Ok, i've added it on the queue, hope it's scandalous

Fountain

The Peter McCormack Show • Hyperbitcoinisation Can't Happen with Mike Brock - WBD717 • Listen on Fountain

Mike Brock is the lead at TBD, the Bitcoin-focused subsidiary of Block. In this interview, we discuss Bitcoin's limitations in solving complex soci...

View quoted note →

When you discussed on @Peter McCormack WBD on how many minutes it takes to purchase some things, it made me wonder about quality vs quantity. Is the quality of the product worse, better, or the same? For example, cows fed grain, grass, or some combo of mass produced GMO. On that, another would be cut of meat vs ground beef. Also, are there people suffering somewhere to cut minutes/costs? Maybe the IMF taking the actions @Alex Gladstein 🌋 ⚡ / @gladstein (RSS Feed) mentioned in his book to the benefit of reducing our minute costs? Thanks for pushing the conversation to consider the topics you brought up!

I think it’s mostly a fallacy that product quality has been falling across the board. It’s been a common trope. Even when I was growing up in the 80s, my parents would say the old adage that “they don’t make things like they used to”. But this relies on an incredibly distorted false nostalgia. How often does a television repairman come to your house and replace the vacuum tubes? When was the last time your radiator in your car exploded because you were running the air condition in hot weather? How often does the compressor in fridge break down, and refilled and re-pressurized with coolant? When was the last time you heard of a car needing its transmission to be rebuilt when it had less than 150,000 miles on the odometer? These things were all common occurrences and were considered par for the course in the past. But people will swear up and down that all these things were built to much higher levels of quality in the past. People’s common retort is to point out that a lot of these goods have a lot of “plastic” in them, instead of metal. As if, it’s always preferable to make everything out of metal than plastic. Metal is heavier. It bends. It conducts electricity (when maybe you don’t want it to). When it bends, it doesn’t bend back. But people will swear this is a hallmark of “quality”. Which I think is complete nonsense. Anyways, I know you’re talking about food, here. And there is some reason to believe that fruits and vegetables have become somewhat less nutritious over time, as a result of nutrient-depletion in the soil from intense industrial farming. However, to attribute that to inflationary monetary policy, instead of the Green Revolution — which by the way, has almost completely eliminated famine from the entire planet, would be a very silly thing for people to argue.

That's good to hear. I thought it was a good discussion and I really enjoyed it. The best any of us can do is be intellectually honest, and my perception of you in your interviews is you always try your best to model that, this interview included. It's hard to not respect that.

Good points! So does the IMF only play a small role in helping out certain nations? Wonder this because of Gladstein's work...

Bitcoin Magazine

Structural Adjustment: How The IMF And World Bank Repress Poor Countries And Funnel Their Resources To Rich Ones

The IMF and World Bank do not seek to fix poverty, but only to enrich creditor nations. Could Bitcoin create a better global economic system for th...

Just the car example alone is enough. To extend it, I remember as a kid in the early 80s in Canadian winter having to *always* plug the car in (for the engine block heater) and my parents pumping the gas while turning the ignition and *praying* it would start in the morning. I remember more than one occasion my dad would call in to work saying he'd be late because the car wouldn't start and that he had to take the bus. I tell younger people this and they find it absolutely mind blowing. Nowadays, I almost never plug my car in during winter and it pretty much always starts first try, even in the closest of weather. Any car made in the last 20-30 years, cold weather starts are mostly a non-issue.

The “cars were better built in the past” is one of those insanely wrong myths that just won’t die. But this video puts it into really stark terms:

Wow. That is a dramatic difference. I suspect a component of this sentiment comes from car enthusiasts that perhaps conflate car build quality with car serviceability - there's certainly a solid argument that older cars were easier for the average Joe to service.

They were easier to service and repair, yes. But they also needed a lot more maintenance. In 1970, the average recommended oil change interval for a car was 2,500 miles. Also, cars needed regular tune-ups, to adjust the timing belts, clean the carburetor — which was recommended to be done every 6,000 miles, on average for a car made in 1970. Clutches in transmissions wore out all the time. Today, cars are being sold with oil change intervals of 15,000 miles / 1 year. Tune-ups aren’t even a thing anymore, because engine timing is controlled by an ECU, and fuel injection has replaced carburetors. Transmissions routinely last the entire life of the car and go hundreds of thousands of miles with no maintenance — that was literally not a thing for a car made in 1970. So when people say modern cars are of much lower quality, I never really understand what they’re talking about.

One more thing … not to mention, try letting a car from the 1960s sit in a garage for 3-4 months without it being started. Manufacturers literally instructed owners that they should regularly run and drive the car regularly, and not let it sit too long — otherwise the engine could become un-lubricated and seize up, preventing it from starting. Modern cars can sit for years, have some fresh fuel poured in their tanks and startup fine! People’s definition of “quality” is weird sometimes.

A few favourite takes from that show: The Oil crisis in 1970s was a deeply impactful headwind The lower/middle class might be poorer compared to the top %, but the low/mid have massively gained in terms of the variety/access to nice things (think technology, variety of food and experiences, car quality) CPI as a changing basket of goods is not ONLY shifting goal posts to reduce culpability for inflation, it genuinely should shift to reflect change in preferences/habits (but I hold that the CPI measure still seems cucked AF) That Bitcoin might not replace fiat, but it will be a great measure for restraint/accountability Those who will most benefit are those who would prefer to dollarise, but are then cucked by being at the mercy of said dollar Thanks for jumping into the fray. Also, where does the discussion continue? Should I brave the YT comments, or is NOSTR the place to discuss this?

If leaving a car to sit sub 0C for more than a few days its almost always a good idea to plug the battery into a decent maintenance charger.

The oil crisis is an under-talked about factor in the general trajectory of inflation, the automotive industry, and even urban development in the US. It’s underplayed just how much the OPEC bloc reshaped the economics of the 80s and beyond. The profound economic consequences of the Oil Crisis rippled across sectors and daily life. The sharp rise in oil prices introduced pervasive inflationary pressures that directly impacted heating, transportation, and production costs. This not only contributed to global economic downturns but also significantly altered trade dynamics, exacerbating trade deficits and leading to greater foreign debt for many oil-importing nations. In the automotive realm, there was a marked shift in consumer preferences towards fuel efficiency. This trend, in turn, opened the door for Japanese automakers like Toyota and Honda, known for their compact and fuel-efficient cars, to secure significant market shares in the US. The crisis also catalyzed the introduction of stricter emissions and mileage standards, pushing automakers towards technological innovations. Urban development too felt the ripple effects. The burgeoning cost of gasoline posed challenges to the rapid suburban expansion witnessed in the post-WWII era. Commuters began to reconsider the feasibility of long drives to work, leading to a renewed interest in public transit as an energy-efficient alternative. Furthermore, the increased costs associated with heating homes drove a push for better insulation and overall energy efficiency in construction. The way some portray the "petrodollar" system, suggesting that it's predominantly a golden ticket for the United States, really misses the mark. Yes, the pricing of oil in dollars does generate a certain demand for the USD. However, to suggest this has been a unilateral boon for the U.S. while ignoring the significant windfalls OPEC nations have enjoyed, is a bit naive. Let's break it down. OPEC nations, via this arrangement, have not just stacked up substantial revenues but have transformed their economies, cities, and geopolitical positions. Just look at the vast sovereign wealth funds they've built over the years, all driven by petrodollar influx. These funds don't just sit idly – they're active, global investors and have a significant say in global financial markets. Furthermore, this dollar-for-oil setup also inadvertently ties America's hands to the fortunes and stability of oil-exporting nations. It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, yes, there's a demand for dollars. On the other, it places the U.S. in the midst of geopolitical quagmires and demands a continued diplomatic, and sometimes military, engagement in often unpredictable regions.

The oil crisis is an under-talked about factor in the general trajectory of inflation, the automotive industry, and even urban development in the US. It’s underplayed just how much the OPEC bloc reshaped the economics of the 80s and beyond. The profound economic consequences of the Oil Crisis rippled across sectors and daily life. The sharp rise in oil prices introduced pervasive inflationary pressures that directly impacted heating, transportation, and production costs. This not only contributed to global economic downturns but also significantly altered trade dynamics, exacerbating trade deficits and leading to greater foreign debt for many oil-importing nations. In the automotive realm, there was a marked shift in consumer preferences towards fuel efficiency. This trend, in turn, opened the door for Japanese automakers like Toyota and Honda, known for their compact and fuel-efficient cars, to secure significant market shares in the US. The crisis also catalyzed the introduction of stricter emissions and mileage standards, pushing automakers towards technological innovations. Urban development too felt the ripple effects. The burgeoning cost of gasoline posed challenges to the rapid suburban expansion witnessed in the post-WWII era. Commuters began to reconsider the feasibility of long drives to work, leading to a renewed interest in public transit as an energy-efficient alternative. Furthermore, the increased costs associated with heating homes drove a push for better insulation and overall energy efficiency in construction. The way some portray the "petrodollar" system, suggesting that it's predominantly a golden ticket for the United States, really misses the mark. Yes, the pricing of oil in dollars does generate a certain demand for the USD. However, to suggest this has been a unilateral boon for the U.S. while ignoring the significant windfalls OPEC nations have enjoyed, is a bit naive. Let's break it down. OPEC nations, via this arrangement, have not just stacked up substantial revenues but have transformed their economies, cities, and geopolitical positions. Just look at the vast sovereign wealth funds they've built over the years, all driven by petrodollar influx. These funds don't just sit idly – they're active, global investors and have a significant say in global financial markets. Furthermore, this dollar-for-oil setup also inadvertently ties America's hands to the fortunes and stability of oil-exporting nations. It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, yes, there's a demand for dollars. On the other, it places the U.S. in the midst of geopolitical quagmires and demands a continued diplomatic, and sometimes military, engagement in often unpredictable regions.

The oil crisis is an under-talked about factor in the general trajectory of inflation, the automotive industry, and even urban development in the US. It’s underplayed just how much the OPEC bloc reshaped the economics of the 80s and beyond. The profound economic consequences of the Oil Crisis rippled across sectors and daily life. The sharp rise in oil prices introduced pervasive inflationary pressures that directly impacted heating, transportation, and production costs. This not only contributed to global economic downturns but also significantly altered trade dynamics, exacerbating trade deficits and leading to greater foreign debt for many oil-importing nations. In the automotive realm, there was a marked shift in consumer preferences towards fuel efficiency. This trend, in turn, opened the door for Japanese automakers like Toyota and Honda, known for their compact and fuel-efficient cars, to secure significant market shares in the US. The crisis also catalyzed the introduction of stricter emissions and mileage standards, pushing automakers towards technological innovations. Urban development too felt the ripple effects. The burgeoning cost of gasoline posed challenges to the rapid suburban expansion witnessed in the post-WWII era. Commuters began to reconsider the feasibility of long drives to work, leading to a renewed interest in public transit as an energy-efficient alternative. Furthermore, the increased costs associated with heating homes drove a push for better insulation and overall energy efficiency in construction. The way some portray the "petrodollar" system, suggesting that it's predominantly a golden ticket for the United States, really misses the mark. Yes, the pricing of oil in dollars does generate a certain demand for the USD. However, to suggest this has been a unilateral boon for the U.S. while ignoring the significant windfalls OPEC nations have enjoyed, is a bit naive. Let's break it down. OPEC nations, via this arrangement, have not just stacked up substantial revenues but have transformed their economies, cities, and geopolitical positions. Just look at the vast sovereign wealth funds they've built over the years, all driven by petrodollar influx. These funds don't just sit idly – they're active, global investors and have a significant say in global financial markets. Furthermore, this dollar-for-oil setup also inadvertently ties America's hands to the fortunes and stability of oil-exporting nations. It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, yes, there's a demand for dollars. On the other, it places the U.S. in the midst of geopolitical quagmires and demands a continued diplomatic, and sometimes military, engagement in often unpredictable regions.

There's an oddly persistent narrative among some quarters that seeks to attribute the complexities of the global stage directly to the doorstep of Washington, D.C. Nowhere is this more evident than in the discourse surrounding the global oil industry. A fluctuation in oil prices? Blame the Fed. A shift in OPEC's stance? Surely, it must be the result of a Federal Reserve policy. Such attributions aren't just overly simplistic, they're fundamentally misguided. The Fed, while influential, is not an omnipotent entity controlling every ebb and flow of global oil prices. The oil market is dictated by a myriad of factors — geopolitical tensions, supply-demand dynamics, technological advancements, and yes, sometimes, monetary policy. But to single out the Fed as the solitary puppet master is not only intellectually lazy but also flies in the face of the intricate workings of global economies. Furthermore, it's telling how this narrative — that every significant world event has its roots in U.S. policy — manages to simultaneously overinflate American influence and undermine the agency of other global actors. Consider Russia's actions in Ukraine, or the socioeconomic dynamics of the Global South. To ascribe these solely to U.S. policy or, more specifically, to the Federal Reserve, is to view the world through a severely distorted lens. It glosses over centuries of regional history, deep-seated nationalistic sentiments, and local political dynamics.

There's an oddly persistent narrative among some quarters that seeks to attribute the complexities of the global stage directly to the doorstep of Washington, D.C. Nowhere is this more evident than in the discourse surrounding the global oil industry. A fluctuation in oil prices? Blame the Fed. A shift in OPEC's stance? Surely, it must be the result of a Federal Reserve policy. Such attributions aren't just overly simplistic, they're fundamentally misguided. The Fed, while influential, is not an omnipotent entity controlling every ebb and flow of global oil prices. The oil market is dictated by a myriad of factors — geopolitical tensions, supply-demand dynamics, technological advancements, and yes, sometimes, monetary policy. But to single out the Fed as the solitary puppet master is not only intellectually lazy but also flies in the face of the intricate workings of global economies. Furthermore, it's telling how this narrative — that every significant world event has its roots in U.S. policy — manages to simultaneously overinflate American influence and undermine the agency of other global actors. Consider Russia's actions in Ukraine, or the socioeconomic dynamics of the Global South. To ascribe these solely to U.S. policy or, more specifically, to the Federal Reserve, is to view the world through a severely distorted lens. It glosses over centuries of regional history, deep-seated nationalistic sentiments, and local political dynamics.

There's an oddly persistent narrative among some quarters that seeks to attribute the complexities of the global stage directly to the doorstep of Washington, D.C. Nowhere is this more evident than in the discourse surrounding the global oil industry. A fluctuation in oil prices? Blame the Fed. A shift in OPEC's stance? Surely, it must be the result of a Federal Reserve policy. Such attributions aren't just overly simplistic, they're fundamentally misguided. The Fed, while influential, is not an omnipotent entity controlling every ebb and flow of global oil prices. The oil market is dictated by a myriad of factors — geopolitical tensions, supply-demand dynamics, technological advancements, and yes, sometimes, monetary policy. But to single out the Fed as the solitary puppet master is not only intellectually lazy but also flies in the face of the intricate workings of global economies. Furthermore, it's telling how this narrative — that every significant world event has its roots in U.S. policy — manages to simultaneously overinflate American influence and undermine the agency of other global actors. Consider Russia's actions in Ukraine, or the socioeconomic dynamics of the Global South. To ascribe these solely to U.S. policy or, more specifically, to the Federal Reserve, is to view the world through a severely distorted lens. It glosses over centuries of regional history, deep-seated nationalistic sentiments, and local political dynamics.

oh its mind control

Framed this way, the petrodollar has the very bad side for America- tying themselves to a region that sets up the forever wars, major overspending on defence (the US prior to the WWs of sitting quietly and build with oceans for passive defence), and a shift away from manufacturing, leading to outsourcing and then over reliance on, say, China. I’m not equipped to ponder/postulate. The US put their own foot in their own bear trap… Thanks again for sharing