Correct - the money printing during COVID made people temporarily more wealthier. Most people during 2020 ended with savings that were higher than it was during the pandemic, which is evident of the fact the U.S. government spent too much on social welfare, either through direct unemployment or through stimulus checks.

The inflation rate is outpacing wage growth, so the "wealth creation" has begun to show its adverse effects. Printing money out of thin air has consequences.

Correct. Life expectancy does not account for overall health status either. It would treat someone that is 50 years old and healthy the same way as a 50 year old that is obese. Obviously different projected life expectancies.

Anyways - If it is true that overdoses contribute to lowering of life expectancies, then only anticipate the number of OD's to increase after the government decided it was a good idea to take a depressed society and confine them to their homes for an indefinite period. Whatever economic woes will compound the issue, the roots will have been the lockdowns.

Not really. Life expectancy is <70 and there's extreme poverty issues. I wouldn't consider India to be reasonably developed until they can develop their infrastructure to support their projected population growth. Realistically, they would've needed to start developing that infrastructure years ago if they wanted to keep pace with the current population, let alone whatever their future population growth rates are.

Oddly enough, India will surpass China in population growth, but China's economy will still outpace India.

Here's another perspective: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/05/higher-housing-costs-force-more-pet-owners-to-surrender-their-dogs.html

The stories above are merely anecdotes, not calculations of the pet industry's growth. Point is, some people will give up their pets if it means they'll survive economically.

Most countries treat dogs as property or useful tools. Only in the developed world is there such affection for pets.


And what's tragic is that a lot of these pets went back to the shelter to get euthanized because irresponsible owners did not have the foresight to comprehend that COVID lockdowns/WFH settings were only temporary. Combine the economic turmoil and the result was predictable.

The government is a system, it's not supposed to generate jobs. The only jobs produced by the government are those to help sustain government. I'm not finding any relation to the positions you listed relative to what functions the government are meant to execute, can you please explain?

If you're suggesting that the crypto space would somehow make government smaller or limit its strength, then yes, you're correct. But that isn't because of "crypto jobs," it's an inherent consequence of decentralization. The government is a centralized authority, crypto doesn't have to be.

I'd vote on Dubai. The number of crypto events are largely irrelevant. I could register a hotel lobby, gather a party of a dozen people for a Bitcoin event anywhere in the world to run the tally up if that was the standard.

I'd consider any city that is pro-crypto, anti-regulation, and pro-free market to be the only contenders. UK and U.S. will be regulating Bitcoin soon, more than they have already. London is out, NYC is out (along with any other U.S. cities) on your list.

Dubai's economy and tech space has developed rapidly over the last 20 years. My understanding is their regulatory governance board has allowed some crypto companies to offer their services there recently. Seems to me they'll embrace Bitcoin more than any other region. They'll likely become a crypto hub with large crypto corporations HQ'd there over the next decade.

The energy debate has been ongoing for some time, it's only as of late that the misinformation campaign has been ramped up because of the European energy crisis.

Global energy demands increase, therefore it is incumbent upon the climate change/green energy activists to pick the lowest hanging fruit to attack.


It's a nonissue. The energy consumption is high, relative to what? Compared to global energy consumption, not even a drop in the ocean.

How so? If Taiwan is weakened, so is the U.S. It's against the U.S.'s interest for China and Taiwan to get into a conflict.

Say the Ukrainian war never happened and Europe didn't have an energy crisis, even then they wouldn't invest resources to defend Taiwan. They aren't the world's police, and I'm not even sure the U.S. would step in either.

Realistically, what could the U.S. do against an invasion? They won't be sending the fighter jets. They might send Nancy Pelosi 

People are bound by their IQ, and IQ is purely genetic. Limiting environmental factors can reduce IQ (like malnutrition in poor countries) but your upper bound is still limited.

The rapid rise in information is mainly due to the internet, not an inherent upward trajectory in human intelligence. Over time, it's been recorded that human IQ's are increasing, but this is a generational observation and not attributable to what computational physics has given us.

If you're referring to fluid intelligence, then yes, the internet, radio, whatever, has absolutely made it easier to increase fluid intelligence.

This is the full report that the White House had released: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/09-2022-Crypto-Assets-and-Climate-Report.pdf

See pg. 5 for a summary.

I read the report briefly and there isn't anything particularly new about their arguments against crypto. Basic premise, according to their summary report, is the typical climate change activism garbage and debunked arguments attributing excessive environmental burdens with crypto mining and usage.

Report cites that electricity usage in the U.S associated with crypto assets to be 0.9-1.7 percent. They want you to believe that an estimated <2% of electricity usage from crypto somehow create a climate change crisis and that the crypto mining industry needs to be heavily regulated.

Does anyone actually buy this nonsense?

Thinking about it logically -- if old people are the primary recipients of the COVID-19 vaccination, is 1 out of every 246 deaths <2 months from the vaccine something that's statistically significant? I'm sure there are statistical tests that would give you some level of confidence that 1 out of 246 deaths is mere coincidence.




You may be on to something here, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. There are studies that suggest that the vaccinated have a higher incidence of COVID-19 infection. Could be because of ADE, see here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34656289/

It wouldn't be the vaccine causing death, it would be the vaccine increasing likelihood of infection, which then increases the likelihood of death.

If you choose to get quadrable vaccinated 2 years out from this disease, then you accept any adverse risks.

Even when you expect the eventual death of someone in old age, it still comes across as somewhat of a shock. When news broke that the family was gathering for a "health concern," I knew it was just a matter of time before the media would be informed of her passing.

Liz Truss on the Queen's passing: https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1567948139658608646

Fun fact - Winston Churchill was incumbent when the Elizabeth II became Queen as she then went on to have a 70 year tenure.

This will just incentivize companies to not produce energy if the price of production exceeds what the capped rate is if the government, at any point, decides not to reimburse the energy companies. If the government decides the energy companies are being greedy, then what?

Normal consumers determine what their absolute price cap is. When you put that ball in the government's court, companies are forced to foot the bill for a consumer that uses more energy than they're allowed to charge for with hopes the government will hold true to their promise to reimburse. I don't anticipate this to be an issue with the UK government, I just don't believe this should be the roadmap for Europe's energy crisis. They're better off dropping renewables entirely, embracing alternative sources to oil/gas and firing up nuclear powerplants where applicable.

And ironically enough, most of the charging from electric vehicles come from fossil fuel based energy sources anyways. It would make more sense to cut out the middle man and stop relying on electric vehicles to solve the manufactured issue of climate change. Most electrical grids couldn't even support mass charging if every car on the road switched to electric.

There are studies out there that suggest 4 day work weeks, 40 hours/wk, increase productivity versus a 5 day work week with the same hours. Though, a 4 day work week only has limited practice in most countries so the studies are a small sample size.

I wouldn't be oppose to 4 day work weeks in the private sector for office related jobs. Seems that most of their tasks could be performed from home anyways, perhaps a 4 day work week and 1 day working from home. With energy costs rising, it might be more economical for corporations to keep operating costs down by shortening the week too.

Africa is riddled with poverty, disease, and famine. Doesn't seem to me the issue is inherently with crypto, they just don't have the technological infrastructure to support crypto. I don't mean to sound crude, but isn't entirely dependent on countries with small GDP's to adopt crypto in order to make a significant impact on the crypto sector. And adoption of crypto isn't going to fix the government corruption either. It makes citizens' less dependent on corrupt government, but even with economic independence, government authoritarianism is inescapable.

A company will attach "blockchain" to their corporate branding to lure in naive investors who don't know anything about cryptography to throw money at them. It's tiresome seeing it thrown around in industries completely unrelated and delegitimizes blockchain tech for actual suitable applications.


Please...utter nonsense.

I'm in favor of Bitcoin absolutism but not through usage of brute force. Altcoins exist, they will always exist, and carry value for the same reason Bitcoin carries value. I take a capitalistic approach and say: let there be competition between cryptocurrency and fiat currency and allow for uninterrupted market forces to determine the proper global financial system. Bitcoin will take time to reach solvency; we don't need to push for an elimination or curtailment of altcoins in order to achieve the end goal of mainstream adoption.

And if we're being honest, it's not as if altcoins are the actual constraints of global adoption, it's the government. Bitcoin dominates the market share and is mainstream enough that the average participant in the economy has at least heard about it. I wouldn't be concerned about this average consumer dabbling in whatever rag meme coin happens to be in the spotlight oppose to Bitcoin if they make the crypto dive. Getting them to make the dive first is the current predicament.

Lenders are factoring this in by just raising their interest rates. It isn't difficult.

Lender recognizes their purchasing power to decreasing over fixed amount of time, by default 2% yearly compounded by whatever government mismanagement adds on top of that, they increase interest rates to cover that reduction in purchasing power by some value X. Whatever calculation that is is beyond what I can articulate, it would be dependent on the lender.

Borrowers aren't in a spot of luxury here. Lenders know the market better than anyone, hence they have the capital to lend. You'd have to take a gamble and secure a loan with low interest prior to inflation.

My only omission from your list. Teach them about culture, not instilling god-fearing hyperbole about the deepest parts of hell or jahannam in order to coerce young minds into submission. Children don't need religion to live morally virtuous lives, and they don't need to be fearful of god in order to make good decisions. We live in the most peaceful time in human history because we've escaped the dogma that's contributed to some of the deadliest wars in history. No need to go back.