For the notice I'm all for globalism and free trade.
This pact on particular had some severe issues, starting by how it was made; with secret meetings and under the table stuff; to provide big corps with special and independent justice systems, and to be overall a way for big corps to smash the small guys like cockroaches.

I hope Trump will come up with new deals, openly made and open to public discussion, not oligarchy crap.

I just put the articles as samples. It was a common critic towards both, TPP and TTIP, that it was being dealt in the shadows and designed to favor only big corps against the small guy, its biggest opponents were internal to Obama's party, Democrats, and Lefties in general.
So they didn't like it... until a Republican put it down when it then becomes the best of all treaties.

Looks like the press is again aiming at its own feet! After Trump's sign US out of TPP, the top-secret-made-by-God-knows-who agreement that no one likes;

(ie) http://www.ecowatch.com/trans-pacific-partnership-a-fast-track-to-disaster-1882019360.html

Now, after Trump, it turns to be a "loved by all" treaty...

(ie) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/23/donald-trump-first-orders-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp

Credibility, dear sires, where's the credibility?!

 

Well, the focus on Trump was so big that barely anyone knows what was Hillary's program or projects...
He was surely a "pure genius" on the way he played the press... now if we've to put "evil" in between of those words or not, only time will tell.

Nothing, he did nothing yet...
Still the actions of his so called opposition is speaking volumes... against themselves! Like those of an elder retreaded lip sync italian artist...

They do, because many of them are chasing him for too long and need material to put to the editor, if the source is dry they've to come up with something.
And by "creating their own material" I don't mean exactly or only fake news, but irrelevant negative stuff that gets interpreted as a mental disorder from the reporter. Such as stuff normally of "Pink Press" put to news on a respectable newspaper.

Another thing that's killing Press' credibility is the annoying "The Internet reacted badly to...": You're killing the article at the title! The internet is a bunch of cables and electronic devices that sees no meaning on human affairs, so it doesn't react to it at all. You're meaning a bunch of people over the internet but your sample doesn't represent the whole or even the majority of the internet users and it's way complicated to get data enough to support such claim. Summing this is up and, by trying to pass his personal opinion as the opinion of a much wider group, the reporter is showing arrogance and lack of objectivity, a hard blow on whatever he wrote next within the article.

The press corporations brought this on themselves... but Trump played smart.

The problem with the press is that there is just one thing worse than an ignorant; an ill informed person. Put back press credibility, learn to double or triple check sources before sharing some piece of bullshit, that must be the next priority.

f'xed!

It looks to me that Trump managed to lure the press into what I called the Trump Effect or Press Overflow.
It works as such;

Your popularity is low with press and most reporters don't like you, so they will pick in any negative thing they can to put you down.
Instead of trying to improve your popularity, you start saying the most absurdities, giving them material to keep putting you down. Keep doing this for a while and make sure you provide material to put your popularity down quite often, daily if possible.

After you reach rock bottom, increase the interval when you provide material, this will make those who were chasing you for all this long to "create their own material" - but make sure the interval isn't long enough for them to lose interest and cut the chase.

Shortly after you have reach the shifting point. Now the people is so fed up with news about you and so confuse due to the material "created by the press", that the reporters will look like pure psychos with conspiracy theories problems.
At this point your popularity will start growing as press' credibility gets flushed down the drain. As a side effect many people will not openly support you, but in the secret of a voting booth things turn different.

Trump managed to did it for 2 whole years this far... and counting!

People is a bit confuse! Hitler didn't present himself as going to kill jews and expel immigrants... he did raise to power by perfect PR, propaganda and by creating a lot of alarming fake news.
His supporters were thinking to be following some sort of Jesus 2.0.

You know the problem about that sort of "evil"; for most of people at the beginning they will look like "Saints". Trump is far from fit the profile.

In other words, if you want to know how nazis got to power study 1933, not 1944.

Edit: And I don't think Trump will be able to write a propaganda book, due to Tweeter's character limitations. 

Up to so far, Trump is a perfect mystery to me.
The absurd amount of counter-information and nazi-like behavior from its opponents, alongside with his childish insistence in using Tweeter makes it all foggy.
So far he managed to do a "press overflow" up to a point where press totally lost credibility, and we can see that at Hillary's campaign; they totally failed on provide reasons to vote FOR her, because they were only thinking on finding reasons to vote AGAINST Trump... didn't work out.

Let's see what comes along!

So the reverse psychology worked again!

For over 2 years, since the primaries, nobody speaks about nothing else but Trump, Clinton's campaign was non-existent, all there was was "why you should NOT vote Trump" instead of "why you should vote for Clinton" (maybe there was no reason to vote for her anyway).

Now let's see how it unfolds, if possible without massive hysteria. I know the hysterical love words, despite Obama's administration has caused more carnage than both Bush put together, by supporting terrorist groups from Syria to Libya to Yemen, he "speaks and smiles nice".
Remember to the end isn't what you say that counts but what you do.

I wrote a thread about it already, but bills and coins are also virtual. No bill or coin worth what is printed on it, it represents a value of a virtual currency, such as USD, EUR, GBP, whatever... you can't hold 100 USD or even 1 USD, because it has no physical form, you're holding a paper representing it.
Just the same as if you print some QR codes with a private key holding bitcoins...

I've no issue about the way our financial system works or want it backed by anything.
The issue is that people along the time made false assumptions about fiat money, and fail to know the same arguments they use against Bitcoin applies to fiat.
This said, I often feel like Morpheus giving red pills...

Turns out coins and bills are as virtual as credit cards, they don't worth the value printed on it, they represent such value.
The only "physical money" is gold or silver themselves, but fiat isn't backed by it or anything at all.

I don't mean scare them with bitcoin, but by knowing what fiat is indeed and knowing that it has no physical existence whatsoever also.
I often stumble on this, at first they don't believe me - even my father was convinced Greek Euros were more worthy because were backed by more gold, as Greece has some good gold reserves -, then they study it over a bit and come scared that our money (no matter the currency) is a scam and the discussion derails to it and to how scared they got by being aware of it.

If you talked about Bitcoin with your friends you most likely already listened to this "argument".
It's not false, Bitcoin has in fact no physical existence, but nor does the printed money we call fiat.
The question is then on how to deal with this argument, in a short and easily understandable way, without scare them of by knowing the bills on their wallet are no more than regular papers representing x units of the virtual currency y, which is backed by thin air and its supply is limited only by the paper and ink in stock or the printing capacities of the machine that does them?

Not quite, maybe in a short time spawn, but when you look at its last 30 years you get something like this:



As gold is much older than bitcoin, we would need to wait to can compare stability.

@ObscureBean,

Actually it isn't. The "I want more money" does nothing at all, because money has no use on its own, so the economy is what matters not the money. Money as a mean not as a target. When you "send money to the starved" for an instance, you're not expecting them to use the bills as lettuce, but for someone to produce and sell food accordingly.

@freshman777

No, money can't have use, or such use will be restrain due to the tendency to hoard and accumulate. In the example people wouldn't eat beans anymore.
Actually the historically more used as money metal is the most worthless of them all, gold has little application and the only feature it has is to resist oxidation, but is a lousy thermal and electrical conductor. Normally is used to plate exposed contacts.
A fair example on this ecosystem is Namecoin. Nobody uses it for "buy domains", an intrinsic feature of it, but to trade.


Let's set an example of linear IO here. Let's say we're in a close environment with 10.000 people where the only good is cars, there're 1000 cars and 1000 dollars. Each car cost 1 dollar.
At some point appears some Hugo Chávez around and decide to increase the money to 10.000 dollars so everyone can have a car. The issue is that we still have only 1000 cars, so each car will cost now 10 dollars. In other words all you did was to change the ratio of money:goods, but 9 out of 10 people won't have a car. Everybody will have "more money" but it doesn't change a thing.

Quite interesting, and I'm a huge fan of Games Theory.
However I was talking on a more close to the Earth issue, the definition of money itself and its desirable properties. On other words and the stupidity of run after money itself instead of what it represents;

- money has to be intrinsically worthless. - If, for an instance, we use beans as money when we get hungry we could simply boil the money and eat it. And this also explains why those "with some feature added alt coins" are a concept failure to use as money.
- money has to be somehow on a limited supply. - When you increase the amount of money circulating, you're actually lowering its value as you're using a bigger number to represent the same amount of real-life items (usually we call it inflation).

In simple terms, I'm not against money at all and I think of it as a great way of ruling human trade, regulate the resources and so on, but you need it food, a car, a house, comfort, etc. And this is what people must learn to think of, instead of a simple "I want more money", specially when it may mean the very same or even less (look at cases like Venezuela or Zimbabwe) amount of goods.