The Late Great State Of California

The Late Great State Of California

Authored by Jeffrey Harding via The Mises Institute,

My family moved to California in 1950, part of the post-WWII westward migration. My widowed mother, tired of Boston’s dreary winters, felt the westward pull. My eldest brother, a WWII Navy veteran, had heard good things about San Diego from sailors who had been stationed there during the war. So, California, here we come.

I would like to think those were the golden years, at least for us. California was new, bright, warm, and full of promise. The East was old and cold. And San Diego was thriving. Defense and aerospace jobs were plentiful. Land was cheap, homes were cheap. A building boom met the housing needs for optimistic migrants. You could get things done in California.

It’s not that California anymore. We are overregulated and overtaxed and people aren’t so optimistic. People want to leave.

What Happened to the Golden Years?

A recent poll of the state’s registered voters by Cal’s Institute of Governmental Studies revealed that half have considered leaving the state. The top reason was the high cost of housing (especially by young people); high taxation was second.

The poll also asked if California was one of the best places to live or a just an OK-to-lousy place to live. About half said yes and half went the other way. Interestingly 67% of Democrats said it was one of the best while 77% of Republicans disagreed. Apparently, Democrats like expensive housing, high taxes, and being overregulated.

Are people leaving California? It depends on whom you are talking about. More people are out-migrating to other states than those coming in (–156,000), but much of that was offset by international migrants(+118,000) resulting in a net population loss of only 38,000 (2018).

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that California is the most regulated state in the nation — by far. The Cato Institute analyzed the laws of each state by measuring the amount of individual legal restrictions in their legal codes. California was at the top, way at the top with 395,503 individual restrictions (laws, prohibitions). We surpassed No. 2, ultraleft New York, by almost 90,000 restrictions. Our politicians in Sacramento keep passing hundreds of new laws every year yet half of Californians are thinking of leaving.

And then there are taxes. California has the highest income tax rate of all states (13.3%). The highest combined federal and California income tax rate is now about 50% of taxable income. If you and your spouse have $200,000 of taxable income, your combined federal and California tax rate is 41.3%. That’s not something you should be applauding since California ranks 42 out of 50 states in fiscal solvency .

Two new pieces of legislation will make things worse, much worse. One is statewide rent control. The other is the reclassification of independent contractors as employees.

The War Against Low-income Renters

A rent-control law, Assembly Bill 1482, was signed by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2019 . It limits apartment rent increases to 5% plus inflation per year (not to exceed 10%). It affects units built at least 15 years ago (on a rolling timeline). Rents can be adjusted to market rates only when a tenant leaves, but tenants can only be evicted for “cause.” Newsom said “These anti-gouging and eviction protections will help families afford to keep a roof over their heads …” But what if it doesn’t? What if it will harm tenants, especially poor ones?

The advocates of rent control seem to have no grasp on the economics of price controls. Perhaps they should consult an economist. In a survey of prominent economists , 81% agreed that rent controls have not had a positive impact where they have been tried.

Why would these cold-hearted economists oppose rent control? Because rent controls don’t work and they do the opposite of what was intended: they hurt poor renters.

Here is what will happen with rent control in our high-demand coastal communities:

  • Owners will raise rents to the maximum every year to protect asset values.

  • Owners will be far more selective in choosing tenants, thus limiting housing for poor, less creditworthy applicants.

  • Tenants will be reluctant to move from rent controlled properties which tends to freeze the rent-controlled rental market leaving fewer apartments available for rent.

  • Rent controlled units will be gentrified as historical evidence shows that higher income tenants will be the most benefited class of renters.

  • Affordable apartment inventory will be further reduced as owners evict tenants, tear down older buildings, and build new, more expensive units which will be exempt from rent control.

  • More apartments will be converted to condos, further reducing affordable inventory.

  • Owners will cut back on expenses to preserve cash flow, thus reducing the quality of rentable units.

Overall, rent control will disincentivize investors from investing in affordable apartments.

These conclusions aren’t guesses or just fuzzy theories — they are based on actual experience from rent controlled areas.

Adios Gig Economy

The new law on classifying independent contractors as employees (AB 5) is a stab in the heart of the gig economy — the economy that provides convenient low-cost services when you want them. Think Uber and Lyft for ride sharing. You will now pay more and get less. That assumes they will stay in California. Uber, as everyone knows loses money (EBITDA earnings for 2018: $2.41 billion). If they can’t make money on their present business model, how can they possibly make money if their driver costs go way up? So, I repeat myself: will they be around in a couple years? Will those drivers who feel they are being treated unfairly be out of work?

This is a classic example of the Canute Effect. If you recall, Canute was the Danish king, who, legend has it, ordered the tide to stop coming in. Canute was obviously either detached from reality or just an arrogant megalomaniac who thought he could command nature.

In our case, our legislators believe they can just pass a law and make things better. It doesn’t work that way. There are controlling economic realities that they ignore or, most likely, aren’t even aware of.

Everybody knows that Uber changed the world for the better. Consumers loved the new service. Drivers signed up to make extra money, setting their own hours. So why do our politicians want to kill Uber and Lyft? We should ask ourselves: who would be better off without Uber and Lyft? Here’s a clue: in the governor’s statement supporting AB 5 he went out of his way to say, “A next step is creating pathways for more workers to form a union, collectively bargain to earn more, and have a stronger voice at work.” It’s an obvious power grab by unions who wish to unionize (i.e., kill) the gig economy. Unions are famous for protecting the status quo and fighting for more power. Taxi companies no doubt had their hand in it too.

Understand that Uber and Lyft are just the tip of the gig economy. We all lose.

The Tipping Point

I just reread Malcolm Gladwell’s wonderful book, The Tipping Point, in which he details the things that push societal change over the edge. My fear is that California is getting to a point where the dynamism that has driven our mighty state’s prosperity will be snuffed out. Are we at the tipping point yet? I don’t really know, but with 395,503 restrictions on the books, I don’t see how it can get better.

Our politicians are quick to say this will never happen. They say we have the most vibrant tech economy in the world. Our farms feed the country. People love California. They believe they are making things better. Yet they continue to pass laws that tamp us down. At some point it will tip over and the impact of their regulations and taxes will overcome the forces that made California great. These new laws are getting us closer.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 10/18/2019 – 21:05

Ray Dalio Warns Of Looming “Big Sag” That Will Rattle Global Markets

Ray Dalio Warns Of Looming “Big Sag” That Will Rattle Global Markets

Ray Dalio never misses an opportunity to tell a room full of absurdly rich people how their unchecked greed and unwillingness to lift their heel from the throat of the poor could usher in a global revolution.

And what better venue for this than the IMF’s annual meeting in Washington?

Oddly enough, Dalio holds back on the Greta Thunberg-style chiding of his audience (fortunately for them, he has no childhood left to ruin), and instead touches how the US and Chin’s efforts to battle the post-crisis slowdown continue to impact the global economy and the economies and their respective spheres of influence.

Once again, Dalio presents his views within the framework of his ‘1937’ theory: That is, that there are a number of factors that make the modern investing environment similar to that of the 1930s. Once again there is an emergent power (China) rising up to take on the existing hegemon (the US). Risk assets have reached bubble-level valuations thanks to a flood of easy credit.

While many economists in the US continue to warn that the slowdown abroad and its ramifications for the US, Dalio sees it the other way around: As the business cycle peaks, “you have this sag,” Dalio explains, and that emanates out to impact all of the US’s economic allies, just like it does to China’s.

Dalio:

“And as Ben and I–we talk about these things regularly. Like we said there are four kinds of war–as Ben said and we agree: there’s a trade war, there’s a technology war, there’s a currency capital war and there is a geopolitical war. In other words – so that’s a phenomenon that’s happening at the same time. So internally we have a lot more conflict. So now if you play that out, you say this cycle is not — this is the best that we get. This moment. We are at the best the cycle is not going to continue forever — the expansion. you have this sag, then you have elections and you have politics which becomes greater extremity. And so on monetary policy it’s not going to be a so effective. Imagine if you had a downturn and you have it not as effective monetary policy. Then there has to be coordination. So how do you get coordination in this kind of political environment? You have to have a coordination between fiscal and monetary policy to be able to do something. And you can and then you have to have political coordination between the various factors to make decisions of what policy should be. So, I think that that’s the landscape broadly speaking in the world and we are in that kind of self-reinforcing sag. Because as one country — as China slows and United States slows and they all have their headwinds that makes it not as good for the others who deal with those cuts. So that look that’s what the environment looks like to me.”

Last we heard from him, Dalio had appeared to ease up on his dour economic forecasts by declaring that he saw only 40% chance of a recession in the US over the coming year, a rosy forecast that many (including us) joked was inspired by a visit to Burning Man. He still apparently believes that China is a safer bet than the US right now.

Suddenly, one of the other panelists raised another topic and took the discussion in a different direction – one which Dalio was blithe to explore: the surge in corporate credit since the crisis. Instead, Dalio advised investors to avoid stocks and corporate credit and stick with gold during the “big sag” as the decade of easy credit has left corporate balance sheets in a dangerously levered state.

Dalio:

I — let me describe the corporate, okay? What’s happened is corporate balance sheets for a variety of reasons have borrowed a lot of money. As interest rates went down a lot of money’s available and the return on equity was higher than the return — the cost of funds. There has been a lot of buying leveraging up. And there’s been a market developing, like in the form of leveraged loan market in which essentially you can borrow money with hardly any interest rate and almost the promise that you will never have to pay back principal because you’ll keep rolling it over and over and over. And they’re doing that because of a spread. So the notion is like you can borrow the money and if that you don’t have to roll over the principal, you don’t have any interest, you don’t have much in the way of debt service payments. So now you look at that and you say that’s pretty wild. That’s pretty crazy. And that is — there were elements of that existing and of course. But there’s the Central Bank on that who will sort of take care of all that and because they’ll provide the money and no and so we have and then we have the negative interest rate environment and so those extremities that we’re reaching are not such that you’re as likely to have a debt crisis in terms of I look at the debt service payments. But you have a lot of — you’ve limited, you’ve reached the limits almost of that being able to happen. And then you have those obligations so that creates this big sag — then it’s likely to create a big bust.

Watch the clip of Dalio speaking below:


Tyler Durden

Fri, 10/18/2019 – 20:45

Shining Some Light On The Dark Web

Shining Some Light On The Dark Web

Authored by Sarah Cowgill via LibertyNation.com,

The seedier side of the internet gained notoriety with the juggernaut of illicit online products and services, Silk Road, which promised to protect users’ . Sex trafficking, human smuggling, murder for hire, body parts for sale – all had a welcome place. As the dark web flourished, the feds began to frown on selling arms and legs on the open market. So Silk Road was officially put out of business in 2014 — but not before averaging $15 million in Bitcoin and cryptocurrency transactions annually.

General rule of thumb: Stay off the dark web.

But any enterprising person can use Facebook and Twitter to purchase firearms, falsified identification documents, and illicit drugs of choice under the radar. You can even fund-raise for a terror attack.  That’s all thanks to the 1996 Communications Decency Act Section 230 (CDA230), which says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 

In other words, these online intermediaries – Twitter, Instagram, Codias, Facebook – cannot be held responsible for what their users say or do. Intermediaries are defined as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), interactive computer service providers, and any outfit that publishes third-party content. It is essentially a protection of free speech.

Trading Freedom For Law Enforcement?

The Alliance to Counter Crime Online (ACCO) is on the front lines of combing through the terror lurking on the everyday user’s laptop, phone, and pad. According to its research data, “more than one third of the world is on social media” and “25% of user profiles are Avatars,” allowing for additional shielding from prying law enforcement eyes.

ACCO isn’t shy in assessing Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, as Gretchen Peters, ACCO’s executive director, states:

“We believe Internet firms should become liable, much like financial institutions, for removing crime and terror activity from their systems, and that they should be sharing data about illicit activity proactively with law enforcement, and not deleting the scene of the crime.”

ACCO reports Hezbollah openly ran an “equip a jihadi” fundraiser on Twitter, boasting of using the funds to attack Israel. Mexican cartels use Facebook as a platform to launder money, move drugs, and hire hits on enemies. And at this point in the online community, the social platforms can’t keep up with the illegal traffic – although their efforts are valiant. Facebook has removed 1.5 million drug sales posts in the six months since amending its standards of enforcement policy, which is more than the Silk Road hosted during its entire unsavory run.

But imagine the transactions that they aren’t catching: That should send goosebumps skittering down the spine.

In 1996, when CDA230 was enacted, there were only 100,000 websites, just 20 million American adults had access to the internet – which was dial-up – and Google had yet to exist. Could today and the future have even been contemplated?

Although CDA230 grants sweeping immunities to a single industry, there are limits and amendments.  Instead of terrorist fundraising, however, restrictions are geared more toward copyright infringement.  Section 230 was changed last year to damper the burgeoning human acquisitions and sales industry and in 2018 to add compliance to the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, which required social platforms to remove any material in violation of sex-trafficking laws.

Why Mess With Success?

The First Amendment was written at a time when today’s mediums of communication and ensured anonymity behind a keyboard could not have been imagined.  And some critics are seeking an overhaul in the only legal self-regulating industry.

As ACCO requests Congress to saddle the big-tech giants with responsibility, are we abandoning the tenets of free speech or protecting the vulnerable from unforeseen dangers on the internet?

Frankly, messing with freedom of speech is a slippery slope best left untraveled;  once breached, there will be no end to alterations and reversals of basic rights. Perhaps asking the fox – in this case social media platforms – to guard the chicken coop is a foolish entreaty sure to fail.  Demanding they simply remove content that is illegal in real life should be an easy enough rule to implement without restricting the flow of information or prohibiting freedom of thought, opinion, and beliefs.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 10/18/2019 – 20:25

“Duck, Duck, Doom” – When Big Pharma Decides Who Among Us Is Worthy Of Saving

“Duck, Duck, Doom” – When Big Pharma Decides Who Among Us Is Worthy Of Saving

“When a pharmaceutical company decides who among us is worthy, and who among us is not, we are no longer living in an ethical, moral society.  We are playing duck, duck, doom.  I pray no one dies.

These are the heart-felt words of Joanna, a 50-year-old Californian woman who faces death within a few short weeks if the drug that she takes to keep her alive is not released from FDA-sanctioned recall, and/or offered to patients by the drugmaker through a “special use” program (at the patients’ risk).

The troubles began early last month when Japanese drug-maker Takeda Pharmaceutical pulled Natpara, which was
approved four years ago to treat hypoparathyroidism – a rare endocrine disorder that can lead to heart failure and death.

Takeda recalled the product after learning rubber particles may clog needles in multi-dose cartridges that deliver the solution. However, Takeda did not indicate why the rubber particles were suddenly appearing or how long the problem may last.

Meanwhile, as Statnews.com reports, the FDA upped the ante earlier this month by giving the recall a Class 1
designation, which is reserved for products that may cause serious injury or death
.

This requires patients to return all products, although the regulator has offered no information about the extent of the problem, confusing patients and physicians.

The move by Takeda and the FDA has left about 2,700 patients without alternatives – the possibility of a painful death awaits absent the recombinant human protein that has no alternative.

For an adult facing excruciating pain and death within weeks, one might have thought that it would be their decision whether to take the risk of using the recalled drug – but between the FDA’s ‘rules’ and the drugmaker’s plans, that opportunity is not available to the suffering patients (some of which have a few weeks supply stored).

Notably, the supply interruption comes even as Takeda was reportedly looking to sell the drug as a way to improve its balance sheet after its $58 billion buyout of Shire last year. The deal was opposed by many investors because of the debt Takeda had to take on to make the buy.

But now there is hope, as Statnews.com reports, a group of lawmakers including Bernie Sanders, are pushing the FDA to resolve the shortages of the life-saving medicine immediately, noting that the European Medicines Agency has not taken any such recall action.

“Patients across the country have already been hospitalized due to an inability to get Natpara, and we fear that as more patients run out of Natpara, the number of avoidable hospitalizations — or worse — may increase,” the letter says.

As the letter notes, to appease anxious patients, the company created a temporary “special use” program in which anyone facing a life-threatening situation could use cartridges to administer single doses. But only a tiny fraction of patients – as few as 1% – are qualifying for the program… Joanna is among those who did not, despite the most egregious circumstances:

“Last February I went off Natpara, under doctor’s orders, to check my PTH levels with the miraculous hope that perhaps I was making my own.  Two days later, while at the lab, tetany came on fast and furious and within minutes I could not move, talk or process.  911, Ambulance, ER visit…you know the rest.  This is me off Natpara, so without hesitation, and without my own PTH, I went back on Natpara while still in the ER.  Life Saving.

Two months ago, I passed out while watching the sunset with my husband.  He is a surgeon and could not find my pulse for 5 seconds.  I was out twice for a total of 15 minutes.  I have no memory of this episode.  I am currently undergoing cardiac testing, and we all think this episode was calcium related.”

Joanna continues:

“Despite these episodes, and the risk my doctor, an Endocrine Specialist, feels I am under if I stop Natpara, Takeda denied his SUP request.

So just how ‘sick’ does Takeda think its potential ‘special use’ patients should be to be deemed worthy of receiving the life-saving (but FDA-recalled) medicine?

Between the questionable ethics and potential disturbingly profit-driven actions of the drug-maker and the over-arching nanny-state control of the FDA, it is little wonder that those on the margin, those who need more than others, are losing faith in the American way.

As Joanna concludes in her letter,

I feel the defeat, depression and hopelessness that many of you have also felt with a rejected request for our life saving medicine.  I feel that this recall has been handled irresponsibly, unethically, and inhumanely.  I am needing a timeline, communication, some humanity, and accountability.”

So the next time you hear about big pharma’s soaring prices or globally disassociative pricing mechanisms (i.e. charge what we can, where we can, as there’s a sucker – insurer – born everyday, somewhere), consider for a moment the other levers that are pulled by drugmakers to restrict supply and potentially drive up demand, and the integrated risk that an over-bearing government bureaucracy builds on controlling how we as adults get to decide our own healthcare needs.

While Facebook CEO Zuckerberg discusses the end of freedom speech, it appears that in the ‘Land of the Free’, the freedom to make a well-informed, risk-reward-balanced decision about one’s healthcare should be a given – after all – according to all 12 of the Democratic candidates on stage this week, healthcare is a right (a right that apparently is only accessible on their terms).

But one thing is for sure…while Bernie Sanders backing this pressure on Takeda is indeed admirable and may well save the lives of Joanna and many others, more centrally-planned medicare-for-all decision-making is not the solution (taking more decisions out of the hands of patients, instead of giving them back control of their own bodies).

Joanna summed it up perfectly:

“When a pharmaceutical company decides who among us is worthy, and who among us is not, we are no longer living in an ethical, moral society.  We are playing duck, duck, doom.  I pray no one dies.

“duck, duck, doom” indeed!

*  *  *

More details on the Natpara can be found here.


Tyler Durden

Fri, 10/18/2019 – 20:06

‘Peace-Expert’ George W Bush Says “Isolationism” Is Dangerous To Peace

‘Peace-Expert’ George W Bush Says “Isolationism” Is Dangerous To Peace

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Humanity was treated to an important lecture on peace at a recent event for the NIR School of the Heart by none other than Ellen Degeneres BFF and world-renowned peace expert George W Bush.

“I don’t think the Iranians believe a peaceful Middle East is in their national interest,” said the former president according to The Washington Post’s Josh Rogin, whose brief Twitter thread on the subject appears to be the only record of Bush’s speech anywhere online.

“An isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world,” Bush said during the speech in what according to Rogin was a shot at the sitting president.

“We are becoming isolationist and that’s dangerous for the sake of peace.”

For those who don’t speak fluent neoconservative, “isolationist” here means taking even one small step in any direction other than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and “We are becoming isolationist” here means “We have hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world.”

George W Bush takes a direct shot at Trump: “An isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world. We are becoming isolationist and that’s dangerous for the sake of peace.”

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) October 16, 2019

It is unclear why Bush is choosing to present himself as a more peaceful president than Trump given that by this point in his first term Bush had launched not one but two full-scale ground invasion wars whose effects continue to ravage the Middle East to this very day, especially given the way both presidents appear to be in furious agreement on foreign policy matters like Iran. But here we are.

From a certain point of view it’s hard to say which is stranger:

(A) a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is endangering peace with his “isolationism”, or

(B) the claim that Trump is “isolationist” at all.

As we’ve discussed previously, Trump’s so-called isolationism has thus far consisted of killing tens of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions in an attempt to effect regime change in the most oil-rich nation on earth, advancing a regime change operation in Iran via starvation sanctionsCIA covert ops, and reckless military escalations, continuing to facilitate the Saudi-led slaughter in Yemen and to sell arms to Saudi Arabiainflating the already insanely bloated US military budget to enable more worldwide military expansionism, greatly increasing the number of bombs dropped per day from the previous administration, killing record numbers of civilians in airstrikes for which he has reduced military accountability, and of course advancing many, many new cold war escalations against the nuclear superpower Russia.

But these bogus warnings about a dangerous, nonexistent threat of isolationism are nothing new for Dubya. In his farewell address to the nation, Bush said the following:

“In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.”

As we discussed recently, use of the pro-war buzzword “isolationism” has been re-emerging from its post-Bush hibernation as a popular one-word debunk of any opposition to continued US military expansionism in all directions, and it is deceitful in at least three distinct ways. Firstly, the way it is used consistently conflates isolationism with non-interventionism, which are two wildly different things. Secondly, none of the mainstream political figures who are consistently tarred with the “isolationist” pejorative are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination, or even proper non-interventionists; they all support many interventionist positions which actual non-interventionists object to. Thirdly, calling someone who opposes endless warmongering an “isolationist” makes as much sense as calling someone who opposes rape a man-hating prude; opposing an intrinsically evil act is not the same as withdrawing from the world.

The Forever War Is So Normalized That Opposing It Is “Isolationism”

“Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism.” #war #peace #TulsiGabbardhttps://t.co/dLbW6O2bRV

— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) June 29, 2019

Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness that the opposite of “war” is no longer “peace”, but “isolationism”. By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things.

It would actually be great if George W Bush could shut the fuck up forever, ideally in a locked cell following a public war tribunal. Failing that, at the very least people should stop looking at him as a cuddly wuddly teddy bear with whom it’s fun to share a sporting arena suite or a piece of hard candy or to hang award medals on for his treatment of veterans. This mass murdering monster has been growing more and more popular with Democrats lately just because he offers mild criticisms of Trump sometimes, as have war pigs like Bill Kristol and Max Boot and even John Bolton for the same reason, and it needs to stop. And in the name of a million dead Iraqis, please don’t start consulting this man on matters of peace.

*  *  *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either YoutubesoundcloudApple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


Tyler Durden

Fri, 10/18/2019 – 19:45

Tags

Gossip and views about privacy, gold, wealth, asset preservation