble will get worse.
And on the topic of incentives, you know who's going to be really badly punished by what you're talking about? Responsible people. People who didn't take out too much debt aren't going to get a giant payday. They're going to end up comparatively speaking behind because instead of racking up irresponsible debts, they only took out loans that they could afford to pay back. They probably didn't go on vacations that they could have, they probably chose to live in a different city, they probably chose to live a much different life with a much different vehicle and different toys.
So how do people deleverage otherwise? A few different ways. For those people living in toronto, they're going to have to sell their house. For people who took out too much debt to possibly pay back, they'll have to go bankrupt. Going bankrupt is going to hurt them in various ways, but it's going to help them in terms of getting out of debt, and it's going to hurt the bank because they're going to have to swallow the consequences of the bankruptcy. In this way, people who have just taken out way too much debt will get relief, and they will also get punished for their excesses, and the people who delivers by either just paying down debts or by selling assets responsibly will not be punished except by the pain of having to do those things. The banks are punished because they will take a hit on many of those loans, and people who at no point had that they couldn't pay off will end up ahead because they didn't have any leverage in the first place.
I like it.
"Just stop eating. Just stop heating your home in winter. Just stop transporting food or people. Just stop building things."
Just die is what they're proposing.
"Just stop eating. Just stop heating your home in winter. Just stop transporting food or people. Just stop building things."
Just die is what they're proposing.
I've started to see it, they're going to just start lying straight-up. "Oh, we never said that, we never did that."
It is absolutely essential that we never ever forget what they did to us, and that we never ever let them pretend that it didn't happen.
It is absolutely essential that we never ever forget what they did to us, and that we never ever let them pretend that it didn't happen.
I have a gaming PC at home, and for that there's a reason to update every few years since video cards do change. For anything else? Nope. A 10 decent year old laptop with a bit of ram and an ssd is basically going to run perfectly for most tasks.
And as for video, unless I'm specifically looking at something, 480p is just fine. Who needs that detail for most things?
I think that changes a lot for a lot of people. It's great that we can have more power, but we are unlikely to need it for anything. At that point, making stuff that lasts sounds like a better deal to me.
And as for video, unless I'm specifically looking at something, 480p is just fine. Who needs that detail for most things?
I think that changes a lot for a lot of people. It's great that we can have more power, but we are unlikely to need it for anything. At that point, making stuff that lasts sounds like a better deal to me.
Remind me in 2025 to look up Kivalina Alaska. Not long now until they were claiming it would be gone forever.
Honestly, I've considered that the contagion from Europe is likely to dramatically affect fuel prices in Canada and the US this winter. The fuel may be here, but if they're willing to pay more there, guess who gets the fuel?
I expect that if natural gas blows up, it'll mean that electricity grids see outages even in areas that don't rely on natural gas for electricity generation as people try to switch seeing their heating bills blow up (including the carbon tax which is set to triple in january up here)
I'm recommending people to plan ahead accordingly. Either I turn out to be wrong and you've got some extra supplies, or I turn out to be right and you're well off while others are struggling. I call this the day of the ant and the grasshopper.
I expect that if natural gas blows up, it'll mean that electricity grids see outages even in areas that don't rely on natural gas for electricity generation as people try to switch seeing their heating bills blow up (including the carbon tax which is set to triple in january up here)
I'm recommending people to plan ahead accordingly. Either I turn out to be wrong and you've got some extra supplies, or I turn out to be right and you're well off while others are struggling. I call this the day of the ant and the grasshopper.
Curious what that actually means.
My gas tank is presently 100% full, but I can't last the winter with it.
My gas tank is presently 100% full, but I can't last the winter with it.