Erick

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

Our modern monetary system relies heavily on borrowed money, with interest attached. But what exactly is money, and what is its real purpose?

Money is more than a medium of exchange. It is a mechanism through which society organizes and directs its productive capacity. It allows us to mobilize workers, materials, technology, and resources to accomplish things.

Consider Britain spending £70 million on a railway station entrance. Suppose the country already has the workers, materials, equipment, and technology needed to build it. Why should the availability of money determine whether it gets built?

After all, we can create money. The real question is how we create it and what consequences follow.

Governments typically finance spending beyond their revenues by borrowing, creating debt that must eventually be refinanced or repaid, with interest along the way. This contributes to the enormous public debts accumulated by the United States, Britain, and other countries.

But a government with monetary sovereignty could, in principle, create new money directly rather than borrowing it from investors. That money could pay workers and suppliers, circulate throughout the economy, and support additional economic activity.

Unlike borrowed money, directly issued money would not create a corresponding debt to private lenders. There would be no principal to repay or interest to service. The money could remain in circulation indefinitely.

So why would the government ever need to withdraw it?

Inflation.

Creating money does not create additional workers, steel, concrete, energy, or productive capacity. If spending exceeds what the economy can actually produce, prices can rise.

However, if workers are unemployed, factories are underutilized, and materials are available, newly created money could mobilize those resources without necessarily producing significant inflation.

If excessive spending eventually created inflationary pressure, the government could use taxation to withdraw purchasing power from circulation. In this system, taxation would not necessarily be about repaying borrowed money. It could also serve as a mechanism for regulating demand and maintaining price stability.

Of course, taxation is not the only instrument available, and the timing and distribution of spending matter. Direct money creation would still require discipline and safeguards against inflation and political misuse.

But this brings us back to the fundamental question.

Why should a society with the people, resources, and technology necessary to accomplish something be prevented from doing it simply because it lacks the money?

Money is a human invention designed to organize economic activity. It is not the productive capacity itself.

Perhaps we have allowed the financial mechanism to become more important than the purpose it was created to serve.

Shouldn't our monetary system be designed around society's actual productive capacity and human needs, rather than requiring society to organize its productive capacity around the availability of money?

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@XCosmosOfficial If we allow cheating then why bother testing. Give everyone the same high grade.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

Our ability to reason evolved largely because it improved our chances of survival. Language allowed us to communicate abstract ideas, accumulate knowledge, and develop intelligence far beyond our immediate survival needs.

Yet intelligence doesn't necessarily produce good decisions. Our reasoning is influenced by limited knowledge, perception, assumptions, and cognitive biases.

Philosophers such as Aristotle, Hume, and Kant examined how we reason, what we can know, and the limitations of human understanding.

Our greatest intellectual achievement isn't simply learning how to reason, but learning to question our own reasoning.

So. Assuming that God was behind creation then he did provide the mechanism to do good. But we have freedom to choose otherwise.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

Alice Huang was the woman accused of being a Chinese intelligence asset in the story shared.

To keep the people straight: Alice Huang was the alleged spy, Jensen Huang was the Nvidia CEO allegedly involved with her, and Lori Huang is Jensen's wife.

Importantly, the espionage accusation is an allegation, not proof that Alice Huang worked for Chinese intelligence.

I also checked the latest reporting. CBS News confirms that U.S. intelligence agencies suspect Alice Huang of working for China's Ministry of State Security. China denies the accusation, and the underlying intelligence has not been made public.

[Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald]

This Jensen Huang/Nvidia scandal is quite bizarre. The most dominant CEOs of the world's most powerful corporations rarely fall, let alone as easily and rapidly as this seems to be happeing. He's on the brink of being ousted with remarkable velocity and vanishingly little evidence.

Over what? If "mere" extramarital affairs were sufficient for ouster, how many top CEOs would be left? Not many. Hence the need for the sinister CCP/spying angle. But is there any tangible evidence at all that Alice Huang is an asset or spy for the Chinese government? Anything beyond anonymous vague US intelligence suspicions being mindlessly, dutifully recited (as always) by US corporate media?

The always smart and insightful @RnaudBertrand is required reading here, at least for the questions he raises:👇

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@Sonderisfon So should woman..have a goal to afford whatever they need. That way the guy can take a break.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@God_Questioner Maybe thats not his purpose. So what if people dont believe he exist?

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

Mackenzie Shirilla: A Conviction That Raises Serious Legal Questions

Mackenzie Shirilla was 17 when her car crashed into a building at nearly 100 mph, killing her boyfriend and another passenger. She survived and was subsequently convicted of murder, receiving a sentence of 15 years to life.

But there are serious questions about her legal representation and whether reasonable doubt was adequately examined.

First, the medical evidence.

Shirilla was diagnosed with Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) at the Cleveland Clinic in 2017, according to her mother's sworn testimony. Doctors prescribed salt tablets, and she experienced episodes of dizziness and weakness. Her mother testified that she suffered a particularly severe episode just one or two weeks before the fatal crash.

POTS can cause fainting and loss of consciousness.

Suppose Shirilla blacked out while driving. An unconscious driver could conceivably continue pressing the accelerator without applying the brakes. That possibility would fundamentally change the legal interpretation of the crash.

Yet her trial attorney failed to present medical expert testimony establishing whether POTS could explain the collision.

Second, why did she waive her right to a jury trial?

Instead of 12 jurors independently evaluating the evidence, one judge decided her guilt.

A jury conviction would have required unanimity. Just one juror maintaining reasonable doubt could have prevented a conviction, potentially resulting in a mistrial.

When the evidence involves competing interpretations of medical symptoms, vehicle data, and intent, I question whether waiving a jury was sound legal advice.

Third, the possibility of attempted murder-suicide.

There was evidence of an earlier suicidal threat. Shirilla drove at a speed that endangered her own life. She was wearing a seat belt while her passengers were not.

Was this an intentional murder-suicide attempt, or was it an accident caused by loss of consciousness? The seat belt alone cannot answer that question. These are different explanations requiring different evidence, and neither can simply be assumed.

Fourth, the legal representation itself.

Her subsequent attorneys challenged the effectiveness of her original trial counsel, arguing that the POTS evidence was inadequately investigated and presented.

Then those attorneys filed her postconviction petition one day beyond the statutory deadline. The court dismissed it as untimely without reaching the merits of that ineffective-assistance claim.

The Ohio Supreme Court subsequently declined review.

Think about the implications.

A teenager facing life imprisonment had a medical condition diagnosed years before the crash. Her defense did not establish through medical experts whether that condition could explain what happened. She waived a jury trial. And when her lawyers later challenged the adequacy of her representation, another legal team missed a critical filing deadline.

The legal question isn't whether the crash was tragic. It is whether the prosecution proved intentional murder beyond a reasonable doubt following a trial in which the defense was competently investigated and presented.

If she lost consciousness, the foundation of the murder conviction would be seriously undermined. If her attorneys failed to investigate evidence capable of establishing reasonable doubt, that raises a constitutional question.

And if procedural mistakes by attorneys prevent those questions from being properly examined, what does that say about the reliability of our justice system?

Shouldn't a conviction carrying a potential life sentence receive a full examination of substantial claims of ineffective legal representation, rather than end on a one-day filing error?

[Leszek Kraskowski Reporterzy Online @LKraskowski]

Jedną z najkoszmarniejszych spraw sądowych w USA w ostatnich latach.
17-letnia Mackenzie Shirilla wcisnęła pedał gazu do niemal 100 mil na godzinę i wjechała prosto w ceglaną ścianę. Jej chłopak Dominic Russo i jego przyjaciel Davion Flanagan zginęli na miejscu. Ona przeżyła i przysięgła, że to był wypadek. Dane z samochodu mówiły co innego.

31 lipca 2022. Strongsville, Ohio. Około 5:30 rano, kiedy na drodze nie było nikogo.

Czarna skrzynka samochodu pokazała pedał gazu wciśnięty w 100% do podłogi. Ani razu nie dotknęła hamulca. Kamery bezpieczeństwa uchwyciły, jak pędzi prosto na budynek, nie zwalniając.

Potem prokuratorzy pokazali, co działo się wcześniej. Dwa tygodnie wcześniej przyjaciółka podsłuchała jej rozmowę telefoniczną z Dominicem: „Rozbiję ten samochód zaraz teraz”. Wideo z jego telefonu pokazało, jak mu grozi i niszczy jego rzeczy, po tym jak nie chciał jej wpuścić.

Po wypadku płakała. Nazywała Dominica swoją bratnią duszą. Mówiła, że nic nie pamięta.

Ale prokuratorzy pokazali też jej filmiki z TikToka. Ona na koncercie. Ona świętująca Halloween. Wszystko po tym, jak dwaj chłopcy zostali pochowani.

W trakcie śledztwa nawet zapytała, czy nie mogliby po prostu zawiesić jej prawa jazdy na 10 lat.

Sędzia nazwała ją „dosłownym piekłem na kółkach” i powiedziała: „misją była śmierć”.

Wina udowodniona we wszystkich 12 zarzutach. Od 15 lat do dożywocia. Prawo jazdy zawieszone na zawsze. Jej apelacja została odrzucona.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

She should have taken a jury trial and hope for more woman to decide her case. She could say being mistreated caused temporay insanity. It would take just one woman to feel the way she felt about rejection. She can file an appeal based on incompetent representation.

[Leszek Kraskowski Reporterzy Online @LKraskowski]

Jedną z najkoszmarniejszych spraw sądowych w USA w ostatnich latach.
17-letnia Mackenzie Shirilla wcisnęła pedał gazu do niemal 100 mil na godzinę i wjechała prosto w ceglaną ścianę. Jej chłopak Dominic Russo i jego przyjaciel Davion Flanagan zginęli na miejscu. Ona przeżyła i przysięgła, że to był wypadek. Dane z samochodu mówiły co innego.

31 lipca 2022. Strongsville, Ohio. Około 5:30 rano, kiedy na drodze nie było nikogo.

Czarna skrzynka samochodu pokazała pedał gazu wciśnięty w 100% do podłogi. Ani razu nie dotknęła hamulca. Kamery bezpieczeństwa uchwyciły, jak pędzi prosto na budynek, nie zwalniając.

Potem prokuratorzy pokazali, co działo się wcześniej. Dwa tygodnie wcześniej przyjaciółka podsłuchała jej rozmowę telefoniczną z Dominicem: „Rozbiję ten samochód zaraz teraz”. Wideo z jego telefonu pokazało, jak mu grozi i niszczy jego rzeczy, po tym jak nie chciał jej wpuścić.

Po wypadku płakała. Nazywała Dominica swoją bratnią duszą. Mówiła, że nic nie pamięta.

Ale prokuratorzy pokazali też jej filmiki z TikToka. Ona na koncercie. Ona świętująca Halloween. Wszystko po tym, jak dwaj chłopcy zostali pochowani.

W trakcie śledztwa nawet zapytała, czy nie mogliby po prostu zawiesić jej prawa jazdy na 10 lat.

Sędzia nazwała ją „dosłownym piekłem na kółkach” i powiedziała: „misją była śmierć”.

Wina udowodniona we wszystkich 12 zarzutach. Od 15 lat do dożywocia. Prawo jazdy zawieszone na zawsze. Jej apelacja została odrzucona.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@Lonewolfy777 @catturd2 So. How do they know?

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@AquamarMedia @LKraskowski Her parents raised her that way.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@MarioNawfal New to the area. Poorly marked. And no gate in sight. Locals would know better.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@DougAMacgregor With what?

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@Luheah I thought schools had police

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@TLRationalist Yes. Thats probably the best idea.
Once you make the decision they are bad people. You should finish what you started. Otherwise it will get worse.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@fixithopeitlast That solar array would barely power a light bulb. But maybe thatd good enough.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

That guy works fast.

[Hippie Mikey @_Hippie_Mikey]

Man Cave. 💪

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@mysteriouskat @KonstantinKisin Knowing the technical side doesnt help much with knowing how to use it. It takes years to get good in both.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@AmmeHaon @Ruby_331 Why does existence exist.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

“Existence exists” tells us nothing beyond the fact that what exists, exists. It's a tautology.

Descartes went further by establishing at least one thing he could know with certainty: his own existence as a thinking being.

But neither statement establishes that the objects we experience exist independently of our consciousness.

What additional knowledge does Rand's axiom actually establish?

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@fxxkbia So. If your soul merged do you become a stalker or something. What if his soul didnt merge? Or his did and yours didnt? Like how can u be sure? Or do you merge with different prople all the time. So the soul merge thing is a passing event. Which sounds like its casual.

[Erick @Erickschultz11]

@mysteriouskat Sometimes people are required to take therapy by court order. But they just play thr game to pass the test

Maybe other people do the same.