Hi from Norways neighbor Sweden!

We desperately need such a law. This is one of the instances I'm definitely not agreeing with the hardcore libertarians. Cash is the only thing that can protect financial privacy and partial financial sovereignty in the short-to-medium term, and it's quickly being done away with in this country. I recently read that about half of the stores here don't accept cash!

However, it needs to be more thought through. Many businesses stop accepting cash because they have trouble getting rid of it. A law was passed a few years ago saying that the banks must have some way of depositing cash, but unfortunately they only have machines that accept bills, not coins. (Most bank offices don't handle cash at all.) And there's only one value-transport company, Loomis.

September unemployment rate: 4.1% vs 4.2% (expected) and 4.2% (prior)

September US nonfarm payrolls: +254k vs +132.5k (expected) and +159k (prior; revised from +142k)

The Doom and Gloomers and Recessionistas are... wait for it... wrong again.

#macro

Onwards.

🐂

How many of these events do you believe official narratives/history got right?

- JFK assassination

- 1969 manned moon landing

- 9/11 attack

- Epstein killing himself

- 2020 US election

- Covid "pandemic" and response

Blows my mind how people can be red pilled on x number of obvious psyops, thus having accepted we’re being habitually lied to and misled by state and media…

…and at the same time being fully blue pilled on x number of other obvious psyops—pointing to state and media narratives as proof, with no appetite for further critical thinking or inquiry.

🤷‍♂️

What should I do my next video on?

How much do you actually know about intellectual property (IP)?

Did you know, for instance, that nobody has ever proven that IP is a net positive for society?

Logics dictate that this artificially created privilege is a net negative for humankind.

In economics terms, IP blocks many of the positive externalities that comes out of ideas.

To say it in plain language, good ideas are more valuable for society the faster they spread and the cheaper they are to put into use, but IP slows down the speed of dissemination of ideas and forces people to pay before they can use them.

As an author, I think it's extremely sad that the mechanics of society mean that I depend on copyrights.

I clearly see how it corrupts peoples' minds and hearts, just like all other political priveleges do.

Below you get a glimpse of how detrimental IP is to people living in developing countries, and how it corrupts countries once they have been industrialized.

Up until the 20th century, the U.S. government had lax enforcement of IP, particularly concerning foreign creators.

The legal framework allowed for the widespread piracy of foreign works, as the 1790 Copyright Act explicitly excluded protections for non-US authors.

This led to rampant appropriation of foreign designs and publications, with little consequence for infringers, as the government prioritized domestic interests over foreign IP rights.

Officials believed that strong IP protections would mainly benefit foreign creators, raising costs for domestic consumers and hindering local innovation.

The prevailing view was that the U.S. economy needed to develop its own capabilities through imitation before it could afford to protect foreign IP rights.

This perspective was influenced by a "frontier culture" that prioritized individualism and innovation over strict adherence to IP laws.

Calls for better protection from figures like Charles Dickens largely went unheeded, reflecting a broader culture of IP violation during this period.

The US changed its position dramatically in the 20th century, when itself became the strongest economic nation in the world.

While many developing nations, including India, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, resisted stringent IP standards, and argued IP favored developed countries at the expense developing countries, Uncle Sam, the former pirate protector, became the world's most aggressive enforcer of IP, pressuring developing countries with the use of trade sanctions.

I want an end to all artificial priveleges.

This first and foremost includes monetary monopolies and intellectual property rights.

Monetary monopolies centralize power and wealth.

Intellectual property legislation blocks the decentralizing effect of ideas.

Both corrupt society at high speed.

Abolishing these political instruments dramatically changes society for the better.

In the meantime, I'll just have to live with the fact that copyright is the way an author today earns his money.

But I'm not going to let it corrupt me.

It’s sad to me that bitcoin has become political or associated with the cringe “crypto bro” scammers. A *lot* of are against bitcoin now because it is perceived as a tool used by the right or tech bros.

Lots of people are going to suffer if they make bitcoin a political issue. It’s the one lifeboat we got. Hopefully nostr can help change that perception.

Something libertarians are clueless about.

Free speech is the most important part of a free market.

Just because I don’t believe a state authority should have the ability to threaten you does not mean I have to like or condone your behavior.

If you see something you don’t like say it and say it loudly.

Free speech is the lubricant that keeps markets free and functional.

Being subjects of the regime that controls the world’s reserve currency does nothing for ordinary Americans. It only benefits the State and its associated corporate clients/partners, while hollowing out and taxing to death the once highly productive American economy.

You Americans have big cars and big houses but it is not because you are harder working than the rest of the world or smarter.

It is because you have the world's reserve currency and you export inflation to the rest of the world, you finance yourselves at the expense of the rest of the countries, imposing your currency through the coercive force of your gigantic army.

Ask yourself why the US has military bases all over the world.

Bitcoin if it would solve this, we are going to compete as equals.

Ideas about money is one example.

People don't learn about it in schools or at home etc,, but they depend on it and are therefore very interested in it.

If everyone else talks about the environment, corruption and high taxes, that represents a massive form of noise.

And if I then come out and say:

"The monetary system is the most beautiful social network ever"

or

"Inflation is and has always been a conscious policy by rulers"

people almost automatically tune into it, because it sticks out so much against the noise.

Same with Bitcoin, which represents many ideas, and which actually comes true much stromger as a signal the more economic noise that is produced in the form of for bad economic policies.

And it's the same with a bitcoiner, who may very well always transmit the same based/low time preference signal, but it becomes easier to receive the signal, the more society is burdened with fiat, bad economic policies and the impact these things have on non-bitcoiners.

On the other hand, if the communication channels were overcrowded with high quality ideas, adding another idea would be difficult for you to propaget from your transmitter to a high number of receivers.

It might be counterintuitive to you, but the huge amount of noise in the form of lies and complaints might in fact make it easier to propagate a signal with good ideas from you (the transmitter) to more people (the receivers.)

Can I get 3 more followers so that my follower count is 404?

im a bitcoiner, i believe in incentive design

im a bitcoiner, i believe in incentive design