Dylan Lawrence Moore

Thanks!

TRE. https://traumaprevention.com/

I don't do vaccines. I don't trust the ingredients. I'll stick with the Wim Hof method and biohacking.

Currency becomes currency when it is taxed, regardless of the material used (gold, silver, notes, wampum, electronic bookkeeping, whatever). The government taxes something that otherwise doesn't have any value, and it becomes valuable because the citizens need it to pay their taxes. You can say this about any legislation and government institution in existence. What I'm emphasizing is that the Federal Reserve isn't a private bank owned by private people who put everyone in debt by creating money out of nothing. The Federal Reserve acts on direction from Congress and the US Treasury. Sure. Start a new one or dig up an old one.

Teaching them to work with their hands, work with tools, and deal with danger from a young age is a VERY good idea. I wish my dad had pushed it more, but he taught me how to use a knife and a lighter at 4 and taught me how to shoot at 5. When it comes to sharp objects and burning things today, I'm extremely comfortable working with the proper tools and have very little fear about them. My dad was a welder and I wish he had had me weld things or even teach me how to build awning frames and wrought iron work (which is what he did). The hardest working guy I ever met told me he was working for his dad installing floors at 11. By himself. His dad would let him do the whole thing on his own and the customers would always be impressed. I think the best advice I heard regarding this was from John Taylor Gatto: let your kids do the actual work instead of playing and pretending to do the work. Get them a real shovel instead of a toy shovel. Get them real wood working tools. Real cooking gear. You have to teach them to be safe (my dad did. I had a pocket knife when I was 4), and they may hurt themselves a few times in the process, but getting them exposed to dangerous activities at a young age is VERY important to them learning how to deal with the real world. Have you thought about carpentry? Or even finding a blacksmith (yes they still exist)?

Also, to bring this back to the topic of the GOP bill: Out of Individuals, Small Business, and Corporations, Mark Kohler breaks down pretty clearly that only corporations are getting a good deal out of this bill. I'm happy to see the US become more competitive world wide with big business, but it's goddamn ridiculous to leave the individual and the small business hanging. Plus it gives leftists all the fodder they need to shriek, "IT ONLY BENEFITS THE RICH!!!!" It's super important to understand: ALL the taxes can be cut because they don't pay for anything. If Trump or Congress or whoever wants to help the most number of people as fast as possible, cut payroll taxes. Everyone would immediately see this in their paycheck (7.6%), all big business would benefit because the costs of employees would drop (7.6%), and small business would benefit because they would no longer have to pay their own FICA (15.2%).

I'm saying all currency is fiat. Yup. The Fed is a creature of Congress which is legislated into existence. Congress can take it away at any time. Venezuela is socialist and therefore doesn't have a productive capacity. It's hard to be productive when the government raids you for "hoarding" toilet paper, forces you to drop your prices because you're "taking advantage of people", or raises the minimum wage by 50% to "combat inflation". Zimbabwe's currency was pegged to another currency (I believe it was USD). They also had a problem of corruption, where politicians would make massive "loans" to their buddies, who would immediately sell the currency for another currency, massively driving the price down. Weimar totally had it's production plundered. Sometimes France would literally march in and confiscate coal. Additionally, Weimar had to repay debts in currency it couldn't create, so they dealt with it by creating their own currency and selling it on the foreign exchange markets to pay for their war reparations. This wildly drove the value of their currency down. The hyperinflation ended the day they stopped the policy of creating money and selling it on the foreign exchange. I would start with watching stuff with Warren Mosler by himself. I would also recommend picking Nima's brain. That's what I did to learn most of this after he started posting here about it.

I have no idea what any of that means.

Way to selectively respond to some text in my post and ignore the rest.

Before I answer anything, I want to prelude with a disclaimer that I understand how absolutely bizarre what I'm about to write sounds. I went through the same growing pains learning MMT, coming from an Austrian/Adam Smith perspective. Additionally, I want to make it very clear from the getgo that I am IN NO WAY suggesting that government is good by saying these things. I've realized when it comes to economics, it's very, VERY important to differentiate between IS and SHOULD. That is to say, what IS the situation now vs. what SHOULD the situation be later? Right now I'm talking about IS, not SHOULD. I also want to come out straight with this: I am saying that Stephan Molyneux, Alex Jones, Peter Schiff, Ben Shapiro, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Adam Smith, the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party, and the entire entourage of Austrian and Chicago School economics are completely, flat-ass wrong when it comes to understanding money. They are wrong to the extreme that they are encouraging the economic Armageddon that they are preaching against. This is why I keep taking the time to bring it up on the boards: the economic tune needs to change from the "conservative" crowd. Now I'll get into the response. Because the "federal debt" isn't a debt. It's important to understand the difference between a currency user and a currency issuer. You and I, as well as businesses and state and local governments, are currency users. You and I have to earn money before we can spend it. If we earn more than we spend, this is called savings or a surplus. If we spend more than we earn, we run a deficit. If we owe more money in total than we own, we are said to be in debt. In order to get out of debt, we need to run a surplus to pay it off. When it comes to the federal government, the words surplus, deficit, and debt have opposite meanings. Because the Federal Reserve, through the statutory authority of the US Congress*, is the only institution legally capable of creating money, that means that if the government doesn't spend money into existence through the Fed, there is no other place for money to come from. That is to say, ever dollar the US "spends" into existence is one dollar the US private sector has to use for its economy. This is why federal debt = private sector savings. Generally speaking (it's a little more complicated than this, but it's close enough to get the point across), the amount of money available in the economic system is equivalent to the federal debt. This absolutely makes sense once you realize that Congress spending money into existence (a.k.a. "debt") IS the money that the economy has to use. *It's very important to note that the Fed is as creature of Congress, and can be killed by Congress at any time. Congress controls the Fed, not the other way around. Because the federal government isn't constrained by taxes in order to spend, the effect of taxation is actually to destroy money. Federal taxation removes money from the economic system, just like federal spending introduces money into the system. Taxation is like the brakes, while spending is like the gas. This is why it's extra retarded to talk about the rich paying their fair share. The only point of federal taxation on the rich is to make them less rich because they shouldn't be rich </progressive voice>. A federal surplus occurs when more taxes are taken in than spent that year, which means more money is destroyed than created. A federal deficit occurs when more money is spent than taxes are taken in that year, which means more more is created than destroyed. So when it comes to the federal government, "debt" means money available, "surplus" means less money, and "deficit" means more money. When it comes to you and I, "debt" means money owed, "surplus" means more money, and "deficit" means less money. There is no "debt" in the currency-user sense, as I described above. The problem is everyone, including most politicians, act like there is a debt that needs to be paid back with taxes. The reality is they can issue all the currency they want without taxation to pay for it. Taxation is needed, however, to give value to the currency. Otherwise no one would use an otherwise worthless piece of paper/electronic note on a bank scoreboard. We need US dollars in order to pay our taxes in the US. If the "debt" were to be "paid back", there wouldn't be any money. I'm assuming you mean uncontrollable inflation by currency crisis, or at least inflation in general. Expecting uncontrollable inflation from the increase in money assumes that the amount of goods and services doesn't change. Until an economy reaches what's called productive capacity, this won't occur. Productive capacity doesn't max out until there is zero unemployment and all manufacturing/energy/whatever other facilities are producing as much as they can. Yes there is a small amount of inflation which is normal, however more money needs to be created/spent into existence in order to reduce unemployment and bring productive capacity back up. Unemployment and non-maxed productive capacity is a result of not enough money being available in the system*. *It's important to point out that a relatively free society is required for this to be true. That is to say, people have to be free to make productive choices with their money into order to create new goods and services. If an economy is regulated down to the bones and no one can do anything (i.e. socialist countries), then the extra money won't help. Think of it this way: if I'm in a room with 100 people in it with one exit, and I announce to everyone that if they work for me, I will pay them with my new currency dylanors, which are essentially pieces of paper I wrote on, would anyone work for me? Of course not. However, if I added that there is a man outside the room with a gun that will only let you leave if you give him a dylanor, suddenly my pieces of paper are valuable (this is how money becomes valuable through taxation), and people would be willing to work for me. However, if I only pay out 90 dylanors, that means 10 people in that room are going to lose out. This is how unemployment works. If enough tickets aren't issued for everyone to pay the tax, then there aren't enough to pay everyone to work. Yes, I agree government fucks everything up. However, because right now, MONEY IS GOVERNMENT, there is no other way to address money except through government. The free market uses money, but there is nothing free market about the nature of money. Money is money because the state demands it and creates it to satisfy the demand. The result is that the state is able to violently move resources from the private to the public sector. In order to avoid economic catastrophe, more money needs to be introduced into the system. There are two ways to do this: spend more or tax less. Taxing less sounds fantastic to me. If I had to pick one tax and destroy it, it would be payroll taxes (social security and medicare). That would be the best way to increase everyone's paycheck immediately. I was shocked when I learned that every economic depression and recession of the US was actually preceded by a federal government surplus. That's right. When the federal government acts "fiscally responsible", it destroys the whole system. Here's why: Because federal "debt" isn't debt, the money in existence due to the Fed's spending never has to be paid back. It's just out there floating around. Thus when the government starts "paying off its debt", the private sector is unable to rely on private sector savings to finance things, thus they turn to private sector credit. Private sector credit technically isn't money (only the government can issue that), but it's close enough that I'm going to talk like it is for the sake of this explanation. Private sector credit needs to be paid back, which is why private sector debt is real debt. If I get a loan from a bank for $100,000, that money needs to be paid back. As I pay back the principle on that $100,000, the credit is canceled out at the bank and the money is destroyed in a similar fashion as when the federal government taxes. The bank makes its money on the interest on that principle, which ultimately has to come from the government spending it into existence. As the federal government spends less and less, the private sector has to rely more and more on private sector credit. More and more private sector credit needs to be relied on to pay off the original private sector credit, until eventually the private sector can't loan anymore, the whole thing pops, banks stop lending out money and a depression occurs. It's not until spending resumes to introduce money back into the system that the economy can improve again. This is why it's so important that prominent conservatives and conservative politicians get this. By preaching the doom and gloom of the National Debt, that our grandchildren are going to have to pay it back and that we're going to run out of taxes and it's going to spiral out of control, it's encouraging people to rally around "paying off the debt". This will cause THE EXACT ARMAGEDDON WHICH IS BEING PREACHED. It's not debt. It doesn't need to be paid back. Our grandchildren won't have to pay it. It won't cause hyperinflation. The leftist organizations that talk about MMT (they call themselves "Real Progressives") are going nuts because conservatives want to reduce spending, and neoliberals want to increase taxes, and that's about all there is in the seats of Congress. I utterly disagree with the Real Progressives' moral recommendation, particularly their idiocy in thinking that all social programs can simply be paid for without a problem and we'll all have their services--ignoring, as you mentioned, that government fucks up the allocation of resources. In general, I don't question the moral nature of the conservatives, I assume they simply are unaware of the rules that they are playing with. MMT are the rules we are playing with, and we better figure it out before we cause the disaster that we say we're working to avoid.

This is also an excellent time to emphasize that the federal government needs ZERO tax dollars to pay for anything. Because the feds issue currency, they are not bound by tax collection revenues in order to pay for anything--like a state or a municipal government. It turns out the idea that the government is going to crash into economic armageddon and our grandchildren are going to inherit our debt if the deficit continues to pile into the debt is a load of bunk.

My great great great grandfather was from Wales and my name is still Moore. Does that count?

The writing of new original Christmas songs. Please. God. Somebody. I die every year in stores and family members' houses.

Eight hundred grand? Shit. You could've sent like... 3 kids to school for that.

Legally, it's still his, even though he's dead, until a probate case is opened and a judge decides what to do with his property. If you have evidence for his intention to give you that song, you should be able to show up to court and make your case for it.

You're overthinking it. Just do it (or don't).

Gotcha. Mecosystem. Took me a sec. I don't know what this means. TRE reduces your time spent in flight or more and overall helps you deal with deep-seated trauma, as well as makes you more open in social settings. My recommendation is based off my own experience, as I genuinely believe you will feel better is all aspects of your life. If you don't think it's worth your time, then don't do it.

Mreh? No, but I've heard about it and I'm very interested in it.

Dude. TRE. Do it. You will thank me later.

Did you grow up with a narcissistic parent or parents? You might want to look into it. You can find a bunch of good articles from a quick google search. Experiencing a watershed of emotion as well as anxiety like that can be a result of growing up in a dangerous space, where you have to constantly be on the look out to protect yourself. Even if the danger isn't physical, narcissistic parents feed emotionally and energetically off their children, and will erupt in anger the moment they feel that their food might be taken away (i.e. the moment the child shows any independent personality traits). Growing up like this can cause the child to continue have a constantly racing mind and constant anxiety about <anything> when they become an adult. I know this first hand, as I had a narcissistic mother. I never knew my mind was "racing" (I had nothing to compare to) until a therapist friend pointed it out to me. I realized I was constantly assessing my surroundings for danger and in a chronic state of assuming that I was going to be emotionally attacked by someone at any given second. My friend pointing this out to me really helped me to accurately assess my surroundings: is there a real danger here or not? Usually there is not, and now I can allow myself to calm down.

I don't know if this will be a helpful exercise for you, but try getting things done throughout the day as if you weren't pretty. Assume that you're doing something wrong and you need to do it better. One of the banes of male existence is we'll put up with an insane amount of crap from hot women just because they're hot, and often we won't even realize it. I had a relationship with a prior girlfriend instantaneously melt before my eyes when I started to treat her the way I treated everyone else, i.e. hold them accountable to what they say. She was very hot (like a 9) and also very smart--probably why I was so attracted to her. Throughout our relationship (1 year +) I always felt that something was going on that wasn't to my favor, and one day it clicked to me that she was holding me responsible to the things that SHE had done, so I was responsible for my actions and hers. On this day that it clicked, we had a conversation where I started to hold her responsible to what she had done in the past and the things she had said, both in the past and in that conversation, and it was like she transformed into a completely different person. All the intelligence that I had found so attractive vanished as she switched to obvious and petty sophistry games--which utterly blew my mind, because we had regular discussions on proper reasoning, argumentation, and how to deal with sophistry. Not only did she understand that I knew that what she was doing was manipulative, she had seen me FIRST HAND deal with manipulative people repeatedly. She knew exactly what I was capable of and willing to do, yet pulled that bullshit on me anyway. On the day of that conversation I refused to yield and held her to her word, and she simply couldn't handle it. I had taken her pretty pass away and she had no idea what to do, and switched into sophistry which she knew damn well shouldn't have worked against me. After that conversation I told my dick to STFU and I broke up with her, and refused to engage in any talk about getting back together unless she addressed what we had spoken about in that conversation. She never did. She eventually stopped calling me when she realized I was interested in someone else. It's things like this that really turn men sardonic towards women in general. We are so used to being hounded, attacked, criticized, shit-tested, made fun of, told we're wrong, etc etc--even if we did something right. Compliments to us sometimes come as sarcastic insults. The more I see this sort of behavior out of women, and I see a small amount of it from my wife as well, the more I want to turn into a misogynist and say, "Bitch, get back into the kitchen. Men are speaking. I'll start putting the toilet seat down when you stop voting." If you do try to assume that you're doing things wrong, it will be really hard at first. But if you can get it down, I think you'll be a lot more open to criticism and much more appreciative of the work that men do around you. I don't know how much it will help you with your intimacy issue (again, I would recommend trying out the TRE thing immediately and see how that works), but I think it will help you deal with your trauma.

Mark J Kohler is a tax attorney and CPA that teaches tax and legal courses all around the country, and is the guy I learn my tax and legal information from. This is the guy who teaches how to set up S-corps with HSAs and retirement accounts and rentals so you can lose money on your tax return while making money in reality. He tracks court cases to see how people are winning and losing on specific aspects of the tax code and bases his tax and legal strategies around it. He is not happy about the new GOP tax bill. Mark breaks it down into three sections: Individual, Small Business, and Big Business/Corporate. The tax bill for big business/corporate is great. Knocking down the rate to 20% to make the US one of the most competitive corporate tax rates in the world. I agree with Mark that this is a great thing and will encourage big business to come back to the US, or to just set up shop in the first place. However, for the individual and the small business owner, things aren't so great. Even though there are some vague bones thrown in the general direction of the individual (double standard writeoff), the bones thrown at the small business owner are almost completely useless to the majority of small business owners (i.e. they take affect after you net more than $260k), or they are outright negative: tax credits and writeoffs are slashed left and right. Same with the individual: even with the doubling of the standard deduction and simplifying the tax rates, itemization is removed. I've posted an article and two videos from Mark. The first video is Mark's initial breakdown (before the Senate bill came up), and the second is after the Senate bill comes up, in which Mark includes his recommendations and how to approach Senators for recommendations. I've also included his article which breaks down his specific recommendations:

Word.

I have tried it and I still do it on a regular basis, as it is easy to do at home any time. It is incredible and has completely changed my stress level and my ability to interact with people socially. It's stupid cheap to do (I learned how to do it in 3 sessions for $250. That can't even buy you two hours with a therapist), easy to perform at home, and requires no psychological complications. I'm not recommending this as an effort to ditch talk therapy, but getting your biochemicals in order is an amazing first step.