Stovo

I live in England. We've had a tough time of it, probably down to high obesity levels, ageing population, and indecisive governance. We've had 3 lockdowns now. Rules: Masks must be worn inside shops, in most buildings, and on public transport. No requirement to wear masks outdoors. Hospitality is open, but only for outdoor seating. Nonessential retail has now reopened. International travel is banned. It's advised to stay local. People should work from home if they can. You can meet in groups of 6 people outdoors only. Compliance: Generally most people are following the rules. There's a minority of people, which leans younger, who are not following the rules properly. There are also a few businesses that are keeping their offices open, despite the fact their staff can work from home. Positive: Our vaccination programme is world-leading, as we're home to Astra Zeneca manufacturing. We'll likely be finished vaccinating this summer. The government has targeted 21st June to remove all legal limits on social contact, but international travel is going to be very difficult. Recent News: Our prime minister (Boris Johnson) was reported to have stated "let the bodies pile up" in a heated argument with senior officials prior to initiating lockdown 3.

This explains why my Tinder relationships never work out

Anti Vaxxers are basically children. They get to live in a world with a low or zero risk of catching diseases like smallpox, measles, polio, and so on, off the backs of the rest of the population being vaccinated. They get to live into their 80s due to the efforts of the rest of society, just like a child gets to live to 18 due to the efforts of their parents.

I'd swap that. Sadiq Khan is more green than orange, whilst Brian Rose is mostly orange. A big leap in consciousness happens between orange and green, in that you start realising that what is best for society is not always best for yourself individually but ultimately is a greater good. Clearly Brian Rose is unable to view things this way as he is opposed to covid lockdowns and internet censorship of disinformation.

If you zoom out then this is not true. You think it's true because inequality has risen so much the past 40-50 years, but there are also periods where inequality falls for several decades. In other words, these things run in cycles. Typically inequality gets worse as interest rates get lower and governments print a ton of money, pushing up financial asset prices. Eventually the government run out of money and taxes have to increase drastically to make up the shortfall. The government cannot tax the poor, because 1) they don't have a lot of money to tax and 2) doing so in a crisis could cause a revolution. Therefore, they are eventually forced to tax the rich very heavily. Just look at tax rates in the 40s, 50s, 60s compared to today.

I have travelled China extensively, have many Chinese friends and have dated many Chinese women. Fair to say, I might be able to add some understanding of the situation. Let's think about it from a spiral dynamics point of view. Most of China is stage blue, whilst a significant and growing portion of the population is stage orange - mainly younger people in cities. I have met some stage green Chinese people, but they are a minority. Meanwhile, western countries have a majority stage orange population, with a significant and growing portion of the population being stage green - again, mainly younger people in cities. Stage blue is less common, but still prevalent - particularly in rural US. Therefore, the two spheres are at different stages of the spiral which amplifies the misunderstandings that come alongside the cultural differences. The people in the west and China think as follows: Blue Chinese: ultra nationalist, hardline support communist party, distrust the west and western media, see Han Chinese as the superior race, believe Taiwan and Hong Kong are a part of China and this is unnegotiable. Orange Chinese: believe communist party is not perfect but the best leadership for now due to 40 years of dramatic economic improvement, focused on career, try to avoid discussing politics. Green Chinese (minority): Most likely to criticise government (this is a HUGE deal in China), tend to want to move to the west, sees democracy as superior, holds the west in high esteem, most likely to emphasise with Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet issues. Blue Western (minority): Probably Christians, support protectionist policies, sees China as a huge threat, believes white people are the superior race, terrified of communism. Orange Western: Want to strategically do business with China and careful on political sensitivities, happy to do unethical behaviour to gain access to Chinese markets, profit and individual success above all else. Concerned about HK/Taiwan as their erosion erodes western power and influence. Green Western: Care about HK/Taiwan/Xinjiang/Tibet because they emphasise with the people suffering there. It's interesting as you go up the spiral the two peoples start to have more in common with each other. For example, stage green Chinese and Western people are relatively similar, whilst stage blue Chinese and Western people are more likely to fight each other. This is because higher stages are able to look beyond cultural prejudices and are less likely to believe their race or society is superior to the other. The best way to handle the rise of China, is to raise consciousness levels of mankind. It would help if more people reached stage yellow as this stage is excellent at understanding different cultures and value systems. As you saw on the above examples, lower stages are more likely to fight which would be bad for everyone, whilst higher stages are more likely to cooperate which would be mutually beneficial. China is roughly operating at 1 stage lower than the West, so they have more work to do.

To be fair, a lot of mens careers are sexually driven

@JosephKnecht Some people may see it as a huge sum, but it's all relative.

@AtmoShark I would place it in the speculation category. It simply hasn't proved itself in the same way as gold has. Still, there's nothing wrong with placing a small portion of your portfolio in bitcoin, as long as you are aware of the risks. It's untrue that bitcoin fanatics are idiots when it comes to finance and business.

@Leo Gura I completely agree with you. I don't know if it is a coincidence, but increased political polarisation almost perfectly correlates with the increased exposure to unregulated social media platforms. People are now capable of sharing dangerous ideologies with millions of people at the click of a button. The social media companies seem to be waking up to this threat. Twitter placing warning banners on misleading Trump tweets was certainly a watershed moment. Still, they need to go further. It's interesting that those on the right see social media censorship as extremely threatening to free speech and free society, but they don't see that without such censorship the very notion of free speech and free society is threatened.

Bitcoin is a very risky investment. It's a brand new technology and people do not know for sure what will happen. If you do wish to speculate please ensure you only put in as much money as you afford to lose. Having said that, and this is just my own personal opinion (do your own research), I am very bullish on bitcoin in the long term. It's an asset that grows more and more scarce across time due to halving events and the fact that lost crypto is essentially impossible to recover. Although 21 million bitcoin will be the final amount mined, the amount recoverable will be much lower than this as more and more crypto gets lost over time. On the demand side, there is enough belief in the project that there will always be a base support level due to those who will never sell their bitcoin, which rises over time as more people get personally involved with bitcoin. Also, Millenials and Gen Z are known to be enthusiastic on crypto, whilst older people lean towards gold. So demographics favour crypto over the long run. Will it reach 100k by next year? The patterns of history do suggest this would be the case, given x amount of time after a halving event. 100k would give Bitcoin a total market cap of just under $2 trillion. For reference, Gold has a market cap of $9 trillion. $2 trillion sounds like a huge sum, but it's misleading in some respects as the value is driven up by the simple fact that some bitcoin is lost and most others do not want to sell. If everybody tried to cash in their crypto then the market value would crash. $2 trillion is certainly achievable. Having said all that, I think you are looking at bitcoin in the wrong way. You should be thinking about what role it might have in a well-diversified portfolio. Does it increase your expected returns? Does it lower your risk to traditional markets? Is it a good hedge against inflation?

It's amazing how accurate this was. Biden appears to be winning the narrative at this stage. "Biden is president-elect" is simply ringing louder than "This election was a fraud". It helps Biden's case greatly that most of the media is running his narrative and most world leaders have congratulated him. Even Fox News is tiring of Trump. Perhaps America's institutions are stronger than I originally envisioned. After all, if democracy in America falls then it would not serve to benefit those who benefit most from America's democracy, ie the rich and powerful. Maybe there comes a point where if the system's survival is threatened (Trump undermining democracy) then the system enters into survival mode. That would support the 2 steps forward and one step back theory. We took 2 steps forward with Obama, then 1 step backward with Trump. Trump tried to take a further step backward by undermining democracy and the system rejected it as it would be too far of a regression.