That's a lazy bot, it never replies to your questions.

Per to per transactions of any size are anonymous. There is no way to know where cash goes. The government has to wait for people to report income or register a car etc. This is why the FED wants to switch to a digital currency, so they can remove the anonymity.

I'm not saying the cash is for that scenario. I was refuting the OP and their claim that no dominant currency is anonymous.

Like I said the end of the world currency is definitely bullets. Post WWI Germany, during the hyper inflation, many used bullets as currency. Just make sure you store the most common rounds.

How is it misinformation? You can still use banks, but once you remove cash, it is now off the "grid" if you will. The only thing that tracks the money is the system. You scream "misinformation" because you won't admit that you were wrong.

I try to never buy things that can be tracked. If I'm buying something online I'll even buy gift cards to do it, like PSN cards. Obviously if you register a car or buy a house, it's going on the record in other ways, but that's not cash's fault. I remember when I bought my last Jeep I bought in an envelope of cash, but they convinced me to save money through some shady banking and when they ran my SSN, they couldn't find any record of me. They said they only see that with people who have been in jail for 10 years. It was pretty funny.

Bullets will be the perfect currency in a post apocalyptic world. So they should be saying buy a few guns and millions of rounds. Nothing exotic, basics, .22, 9mm, .223 etc.

Also, cash is anonymous as long as you keep it out if the banking system. So there's already an anonymous dominant currency. They're trying to take it away from us and if they do it will be a line they will regret crossing.

As long as more people buying than selling this is true. It's all about PR. People would still buying enron if they'd had better publicity.

You bring one case on bookstores. Here's a ton that relate to free speech/press, which is what gives bookstores their rights. You can go to the link, not typing out ALL of the cases, way too many! You need to realize the current court as already started throwing down some serious decisions that buck the pervious assumptions about many issues. Don't live in bubble, listen to what the judges have said and done. What I think or you think is irrelevant, it's what those six in the majority think that matters. Just like it was a few years ago when all that mattered was what justice Kenedy thought since he was the swing vote most of the time.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/free-speech/

A bond yolo... how exciting

I never gave my opinion on the validity of the cases, merely pointing out that an unfavorable decision will be extremely unfortunate for all social media companies.

If a bookstore banned some books claiming they were "dangerous" but then sold a book that could be ruled as inciting violence then they could be held liable. Once you start editing you become a publisher. The courts have already ruled there is a limit to free speech. Also, the courts have allowed producers of products that are legal but harmful can be sued, and by amplification of a dangerous product, that publisher could be liable.

If you assume the justices will only rule on the amplification of one post over another as it relates to 230 is myopic at best. All you have to do is look back to last year and the Dobbs case. Instead of simply ruling that 15 weeks was the new bar set, they threw out 50 years of roe. Dobbs didn't require that to exist, but the justices decided roe itself was wrong and struck it down. In this case one of the justices said in questioning that the court could even overlook the standing challenge, which this court has repeatedly shown a deference for just to make a ruling on 230. It sounded like they're interested in the whole matter.

I don't know how it will go, but I'm not going to pretend that it may not be very detrimental to meta.

The biggest question mark is the two Supreme Court cases on section 230...

Angry? You're the one throwing insults instead of facts. It's a technique used by people that have no real facts to buttress their insipid arguments. I mean calling poor people too stupid to understand their actions just to ignore their own personal greed and desire for instant gratification.

You're clearly frustrated with your life to try and insult strangers on the internet, what a sad world you must live in. Lolz

Feel free to reply with more personal attacks, I'll just let you go. 🤣

You basically just called the "lendees" too stupid so they're not responsible for their actions. BRILLIANT!

Then you attack me personally. SMART!

Personal attacks are the sign of a winning argument. PATHETIC!

I don't care what rating you give them, once interest rates went up they were destined to default. Whomever was holding them would get hosed. The loss would have fallen on the banks the wrote them if they hadn't sold them, the massive loss would still have occurred, just affecting the original lenders. You obviously looked into it as far as the final reports written by biased observers that want to blame specific people. It's an agenda based conclusion.

Bottom line is there would not have been an issue if the loans never occurred. It took two parties to create the loans. Both are guilty, but you can actually trace the original cause of why the banks pushed to get more minority loans, and it too goes back to political agenda.

Why were the assets toxic??? If the "lendees" didn't sign up there wouldn't have been toxic assets.

Look, I understand the sub prime packages were less then desirable, but so were high yield bonds (junk bonds) in the 80s which caused a bit of trouble too... The problem is with the comments of people after the crash attacking the lenders without examining WHY they changed course.

The fact is, the banks were attacked for years for being so called racists for not giving more loans to minorities. However, the obvious reason they didn't was because they statistically had less money as a community. The banks are like most people and don't like being called racist or have people screaming in their faces in board meetings.

If you follow the rise of the worst lending practices you will see the rise of political activists pushing them. Personally I wouldn't have cared if they bothered me, but corporations are weak and callow. I mean look at how they dance for the twitter mobs insane whims today.

Should the loans have been given? Probably not, but I will never excuse people that sign a contract. Just like the people that purchased high yield bonds, they were looking for a great deal.

Btw, to answer your original post question, there isn't anything out there like the sub prime mortgages to cause that problem. These bank failures have been about the interest rate hikes which affected the bond market, causing the banks to lose money selling the worthless bonds. The market could crash (more) but it's not like 08.

So there's no responsibility by the person signing a contract? And was anyone defending the lenders when they didn't relax their policies and were being called racist? No, the lenders exist in the same world we do, with the same pressures to conform to society even if society is insane.

So the lenders were "shitty" because they gave loans to poor people? Why are the poor people not "shitty" for entering into a contract they couldn't fulfill? Are you saying the poor people are stupid? Are you aware the banks used to NEVER give loans to poor people until the 90s when political action groups like ACORN started harassing the executives at big banks to force them to. They had even broken into boardroom meetings with illegal protests just to force the banks to relax their standards, calling them racist.

What was removed?

What did elon say that was factually incorrect?

Must have skipped his meds that day.

I'm not aware of it functioning improperly compared to other social media competitors?

Trump posts on truth social 😒

I don't disagree, here in Minnesota our awful power company (xcel energy) has starting converting the coal plants to natural gas including the largest coal fire plant in the five state area. However, every chart I could find shows a precipitous drop off in use in March and the summer demand doesn't reach winter levels. I don't know why this guy wants everyone to jump in right when it should drop off. Heavy bags perhaps...

White?🤔

If you want people to change to bing they need a better marketing plan to convince people they are better. That's how Pepsi briefly moved past coke back in the 80s.

Also, if they could find a way ($$$) to get to be the default search on Samsung or apple phones they could do it.