Housing is really key though. If couples do not have enough space, they do not have children, especially now that birth control is trivial.
The extreme disconnect between incomes and house prices was also likely a result of abandoning the gold standard.
I think we should return to physical metal money, but it should be silver because it's far more practical for everyday use. And it should be by weight alone, not "dollars" which can be redefined at will:
I don't mind digital promises of physical silver, as long as they are clearly marked as being only debts and not money.
So internet commerce could continue as we pass around promises of silver. The difference would be the redeemability of those promises in silver, unlike now.
The goal is to limit the games that the elite can play with money at our expense.
You can use Bitcoin physically. So you get best of both worlds. You canNOT use Silver / Gold digitally without the promises getting compromised (that's what happened with fiat).
If someone figures out how to get md5 (or whatever hash Bitcoin uses) to generate strings ending in 0000 etc without doing work, then all Bitcoin can be stolen by that person.
This is great. Conservatives need an optimistic alternative vision for the future, not simply a reaction to the degeneracy of the left. Finding purpose within the context of family, community and nation, as opposed to radical individualism, is the solution, but to sell this message you don't merely need a dry list of facts. Feelings don't care about your facts. Think of the 1985 Gillette Comercial. It celebrates looking sharp, hard work, accomplishment, relationships, marriage and family.
Also, when people have the desire to have family, they will strive to find a way to build an economy that is conducive to this. When this desire is absent, globalist are able to have their way (send women into the work force, mass immigration, send the manufacturering base to China) and get away with it, because they people are distracted rebelling against, for the dake of their isolated individualism, the very things that give their life a natural purpose; the family and community (network of families tied together by location and culture).
I think you are overlooking the negative impact of the welfare state. In the past the average person was far more dependent on family connections and family fortune for security and care in later life. If you didn’t have children, or at least siblings and nieces and nephews, who would take care of you at the end of life? It was seen as a sad thing to be without close family. Also, raising children usually brings you into contact with other parents, creating new friendships and generating mutual support networks, especially if your own parents and siblings are not living nearby.
All of this brings to mind the Nicholas Cage movie “Family Man”, probably the best antidote in recent films to the anti-children world view.
Housing is really key though. If couples do not have enough space, they do not have children, especially now that birth control is trivial.
The extreme disconnect between incomes and house prices was also likely a result of abandoning the gold standard.
I think we should return to physical metal money, but it should be silver because it's far more practical for everyday use. And it should be by weight alone, not "dollars" which can be redefined at will:
https://patrick.net/post/1378593/2023-02-20-we-should-all-just-use-silver-by-weight
And we can just start doing it, no matter what the Fed wants.
Silver is subject to the same problems Gold is. It's physical.
You need a digital bearer instrument with properties of gold and cash.
There's only one that matters
Being physical is a feature, not a bug.
I don't mind digital promises of physical silver, as long as they are clearly marked as being only debts and not money.
So internet commerce could continue as we pass around promises of silver. The difference would be the redeemability of those promises in silver, unlike now.
The goal is to limit the games that the elite can play with money at our expense.
You can use Bitcoin physically. So you get best of both worlds. You canNOT use Silver / Gold digitally without the promises getting compromised (that's what happened with fiat).
I recommend the following:
https://bitcointimes.io/toward-a-node-world-order/
If someone figures out how to get md5 (or whatever hash Bitcoin uses) to generate strings ending in 0000 etc without doing work, then all Bitcoin can be stolen by that person.
Silver is a lot safer.
Wow. That's so painfully wrong it hurts to respond here.
I don't want to convince you. if you think Silver is the right choice, by all means go for it.
Clearly you do not understand how Bitcoin works.
Bitcoin runs on a Proof of Work system. If someone can come up with the right hash values without doing the work, Bitcoin is toast.
There has never been a proof that it is not possible to reverse-engineer the hashing to skip the work.
This is great. Conservatives need an optimistic alternative vision for the future, not simply a reaction to the degeneracy of the left. Finding purpose within the context of family, community and nation, as opposed to radical individualism, is the solution, but to sell this message you don't merely need a dry list of facts. Feelings don't care about your facts. Think of the 1985 Gillette Comercial. It celebrates looking sharp, hard work, accomplishment, relationships, marriage and family.
100%. You need to speak to what's underneath the mind.
Also, when people have the desire to have family, they will strive to find a way to build an economy that is conducive to this. When this desire is absent, globalist are able to have their way (send women into the work force, mass immigration, send the manufacturering base to China) and get away with it, because they people are distracted rebelling against, for the dake of their isolated individualism, the very things that give their life a natural purpose; the family and community (network of families tied together by location and culture).
I think you are overlooking the negative impact of the welfare state. In the past the average person was far more dependent on family connections and family fortune for security and care in later life. If you didn’t have children, or at least siblings and nieces and nephews, who would take care of you at the end of life? It was seen as a sad thing to be without close family. Also, raising children usually brings you into contact with other parents, creating new friendships and generating mutual support networks, especially if your own parents and siblings are not living nearby.
All of this brings to mind the Nicholas Cage movie “Family Man”, probably the best antidote in recent films to the anti-children world view.
The welfare state is a huge problem, yes. The sooner that’s bankrupted, the better. I put that into the economic bucket though.
Great articulation of thoughs as always. Give me a different perspective on what to think of.