Here is Dr. Shawn Baker's recent podcast with, Alejandro Carrillo, a regenerative rancher bringing back the grasslands to my home state, Chihuahua.
I consider him a friend, but haven't managed to orange or purple pill him yet. Hopefully I'll be able to visit his ranch in the fall of this year, maybe I'll have better luck then. Anyways, if you're in Mexico and would like to try his beef, let me know and I'll let you know when he starts commercializing it.
https://cdn.satellite.earth/74a6485aec18948ec739e17b80893adea7ad63edf64588acc23659ae3d12d10c.mp4
#carnivore #carnivorediet #regenerativeranching #cattle #grassfedbeef #plantfedbeef #mexico #hispano
You won't regret it, you feel like a machine. Funny thing is that, that's how everyone should feel.
Does that mean monero is not as private as one would think?
If there's a demand for something, it will exist, but with a hard money you wouldn't need to forcibly get a mortgage just to buy your first house or plot of land. There's currently an excessive use of real estate for trying to preserve purchasing power over time, which inflates housing prices, couple that with money printing and government regulation on housing projects and it all creates a massive bubble in real estate.
It's the younger people who suffer here, since they don't come into the work force earning much, they then have to compete in the housing market (and inflation) with all the older/wealthier people trying to preserve their purchasing power. Bitcoin would suck much of the premium out of real estate, since bitcoin is a better asset long term; it doesn't inflate like fiat and hopefully technological progress will continue to bring down housing costs. The only major factor negatively influencing housing prices, in my opinion, would be government.
Minus all your wealth/work being stolen from you and being unable to save for buying a house or affording good quality food.
We don't know how a hyperbitcoinized world looks like, so it's just theories right now. Nonetheless, humanity has seen a steady long term decline in interest rates over the past 5,000 years, interrupted by the occasional calamities like war and natural disasters. This all stopped in the 20th century with fiat money.
Having said this, there's a possibility the trend could return and send interest rates to 0% or near it. How? Because money always has a carrying cost (bank fees for example or it being stolen) that is always larger than 0. So if holding money has a cost, then not lending money has a nonzero cost, meaning people would be offering to lend money at lower and lower rates.
Saifedean Ammous really goes into this on chapter 14 of his book, Principles of Economics, and he seems to be the only Austrian economist out there talking about this.
The reason would be saving vs investing. Saving is supposed to be easy, with the lowest level of risk, which is what gold was and what bitcoin will be one day. Nowadays people thing investing and saving are the same, they're not, fiat distorted this.
Stocks and real estate could offer a higher return in the future, after hyperbitcoinization, but there are more risks to both; the government could seize either, a storm could destroy your properties, businesses could go to 0, etc. Bitcoin just sits there, slowly appreciating without you having to do anything, which means it will be more of an individualized risk-tolerance thing.
I think bitcoin will bring back value investing to stocks.
I think it would, bitcoin would still appreciate though, since it's the world's scarcest asset. Deflation would then be driven by the level of human productivity. I have Jeff Booth's book, the Price Of Tomorrow, on my to read list, I believe he goes into this topic.
Let's fill the world with bitcoiners until it's simply the status quo
Bitcoin is the reason I've started stacking kids so young, we want 4-5. 3 so far!
Ancoms think they won't devovle into communism.
Sounds like you had a mouthful and I'm guessing you've suffered through all that for many years.
I think #Nostr needs an active carnivore nests/space to chat. Would you be interested in doing a podcast or live chat for nostr?
That's awesome! What health problems did you have?
Thanks to nostr:npub1vp8fdcyejd4pqjyrjk9sgz68vuhq7pyvnzk8j0ehlljvwgp8n6eqsrnpsw I checked out suno and probably made one of the first carnivore AI songs, it was fun. https://suno.com/song/e02781f8-704a-4eb6-98cf-f61172ff026b
The scenario you're describing with the restaurant is a free market scenario, where the restaurant stops wasting food not because a law made it so but because of profit motives. People look down upon certain actions and if they become aware of it, they vote with their money and go somewhere else. The restaurant either gets it or goes out of business.
I lot of farmers would probably have better yields as well if they would leave all the monocrop Fiat agriculture behind, sure it might be profitable in the short term, but long term you destroy your own soil and are therefore reducing yield in the long term. With time, many are forced to pay for expensive fertilizers and pesticides to grow and protect their weak crops. Now, these monocrop agricultural tendencies exist because of government intervention; wheat, corn and soy are heavily subsidized by the US government in the USA, for example. Farmers have a guaranteed price on this these crops and humans love certainty, so that's what a lot choose to grow. If the free market wasn't being manipulated by government intervention, then you probably wouldn't see a lot of people growing things that make them poorer over time.
Also, people are generally more generous the less they are stolen/taxed from. I can see charities working in an anarchic society, better than they work now, and people being taken care of if needed. So without a government to "take responsibility" for the poor and to steal from productive people, those with some money would probably be self-interested in helping out locally to take care of the homeless in their neighborhoods.
So basically, I don't see the need for the adjective of communism in anarchy. Left to their own devices, humans naturally cooperate and trade with one another, and those who respect property rights the most, develop civilization the most. Human action and property rights are the cornerstone of capitalism. It's not some greedy entrepreneur with a big hat, they become a problem (corporations) when they get in bed with the government and that has an actual name, fascism (which stems from socialist ideology). Unfortunately, people toss that word around so much that they don't even know what it means.
I highly recommend Saifedean Ammous' book, Principles of Economics, a great read and something I plan my children on reading too one day.
The question is, how would this society enforce the "don't allow" part?
I can see this food scenario becoming more of a societal norm in some places (ie. Germans don't like littering but it's very common in poorer countries) and in other areas you'd probably sign an agreement. That's the rules without rulers part of anarchy and I agree that is something plausible, to have almost everyone handle their food responsibly *and* voluntarily. The important thing is avoiding control of the food supply and how it is used by some central authority, maybe some people would want to "throw away" food to make compost. Would they be punished and how would that go about? The free market would end up offering the best solutions.