Broken Money

The Fiat Standard

Principles of Economics

Soft War

21 Lessons

The Mandibles

The Creature from Jekyll Island

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I have never said that a company needs to retain anyone. Quite the opposite.

So let’s take your example and let's say you're the owner of a fishing company. I run your boats, but I don't make enough money for you to pay me a living wage. Because you are the business owner, you can fire me and hire someone else. If the next person doesn't catch enough fish, you can fire that person too and hire a better fisherman. If you've hired 10 people and you've had to fire them all because it's not working out, you should think about whether your business is actually capable of being profitable. If your business is not able to generate enough revenue for you to pay your employees properly, then your business is shit. That was one of the first things I said to you in our conversation. If your business is not profitable enough to pay your employees properly, then you are essentially a ghost company that relies on exploiting people. Either you are profitable enough or you are not. You always have the option to go fishing yourself.

But anyway. I know you won’t agree with me. And I don’t really care. Like Satoshi said it so beautifully: “If you don’t believe it or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you.”

I've been trying to get my hands on a copy, but I know the premise of the book, and a rough idea of what went down, the formation of the Federal Reserve, and I know that they used Woodrow Wilson to do it, they had him in their pocket the whole time.

Which larger books I like to read a physical copy, I only read really short books in a digital format.

I've been fishing around to try and find somwhere online where I can buy it with Bitcoin.

You got to hand it to him, he's spot on with that assesment.

So much of what is going on today, the fucking madness in the world, is a consequence of distortion and suppression of the free-market, it's really quite crazy when you start to see it and understand it, the consequences of it are profound.

Who was that guy that said , and I'm paraphasing here , ' I don't care who the president of the country is as long as I get to control the money ' , or something like that, man , he wasn't kidding.

In your opinion Is the internet as it stands today a force for collectivization or individualism?

Don't mistake my disagreement for a misunderstanding.

I'll try to make it very simple for you.

If a business owner employs a person for 40 hours a week, that business owner is deriving value from that person. If that person were, as you say, providing "worthless unskilled labour", the business owner would not employ that person in the first place. The very act of employing the person implies that the owner derives value from the person. So your argument about a person having no skills is nonsense, because the person has to have some skills or they wouldn't be employed. It also doesn't matter if that person has never had a job before.

So far there is no argument. If you can think logically, you have to agree.

Because the owner derives value from the labour of his employee, and this employee is employed full time, the salary must be high enough for the employee to live a life of dignity. We can disagree about what a decent life should look like. I think a comfortable home, healthy food and the ability to save some money is the bare minimum that should be considered a life in dignity. If you think that's too much to ask for, that's between you and God. You do you. None of my business.

Also, we are not talking about socialism at all. The idea that a business owner should pay his employees properly doesn't come from a socialist perspective, it comes from a place of basic human decency. The fact that some people seem to have no problem exploiting other people makes the law a necessity. A law is not socialist. A law is there to protect the weak. You can believe in a world without government, but just as communism is a fairy tale, this kind of libertarianism is also a fairy tale. Nice idea, it won't work. There must always be a balance, in everything.

Don't mistake my disagreement for a misunderstanding.

I'll try to make it very simple for you.

If a business owner employs a person for 40 hours a week, that business owner is deriving value from that person. If that person were, as you say, providing "worthless unskilled labour", the business owner would not employ that person in the first place. The very act of employing the person implies that the owner derives value from the person. So your argument about a person having no skills is nonsense, because the person has to have some skills or they wouldn't be employed. It also doesn't matter if that person has never had a job before.

So far there is no argument. If you can think logically, you have to agree.

Because the owner derives value from the labour of his employee, and this employee is employed full time, the salary must be high enough for the employee to live a life of dignity. We can disagree about what a decent life should look like. I think a comfortable home, healthy food and the ability to save some money is the bare minimum that should be considered a life in dignity. If you think that's too much to ask for, that's between you and God. You do you. None of my business.

Also, we are not talking about socialism at all. The idea that a business owner should pay his employees properly doesn't come from a socialist perspective, it comes from a place of basic human decency. The fact that some people seem to have no problem exploiting other people makes the law a necessity. A law is not socialist. A law is there to protect the weak. You can believe in a world without government, but just as communism is a fairy tale, this kind of libertarianism is also a fairy tale. Nice idea, it won't work. There must always be a balance, in everything.

What you eating bro?

Spent $419 on a single grocery bill yesterday. Only 6 bags.

Aren't infants in ketosis?

Like, we have these energy-intensive brains and human infants are born extremely fat (fatter than baby seals) and with virtually no glucose to run that energy-intensive brain. So how do you think it happens? How much glucose is in mother's milk?

Gluconeogenesis creates glucose from other substances--and then the glucose is leveraged to create ATP via the Kreb's cycle.

Yet the key precursor for normal cellular respiration remains glucose.

So the initial steps prior to the Kreb's cycle occurs when glucose is metabolized to pyruvate, and then pyruvate is metabolized to acetyl CoA, and that is then used in the Kreb's cycle.

IIRC you get a total of 38 ATP per glucose molecule metabolized via the Kreb's cycle...but it's been a while... 😃

There are some alternative pathways (e.g. via ketones) but those typically only are leveraged in extreme circumstances (such as starvation).

However, the typical pathway for cellular respiration leverages glucose.

Sugar is addictive

The cereal isle advertises to children

The amount of sugar (i'm including hfcs) usa children ingest is literally killing them--1 in 6 children are obese, and 10-60% of these kiddos have metabolic syndrome…not to mention the >40% general population with it.

25% are in single parent households

sugar + general nutritional excess + lack of exercise + poor family structure/high stress/low spirituality + weird chemicals

Sugar is the least of the problems in these food-like products. Aint got shit on the health problems from GMOs, agridustrial chemical residue, and all the intentionally added chemicals. Singling out sugar implies the ones without are somehow better.