Okay, negativity is subjective. Economic collapse sure isn't positive. haha.
It is another beginning.
Bitcoin will replace the Dollar as the international standard 'reserve currency.' It will take the place of treasury bonds, the naturally deflationary aspect of bitcoin making it ideal for secure investment. Once established, it will be like gold in that its purchasing power remains fairly solid.
Gold and silver certificates or coinage will replace most currencies under decentralized banking. A few regional banks will emerge, and may eventually seek to centralize - but those markets will eventually hyper-inflate and collapse, as all central banks eventually do (because people are always foolish enough to believe they can control a fiat currency). No centralized bank will be able to usurp Bitcoin, though.
The only way they managed to usurp gold was through the convenience of 'bank wires.' Which Bitcoin shoots in the foot.
Change does not come easy. It takes work, and uncertainty must be braved - but it will be a world where you can strike out with your trades and the people who try to tell you that you can or can not perform your trade without paying a fee will be seen for the thugs they are (we currently call them 'consumer protection agencies').
Society will default to its natural state once the powers of government are no longer able to suspend the reality of nature.
I guess it all depends on your own mentality.Glad you resolve your issues instead of bringing them up just to have an upper hand in the convo. You're more spiritually advanced than I thought. From the things I've seen you post in the past, one would think you weren't spiritual at all, but just an extreme enforcer who readily debunks any ideology that contraries his own. But that's not the case at all, i hope. I use to obsess over this thing with 'logic'...but then i said to myself,sure, we can all go by 'what makes the most sense', but is that always fair?Isn't their another way? Is the meaning of life just to conform, and not questioning the old rules? Things become corrupt over time...break it down, and build a new. We're always told 'there's no other way' or 'it's impossible'. Hell, I haven't come up with any effective ideas, so I'm just like 'forget it'.
There are always options. The question is simply what actions will plausibly net the desired outcome.... and how wide your analysis is.
As Obama implied - Mandating that everyone buy a house would 'plausibly' end homelessness. It doesn't work out realistically when you broaden your thinking even the most minute amount. Similarly - I can print money and give it to people under the argument that it will bring about prosperity. It makes sense when you think within narrow terms.
Just like it does when we say: "we need the FDA" and "we need child protective services." Or: "Let's make something illegal."
If making things illegal worked - there would be no debate about gun control because murders would not happen. Murder is illegal. People often fail to realize that laws are a means of recourse for a population affected by a crime/criminal as opposed to a means to prevent an undesirable behavior.
But - you are right in that I do enjoy being the 'voice of dissent.' I've always seen praise as being relatively minimally productive in a social/discussion context. If people don't have much new or different to say or add - then they are a bit useless within the conversation.
Perhaps that is the 'machine' of my learning. Even if I disagree with someone - I'll still try to strip all the knowledge and experience from them that I can. I can be utilitarian in that regard - people are data-caches to be mined in support of my own intellect.
There are those who I truly open up to and treat as people... and I often overwhelm them.
I do believe we are two different sides of a spectrum...in terms of our outlook on the government. Most thing mainstream depress me. With with exception of a few musical artists.
I don't think we are as far apart on the spectrum as you would think. Our concerns are largely the same. You want good education for people, affordable healthcare, affordable housing, ample opportunity to expand within a career and grow as an individual, etc.
The difference is a very minute one - and once your perspective shifts in one area, it will rapidly shift in all of them.
It's security versus freedom. Do you want the security of those things? Or do you want the freedom of those things?
The easiest place to see this is in a discussion of careers/jobs.
Do you want a living wage? Or do you want there to be ample opportunity for you to grow an take on more responsibility that pays more?
People who argue the 'living wage' often lack the drive and ambition to take on more job responsibility. They argue: "I work hard, so I should be compensated with things I want." Under this perspective - a Janitor of 20 years deserves essentially equal job compensation as a person who has been a Dishwasher of 4 years, Shelf-stocker of 2 years, machinist of 4 years, department manager of 5 years, shift manager of 3 years and plant manager of 2 years.
On the other hand - a person who desires freedom does not focus on whether or not the current job they hold is going to contribute much to their retirement plan. They see opportunities to develop personal skills and testaments to their value that will enable them to move within the employment and entrepreneurial world very fluidly.
There are a lot of people who want the security of being able to have the life they desire regardless of the job they hold. This has been largely brought about by the inflation of the college degree. Many college students spent years of their lives and went considerably into debt in order to 'get a good job.'
Those jobs have not kept pace with inflation (and cannot keep pace with inflation), have been outsourced, etc. There is a whole generation that was convinced it was entitled to a more prosperous way of life but has been left to dry as America's industrial sector has evaporated.
I can understand why they would opt for security. They were made promises that have not been kept. Government administrations have done a good job of deflecting responsibility toward 'big corporations' and 'rich people' - fueling sentiments of class warfare (to further entrench voting populations - conservatives feel as if they are wrongfully under attack from liberals and vice-versa - so they rally behind the established parties very staunchly).
Given time, you'll understand that security is never a guarantee... and come to realize that all you want to do is to be left alone to make your own choices.
Edit: And I do believe there're poisonous toxins in the environment that cause estrogen to spike. As for the spiking, I believe it effects the physical traits of the person which causes them to attract more males than females, or even identify with the female ego more.
I don't think it is any one thing that 'causes' it. Numerous studies into the neurology of the brain have shown how the 'homeostatic' brain chemistry actually changes in response to behavioral therapy, meditation, etc. Chemical balances that were once thought to be almost exclusively genetic have been shown to be 'configurable' by the brain.
It's the 'butterfly effect' - small changes/additions to how a system starts can have very radical long-term implications for the system. It is how people are both 'born' and 'develop into' homosexuals. Different genetic 'starting points' and early chemical triggers can subtly shift development down an entirely different track, or change how a person reacts to common stimuli.
For example - if you were to 'switch' the sense of taste so that bitter was pleasurable while sweet was detestable - a person would develop eating habits that are radically different from the rest of us unless he were to 'learn to like' things he was disposed to disliking. Which can be done - the brain is a very pliable thing - but it's far from the path of least resistance.
My aunt works as a Dialysis Nurse in UC Davis and their unit was almost dissolved due to budget cuts caused by Obamacare, luckily for her and her co-workers they weren't laid-off.
It's slaughtering the industry.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
What the hell is happening to this country?
Since when is safety more important than freedoms and the right to make decisions in your own life?
How can they tell us that we have the right to buy and run our own restaurant but we don't get to decide if someone can smoke in it?
How can they tell us that we have the right to vote at 18 but we can't drink until 21?
How can they tell us that we have to purchase health care?
How can they prosecute people for treason if they spy on the government then spy on their own people?
How can they tell us we have the right to bear arms in order to form a militia but restrict what we have the right to own while they build bigger and better weapons every day?
I've recently been read onto some things that really piss me off.
I'm on my last straw. First drone I see in American airspace I'm out.
Welcome to the club!
The main problem is this:
We are a nation that elects politicians to make decisions rather than a nation that makes the decision to elect representatives.
The more I look through history, the more I am convinced a model of government where we flip a coin each year and ritualistically sacrifice all elected officials if it lands on heads (and all appointed officials if it lands on tails) would have the most lasting integrity.
We could model it after The Hunger Games, or something. Let the lone winner be the president for a year, or something.
Perhaps I just have too much fascination with the idea of destroying things at this point in my life.
i'm sure the fox news reporter that delivered this piece used a teleprompter. but i agree that they handled that law very badly, like every politican they rushed to make the law without thinking about how it's going to happen. but i think that law should be, every congress member gets an extremly good governmant health care plan with subsidy from tax money. they get the best healthcare and barely pay anything for it. i'm sure if they had to pay the full price like US citizens do today this law wouldn't be getting so much hate.
That and he's in the service, I think?
Agreed. I stopped watching TV years ago and I don't regret it one bit. Personally, I don't see why America gets scandalized whenever the idea of free healthcare is put forward. America already spends millions more on healthcare than countries who provide free healthcare and still don't do it. ACA's still a lot better than what America had before, but Faux News is right that it's still far from perfect as well, I'll give it that much. Only they're putting it out to discredit Obama more than saying anything out of concern for the people. If a Republican president invented the ACA, they would be praising it to the heavens and beyond.
These two paragraphs are just flat-out incorrect.
The "Affordable Care Act" is fundamentally flawed in that it relies upon subsidies backed by bond offers to pay for the costs.
A full break-down of our country's economics is beyond the scope of this discussion - but what the ACA does, essentially, is this:
The Treasury issues bonds (promises to repay) with interest (meaning pay back more than what some investment firm handed them). These bonds cover the increased costs of health treatment. These are your "subsidies" that people get in the form of "Tax credits" to "offset the cost of insurance."
Then the government turns around and has to try and reclaim that investment in the form of taxes.
There is another system that does this, and is currently failing. Social Security.
I will not get it. You will not get it. We will pay into it, and there is the delusion that the money we are giving up in Social Security is being taken and wisely invested by our government to be returned to us. The reality is that our parents are getting their Social Security pay checks directly from the taxes collected today. When social security payments exceed social security revenues - our nation will effectively be going into debt and printing money to cover the costs.
This exact formula will play out under Obamacare - and already is, to a worse degree.
Medicare enrollments have far out-paced actual insurance policy applications. This is raw added expense to the government. The other unfortunate reality is that the people who are applying for private side insurance are those with pre-existing conditions (who are now being declined, by the way) and the chronically ill.
Not single insurance company on the healthcare exchanges -can- turn a profit. Most will run extraordinary deficits.
Which will require another 'government bail-out.' While the President says there will be no bail-out, there are specific provisions within the law that allow health insurance companies to be reimbursed by the government. So his statements are false, or he plans to try and over-ride the law by executive fiat.
The argument that it is 'better' than 'what we had' is absolutely false.
You must be registered for see links
While there are a few states that do see reductions in premiums - the reality is that those come at the expense of government-subsidies (taxes and/or inflation) and also come at the reduction of network doctors/facilities - and almost all come with a higher deductible.
It is the lie that more regulation will improve the market.
If you want healthcare to become affordable in this country, you will get rid of the FDA. Preferably execute everyone affiliated with it - it is a criminal organization, plain and simple:
You must be registered for see links
There is no such thing as good regulation. As we are ensuring our facility is in compliance with State and Federal regulations - the fact of the matter is that "It depends upon which surveyor you get."
That individual surveyor has the power to shut down an entire medical institution and also has the responsibility to ensure patient safety. We can feed half of them bullshit the entire time and they'll rubber-stamp the thing. Another quarter of them are mini-dictators. The remaining quarter (or less) actually tries to do their job honestly.
It is just bad.
We should get rid of controlled/regulated substances. Enforce fraud penalties/punishments (IE - if someone is selling 'watered down' or incorrectly labeled medications - hit them with fraud charges, that is what courts are for). Otherwise - let people buy and sell whatever substances they want. There will be third-party certifications and surveyors who will give their stamps of approval to quality distributors who know what they are doing.
That would mean fewer people going to the doctor to get a prescription. It would also open up the social issues of drug addictions rather than forcing them underground. Prescription medication addictions/abuse could be treated like alcohol abuse (and would be as obvious) rather than implied by the disappearance of prescription medications from people's medicine cabinets.
That would radically reduce the costs of treatment:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Health Insurance is guilty of the same logical fallacy - by trading liberty for security you end up with neither.
Why?
I'll quote:
"The Integris bill for the same nasal procedure went to Blue Cross of Oklahoma, so the patient had no compelling reason to question its outrageous markups. They included a $360 charge for a steroid called dexamethasone, which can be purchased wholesale for just 75 cents. Or the three charges totaling $630 for a painkiller called fentanyl citrate, which all together cost the hospital about $1.50."
From:
You must be registered for see links
Insurance companies end up eating the costs of completely unreasonable charges (not helped by the fact that our culture views doctors as mechanics that can 'operate' like a mechanic restores a car) and have to pass them on to the consumers. This raises costs unnecessarily.
There are also numerous parts of our healthcare culture that are expensive. In Dialysis, for example, there exists a form of dialysis known as PD - it is a much more simple and cost-effective form of Dialysis that can be done while you sleep (and at home). But that is just not what Americans want to put up with. It's an unpopular form of Dialysis (oddly enough), and it does require a bit more lifestyle management.
Americans tend to prefer the clinical environment.
One nurse told a story of a man who came into the hospital with poor circulation in his legs - to the point they would end up needing to be amputated. He was told that he needed to stop smoking (which was thought to be the primary contributing factor) and straighten up or he would end up needing his legs amputated.
He requested that they simply go ahead and amputate his legs.
Of course - the doctors and hospital wouldn't do it... but it reflects America's attitude toward healthcare. We view the healthcare process as similar to our bodies being a car. We replace parts on it and have it 'tuned up.' We buy performance fluids (medications) to extend our operating life or meet some end goal. We don't view healthcare as a process and dynamic interaction where surgery and medications are the extremes of the solutions available.
Which is why our country has some of the best surgeons and operating technologies/procedures on the planet. Bar none. We also have some of the greatest availability of these assets. Brain surgery is not uncommon. Knee surgeries are routine. Back/spine surgeries are frequent.
Our health care industry reflects our culture. Unfortunately - the "general practitioner" has been hit the hardest by combinations of regulations and our perspective shift away from the family physician.
Which is where most of our basic care comes from.
More regulations and more government don't fix that. Getting rid of regulations and allowing people to start up the business of taking care of the medical needs of others fixes that.
You have to understand our country's health care system before you can fix it.
Unfortunately - most people just read a few statistics quoted by media buzz and decide they have been informed.
