st434u

I've always gotten the feeling that Mike Maloney sounds like a snake oil salesman tbh, even though I agree with most of what he says. If you're in a survival situation, BPA and cancer won't be your first concern. Also, if you're serious about this, I suggest going mainly for bulk, something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tY7GT-kMpY Just make sure to know how to properly store them for the long term. About precious metals, I suggest you try to pay as low a premium above spot as you can. That will of course depend on how and where you're buying it. I've heard many people say that they don't mind paying $22 an ounce for silver when it's $16 because that's only $6 extra per ounce, and when it goes up to $500 they won't care that they paid $6 more for them. That's not the right way to think about this. Because if you have $2000 to invest, and you buy at $16 an ounce, that's 125oz, but at $22 it's only 91oz. Meaning if and when it gets to $500, you'll be left with $62,500 in the first case, but only $45,500 in the second case. Silver will have much bigger ups and bigger downs than gold, and in the long term it will go up a lot more. But it's also much more difficult and expensive to store, and depending on where you are and your chosen method for buying them, it may also be a lot more difficult (and expensive) to buy.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what money is, why it's helpful, and how it arises in a free market. I don't blame you, we live in a crazy world where people have been led to believe that money are colored pieces of paper with numbers written on them, or worse, numbers on a computer screen somewhere. First, there is barter. Here there is no money per se, and all valuable items are exchanged for other valuable items, with no preference of one over another, in your example it might be trading chickens for milking cows directly. Some sellers of milking cows might ask for 50 chickens for one milking cows, while others might ask for 200, just like prices vary in the marketplace today. And yet others might not want chickens at all, and demand to be paid in flour instead. But you might not have flour, so now you have to find someone who has flour and wants chickens. It soon becomes obvious that some of those valuable items being exchanged are better at performing the roles of a medium exchange than the others. For instance, rice might be superior to eggs, because rice lasts for a long time without spoiling, it's easy to recognize it's quality without breaking it, it's less likely that it will become ruined by something as simple as a bump, it's easier to store and transport than eggs, it's easier to divide and make small change for paying for inexpensive things with rice than with other valuable items such as live milking cows and even eggs, and maybe also because more people in your area eat rice (and in a greater amount) than those that eat eggs or consume dairy. Then, sellers might all start demanding rice, even if they themselves don't eat rice, because they know that other people in the market will demand rice, either to consume it themselves, or to exchange for what they want. Here rice has become money, but notice how, even though in all other points it was superior to milking cows or eggs, if nobody wanted to consume any rice, then it would make little sense to use it as a form of money, since you would have no guarantee that others would accept it the next day in exchange for their goods, even if they accept it today. And even if they did, you would have no idea at what rate they would accept it tomorrow, since the rational expectation would be that at some point, sooner or later, everybody would realize that they're using an item that will soon become worthless as money, and begin to demand something else as payment, and to get rid of their rice as fast as they can. When you say that money is simply a conversion tool, this misses the point. Money can only be a conversion tool if it has value in the first place. If a form of money becomes worthless (or was worthless all along), then it can't be a conversion tool for anything.

That's a great point. I personally do believe that culture plays a large part here, but so does what you're saying.

Without land property, 99.99% of humanity would die. I'm pretty sure that's a slam dunk for land property rights.

Personal experience doesn't count? Surely someone would be interested in others' experience even if they aren't able to provide evidence. Just because they're unable to provide such evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that such interactions never took place. Should a woman avoid warning her friends that a man she went out on a date with is a rapist, just because she can't prove that the rape took place? It seems to me that your problem is more with people believing every negative thing they hear about someone else even when there's no evidence. You think people are stupid and will believe anything, so you lash out against those who would give negative commentary without solid proof. The problem would not be the woman who's warning that someone is a rapist (unless he isn't), but those who would 100% believe her without a good reason to do so. If you personally know dsayers and you know these things said about him are false, and are demanding proof, that's a different thing. That'd be similar to if he himself was demanding evidence. But that's not what you're doing, is it? I'm not making any statements as to what dsayers is like, I'm just arguing the point you made.

Of course they do not. Property rights are essentially a moral consensus/agreement to respect other's properties as they respect your own. They help us function better in society and live better lives. However, most people today are very confused about what types of property rights should exist or would be ideal. It's important to show them how things could be a lot better by just improving and simplifying this system.

Well if you don't remove them by force then the neighbor will. So yes, it's legit. Kids don't have a right to stay in someone else's property against their wishes, just like adults don't have that right. That's different. Bedtime is arbitrary. For you as a working adult it makes sense to maintain the same exact and strict bedtime every day, for a child who has no responsibilities it makes little sense. And then schools are just State controlled brainwashing camps. You don't wanna be dragging your child kicking and screaming to a place where they clearly don't wanna be in, and where their minds and souls will be crushed for the benefit of the State.

Right. I've never worked with derivatives but I get an idea of how they function. Do you know which types of assets or sectors the banks are heavily invested in through derivatives? And when you say the derivatives bubble will pop, do you mean most types of derivatives, or all? It seems to me that if the underlying assets go down in price heavily, and the derivative was a bet that they would go up, then the people who made that bet will lose, whereas the one who took the bet (or made the opposite bet, if possible) would gain. I also suspect derivatives may be used for hedging. For example, an airline company may want to protect themselves from higher oil prices in the future, so they buy oil futures now. Likewise, a cotton farmer may want to ensure a certain payout from the harvest next year, so he would go to the futures market and sell cotton short. If cotton goes down, he will lose on his production but gain in the futures market, and if cotton goes up, he will lose on the futures market but gain when harvest time comes. Either way he ensures the same level of profitability from his investment. However, when you say banks have 2T in assets and 50T in derivatives, that's a pretty high leverage level for a bank. Although if many of those bets are hedging of other bets, it may not be so terrible. For instance, if you buy gold mine stocks and sell gold short, you can potentially create a situation where no matter if the price of gold goes up or down, you gain a profit. Yet your portfolio would look like you have much more money invested than you actually own, but that's because you are pretty much sure you can't lose on both sides. It's almost impossible for the price of gold to go up a lot and the gold stocks price to go down a lot at the same time. Another example would be betting on some stocks in one sector and betting against others. For instance, if you think Twitter is undervalued when compared to Facebook, you can buy Twitter stocks and sell Facebook stocks short, because you expect that if the sector goes up, Twitter will go up more, and if the sector goes down, Facebook will go down more.

1. No, at least not in a legal or moral sense. Just like the guy showing off money in a dangerous part of the city without protection, she doesn't have responsibility for being raped. She did, however (in your example), increase her chances of being raped dramatically. Just like the guy with the money increased his chances of being robbed dramatically. We can say her choice (like his) was unwise and risky. 2. Absolutely not. 3. No, it does not. If she wants to dress like a slut, she is free to do that. I personally would have no interest in dating a woman who wants to dress like a slut in public, even if she only does it when I'm with her and she's safe. It's not just about the safety, it's about the fact that if she wants to be in a romantic relationship with me, then why would she want other guys to look at her body like that?

Interesting, can you give us more details?

Yeah but at some point they either have to stop the ever increasing manipulation and let the price soar, which will eventually reveal their scam, or the paper price will become detached from the actual price of physical, which may have to be traded under the table for a much higher price. Eventually this will lead to the complete collapse of the paper financial system and fiat money will no longer have any confidence behind it. They take a loss either way, so it's hard to predict which route they will go. The second route is the best for them for the short term, but eventually destroys their incredibly lucrative scheme. I think what's likely is that they will choose the second route, but only insofar as it's absolutely necessary, so there will be some mix of the first route as well thrown in there. It's a bit like juggling, they gotta mix it up just right to prolong this for as long as they can. That said, I could see gold drop to $800/oz in a year or two, just not below that. And if it maintains this level for a few years further, then $1200 will be the new floor, with the sky as the limit. Just my personal predictions.

That's not even so much money, it's only a little over 40 billion USD. However, if the gold price wasn't manipulated, it would likely be a lot more. It's interesting what they do because they can print up paper money which should make gold go up, but then they use some of that paper money to sell paper gold short (betting that it will go down), which drives down the price, or prevents it from rising as much as it otherwise would, so nobody realizes their scam. It's a pretty good system for them, as long as people maintain confidence in the paper world...

Yes, but it's not so much fear, as it is envy. For example, Hitler hated jews because they were over-represented as business owners and capitalists, and Hitler was a socialist who wanted to expropriate the rich, so hating jews was the perfect excuse. On the other hand, there was already a communist party that he had to differentiate himself from (even though his economic ideas differred very little from it), and since many of the leading intellectuals for communist ideals were jews, that was also a perfect excuse for him. Jews are a race (or rather a number of races) but they also hold a religion, and since they don't engage in proselytism, they are bound to be different from everybody else in that regard. So some societies that depended heavily on religion, such as absolute monarchies, have also been hostile to jews partly because they didn't hold the same religion as the masses, and thus were not lending legitimacy to the divine right of kings. In democratic societies, which are always socialist, jews are the perfect target because they tend to be more productive. At least the ashkenazim, which were the predominant jews in Germany and Russia during WWII.

The Ashkenazim and Sephardim are subspecies of two different subspecies of humans known as caucasians, i.e. whites. Mizrahim and Yemenite jews are subspecies of arabs. Please educate yourself. Should you be liable for every crime that other individuals of your race commit, and have committed in the past? No? Oh, so that logic only applies to jews. I see. Yeah, like Hitler. Oh wait, he wasn't a jew, so that doesn't condemn those of his race. And yet it's mostly other whites who do this. If you were consistent you would say that whites deserve what they get. But you're not. And in this case, it's good that you're not. Ashkenazim are the race with the highest average IQs, and also tend to produce some of the highest IQ individuals. Because of this, they occupy much more of the important positions in society than their percentage of the population would dictate. Because the democratic State and everything that it touches becomes corrupted and harmful, the azkenazim are bound to be in charge of much more of the positions that create harm than their percentage of the population would dictate. You won't get rid of this problem by getting rid of the smart people. In fact, it'll only get worse. Simply take a look at other democratic countries where positions of power are held by people of low IQs.

It's not so simple. The liberals of Europe wanted freedom from the monarchs, while the conservatives wanted to maintain the monarchical system because they knew that it had worked well for thousands of years. Absolute monarchy and feudalism are the least intrusive and damaging forms of statism, and are naturally favorable to capitalism and economic freedom. Liberals in Europe were not content with that, and they wanted freedom from even the small abuses of monarchs and feudal lords. Democracy is the most intrusive and destructive form of statism, and is naturally favorable to ever increasing socialism and economic slavery. In the US, liberals also wanted freedom from monarchs, they wanted to stop being a colony and paying taxes to a foreign king, and they wanted instead to elect their own king through democracy, and pay taxes to him instead. While this initially reduced the power of the state, that only lasted for a very short time, as it always does under democratic government, and now the US has gone from one of the most free countries in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, to one of the least free today. The same is true for most of the new world, although some other countries in the new world did retain the original meaning for liberal meaning libertarian. It usually only takes one to three generations before a democracy becomes much more oppressive than a monarchy ever could be.