Posts by Nathan Morris3

coastalbison6 said:@ Nathan Morris3

I’m not sure why you’re picking on Carol Newman2 for no reason; the guy is just having a normal discussion. 😕
Sebastian Kurz promised to look at immigration through a cultural lens, and I think that’s perfectly reasonable. 👍
We don't need more influxes from those regions here, just like Europe doesn't. If women want to dress like mummies, they can go somewhere else that allows it—good luck to them. 😁

If Kurz sweeps the elections (which looks likely), he's going to have a massive headache finding anyone to partner with in a coalition. I honestly think the Freedom Party of Austria will end up in the opposition unless they take the top spot, since for Sebastian Kurz, anything less than being Chancellor is off the table.

I didn't mean to attack him. I just think I'm a bit wary of everyone causing division, because polarization is probably the last thing we need right now. And just to be clear, van der Balen does it too, which is just as bad, since all that just radicalizes people.
Immigration definitely needs control, and I'd say a lot of people are frustrated because the burden isn't shared evenly across American states; things would be much better if it were. But the effect of Sebastian Kurz's policy is that it doesn't help immigrants—integration isn't getting any better—and it doesn't help locals either. He's even turned moderate Muslims against him. I'm not quite sure what the positive part of this is. It feels like emotions are just being used, while we move further from the goal.

As for me, a headscarf hasn't bothered me for decades, so I don't get why Sebastian Kurz is suddenly turning this into an ideological fight, maybe thinking bans will help integration. The bigger issue is probably the sheer volume, not the scarves. It’s kind of a paradox that people complain about headscarves but don't mind women who are completely covered. For me, it's the opposite, maybe it's just me. 😉.

Carol Newman2 said:I'm not trying to lecture anyone; I was just offering a comment on what's happening in America.

What are the odds that Kurz forms a coalition with the Freedom Party of Austria after the election?

I guess Sebastian Kurz would sell his own mother just to stay in power. So, maybe that answers your question.
But honestly, he's pretty crafty, and I'm sure he'll just play the long game if it helps him. He's young, and since he's in such a comfortable spot, he can probably just wait for the perfect moment.

Comments are fine, I suppose, but when someone from Germany starts rooting for election results in America, or someone from America is cheering for elections in Austria—well, it feels a little unrefined. Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive or paranoid, though.😉 Austria isn't exactly a global superpower; it's not like the USA where the military is in over 140 countries and everyone cares who the president is. I don't think we want ideological battles from other countries being fought on Austrian soil. We saw how that went with that Turkish referendum, and I'd say it didn't end great.😉

Carol Newman2 said:Look, I'm not Austrian. If I were, there's no way I would have ever voted for the FPOE.

I've watched several of Sebastian Kurz's appearances on American and German talk shows, and honestly, in the German-speaking world, he doesn't have any real competition.

I am genuinely curious if the Republican Party will actually agree to his terms. If they pass those internal reforms, Kurz is going to have total freedom when it comes to picking ministers. Besides, his plan is to run on an independent ticket in the parliamentary elections with the Republican Party backing him.

Hmm, well, I don't know if it feels all that sophisticated to me or to others who are actually Austrian—people who live here, vote here, pay taxes here, and deal with the fallout of every single election while watching both Christian Kern and Sebastian Kurz every day... having someone from America try to lecture us on who is who.

If we were talking about Brexit or Marine Le Pen, I might see the connection, but I think you might be overestimating how much Sebastian Kurz actually affects America or Europe. We've had guys like Michael Grasser before—those "young, ambitious, and energetic" politicians who can't quite control their own ambition, so it just turns into populism and chaos. I noticed he's starting to push ideological stuff, like banning head coverings and things like that, which honestly feels like a red flag for populism rather than the kind of leadership I'd look for. But I guess the masses fall for it, emotions and all, and there's your 35% of the vote. It's not like we haven't seen this before. Usually, there isn't much substance behind it, and I worry the result will be that instead of fixing immigration in Austria, Sebastian Kurz will just make it way worse. From what he's shown so far, it seems like he just pours gasoline on the fire and polarizes everyone.

Anyway, I guess I agree that he'll probably decide who runs Austria. But regardless, that shouldn't really impact America or the EU.

Carol Newman2 said:

The latest poll results are in

Sebastian Kurz is absolutely crushing the competition. 👍

Hmm, I get the feeling you might be voting for Sebastian Kurz or the Republican Party, maybe because you're rooting for him? Didn't you vote for the Republican Party before?

James Peterson5 said:New elections are looming in Austria, all because of the internal chaos tearing through the Republican Party.

As the situation stands, the party’s new leader and their primary candidate will be the younger Sebastian Kurz, who is currently being hailed as some kind of political superstar.

From what I can gather, we are looking at a thirty-year-old guy who couldn't even manage to finish his degree and possesses absolutely zero professional experience in the private sector.

It’s not really that complicated, I suppose. They just cleared out the last bit of common sense in the Republican Party, so the next government will probably be a coalition between them and the FPC. I just hope ambitious Sebastian Kurz doesn't leave as much of a mess behind as Ivo Sanders did; they both seem like the type to crush everything in their path just to get ahead.

Anthony Evans78 said:Exactly.
Based on his analysis—which I actually agree with—gold prices aren't being driven by supply and demand right now.
More accurately, the Federal Reserve can't push the price below the actual cost of production.
I don't see why everyone is rushing to dump gold... and I’m talking about physical bullion here, not some paper derivative. It’s entirely possible for the exchange price to sit at $500, but good luck actually finding a real ounce of gold at that rate.
At the end of the day, everything comes down to energy. 95% of people just don't get it. They think stuff magically appears on the shelves at Walmart. And even fewer people grasp the whole "store of value" concept.
By the way, you forgot the "thousands" next to those numbers you listed 🙂

I'm not saying I disagree with the analysis, it's just that I feel like the main point is that the floor is tied to production costs, which ties back to energy. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I did notice he didn't mention that less than 2% of all gold enters the market annually. Maybe that's because most of the existing supply isn't even out there on the market anymore.

As for energy, it used to be oil and manual labor, but I wonder what the big drivers will be in 20 years... maybe solar power or robotics.

Anthony Evans78 said:https://srsroccoreport.com/who-reall...te-surprising/

I guess I’m not so sure. The guy doesn't really mention that over 170 tons of gold have already been pulled out, while we're seeing less than 3 tons mined annually now. Back when those ratios were different, maybe it made sense to say production costs set the price floor, but since we're mining less than 2% of total gold every year, I just don't see how those small percentages dictate the bottom limit. Even if you look at it cumulatively over ten years, that's still only about 20%. If everyone decides to dump their gold at once, the price could totally slip below $700 regardless of what it costs to mine—it's all just supply and demand, right? Or maybe I've got that part wrong.

Chloe Sullivan88 said:Look, most of Austria consists of exactly those kinds of closed-off, homogeneous communities. You're talking as if Austria is nothing more than Vienna and a handful of other cities.
Vienna is the outlier here. The rest of the country struggles heavily with insularity and xenophobia, especially when you hold it up against places like Denmark or the Netherlands.
In Austria, that xenophobic mentality is way more pronounced in the villages and small towns than anywhere else.

Totally, that’s why I was asking where my colleague lives. I guess I've just seen some awkwardness firsthand, even in bigger cities.

wanderingbadger77 said:Quote:

rama6 says: Yeah, I have zero interest in assimilating—not that anyone’s forcing me to, why would I? I actually love the richness that comes from people staying true to their roots while being fully integrated. I dig heterogeneous cultures, and the future of the US isn't looking like a melting pot where everyone loses themselves; having non-assimilated but integrated foreigners is actually a huge plus 😉. Look, America has its own laws; it doesn't need some religious or moral code imposed on it, so relax. Sure, we've got right-wing radicals, leftists, and Islamists, but it's really not that deep. Based on what you're saying, I'm getting the vibe you don't even live in a major US city. In places like New York or Chicago, there are tons of Mexicans, and there's plenty of Vehabi presence in cities like Denver too. Wait, do you even live in the States, or are you just sitting there trying to lecture Americans on how they should live? From an American perspective, listening to lectures about life in America is pretty hilarious. Full face coverings are illegal here, and we're fine with that. If someone wants to wear a headscarf or baggy clothes, most people couldn't care less. Civil liberties are at a high level, and that's how it works.

Hold up, what's with this constant obsession with hating on America... what is wrong with you guys?

See the difference? In a democratic, free country like the US, full face coverings aren't allowed, and nobody even debates headscarves... never has before.

In America, people can wear whatever they want, but in the US [contextualized as the strict legal setting mentioned], it's different.
Our President doesn't need to be making these kinds of statements, unlike her American counterpart.

And quit trying to lecture us; we aren't burdened by different types of headcoverings in America, and we don't have issues with the people wearing them.

I’d appreciate it if you didn't try to start some kind of argument. What "hating"? What are you talking about? Someone who clearly doesn't even live in the Republic of Austria is trying to lecture us on how we should limit people's rights? I mean, I guess I'm just laughing at this, because only a fool would see this as an attack on America. So, maybe try to be a bit more focused when you quote someone.

Quote:

See, that's the difference. In a democratic, free country like the Republic of Austria, full face coverings aren't banned, and there isn't even a debate about veils... not ever before. Well, I guess you could say we've taken a few steps backward in the Republic of Austria. Given the amount of immigration in the Republic of Austria, there's definitely pressure for those restrictions, and I think that's pretty harmful. But like I said, maybe that's just the price open countries have to pay to stay open. If I recall correctly, immigration in America practically doesn't exist, so it's an even more closed society than the Republic of Austria, which is probably why these topics don't come up. Regarding the full face coverings, if I remember right, they aren't allowed for security reasons. That's been the case for decades, I think. It might only apply to public gatherings, I'm not really sure. Is it allowed to cover your face in America, like, at a football game? (I don't know, just asking). Quote: And please don't lecture us, because we aren't burdened by different types of face coverings in America and we don't have issues with people wearing them. I'm afraid you might be wrong, because I actually see a fair amount of obsession (in America) regarding face coverings. Since those coverings aren't really an issue in America, people just end up lecturing others. As for America, everything follows the Constitution and the Law. The problem is the radicals who don't have anything to focus on in America, so they lecture us in the Republic of Austria instead. That's what makes me laugh, I guess 😉. The thing is, the radicals in both the Republic of Austria and America are loud, but they're actually pretty marginalized.

Susan Green2 said:My comment wasn't a jab at you personally, but rather at Americans in general. Judging by your perspective, you likely fall into that camp of people who resist any form of integration. The United States of America operates under its own legal framework, and it has absolutely no use for Sharia law or the radicals who attempt to impose it. Honestly, places like New York City have become such epicenters for radicalism that it ceases to be multiculturalism and starts looking more like a national disgrace.

Yeah, I don't want to assimilate (not that anyone's forcing me to, so why would I?), and I actually enjoy how diverse things can be when people are integrated, I guess. I love heterogeneous cultures, though maybe the future of the United States won't look like that, but at least non-assimilated yet integrated foreigners can be a good thing😉.
Of course the U.S. has its own laws; there's no need for Sharia or any religious canon, don't worry. Sure, we have radicals on the right, the left, and Islamists, but it's not that big of a deal, I suppose. From what you're writing, it doesn't really sound like you live in NYC, where there are tons of immigrants, or cities like Austin where you see different groups too. Wait, do you even live in America, or are you just trying to lecture Americans on how they should live? From an American perspective, listening to lessons from someone else feels kind of funny. Covering your face is prohibited by law here, and we're fine with that. If someone wears a veil or something, most people don't really care. Personal freedoms are pretty high, so it's all okay, I guess.

Susan Green2 said:After the West finally managed to secularize itself and move past the influence of the Church, it seems it is now prepared to kneel before Islam out of some misplaced sense of solidarity toward migrants who strictly adhere to Sharia and have absolutely no interest in assimilating. Honestly, with leadership this misguided, they are essentially inviting their own collapse.

Don't worry about us over here in the States, I guess. We don't really aim to assimilate others, just like we didn't all assimilate ourselves. You've got people living in America who still cheer for their home teams back home. And maybe there will always be folks trying to strip away rights, but that seems more like a thing in closed-off, homogeneous places, like small towns or rural areas. It's not just an Austria thing; I think it's pretty much everywhere. Are you living in some kind of isolated area in the Republic of Austria?

Douglas Green6 said:The President of the Republic of Austria, Alexander Van der Bellen:
"There will be a day when we are forced to mandate headscarves for ALL women!" 🙂 🙂

I think you might have taken that out of context a little bit (hopefully by accident). The next part of his sentence goes like this:

... out of solidarity with those who wear a headscarf for religious reasons.
So, I guess he's suggesting that they're being targeted for wearing them, and if we want to protect them, then everyone should just wear one too. It’s kind of like saying we should all start wearing Davidov stars to show solidarity with people being persecuted because of them.
I'm not really sure how effective that would even be, but I suppose nobody has come up with a better way to protect people. I've seen a few verbal attacks myself; the people doing it are still pretty much on the fringes, but they definitely make a lot of noise. So, I guess I'm just hoping what Alexander Van der Bellen is suggesting won't actually be necessary.

To get that Panasonic remote working, I'll need to capture the IR signal, decode the commands, and then pass the signal along.
Does anyone know where I can pick up a TSOP38238 or some kind of similar IR receiver around Washington, D.C.? Maybe at a local Micro Center? It feels a little silly to pay shipping on just one or two diodes when the postage ends up costing way more than the parts themselves.

Michael Morgan5 said:Maybe saying they 'screwed up' was a bit of an overstatement.
Nathan Morris3 already mentioned there was a $15k cash limit, but honestly, we could have negotiated that up to $40k if things had gone differently.
But that ship has sailed now, so whatever.
Right now, I'm trying to get my old man up to speed on the whole situation.
It’s making things a little messy on my end, but it’s definitely better to run this through his account rather than mine.😁
At any rate, I'll be out of this very soon.

Hmm, looking at those previous charts, maybe there's a hint about where someone would put that much cash? Like, where would the money go?

Amanda Allen4 said:The article might be "promo," sure, but that doesn't make it inaccurate. Regarding the legality of usage? It is an absolute fact that a government can ban the possession of gold (certainly not the first time this has happened in history)—but that logic applies to any form of money, including your own! Look at India: they have specific currency denominations that are illegal there. If a government wants to outlaw cash entirely, they can.

So, I suggest you go back and read my signature one more time. 😁

This piece is total trash, honestly. It’s clearly targeting retirees who don't know the first thing about gold. It's super biased since it's sponsored, and the whole goal is just to get people rushing into "Aura Domus" (the sponsor) to blow their savings.

Yeah, well, I did say they might ban gold and cash. Maybe only "digital" money under their control will stay legal. I mean, banknotes belong to the state anyway. As far as I can tell, gold and crypto are really all we'll have left.

Amanda Allen4 said:Gold is money, plain and simple, and like all money, it is incredibly liquid. In the States, it's essentially seen as the ultimate "tax haven."

You're posting a "promo" article here (just look at the URL), which seems pretty biased. I mean, there are tons of countries that fit that "haven" description for gold, so maybe don't take everything you read in the news at face value.
Besides, I guess I'm talking about a situation where both gold and cash get outlawed—maybe in 5 or 10 years—so then even liquidity becomes a bit questionable.

Anthony Evans78 said:Here’s my take on the whole thing.
Think about everything the government has ever tried to ban... did they actually succeed?
They didn't.
And they aren't starting now.
Because once you outlaw something, you just make it more desirable—it's been proven a thousand times over.

I guess I agree, though it really depends on the person. Like, if someone doesn't have huge savings and isn't worried about what the next three generations inherit, they probably just care about short-term cash flow. If you can't legally sell your gold to buy a house, it might not be much help to them. On the other hand, maybe for someone sitting on billions who doesn't need liquid cash, gold is likely still the best way to handle taxes, stay anonymous, and pass wealth down through the family.

It’s probably not going to happen that everyone in the world suddenly "bans" gold overnight, but if things start moving, I wonder how supply, demand, and the black market will react.

Anthony Evans78 said:I’ve been sounding the alarm on this for years—the end goal is total surveillance over every single transaction you make.
I know how it goes... they treat you like a criminal just because you want some cash in hand and want to stay away from the banks and big institutions.

Yeah. It's really just a matter of "what now?". I guess it's what motivates someone to sell their gold, or someone else to buy it. Honestly, I'm feeling pretty split on it myself.
It seems like in a few years they might "legalize" gold just so they can put everything under surveillance. I'm not sure if that'll push prices up or down, though. Has anyone maybe read anything about this? I'm not selling anything right now, mostly because I don't need the money from my stash, and maybe because this whole surveillance craze will eventually blow over and gold will go back to normal. What do you guys think?

David Garcia21 said:Looks like everyone just landed on the list of potential money launderers. 🙂

Quincy:

Sure, that’s not the only red flag. There are plenty of others— being way too nosy about business policies, transaction monitoring rules, and limitations, opening accounts in cities that make zero sense based on where you actually live, having ties to PEPs, letting other people use your home address if they can't verify theirs, refusing to answer basic questions, and so on.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/business-news-example...thinking-20170317

Haha, we're screwed 😁
I mean, like I said before, PwC actually put the questionnaire together, so I guess it makes sense they'd defend it. It's funny how she claims "the questions make sense," but what she didn't mention—which is more interesting—is that they're all aligned with the law and you basically have to answer them.
The idea that just asking questions makes us look suspicious... well, we already knew that, but someone has to 😁. And honestly, her saying our "excessive curiosity about business policies" is actually an indicator? That seems pretty scandalous to me. The whole notion that questioning the legality of what a bank does implies suspicion... I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure where that leads.

A friend of mine just got another reply from the bank, and yeah, it’s basically more of the same nonsense.
This time they’re claiming this specific section of the law:

16. (1)...
10. information regarding the source of funds that are or will be the subject of a transaction or business relationship;

but they’re adding this little bit like "... (are or will be,) or could theoretically be..." to it. So apparently, they feel they have to collect info on every single possible source of income—not just what I actually use, but everything else too—simply because they can't predict the future. It’s like they’re trying to cover their own backs, so even for an account seeing maybe $2,000 a year, they’re demanding all this data just in case some random money lands in there later.

Basically, they’re just twisting the law to grab as much data as possible. I honestly don't know where they'll stop; at this rate, they might try to put a camera in my living room just to make sure I’m "clean" and don't have any theoretical illegal income.

I really can't tell who's crazier here—Zira for interpreting the law in a way that makes zero sense, the Federal Reserve for sitting on their hands, or the customers who just accept this whole mess.