Posts by Nancy Gomez26

amberorca64 said:Whoever jumps on this first will likely secure the title of "global superpower" for the next 50 to 100 years, which fits perfectly into the whole narrative regarding China's rise.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Chinese people will rebuild the technology, and then everyone else will follow suit. I find it hard to imagine Western nations buying a nuclear plant from China, but developing nations might—or wealthier ones might simply purchase the patents if they exist. They might even just pick up the patent umbrellas, much like how Chinese companies acquire assets globally. It will take them ages to develop anything, though, given how soul-crushing their bureaucracy is. Finally, there's actually something worth copying from them.

3. This whole "story" regarding LFTR isn't just some myth. I encourage anyone to actually dig into the background of this reactor and what it truly signifies—both technologically and geopolitically. As far as I'm concerned, it stands as one of the most critical issues of our era, yet the masses remain blissfully ignorant. On the rare occasion someone brings it up, they just chatter aimlessly over coffee like mindless cattle. No offense intended to the crowd or the livestock.

The Chinese person has revived the concept, and there is a distinct possibility it might actually come to fruition.

hiddensailor14 said:I’ve been spending some time lately digging through all these articles about investing—Wall Street, gold, the whole nine yards. To be honest, while Bob was busy handing out a sense for economics and smart investing to everyone else, I must have been looking the other way, because most of this feels like a foreign language to me. I have a question regarding precious metals, though. What is the actual practical difference between buying things like gold or platinum through a brokerage account versus just holding physical cash? Obviously, I get that buying through an account leaves a paper trail of where my money went, but since there aren't any taxes involved here, does that really matter? And if it does, why...?🤔
For instance, if I wanted to pick up some precious metals as something I intend to hold onto for the next twenty years or so—say, around $5,000 worth—what would be the smartest way to go about it? And where should I even look?
Or, I could just throw the whole lot into Wall Street. But then again, I don't quite wrap my head around these virtual currencies. If I buy gold, I can actually hold coins or bars in my hand, but with Wall Street... where does it actually live?

One must consider that Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) relies entirely on external systems—the internet, the electrical grid, and the consensus of a crowd. Bitcoin offers certain advantages, such as the ease of remote transfer, but it remains hostage to market whims and the goodwill of regulators (who view it as more than a nuisance; they see it as a massive obstacle). Physical gold, conversely, has withstood the test of time. Do not fall for the allure of "paper" gold—securities tied to the price of gold. In a sudden price surge, you will find those assets are merely paper, offering nothing when the real thing is needed.

Michael Morgan5 said:Maybe calling it five is a bit of a stretch...

I get where you're coming from, and honestly, I’m on board with most of what you're saying.
But if you ask me, you're being way too optimistic about the upside. If everything actually hits the fan and we see a total collapse, I don't think an ounce of gold is going to buy you much more than a beat-up used Honda Civic.

As for me, I have zero interest in chasing some hypothetical "extra" profit born from a broken system. My only objective is to preserve the value of my labor—the sweat equity built up by previous generations—that is currently locked within that ounce. If I achieve nothing more than that preservation, I will consider it a win. Life was worked too hard to let those accumulated efforts simply vanish into the void of historical chaos.

Anthony Evans78 said:Actually, it matters quite a bit.
The Germans sent their gold to the USA for safekeeping.
Period.
When that gold is returned, it should be the exact same bullion that was originally sent. Since it isn't, it suggests the Americans dipped into the reserves and had to plunder gold from places like Iraq, Libya, or Ukraine just to give the Germans "their" gold back.
Doesn't that alone destroy any trust you have in someone tasked with guarding your national wealth?

In principle, national wealth stays home. You only have a justification for keeping it abroad under extraordinary circumstances (refer to my previous post).

However, one must consider the historical context. Until about 40 years ago, gold functioned as the primary mechanism for settling accounts between nations. Germany, being a massive exporter, built up its reserves through industry rather than sending them away; they simply collected their earned holdings there. The hub for all these transactions was the Federal Reserve in New York. Many countries kept significant portions of their reserves in that same vicinity, and settlements often involved merely moving quantities from one vault to another within the same facility. It is quite possible these were purely bookkeeping entries without any physical movement at all. If that is the case, it follows logically that you won't receive your specific "original" bars, much like how you wouldn't expect to withdraw the exact same physical banknotes you deposited at a local bank.

As for this alleged "looting" of gold, the theory is riddled with holes. Why bother stealing it when you can simply convince them to hand it over voluntarily in exchange for pieces of paper—IOUs, this time printed in green—which only you possess the authority to print? There is no profit in theft when you hold the printing press.

Michael Morgan5 said:I just don't get the logic behind that.
It’s like asking a leopard to babysit a gazelle.
They even sent stuff to New York City for storage back then.
I highly doubt anyone was actually asking the Germans for permission during that era.

They did ask—and they were remarkably cooperative. In those days, you only needed to cast a quick glance from the other side of the Wall (there were specific observation posts for civilians) to grasp the reality of absolute security provided by the USA. No military budget of a single state republic could ever afford such certainty—all while enjoying massive savings on their own defense spending, despite being right on the front lines. One must view these events through the lens of that specific era.

But eras shift, circumstances evolve, and political priorities follow suit. However, one should remember that a significant amount of German gold remains tucked away in the vaults of the Federal Reserve in New York.

velvetfalcon44 said:Germany Gets The ‘ Wrong Suitcase ’ While Repatriating Its Gold Reserves fra US

“Look, there are plenty of red flags suggesting that the gold wasn't actually sitting in those New York City vaults when Germany asked for it back. Sure, the USA started the process of sending it home, but here's the kicker—there's this one weird detail. It's like if you drop your bag off at a coat check; you'd pretty much assume you're getting your own bag back, right? Well, it turns out Germany walked away with the 'wrong suitcase.'

While pulling its gold out of the USA, Germany ended up with bars marked with someone else's tags.

“There are massive indicators that the gold just wasn't physically there in the New York City vaults when Germany made the call to bring it home. Obviously, the USA kicked off the repatriation process, but there’s this one really suspicious little twist. When you leave your luggage in storage, you expect to get your own stuff back. Despite everything, Germany got handed the 'wrong' suitcase.”

So where did the actual gold come from then? Did they just pick it up on the open market? Honestly, I'd go as far as saying it was stolen.
(Who stole 143 Tons of Gold from the Libyan People, Ukraine Admits Its Gold is gone, The United States stole Iraqi Gold & Oil, The $1 trillion jackpot)

It is entirely irrelevant whether those are the identical bars Germany originally deposited or some other set, provided they meet the required standards. That universality is a fundamental characteristic of gold—as a form of currency. Given the current global landscape, perhaps we should be glad they managed to extract whatever they intended to take before any deadlines hit.

As for Ukraine... knowing how things operated there previously, it would be quite a shock if any state gold were actually found in their vaults. But then again, that might be the least of Ukraine's concerns right now.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Listening to Jim Rickards again. Some interesting terms popping up: ice nine, the big freeze...
His explanation involving dominoes is also quite compelling...

"snowflake"

Currently, all indicators point toward this specific model of control. They eliminate physical cash to mandate the use of digital currency. From there, you move to negative interest rates, and if things get truly dire, they simply cut off your access to funds entirely—a scenario that is virtually impossible when dealing with hard cash.

Regarding the snowflake analogy: it isn't about one single critical flake. It’s about the fundamental instability—the inherent unsustainability—of the entire architecture. One must address the design of the system itself, provided there is any political will to do so, which, quite frankly, is non-existent at this stage.

The video is excellent, though his book, Road to Ruin, offers an even deeper dive.

Nathan Morris3 said:Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Most of my holdings are in gold, specifically physical gold. I stick to physical because there’s really no reason not to, right? No sales tax, no capital gains tax... what I have in paper is mostly just for day trading, and I definitely see the risks there. I was actually wondering what your split is between paper and physical? By "paper," I mean everything digital, like fiat, silver, or stocks. For me, it's probably about 50:50.

Anyway, silver looked pretty good today, both the physical and the paper stuff.

Attempting to "park" your capital—the literal fruit of your labor—in paper assets makes no sense in this current climate. If you want to gamble via trading, then fine, paper has its place. But what is the point of playing the game if you face a massive risk of losing everything you've accumulated simply because you stayed in the digital realm?
As for silver's dip today, it is nothing more than the same old script being played out yet again;
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...massive-volume

Nathan Morris3 said:Well, isn't that just brilliant, Michael Morgan5!
I guess I'm actually down on silver right now. I've been buying paper contracts at an average of $18.6 over maybe the last 8 years—about 1,200 ounces total. I'm sitting on a loss of roughly 1,400 Euro. It’s the sales tax that really gets me, and I'm not a big fan of those offshore schemes out of places like Estonia. I don't buy paper anymore, mostly because even if it turns a profit, I have to deal with capital gains taxes (like a 27.5% rate back home), whereas physical gold/silver usually avoids certain taxes. From what I gather, silver and gold move pretty closely together, though silver is way more volatile. So, if I moved my $20K in silver paper into, say, $60K in physical gold, would I be similarly "covered"? Liquidity isn't a huge issue for me, so I don't need leverage. I am up on physical gold, and I recently started playing around with some mining stocks.

Basically, what I'm wondering is... are you guys all just betting on silver (and if so, why skip gold?), or do you balance between the two? And for silver, is it physical or paper?

In reality, you are simply swapping one scrap of paper for another. When things truly go south, that paper will become practically worthless; you might even find that the original currency was far more useful in hindsight. Always choose physical. Paper is a logical fallacy. Physical assets almost entirely insulate you from the whims of politicians, state actors, various special interests, and the mounting debts of past generations coming due. Paper, however, remains nothing more than paper.

Michael Morgan5 said:From what I can gather, this individual pushes the dollar while they're drawing a paycheck from the Federal Reserve, then pivots to Goldman Sachs when they aren't—all while maintaining a relentless bias against the Eurozone regardless of the circumstances.
A textbook example of a representative serving their chosen constituency.

While they are collecting a salary from the Federal Reserve, they promote the policies of the Federal Reserve. It stands to reason. They might hold different views privately—opinions they may only feel free to voice once that Federal Reserve paycheck stops flowing and any hope of returning to such a seat vanishes. An intelligent man understands that biology eventually catches up with everyone. As for the Eurozone, that story is far from over. It possesses distinct advantages, certainly, but also glaring flaws—primarily rooted in human nature and certain systemic vices that a single currency can no longer mask.

KuciloOro said:If you can manage it, please explain what you read between the lines, because I couldn't make sense of any of it...

! Greenspan likely hasn't shifted his stance on gold one bit.
2. For his former employers, treating gold as a component of the system isn't even an option—it acts as a massive deterrent against market manipulation and the extraction of unearned profits (or rather, it makes such manipulation far too transparent).
3. It is curious how central banks—for the most part—never actually abandon gold; they go to great lengths to prevent physical bullion from leaving their vaults, even while publicly disavowing its utility. To believe otherwise is merely naive.
4. It remains obvious that central banks exist primarily to shield the interests of their constituents—commercial banks and the state—rather than the public or the end-users of currency.
But we have known this for ages (or at least suspected it); this supposed "change of heart" is nothing more than a confirmation of existing realities. I understand why people pivot; circumstances shift, motives evolve, and frankly, I don't expect much in the way of sincerity. Greenspan is nearing the end of his career; he likely has very little left to lose by making these statements. Perhaps it is simply a way to quiet his conscience.

Benjamin Johnson7 said:"Quote:"

Timothy Robinson78 As Timothy Robinson78 points out: I find myself wondering if anyone here has actually navigated the complexities of being an employee. When you find yourself in such a position, do you find your internal compass nudging you toward maximizing your employer's profits, or do you aim to minimize the value you provide to ensure they aren't getting too much for their money? It is a curious little moral dilemma, isn't it? Furthermore, I have often pondered the arbitrary nature of compensation. In your estimation, what truly dictates why one individual commands a substantial salary while another struggles with a meager one? Is it merit, luck, or perhaps just the sheer whims of corporate bureaucracy? One might argue that greed is simply an inherent facet of the human condition, a fundamental trait woven into our very nature that remains entirely indifferent to whatever political system happens to be in power.

I have been part of the workforce since well before I turned eighteen, having spent my youth working various odd jobs to make ends meet. For the past six years, I have operated my own company, which currently employs three full-time staff members. I make it a point to ensure they are compensated well above the national average, and I provide them with generous holiday bonuses as well. It would, of course, be quite easy to seek out employees willing to perform the exact same tasks for a lower wage simply to pad my own profit margins. However, I firmly believe that if one wishes to retain high-quality, diligent, and reliable professionals, one must pay them fairly and show genuine respect for their labor.

In my previous roles, I never viewed myself as working for "bosses"—because, frankly, people shouldn't have bosses. Rather, I regarded them as my clients or employers, and it was my personal mission to ensure that the work I delivered was nothing short of my absolute best.

The reality is, you couldn't have found a worker of that caliber for less; if such a person existed, you would have hired them already. As an entrepreneur, the burden of choice falls entirely on you. It is a matter of priority. Is it better for the long haul to hoard extra cash while alienating your staff and clients? Or is it wiser to accept thinner margins in exchange for loyal customers and a functional workspace? It comes down to individual philosophy. That is why entrepreneurs vary so wildly; we all approach the game through different lenses.

The narrative that corporations exist solely to chase profit is a common one, but it ignores a fundamental truth: companies can simply fail. They can vanish. Obsessing over profit is a short-sighted strategy. If you look only at the bottom line, innovation eventually starts looking like an unnecessary expense. And once growth stalls, death follows. Either a competitor emerges who does the job more efficiently—leaving you obsolete—or, even worse, your most talented people leave to start their own ventures, taking the institutional knowledge with them. Ultimately, people perform the work, not the corporate entity. A small business owner has to weigh these risks constantly, whereas a massive corporation often loses sight of the individual moving the gears within the machine.

Amanda Allen4 said:Unsanctioned drones should be treated just like mosquitoes—they need to be wiped out of our airspace immediately. Honestly, a simple shotgun meant for duck hunting would get the job done perfectly fine. Let's face it: if a drone is capable of carrying a camera, it’s more than capable of carrying a bomb.

Do you honestly believe someone carrying a payload would lose their nerve after seeing the sheer amount of red tape we deal with here? They'd probably think, 'They don't need my bomb; they have enough bureaucracy to suffocate them all on their own.'

Paul White9 said:And what does "homeland" even mean? You're born where you're born. Your homeland is wherever you manage to build a life that actually feels good. While you were studying and relying on your parents, they provided the foundation because that was their prerogative. But once you start living for yourself and taking responsibility for your own life, you choose the place that serves you best—and that becomes your home. Then you fall in love, get married, have kids, and the whole cycle starts all over again—at least, that's the classic view. So, it really depends on what you're sacrificing: are you giving up the country where you were born, or are you sacrificing the chance to actually build a future there? Honestly, you might have done more damage by staying than you ever would have by leaving.

For the most part, regarding the concept of a homeland, you make a valid point. It is entirely possible to integrate successfully into a different society. However, moving abroad for work always involves a certain degree of renunciation—for some more significantly than others—and one needs to spend some time abroad to truly grasp my meaning. Besides the decision itself, far too many external factors dictate whether one leaves or stays. If I could simply pack up my business and move it to a location more conducive to commerce, I likely would. But due to the very nature of my work—running an independent trade, agriculture—physical relocation isn't an option. I suspect that in the future, business environments across the European Union will gradually converge, making the specific location increasingly irrelevant, a process that is already slowly underway.

Brandon Gomez2 said:Look, this isn't some high-level economic theory or whatever. America is totally dependent on food imports, so if we tank the currency, we're looking at actual hunger long before anyone sees a single benefit from a weaker Kuna.

It’s not even just about how much debt we have. The real issue is: a) this debt was taken on unnecessarily at insane interest rates, so the cash is basically just leaking out of the country, and b) you guys have gutted our own domestic economy, making it nearly impossible to actually pay anything back.

As for "hard work" and "sacrifice"—please. I don't work harder or sacrifice more than I already did while living in America, except now I get paid way more and actually have free time. So, you can probably guess exactly what I think about people preaching that we should all just suck it up and suffer.

The moment you feel forced to leave your homeland just to earn a decent wage for the job you do—you have already sacrificed something. You traded today for a slightly better tomorrow (and look, I don't judge; I’d likely make the exact same choice if I were in your shoes). The real tragedy here is that we are being forced to pay for the excessive, reckless spending of the past. We've developed a habit of spending far beyond our means, both personally and as a state, and now the bill has finally come due.

Brandon Gomez2 said:Is there even a chance?!? Not a prayer! The whole point of authority in America is just collecting middleman commissions on money being exported out of the country. If you were educated back in America, you’d call it plain old corruption, but if you have some fancy MBA from Cotrugli or whatever, you call it "tax farming." Everything is technically legal, the institutions are doing their jobs, and every four years the ruling clique just swaps out which fairy tales they tell us.

Regarding the devaluation of the kuna—look, since most food in America is imported and grocery bills make up about 30% of household expenses, a sudden devaluation would trigger such massive social unrest that the Republic of America could end up being labeled a "failed state."

Actually, thinking about it more, I’m actually backing those forum experts who are calling for the kuna to be devalued.

Currency devaluation only makes sense if—post-devaluation—the budget remains at the same nominal level. That way, the state actually spends less in real terms. However, wage growth pressures would hit immediately after such a move. If the government caves to those pressures due to the temporary positive effects of devaluation, there won't be much left over.

As for the collapse of the state, I suspect a much larger portion of the funds has been squandered, drunk away, or poured into concrete—only a smaller fraction was successfully stolen (by "successfully," I mean money that actually made it into a private account to accumulate long-term). This is largely secondary, though useful for understanding where the leakages are so we can attempt to plug them. Our only hope might be a global crisis and some sort of general debt jubilee—or at least reducing our debt to a manageable level, which in our case would be somewhere around 10-30% of the actual debt.

It is not up to Tim to work for all of us or to pull this government out of the gutter. We can only save ourselves through our own labor, ideas, commitment, and sacrifice. Tim and his associates can only reorganize the system, perhaps level the playing field slightly, and insist on implementing fair, equal rules for everyone in this country. As long as we have situations where certain people don't have to pay taxes or contributions, or where their tax debts are forgiven under the guise of "better something than nothing," we don't stand a chance. We need to start with solid foundations. I am no advocate for a heavy-handed state, but an unjust state is a far worse phenomenon than a strong, but just, one.

wearytrucker22 said:At the end of the day, gold and silver look like solid bets. Even renting out a condo on the Florida coast isn't a bad way to invest.

Precious metals have an edge over real estate. The government can swoop in and tax a condo relatively easily, whereas gold and silver are much harder to pin down. On the flip side, a property might actually generate some extra cash over time to offset those tax hits. You also can't exactly walk off with a condo like you can with bullion. As for money sitting in a bank account? In this climate, that’s probably the worst move you could make. Between inflation, hedging, and these ridiculous financial restrictions—like being capped at a tiny daily withdrawal limit—it's a mess. I recall them tightening things even further than that before.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Out of the 25 engineers on our team, I’m the only one who consistently commutes by bicycle.
But I can't exactly hand over a receipt because—get this—I found this bike in a dumpster five years ago!!😲😁😲
Some guy was moving apartments and tossed everything into the trash, including a bike with completely flat tires. I picked it up, swapped in some new tubes from $17 total.
As for my old bike, I took that out to Martha's Vineyard just to ride it there.

Every single capitalist would be absolutely screwed if someone actually managed to implement this model:
Money is never a blessing, whether you have it or not, according to Banjalučanka Maja Risović, who decided a few months back to join the Ubuntu community in Africa and live a life entirely free from monetary means.

The ideology goes like this: http://zvono-istine.org/kraj-novca-j...km-od-chicago/

Living without money sounds fine in theory, but how does one accumulate—or rather, preserve—the value of past labor? If I perform work today, does it simply vanish into a collective pool, trusting that the community will return the favor whenever I might need it? It feels uncomfortably close to socialism. And in practice, that usually translates to inefficiency and penalizing high achievers to subsidize those with less capability.
The issue isn't the currency itself. The issue lies with the people who claim an exclusive right to print it without contributing any nominal value, while constantly flooding the market with more. This process devalues the labor we've already stored in our savings, effectively eroding both the cash in our pockets and the balances in our bank accounts right now.

Morgan Evans83 said:It’s getting impossible to find an honest lender these days. I posted on a forum looking for a $3,000 loan, even offering my condo as collateral, and this one guy reaches out with a contract stating that if I don't pay back the $3,000 plus interest by the deadline, he becomes the legal owner of the property. Look, I get it—he wants some form of security—but who in their right mind would sign away a home worth over $300,000 just to cover a three-grand debt? I wouldn't mind if he placed a lien on it, but this doesn't exactly scream "good intentions."

Your debt would overtake the value of the property in no time. The way these people calculate interest is predatory—compound interest stacked upon compound interest—and there is always the risk that you won't be able to reach them for months. You try to settle the debt, but by then, the interest has ballooned. Suddenly, they are standing at your door, everything perfectly legal. It isn't about earning interest for them; the goal from day one is to seize your home for a tiny down payment of a few thousand dollars.
Don't be naive. If you are desperate for cash, sell the place. Or trade it down for something smaller and use the difference to cover your needs. If you have any sense, you could actually turn a profit on such a move.