Answering Common Bitcoin FUD -Bitcoin University

https://odysee.com/@TraderUniversity:a/answering-common-bitcoin-fud:c?r=8T2xqWjtafHWYGxQBSsrbw1wQPm7sWRq

"In this video, I discuss common questions about Bitcoin including:

1) Its MIT license

2) Whether the NSA controls the SHA-256 hashing algorithm

3) Whether the government knows who Satoshi is

4) Bitcoin's speed

5) The price of Bitcoin and Bitcoin transaction fees

6) Bitcoin's scalability

7) Bitcoin's energy usage

I conclude that Bitcoin has a robust, anti-fragile design and will continue to take market share from traditional stores of value like gold and real estate.

Bitcoin is hope-- and its future is very bright indeed."

Basically, when they didn't snuff out the state in it's infancy. Once it gets a foothold, the state will grow and expand, like any parasite, until it eventually kills its host.

Alright! We're only 50% above the target inflation level!

USA! USA!

Cluster Munitions: A Deadly Weapon with Col. Douglas MacGregor

https://odysee.com/@KimIversen:d/cluster-munitions-a-deadly-weapon-with:2?r=8T2xqWjtafHWYGxQBSsrbw1wQPm7sWRq

Col Douglas MacGregor joins the show to discuss cluster munitions being sent to Ukraine and Prigozhin popping up in Russia.

New BRICS Gold Currency? -Bitcoin University

https://odysee.com/@TraderUniversity:a/new-brics-gold-currency:2?r=8T2xqWjtafHWYGxQBSsrbw1wQPm7sWRq

"In this video, I discuss the BRICS proposal to issue a new trade currency backed by gold.

There are many pitfalls that cannot be avoided by a gold-backed currency: gold is expensive and difficult to store, assay, and move around to settle trade imbalances. It is outdated 19th century monetary technology in a digital world.

The gold standard has already been tried and been found wanting. A gold standard always inevitably leads to massive centralization, as well as having to trust governments and central banks that they won't print more money than they have gold to back it.

But aren't central banks loading up on gold?

Yes, they certainly are, but remember that these are highly politicized entities that are not investing for returns, but usually with more geopolitical objectives.

And they have an abysmal track record. If you loaded up on US Treasuries when they did, your returns have been terrible. Central banks are loading up on the one asset that will be the first to be demonetized by Bitcoin, which is the ultimate in economic poetic justice.

Unlike gold, Bitcoin is modern monetary technology. It is easy to store, verify, and zap around the world.

The BRICS countries would be much better off just using Bitcoin, rather than trying to reinvent a system that has already failed before."

They also tended to be underage.

If you think that's tough, try finding non-gluten-free tacos.

It's not both, because they aren't confused about where Australia is. They don't care.

Ironically, calling them retarded gives them too much credit.

We're governed by psychopaths who more or less correctly believe that they are governing retards.

It's not too late to make it so.

It generates some impatience here, but obviously Bitcoin is more urgently needed elsewhere and I'm glad they're getting the relief it provides.

Heather changed her mind on affirmative action (from Livestream #180)

https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/heather-changed-her-mind-on-affirmative:d?r=8T2xqWjtafHWYGxQBSsrbw1wQPm7sWRq

Good insights in this short clip:

1) If Affirmative Action had worked, it would have made itself obsolete.

2) If Affirmative Action had worked, we'd have a less race obsessed society.

Btw, I know that grants noble intentions, but these points are for the default liberals who believed in the stated reasons and goals of Affirmative Action.

Myth #6: There Is a Tradeoff between Unemployment and Inflation

https://odysee.com/@mises:1/myth-6-there-is-a-tradeoff-between:8?r=8T2xqWjtafHWYGxQBSsrbw1wQPm7sWRq

"Recorded by the Mises Institute in the mid-1980s, The Mises Report provided radio commentary from leading non-interventionists, economists, and political scientists. In this program, we present another part of "Ten Great Economic Myths". This material was prepared by Murray N. Rothbard.

Every time someone calls for the government to abandon its inflationary policies, Establishment economists and politicians warn that the result can only be severe unemployment. We are trapped, therefore, into playing off inflation against high unemployment, and become persuaded that we must therefore accept some of both.

This doctrine is the fallback position for Keynesians. Originally, the Keynesians promised us that by manipulating and fine-tuning deficits and government spending, they could and would bring us permanent prosperity and full employment without inflation. Then, when inflation became chronic and ever-greater, they changed their tune to warn of the alleged tradeoff, so as to weaken any possible pressure upon the government to stop its inflationary creation of new money.

The tradeoff doctrine is based on the alleged "Phillips curve," a curve invented many years ago by the British economist A. W. Phillips. Phillips correlated wage rate increases with unemployment, and claimed that the two move inversely: the higher the increases in wage rates, the lower the unemployment. On its face, this is a peculiar doctrine, since it flies in the face of logical, commonsense theory. Theory tells us that the higher the wage rates, the greater the unemployment, and vice versa. If everyone went to their employer tomorrow and insisted on double or triple the wage rate, many of us would be promptly out of a job. Yet this bizarre finding was accepted as gospel by the Keynesian economic establishment.

By now, it should be clear that this statistical finding violates the facts as well as logical theory. For during the 1950s, inflation was only about one to two percent per year, and unemployment hovered around three or four percent, whereas nowadays unemployment ranges between eight and 11 percent, and inflation between five and 13 percent. In the last two or three decades, in short, both inflation and unemployment have increased sharply and severely. If anything, we have had a reverse Phillips curve. There has been anything but an inflation-unemployment tradeoff.

But ideologues seldom give way to the facts, even as they continually claim to "test" their theories by facts. To save the concept, they have simply concluded that the Phillips curve still remains as an inflation-unemployment tradeoff, except that the curve has unaccountably "shifted" to a new set of alleged tradeoffs. On this sort of mind-set, of course, no one could ever refute any theory.

In fact, inflation now, even if it reduces unemployment in the short-run by inducing prices to spurt ahead of wage rates (thereby reducing real wage rates), will only create more unemployment in the long run. Eventually, wage rates catch up with inflation, and inflation brings recession and unemployment inevitably in its wake. After more than two decades of inflation, we are all now living in that "long run.""

Time to invest in nursing homes. Give them a safe space to harmlessly say their dumb Boomer nonsense to each other.

I've been saying this for a long time, as well. The next step is to adjust our outreach to be more in line with how Stockholm Syndrome is effectively treated.

https://odysee.com/@mises:1/two-more-elephants-in-your-electric:e?r=8T2xqWjtafHWYGxQBSsrbw1wQPm7sWRq

"On this week's episode, Mark summarizes the many problems with EVs, and focuses on two consequences funded by taxpayer subsidy. Large, overpriced, long range vehicles have been subsidized at the expense of more efficient technological applications. These EVs are significantly heavier compared to their fossil fuel counterparts (which have engines and gas tanks). These heavier vehicles create greater crash risks for passengers and pedestrians. Failure to disclose such issues reveals some uncomfortable truths about the political elites who drive this agenda onto the American people."

I wish. They're just going to blame deregulation, like they always do. It's not like they ever had to explain it before. Why would that change this time?

I'll admit the possibility that climate change is also pointed to as the culprit, but we all know that only happens because of deregulation.

I've been trying to make this point to people freaking out about the BRICS currency taking over. If the relatively homogeneous EU can't cooperatively manage their currency, the very disparate BRICS coalition certainly won't be able to.

However, I've also always said that it could be a major factor in the ongoing de-dollarization trend.

That's sort of the issue. These countries won't really be on a gold standard. It will be a fiat standard masquerading as a gold standard, but the countries will have the ability to cheat. None of them are going to agree to a real gold standard, i.e. transactions being settled in actual physical gold.

I had that happen a few weeks ago.