I don't understand why people have this crazed obsession with precious metals, and people thinking that if the global market is to go to shit then we're going to go back to exchanging gold for things again. That's a lie that is perpetuated by the people in marketing at these gold companies. There's no way that anyone is actually going to go back to that nor are they going to go to something like bitcoin if we were to have a meltdown.

In the event of a meltdown, the only currency is going to be food, guns, and bullets.

Here's the thing that I think we need to think about when we're talking about something like this. Is it possible that businesses can make money and the world can become a better place due to this -- I think yes.

I think that if the Pharma industry decides that there's nothing they can do but allow the floodgates to open in the marijuana industry (both recreational, and medically) and they start to open dispensaries, growing areas, processing plants, manufacturing operations, and so on then we're going to have a massive flow of legal marijuana. I think this is something that can make the pharma industry a good deal of money; it can also make the towns, cities, states a good deal of money towards tax revenue (that they hopefully use on a good cause)

Plus, it will also help people to have this legalized. So in my mind, business and greed can coexist with people being happy.

I don't understand the rationale behind him still attempting to prove that he's Satoshi, he does it in a way that makes him look like a phony and HE IS A PHONY. He can't sign keys, can't move some funds from the initial blocks, etc, etc.

This guy is just making a fool of himself, and I hope at some point his BSV supporters notice that.

I doubt it.

I don't think someone as old as O'Leary and with the amount of investing advice that he's given and learned himself about traditional investments, is going to be able to budget on such a foundational idea that Stocks and bonds are old, and Crypto investments are the future. He can't change a view that he's had for so long, because he's never seen the world without it.

I'd like to have someone like Anthony Pompliano, he's a very bright guy and he showed how smart he is within this interview.

An amazing point from Rogan about humans never being content. Even when we innovate, that innovation was never enough and then we keep going and keep going and keep going. Think about something as simple as the vacuum cleaner.

I would assume that at first it wasn't too advanced and it didn't have too much suction power and probably only had one button. If you look at a vacuum cleaner now it has many buttons for many different cleanups, it is portable, and so on and so forth. You could even get a Roomba to vacuum for you.

It just shows how far we've come, and how far we're going to go with tech.  At this point the growth is exponential.

I'd like to know on the reasoning behind the DOD commissioning a paper like this to be written, what exactly were they researching that led them to want something like this written up?

Nice find though TS, I'm going to have to add this to my reading list.

There's little to nothing the President can truly do to help a city when they refuse constructive policy. All they accept is more taxes, more welfare, and more DEMS (and farther and farther left ones for that matter) Plus, in a Federalist system there's no chance that the President can do anything to a city like this anyway.


I mean, in most fields this truly isn't the case though. If you come out of college and you're in a massive amount of debt for $20 an hour -- I think you picked the wrong degree and the wrong profession that most likely has way too much supply and so little demand.

Like god, you can go into finance, accounting, trucking, the trades (plumbing, electrician, etc) and make double and triple that amount of money. You could go to a combination of a state school + community college for this as well.

I think that these are the people that blame the government because these are the people that truly know what the government (and themselves, the corporations) did to cause the crisis. I do think that Corporations are more guilty for causing the crisis and taking advantage of the 'too big to fail' label.

Though everyday people never hear this side, that government policy and intervention also PLAYED a role in the crisis. All they hear is that 'corporations bad, government good and they help'

I only see this trade war as something that may hurt the price of Bitcoin -- if it goes sour. Think about it like this, if the price of traditional investments is to decrease substantially. Then you're going to see speculative investments such as Bitcoin, and other high-risk investments start to go through more of a sell-off because people need liquidity in their other assets.

This would carry the assumption that those that invest in Bitcoin, have holdings in traditional investments as well. That assumption may not (fully) be true which would nullify the rest of what I've said.

Then again, you have to remember where this news is being dissipated from and who the target it. For a target like CNBC, you're going to have people that are for traditional investments such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. -- Nothing wrong with that, though Kevin O'Leary is going to be someone who made his wealth (and continues) to make his wealth in this sector.

Someone like that is going to be hard to change his mind about.

We have to try to go for the new generation, whose wealth hasn't been made (and relies on) Stocks, Bonds, etc.

I do understand why he's obsessed wiith this, it's because in his mind this is what is showing 'real large-scale adoption' I would have to agree, though I'm expecting Bitcoin-related payments to be allowed on a state by state basis. Doubt the federal government will ever allow such a thing (unless they notice that they're losing out on tax revenue, which they aren't)


Yup. These are competing ideals that would even be as deeply rooted as religion. There's no real way to convince the other side that you're right and that they're wrong. Though I do have to agree a good deal of the bitcoin critics have no clue about Bitcoin, they just read clickbaity titles from MSM companies about it and use that as fact.

Any plans to add support for other payment methods (Crypto of course)

Not saying that I would want something like this, though I know this would help others with fees and such.

Some key information that I found from looking into the topic a bit more deeply.


I think this is without a DOUBT a death sentence for Huawei phones (outside of China) they're going to be unable to compete without the play store as people do love the app store and the play store and aren't going to want to adjust to an entirely different app store. I guess they're going to have to dedicate a large deal of money and time in creating a new store. Ouch.

So what you're talking about is a complete and utter meltdown of the financial sector system, not a recession or a depression or anything along those lines. You're talking about all other means of traditional investments going to shit, and the governments of nations crumbling.

I don't see anything other than guns, bullets, and food helping in a circumstance like this. Yes, money which in your definition of it is Gold, BTC, etc may be helpful though I don't see how currency could help too much when everything around you is crumbling and we're just searching for stability.


This is my point, Crypto is going to be one of the first asset classes to be liquidated to ensure liquidity elsewhere. The Crypto market cap is nothing compared to traditional asset classes.

The crazy thing is that some people on the left actually think that CNN is a good source of news, and that they're the best of the best. I was actually told by one person on the left that CNN isn't anything like Fox News, and they're unbiased. I've also been told that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) is just as biased as Fox.

I don't understand these people sometimes, it's crazy how far they can go to attempt to beleive themselves.


On the topic: I do think that Trump is going to pull through this field of people, Biden isn't left enough for the party -- and the Bernie Bros and all those others are going to be pissed that they 'must' support Biden.

+1

I also don't see what motivates someone to do something like this. You're just drop kicking a 71-year-old man. While he may be fit, that doesn't discount the fact that YOU'RE DROPKICKING A SENIOR CITIZEN.

Even though I know Arnold isn't pressing charges, I think he should.

Solid quote from Arnold though "I thought I was just jostled by the crowd, which happens a lot. I only realized I was kicked when I saw the video like all of you."

Commenting on just what you've said about Bitcoin, I think that the Bitcoin price would crash. People would be exiting from traditional asset classes (Stocks, Bonds, Real Estate, etc) so they would without a doubt be leaving speculative ones which are highly volatile like Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has only seen a bull stock market, who knows what will happen if we are to see a bear stock market/economy.


Very amazing point relating to the CRA (which is what I referenced when I stated that under the direction of HUD and Congress) Thanks for the individual act though, I missed the name in my research.

I've read some pretty good reports about how companies that are trying to start on the African continent can't grow due to the amount of charity/aid that is being sent to Africa in the name of helping people.

Think about this sort of situation: You start a company in Africa that makes shoes, handmade, and you're doing pretty good. Not selling the shoes for too much, but enough for you to begin expanding the operations of the business. You go ahead and hire two employees and buy a sewing machine to cut costs and manufacture shoes faster.

But wait -- the US government just sent over hundreds of thousands of shoes to your city, no one is going to buy your shoes when they can get shoes for free. You're entire business and livelihood have been destroyed by charity, as you're unable to compete with free.

Businesses can't thrive in an environment where 'free' is the cost for some goods. You're unable to innovate and develop a stable economy with this constant influx of free goods from other countries trying to be kind to you.

Would probably be better for this not to happen at all, and just let the countries in Africa develop their goods and their economy.

I've been researching the 2008 financial crisis in the last couple weeks, and one of the things that I keep noticing is that people are ONLY blaming greedy businesspeople, corporations, capitalism, free markets, and so on and so forth for the (almost) destruction of our financial system. They fail to mention the significant role that government played in this financial crisis, and then the role that they played in trying to fix a crisis that they caused.

Interest Rates

Shortly after 9/11, the current Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, lowered the interest rate for which banks can lend to each other to 1.75 percent, this action is done to avoid a recession and to ensure that people are borrowing and investing in the economy. Not a bad idea at first glance, though this causes a complete domino effect.

Mortgages cost less; people are borrowing more and more money to start businesses and buy homes at historic low interest rates. People who couldn't afford homes (before this rate cut), now can, and people who are in homes now feel as if they're ready to upgrade their style of living as they can now afford bigger ones. (make sure you note this is all being financed) Obviously, home values soared, which attracts more and more investment in the home market -- people are buying homes for themselves, buying houses and apartments to rent, flipping homes, etc.

People couldn't see this then, but this sort of massive increase is unsustainable. Home prices can't rise forever, and interest rates must go up at some point.

A 'truly' free market doesn't have a central bank that raises rates when they want to foster growth, interest rates would be determined by the supply of savings and demand for loans in the marketplace.

Housing Policy

A free market system doesn't have advantages to owning a home; you don't get tax credits if you want to own a home or if you rent. But in our system, there are massive tax advantages to owning a home

1. Interest Payments on mortgage debt is tax deductible.
2. Borrowing against the equity in one's homes is tax deductible
3. Starting in 1998, home sellers could make 500k in profit from selling their primary residence and not be subject to capital gains tax.

All of this creates additional incentives to speculate in real estate.

But that's not all, because people who wanted to own homes still couldn't qualify for loans. Lenders (profit-minded ones) had sought to manage risk and put some real standards in place which included a sizeable down payment, strong credit history, and a strict ratio regarding mortgage payment to income.

Here comes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Under the direction of HUD and Congress, affordable housing efforts were extended. They began to redefine creditworthiness, which allowed low-income people (those who would never have never qualified for a mortgage before) were now able to get mortgages from the US government under Mae and Mac. By early 2008,  Mae and Mac owned (or guaranteed through other lenders) nearly half of the American mortgage market. By late 2008 though, Fannie and Freddie were on the verge of collapse and had to be fully taken over by the US government.

The Financial Regulations

With all of this in mind, some people think that this crisis was only made by greed on Wall Street. I'm not saying that Greed on wall street played no part because it did, but it wasn't the only reason this crisis happened. Though people don't notice that the banking/finance industry is one of the most regulated industry in America

All of the financial instruments that led to the crisis of 2008 -- such as mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, etc. -- weren't unregulated securities, they were regulated by the alphabet agencies in the US government. These securities received the blessing from the SEC (and co) to continue.

Do you want to know why the government didn't stop the bankers? The government didn't stop the bankers from lending to those that couldn't afford it, because they approved of what they were doing. They were improving homeownership rates, and the government wanted that.

The government also shielded these banks from any real trouble, as they failed to let the banks that took the most risk fail when they should have. Risk (in a free market economy) carried an upside and a downside -- though when the government doesn't let the downside happen, business is just going to continue risking and risking and risking. They see no reason to care about the risk they take because they know what they're 'too big to fail' and that they're never going to be allowed to go bankrupt.

The Lessons We Didn't Learn

Why do we have particular regulations in the finance industry? It's because people don't trust the 'greedy' bankers, they think that the Federal Government is going to be able to look out for them compared to a greedy bank like JP Morgan, Citibank, Capital One, etc.

Why do we cut interest rates when a recession happens? Morality. We want to give people a 'soft landing' instead of pain and suffering during a recession.

Why do people need to own homes? Because it's popular, and that's what gets politicians reelected. Popular government policy.

We shouldn't allow the government to be complicit in creating a crisis, and then failing to own up to the fact that they played a role in it. The government also shouldn't intervene in the economy to curtail 'greed' and serve those in 'need' A free market didn't fail in the 2008 crisis, an unfree market (one that was created by government policy) failed.

When I think about stuff like this, I always think that we're never going to be truly decentralized. There are certain things on the internet that is going to be popular to police, such as child porn, crime related activities, etc. If we're truly decentralized, we're not going to be able to police things like this.

That's going to aggravate law enforcement, regular people on the internet, and so on and so forth.

So the answer to that is to have some moderation, nothing too crazy but SOME. But then this moderation gets larger and larger over time, and there's really nothing that is done to stop it. That's just how it goes. We've reached the point where moderation (and censorship) on the internet are going so far to a point that people are attempting to take a stand against it.