Avatar
Ben Ewing
72039a17ad045c0e2ffa0b2fdd9c08467f8190e04f4f4672ffb516a61a815f86

I think those people just conclude that they don't need to know. I do, occasionally. Eg, someone I don't know well recently said I care about my own happiness too much. I should focus more on making others happy. She said she could sacrifice for another and I couldn't. Ok. Do I need to argue with her about that? What will it achieve? Does she even think that or is she just saying that to hurt me or try to get me to do what she wants? Or is she right? Who knows. Some arguments cannot be won.

So basically: sitting in 5% treasuries when real inflation is above 5% means your purchasing power is getting run over. I mean I guess, but we all need some dry powder right? What if Trump wins and 'fires everyone' as Hillary is saying he will. And isn't the long end mostly bought by the Fed now anyway? Not sure why that matters if they get run over slowly. Japanification

I don't. She needs to have a conclusion. So what if the bond market was a forecaster and now isn't?

Addock & Sealy [2024]:

Woman brought proceedings agains boyfriend. They had 5 year relationship. Lives separately. She claimed property distribution justified on the basis of her providing food when he visited, helping manage tenants of one of his properties, and providing him with emotional and physical support.

The court awarded her $750,000 of his property and a car.

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC1F/2024/123.html

Just read Farrah & Cisek [2024].

The de facto wife claimed family violence in her testimony. No other evidence is noted by the court. The court made a distribution of 100% of the de facto husband's property (about $1,350,000 AUD) on the basis that her non-financial contributions to the marriage were made significantly harder due to the violence she alleges. The de facto husband's appeal was dismissed.

Throughout her relationship with the de facto husband the de facto wife was married to another man.

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC1A/2024/38.html

Those black markets were for food and other essentials though, which can't really be banned without the entire population starving (although they damn well tried). Monero might be useful in a world that doesn't respect property rights, but maybe not even then. In a totalitarian state, anyone can be a spy of the regime. Think 1984. So you buy something with your monero from a vendor and boom, you're dead.

Well it's a black market as labelled by the state, not in any moral sense. But for most people (at the moment at least) what the state labels something is what counts

Never risk your house for a woman

Someone said to me today 'you take your own happiness too seriously...'

🤷‍♂️

That's my point. You're saying there will be mass adoption of these things despite them being black market money. My point is that I don't think so unless fiat becomes so bad that people want to take that risk, and I think that's only likely once inflation is maybe +50%/y or cbdc's make purchasing stuff you want difficult enough to risk prison for

Altruism is dangerous. Forced altruism is slavery

Some people are just cunts🙏