commie

Speaking of dilution, how does happiness get a normative meaning?

Accumulating items is pointless regardless of how happy you are. No philosophy needed. And happiness isn't internal or external. You don't need to believe in natures or any other doctrine in order to realize this.

Why the hypothetical? Russia became the main extra-regional actor during the Obama adminstration. Why would Russia back out now? Sure, there are countless different worlds in which Russia would but you gave us no way to select one and the answer to your second question is therefore undefined.

There are deluded scientists but no scientific truth.

A year isn't long term. 30 days is short term. Get older. Other than that, maybe realize you're OK even though you've not achieved your goals and that you'll still be OK tomorrow if you haven't achieved them. There's no rush. I don't believe in vision, habits and all that. You'll do something today to achieve your goals if you actually want to do whatever it is you need to do. But if you're keep thinking about these goals, you may end up not achieving them. It's not thinking that's going to make you patient. And if forgetfulness actually is your problem (that would be strange), simply set up reminders!

We don't feel the same. Things are socially constructed through language and not an intrinsic part of the phenomenal field (except inasmuch as thoughts are part of the phenomenal field of course, but I was assuming the dualism implied in your statement).

Math I could have dealt with. A short formal argument would also be workable. But I can't read your mind to understand what on Earth you find convincing in what you posted or where you went wrong. And debunking every falsehood you wrote while providing enough background information that everyone might understand all possible mistakes that might lead someone to be convinced by each of the falsehoods would be a full-time job requiring pedagogical talent I lack. The best I can reasonably do is take a guess at what, assuming you're sincere, might be your central mistake and then address that. So here goes: you basically say that debt has to grow because of interest. But of course that only works if you assume that the interest is not spent on goods and services, taxes or asset purchases. Failures to pay interest or pay back the principal should also be taken into account but even with the unrealistic assumption that lending is risk-free, your argument wouldn't work. One could try to rescue this argument by tying it to irrelevant falsehoods or fallacies but I can't possibly debunk all of the potential falsehoods or fallacies which could be use to buttress such an argument... If you want more, focus on whatever you think is important and write down something like a formal argument listing your assumptions. If you did that, you'd probably be able to debunk yourself. If not, it would be much easier to provide assistance.

Yet you have not shown any math, only asserted falsehoods and reposted mis/disinformation. Please stop misleading the naive. Case in point: Funny that the disaster hasn't happend by now... as if your learning for simplicity has made you believe in yet another fairy tale.

$10K per US resident would be significant but isn't a huge amount... irrational and disruptive for sure but certainly possible and no game-changer. Nonsense. Show us the math you're talking about.

Are you really that clueless? Notice the word "mined". That's where the harm comes from, and this is serious harm that actually matters (nothing to do with the fleeting exchange value of money). You are a bad guy but you aren't putting dollar holders at a disadvantage and this voting thing is a pathetic fantasy, as is the notion that you can choose to do what you want with this money you've reified. I have been advocating against holding US dollars for decades and so I would of course welcome US dollars losing their exchange value. Only it's not going to happen and I'm not going to lie to people about that because in order to manipulate them.

This "national debt" is irrelevant. The issue is that helicopter money is a wasteful. But there's a reason for this waste: there is no system in place that could support most of the people in need in a targetted way or supply essential goods and services to the population. Meanwhile much of the population has financial obligations it must service and there is no rational system to provide relief on that front either. Arguing that most people didn't spend the previous checks is asinine. The whole point was to support the ones who did spend them in a fair way. You do that by increasing the net wealth of the more conservative or skillful planners. You want to reward the savers who are financing this "national debt" along with countless businesses and so forth, not incentivize people to spend money on whatever. If you have a problem with that, you might as well have the Man seize everyone's assets, because they didn't spend their wealth and therefore don't need it. That would take care of this "national debt". Go ahead, make my day! I also refer you the UBI thread.

Sure, but you don't have to go there. Avoidance isn't dishonesty in my book. I don't have such clear-cut assessments. Not hurting someone often benefits you as well. And "never" is a high bar! For instance I don't have a practive of censoring everything I say so I've sometimes being dishonest before I understood what it is I was allowing myself to say. Does that count? Lots of people I'd wager. Dishonest is harmful so it's something you're going to want to avoid as a matter of self-interest. Why do you bring up monks? Not being dishonest is a rule for householders as well.

This hinges on the word "severe". 100% honesty is in many cases realistic but it would obviously involve limitations. For some people, these limitations would be a big deal while others would find it easy to live with them, especially in light of the rewards. I guess it depends on your ambitions and priviledge. Is there any point in being 100% honest though? Sometimes it merely hurts people or brings about pointless conflicts. People who are mostly honest are rare enough (and much rarer still in some lines of work obviously). What motivates dishonesty makes a world of difference in my experience.

If all currencies are as you're implicitely suggesting equally likely to collapse, that's no reason to hold one over another. And if you did understand which currencies are likely to collapse, you wouldn't push bitcoin unless you were trying to harm others. But of course anyone pushing mined currencies such as gold or bitcoin is actively hurting others regardless of how likely they are to collapse anyway...

There is of course zero evidence that anything unusual is happening to the value of anyone's dollars. But the scum is of course always out there trying to sell their scams, and this insulting drivel is part of the sales pitch.

No need to for pseudo-psychology, much less pseudo-spirituality. You are a social animal and one of your mind's basic jobs is to prove itself to other people!

And who chose to look at that fact instead of a more relevant one in order to mislead us? EDIT: a study suggests people enjoying financial priviledges rarely end up doing the worst jobs... who'd have thought? Liberalism is awesome, innit?

Individuals can get out of poverty. But poverty has a social function, and so that's no basis for public policy. If your economy requires people to do "unreal" jobs (and it does!), you basically have a two choices: -punitive welfare and/or inadequate basic income -have foreigners who aren't entitled to such benefits do these jobs Option 2 being unappealing even if it's largely adopted in practice, a decent basic income remains a non-starter. What the scum is introducing instead are inadequate basic incomes as a pretext to cut other benefits. And since some people need a lot more benefits than others due to disabilities and so forth, basic incomes are currently harmful. This is a structural demand-side labor market issue. Liberal supply-side policies are not an answer.

It's not a reasoning. These are just words referring to nothing anyone can show you, and so what they mean is up to you. Yet people seem to agree about this matter. Try to give your complicated notions and judgements a rest and see if you don't feel alive. Are you in some kind of cosmic balance between life and death? Obviously not. There are things that come and go and then there's being alive. And you happen to strive for goodness. Why do you need a reason?

It's all the same: patriarchy and hypocrisy. Unfortunately people rarely understand what patriarchy means anymore so if you're not into history, you probably have no idea what I mean. Certainly I don't care if you understand what I mean as long as you refrain from annoying me with your hateful prudishness.

Was posting stupidity against nukes really supposed to be the point of the thread?

Hopefully that professor was only using that holism objection as a skillful means. The only trouble is that some people figure the distinctions are real. Sorry for the low-quality input but that's all there is to it really. Don't allow yourself be impressed by words and you'll be fine.

There are way too many connections. If that wasn't the case and someone could "calculate it", they'd game the system which would add connections until it became unpredictable again. But you can still draw a big picture. In that picture, the typical reason bonds are "selling off" is the same as the typical reason bond prices rise: people expect government policy to change, domestically or abroad. And why do they expect policy to change? That depends on the government but in the case of the US that usually has to do with inflation and unemployment (since that is what the monetary policy mandate is about). Concerns about future inflation are the main driver these days, which isn't surprising or problematic since that's how the system is supposed to work when officials proclaim they're going to bring about more inflation using whatever means necessary. What was more unusual was that people didn't react that way to these pronouncements at first, but you may recall that COVID thing which was undermining the credibility of said officials somewhat.

I'm sure that was Adolf's perspective as well.

To put it mildly, questions about what does or doesn't exist are very rarely worth pursuing. And like I said earlier, I'm no psychic. So I can't tell what you're fabricating when all I have to go on is "they" and "it". While you did repost conspiratorial material about (((bankers))), you sound like you might have something less malicious in mind... in that case, I could perhaps address it if you were to spell out this issue you're fabricating. The more you elaborate, the less guesswork I have to do. Exchange value is always make-believe. The thing is, the IRS has the might to make you believe. Use a word people understand to describe something they don't, and people think they have it figured.