War is always changing, @AgentExeider.

I didn't realize Undoomed was here as well.

@AgentExeider, if you desire lowered taxation, then vote for candidates looking toward auctioning off those inefficiently managed, public assets, to create more jobs, new markets, and eliminating the unionist leeches, who like the scum they are, syphon off every dollar you'll pay throughout the year, during a workday in which they're paid for 12 hours of labor, though only engage in 1 hour. Once people relearn these lessons we've had to observe time and again, the current account deficits, of which artificially inflate the value of the USD, would be resolved, thereby making our goods and services more affordable to foreign consumers, propping up domestic industry and slashing foreign reliance. However, this weakens our reserve status, as current account deficits are required for banks to have an interest in holding your debt and dollars in reserve, because you obviously must finance it.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that. We do have a large national debt, but it won't be defaulted on.

Debt has a different meaning everywhere you go.

Whether or not the debts owed are toward efficient investments justifying the former is the question.

Of course it can be paid back, but no one in their right mind would want to.

Lol.

We're not at that point, yet. We've still got another 50 or so years, that is, before we're unable to make payments toward the principle.

It's more complicated than that, as you have various tools available to the Fed in the form of open market operations and inter-bank loan rates, the federal funds rate, etc, which expand and contract the money supply. The idea is not to have any shortages or surpluses.

You also have the money multiplier, a regulation banks are subject to.

So, what they have on deposit, they're allowed to loan up to 10x that amount.

A reserve requirement would be your securities.

No, they're just allowed to loan up to that amount to minimize liability.

To some extent, but think about how most people take out loans, especially businesses and so on. I know it sounds rather Keynesian, but up to this point for every dollar of debt we've taken on, approximately 8 dollars of productive value have been added to the economy. Think about a local store down the road that may have initially taken out a $100,000 loan, but has a marginal revenue of about half a million, perhaps more. What if they want to expand, in doing so taking on debt, in which the opportunity cost is justified, as there is no more of an efficient allocation.

I'm just using that as a rough example, but most debtors do not take on debt without accounting for opportunity cost - it's behavioral economics 101.

So, the expense accrued over time must be justified.

The question is whether or not the scarce resources are allocated efficiently, and in private markets that is the case.

It really doesn't matter whether or not what you're saying is true, as it leads one to the same conclusion, regardless of how you get there. Public debts, on part of excess government expenditure, is a negative in my view, supported by the observation of inefficient allocations and corruption, with heavily unionized labor fitting nicely into both, while simultaneously preventing private markets from ever arising in place of where government operates, losing out on growth potential and expanding State power, even though further debt further solidifies our ability to borrow more. Technically, we can expand our national debt limitlessly, unless everyone decides to shoot themselves in the foot and collapse their own economy, or speculators enter the market, which would likely happen inevitably, but we're far off that mark. It'd take another century of borrowing before this would occur, and that's implying the economy doesn't grow over that period of time.

That's the benefit of having a reserve currency by running current account deficits, which can *only* be sustained within nations that preserve property rights, not violate them (yes, I'm referencing the PRC as a regime that'll never fit the requirements), BUT there are also negatives to be observed, as I mentioned before. You have the issue of increased evaluations of USD, so you end up with trade deficits.

Yeah, it's all the same in the end anyway.

Indeed, Anubis.

🎊

<:deus_vult:466354779841495040> <:Trump_Pepe2:462291833427329035>

Now... To get rid of that ACA and address the over $1 trillion in annual macro-level inefficiencies due to the government creating oligopolies within the healthcare industry by restricting market-entry and not allowing cross-state competition.

Crusaders!

⚔

https://tenor.com/view/deus-vult-crusader-intensifies-gif-5241089

Ahah, there we are.

<:why:462286147473637407>

Block Buster, my man.

Thus, the American Dream died.

If only we had implemented those paywalls in time, @PhiloFusor the Omitted.

Getting rid of Net Neutrality *might* have saved Blockbuster for a few more years, @PhiloFusor the Omitted.

Lol.

Besides, local infrastructure is inefficiently managed, as the government owns most of it and contracts in with a single ISP to lock out competition, thereby artificially driving up costs and generally creating a shit market that's inefficient and without innovation. We should've all been on fios decades ago.

Indeed.

Commie shit.

```Network neutrality, or simply net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.

With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service.```

@HurtChain, so essentially, we get to subsidize the left's 24/7 couch potato consumption of feminist propaganda on Netflix.

Yeah, it looked like he blew a tire.

Trump has more energy than I have.

I don't know how he deals with the politics of today.

At most, I can only engage for a few months, then I have to take my leave for a while.

Yeah, but I'm referencing the mainstream media and the left, which may as well be synonymous with one another.

Is that really his chef?

Andre Rush has been a chef at the White House since 1997, apparently.

That's a great example of government entrenchment, but he is a rather loyal and patriotic veteran.

I bet.

No doubt.

https://tenor.com/view/meat-moving-gif-14855150

I type in meat tenderizer, and this is what I came up with.

Yeah, I can't say I've ever seen anything like that before.

Yeah, that makes sense, Philo.

Well, it won't matter once you're dead!

Settle down now, @HurtChain. Don't get too excited!

I hear ya, Lune.

https://tenor.com/view/herr-flick-allo-allo-gestapo-facebook-selfie-gif-14191720

In a couple of weeks, that professor will likely lose his credentials for speaking an obvious truth every conflict theorist is aware of, but decidedly buries it.
And likewise, @ETBrooD. My worst experiences were with the blacks, however, and they're the majority in the inner-city public schools, at least in the South. We didn't have any issues with immigrants, though, but that's due to their remaining a minority, so their social influence wasn't enough that it'd conflict with the majority group or others. As you know, the mainstream social norms and values that're reinforced among what's normalized as "black culture," in America, are rather insidious and counter to economic and social wellbeing.

Mhmm.

No, there are variations in how different groups behave, based on what behaviors are normalized and reinforced among the groups. Here in the U.S., for example, we have the issue of black kids being bullied by their peers (fellow blacks) for participation at school, which is obviously counter to logic as they'll have less economic mobility by proliferating such norms throughout their culture by associating it with their music, films, etc.

Many groups will also rebel against the predominant norms associated with the majority group, even if it harms their own interests. It's a very common behavior.

Because those behaviors are reinforced among peers.

It is the greatest contributing factor to how an identity group behaves, as people within the group have greater influence on one another than those perceived to be on the outside. Ascribed status, such as race and gender top the hierarchy in this regard.

Of course.

As you should.

Everyone does it.

Would anyone here avoid a 20-man sized group toting ISIS flags?

Alright.

Thanks.

I'd pick up my AR and start shooting.

Exactly.

It's an extreme example, but that's based on what you know of them.

So, that's a form of discrimination, is it not?

Fair enough, but we all know who it is most strongly associated with, the pattern so to speak.

And, you are still basing your decision upon material observations, however.

Because, if it is a behavior that is normalized and reinforced as a value among the group, race inextricably becomes the way to resolve the problem, as it is then a social cancer to the group that can only be addressed by socializing them with peers and propaganda rejecting the behaviors. You'd have to use people from their own group to do it.

If anything, I'm the one defending race as something you should recognize, because it can be leveraged to resolve problems among the groups by encouraging positive cultural icons of their group to influence them into conformity to the norms and values of the majority.

Anecdotes are not reflective of statistical accuracy, Joker... You know this.

What would be the more accurate view would be to identify what behaviors not fit for a civilized society are most predominantly associated with a specific group, then use positive cultural icons to reinforce alternative behaviors that are.

But, this extends into a much larger debate to be had.

Whether or not we desire cultural reforms and such.

I think everyone is just too paranoid we're going to declare a final solution, rather than have a reasonable dialogue that doesn't require genocide.

So, race altogether is avoided as a result.

Well, ET, that's the historical trend of recognizing racial differences, rather than reforming the culture associated with the race. Thus, you have a fear of discussing race with clear eyes.

That is true, but you have the issue of minority groups also becoming hegemonic in some ways, directing popular culture. Take pop and rap culture in America, for example. Sometimes it doesn't always work out that way, especially if you don't take steps to fill the vacuum beforehand.

You know there's a study showing all races experience adrenaline rush/fight or flight responses when they see a member of another race? I believe this was aired on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, if my memory serves me just.

You know what I see in that photo?

The black man is always trying to differentiate himself from the white man by wearing a funky ass suit.

That's just a common behavior I see among blacks, which is a byproduct of their non-conformity.

Am I racist?

C'mon, I'm trying to throw some humor into it.

It's a subtle truth I laid out that examples their non-conformity.

Anyway, you two have fun.

https://tenor.com/view/veganpolice-freeze-scottpilgrim-gif-4870505

https://tenor.com/view/vegan-vegetarian-gif-5956848

It's all I could find in the GIFs. Discord doesn't afford me the luxury of having decent memes at my instantaneous disposal. 😉

You mean where all the degenerates were rounded up and sterilized?

Did Duterte really round up most of the drug dealers and addicts, executing them, or was it merely a political stunt to wipe out opposition?

No?

So I've heard.