That's an interesting train of thought. I'll have to look more into it.
It does feel intuitive, because a coin made of silver is going to be a reasonable size for a reasonable amount of value, but your gold coin is going to be tiny unless it's either debased or for a massive amount of value.
It does feel intuitive, because a coin made of silver is going to be a reasonable size for a reasonable amount of value, but your gold coin is going to be tiny unless it's either debased or for a massive amount of value.
Honestly, pennies were supposed to be part of a dollar, which is a certain amount of gold.
As it stands, because of the destruction of sound money, the dollar has lost 99% of its value. What was considered a penny in 1800 would be considered a dollar today (or less). A 1800 dollar worth of gold today costs about 140 dollars.
The copper in a penny used to be worth far less than the value of a penny, but today they can't make a penny out of copper for a penny. They moved to Zinc, but it turns out they can't even make a penny out of Zinc for a penny.
The right answer is to not devalue the currency by 99%, but I'd be ok with eliminating most change to the level of a quarter at this point. I'm not going to bend over to pick up a penny ever, a nickel basically ever, and even a dime most of the time. It's only a quarter where the amount of money is even worth the effort to bend over and pick up.
It's like, the penny represents a smaller and smaller amount of value, it stops making sense to track such a small amount of value. Again, the solution is to stop having so much inflation. If they're not going to do that, it does make sense to eventually abandon coinage that becomes trivially valuable.
As it stands, because of the destruction of sound money, the dollar has lost 99% of its value. What was considered a penny in 1800 would be considered a dollar today (or less). A 1800 dollar worth of gold today costs about 140 dollars.
The copper in a penny used to be worth far less than the value of a penny, but today they can't make a penny out of copper for a penny. They moved to Zinc, but it turns out they can't even make a penny out of Zinc for a penny.
The right answer is to not devalue the currency by 99%, but I'd be ok with eliminating most change to the level of a quarter at this point. I'm not going to bend over to pick up a penny ever, a nickel basically ever, and even a dime most of the time. It's only a quarter where the amount of money is even worth the effort to bend over and pick up.
It's like, the penny represents a smaller and smaller amount of value, it stops making sense to track such a small amount of value. Again, the solution is to stop having so much inflation. If they're not going to do that, it does make sense to eventually abandon coinage that becomes trivially valuable.
Some people are pointing out that the dei executives in the federal government aren't being fired but are instead being given different roles. Now absolutely that could mean someone in the federal government is being sneaky and they are going to continue on their work with the dei, but it is also entirely possible that they put competent managers into at least some of those positions and with that particular mandate completed the organization doesn't want to lose a competent manager.
I know some people who has been perfectly decent people in some very stupid positions over the years. They are able to get things done, but the thing they are trying to get done is stupid. In that case, it's a net positive not losing that management, you can put them towards something productive like making sure they actually get their purpose as an organization done.
Of course, I don't want to disregard the idea that some of these institutions just are hanging on to dead wood. We've seen some dei managers and they won't be contributing positively to any organization they are a part of. Some of those people who have retained employment even though the reason that they were hired has disappeared probably should find themselves laid off as their position is mad redundant.
I know some people who has been perfectly decent people in some very stupid positions over the years. They are able to get things done, but the thing they are trying to get done is stupid. In that case, it's a net positive not losing that management, you can put them towards something productive like making sure they actually get their purpose as an organization done.
Of course, I don't want to disregard the idea that some of these institutions just are hanging on to dead wood. We've seen some dei managers and they won't be contributing positively to any organization they are a part of. Some of those people who have retained employment even though the reason that they were hired has disappeared probably should find themselves laid off as their position is mad redundant.
Political climate change. The more the political climate moves away from meritocracy, the more fires we will have to deal with.
If you're not teaching your kids about how to survive and thrive under a multipolar civilizational collapse, can you even call yourself a parent?
I've been thinking of people who use postmodernism as a sword, but it's like a katana -- blade outwards, never inwards.
Use postmodern deconstruction on their care/harm morality and it falls apart like wet tissue paper. Who gets to call something care or something else harm? Why do we end up having to ignore anything that's harmful that doesn't fit a certain grand narrative of oppressor/oppressed? If you're not allowed to speak if it might cause harm, yet silence is violence, then how are we supposed to figure out which speech is harmful and which speech's silence is harmful if you're not allowed to speak the thing you think is truth and discuss whether it's harmful or not?
In the end, you have to be able to say things that might hurt in the short term in order to make sure what you're saying is what is the most true, the most correct, the most useful. If you're too stuck in an orthodoxy and doing something because you've been told it's the right thing unexamined, then all it takes is one pig nosed ugly Socrates to come up and ask one piercing question and your whole worldview is cut to shreds.
Some people might go "just listen to the experts, just listen to the authorities", but if the experts and authorities were always right, then believing the experts or authorities from 50 years ago would be correct, and most people agree that's not the case. You also can't believe experts everywhere because experts disagree on things in important ways, sometimes fundamentally. So we're stuck with the terrifying prospect of having to think for ourselves.
Use postmodern deconstruction on their care/harm morality and it falls apart like wet tissue paper. Who gets to call something care or something else harm? Why do we end up having to ignore anything that's harmful that doesn't fit a certain grand narrative of oppressor/oppressed? If you're not allowed to speak if it might cause harm, yet silence is violence, then how are we supposed to figure out which speech is harmful and which speech's silence is harmful if you're not allowed to speak the thing you think is truth and discuss whether it's harmful or not?
In the end, you have to be able to say things that might hurt in the short term in order to make sure what you're saying is what is the most true, the most correct, the most useful. If you're too stuck in an orthodoxy and doing something because you've been told it's the right thing unexamined, then all it takes is one pig nosed ugly Socrates to come up and ask one piercing question and your whole worldview is cut to shreds.
Some people might go "just listen to the experts, just listen to the authorities", but if the experts and authorities were always right, then believing the experts or authorities from 50 years ago would be correct, and most people agree that's not the case. You also can't believe experts everywhere because experts disagree on things in important ways, sometimes fundamentally. So we're stuck with the terrifying prospect of having to think for ourselves.
From a certain perspective, it's kind a great thing if you're not a big fan of the elite.
It doesn't matter how powerful a person you are, if you throw a rock, eventually it'll fall back down. If a bunch of people tear their muscles to pieces trying to make the rock hover by throwing it harder, then the rock might stay in the air for a while, but gravity doesn't care how strong or important you are, that rock will come back to earth.
How many fortunes would be wiped out today if the mag 7 went back to proper valuations for their actual revenue?
It doesn't matter how powerful a person you are, if you throw a rock, eventually it'll fall back down. If a bunch of people tear their muscles to pieces trying to make the rock hover by throwing it harder, then the rock might stay in the air for a while, but gravity doesn't care how strong or important you are, that rock will come back to earth.
How many fortunes would be wiped out today if the mag 7 went back to proper valuations for their actual revenue?
I always love the "The Secret Service under Joe Biden was trying to help get Trump elected" narrative because it just seems to raise so many questions.
Hoping that the same great things happening to you guys right now start happening to us this October when our next election is supposed to happen.
Everything is suggesting it'll be huge, one of the biggest electoral defeats in Canadian history for the Liberals, from first place to fourth.
Everything is suggesting it'll be huge, one of the biggest electoral defeats in Canadian history for the Liberals, from first place to fourth.
No, I'm a canuckistani, but you can still get a license for a hunting rifle or the like.
I'd like to get a gun, but in the same way I'd like to get a motorcycle license, and I haven't gotten that done yet either.