I mean, some Jews are good people.
I mean, some Jews are good people.
I used to think look maxing was stupid, but then I read this study which says ugly people are more likely to be bullied, and I don't wanna get bullied anymore so I try to look better and less punchable to others.
I'm starting to think that the root of your problems resides on the wealth of your family
Well, yes. But that's not my fault. I didn't do anything to get rich. It's my parent's fault. They spoiled me with money. They were cruel to me and always did whatever I want, other than when they were hitting me on the head or circumcising me or calling me trash, but yeah, it's all their fault not mine.
You kind of look like the actor Ian McKellen at that age
Thank you, I was thinking to become a femboy, but femboys aren't accepted in my country. I had AI convert my photo into a femboy, and yeah it looks a lot better, but I don't want to get hit on the head by some gang members in Bosnia.
I just showered. I didn't shower in 2 weeks, so it was about time.
Come on. Life is only about sex!
True, species are defined by ability to reproduce. It's why I don't belong to any species. I am just weird, maybe even adopted.
I don't know, I think I am just cursed.
You are an expert, so I ask you, are my looks below average? AI says I am 5 or 6 out of 10, but I just don't buy it.
Here is my actual actual real photo without the beauty filters which make me look like Asian billionaire:
I think I look like a reptile, but I want an expert opinion.
When it comes to the Texas option, there's something in the water there. Every single politician from Texas makes my skin crawl, I feel like they all have lampshades made out of human skin at home.
Those politicians are not human. They could be reptiles tho, or aliens.
When Gods want to punish someone with greatest possible punishment imaginable, they just give him all what they gave me.
I assume I was Hitler in previous life, so now I am born again in what I can only assume is hell.
US politics is a waste of time. Its like trying to calculate which criminal will long term screw you less. They will all screw you. The methods of screwing are different, the justifications for screwing are many, some screwing may even sound more reasonable than the other, some screwing may even be accompanied by sweet talk, but you still get screwed none the less.
I would suggest that most of your health issues stem from an unhealthy lifestyle.
Thats not true. I was born with bad feet, small bent penis, speech disorder, flawed ears, bad teeth, and herpes I gained at age 4, and brain damage was from all the hitting on the head. Even a perfectly healthy lifestyle wouldnt do anything to fix countless disorders, it would only make me live slightly longer and thus suffer more.
And if you're not interested in sex or procreation what does it matter how big your penis is.
Its the other way around. Micro penis makes me terribly uninterested in relationships. Imagine that I somehow managed to trick a woman into having sex with me. And then she sees my micro penis and laughs. It would be a shameful display. Better not even risk it.
Though I might further suggest that porn sites present an exaggerated ideal that very few people can live up to.
My penis doesnt live up to anything. I repeat, when I was in shower with the other guys, one of them said "I HAVE NEVER SEEN A SMALLER DICK" while talking about me.
When you get to may age and older the biggest concern is does it still perform well as a waste fluid outlet.
My penis doesnt even perform well now. It never performed well. What I have in my pants is an embarrassment to humanity.
Yes. Printing money to invest in the production of goods and services can grow the economy. It can increase real GDP, productivity, employment, and living standards, provided the money is used effectively and the economy has the resources to expand production.
The key distinction is that creating money does not automatically create wealth, but using newly created money to increase productive capacity can create wealth.
Imagine the government creates $100 billion and uses it to finance factories, farms, machinery, energy infrastructure, and other means of production.
Government creates money
New purchasing power enters the economy.
Businesses invest in production
Factories, equipment, irrigation, machinery, and technology.
The economy produces more
More goods and services, potentially at lower unit costs.
Real economic growth
Higher productive capacity, incomes, and potentially lower prices than otherwise.
For example, a farmer receives funding to buy a tractor and irrigation equipment. The farmer can grow more food using the same amount of land and labor. A factory purchases machinery that allows it to manufacture more products per worker. If the additional output is valuable and demand exists for it, the economy becomes richer in real terms.
Suppose an economy produces $1 trillion worth of goods and services annually.
The government creates $50 billion to finance productive investment.
There are two possible outcomes:
Scenario A: Production expands
Businesses buy equipment, workers are hired, and output increases. The economy can produce more goods to match the additional purchasing power. Real GDP grows, and inflation can remain relatively low.
Scenario B: Prices rise faster than production
The money is spent on machinery, materials, and labor that are already in short supply. Suppliers raise prices, investment becomes more expensive, and the additional money generates less real output than expected.
The IMF explains that productive public investment can increase output both in the short term through demand and in the long term through additional productive capacity. Its effectiveness depends on investment quality, available economic resources, and monetary conditions.
International Monetary Fund+1
The World Bank and IMF both emphasize that investment quality and an economy's capacity to absorb new investment matter as much as the amount spent.
World Bank+1
Potentially, yes, but the program must adapt to the economy's productive capacity.
Consider a government that finances investments in:
As these investments raise production, the economy may be able to sustain a larger money supply without the same inflationary pressure it would experience if production remained unchanged.
However, there is an important limitation: printing money does not eliminate real resource constraints. A country cannot instantly manufacture more steel, skilled workers, electricity, or imported machinery simply by issuing additional currency.
A sensible program would therefore expand investment gradually, prioritize bottlenecks, and monitor output, capacity utilization, prices, wages, imports, and exchange-rate pressures.
Your proposed principle is economically sound: create purchasing power to finance investments that expand the production of real goods and services.
It is more likely to generate lasting economic growth than creating money solely to increase consumption, because productive investment can increase the economy's ability to supply goods in future years.
The strongest version of the policy would combine:
The goal should not be to maximize the amount of money created. It should be to maximize the additional real production generated per unit of money created, while keeping inflation and external financial pressures under control.
US government is currently running something very similar to a pyramid scheme:
It pays off old investors by borrowing from new investors.
It pays off current debt by borrowing more money and creating another debt.
Is such economy long term viable? Nope, not unless GDP somehow skyrockets, but USA is already reaching a point where GDP growth begins to stagnate.
So what happens when people no longer wish to borrow money to USA?
It can realistically happen because the government borrowing only increases and will eventually outweigh what people are willing to invest.
There are only two possible scenarios: one is government bankruptcy and thus a shutdown. Other option is to print money.
USA is eventually gonna have to choose between these two options, unless of course they introduce helicopter money theory which at this point is the only viable solution.
Raising taxes will just slow down economy and even risks creating a point of no return where taxes cannot be further raised and economy stagnates due to high taxes, while budget is still in deficit.
Lowering government expenses seems reasonable, but problem lies in the fact that no one agrees on what should exactly be thrown out of budget. Military, healthcare, social security... Just what to throw out? And each has severe consequences.
So I am afraid that helicopter money remains the only possible long term solution, because it is neither raising taxes nor cutting expenses, not that cutting expenses by 2 trillions is even viable at this point.
What's interesting is that US budget deficit keeps growing even as percentage of budget.
If this growth continues, it means that US eventually won't be able to borrow enough money to cover deficit, unless it's by money printing.
No one is realistically gonna borrow money to a country heading for bankruptcy. Such country can only print.
There used to be a time when US budget was balanced, for example during Clinton when it was in 200 billion surplus tho probably not thanks to Bill Clinton himself.
However, those days seem to be long gone and long term balancing proved impossible under current system, which now sees almost 41 trillion dollars of debt.
Also, what's interesting is that those who are really in power, tend to scare people in order to control them.
They created the debt based money creation system, and the only one who profits from such a system are banks who can apparently borrow money they don't even have, just print it out of thin air, while at same time going around and scaring the population how "money printing causes inflation".
Reality is, money printing is necessary for economy, but under current system, the only ones benefiting from money printing system are banks which are the only ones who print money.
Almost all new printed money is actually debt, money which bank printed, borrowed to someone, and then earned interest. This way of money printing actually means that the bank which can print money can never fail, because the bank isn't even risking its own money when borrowing.
It's funny that same economists who claim that money printing causes inflation will at same time defend banks printing money out of nothing to enable borrowing, and insane US government budget deficit which also happens to be funded partially by money printing.
Helicopter money theory is just another version of economical concept I support: Newly created money being used to fight poverty, not printed as debt.
There are countless economists who support and champion this theory, going from the fact that this is one of rare economical moves which benefits basically everyone: It benefits the poor who get money directly, it benefits businesses who now can sell more stuff, so more businesses open, it benefits government who now collects more in taxes and also gets credit for fighting poverty.
The only critique of this economical theory is inflation, however it's a very dumb critique given that inflation has its benefits too, and this economic theory priorities giving money to the poor, so they are least affected by inflation in comparison.
Current US system is debt based economy. It means that the government is borrowing money constantly as a way of creating new money, and then wasting that borrowed money on bunch of failed policies which achieved nothing. It's an endless loop of politicians who promise to pay off the debt only to get in power, realize it's impossible, and then increase debt even more.
Helicopter money theory works almost exactly same as US current system does, except that money isn't printed as debt but is printed as debt-free, and goes directly to poorest instead of going to government to be wasted.
Economist who invented helicopter money theory invented it to fight deflation, however, other economists embraced it as a good permanent cost effective policy to fight poverty, boost businesses, increase government tax revenue, and avoid debt traps of current systems.
If BK is legitly looking for having a family, I don't think it's complicated.
I am not looking to reproduce. Why would I want to pass on 300 disorders to someone?
The only good thing about me is that I am a perfectly white man. Everything else is just a disaster.
We are talking about countless mental illnesses, speech disorder which makes me unable to speak in real life, back issues, stomach problems, sleep disorder, blurry vision, pooping blood, chronic fatigue, pain in left arm, and the list really goes on and on.
Micropenis is just one of many misfortunes Gods choose to gift me. It isn't even the worst one.
The Chinese camera are good at hiding defects.
Yes, all praise goes to Chinese overlords!
Inflation is created with federal t bills when the Federal Reserve buys Treasury securities.
Again, thats borrowing. I am talking about just money printing, not borrowing. Current US system is that almost all new printed money is debt, so its debt economy. It cannot work without debt. Its virtually impossible to create enough of new money without someone borrowing it. So if you are wondering why all politicians increase debt, its actually because the opposite would result in economical collapse. US debt is greater than amount of money in economy, so its impossible to pay off, and even trying it would cause reduction in money supply and businesses failing.
And voters are worse borrowers than politicians,
They are not worse spenders. Ordinary person is decently smart about money he spends. Politician spends other people's money, so incentive to be more careful with money is gone.
It's why blue states that let the voters create money with bond measures don't care about the State's deficit. They will get all the benefits immediately and will likely die before worrying about repayment. Tragedy of the commons.
Thats borrowing, and government which borrows money rarely makes good use of it, because citizens dont really see a lot of that money. Government is inefficient spender, due to lack of cost consideration policy. Ordinary citizen is actually more aware about how to spend his money than US government is, which is why US government wastes trillions of dollars everywhere and still has life standards of third world country.
Redistributing the authority to create money does not create additional houses, food, labor, or productive resources.
Actually, you are falling for classical trap in capitalism: demand shortage caused by lowering money supply. Capitalism requires printing new money because system doesnt work without it. Businesses cannot take more money from workers than they give them as wages, unless new money is regularly put in circulation.
My system is simply that newly created money gets equally distributed to all citizens, or in a more effective way, to those who are poor.
Countries print money anyway. USA prints trillions every year. My system merely says those trillions go to actual citizens instead of to get wasted by governments.
There are solutions. Solution is for currency production to be owned by all citizens instead of just government and banks and their money printing machine go brrrrr
I have a chinese phone and it comes with camera app which has those filters on to make your skin look more asian. I noticed something was wrong when I noticed there was no mole on my face in that photo.
Sorry guys, I just realized that I tricked you. When I was taking that photo, beautify filter was on. I just noticed my skin looks a lot more smooth in that photo than it actually is.
OMG, I bet she thought you had something too big!
Well, my head is big, my brain is also big. But apparently, having a big head isnt sexy, especially when my other head is small.
How about a boo hoo hoo.
No, there will be no boo hoo hoo. I need to go smoke and think about my bad life.
You could change it in an instant, you just need a focus and PMA.
No, its impossible. My spirit was broken into billions of pieces, and now whats left is just ghost of my previous self who wonders what the hell is he even doing and whats the point of anything, with dread and despair spreading everywhere. I think I was cursed when I was a kid.
Yeah I ain't doing that
Some people probably will tho.
But if you want to change, only you can do it.
Nothing can change how dead I feel inside.