@Libertaire Partij (LP) de eerste politieke partij met een nostr account!!

Last night was the farewell party for Dutch central banker Klaas Knot, with high-profile guests like Christine Lagarde. The Dutch Libertarian Party used the occasion to project the rising national debt, and of course, the solution. Onto the DNB building.

Wat zorgt er eigenlijk voor dat een economische neergang verandert in een recessie? Ik denk dat het zeer belangrijk is om dit eens duidelijk weer te geven om daarmee ook de huidige situatie en nabije toekomst te leren herkennen. Aangezien de stand van de economie tegenwoordig vooral als politiek sentiment bespeelt wordt in plaats van een eerlijke weergave. Het draait vaak om de arbeidsmarkt. Als een cruciale factor ontbreekt, zie je tekenen van naderend economisch probleem. Maar het is niet zoals de "economen" in de media en politiek ons meestal voorhouden. De cruciale factor in de arbeidsmarkt speelt niet alleen een grote rol in het veranderen van een vertraging in een recessie, maar kan ook een recessie omvormen tot een depressie. Bijvoorbeeld, tijdens de Grote Recessie zagen we hoe bepaalde patronen bijdroegen aan wat wordt beschreven als een "stille depressie". Je zou kunnen denken dat dit vooral gaat over massaontslagen, wat een logische aanname is. Maar hoewel recessies vaak gepaard gaan met veel ontslagen, ligt de kern van het probleem elders. We zien vaak een algemene krimp in de economie en denken dat ontslagen de oorzaak zijn. Maar dat is niet zo. Ontslagen zijn een symptoom en meestal een achterlopend effect met flinke vertraging. Toen de ontslaggolf in 2010 bijvoorbeeld stopte, ging de depressie nog jaren door. Het draait niet om ontslagen. Alles hangt af van iets wat je niet kunt zien. Het is juist wat niet gebeurt dat het verschil maakt tussen een bloeiperiode en een crisis, tussen herstel en een depressie zonder herstel. We zijn er simpelweg niet op ingesteld om de afwezigheid van iets te koppelen aan duidelijke, tastbare gevolgen in de echte wereld. Het echte probleem is een parallel aan monetaire deflatie: als de circulatie van geld achteruit gaat, voelen we de impact. In dit geval was monetaire deflatie de reden achter het tekort aan banen. Het gaat niet om ontslagen, maar om een gebrek aan nieuwe aanwervingen. Dat is waar het allemaal op neerkomt. Er wordt minder uitgegeven en doordat minder mensen zicht hebben op stabiel inkomen zullen zij overgaan op alleen de puur nodige uitgaven. Dit geeft een signaal aan producenten en dan is de cirkel compleet. Het probleem ligt dus bij het aannemen van nieuwe medewerkers, en dat klinkt misschien tegenstrijdig. Recessies en baanverlies worden vaak als synoniem gezien, en dat is begrijpelijk. Ontslagen gebeuren echter ook in een gezonde economie. Het proces van "creative destruction is juist nodig voor een gezonde economie en de werkkracht moet vrijkomen voor innovatieve nieuwe projecten. Het verschil is vooral dat mensen tijdens recessies moeite hebben om nieuwe banen te vinden. Economen en centrale banken hebben ons hier niet echt mee geholpen, omdat zij zich (bewust?) op de verkeerde punten concentreren. Neem bijvoorbeeld wat Jay Powell in 2024 heeft gezegd: de arbeidsmarkt is gezond omdat de werkloosheid stijgt zonder grootschalige ontslagen. Maar waarom stijgt de werkloosheid eigenlijk? En waar komen die ontslagen vandaan? Zoals eerder gezegd, ontslagen komen aan het einde van het proces. Dit proces begint wanneer bedrijven stoppen met het aannemen van nieuwe medewerkers. Een invloedrijke studie uit 2005 van Robert Shimer, genaamd "Reassessing the Ins and Outs of Unemployment", legt dit fenomeen uit. (https://www.nber.org/papers/w13421) De studie toont aan dat de cyclische bewegingen in werkloosheid vooral worden veroorzaakt door een daling in het aantal nieuwe banen, niet door ontslagen.

Ron Paul revolution part 2 incoming!

Hugo de Jonge een imbeciel? Dat hoeven we aan Arash Mashadi niet meer te vragen. Met Arash bespreek ik een van de meest zwaarwegende onderwerpen: de woningmarkt! Gecreëerde schaarste en valse marktwerking, alles komt langs in deze aflevering van Staat's Schuld

Maya Parbhoe is een van de grote kanshebbers voor het presidentschap in Suriname. Met haar bespreek ik de corruptie in het land, maar ook de positieve potentie van Bitcoin als oplossing. Dit en meer in deze aflevering van Staat's Schuld.

Voluntary Trust Increasingly, I find myself encountering the word "voluntary" and its significance is growing for me. It forms the foundation of voluntarism, the philosophical movement in which the puzzle pieces are currently falling into place for me. Voluntarism, to me, is the nexus where spirituality, philosophy, and politics converge, aligning everything harmoniously. Voluntarism stands as the antithesis of coercion. Unfortunately, our politics are leaning more towards compulsion. Even democracy harbors this inherent problem. Imagine being in a group of 17 people unable to reach a consensus. Eventually, a vote must be cast, potentially coercing 8 individuals into a decision they don't endorse. The more centralized this decision-making becomes, the larger the group subject to coercion becomes. This makes achieving an empathetic consensus increasingly challenging. Examining our present political system, we're required to elect representatives. Yet, representatives can never wholly represent our viewpoints because every individual on Earth is unique. Furthermore, they often fail to advocate for all of an individual's stances, bound as they are to party affiliations. Not to mention the probability of these stances being actually executed. With coalitions, inter-party agreements, and a seat distribution that significantly favors major parties, I can confidently state, based on personal experience, that the policies in Amersfoort represent only a small minority. This is further exacerbated by the fact that voter turnout in local elections was merely 50%. Is this situation desirable? I leave that to the reader's judgment. In essence, a considerable portion of society is, at the very least, partially suppressed by the dominant group. Meanwhile, at the highest academic levels, there's a growing reliance on consent-based decision-making within organizations. Smaller, decentralized groups where decisions are shaped through empathy. Deep democracy, dialogue, co-creation, and participation with well-defined authority are increasingly becoming the norm. This shift arises from the recognition that the pitfalls of mob rule are profoundly disruptive to organizational structure. Interestingly, this mirrors the present society where fear, anger, and polarization have escalated over the last decades. Coercion The foundation of our current system rests upon coercion. But how does the government acquire the means to govern? Primarily through tax revenues, and partly through loans and the printing of money, although I won't delve into those aspects this time. All these income sources are obtained through coercion. If I disagree with expenditures or policies, I still have to pay for them. If not, eventually a bailiff could stand at my door, and in the worst case, even armed police. However, many citizens don't perceive taxes as coercion because "the government is us!" We pay taxes for the greater good of society, right? This can undoubtedly be subject to debate, but one thing is certain: no individual gets value for their money. Even the least fortunate in society could experience more solidarity if not for the bureaucratic hassle that precedes it. In our present society, it seems that most money flows into central planning of our economy and way of life. Terms like behavioral influence have become commonplace in administrative documents today. But how does this growing centralization of decision-making impact individual interests? This appears to be a core issue we grapple with today. Politics dominate conversations, and polarization is on the rise. Residents simply don't agree with the allocation of "their" money. Even if it were ethically and well spent, criticism would still abound. Furthermore, more revelations of mismanagement and corruption are coming to light. Trust in politics has never been lower. Trust Trust is a crucial element in our belief in the government, the current coalition, Members of Parliament, and authority in general. However, there exists a significant distinction among these forms of trust. Polarization is prevalent, with "right and left" taking increasingly extreme stances to attribute blame for all problems to the other side. Yet, most politicians agree that their own party is, of course, trustworthy. Let's delve into the definition and meaning of trust. According to Wikipedia, trust is "the firm belief in the occurrence of a desired outcome that lies outside of one's control." A beautiful description. Trust revolves around having faith in a situation beyond our personal power. It's a facet of our life choices that we entrust to others. Trust is a powerful concept deeply ingrained in our human nature. It transcends the rational and encompasses a spiritual and philosophical dimension. As social beings, we inherently have the need to place trust in others, particularly those close to us. When this trust is undermined, an inhumane situation arises that leads to stress and health issues, such as depression. Trust forms the bedrock of every relationship, whether it's friendship, love, or business interactions. Each individual has the right to choose whom to forge this bond of trust with and who to allow into their personal sphere, because trust is a precious asset. Dependency Trust and dependency go hand in hand. Trust implies being willing to make oneself vulnerable and partly dependent on another. Marriage serves as a clear example, as does a business contract, or even a friendship with unspoken rules that set expectations within the relationship. For me, trust is something special. It can't serve as a universal foundation upon which everything is built. Trust, in my opinion, can only be granted to people you know personally, individuals you can get along with well, and most importantly, those for whom breaking this trust carries consequences. These consequences encompass the positive outcomes stemming from the relationship, as well as the negative repercussions arising from breaking the mutual "virtual contract." But do politicians really face negative consequences when they breach our trust? Is there genuine accountability in politics? While they might lose votes, the question remains: who should we vote for next time then? In politics, representatives and administrators seem virtually immune to accountability. The well-known quote by Thomas Sowell goes: "There is no more foolish or dangerous way to make decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." Dependency on others and the trust that accompanies it should at the very least always be a voluntary choice. If one is coerced into trusting someone, it can no longer be called trust. But how can we truly trust our government when we have no choice, for instance, to opt out of contributing to this system? Consciousness Consciousness and taking responsibility for our personal choices and actions are essential aspects of personal growth and development. It's widely understood that this is the path to a stronger self. Responsibility fosters growth on various levels: psychological, philosophical, spiritual, rational, and even in terms of personal health. Assuming responsibility from our awareness might just be the most pivotal pillar in our lives. Maturing is synonymous with responsible behavior. As we take on responsibility, our sense of accountability flourishes. This becomes especially evident, for instance, when we have children. The personal connection and realization that people depend on us amplify our sense of responsibility. In every society, there will always be natural leaders and followers. As long as the choice to follow remains voluntary, this system functions as a self-regulating mechanism where corruption directly impacts acquired authority. Hence, voluntarism within a political system isn't a foreign concept at all. Throughout history, all societies have emerged from natural leaders who garnered followers by genuinely earning their trust. Civilizations have always crumbled when authority centralized and became corrupt. In my view, human society will cyclically revert to the human nature of personal liberty. The more personal freedom we enjoy, the more responsibility we can shoulder for our own lives and those of our peers. In this manner, we can construct a voluntary and cohesive society from the grassroots. Freedom implies voluntarism, where people have the freedom to choose how they want to live their lives and whom they wish to associate with. Trust is the positive dependency stemming from mutual respect and voluntary interactions. Negative dependency, on the other hand, embodies coercion that contradicts the foundations of a free society. Bitcoin As we strive for a sustainable and enduring societal system based on voluntarism, one innovation stands out prominently, and I naturally can't resist mentioning it: Bitcoin. Bitcoin offers a form of complete voluntarism in economic interactions. It provides individuals the opportunity to voluntarily engage in a decentralized and transparent financial system, detached from the control and coercion of third parties. Bitcoin embodies the principles of voluntarism, trust, and responsibility in a manner that could potentially transform traditional systems.

Een artikel waar ik lang aan gewerkt heb. Filosofie is voor mij belangrijk. Ik schrijf tegenwoordig graag om mijn gedachten te ordenen. Hier beschrijf ik de interactie tussen concepten als vertrouwen, afhankelijkheid, vrijwilligheid, dwang en bewustzijn. https://stemlp.nl/vrijwillig-vertrouwen/

#[0]​ on Nostr! Welcome legend!

#[0] Zap!