Trump indicted federally: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-twice-impeached-trump-now-faces-his-second-criminal-indictment-as-he-looks-to-recapture-white-house/ar-AA1cjDKQ

The aggregate betting market data isn't yet available, so it isn't clear how people will factor this news into their predictions.

Looking back to April, Trump's indictment in New York actually helped him a bit and he had a slight bump in his odds at winning the Presidency: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting-odds/2024/president/

I fail how to see how any of these indictments are anything but a liability for Trump in a general. Rather surprised the odds shifted marginally in Trump's favor momentarily after his NY indictment. Trial dates will bet set up in 2024, the Biden administration knows what it's doing. If Trump wins the Republican nomination and then goes to trial post primaries and gets a convicted, it will automatically guarantee a Biden win in November.

Seems to be me anyone betting on Trump is betting on a liability.

What happens to the culture of a country when you systematically import immigrants into a country, illegally or not, who don't conform to the values of said country?

Just recently -- Syrian refugee goes on mass stabbing attack targeting children and women: https://news.sky.com/story/syrian-refugee-who-stabbed-british-child-and-five-others-in-annecy-knife-attack-was-denied-asylum-in-france-12899146

Turns out many of these Syrian refugees don't adapt to westernized culture very well.

The crime increases, and more cultural fragmentation within society leads to weaker social capital and structure. Sure, if you want cheap labor just bring in cheap workers from other countries. But there are long term impacts that go beyond the economic benefits. Culture can be lost in less than a generation -- a country is not a country without closed borders.

I'm not one to normally take sides on legal matters until I see the entirety of evidence either, but keep in mind the SEC hasn't been clear on the statutory language of crypto and their classification as either commodities or securities. They'll create a treacherous legal environment to begin with, then start filing lawsuits at companies they want to target.

Subpoenas start being thrown around (judges will sign them off without cause) and then the U.S. government can force company executives to show up to court, and if they refuse, they become immediate criminals.

Parents should've been the ones to handle a situation like this, not the government. Though, provision would disallow smartphones until the child reaches secondary school -- doesn't like a terrible idea considering smartphones rot the brains of adults, much less children.

It's not peoples fault if they're reacting to regulators coming down on the exchanges through nonsensical lawsuits by the SEC. The U.S. has the power to shut down any company within its jurisdiction because they can throw expensive lawsuits at companies that drag on for years.

None of us have seen the specifics of these lawsuits, or underlying evidence -- if there's legitimate merit to them then I'm prepared to eat my words, but until proven otherwise, this is just the SEC going on a powertrip trying to stunt Bitcoin's growth. Whether we would like to admit it or not, exchanges are central to Bitcoin's growth. If the SEC begins shutting down exchanges then we're done for.

Thankfully, I'm seeing some elected officials push back: https://twitter.com/SenLummis/status/1666181240167317507 We'll see how it plays out.

Looks grim. I'm not so concerned about layoffs induced by economic conditions because those jobs are recoverable. Though, if they're reducing staff because of regulators targeting them, that's a different matter. U.S federal agencies have tentacles all over the world and it becomes outrageous how single agencies in one country can collapse entire companies (I suppose that's the SEC's goal here).

Even if companies are in foreign jurisdictions, any financial transactions that are facilitated through U.S. financial institutions immediately allow the U.S. government to have jurisdiction over those transactions. (NY has many banks that facilitate global transactions, so it usually falls in their jurisdiction on the federal level). The solution to this would be to cut out the U.S. market if Binance was concerned of being targeted, but then what happens to a business when they reject a lucrative market?


IMO, the U.S. is doing what they can to squash all crypto markets in preparation for their launch of CBDC's within the next 4-5 years. I knew regulation was coming, just didn't think it would be in the form of frivolous lawsuits. By the way, these lawsuits get expensive and take years to reach fruition. Perhaps the SEC might have a weak case against Binance, but the negative publicity will have its intended effect. We won't know unfortunately, all this stuff is sealed from public eye.

Join the line of people who express grievances against the U.S. government. They operate with near impunity. Try to sue the federal government and your case gets added to the docket of many others, held up for years, all the meanwhile you incur hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, in legal fees. That's if you have jurisdiction -- pass the case on to a U.S. citizen and they get to deal with the same burden.

If you want change within the SEC, best it goes through the executive (U.S. President appoints the SEC commissioners). But if you're German that has some obvious hurdles 

Banks aren't the main component of capitalism. You could have a Bitcoin economy in which banks were completely wiped away and still have a capitalistic economy based on private enterprise. Banks represent a large portion of the economy due to investments and circulating funds throughout the economy, but that does not mean they're a central component of capitalism itself. Think of individuals conducting commerce as being the main vessel of capitalism. Banks merely facilitate the ventures as intermediaries. You could replace banks with anything.

The business model is the exact same as it was prior to Elon's purchase. Advertising structure works the same way. Only difference is people don't get banned for saying politically inconvenient truths.

There isn't a rise in hate speech -- it's mere propaganda by the same platforms that used Twitter to do their political bidding (MSM) who no longer find their propaganda reach as wide now that free speech is allowed on the platform. Therefore, they work to spread disinformation against Elon and Twitter, like the nonsense that Twitter is a hub for hate speech.

So can someone believe in an idol as God, but not believe that idol is Jesus? Why not call that idol a God and just classify that person a a "God" worshiper?

One of the religious dichotomies that I've always questioned is how the monotheistic religions can reconcile many billions of believing in a different god than their own, and being as sure of that belief as themselves. I suppose with polytheism there's a bit more room for congruence than some other religions.

As a Christian, you would need to accept that the billions of Muslims are incorrect in their beliefs and worshipping a deity that's nonexistent, surely.

Your post reads like every doomsday prepper over the last two decades promising that the time has come. Maybe some facts and objective metrics would be in line instead of the economic hysteria. Are you privy to information the rest of us don't have?


You think countries sitting on many billions of dollars in natural resources will run out of money in two years. Maybe in your own head, not in reality.

One of the more common myths about the modern banking system is stability and lower risks.

It would be a good time to remind everyone who has money at a bank that your bank likely follows the fractional reserve banking system, which would allow for the vast majority of deposits to be swept away in investments the banks deem to be prudent. You have zero say in any of these investments, and if for any reason some degree of confidence is lost on the institution and depositors decide to withdraw, there will be liqudiity issues and either you or another depositor will be out cash. Since COVID, all U.S. based banks are not required to keep a single penny of user deposits on hand. It used to be they were required to keep 10% of hand (which is too little to begin with), now it's zero. For all this risk, you're given a small interest payment. Since depositors are entitled to their deposits, in the event the bank collapses, any investments returns go back to the depositors, profit is wiped away completely. Say you have 5k invested at a bank with a fixed interest rate promised by the institution, and a run on the bank occurs. Due to fractional reserves, the bank has little cash on hand. What happens to your investment when everyone withdraws? Perhaps think twice before relying on banks for investments or to hold your cash. They can act reckless by inherent design of the system. They aren't stable/secure.

IMO the "snowball method" is complete junk. It's the reason why people are stuck in perpetual debt cycles.

Paying off high/compounding interest first is the only answer if avoidance of debt is unavailable. Interest rates/compounding interest are the reason people slip into debt. The payments become insurmountable. Factor interest rates with the total debt due, obviously. The interest rates of a 100k USD loan, while they may be lower, take priority over that of a 100 USD loan.


How do you define urgency? If you risk default on a particular debt which has a lesser interest rate than on another debt with a greater interest rate, would you take the debt of greater interest rate to be more urgent?

For the "average Joe," this isn't the entire story of trading securities. Anyone with even the slightest amount of financial literacy understands how fed rates affect markets, but there aren't always causal associations between interest rate changes and immediate market effects which is why this advise wouldn't work for the average person.

If I had to give someone advice, it would be to invest early and let investments mature over a period of decades. As long as you diversify, there isn't a need to try and time the market. Even small investments compounded over a few decades will give you a hefty return. Most countries offer a public savings fund that pays out when you retire -- do not rely on the solvency of these retirement programs. Invest early and seperate from government backed pensions/social security.

Medicine and tech are where the big bucks are according to all the venture capitalists. Listening to their analysis, they'll dedicate a chunk of their portfolio into industries that pose high growth potential or are resistant to recession. Tech poses high growth, and medicine in particular has government subsidy backing so they're a bit more resilient to economic turmoil. I've seen VC's dump their money into Silicon Valley startups which torch money for years before they are profitable, if they ever reach that point. Others have the sole interest of being bought out by larger companies.

Even picking out a few companies to invest in highly profitable industries is a bit of a gamble -- tech companies flop every day unfortunately. To your point -- diversify!

Perhaps you're right, though people would say that dependence came from imperialism in the first place. Imperialism isn't so bad. Bringing civility to barbaric societies that, historically, couldn't figure out how the wheel works seems like a blessing in disguise 

The problem is, some of these African countries failed to adopt the new technologies imperialism has brought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsyHbj_SHGA

Cultural incompatibilities is the culprit.

Central bank policies related to money printing during COVID is part of why inflation rose sharply in 2022 but that wasn't the only factor. Ukraine war disrupted exports from eastern Europe and energy prices began to increase which had a domino effect causing price increases in every other industry. Depending on the narrative, people tend to blame one or the other when both are to blame. But with the war, as things begin to stabilize you would expect prices to lower (thereby reversing inflation, not merely lowering the rate of inflation). With central bank money printing, the rate of inflation can only decline, the aggregate prices of consumer goods won't go down. This is because once money is printed, there isn't a feasible way to remove it from circulation. War related inflation really comes from scarcity of goods, whereas money printing related inflation artificially increases demand by issuing new dollars.

I'm not suggesting "true" AI isn't possible. I'm suggesting the opposite. Actual AI is coming and will displace jobs. The current iteration leaves us with at least a couple decades before we have the crisis of millions of jobs being displaced.

Eventually human intelligence will be mimicked which will automate away jobs which will be irreplaceable. Assume by default that industries will see some millions of displaced workers unless there's evidence to indicate otherwise.

Knowing previous technological innovations, jobs have always been displaced. But new ones were created. AI eliminates the creation of new jobs by inherent nature.

This is how technological innovation has worked in the past, but people don't realize that technological innovation in the past hasn't actually mimicked human intelligence. Previous technology, computers specifically, have the ability to repeat commands at a high rate. But that's their limitation, reading a script and execution a function. AI mimic humans and their judgement, and AI will work cheaper than humans.

Take the jobs generated from AI and you still don't have a net gain in jobs from the number of jobs displaced. The solution isn't just to tell people that they should adapt skills and force them to compete with AI. Doesn't work that way, it's a losing battle.

ChatGPT isn't very impressive to me, to be frank. But what will the next iteration of ChatGPT look like, say, 20 years from now.

USD was not built overnight. It's collapse won't happen overnight either. I don't agree that a USD collapse is imminent. I do believe long term it is a sinking ship, and it's advisable you jump ship early. Don't expect the markets to fall tomorrow, or even years from now. The scale exists longer than that.

Use common sense and look at basic metrics behind USD -- the currency is not sustainable. Current debt-to-GDP ratios are too high, year after year, with no sign of an economy that will grow or spending that will reduce, and the central banks have decided to opt in for money printing as a substitution to economic growth. Do you see USD as being anything but viable?