I take Elon's words at face value -- he believes in free speech and wants the de facto town square to be free and fair, allowing for all voices to be heard.

He won't make twitter a place for free speech absolutism, but it sure will be a better forum for ideas than its current iteration. Driving out the far left wing politics and media industrial complex that have had a monopoly on big tech will be refreshing, and getting rid of the bots would help clean the place up.


This doesn't make sense. No one in their right mind is going to spend 44 billion dollars so they can get some political favors done. There are much cheaper options. And Elon Musk is a Ron DeSantis supporter anyways. He has no intentions of voting for Trump. I don't think this is about politics.

I suppose he could. Issue is that he's financially involved with Truth Social, I don't know if he would use both. I'd prefer Trump be back on twitter only to make the far left grifter account/MSM lose their mind.

Trump thrives off media attention and he just doesn't get a lot of attention with his posts on Truth Social. If he wants to mobilize for 2024, he needs to get back in the spotlight. Twitter would help him a lot more because everything he says becomes a news story (a double edged sword, of course).

On that note: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586059953311137792


Will this content moderation council allow Trump back? Let it serve as the litmus test for how things will be.

This list of fired employees, including some top executives is, but not limited to:

CEO Parag Agrawal
CFO Ned Segal and
General counsel Sean Edgett
Legal and policy exec Vijaya Gadde

Their unemployment journey won't last long. Another tech company will gladly scoop them all up for them to inflict their cancer on whatever platform.

It's time to unban the twitter accounts that were censored - I'm hoping for Dr. Robert Malone soon. Maybe even Orange Hitler can come back if he's willing to ditch Truth Social. Doesn't seem like he wants to leave it though.

Land based casinos are phasing out. They're a relic of an older time so perhaps some nostalgia exists, but the online gambling industry will overtake them and consume market share.


Perhaps this applies to some slots but the RTP on table games is the same online as they are in land based casinos. I'm aware that nearly all online casino providers outsource their table games so the RTP are essentially standardized no matter what the casino is. They're identical to land based casino odds.

The downside with online casinos is that you need to put a lot of trust into the platform if you want to deposit your own funds. Land based casinos are bound by strict regulations if they're legal operations (I'm aware of underground operations, I exclude those for obvious reasons). I don't have to second guess the casino if I'm depositing on land based. On the other hand, I'm forced to research an online casino so my deposit doesn't get eaten.

The world isn't ready to switch to renewable energy even if this money were to actually exist. The infrastructure required to house renewable energy resources aren't built yet and having to built this infrastructure would take more money and time than these studies can articulate. I've never seen a climate change related expenditure meet projected costs. They always go over budget. You also need to ask whether consumers are comfortable paying elevated taxes and higher energy prices for renewable energy, most aren't willing.


Interesting. A mere quibble over 62 trillion dollars in spending shouldn't stop anything, according to these folks.

Bold plans aren't enough. If the proposition is that the earth has limited time left before mass extinction climate related events, then putting forth a feasible plan for meeting the world's energy demands is what's appropriate. I've long been a proponent of nuclear energy. Some don't consider it to be "renewable" in the traditional sense because of waste pollution but I don't see that as an issue because of how far we've come in nuclear waste management. It's unfortunate that climate change activists are so against the only form of energy efficient enough to meet global energy demands and produce a fraction of the pollution that carbon based energy forms emit.

If it's in a retirement fund and they don't withdraw, then the short term volatility isn't going to be an aspect they should be concerned about. If they're investing in alts, then I'd be concerned if the coin is completely defunct at the end of 30-40 years, which in that case it shouldn't be part of a retirement fund at all. Sticking with Bitcoin, diversifying with crypto's a good idea.

I wouldn't suggest going all in, doesn't seem like most young folks would do that anyways.

He might be a crypto believer but he's also a proponent of CBDC's. I don't think in a crypto economy there has to be the exclusion of CBDC's, my only concern is the government using them as a cudgel to force consumers to adopt the government backed "crypto" and eventually phase out traditional cryptocurrencies. UK economy facing turmoil and GBP is in disarray, seems like an awfully convenient time for government to introduce alternative forms of their currency.

The redesign for Nigeria isn't an overhaul of the currency system, it's merely aesthetic changes. That won't do anything. If their concern is with counterfeiting, then I suppose the redesign would help in that regard. Won't help inflation.

If you wanted to help a country's economy, ditch the currency system for a currency that's deflationary or at the least is tied to a physical asset. The problem with any fiat currency is that the supply is infinite -- there isn't anything stopping the government from merely creating more. Obviously, overhauling the currency system is a radical approach that has detrimental economic effects in the short term. Long term, it's a viable solution to save a country's economy IMO.

Purchasing fewer perishables helps, I suppose. Fresh produce should be bought in fewer quantities, and donating leftover food might be considered.

World hunger isn't a problem that involves an actual lack of food supply. Most people waste food they get in the developed world. It's a matter of logistics/transportation and storage. Freeze drying is a method I've come across over the last years that dehydrates the food and extends shelf life up to decades. Not all food can be freeze dried, but it's something to consider.

And hey, in the event of global apocalypse, you'll at least have plenty of food  

Human selfishness is inherent. We'd all like to do better and think that we're beyond reproach, but at baseline there is some level of what I would call "self preservation" that might exist during times of crisis. Seems ingrained in human physiology  -- consider it to be on the same note of the "fight or flight" response when humans are subject to fear, uncertainty, and shock.

We can only hope the time of crisis moves quickly. We're a very fragile species.

Nothing will save the British economy, they'll have to go through the recovery phase of a recession because of their post COVID spending spree. It was inevitable, whether conservatives or liberals were in power. Lowering the energy costs by finding cheaper supply would help alleviate the economic pain -- it doesn't seem to me Sunak has a solution to that.

I've seen sources suggesting that he wants to implement CBDC's, as if that would save their imploding economy.

There aren't any "safe" assets during a recession that's immune to fluctuation. There's only assets that are less volatile. I wouldn't call crypto a safe haven but it's worth diversifying into along with precious metals and cash.

The caveat with cash is that you're limited to stable currencies, which historically was USD. Problem is, USD is inflating to quickly to consider it a stable asset.

Not really. Hong Kong's autonomy is limited. They're controlled and operated by China with a marginal amount of additional freedoms that mainland Chinese citizens don't enjoy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-xi-says-full-control-over-hong-kong-achieved-determined-taiwan-2022-10-16/

Xi Jinping considers Hong Kong to be part of China. A couple years ago, China would ship in law enforcement to take over the region and it has pretty much been under their control since.

Forgiving college loans just makes the debt crisis worth, and it only incentivizes institutions to raise their prices as long as debts are being repaid. You can obtain liberal arts degrees that will cost up to 100k USD in total tuition fees and the institution will happily take a naive 18 year old's money because they aren't the ones cosigning on the loans. The institutions will stick around, they're more than comfortable with collecting payment plus interest over a period of 25 years.

Hopefully with less supply of college applicants, the price will come down. No reason to be paying the inflated prices that currently exist.

This clip was made pretty famous in retrospect. I remember it being very popular at the time, but it has since gotten more relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg

Obama's foreign policy was terrible. Mitt Romney's would have been a bit better in hindsight but who actually knows. Russia's power was underestimated, and Obama had the audacity to ridicule Mitt Romney over it.

Side note - there wasn't much talk about China being a geopolitical threat either. A lot of people couldn't foresee how fast China's economy would've grown in the past decade, including myself. 2012 foreign policy talk was just the Middle East, and many other things got overlooked, North Korea as well. NK were on the pathway to nuclear weapons at the end of 2016, if they weren't already developed.

Regulation's already here. Miners were the first to be targeted, under the guise of "climate change" activism in Europe and the U.S. In reality, it's merely politicians using climate change as a facade to drill down the miners and make crypto mining less profitable, therefore curtailing the enter market. They'll move on to higher taxes and force crypto users to register all crypto holdings with the government. They might even pass a wealth tax (it's customary to pay taxes on assets that are sold for a profit, not mere accumulated wealth). That'll cause holders to immediately dump their assets.

Decentralization does not mean an authoritarian government is incapable of regulation. Sometimes I sense complacency amongst crypto users that decentralization protects them from the government. It helps, but it's not 100% immune.

Government size isn't inherently terrible as long as the government doesn't interfere with basic liberties and participants in the government don't use the office for personal gain. Of course, that's logic that would exist in a vacuum which doesn't account for real world factors. I'm generally for limited government and small government size because it reduces the tendency for a central authority to begin housing the authority for corruption.


Most important on your list IMO. Authoritarianism/corruption is always about the money. Decentralized currencies would of course help with this issue.

Heritage Foundation is a right wing think tank so it shouldn't come as a surprise they would come to this sort of conclusion under the Biden administration.

I don't know if they're correct or not -- I'll only say that the PR front of the U.S. military has been nothing short of embarrassment: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2929658/diversity-equity-inclusion-are-necessities-in-us-military/

Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE). It's central to the Biden administration that the U.S. military hit the diversity checkboxes. Because in a war, as long as you have diversity and inclusion, you will out virtue the enemies.

Elect politicians that support free market capitalism. It won't solve the problem entirely, but it'll help. As long as there's a central banking that works with government, even with free market capitalism it's difficult for politicians to keep an independent relationship from the banking institutions. This wouldn't be an issue with decentralized currencies, but for obvious reasons, they aren't the current protocol for any country's economy.

No party, let alone even the most strict fiscal conservatives could revive an economy that blew out the budget in 2020 and is facing an unprecedented rise in energy costs.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/298465/government-spending-uk/

Conservatives should not have signed on with blowing out the budget over COVID lockdowns that had little to no returns. They'll have to deal with the consequences. Social spending and healthcare are the biggest expenditures -- there is no feasible chance you could lower these costs so any attempt at having a balanced budget is dead on arrival. The only hope is that the economy picks back up, and energy prices decreases.