Search the Community

For the past year we've all been watching some really odd and sometimes wretched behavior from what we commonly refer to as "the left". With this whole Hollywood scandal I now realized that there might not be such a thing as "left-wing propaganda". Every movie, every tv-show, every song, every comic, every book that espouse the leftist-agenda has been tainted (I'm not implying the right is innocent). What did J.K. Rowling have to do in order to get published? Or get movies done? What Did Emma Watson have to do in order to get to speak in from of the UN? What did Kimmel do in order to get a late-night show? Meryl Streep? We can go on and on and on with examples. These people have all gave a part of themselves in order to get where they are, they metaphorically sold their soul to the devil (perhaps in some cases not that metaphorically). What would that do to a person? How would a person act towards the innocent knowing deep down that they themselves are wretched? I think it's simple. In their minds they can never be the bad guy so when they see someone that forces them to realize they're evil they will play a sophist trick on themselves and others: they will start changing definitions. Redefining evil as good and good as evil is how these people are able to live with themselves. So leftist propaganda is not for us but ultimately for them. It's an imaginary world of their own making where they're seen as the good, as rebels, as moral pillars, as superheroes. What we have witnessed all this time is their pathology masked in a pretty package. When Roman Polanski won an Oscar, look at Harrison's Ford face as he reads his name. Doesn't it suddenly make sense now why he's so miserable and cynical? People have always complained how he seems to ruin every movie he's in now because he plays each role as the "I really don't wanna be here" guy. Knowing what he knows we would probably be the same. Marina Sirtis (from Star Trek TNG) once broke down at a panel and thanked the fans for giving her the life she has now. After watching Electric Boogaloo you'll know of the other path her career might have taken her. Furthermore look at Patrick Stewart's face at the Emoji movie premiere. Why is Ben Affleck a drunken mess in most of his interviews? What demons is he trying to drown out? Adam Sandler is notorious for making what can be loosely called "movies" and turning a profit every single time. When Al Pacino degraded himself in one of those "movies" people wondered what the hell is wrong with him to willingly take such a plunge? When the top in Hollywood is nothing but a sewer, doing a humiliating Dunkin' Donuts commercial seems pretty clean to me. Mark Millar is as successful of a comic book writer as one can get. In his comic WANTED, also a major Hollywood movie, the main character is an average Joe that's privy to how the world actually works and fully accepts it. It's a superhero comic without any superheroes, it's a world where everything is run by villains and every protagonists is a villain. The main character joins the elite, the high ranking society, and at some point even rapes an A-list celebrity without any consequence. In the Hollywood version of the story everything is turned upside down. They're not villains but assassins (ends justify the means kinda mentality) and the main protagonist is not a villain but a hero. Again, they can't be the villains so they have to put a spin on it. Robin Williams killed himself to avoid to work in that industry. Or what about Leonardo diCaprio? How much does one have to sin in order to feel like you have to save the entire planet in order to atone for them? Even ComicCon makes sense now. I always wondered why would these celebrities and creative types go to such a chaotic place where people pay them to touch them. I'm guessing that taking money directly from fans and cutting out the Weinstein-ish middleman is a breath of fresh air. I wish things were different but ultimately I'm glad I'm finally seeing how the hamburger is made.

I came across this video on money.com regarding India's gold influx. I wanted some freedom-oriented analysis so I come to you guys. http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2013/07/24/n-india-gold-imports.cnnmoney/index.html?iid=V_Taboola I can't work through the steps of what she's saying. This leads me to think through them and verify them mentally myself. But I cannot do it. It also feels very wrong. This is one of those things where I know it's wrong, but cannot pinpoint or show it exactly. So I ask you for help., 0:20 "The rupee is hovering at an all time low vs the dollar." 0:25 "Since India pays for gold in dollars, it puts a massive strain on its account deficit." 0:41 "To reduce gold imports, the finance minister doubled the tax on gold imports." 1:04 "If the people stop buying gold for ~1 year, the account deficit will improve and the stock markets would improve. 1) Milton Friedman explains the negative feedback on the value of currencies when you send them abroad. I'm not quite sure I understand Milton Friedman's scenario and dynamics fully, but maybe you guys can explain. Also note, Friedman's scenario is with both native currencis... whereas this Indian scenario is India buying gold (let's assume from America) with dollars... so we have to adjust our knowledge and approach a little bit, relative to Friendman's scenario with domestic currencies. So here is an inconsistency I'm wondering about: Mainstream economists normally talk about currency wars, where each country prints more and depreciates the value of their nation's currency as if it were a good thing. So if the Rupee is low, aren't they winning the currency war naturally.... all the while getting ACTUAL PHYSICAL GOLD? sounds like a double win. So what is the reasoning behind this contradictory perspective? is it simply that the rupee is TOO low? if so, what is the criteria to to determine that? 2) So Friedman, as well as Bastiat, in his books, explains the fallacy of export-import = net foreign trade balance. I get this. The imported goods have an inherent value, so important doesn't necessarily mean a loss. so that equation is misleading. k. 3) So ofc raising import duties will reduce import volume. But is this good for the economy? The goal, supposedly is to raise the rupeand stock markets, assuming that importing gold with dollars is not good. 4) ok, if ppl stop buying gold... we hvae to work through all the mess of #1-3... but why would the stock markets improve???? and after we work through that one, why is that necessarily good, or better than getting gold?