The money supply must be elastic, so we can expand the money supply to combat the inevitable financial crises caused by an elastic money supply.
One of the most positive developments in American history was nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyehwumn8ghj7mnhvvh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7ctewe4xcetfd3khsvrpdsmk5vnsw96rydr3v4jrz73hvyu8xqpqsg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q8dzj6n Jack Dorsey losing control of the world's most popular social media platform.
One of the most positive developments in American history was Jack Dorsey losing control of the world's most popular social media platform.
One of the most positive developments in American history was Jack Dorsey losing control of the world's most popular social media platform.
My daughter is getting more interested in coloring and drawing.
The other day we were drawing on paper, and I drew a rocket ship.
The next day we came back to the paper, she looked at the rocket ship and said to me "I drew a rocket ship!"
That's when I knew she had what it takes to become the president of Harvard.
Basically it's this Campus Reform video in AI-generated quiz format 😂
But seriously I think the AI-generation showing the opposing candidate stating the policy of the other candidate would make for a wild and fascinating social experiment.
Someone should create an AI experience that shows:
— Politicians making statements that were actually made by different politicians on the other end of the political spectrum... for example Trump saying something that Kamala actually said
— The AI experience would would also include statements that actually were made by the politician shown saying it
— It would be structured in a quiz format
— At the start of the quiz, you say which politician you support more
— At the end of each video statement, you have to say whether you agree or disagree with the statement/policy
— Higher scores if you agree with the statements that were actually made by the candidate you claim to support
— Lower score if say you agree with a statement which was actually made by the politician that you claim to be against, or disagree with a statement made by the politician you claim to support
— The statements should pertain to major tangible policy items... can't be feel-good euphemisms... and can't be one-off small topics that someone could disagree with but still be a supporter of that politician
When money constantly loses its value, people just want to get paid and move on to the next project. They are less likely to create beautiful, detailed, long-lasting art and architecture.
Dr Bull, are you willing to come back to twitter to do Cafe Bitcoin macro fridays with us?!
Should be happening each Friday going forward at 2pm ET.
I never knew Michael Jackson's birthday until this year... and it's thanks to chatting macro and markets with Dr Jeff!! 😂
Thinking about all the ways that Bitcoin (or nostr) could fail is a very worthy exercise.
And it's not mutually exclusive with thinking about all the ways it can succeed.
This feels like an appropriate first post to nostr.
— A sitting Supreme Court justice doesn't understand the First Amendment. She said: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”
— The Democratic VP candidate said: "There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation"
— Facebook/Meta stated that the Biden Admin "repeatedly pressured our teams for months" to censor content.
The First Amendment is clearly under direct attack.
It doesn't matter if these people are purely ignorant of the 1A and why it exists, or if they are purposefully undermining the 1A.
Either way, the 1A is under direct attack.
These should be the biggest stories in America right now.
You're making the same mistake that Yuval Noah Harari made in his book Sapiens... the belief that capitalism REQUIRES you to make every single decision in your life based on monetary profit motives.
This is obviously incorrect.
Do I need to charge my kids money before feeding them dinner in order to be in adherence with capitalism? Obviously not. Does capitalism allow me to be charitable with my neighbor? Obviously yes. Can I decide to buy something local even though it costs more than a similar item on Amazon or Walmart? Yes I can, and that doesn't mean I am violating capitalism.
Capitalism IS free/voluntary exchange and engagement.
People can voluntarily join a commune under capitalism!!
What makes it "communism" — the way 99.9% of human use the word — is when there's a centralized government pointing guns at people's heads, forcing them to behave in certain ways.
Your post describes people voluntarily engaging with one another. You are describing free markets / free exchange / capitalism.
Additionally, these are nothing more than meaningless feel-good nonsense:
> "in favor of a decentralized, stateless society where resources and goods are communally owned and managed."
> "manage their own affairs, making decisions through direct democracy and consensus."
> "exchanging goods and services based on need rather than profit"
> "work together for the common good"
> "operate on principles of mutual aid and shared resources"
These all mean NOTHING until applied to a specific situation. And then anyone with the tiniest bit of mental maturity would understand that SOMEONE is going to decided what different people's "needs" are... SOMEONE is going to decide what "consensus" means... SOMEONE is going to decide what "the common good means" etc etc
So, yes, communism IS coercion... and nothing you said in this incoherent post above demonstrates otherwise.