Alright, let's talk interest rates—inflation is basically sitting at <0 and it’ll likely hang around there for a while. Regardless, if we see a real rally in the stock market, there's a high probability that the lion's share of investment capital will flood into equities rather than precious metals. That’s actually the whole point behind keeping rates low: making sure people find it more enticing to throw money into the market instead of letting it rot in a savings account at a bank. So, here is the scenario I'm eyeing: indices climb, while precious metals either stagnate or dip, only seeing any real upward momentum once the next bubble finally bursts.
Anthony Evans78 said:First off, it all depends on how much gold the USA actually holds. That 8,000-ton figure is probably just a myth; the last real audit was back in the 50s. 🙂 Then there's the question of whether the dollar will be fully backed by gold, or just partially. And third, what exactly are we backing? Physical cash in circulation? Every single dollar out there, both physical and digital? Bonds? http://www.shadowstats.com/charts/mo...e-money-supply Either way, the numbers are much higher than what they're telling us right now.
Does anyone actually know how much gold is out there? http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/thi...is-everywhere/
If you want to back all money—physical or electronic—with gold, the price of gold would have to skyrocket to an astronomical level.
Steven Allen9 said:Yeah, that's a political question alright. Are we just a low-IQ civilization doomed to keep tripping over the same stones because we're being led by sociopaths and greedy bastards?!!
The topic is fine. Interesting. It even touches on the security implications of a situation like this—something that could basically wipe out an entire era. A total reset for humanity.
Exactly. The fundamental issue is how incompetent and foolish we are as a species. We built an entire electrical grid that our civilization literally cannot survive without, yet we failed to secure it against rare events we already know have happened multiple times before. And frankly, that insurance wouldn't even cost much. US analysts calculated it would cost the USA about a billion dollars. That’s pocket change. You could buy half a fleet of B2 bombers or a single new destroyer with that. If we weren't so dense, we could produce our own protection and keep that money circulating within our own society.
The reality is we live in a system defined by massive imbalances. Some people rake in thousands of times more than others, while we essentially sabotage our own productivity and equitable distribution. Now, with this shift toward a virtual economy, we’re losing any actual connection to physical reality.
In a way, we’ve become parasites on a system we take entirely for granted. We place immense value on things like Facebook, smartphones, and CDS, all while assuming the power will always stay on—assuming it doesn't cost much because "some guy with a screwdriver" can just fix it.
My only hope is that a storm hits a small enough area to serve as a wake-up call for everyone else. If we get hit by something like the Carrington event from the 19th century, which lasted for days, we’d be thrown straight back into the Middle Ages. Without electricity, over 50% of the population would likely starve. Compared to that, nuclear meltdowns are child's play.
If you don't get the cooling systems running, those control rods are going to melt through after a certain amount of time. The whole system was designed under the assumption that a nuclear failure is an immediate emergency—basically, the backup cooling systems aren't fueled up enough to keep things steady for very long. What I’m actually worried about here is the catastrophic damage to the core infrastructure of the power grid. If we get hit by a massive solar storm while the magnetic field is weak, it’ll induce currents along the high-voltage lines that could effectively fry a huge chunk, if not all, of our transformers. Once that happens, nuclear plants lose their constant power supply, and within a few days, they start facing critical issues. Whether they can scramble to get more diesel and generators delivered in time to patch things together, or if they just slide straight into a meltdown, is anyone's guess. And frankly, the nuclear plants aren't even the only problem.
A total collapse of the electrical grid would essentially mean the end of modern civilization as we know it. Current estimates suggest we could lose upwards of 2,000 EHV transformers. Right now, the industry builds about 100 EHV transformers a year. We used to produce more, but once these massive units are installed, they stick around for decades, and demand only spiked recently because of the massive grid expansions happening in India and China. Currently, there's about a three-year waiting list for an EHV transformer. If the grid actually breaks down, there is no way we could ramp up production fast enough to prevent absolute chaos. We've seen smaller versions of this: a transformer failure caused by a solar storm hitting the surface once left over a million people in the dark in Canada, and we've seen similar struggles in Sweden and South Africa, where the outages were so severe that millions faced rolling blackouts for months until the system was fixed.
Try to wrap your head around a scenario where most of the world loses its power distribution system, perhaps leaving only 10% functional. That means manufacturing stops dead, traffic becomes a nightmare, agriculture fails, and food spoils because refrigerators are useless. You'd have mass panic, people fleeing blindly, riots, gang warfare, and widespread famine. We’d be looking at a situation resembling Somalia, and it would likely take us decades to pull ourselves back from the brink and restore some semblance of order and civilization.
And that’s assuming we avoid a meltdown. If you factor in multiple large-scale meltdowns on top of that, combined with wars fought over whatever resources are left, we are talking about potentially the greatest mass mortality event in human history.
Maybe this topic is just getting too dense for a casual chat. Let me try to clarify: we aren't talking about engineering here; we’re talking about a political failure. We have nuclear plants sitting there, and then we have a natural phenomenon that hits once every century or two. When that event strikes, our power grid is going to take a massive hit, and if that happens, a significant portion of our nuclear reactors will head straight toward a meltdown.
The whole thing could be prevented quite easily for a relatively small amount of money. But, because the human race is generally pretty dim-witted, we cut corners and fail to secure ourselves. "Insurance" in this context means heavy-duty metal shielding for critical components, along with massive stockpiles of fuel and backup generators for the plants. Those generators are vital; they provide the electricity needed for cooling systems if the main grid fails. Most plants have some level of backup, but rarely enough to sustain cooling for an entire year. They usually have enough autonomy to last a few days, simply because nobody anticipates a total collapse of the power supply lasting longer than 48 hours.
It really comes down to a political question: are we just a species of short-sighted, brainless creatures driven by destructive idiots who prioritize profit over people, or are we actually capable of investing a little bit into our own survival?
A complete breakdown of the electrical distribution system isn't something you just fix in a couple of years. For instance, companies like GE produce massive transformers—we're talking 200 to 300-ton beasts—occasionally for export, but if they don't have power, production stops dead. If the grid collapses, civilization as we know it would grind to a halt, leading to a staggering death toll: we're talking millions, maybe even hundreds of millions. There wouldn't be food or fuel distribution, which kills off food production and industry, which in turn wipes out spare parts for everything, including oil tankers. You'd see mass starvation, riots, looting, and a total societal meltdown.
If you layer hundreds of simultaneous nuclear meltdowns on top of that, you get a catastrophe that might not wipe out humanity entirely, but it would certainly claim hundreds of millions, if not billions, of lives.
Solar farms and wind turbines aren't the silver bullet people think they are. We need to technically fortify the existing infrastructure, specifically the nuclear plants and all supporting systems.
I barely had the thread up for thirty seconds before the moderator moved me to a different subforum, basically telling me I should’ve used the search function first to see if someone had already started this discussion. Why can't this stay in Politics? This is a political issue—honestly, it carries way more weight than most of the absolute garbage being posted in there right now.
Sumner: We hear bits and pieces about solar storms every now and then, but usually, nothing happens. That’s because Earth's magnetic field acts as our shield. These solar storms tend to flare up during periods of heightened sun's activity. Occasionally, Earth's magnetic field fluctuates and weakens. If a massive solar storm hits at the exact moment our magnetic field is dipping, we could see significant voltage induction across the power grid. The last time we saw something like this was back in 1859 during the Carrington event, which caused telegraph systems all over the world to actually burst into flames.
The reality is that we have vastly more wiring crisscrossing the globe today than we did in 1859. If we ever face that perfect storm—a massive solar surge hitting right when the magnetic field is weak (and let's be honest, it's statistically inevitable)—our entire electrical grid could collapse. On top of that, the damage to large-scale transformers would be devastating, and those things aren't easy to replace; production is incredibly limited, mostly concentrated in places like China and India.
But a grid collapse isn't just about being stuck in the dark for a few days, weeks, or even months. It presents a much darker scenario: nuclear power plants losing their primary power source for reactor cooling. Most facilities have backup diesel generators, similar to what they used at Fukushima, but those only have enough fuel to run for a day or so. Once that runs out, just like what happened at Fukushima, the cooling stops, the reactor keeps heating up, and eventually, you get a meltdown or an explosion. This applies to spent fuel rods sitting in storage, too.
So, if this unavoidable coincidence of two natural events actually occurs, we could be looking at hundreds of simultaneous nuclear meltdowns. As a species, we seem to be just too shortsighted and cheap to properly engineer ourselves against this, even though it isn't even that prohibitively expensive. What we really need is electromagnetic (EM) hardening for critical infrastructure, along with massive fuel reserves—maybe a year's worth?—and EM hardening specifically for nuclear sites.
Given the current era of predatory idiots running things—managers and politicians who care more about cutting costs and closing departments than actual stability—what are the odds we actually invest a reasonable amount to prevent a global nuclear catastrophe? Personally, I’d say they're pretty slim.
Anthony Evans78 said:Yeah, unemployment would be north of 22% if they measured it the way they did twenty years ago instead of using the current BLS methods. Did you know their model ignores "discouraged workers"—the people who just gave up looking for work and get wiped from the stats entirely? Check out shadowstats.com if you want a real look at how disastrous the US economy actually is. The NYSE is losing its mind because the Federal Reserve keeps printing dollars relentlessly, pumping all that newly minted cash into stocks and inflating a massive bubble. No real capital is fleeing into precious metals yet. Real money hasn't even entered the fray, but once it does, we’re going to see prices skyrocket and a massive shortage of physical metals. For the billionth time, gold can only go up in an environment like this—zero interest rates, a shrinking economy, absurd amounts of dollar and fiat printing, rising unemployment, a dead housing market, bank insolvencies, and a world drowning in debt, from the average citizen to local governments and sovereign nations. But since we aren't living in a free market, but rather one of constant intervention, we get nonsense like Alice in Wonderland, where the Federal Reserve announces a $500 billion injection and gold somehow drops by $70. It’s hilarious that you’re labeling me as having a certain "mindset" just because I believe gold can only move higher. You clearly don't see the largest bubble in history—US government bonds—on the verge of bursting. When that bubble pops, the value of all those papers will plummet to zero. Unlike physical gold. Even if gold's price dips temporarily, its purchasing power will still dwarf everything else.
I think you’re looking at this through a very narrow lens. You’re overlooking the fact that Quantitative Easing or similar liquidity injections are essentially just the central bank lending money to businesses. Here’s the reality: everyone is earning interest on something that technically doesn't exist, but if the money supply gets too bloated, the central banks can simply pull the plug. For instance, those large-scale liquidity facilities might be set for three years, but there are plenty of counterparts maturing soon. Therefore, central banks have plenty of ways to regulate the money supply. These moves effectively lowered interest rates for places like Italy from 8% down to the 3-4% range; without that intervention, they would have been in deep trouble. De facto, the Federal Reserve was acting as the lender of last resort.
On another note, you seem to assume precious metals are the only safe haven, likely because inflation doesn't touch them. But metals don't serve much of a purpose on their own. If you ask me, true value lies in resources: land, seeds, fuel, machinery, minerals, and last but not least, human labor and expertise. You hold a kilo of gold, while I hold 10kg of meat and a rifle with ammo—who do you think is in a better position?
Your assumption that "Treasury bills will collapse and PM will skyrocket" just doesn't hold water. The Federal Reserve will do absolutely everything in its power to prevent a collapse in Treasury bills and maintain some semblance of normalcy within the existing system. A total explosion in precious metals serves nobody's interests, so it isn't going to happen. There might be some sliding, but personally, it seems most likely that PM will continue to track the money supply—meaning they rise simply as more cash enters circulation.
To me, the scars on my hands look massive, almost like the tissue was stretched out while it was trying to heal. It makes me wonder—even if they did a decent job closing the incision, do they use any specific methods to reduce the tension on the skin? Looking at these photos, I’d say they definitely didn't.
Because the UN is falling apart—it just protects some global capitalist elite and doesn't give a damn about social safety nets... and in this country, whatever is left will just be sold off, they control everything from agriculture... you name it.
Why didn't I vote NO?
I'm sick of working my ass off for a boss who pays me five times less than some worker in Germany, especially since he won't give me overtime pay and forces me to work extra hours for free. And because our healthcare system totally wrecked my life with its sheer incompetence and inability to actually find a real diagnosis. And because they demand mountains of paperwork for projects that would sail through in the UN without any issues, yet I'm still waiting for an answer. And because people in my own neighborhood are literally digging through trash! Because my mom can't even afford a decent life after forty years of hard work! Because the pension fund I poured money into for years got absolutely gutted!
I didn't even bother voting because I don't trust the crooks who have been robbing us blind so far, nor do I trust those frauds in the UN who'll just keep doing the exact same thing. They're all cut from the same cloth—it's just that Europeans do it with white gloves on.
Trust me, I'd rather move to another planet at this point than just leave the UN.
So yeah, there's your justice, your elections, and your democracy!
Supposedly, there are a few countries running entirely different systems. Korea and Cuba come to mind. Look, we don't live in a perfect world. But sitting on the sidelines and refusing to engage in politics isn't going to fix a single thing.
Don't read too much into this. People who bother filling out online polls clearly don't represent the actual voting population. You have far too many retirees and people who aren't even active online trying to use a digital survey to predict meaningful election results.
The value of using a forum poll to estimate election outcomes is roughly on par with polling Esquimalt locals or a group of toddlers in the USA.☕
Charles Fox10 said:You’re absolutely right. We used to have seven of them, then they managed to trim it down to four, and yet here we are today with way too many active again.
So, we've finally found ourselves stuck on these threads:
Why not join the European Union? Let’s break down the arguments, the campaign tactics, and those massive protests that shook everything up. I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to say, the level of discourse here is... interesting, to put it mildly. It feels like we’re circling the same drain every single time someone brings up the big questions. There was a point a few days ago where Joseph Gonzalez14 chimed in, and honestly, it felt like he was the only one actually looking at the data instead of just venting. Most of the conversation seems to be driven by pure emotion rather than any kind of logical framework. It’s easy to get worked up, sure, but it doesn't really move the needle. I remember sitting in a coffee shop back in Chicago, listening to two guys argue about tax reform with the exact same intensity and zero actual knowledge of the legislation. That’s what this feels like. We’re all shouting into the void, hoping someone listens, but mostly we’re just making noise. Charles Fox10 made some points earlier that were worth considering, even if they were a bit buried under the usual cynicism. If we want to actually get somewhere, we need to stop treating every policy shift like a personal insult and start looking at the long-term implications for the country. Anyway, just my two cents. It’s getting a bit repetitive in here, isn't it?
The general topic forum discussion regarding our EU accession and the campaign leading up to the referendum. I took a look at that general topic forum discussion regarding the conversation around EU accession. It’s an interesting deep dive into how people feel about the whole transition process.
General topic forum discussion regarding EU accession. The general topic forum discussion is worth revisiting if you want to see how people actually feel about the whole EU accession process. It’s one thing to read official press releases from DC, but it's another entirely to dive into the weeds of these online debates to see where the real friction lies.
This is essentially the perfect thread for anyone to weigh in on whether the US should join the European Union or stay out of it.
It’s funny how things work on these forums. You have one thread dedicated to "Why not," yet you go ahead and shut down the "Why yes" discussion. Makes sense, I guess. If you can still claim to be neutral or objective after seeing this, then you’re dead wrong. I suppose this could work: 1. survey The second general topic forum discussion. 3. Why yes. 4. why not
If you go ahead and delete three or four options at once, you’re essentially just killing off a choice entirely. Honestly, have some shame.
I’m guessing I’ll lose 30 points just for having the audacity to start a thread "For the European Union" when there was already one dedicated "Against the European Union." Honestly, I couldn't care less about the points, but this whole setup feels incredibly shady.
I find myself wondering what lies ahead for the Euro and the European Union—whether we are looking at more complications for the US and its allies, or if the more pressing question is actually what the EU will eventually transform into. It’s one of those heavy, sweeping inquiries that makes you pause, isn't it? One wonders if there is any meaningful way for a nation like ours to navigate these shifts, or if we are simply watching the slow metamorphosis of an entire political structure into something unrecognizable.
The EU will likely limp along in its current form for a while, though we might see the monetary union split into two distinct camps with completely different monetary policies and currency values. The heavily indebted southern nations would actually benefit from a weaker currency; inflation allows them to effectively devalue their labor costs to boost exports. As for the debt, they could always just declare bankruptcy, refuse to pay, or force creditors to take a massive haircut—but after that, they'd have to live within their means.
On the flip side, the faction currently pushing to fight inflation (Germany and the north) might end up with a much stronger Euro, even if that eventually hurts their export numbers.
The other option is simply scrapping the Euro entirely and returning to national currencies, which would almost certainly trigger massive inflation across Southern Europe.
Until a formal split is negotiated, we’re going to see a constant tug-of-war over debt monetization. It’s essentially a printing press war where those who save lose out, and those who spend excessively win.
All this talk about missiles and total collapse is honestly laughable. No matter what happens, the countries within the EU will still be standing exactly as they are today. You'll have an economy, you'll see some growth eventually, and frankly, the rest of the world—especially the US—is dealing with the exact same headaches.
In my view, the root of the crisis isn't a lack of a central bank willing to print endless cash to cover government deficits for people who can't stop spending everything they earn. The real issue is that we are sitting on massive deficits being financed by issuing new debt. Once interest rates cross that 5% threshold, the whole system breaks because the cost of servicing that debt becomes impossible for the state to manage. The ideal way out isn't printing money and triggering inflation to wipe out debts (which also guts citizens' assets, savings, and investments). Instead, we need to break away from the current model of deficit spending and the primary issuance of money through banks that essentially take a cut of every single transaction in the economy.
If you want a prime example of how absurd today's system is, look at the US. Sure, they might be generating enough trillions right now to cover their own deficit, but this virtual "economy" has effectively caused the real one to collapse. The US produces very little; there aren't enough actual jobs. The only ones thriving are the top management tiers at financial institutions, who basically suck the life out of everyone else. If foreigners stop buying US T-bills, the Dollar faces a freefall. That would mean the end of the era where the US imports everything physical while exporting almost nothing of real value.
The current crisis in the EU feels orchestrated, almost as if it's designed to make T-bills and the Dollar look valuable again, likely because too many people transitioned to using the Euro for payments and reserves. Consequently, I expect this crisis to drag on for quite a while amidst political deadlock.
Angela Wright said:1. No. 2. N/A. 3. No, that’s just not realistic given how short-staffed surgeons are everywhere right now. You wouldn't even have time to negotiate the details of the procedure. Every surgeon is supposed to be properly trained to close an incision correctly. About six years ago, I had laparoscopic surgery performed by my OB-GYN, and those incisions were closed with sutures. Today, they're practically invisible. When I had an emergency delivery at the hospital, frankly, the way they handled the incision wasn't exactly top-tier. The stitches weren't visible, and I suspect they just glued the external cut shut. It was done by a resident, and even after seven months, parts of it are barely noticeable anymore.
1. and 2. Sad.😢 They’d get there if patients actually had the autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies, but that’s a grim thought, isn't it?
I wonder if it would work if someone offered to pay for a plastic surgeon out of pocket. But I assume that given how things operate in the US healthcare system, that would only happen under the table—basically, they'd suggest a follow-up revision for the scar later. So first, someone patches you up poorly, and then you have to go back under anesthesia.
FYI: I know of a case where a girl was arranging for a plastic surgeon to close her incision specifically because she was a model and needed the scar to be as invisible as possible for her career.
Angela Wright said:1. No. 2. N/A. 3. No, that’s just not realistic given how short-staffed surgeons are everywhere right now. You wouldn't even have time to negotiate the details of the procedure. Every surgeon is supposed to be properly trained to close an incision correctly. About six years ago, I had laparoscopic surgery performed by my OB-GYN, and those incisions were closed with sutures. Today, they're practically invisible. When I had an emergency delivery at the hospital, frankly, the way they handled the incision wasn't exactly top-tier. The stitches weren't visible, and I suspect they just glued the external cut shut. It was done by a resident, and even after seven months, parts of it are barely noticeable anymore.
Classic doctor talk. What does "properly" even mean? To some, it just means the wound is closed and doesn't get infected; the aesthetic outcome isn't even a factor. Some people will take a successful closure and lack of infection as the absolute bare minimum, while knowing full well that the cosmetic details weren't even considered.
I remember a story about a friend who came over from Canada to volunteer for a bit, and she ended up stitching her own incision after surgery. She was stitching it the way they taught her back in Canada, until the head surgeon told her to space the stitches further apart because the surgery was running long and he needed to grab a coffee.
nimblescout50 said:Turns out being a peasant was actually a decent gig—you were walking away with about 19% of the total yield. There’s no way you’d be seeing that kind of take as an hourly worker today!
The thing was, a serf couldn't just decide to quit his boss and pack up for somewhere else. He was legally tied to the land he had to farm. On top of handing over a tenth or a ninth of everything, he also had to pay all these various "taxes" whenever the local lord felt like inventing them. It always boiled down to the same thing: they took everything he owned, leaving him just enough to stay alive so they could squeeze him again next year.
If the lord wanted to build a fortress, the serfs were expected to do it for free—that was called corvée labor.
And if there was a shortage of soldiers, they’d just round up some peasants, hand them a pitchfork or a hoe, and send them toward the enemy's arrows. If luck was on your side, you might end up fighting other peasants; if not, you were staring down an actual army in full armor with real weapons. Honestly, this sounds a lot like our modern "rights and responsibilities" regarding military service. Come to think of it, not much has changed.
For those of you who have actually gone under the knife: 1. Was there any actual opportunity to discuss the specific technique they’d use to close the incision? 2. What kind of aftercare options were on the table? (Think Steri-Strips, silicone sheeting, subdermal sutures, compression garments, etc.) 3. Is it even realistic to request that the plastic surgeon handles the closure themselves?
Walter Myers4 said:For anyone asking about how the whole donation process works:
HOW TO SIGN UP TO BE A BONE MARROW DONOR
If you’re actually serious about becoming a voluntary bone marrow donor (it’s a lot like donating blood, just different), you need to get in touch with: the National Tissue Typing Center at the Mayo Clinic (ask for ESMA Čečuk, prof. dr. Vesna Brkljačić Kerhin, or Diana Artl at 01 2388 494). That’s where they’ll give you the full rundown on everything you need to know.
So, let me get this straight: a donor who isn't just giving blood, but is actually donating bone marrow, basically signs up for several weeks of guaranteed pain, exhaustion, and sheer weakness. On top of that, they get to keep some permanent scarring as a little souvenir. To make matters even better, about 1.35% of donors end up facing "serious" complications—meaning they’ll be dealing with health issues that could drag on for months or even years. Just wonderful.
Elizabeth King31 said:Is it possible to donate blood and/or plasma after bone marrow donation (once a certain amount of time has passed)? I remember reading somewhere that people who have received a transfusion can't donate blood. Since they actually use your own blood during a bone marrow transplant—which basically means you were on a transfusion yourself—does that mean I'm disqualified from donating blood ever again?... 😕 I hope I haven't overcomplicated things too much and that my question actually makes sense. 😁
That would imply the medical staff knows exactly which specific plasma belongs to you, and frankly, I fear that might exceed their cognitive capacity.
They'll most likely just tell you that any blood from your type is fine and hand you whatever they have on hand. Of course, you'd then be running the risk of picking up Hepatitis or HIV, but hey, not my problem.