Jump to content

BeSafe

Members
  • Content Count

    8,354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

BeSafe last won the day on February 16 2019

BeSafe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,452 F'n Saint

About BeSafe

Recent Profile Visitors

5,985 profile views
  1. That's where it starts to get philosophical and ease the sheet was probably right when he said no one really knows what money is. Is a dollar a dollar before it changes hands? Does money that might be lent but isn't yet in circulation still still money? I think most of the money semantic arguments and gold standard discussions are generally proxy fights for bigger issues. Money is power and those that have it want to keep it and those that don't have it want to get more. Bitcoin uniquely matters because it's organic and isn't historically tied to a particular power structure.
  2. Sure. But that begs the question can it become money without going through that transition. People use all kinds of proxies for money. Beads, coins, bottles of tide, whatever. Bitcoin looks like gold. Some finite amount that is just "there" that is extracted by energy. The coins - or gold - represent a store of energy and are hard to replace as such. But at various times and places, even mundane materials - like salt - are worth more. Gold as money itself was always tenuous and is usually tied to force. There was a time when silver was far more practical - and valuable
  3. Yea, I tend to disagree on that. Bitcoin derives it's value as a proxy for dollars - that's why usdc and usdt caused so much drama and actually threatened to collapse the crypto world. Not bitcoin. Xrp was the existential threat. And if it's a pseudogold store of wealth, why did it plunge on inflation fears? Its acting like a growth stock, not an independent means of transactions. It might become money - but it's not money yet.
  4. That's truth If you rewind it all the way back, it sort of makes sense. You and I are in a room and there is no money. I agree to borrow $100 from you. You say sure, and pull out a piece of paper and write $100 on it and hand it too me. On another piece of paper, you make a note saying that I owe you $100 dollars. Money is born. That's it. All of the money in existence today is tied to that fundamental transaction. That's why the idea of 'paying off the debt' is ridiculous prima face. That's why the 'trillion dollar coin' makes sense. Its why the bond market
  5. Yea, then all the left overs end up in a 'pond' somewhere. BLEGH. There are some hard coal stocks that are almost solid oil - they burn pretty clean without much left over. But that ain't cheep coal and there isn't much left. Its mostly used as a chemical precursor or specialty product these days. And it costs a lot.
  6. Looks like a dude to me who was probably wanking off after some light burglary and ditched after she woke up and screamed.
  7. By 'you', I assume you mean the original claim by Surfer7? Or did you really not actually want the source? When I see a question that I'm interested in, I'll usually dig in a little bit and find out where it came from. I thought the claim seemed unusual - 430 million from Zuck does seem like a lot of money. So down the rabbit hole I went. I was expecting to find Bloomberg at the end of the trail since he said outright that he was going to drop $400 mill and was going to spend it anyway, even if he didn't get the nomination (which he didn't). Instead, I ran into that other outfit, A
  8. This is a source for the Zuck money claim - they say $419 million but close enough. https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/12/the-2020-election-wasnt-stolen-it-was-bought-by-mark-zuckerberg/ "The amount of additional money these groups poured into elections offices in Democrat-voting areas was truly staggering. To put it in perspective, federal and state matching funds for COVID-19-related election expenses in 2020 totaled $479.5 million. The CTCL and CEIR money totaled $419.5 million. These two private non-profits were responsible for an 85 percent increase in total additional election f
  9. Although his quote is humorous, this is the money shot: "All flavors of the metropolitan liberal professional class (which in Australia includes many Laborites and Greens as well as mainstream ‘wet’ Liberals) embrace individual rights and civil liberties. What they don’t embrace are populist challenges to their own rule." That's his real point. I do recommend the break. If you come back, I recommend a liberal use of 'ignore'. Serious. It does help. I went 12 years never blocking anyone. Now, there's some threads where I'll only see 30% of posts. If someone uses blatantly homo
  10. Yea, "so this is how liberty dies.. with thunderous applause". I'm hanging my hats on the Millennials Seriously. All joking aside - they become the single largest voting block in 2028. That election is the next potential turning point. The US becomes their country. That election is the one that actually decides if we get off this ride or take it to the bottom. I believe Democracies need churn. Forty years of the same people just trading the gavel back and forth has lead to calcification and the erosion of hope. I believe we're locked in for another seven years of small ba
  11. I disagree. There are --- People like Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, and even Bernie Sanders - yes BERNIE! - was remarkably good at picking up votes from disaffected Republicans. The problem is any democrat that would appeal to republicans aren't 'real' democrats - they're just 'dinos'. The loudest and most active supporters support extreme positions. The same goes for moderate republicans. I saw an analysis on financial media that was spot on - websites like "Seeking Alpha" literally alternate 'pro' can 'con' on given stocks and their algorithm just pushes whichever gets the most cli
  12. If you believe the pundits, the institutional democrats are starting to line up behind Buttigieg. Expect him to bail out as Transportation Secretary in by May 2023, IF he can improve his ad hoc skills. His documentary was BAD ... I'd much rather vote for his hubby than him. Buttigieg came across as an improved AI version of Zuckerberg - fucking robot waiting for the producers to tell him what to say. I can't see it NOT Joe - my hopes are for 2028.
  13. I actually liked Pinker's book Then again, I quote Carlin on occasion as well so my opinion is suspect!
  14. I read that article when I was looking at her funding. I appreciate their passion but there's an AWFUL lot of weasel words in that article. "70 Democratic donors — some of whom gave Sinema’s 2018 campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law" - Ok, what's the maximum contribution? (https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2021-2022-campaign-cycle-contribution-limits/) says individual limits are $2K for a senator. It also says they're counting money given to the Democratic election campaigns in general - some of which was certainly redirected. Sinema has raised over $30 mill
  15. Honestly? https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kyrsten-sinema/industries?cid=N00033983&cycle=2022&type=C I think that tells the tale of Sinema. Her major base is retirees, lawyers, and bankers. In other words, old rich people who live in Arizona. The truth is that Sinema DID vote to bypass the filibuster for the debt ceiling vote. So it's not a 'general' principle. That being said, I think issues like gun control and immigration are at the top of her 'flammable topics list'. The 'break the filibuster' proponents have already talked about doing away with i
×
×
  • Create New...