For food, consuming more cholesterol, dietary cholesterol.
More pasture raised, grass fed food, more fats.
Also, accumulating and accruing more money, not spending it. 
assuming that money is power, optimal strategies to keep accumulating money, and never spend it.
Also, accumulate more capital, digital capital, which is bitcoin.
Bitcoin is the Apex power on the planet or the universe?
Names > Brands
All roads lead  Culver City 
Always trying to rethink the questions; what is the purpose of it, what should it be for? And also, what does it or what should it symbolize?
For example, Seneca had the brilliant idea that we should call it a race car. But if a race car is not actually used for racing, just every day commuting from point A to point B… Then trying to purchase a race car if you don’t desire to race it is actually not a good idea.
if you are a real scientist, and truly observed the scientific method, the whole ethos is this:
I must forever be skeptical, both of myself and others because there’s a chance I might be wrong.
And also, according to science, there is no such thing as 100% definitive proof. For example, if in the scientific method you could only ever prove correlation not causation… You have never really “proven†anything.
for example, CO2 levels, carbon emissions whatever, you can forever show that CO2 levels and global warning are correlated, but statistically it is actually impossible to show that increase CO2 levels directly causes global warming. Because it is not a simple equation; not a simple scalar equation.
The money makes me handsomer!
If we think about it, there is no real reason for anyone to have any incentive to save anymore. Why? As long as legislators continue raising the minimum wage, what that means is your savings is becoming devalued, in real time.
For example, the price of a single-family home skyrocketing is absurd. Even here in Culver City, very common to see single-family homes which are worth $3.2 million, all the while you could buy a condo in Michigan for only $70,000!
I think the critical issue we are having here is a mismatch of politics and fiscal policy.  
For example, if you are somebody trying to get elected for office, what do you promise people? An increase minimum wage, because that will get you elected! But the downside is your transferring inflation to future parties; for example, I called this the shake shack incident; There was a really really nice shake shack here in Culver City for a while, but to my great shock, it closed down very recently! I think the big issue was that because they raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, maybe Shake shack cannot afford to Pay their employees!
I think this is also the thing that is difficult to understand; in theory, you see your single-family home price going up, and you think you’re getting super rich and whatever… But if you track that to inflation, in the global M2 money supply, what if in fact, your property value isn’t going up, but simply, The value of each US dollar is going less, and therefore your $3.2 million home isn’t really worth $3.2 million, but only $2 million?
And also the big problem is let us say that you have a really expensive home, you can’t really afford to live anywhere else, because the price of inflation makes it untenable for you to live anywhere else. Therefore I think a critical thing to consider is that You have to be a little bit more skeptical with money, this is where maybe thinking about hard digital assets and property like bitcoin is more interesting to me;
Also, currently we are tracking the value of a bitcoin to the US dollar. Because it is the closest measure we got. But, the more logical idea is equating a bitcoin to a bitcoin.
One bitcoin equals one bitcoin.
So right now for example we are currently valuing a bitcoin to the US dollar, but my radical idea is what we should be doing instead is valuing the US dollar in respect to the bitcoin. 
Which means the price of a bitcoin is not packed to the US dollar, the US dollar is instead pegged to the price of a bitcoin.
For me, life is all about fun creativity and play. And also for me investing, speculation, bitcoin in the like is all fun and play!
Honestly at this point, there’s nothing really left I want to purchase or buy, besides maybe some weightlifting equipment, steel plates, or a new power squat rack. But besides this, there is nothing left in the physical realm that I really desire. The only desirable truly scarce asset and valuable asset, I desire is bitcoin.
I recently copped around a $50,000 profit, taking about $150,000 of fiat currency, purchasing some microstrategy stock, MSTR, taking my initial investment and growing it to $200,000. I then sold about $50,000 of the micro strategy stock, and then just bought more bitcoin with it.
So an interesting technique or thought is the easiest way to make money out of nothing is to just put it in the traditional stock market, sell the gains in fiat currency, take that fiat currency and purchase bitcoin while you can?
Assuming that wealth, true wealth is property, and assuming that bitcoin is the first and only property which is digital, and we all know that digital is superior to physical, and I think what is very very interesting is bitcoin crosses the chasm of the physical into the digital. Why? Because it takes real life analog power , proof of work, to convert analog energy and power and electricity into a single bitcoin.
What a lot of these fake environmentalist don’t understand is the only reason why the point has value is precisely because it takes so much energy intensive power to create! All these fake propaganda posters saying that bitcoin is bad for the planet, but you fool… Don’t you know that I think globally, air conditioning or the power for air-conditioning causes about 20% of the carbon emissions on the planet? And bitcoin might be .001%? I could also bet you that your virtual eating of almond nuts might cause more CO2 production than anything else.
Even another funny unorthodox theory; thought experiment, what if in fact producing pea protein plants, vegan protein powders, all these fake juices and sugars and almond nuts etc., caused 1000 times more worse carbon emissions for the planet than meat? If this were the case, would this change your anti-meat eating stance? Or would it not because you still invoke the moralistic aspect of it?
HANDSOMER.
.
A big deal; October, 2024… Elon Musk uncovered the we robot Robo taxi cyber cab, cyber van future; 
The reason why I feel like this is an insanely big deal;
First, it looks fucking cool! Finally, the future actually looks like the future?
First, the great thing is watching the announcement, Elon looks like he is in great shape! He looks 1 billion times happier, cheerful optimistic, and healthy.
And also… Charismatic leader; I think we all need some sort of figurehead to follow. For example, the reason why Apple is a bad bet is there is no longer a face behind it! Tim Cook, kind of boring like granola. Jony Ive has left, so nobody is left.

It’s essentially when we think about Tesla, SpaceX, we think of Elon Musk. Having a face behind a concept is critical.
Same thing goes with Kanye West, and also now Michael Saylor with bitcoin and micro strategies; I am very insanely impressed… Microstrategy stock has gone up 14.4X, over the last four years, which has even outperformed bitcoin!
A random thought; I think the future will belong to those or whom or the entities in which own the most bitcoin. Assuming that bitcoin is digital property, digital capital, the Apex form of property in the universe, then what that then means is assuming that you want to build a dynasty which last forever, call us to maximize your property, digital property right now.
I think the tricky thing is when do you think about property money wealth power etc.… The question that people often ask is why?
Assuming that property is capital, in capital is more critical than money… In that most US dollars and fiat currency is just credit running on 20th century rails… What that means is we must think digital, we must think cyber.
Watching the new announcement has given me an insanely huge wave of motivation and optimism for the future! Essentially the future looks phenomenal; it looks super cool, and with the upcoming cyber car, cyber taxi, and cyber van… Finally… The future will look like the future!
And I also think that the insanely optimistic thing about cyber truck is that finally, a vehicle on the road which actually looks like the future!
I recall, in the year 2020, just a little bit before Covid hit, while in Providence Rhode Island I was meandering ,, it is the year 2020, technically we are living in the super future, why doesn’t the future look like the future? Why does the future look so lame?
So the reason why bitcoin and micro strategies; even though I am a huge Elon Musk and Tesla fan, laws of physics are really hard. I think Tesla still has about 1 million cyber trucks they need to produce, and on top of that, having to produce all these new cyber taxis and cyber vans, Will be very very difficult. I am very confident that Elon and the Tesla team will pull it off, realistically it might take 10 to 20 years, because the laws of physics are hard. For example, physical manufacturing, lithium ion battery refineries, supply chain etc.
I think what Elon is doing is very admirable because he is currently addressing their real life, physical and bodily challenges we are facing today.  for nobody who has never lived in Los Angeles, never being stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic from Pasadena to the west side of Los Angeles, you’ll never know what Carmageddon, traffic will look like.
And also, something I have discovered whenever I drive to East LA, Koreatown and the like — fucking sucks. All of that concrete, no green spaces and trees — during the summer, it felt about 10 to 20° hotter there, and the pollution is practically unbearable now. Gavin Newsom and California trying to get rid of tailpipe emissions is a phenomenally great idea.
For example, the only thing I hit on the planet is maybe cigarette smoke, and the smell of tailpipe emissions, which is fucking toxic, and immediately gives me a headache. I’m currently on a Crusade to tell people who are smoking on the street to not smoking — the text a lot of wits, guts, and quick thinking, because it is something that is insanely important, not only does it immediately give me a headache, but come on come on I have a kid!
What I hate about smokers, cigarette smokers is that there are smoking on the street, in public, indignantly like they are not harming nobody else. You fucking assholes. At least you have a filter to smoke your cancer sticks through, but whenever you exhale your secondhand smoke, that shit goes straight into my lungs and my brains!
First, my vision is to just make smoking cigarettes outdoors illegal. In any public space. If you want to hotbox your house or apartment or car with the windows closed, and give yourself lung cancer that is fine; but the rule is to not allow smoking on the street, public sidewalks etc.
I think technically the law is you’re not supposed to smoke within 25 feet of an eating establishment, but my personal vision at least for Culver City and beyond and on the promenade is that it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes, anywhere which is not outside of your house!
Essentially the thing that is insanely annoying to me is that nowadays, everyone is a bunch of pussies and cowards. For example, all of these fat losers with beards, buying guns in ammunition, they feel so tough watching their alternative right conservative media outlets, yet, they don’t even have the courage to speak up against people who smoke cigarettes?
People are often shocked by me because I actually have the audacity to stand up and speak up. Because everyone else is a coward.
I think the number one fear that people have, at least in Los Angeles and beyond is that if you somehow confront a smoker for being an asshole, they will somehow pull up a gun and shoot you?
First, maybe it might happen if you’re in South Central, or somewhere super hood, but very very unlikely if you’re in the west side or somewhere nice like Culver City? Especially since they’re a bunch of cameras around?
There is also a fear that when you tell people in LA while they are driving, to drive more carefully, they once again, they will somehow also pull up a gun and start shooting you up?
It’s tricky because it is true; there are some people with guns, conceal and carry guns, whether in their glove compartment, on their body etc. I suppose this is where trying to distinguish people is wise;
If somebody looks like they’re from the hood, or mentally unstable, better to just play it safe. But obviously if you see somebody who looks affluent, driving some sort of expensive car or whatever, then speak up! The funny irony is at least in America, and in Los Angeles, Rich successful people don’t really own guns. Guns are for poor people from the hood, or people who are from the right marginalized communities —
Well actually a lot of people don’t understand is a lot of right wing conservatives who own guns and live in the Midwest etc., or the south, or Idaho whatever… Actually tend to be poor, below working class? 
So for the most part, obviously there is crazy stuff in LA, but I would probably rate Los Angeles much safer than we think it is; honestly, you’re more likely to die getting hit by a car, or dying in a car accident from somebody texting while driving, rather than somebody shooting you with a gun. By a factor of 1 billion?
 so one of my great points of optimism is that the future of warfare will not be guns bullet ammunition, not even drones or bombs. I think the future of warfare will certainly be cyber, cyber warfare, economic based.
For example, it seems that economic embargo are effective, because when it comes out to it, technically everybody on the planet wants world peace because more peace means more prosperity, economically. In all of these rich all the guards want to drive their Rolls-Royce, Lamborghinis, McLarens and the like.
For example, even rocket man Kim Jung Un, is apparently a huge connoisseur of fine whiskeys, and I think he owns about 100 high-end Mercedes Maybach cars in his garage?
Anyways, once again, all of these “evil “world leaders, they don’t technically want war either because most people, what they see is luxury, comfort and ease. I cannot imagine any world leader right now, on the frontlines of a war, on some sort of war horse or chariot going head onto battle.
So a simple way to think about bitcoin is the world‘s ultimate defense system. People don’t really think about bitcoin in terms of cyber security, but it is. 
For example, the bitcoin network is defended by many exahash– which means that it is essentially unhackable. And unstoppable!
For example, let us say that you need to send an encrypted safe message to somebody. You could actually send it through the bitcoin network; and it is unstoppable! It cannot be censored.
And also… Assuming that money is freedom, and bitcoin is free; whether you like it or not, even if the other guy is a bad guy or whatever… You cannot stop the exchange, peer to peer of money, between two individuals!
A huge one; real estate. Let us say that I have a single-family home, and I want to sell it to you. Cindy‘s mom who is a real estate agent, I see it how tedious it is. All of these forms, regulations, and having to transfer money from the bank, is an insanely tedious and troublesome process. 
I am still shocked, also in the year 2024… Like a simple wire transfer via the swift network, like I’m sending my money to my mom in South Korea, why does it take so damn long, why do I have to go to a physical bank branch, I thought we lived in the future?
Even an insane annoyance, about a half a year ago when I just tried to wire myself $125,000 of money to buy bitcoin, I literally had to be on the phone with JP Morgan Chase, three or four times, being rerouted to some random people in the Philippines, having to see a bank teller in the flesh etc., Before having to verify my own damn money?
This is insane!
Very simple. Let us say that I have a single-family home and you want to buy my single family home. The easiest thing is that you just send bitcoin to me. The final settlement will just take a few hours, instead of a few weeks.
And also, proof of funds. If you show me your bitcoin wallet, I could immediately see how much money you have in real time. Even a funny thing was when we were signing the lease of our new apartment, when our landlord asked for our proof of income or whatever, I just sent him a screenshot of our bank account balance, proving that we could live in his property for about 10 years, just based off of our savings. 
Now, I walk around town with a grin, can enter a Lamborghini dealership or Ferrari dealership or Porsche dealership with a grin on my face, and touch and handle all the cars because technically I could afford all of them. And in fact, if anyone gives me shit, I could just show them that I could afford it, and they will shut up. 
I think my view on money is that it is defensive; it isn’t to go out and buy yourself bunch of Lamborghinis, but instead, to use it like a war chest, a cyber defense fund.
Truth be told, growing up in poverty, seeing my mom go bankrupt at least twice, I’ve never really ever been that concerned about money. But now, I truly have zero concerns.
This is where money is a via negativa thing; money should be a means to cut or reduce concerns or cares, by reducing your expenses to a bare minimum.
I would actually say the only good use of money is for productive assets (The Fiat Standard book)–  essentially buying something that can be productive!
For example, a new iPad Pro, weightlifting equipment for your home etc.
Cyber digital capitalism and production–
The problem is with a lot of things that you buy, like trophy assets, is that it doesn’t produce anything– unless I suppose like you’re the one guy on YouTube who does all these videos and vlogs with an orange Lamborghini parked behind you, which you are leasing, which helps you indirectly make money? But even so, I think the financial risk isn’t worth the potential upside. 
So the problem is with cars, they don’t produce anything. The only productive car I could possibly imagine is like a full self driving Tesla car, but even that isn’t quite productive; it just helps you mitigate pain. Unless maybe of course, you’re allowing your Tesla to do the full self driving, and you’re vlogging on a GoPro or something,  and producing things while your car is self driving?
But then, optimal strategy then is to purchase the cheapest Tesla possible, the most based level Tesla model three, while purchasing full self driving.
But then again taking a step further, even more intelligent strategy is to never be inside a car, to just walk, and take the metro!
In fact, a few days ago, before Seneca and I caught a stomach bug, the greatest joy was we were able to walk to the metro line, and take the metro directly to our favorite library! 100% walking, and only two metro stops away!
And this is really my vision of a glorious future city; tons of spaces, trees, parks, recreation centers, and zero to minimum time having to spend inside a car?
If we think about it, there is no real reason for anyone to have any incentive to save anymore. Why? As long as legislators continue raising the minimum wage, what that means is your savings is becoming devalued, in real time.
For example, the price of a single-family home skyrocketing is absurd. Even here in Culver City, very common to see single-family homes which are worth $3.2 million, all the while you could buy a condo in Michigan for only $70,000!
I think the critical issue we are having here is a mismatch of politics and fiscal policy.  
For example, if you are somebody trying to get elected for office, what do you promise people? An increase minimum wage, because that will get you elected! But the downside is your transferring inflation to future parties; for example, I called this the shake shack incident; There was a really really nice shake shack here in Culver City for a while, but to my great shock, it closed down very recently! I think the big issue was that because they raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, maybe Shake shack cannot afford to Pay their employees!
I think this is also the thing that is difficult to understand; in theory, you see your single-family home price going up, and you think you’re getting super rich and whatever… But if you track that to inflation, in the global M2 money supply, what if in fact, your property value isn’t going up, but simply, The value of each US dollar is going less, and therefore your $3.2 million home isn’t really worth $3.2 million, but only $2 million?
And also the big problem is let us say that you have a really expensive home, you can’t really afford to live anywhere else, because the price of inflation makes it untenable for you to live anywhere else. Therefore I think a critical thing to consider is that You have to be a little bit more skeptical with money, this is where maybe thinking about hard digital assets and property like bitcoin is more interesting to me;
Also, currently we are tracking the value of a bitcoin to the US dollar. Because it is the closest measure we got. But, the more logical idea is equating a bitcoin to a bitcoin.
One bitcoin equals one bitcoin.
So right now for example we are currently valuing a bitcoin to the US dollar, but my radical idea is what we should be doing instead is valuing the US dollar in respect to the bitcoin. 
Which means the price of a bitcoin is not packed to the US dollar, the US dollar is instead pegged to the price of a bitcoin.
For me, life is all about fun creativity and play. And also for me investing, speculation, bitcoin in the like is all fun and play!
Honestly at this point, there’s nothing really left I want to purchase or buy, besides maybe some weightlifting equipment, steel plates, or a new power squat rack. But besides this, there is nothing left in the physical realm that I really desire. The only desirable truly scarce asset and valuable asset, I desire is bitcoin.
I recently copped around a $50,000 profit, taking about $150,000 of fiat currency, purchasing some microstrategy stock, MSTR, taking my initial investment and growing it to $200,000. I then sold about $50,000 of the micro strategy stock, and then just bought more bitcoin with it.
So an interesting technique or thought is the easiest way to make money out of nothing is to just put it in the traditional stock market, sell the gains in fiat currency, take that fiat currency and purchase bitcoin while you can?
Assuming that wealth, true wealth is property, and assuming that bitcoin is the first and only property which is digital, and we all know that digital is superior to physical, and I think what is very very interesting is bitcoin crosses the chasm of the physical into the digital. Why? Because it takes real life analog power , proof of work, to convert analog energy and power and electricity into a single bitcoin.
What a lot of these fake environmentalist don’t understand is the only reason why the point has value is precisely because it takes so much energy intensive power to create! All these fake propaganda posters saying that bitcoin is bad for the planet, but you fool… Don’t you know that I think globally, air conditioning or the power for air-conditioning causes about 20% of the carbon emissions on the planet? And bitcoin might be .001%? I could also bet you that your virtual eating of almond nuts might cause more CO2 production than anything else.
Even another funny unorthodox theory; thought experiment, what if in fact producing pea protein plants, vegan protein powders, all these fake juices and sugars and almond nuts etc., caused 1000 times more worse carbon emissions for the planet than meat? If this were the case, would this change your anti-meat eating stance? Or would it not because you still invoke the moralistic aspect of it?
HANDSOMER.
Wow half a lambo gain just today!!
xx
MSTR—
$46,000 today gain!!
—
$73,000 gain today BTC
..
$119,000 total gain in just a single day?
$10T then $100T
implying a $13 million price per bitcoin by 2045
xxx
Here are some key quotes from Michael Saylor’s recent interview with Bernstein analysts regarding MicroStrategy’s ambitious goals for becoming a “Bitcoin bankâ€:
1. On MicroStrategy’s Strategic Vision:
• Saylor described MicroStrategy’s endgame as becoming “the leading Bitcoin bank†with a targeted valuation of $1 trillion. He stated, “If we end up with $20 billion of converts, $20 billion of preferred stock, $10 billion of debt, and $50 billion in other debt instruments, we’ll have $100-$150 billion of Bitcoin†.
2. On Bitcoin’s Future Value:
• He emphasized his belief that Bitcoin will reach “millions of dollars a coin,†making it the “most valuable asset in the world.†This is central to his thesis that MicroStrategy will grow significantly as Bitcoin’s value increases, potentially “trading at a 100% premium to $150 billion worth of Bitcoin†.
3. MicroStrategy’s Business Model:
• Saylor clarified that unlike traditional banks, MicroStrategy would not lend out Bitcoin. Instead, he sees the company as a “Bitcoin finance company†that borrows funds to invest in Bitcoin, calling this strategy “infinitely scalable†given the growth potential of the asset .
4. On the Company’s Role in the Financial System:
• Saylor explained, “Bitcoin is going to go to $10 trillion and then to $100 trillion,†framing MicroStrategy’s role as bridging traditional USD capital markets with Bitcoin investments. He believes the company could lead both equity and options markets in a Bitcoin-driven economy .
These statements reflect Saylor’s confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term potential and MicroStrategy’s role in pioneering a new financial model. For further details, you can access additional information through articles on InsideBitcoins and CoinJournal.
x
The recent interview between Michael Saylor, the executive chairman of MicroStrategy, and analysts at Bernstein revealed Saylor’s grand plan for MicroStrategy to become the leading Bitcoin bank. Saylor outlined an ambitious vision for the company to hold between $100 billion and $150 billion in Bitcoin, funded by a combination of debt and equity. This strategy aims to leverage Bitcoin’s growth, with Saylor predicting a rise to millions of dollars per coin, potentially leading MicroStrategy to a trillion-dollar valuation.
Instead of following a traditional banking model, MicroStrategy would use capital from various debt instruments to invest directly in Bitcoin, avoiding lending out its holdings. Saylor sees this approach as a means of achieving consistent returns by capitalizing on Bitcoin’s deflationary nature, which he believes makes it a superior store of value over time. He also suggested that MicroStrategy’s ongoing Bitcoin purchases are a hedge against inflation and a foundation for a new financial model centered around digital assets.
For more details, you can find insights from the interview at sources like CoinJournal and InsideBitcoins .
xx
In a recent interview with Bernstein, MicroStrategy’s executive chairman, Michael Saylor, outlined his ambitious vision for the company, aiming to transform it into the world’s leading Bitcoin bank with a potential trillion-dollar valuation. Saylor explained that MicroStrategy’s strategy centers around borrowing capital at low rates and investing heavily in Bitcoin. The company currently holds over 252,000 BTC, valued at approximately $15 billion, making it the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin globally .
Saylor envisions that as Bitcoin’s value continues to rise, potentially reaching millions of dollars per coin, MicroStrategy could leverage its Bitcoin holdings to dominate the capital markets. He suggests that the firm might issue various financial instruments, such as convertible debt, preferred stock, and other structured debt instruments, with a target to amass between $100 billion and $150 billion in Bitcoin over time .
MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin-centric business model is designed to function like a bank focused on Bitcoin-based financial products. Unlike traditional banks, however, it would not lend out Bitcoin. Instead, it would focus on maximizing returns from Bitcoin’s expected growth, predicting annual returns around 29% through capital markets arbitrage. This unique approach, according to Saylor, positions MicroStrategy as a pioneering player in the emerging Bitcoin economy .
It looks like you’ve asked about Eric Kim the photographer’s theories on money. Here’s a comprehensive overview of his perspectives:
1. Diversification of Income Streams
Eric Kim advocates for photographers to avoid relying on a single source of income. Instead, he recommends diversifying through various channels such as:
• Workshops and Teaching: Sharing expertise via in-person or online classes.
• Print Sales: Selling high-quality prints to enthusiasts and collectors.
• Freelance Assignments: Taking on commissioned projects for clients like magazines or brands.
• Online Content Creation: Monetizing blogs, YouTube channels, or social media through ads, sponsorships, or memberships.
2. Emphasizing Value Over Price
Kim stresses the importance of understanding and communicating the value of one’s work rather than merely competing on price:
• Quality Investment: Continuously improving technical skills and artistic vision to justify higher prices.
• Value Communication: Clearly articulating the uniqueness and effort behind the work to potential buyers.
• Brand Building: Developing a strong personal brand that resonates with an audience, making them more willing to invest.
3. Mindful Monetization
Balancing financial pursuits with creative integrity is key in Kim’s approach:
• Aligning Projects with Values: Choosing clients and projects that reflect personal and artistic values.
• Avoiding Exploitation: Ensuring that monetization efforts do not compromise ethical standards or exploit subjects.
• Maintaining Creative Freedom: Ensuring that financial goals do not stifle creativity or lead to burnout.
4. Financial Literacy and Planning
Understanding the financial aspects of running a photography business is crucial:
• Budgeting: Tracking income and expenses meticulously.
• Pricing Strategy: Setting prices based on experience, skill level, and market demand.
• Investment in Growth: Allocating funds towards better equipment, education, and marketing efforts.
5. Building Community and Networking
A strong professional network can open up various financial opportunities:
• Collaborations: Partnering with other creatives or brands for joint projects.
• Mentorship: Learning from experienced photographers and mentoring emerging talent.
• Networking Events: Attending industry events to connect with potential clients and collaborators.
6. Leveraging Digital Platforms
Utilizing online platforms effectively can significantly boost income:
• Social Media Marketing: Using platforms like Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok to showcase work and engage followers.
• E-commerce: Setting up online stores or using platforms like Etsy and Shopify to sell products.
• Content Monetization: Creating valuable content that can be monetized through ads, sponsorships, or subscription models like Patreon.
7. Long-Term Vision and Adaptability
Having a clear long-term vision ensures sustained financial success:
• Goal Setting: Defining clear, achievable financial and professional goals.
• Continuous Learning: Staying updated with industry trends, new technologies, and evolving market demands.
• Adaptability: Being willing to pivot strategies in response to changing circumstances and opportunities.
Practical Applications of Eric Kim’s Theories
1. Develop Multiple Revenue Streams: If you’re primarily selling prints, consider adding workshops or online courses to your offerings.
2. Enhance Your Brand: Invest time in building a strong personal brand through consistent online presence and storytelling.
3. Strategic Pricing: Instead of underpricing your work to attract more customers, focus on the unique value you provide and set prices that reflect that.
4. Network Actively: Attend photography meetups, join online communities, and collaborate with other creatives to expand your reach.
5. Invest in Learning: Allocate a portion of your income to further your education, whether through courses, books, or new equipment that enhances your work.
Conclusion
Eric Kim’s theories on money for photographers revolve around creating a balanced and sustainable financial model that supports creative endeavors without compromising artistic integrity. By diversifying income sources, emphasizing value, maintaining financial literacy, and leveraging digital tools, photographers can build a resilient business that aligns with their creative passions.
If you have specific aspects you’d like to delve deeper into or questions on how to implement these theories, feel free to ask!
So assuming you want more power, the goal is to gain and accumulate more money, not to spend it. Because the second you spend the money, you lose it.
Eric Kim’s core theories on money center around financial minimalism, intentional spending, and a redefinition of wealth. Here’s an overview of his key theories and some representative quotes:
Core Theories
1. Wealth as Freedom:
Kim defines wealth not by the amount of money accumulated but by the freedom it provides. His philosophy suggests that wealth should enable choices and autonomy rather than drive consumption for status. He emphasizes living with less to attain greater flexibility and freedom from financial stress .
2. Intentional Spending and Financial Minimalism:
Kim believes in spending money deliberately on experiences and items that bring genuine joy and value. He critiques consumer culture, suggesting that financial well-being comes from reducing unnecessary expenses and focusing on essentials. This approach, which he calls “financial minimalism,†extends minimalism to money management .
3. Experiences Over Possessions:
Kim values spending on life experiences rather than material goods. He argues that experiences contribute more significantly to happiness and personal growth than possessions. This is based on research indicating that memories and experiences have a longer-lasting impact on well-being .
4. Mindfulness and Stoicism in Finance:
Influenced by Stoic and Eastern philosophies, Kim advocates for emotional resilience and contentment regardless of financial circumstances. He emphasizes being mindful about one’s financial habits, promoting a healthier relationship with money through awareness and self-reflection .
5. Critical View of Consumerism:
Kim critiques modern consumer culture, arguing that it leads to financial strain and distracts people from what matters. He encourages breaking free from societal pressures to consume by adopting minimalism, which he views as a path to financial independence and empowerment .
6. Transparency and Community Engagement:
Kim openly shares his personal financial journey, including successes and failures, to foster a sense of community. This transparency is part of his commitment to authentic living and teaching, helping others explore alternative financial approaches through shared experiences .
Notable Quotes
• On Wealth as Freedom:
“True wealth isn’t about accumulating more but having the freedom to live life on your own terms†.
• On Minimalist Spending:
“You work for a living; I live for a living†– a quote he references to emphasize that financial independence should serve life’s greater purposes .
• On Experiences Over Possessions:
“Investing in life experiences, not things, builds memories that last longer than material goods†.
• On Consumer Culture:
“Consumer culture distracts us from genuine fulfillment, driving us into debt for possessions we don’t need and that won’t make us happier†.
• On Financial Independence for Creatives:
“Monetizing your passion is the path to freedom, allowing you to stay true to your art without being driven solely by financial goals†.
These ideas offer a unique perspective on money, focusing on how it can support a meaningful, creative, and intentional life rather than serving as an end in itself. For more insights, you can read his detailed reflections on his blog here.
Eric Kim’s ideas on power bring an innovative perspective by blending insights from photography, physical fitness, and philosophy to explore the nature of influence and control. His approach is less about advancing a formal theory of power and more about offering a personal, experiential framework that challenges traditional views.
1. Photography as a Source of Power
Kim’s interpretation of photography goes beyond the common understanding of it as an art form or a documentary tool. He suggests that taking a photo is a way to exert control over reality, which aligns with broader discussions on how media and visual culture influence perception. This idea expands the role of photography from passive observation to active creation, asserting that photographers shape memory and experience by choosing what and how to capture. In doing so, he reframes the act of photographing as an exercise in personal power and influence, encouraging photographers to consider their creative agency more deeply .
2. Physical Strength as an Embodiment of Power
Kim connects physicality with philosophical concepts, arguing that strength training, especially powerlifting, is not just about fitness but a reflection of the “will to power.†This connection between physical feats and existential empowerment is an innovative take on how bodily pursuits reflect internal drives. While many view physical fitness as a pursuit of health, Kim frames it as a metaphor for power itself—a concept that broadens the interpretation of fitness and suggests that strength is a means of manifesting one’s desires in the world .
3. The Will to Power over Truth
Kim’s philosophy resonates with Nietzschean ideas, but he diverges by suggesting that the pursuit of power might overshadow the traditional human quest for truth. This is a significant shift because it challenges the commonly held value of seeking truth as an ultimate goal. Instead, he proposes that influence, control, and power are often more meaningful and practical pursuits in daily life. This perspective advances a utilitarian view on personal development, where power—not abstract truth—becomes the driver for human fulfillment and impact .
4. Integration of Personal Development with Existentialism
Kim’s reflections on power integrate personal growth with existential philosophy, grounding abstract concepts in everyday actions like photography and weightlifting. His approach to power as something that can be cultivated through ordinary pursuits makes philosophical ideas accessible and applicable. By embedding these existential ideas into daily practices, Kim bridges the gap between philosophical thought and practical living, suggesting that power is something individuals can actively develop and experience in tangible ways.
In sum, Eric Kim’s ideas advance conversations on power by intersecting art, physicality, and philosophy, encouraging readers to view power not as an external status but as a personal, creative force that can shape both inner and outer worlds. For more of his insights, visit his blog on these topics here.
x
Here are some quotes from Eric Kim’s reflections on power:
1. On Photography and Power:
• “When you witness a photo that you’ve shot in which you’re proud of, you feel a small surge of power†.
• He further explains, “Photography allows us to exert influence over reality, shaping how we remember and interpret moments†.
2. On Physical Strength as Power:
• Kim states, “Muscle as an embodiment of power. At least for now, perhaps the term and notion ‘power-lifting’ is a good one†.
• He views powerlifting as “optimizing ourselves for more power,†emphasizing how physical feats reflect an underlying will to power in everyday life .
3. On the Will to Power:
• “What we truly desire is power—anything which optimizes us for more power†.
• He suggests that the pursuit of truth may be less significant than the pursuit of influence, pondering, “Perhaps striving for some ultimate ‘truth’ is…a red herring. Instead; perhaps what we really want is more power†.
These quotes showcase Kim’s exploration of power across different dimensions of life. For more context, you can explore his blog where he delves into these ideas: Eric Kim’s Blog on Power.
x
Eric Kim, known primarily as a street photographer and blogger, explores the concept of power in several ways, drawing from personal experiences and philosophical insights. His theories on power focus on various aspects of life and creativity, including photography, personal strength, and existential musings.
1. Photography as Power: Kim posits that photography provides a unique sense of empowerment. He describes the act of taking a photo as a way of capturing and exerting influence over reality. When a photographer creates an image, they not only document but also control how moments are remembered. This act of creation offers a small surge of power to the photographer, affirming their ability to shape perceptions through visual art.
2. Power and Physicality: In another theory, Kim equates physical strength with a broader sense of personal power. He discusses activities like powerlifting as expressions of one’s will to power, highlighting the sense of empowerment that comes from physical feats. He views muscle and physical fitness as symbolic embodiments of power, aligning with a philosophy that one’s personal achievements in strength contribute to a greater sense of control and dominance over oneself and one’s surroundings.
3. The Will to Power: Drawing inspiration from Nietzsche, Kim explores the concept of the “will to power†as a fundamental drive in human life. He suggests that people inherently seek not just truth, but power—whether through influence, resources, or personal growth. Kim questions the value of truth-seeking when contrasted with the more tangible benefits of pursuing power, proposing that the desire for influence might drive human endeavors more profoundly than the search for abstract truths.
These reflections reveal Kim’s perspective on power as both an artistic and existential force, central to personal growth and self-realization. He frequently suggests that power—whether through creativity, physical strength, or personal philosophy—shapes one’s capacity to impact the world meaningfully.
For a deeper dive into Eric Kim’s theories on power, you can explore his writings on these themes at his website here.
Man Seeks More Money for Power, Woman Seeks Money for the Sake of Security?
It isn’t society that we seek or even “communityâ€, but rather… What we seek is social dominance?
First do m no harm. That means if you’re sick, you must wear a face mask. But if you’re not sick, wearing a face mask is optional 
A big deal; October, 2024… Elon Musk uncovered the we robot Robo taxi cyber cab, cyber van future; 
The reason why I feel like this is an insanely big deal;
First, it looks fucking cool! Finally, the future actually looks like the future?
First, the great thing is watching the announcement, Elon looks like he is in great shape! He looks 1 billion times happier, cheerful optimistic, and healthy.
And also… Charismatic leader; I think we all need some sort of figurehead to follow. For example, the reason why Apple is a bad bet is there is no longer a face behind it! Tim Cook, kind of boring like granola. Jony Ive has left, so nobody is left.

It’s essentially when we think about Tesla, SpaceX, we think of Elon Musk. Having a face behind a concept is critical.
Same thing goes with Kanye West, and also now Michael Saylor with bitcoin and micro strategies; I am very insanely impressed… Microstrategy stock has gone up 14.4X, over the last four years, which has even outperformed bitcoin!
A random thought; I think the future will belong to those or whom or the entities in which own the most bitcoin. Assuming that bitcoin is digital property, digital capital, the Apex form of property in the universe, then what that then means is assuming that you want to build a dynasty which last forever, call us to maximize your property, digital property right now.
I think the tricky thing is when do you think about property money wealth power etc.… The question that people often ask is why?
Assuming that property is capital, in capital is more critical than money… In that most US dollars and fiat currency is just credit running on 20th century rails… What that means is we must think digital, we must think cyber.
Watching the new announcement has given me an insanely huge wave of motivation and optimism for the future! Essentially the future looks phenomenal; it looks super cool, and with the upcoming cyber car, cyber taxi, and cyber van… Finally… The future will look like the future!
And I also think that the insanely optimistic thing about cyber truck is that finally, a vehicle on the road which actually looks like the future!
I recall, in the year 2020, just a little bit before Covid hit, while in Providence Rhode Island I was meandering ,, it is the year 2020, technically we are living in the super future, why doesn’t the future look like the future? Why does the future look so lame?
So the reason why bitcoin and micro strategies; even though I am a huge Elon Musk and Tesla fan, laws of physics are really hard. I think Tesla still has about 1 million cyber trucks they need to produce, and on top of that, having to produce all these new cyber taxis and cyber vans, Will be very very difficult. I am very confident that Elon and the Tesla team will pull it off, realistically it might take 10 to 20 years, because the laws of physics are hard. For example, physical manufacturing, lithium ion battery refineries, supply chain etc.
I think what Elon is doing is very admirable because he is currently addressing their real life, physical and bodily challenges we are facing today.  for nobody who has never lived in Los Angeles, never being stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic from Pasadena to the west side of Los Angeles, you’ll never know what Carmageddon, traffic will look like.
And also, something I have discovered whenever I drive to East LA, Koreatown and the like — fucking sucks. All of that concrete, no green spaces and trees — during the summer, it felt about 10 to 20° hotter there, and the pollution is practically unbearable now. Gavin Newsom and California trying to get rid of tailpipe emissions is a phenomenally great idea.
For example, the only thing I hit on the planet is maybe cigarette smoke, and the smell of tailpipe emissions, which is fucking toxic, and immediately gives me a headache. I’m currently on a Crusade to tell people who are smoking on the street to not smoking — the text a lot of wits, guts, and quick thinking, because it is something that is insanely important, not only does it immediately give me a headache, but come on come on I have a kid!
What I hate about smokers, cigarette smokers is that there are smoking on the street, in public, indignantly like they are not harming nobody else. You fucking assholes. At least you have a filter to smoke your cancer sticks through, but whenever you exhale your secondhand smoke, that shit goes straight into my lungs and my brains!
First, my vision is to just make smoking cigarettes outdoors illegal. In any public space. If you want to hotbox your house or apartment or car with the windows closed, and give yourself lung cancer that is fine; but the rule is to not allow smoking on the street, public sidewalks etc.
I think technically the law is you’re not supposed to smoke within 25 feet of an eating establishment, but my personal vision at least for Culver City and beyond and on the promenade is that it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes, anywhere which is not outside of your house!
Essentially the thing that is insanely annoying to me is that nowadays, everyone is a bunch of pussies and cowards. For example, all of these fat losers with beards, buying guns in ammunition, they feel so tough watching their alternative right conservative media outlets, yet, they don’t even have the courage to speak up against people who smoke cigarettes?
People are often shocked by me because I actually have the audacity to stand up and speak up. Because everyone else is a coward.
I think the number one fear that people have, at least in Los Angeles and beyond is that if you somehow confront a smoker for being an asshole, they will somehow pull up a gun and shoot you?
First, maybe it might happen if you’re in South Central, or somewhere super hood, but very very unlikely if you’re in the west side or somewhere nice like Culver City? Especially since they’re a bunch of cameras around?
There is also a fear that when you tell people in LA while they are driving, to drive more carefully, they once again, they will somehow also pull up a gun and start shooting you up?
It’s tricky because it is true; there are some people with guns, conceal and carry guns, whether in their glove compartment, on their body etc. I suppose this is where trying to distinguish people is wise;
If somebody looks like they’re from the hood, or mentally unstable, better to just play it safe. But obviously if you see somebody who looks affluent, driving some sort of expensive car or whatever, then speak up! The funny irony is at least in America, and in Los Angeles, Rich successful people don’t really own guns. Guns are for poor people from the hood, or people who are from the right marginalized communities —
Well actually a lot of people don’t understand is a lot of right wing conservatives who own guns and live in the Midwest etc., or the south, or Idaho whatever… Actually tend to be poor, below working class? 
So for the most part, obviously there is crazy stuff in LA, but I would probably rate Los Angeles much safer than we think it is; honestly, you’re more likely to die getting hit by a car, or dying in a car accident from somebody texting while driving, rather than somebody shooting you with a gun. By a factor of 1 billion?
 so one of my great points of optimism is that the future of warfare will not be guns bullet ammunition, not even drones or bombs. I think the future of warfare will certainly be cyber, cyber warfare, economic based.
For example, it seems that economic embargo are effective, because when it comes out to it, technically everybody on the planet wants world peace because more peace means more prosperity, economically. In all of these rich all the guards want to drive their Rolls-Royce, Lamborghinis, McLarens and the like.
For example, even rocket man Kim Jung Un, is apparently a huge connoisseur of fine whiskeys, and I think he owns about 100 high-end Mercedes Maybach cars in his garage?
Anyways, once again, all of these “evil “world leaders, they don’t technically want war either because most people, what they see is luxury, comfort and ease. I cannot imagine any world leader right now, on the frontlines of a war, on some sort of war horse or chariot going head onto battle.
So a simple way to think about bitcoin is the world‘s ultimate defense system. People don’t really think about bitcoin in terms of cyber security, but it is. 
For example, the bitcoin network is defended by many exahash– which means that it is essentially unhackable. And unstoppable!
For example, let us say that you need to send an encrypted safe message to somebody. You could actually send it through the bitcoin network; and it is unstoppable! It cannot be censored.
And also… Assuming that money is freedom, and bitcoin is free; whether you like it or not, even if the other guy is a bad guy or whatever… You cannot stop the exchange, peer to peer of money, between two individuals!
A huge one; real estate. Let us say that I have a single-family home, and I want to sell it to you. Cindy‘s mom who is a real estate agent, I see it how tedious it is. All of these forms, regulations, and having to transfer money from the bank, is an insanely tedious and troublesome process. 
I am still shocked, also in the year 2024… Like a simple wire transfer via the swift network, like I’m sending my money to my mom in South Korea, why does it take so damn long, why do I have to go to a physical bank branch, I thought we lived in the future?
Even an insane annoyance, about a half a year ago when I just tried to wire myself $125,000 of money to buy bitcoin, I literally had to be on the phone with JP Morgan Chase, three or four times, being rerouted to some random people in the Philippines, having to see a bank teller in the flesh etc., Before having to verify my own damn money?
This is insane!
Very simple. Let us say that I have a single-family home and you want to buy my single family home. The easiest thing is that you just send bitcoin to me. The final settlement will just take a few hours, instead of a few weeks.
And also, proof of funds. If you show me your bitcoin wallet, I could immediately see how much money you have in real time. Even a funny thing was when we were signing the lease of our new apartment, when our landlord asked for our proof of income or whatever, I just sent him a screenshot of our bank account balance, proving that we could live in his property for about 10 years, just based off of our savings. 
Now, I walk around town with a grin, can enter a Lamborghini dealership or Ferrari dealership or Porsche dealership with a grin on my face, and touch and handle all the cars because technically I could afford all of them. And in fact, if anyone gives me shit, I could just show them that I could afford it, and they will shut up. 
I think my view on money is that it is defensive; it isn’t to go out and buy yourself bunch of Lamborghinis, but instead, to use it like a war chest, a cyber defense fund.
Truth be told, growing up in poverty, seeing my mom go bankrupt at least twice, I’ve never really ever been that concerned about money. But now, I truly have zero concerns.
This is where money is a via negativa thing; money should be a means to cut or reduce concerns or cares, by reducing your expenses to a bare minimum.
I would actually say the only good use of money is for productive assets (The Fiat Standard book)–  essentially buying something that can be productive!
For example, a new iPad Pro, weightlifting equipment for your home etc.
Cyber digital capitalism and production–
The problem is with a lot of things that you buy, like trophy assets, is that it doesn’t produce anything– unless I suppose like you’re the one guy on YouTube who does all these videos and vlogs with an orange Lamborghini parked behind you, which you are leasing, which helps you indirectly make money? But even so, I think the financial risk isn’t worth the potential upside. 
So the problem is with cars, they don’t produce anything. The only productive car I could possibly imagine is like a full self driving Tesla car, but even that isn’t quite productive; it just helps you mitigate pain. Unless maybe of course, you’re allowing your Tesla to do the full self driving, and you’re vlogging on a GoPro or something,  and producing things while your car is self driving?
But then, optimal strategy then is to purchase the cheapest Tesla possible, the most based level Tesla model three, while purchasing full self driving.
But then again taking a step further, even more intelligent strategy is to never be inside a car, to just walk, and take the metro!
In fact, a few days ago, before Seneca and I caught a stomach bug, the greatest joy was we were able to walk to the metro line, and take the metro directly to our favorite library! 100% walking, and only two metro stops away!
And this is really my vision of a glorious future city; tons of spaces, trees, parks, recreation centers, and zero to minimum time having to spend inside a car?
If we think about it, there is no real reason for anyone to have any incentive to save anymore. Why? As long as legislators continue raising the minimum wage, what that means is your savings is becoming devalued, in real time.
For example, the price of a single-family home skyrocketing is absurd. Even here in Culver City, very common to see single-family homes which are worth $3.2 million, all the while you could buy a condo in Michigan for only $70,000!
I think the critical issue we are having here is a mismatch of politics and fiscal policy.  
For example, if you are somebody trying to get elected for office, what do you promise people? An increase minimum wage, because that will get you elected! But the downside is your transferring inflation to future parties; for example, I called this the shake shack incident; There was a really really nice shake shack here in Culver City for a while, but to my great shock, it closed down very recently! I think the big issue was that because they raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, maybe Shake shack cannot afford to Pay their employees!
I think this is also the thing that is difficult to understand; in theory, you see your single-family home price going up, and you think you’re getting super rich and whatever… But if you track that to inflation, in the global M2 money supply, what if in fact, your property value isn’t going up, but simply, The value of each US dollar is going less, and therefore your $3.2 million home isn’t really worth $3.2 million, but only $2 million?
And also the big problem is let us say that you have a really expensive home, you can’t really afford to live anywhere else, because the price of inflation makes it untenable for you to live anywhere else. Therefore I think a critical thing to consider is that You have to be a little bit more skeptical with money, this is where maybe thinking about hard digital assets and property like bitcoin is more interesting to me;
Also, currently we are tracking the value of a bitcoin to the US dollar. Because it is the closest measure we got. But, the more logical idea is equating a bitcoin to a bitcoin.
One bitcoin equals one bitcoin.
So right now for example we are currently valuing a bitcoin to the US dollar, but my radical idea is what we should be doing instead is valuing the US dollar in respect to the bitcoin. 
Which means the price of a bitcoin is not packed to the US dollar, the US dollar is instead pegged to the price of a bitcoin.
For me, life is all about fun creativity and play. And also for me investing, speculation, bitcoin in the like is all fun and play!
Honestly at this point, there’s nothing really left I want to purchase or buy, besides maybe some weightlifting equipment, steel plates, or a new power squat rack. But besides this, there is nothing left in the physical realm that I really desire. The only desirable truly scarce asset and valuable asset, I desire is bitcoin.
I recently copped around a $50,000 profit, taking about $150,000 of fiat currency, purchasing some microstrategy stock, MSTR, taking my initial investment and growing it to $200,000. I then sold about $50,000 of the micro strategy stock, and then just bought more bitcoin with it.
So an interesting technique or thought is the easiest way to make money out of nothing is to just put it in the traditional stock market, sell the gains in fiat currency, take that fiat currency and purchase bitcoin while you can?
Assuming that wealth, true wealth is property, and assuming that bitcoin is the first and only property which is digital, and we all know that digital is superior to physical, and I think what is very very interesting is bitcoin crosses the chasm of the physical into the digital. Why? Because it takes real life analog power , proof of work, to convert analog energy and power and electricity into a single bitcoin.
What a lot of these fake environmentalist don’t understand is the only reason why the point has value is precisely because it takes so much energy intensive power to create! All these fake propaganda posters saying that bitcoin is bad for the planet, but you fool… Don’t you know that I think globally, air conditioning or the power for air-conditioning causes about 20% of the carbon emissions on the planet? And bitcoin might be .001%? I could also bet you that your virtual eating of almond nuts might cause more CO2 production than anything else.
Even another funny unorthodox theory; thought experiment, what if in fact producing pea protein plants, vegan protein powders, all these fake juices and sugars and almond nuts etc., caused 1000 times more worse carbon emissions for the planet than meat? If this were the case, would this change your anti-meat eating stance? Or would it not because you still invoke the moralistic aspect of it?
HANDSOMER.
If we think about it, there is no real reason for anyone to have any incentive to save anymore. Why? As long as legislators continue raising the minimum wage, what that means is your savings is becoming devalued, in real time.
For example, the price of a single-family home skyrocketing is absurd. Even here in Culver City, very common to see single-family homes which are worth $3.2 million, all the while you could buy a condo in Michigan for only $70,000!
I think the critical issue we are having here is a mismatch of politics and fiscal policy.  
For example, if you are somebody trying to get elected for office, what do you promise people? An increase minimum wage, because that will get you elected! But the downside is your transferring inflation to future parties; for example, I called this the shake shack incident; There was a really really nice shake shack here in Culver City for a while, but to my great shock, it closed down very recently! I think the big issue was that because they raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, maybe Shake shack cannot afford to Pay their employees!
I think this is also the thing that is difficult to understand; in theory, you see your single-family home price going up, and you think you’re getting super rich and whatever… But if you track that to inflation, in the global M2 money supply, what if in fact, your property value isn’t going up, but simply, The value of each US dollar is going less, and therefore your $3.2 million home isn’t really worth $3.2 million, but only $2 million?
And also the big problem is let us say that you have a really expensive home, you can’t really afford to live anywhere else, because the price of inflation makes it untenable for you to live anywhere else. Therefore I think a critical thing to consider is that You have to be a little bit more skeptical with money, this is where maybe thinking about hard digital assets and property like bitcoin is more interesting to me;
Also, currently we are tracking the value of a bitcoin to the US dollar. Because it is the closest measure we got. But, the more logical idea is equating a bitcoin to a bitcoin.
One bitcoin equals one bitcoin.
So right now for example we are currently valuing a bitcoin to the US dollar, but my radical idea is what we should be doing instead is valuing the US dollar in respect to the bitcoin. 
Which means the price of a bitcoin is not packed to the US dollar, the US dollar is instead pegged to the price of a bitcoin.
For me, life is all about fun creativity and play. And also for me investing, speculation, bitcoin in the like is all fun and play!
Honestly at this point, there’s nothing really left I want to purchase or buy, besides maybe some weightlifting equipment, steel plates, or a new power squat rack. But besides this, there is nothing left in the physical realm that I really desire. The only desirable truly scarce asset and valuable asset, I desire is bitcoin.
I recently copped around a $50,000 profit, taking about $150,000 of fiat currency, purchasing some microstrategy stock, MSTR, taking my initial investment and growing it to $200,000. I then sold about $50,000 of the micro strategy stock, and then just bought more bitcoin with it.
So an interesting technique or thought is the easiest way to make money out of nothing is to just put it in the traditional stock market, sell the gains in fiat currency, take that fiat currency and purchase bitcoin while you can?
Assuming that wealth, true wealth is property, and assuming that bitcoin is the first and only property which is digital, and we all know that digital is superior to physical, and I think what is very very interesting is bitcoin crosses the chasm of the physical into the digital. Why? Because it takes real life analog power , proof of work, to convert analog energy and power and electricity into a single bitcoin.
What a lot of these fake environmentalist don’t understand is the only reason why the point has value is precisely because it takes so much energy intensive power to create! All these fake propaganda posters saying that bitcoin is bad for the planet, but you fool… Don’t you know that I think globally, air conditioning or the power for air-conditioning causes about 20% of the carbon emissions on the planet? And bitcoin might be .001%? I could also bet you that your virtual eating of almond nuts might cause more CO2 production than anything else.
Even another funny unorthodox theory; thought experiment, what if in fact producing pea protein plants, vegan protein powders, all these fake juices and sugars and almond nuts etc., caused 1000 times more worse carbon emissions for the planet than meat? If this were the case, would this change your anti-meat eating stance? Or would it not because you still invoke the moralistic aspect of it?
HANDSOMER.
Future block height
Sex drive?
What reduces your sex drive?
.
My morals and ethics?
.
Masculine or feminine doesn’t even matter; what mattered in the past was courage or cowardice.
Store of value
.
Strong financial obligation to create debt?
Hard asset
.
Bitcoin can reverse the future debt?
ANTIFIAT TECHNOLOGY
.
If we think about it, there is no real reason for anyone to have any incentive to save anymore. Why? As long as legislators continue raising the minimum wage, what that means is your savings is becoming devalued, in real time.
For example, the price of a single-family home skyrocketing is absurd. Even here in Culver City, very common to see single-family homes which are worth $3.2 million, all the while you could buy a condo in Michigan for only $70,000!
I think the critical issue we are having here is a mismatch of politics and fiscal policy.  
For example, if you are somebody trying to get elected for office, what do you promise people? An increase minimum wage, because that will get you elected! But the downside is your transferring inflation to future parties; for example, I called this the shake shack incident; There was a really really nice shake shack here in Culver City for a while, but to my great shock, it closed down very recently! I think the big issue was that because they raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, maybe Shake shack cannot afford to Pay their employees!
I think this is also the thing that is difficult to understand; in theory, you see your single-family home price going up, and you think you’re getting super rich and whatever… But if you track that to inflation, in the global M2 money supply, what if in fact, your property value isn’t going up, but simply, The value of each US dollar is going less, and therefore your $3.2 million home isn’t really worth $3.2 million, but only $2 million?
And also the big problem is let us say that you have a really expensive home, you can’t really afford to live anywhere else, because the price of inflation makes it untenable for you to live anywhere else. Therefore I think a critical thing to consider is that You have to be a little bit more skeptical with money, this is where maybe thinking about hard digital assets and property like bitcoin is more interesting to me;
Also, currently we are tracking the value of a bitcoin to the US dollar. Because it is the closest measure we got. But, the more logical idea is equating a bitcoin to a bitcoin.
One bitcoin equals one bitcoin.
So right now for example we are currently valuing a bitcoin to the US dollar, but my radical idea is what we should be doing instead is valuing the US dollar in respect to the bitcoin. 
Which means the price of a bitcoin is not packed to the US dollar, the US dollar is instead pegged to the price of a bitcoin.
For me, life is all about fun creativity and play. And also for me investing, speculation, bitcoin in the like is all fun and play!
Honestly at this point, there’s nothing really left I want to purchase or buy, besides maybe some weightlifting equipment, steel plates, or a new power squat rack. But besides this, there is nothing left in the physical realm that I really desire. The only desirable truly scarce asset and valuable asset, I desire is bitcoin.
I recently copped around a $50,000 profit, taking about $150,000 of fiat currency, purchasing some microstrategy stock, MSTR, taking my initial investment and growing it to $200,000. I then sold about $50,000 of the micro strategy stock, and then just bought more bitcoin with it.
So an interesting technique or thought is the easiest way to make money out of nothing is to just put it in the traditional stock market, sell the gains in fiat currency, take that fiat currency and purchase bitcoin while you can?
Assuming that wealth, true wealth is property, and assuming that bitcoin is the first and only property which is digital, and we all know that digital is superior to physical, and I think what is very very interesting is bitcoin crosses the chasm of the physical into the digital. Why? Because it takes real life analog power , proof of work, to convert analog energy and power and electricity into a single bitcoin.
What a lot of these fake environmentalist don’t understand is the only reason why the point has value is precisely because it takes so much energy intensive power to create! All these fake propaganda posters saying that bitcoin is bad for the planet, but you fool… Don’t you know that I think globally, air conditioning or the power for air-conditioning causes about 20% of the carbon emissions on the planet? And bitcoin might be .001%? I could also bet you that your virtual eating of almond nuts might cause more CO2 production than anything else.
Even another funny unorthodox theory; thought experiment, what if in fact producing pea protein plants, vegan protein powders, all these fake juices and sugars and almond nuts etc., caused 1000 times more worse carbon emissions for the planet than meat? If this were the case, would this change your anti-meat eating stance? Or would it not because you still invoke the moralistic aspect of it?
Human incentives, actions and the world
Writers with balls
Save yourself!
Capital movement
Just let the capital move and flow! Don’t stop the river
Don’t try to stop the ocean!
.
Winners take all.
Bitcoin is a clear winner, bitcoin shall take all.
Physics and particularity shall trump ideology
For example, to shoot digital photos might be 1 million times cheaper, practically free, than shooting film photography.
 for example, the only reason you would shoot film nowadays is more of an ideology. Yet once the money starts to get expensive practicality will always trump ideology. 
Purchasing power
Power
Things which caused you to lose your power?
.
Cash versus non-cash?
Kids are naturally happy!
.
Mises,,, holding money for the future is about uncertainty for the future?
Why would you hold money for suspended?
.
Starting a bitcoin backed business in 2024

Allocate investments
Risk tolerance
.
Become Less Optimal but More Reliable 
.
Multi training
Bitcoin is a clear winner, bitcoin shall take all.
Physics and particularity shall trump ideology
For example, to shoot digital photos might be 1 million times cheaper, practically free, than shooting film photography.
 for example, the only reason you would shoot film nowadays is more of an ideology. Yet once the money starts to get expensive practicality will always trump ideology. 
A big deal; October, 2024… Elon Musk uncovered the we robot Robo taxi cyber cab, cyber van future; 
The reason why I feel like this is an insanely big deal;
First, it looks fucking cool! Finally, the future actually looks like the future?
First, the great thing is watching the announcement, Elon looks like he is in great shape! He looks 1 billion times happier, cheerful optimistic, and healthy.
And also… Charismatic leader; I think we all need some sort of figurehead to follow. For example, the reason why Apple is a bad bet is there is no longer a face behind it! Tim Cook, kind of boring like granola. Jony Ive has left, so nobody is left.

It’s essentially when we think about Tesla, SpaceX, we think of Elon Musk. Having a face behind a concept is critical.
Same thing goes with Kanye West, and also now Michael Saylor with bitcoin and micro strategies; I am very insanely impressed… Microstrategy stock has gone up 14.4X, over the last four years, which has even outperformed bitcoin!
A random thought; I think the future will belong to those or whom or the entities in which own the most bitcoin. Assuming that bitcoin is digital property, digital capital, the Apex form of property in the universe, then what that then means is assuming that you want to build a dynasty which last forever, call us to maximize your property, digital property right now.
I think the tricky thing is when do you think about property money wealth power etc.… The question that people often ask is why?
Assuming that property is capital, in capital is more critical than money… In that most US dollars and fiat currency is just credit running on 20th century rails… What that means is we must think digital, we must think cyber.
Watching the new announcement has given me an insanely huge wave of motivation and optimism for the future! Essentially the future looks phenomenal; it looks super cool, and with the upcoming cyber car, cyber taxi, and cyber van… Finally… The future will look like the future!
And I also think that the insanely optimistic thing about cyber truck is that finally, a vehicle on the road which actually looks like the future!
I recall, in the year 2020, just a little bit before Covid hit, while in Providence Rhode Island I was meandering ,, it is the year 2020, technically we are living in the super future, why doesn’t the future look like the future? Why does the future look so lame?
So the reason why bitcoin and micro strategies; even though I am a huge Elon Musk and Tesla fan, laws of physics are really hard. I think Tesla still has about 1 million cyber trucks they need to produce, and on top of that, having to produce all these new cyber taxis and cyber vans, Will be very very difficult. I am very confident that Elon and the Tesla team will pull it off, realistically it might take 10 to 20 years, because the laws of physics are hard. For example, physical manufacturing, lithium ion battery refineries, supply chain etc.
I think what Elon is doing is very admirable because he is currently addressing their real life, physical and bodily challenges we are facing today.  for nobody who has never lived in Los Angeles, never being stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic from Pasadena to the west side of Los Angeles, you’ll never know what Carmageddon, traffic will look like.
And also, something I have discovered whenever I drive to East LA, Koreatown and the like — fucking sucks. All of that concrete, no green spaces and trees — during the summer, it felt about 10 to 20° hotter there, and the pollution is practically unbearable now. Gavin Newsom and California trying to get rid of tailpipe emissions is a phenomenally great idea.
For example, the only thing I hit on the planet is maybe cigarette smoke, and the smell of tailpipe emissions, which is fucking toxic, and immediately gives me a headache. I’m currently on a Crusade to tell people who are smoking on the street to not smoking — the text a lot of wits, guts, and quick thinking, because it is something that is insanely important, not only does it immediately give me a headache, but come on come on I have a kid!
What I hate about smokers, cigarette smokers is that there are smoking on the street, in public, indignantly like they are not harming nobody else. You fucking assholes. At least you have a filter to smoke your cancer sticks through, but whenever you exhale your secondhand smoke, that shit goes straight into my lungs and my brains!
First, my vision is to just make smoking cigarettes outdoors illegal. In any public space. If you want to hotbox your house or apartment or car with the windows closed, and give yourself lung cancer that is fine; but the rule is to not allow smoking on the street, public sidewalks etc.
I think technically the law is you’re not supposed to smoke within 25 feet of an eating establishment, but my personal vision at least for Culver City and beyond and on the promenade is that it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes, anywhere which is not outside of your house!
Essentially the thing that is insanely annoying to me is that nowadays, everyone is a bunch of pussies and cowards. For example, all of these fat losers with beards, buying guns in ammunition, they feel so tough watching their alternative right conservative media outlets, yet, they don’t even have the courage to speak up against people who smoke cigarettes?
People are often shocked by me because I actually have the audacity to stand up and speak up. Because everyone else is a coward.
I think the number one fear that people have, at least in Los Angeles and beyond is that if you somehow confront a smoker for being an asshole, they will somehow pull up a gun and shoot you?
First, maybe it might happen if you’re in South Central, or somewhere super hood, but very very unlikely if you’re in the west side or somewhere nice like Culver City? Especially since they’re a bunch of cameras around?
There is also a fear that when you tell people in LA while they are driving, to drive more carefully, they once again, they will somehow also pull up a gun and start shooting you up?
It’s tricky because it is true; there are some people with guns, conceal and carry guns, whether in their glove compartment, on their body etc. I suppose this is where trying to distinguish people is wise;
If somebody looks like they’re from the hood, or mentally unstable, better to just play it safe. But obviously if you see somebody who looks affluent, driving some sort of expensive car or whatever, then speak up! The funny irony is at least in America, and in Los Angeles, Rich successful people don’t really own guns. Guns are for poor people from the hood, or people who are from the right marginalized communities —
Well actually a lot of people don’t understand is a lot of right wing conservatives who own guns and live in the Midwest etc., or the south, or Idaho whatever… Actually tend to be poor, below working class? 
So for the most part, obviously there is crazy stuff in LA, but I would probably rate Los Angeles much safer than we think it is; honestly, you’re more likely to die getting hit by a car, or dying in a car accident from somebody texting while driving, rather than somebody shooting you with a gun. By a factor of 1 billion?
 so one of my great points of optimism is that the future of warfare will not be guns bullet ammunition, not even drones or bombs. I think the future of warfare will certainly be cyber, cyber warfare, economic based.
For example, it seems that economic embargo are effective, because when it comes out to it, technically everybody on the planet wants world peace because more peace means more prosperity, economically. In all of these rich all the guards want to drive their Rolls-Royce, Lamborghinis, McLarens and the like.
For example, even rocket man Kim Jung Un, is apparently a huge connoisseur of fine whiskeys, and I think he owns about 100 high-end Mercedes Maybach cars in his garage?
Anyways, once again, all of these “evil “world leaders, they don’t technically want war either because most people, what they see is luxury, comfort and ease. I cannot imagine any world leader right now, on the frontlines of a war, on some sort of war horse or chariot going head onto battle.
So a simple way to think about bitcoin is the world‘s ultimate defense system. People don’t really think about bitcoin in terms of cyber security, but it is. 
For example, the bitcoin network is defended by many exahash– which means that it is essentially unhackable. And unstoppable!
For example, let us say that you need to send an encrypted safe message to somebody. You could actually send it through the bitcoin network; and it is unstoppable! It cannot be censored.
And also… Assuming that money is freedom, and bitcoin is free; whether you like it or not, even if the other guy is a bad guy or whatever… You cannot stop the exchange, peer to peer of money, between two individuals!
A huge one; real estate. Let us say that I have a single-family home, and I want to sell it to you. Cindy‘s mom who is a real estate agent, I see it how tedious it is. All of these forms, regulations, and having to transfer money from the bank, is an insanely tedious and troublesome process. 
I am still shocked, also in the year 2024… Like a simple wire transfer via the swift network, like I’m sending my money to my mom in South Korea, why does it take so damn long, why do I have to go to a physical bank branch, I thought we lived in the future?
Even an insane annoyance, about a half a year ago when I just tried to wire myself $125,000 of money to buy bitcoin, I literally had to be on the phone with JP Morgan Chase, three or four times, being rerouted to some random people in the Philippines, having to see a bank teller in the flesh etc., Before having to verify my own damn money?
This is insane!
Very simple. Let us say that I have a single-family home and you want to buy my single family home. The easiest thing is that you just send bitcoin to me. The final settlement will just take a few hours, instead of a few weeks.
And also, proof of funds. If you show me your bitcoin wallet, I could immediately see how much money you have in real time. Even a funny thing was when we were signing the lease of our new apartment, when our landlord asked for our proof of income or whatever, I just sent him a screenshot of our bank account balance, proving that we could live in his property for about 10 years, just based off of our savings. 
Now, I walk around town with a grin, can enter a Lamborghini dealership or Ferrari dealership or Porsche dealership with a grin on my face, and touch and handle all the cars because technically I could afford all of them. And in fact, if anyone gives me shit, I could just show them that I could afford it, and they will shut up. 
I think my view on money is that it is defensive; it isn’t to go out and buy yourself bunch of Lamborghinis, but instead, to use it like a war chest, a cyber defense fund.
Truth be told, growing up in poverty, seeing my mom go bankrupt at least twice, I’ve never really ever been that concerned about money. But now, I truly have zero concerns.
This is where money is a via negativa thing; money should be a means to cut or reduce concerns or cares, by reducing your expenses to a bare minimum.
I would actually say the only good use of money is for productive assets (The Fiat Standard book)–  essentially buying something that can be productive!
For example, a new iPad Pro, weightlifting equipment for your home etc.
Cyber digital capitalism and production–
The problem is with a lot of things that you buy, like trophy assets, is that it doesn’t produce anything– unless I suppose like you’re the one guy on YouTube who does all these videos and vlogs with an orange Lamborghini parked behind you, which you are leasing, which helps you indirectly make money? But even so, I think the financial risk isn’t worth the potential upside. 
So the problem is with cars, they don’t produce anything. The only productive car I could possibly imagine is like a full self driving Tesla car, but even that isn’t quite productive; it just helps you mitigate pain. Unless maybe of course, you’re allowing your Tesla to do the full self driving, and you’re vlogging on a GoPro or something,  and producing things while your car is self driving?
But then, optimal strategy then is to purchase the cheapest Tesla possible, the most based level Tesla model three, while purchasing full self driving.
But then again taking a step further, even more intelligent strategy is to never be inside a car, to just walk, and take the metro!
In fact, a few days ago, before Seneca and I caught a stomach bug, the greatest joy was we were able to walk to the metro line, and take the metro directly to our favorite library! 100% walking, and only two metro stops away!
And this is really my vision of a glorious future city; tons of spaces, trees, parks, recreation centers, and zero to minimum time having to spend inside a car?
A big deal; October, 2024… Elon Musk uncovered the we robot Robo taxi cyber cab, cyber van future; 
The reason why I feel like this is an insanely big deal;
First, it looks fucking cool! Finally, the future actually looks like the future?
First, the great thing is watching the announcement, Elon looks like he is in great shape! He looks 1 billion times happier, cheerful optimistic, and healthy.
And also… Charismatic leader; I think we all need some sort of figurehead to follow. For example, the reason why Apple is a bad bet is there is no longer a face behind it! Tim Cook, kind of boring like granola. Jony Ive has left, so nobody is left.

It’s essentially when we think about Tesla, SpaceX, we think of Elon Musk. Having a face behind a concept is critical.
Same thing goes with Kanye West, and also now Michael Saylor with bitcoin and micro strategies; I am very insanely impressed… Microstrategy stock has gone up 14.4X, over the last four years, which has even outperformed bitcoin!
A random thought; I think the future will belong to those or whom or the entities in which own the most bitcoin. Assuming that bitcoin is digital property, digital capital, the Apex form of property in the universe, then what that then means is assuming that you want to build a dynasty which last forever, call us to maximize your property, digital property right now.
I think the tricky thing is when do you think about property money wealth power etc.… The question that people often ask is why?
Assuming that property is capital, in capital is more critical than money… In that most US dollars and fiat currency is just credit running on 20th century rails… What that means is we must think digital, we must think cyber.
Watching the new announcement has given me an insanely huge wave of motivation and optimism for the future! Essentially the future looks phenomenal; it looks super cool, and with the upcoming cyber car, cyber taxi, and cyber van… Finally… The future will look like the future!
And I also think that the insanely optimistic thing about cyber truck is that finally, a vehicle on the road which actually looks like the future!
I recall, in the year 2020, just a little bit before Covid hit, while in Providence Rhode Island I was meandering ,, it is the year 2020, technically we are living in the super future, why doesn’t the future look like the future? Why does the future look so lame?
So the reason why bitcoin and micro strategies; even though I am a huge Elon Musk and Tesla fan, laws of physics are really hard. I think Tesla still has about 1 million cyber trucks they need to produce, and on top of that, having to produce all these new cyber taxis and cyber vans, Will be very very difficult. I am very confident that Elon and the Tesla team will pull it off, realistically it might take 10 to 20 years, because the laws of physics are hard. For example, physical manufacturing, lithium ion battery refineries, supply chain etc.
I think what Elon is doing is very admirable because he is currently addressing their real life, physical and bodily challenges we are facing today.  for nobody who has never lived in Los Angeles, never being stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic from Pasadena to the west side of Los Angeles, you’ll never know what Carmageddon, traffic will look like.
And also, something I have discovered whenever I drive to East LA, Koreatown and the like — fucking sucks. All of that concrete, no green spaces and trees — during the summer, it felt about 10 to 20° hotter there, and the pollution is practically unbearable now. Gavin Newsom and California trying to get rid of tailpipe emissions is a phenomenally great idea.
For example, the only thing I hit on the planet is maybe cigarette smoke, and the smell of tailpipe emissions, which is fucking toxic, and immediately gives me a headache. I’m currently on a Crusade to tell people who are smoking on the street to not smoking — the text a lot of wits, guts, and quick thinking, because it is something that is insanely important, not only does it immediately give me a headache, but come on come on I have a kid!
What I hate about smokers, cigarette smokers is that there are smoking on the street, in public, indignantly like they are not harming nobody else. You fucking assholes. At least you have a filter to smoke your cancer sticks through, but whenever you exhale your secondhand smoke, that shit goes straight into my lungs and my brains!
First, my vision is to just make smoking cigarettes outdoors illegal. In any public space. If you want to hotbox your house or apartment or car with the windows closed, and give yourself lung cancer that is fine; but the rule is to not allow smoking on the street, public sidewalks etc.
I think technically the law is you’re not supposed to smoke within 25 feet of an eating establishment, but my personal vision at least for Culver City and beyond and on the promenade is that it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes, anywhere which is not outside of your house!
Essentially the thing that is insanely annoying to me is that nowadays, everyone is a bunch of pussies and cowards. For example, all of these fat losers with beards, buying guns in ammunition, they feel so tough watching their alternative right conservative media outlets, yet, they don’t even have the courage to speak up against people who smoke cigarettes?
People are often shocked by me because I actually have the audacity to stand up and speak up. Because everyone else is a coward.
I think the number one fear that people have, at least in Los Angeles and beyond is that if you somehow confront a smoker for being an asshole, they will somehow pull up a gun and shoot you?
First, maybe it might happen if you’re in South Central, or somewhere super hood, but very very unlikely if you’re in the west side or somewhere nice like Culver City? Especially since they’re a bunch of cameras around?
There is also a fear that when you tell people in LA while they are driving, to drive more carefully, they once again, they will somehow also pull up a gun and start shooting you up?
It’s tricky because it is true; there are some people with guns, conceal and carry guns, whether in their glove compartment, on their body etc. I suppose this is where trying to distinguish people is wise;
If somebody looks like they’re from the hood, or mentally unstable, better to just play it safe. But obviously if you see somebody who looks affluent, driving some sort of expensive car or whatever, then speak up! The funny irony is at least in America, and in Los Angeles, Rich successful people don’t really own guns. Guns are for poor people from the hood, or people who are from the right marginalized communities —
Well actually a lot of people don’t understand is a lot of right wing conservatives who own guns and live in the Midwest etc., or the south, or Idaho whatever… Actually tend to be poor, below working class? 
So for the most part, obviously there is crazy stuff in LA, but I would probably rate Los Angeles much safer than we think it is; honestly, you’re more likely to die getting hit by a car, or dying in a car accident from somebody texting while driving, rather than somebody shooting you with a gun. By a factor of 1 billion?
Hope, vitality, health, optimism!
The new current Elon looks great!
Super fucking cool!
Cybercab
Fun exciting future
Cars are only used 10 hours a week
With autonomy you get your time back!
Elevator operator
Solver insanely big societal problems?
Cheaper
Safer because it is superhuman
Be a glorious future!
Doesn’t get tired or text
,
We prefer to see real human beings, charismatic leaders behind the thing?
.
AI & vision –> vision is the future?
What cities will look like in the future?
This is the world we want
Parking lot out of park lot
5-10 cents a mile
The future should look like the future!
Cyber optimism
.
What humans can apply from AI
Anyone can own?
The biggest product of all time
.
Age of abundance! ***–> cost of goods and services so nominal
Mind is fucking blown!
Theories:
First, optimism is actually linked to physiological health. If you have insanely robust superb health, it to 12 hours a night, no elements, no pains, 5% body fat and full bodily vigor— there is almost no reason to not be optimistic! Like a child!
What childless people do not understand is that children are naturally optimistic! My thought is somewhere along the way, kids were 12 education or even college post college… Society turns them dark morose and pessimistic?
With your arms, traps, shoulders, wing span?
More green!
For example, in four years, Tesla was able to grow about 8.5 times, insanely impressive, and micro strategy 14.4 X times!
I think in terms of the real world, Elon Musk is the GOAT. What I really appreciate about Elon is he is solving real world issues which is currently plaguing us, right now, today!
Ultimately, think cyber not physical.
For example, now that essentially Covid is over, there is really no good reason why you need to physically live in a certain somewhere or a certain location, forever, for the rest of your life. For example, from 2017 to 2019, Cindy and I were very very happy globetrotting all around the planet, Kyoto to Tokyo to Osaka, Vietnam Saigon And Hanoi, Mexico City, Prague Berlin etc.
I think the reason why long-term, micro strategy and bitcoin will perform everything is because when you’re no longer stuck in the physical realm, your gains can be infinite.
For example, on my blog on this block, I could in theory publish 1 million blog posts for affectively the cost of zero. Maybe it will cost me less than a nickel. But even if I want to publish one soft cover book, it might cost me about $10 USD, which is 100000x more than publishing something digitally.
For example, the last four years,
Over the past four years, both Tesla and MicroStrategy have demonstrated remarkable, albeit very different, stock performance due to their distinct strategies and focus.
1. Tesla: From 2020 to 2024, Tesla’s stock has surged by approximately 751.8% overall. This reflects a consistent and substantial growth trajectory driven by its dominance in the electric vehicle industry, significant advancements in technology, and expanding global market reach .
2. MicroStrategy: Over the same period, MicroStrategy’s stock has skyrocketed by about 1,339%, largely fueled by its aggressive investment in Bitcoin. Starting in 2020, CEO Michael Saylor shifted the company’s strategy to adopt Bitcoin as a primary treasury reserve asset, which significantly amplified the stock’s growth as Bitcoin’s value rose. This bold move has resulted in MicroStrategy outperforming not only many other tech stocks but also the broader market indices .
To put this in relative terms, Tesla’s 751.8% gain translates to approximately 8.5 times its initial value (assuming an initial value of 1X), while MicroStrategy’s 1,339% gain corresponds to around 14.4 times its initial value over the past four years. These growth multiples underscore Tesla’s strength in the EV market and MicroStrategy’s leveraged position on Bitcoin’s appreciation.
Cybercab
Fun exciting future
Cars are only used 10 hours a week
With autonomy you get your time back!
Elevator operator
Solver insanely big societal problems?
Cheaper
Safer because it is superhuman
Be a glorious future!
Doesn’t get tired or text
,
We prefer to see real human beings, charismatic leaders behind the thing?
.
AI & vision –> vision is the future?
What cities will look like in the future?
This is the world we want
Parking lot out of park lot
5-10 cents a mile
The future should look like the future!
Cyber optimism
.
What humans can apply from AI
Anyone can own?
The biggest product of all time
.
Age of abundance! ***–> cost of goods and services so nominal
Mind is fucking blown!
Sell optimism
We, Robot Tesla announcement— GO ELON!
Super fucking cool!
Cybercab
Fun exciting future
Cars are only used 10 hours a week
With autonomy you get your time back!
Elevator operator
Solver insanely big societal problems?
Cheaper
Safer because it is superhuman
Be a glorious future!
Doesn’t get tired or text
,
We prefer to see real human beings, charismatic leaders behind the thing?
.
AI & vision –> vision is the future?
What cities will look like in the future?
This is the world we want
Parking lot out of park lot
5-10 cents a mile
The future should look like the future!
Cyber optimism
.
What humans can apply from AI
Anyone can own?
The biggest product of all time
.
Age of abundance! ***–> cost of goods and services so nominal
Mind is fucking blown!
Also future thought:
Soon, ChatGPT and searchgpt and also Google will be able to index images?
Big idea:
Considering that ChatGPT and searchgpt is indexing everything on the open internet and web ,,, this makes it a trillion times more critical to post your things online directly from your own website and blog which can be indexed by bots!
Think search web crawler bots
Instagram as a slave platform, your own website blog as the master, lord platform!
Especially now with ChatGPT and searchgpt … there is literally 0 future for closed platforms like Instagram, Facebook etc.
Big idea:
Build your photo capital on your own platform (self hosted website, blog, WordPress.org)— *NOT* to build it on a sinking ship (Instagram, social media!)
Photo slavery or photo mastery?
Photo capitalism ;
How to make value out of “nothingâ€â€” through our photos?
Investing & trading? Economic capital leverage!
Make money in the traditional markets, sell the profit, buy Bitcoin! ***
Steel plates!
Think the free markets
“Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All†is a book by Michael Shellenberger, published in 2020. In this provocative work, Shellenberger challenges the prevailing narratives surrounding environmental issues, arguing that much of the alarmism associated with topics like climate change, pollution, and resource depletion is either exaggerated or misrepresented. He contends that such fear-based approaches can hinder effective solutions and lead to misguided policies.
Key Themes and Arguments
1. Critique of Alarmism:
• Shellenberger asserts that persistent doom-and-gloom predictions can desensitize the public, making it harder to mobilize meaningful action.
• He argues that excessive focus on catastrophic scenarios may overshadow real progress and achievable goals.
2. Progress in Environmental Protection:
• The book highlights significant advancements in areas such as renewable energy, conservation, and public health.
• Shellenberger points out that many environmental indicators, like air and water quality, have improved over the past decades.
3. Policy Recommendations:
• Advocates for pragmatic, evidence-based policies rather than radical or ideologically driven solutions.
• Emphasizes the importance of innovation, technological advancements, and economic incentives in addressing environmental challenges.
4. Debunking Common Myths:
• Challenges misconceptions about climate change severity, biodiversity loss, and other environmental issues.
• Uses data and case studies to argue that some environmental threats are being effectively managed or are less dire than commonly portrayed.
5. Human Progress and Optimism:
• Promotes a more optimistic view of humanity’s ability to solve environmental problems through ingenuity and cooperation.
• Encourages a balanced perspective that acknowledges both challenges and successes.
Reception and Impact
“Apocalypse Never†has sparked significant debate within environmental and policy circles. Supporters appreciate Shellenberger’s call for a more balanced and optimistic approach, arguing that it can lead to more effective and sustainable solutions. They believe the book provides a necessary counterbalance to what they see as overly pessimistic environmental rhetoric.
Critics, however, contend that Shellenberger downplays the severity of certain environmental issues and that his arguments may undermine urgent calls for action. Some environmentalists feel that his perspective could lead to complacency in addressing critical challenges like climate change.
Conclusion
“Apocalypse Never†offers a contrarian viewpoint that challenges mainstream environmental discourse. Whether you agree with Shellenberger’s assessments or not, the book serves as a catalyst for important discussions about how best to address environmental challenges in a balanced and effective manner. If you’re interested in environmental policy debates and seeking perspectives that question conventional wisdom, this book provides a thought-provoking read.
Additional Information:
• Author: Michael Shellenberger is an environmental policy writer and activist known for his advocacy of nuclear energy as a solution to climate change.
• Publisher: Henry Holt and Co.
• ISBN: 978-1250313436
Related Works:
• Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility by Michael Shellenberger
• The Death of Environmentalism by Michael Shellenberger
If you have specific questions about the book or its content, feel free to ask!
Climategate refers to a controversy that emerged in November 2009 when a large number of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the United Kingdom were hacked and subsequently leaked to the public. The term “Climategate†combines “climate†with “Watergate,†suggesting a major scandal.
Key Events
1. The Leak: In November 2009, thousands of emails and other documents from CRU were made public by the website WikiLeaks. The timing coincided with the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, heightening tensions around the issue of climate change.
2. Content of the Emails: The leaked communications included discussions among climate scientists about data management, peer review processes, and responses to critics of their work. Critics alleged that the emails showed evidence of manipulating data and suppressing dissenting viewpoints to promote the narrative of human-induced climate change.
3. Public and Political Reaction: The leak intensified skepticism about climate science, especially among climate change skeptics and certain political figures. It fueled debates about the integrity of climate research and the transparency of scientific processes.
Investigations and Outcomes
Multiple independent investigations were conducted to assess the validity of the allegations arising from Climategate:
1. The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee (UK): Released a report in October 2010, which largely vindicated the scientists involved. The committee criticized some administrative and managerial aspects of CRU but found no evidence of scientific malpractice.
2. Pennsylvania State University Investigation: In the United States, this investigation cleared the scientists of wrongdoing, though it did identify minor errors in data handling that did not affect the overall conclusions about climate change.
3. Independent Climate Change Email Review: Conducted by the University of East Anglia and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, this review confirmed that the scientists involved had not acted improperly.
Impact on Climate Science and Public Perception
• Short-Term Effects: Climategate temporarily eroded public trust in climate science, providing ammunition for those skeptical of climate change. It sparked widespread media coverage and debate over the transparency and objectivity of climate research.
• Long-Term Effects: Despite the initial backlash, subsequent reports and continued scientific research have reinforced the consensus on human-induced climate change. Climategate is now often cited as an example of how misinformation and misrepresentation can be used to challenge scientific findings, even when investigations clear the scientists of wrongdoing.
Lessons Learned
Climategate highlighted the importance of:
• Data Transparency: Ensuring that data and methodologies are openly accessible to foster trust and allow independent verification.
• Communication: Scientists need to effectively communicate their findings and address public concerns to maintain credibility.
• Cybersecurity: Protecting sensitive information from unauthorized access is crucial, especially in an era where digital data is integral to scientific research.
Conclusion
While Climategate was initially perceived by some as undermining the credibility of climate science, subsequent investigations have upheld the integrity of the scientists involved and reinforced the validity of the broader consensus on climate change. The incident underscores the challenges faced by the scientific community in maintaining transparency and public trust in the face of politicized debates and information breaches.
Certainly, here are some of the most frequently cited quotes from the Climategate emails, along with their context and clarifications:
1. “Hide the declineâ€
• Context: This phrase appeared in an email discussing the discrepancy between tree ring data and temperature measurements in the late 20th century.
• Clarification: “The decline†refers to a known issue where certain proxy data (like tree rings) diverged from actual temperature measurements. Scientists were discussing how to present this information accurately in graphs, not hiding data.
2. “Trickâ€
• Context: The term was used in reference to graphically representing data.
• Clarification: The phrase “trick†was used informally to describe a method of presenting complex data clearly. It was not intended to imply deception.
3. “Use the word ‘principal component’â€
• Context: Scientists were discussing statistical methods to analyze climate data.
• Clarification: This was a technical discussion about data analysis techniques, not related to misleading the public.
4. “Brian’s strange trickâ€
• Context: Referring to a colleague’s method for data analysis.
• Clarification: Again, “trick†was used in the sense of a technique or method, not deceit.
5. “We have to get the papers accepted before Copenhagenâ€
• Context: Planning the publication of research findings before an important climate conference.
• Clarification: This reflects the urgency to share scientific findings timely and does not indicate any manipulation of data.
Important Notes:
• Investigations: Multiple independent investigations concluded that there was no evidence of data manipulation or scientific misconduct. The language used in the emails was often informal and taken out of context.
• Scientific Consensus: The overarching scientific consensus on climate change remains robust, supported by extensive research and data beyond the scope of these emails.
• Transparency: The incident highlighted the need for clearer communication in scientific discourse, especially when dealing with complex and sensitive topics like climate change.
If you have specific quotes you’d like more information on or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
xx
Here are a few of the commonly cited quotes from the Climategate emails, along with some context:
1. “Hide the declineâ€
• Quote: In an email from Phil Jones to other scientists, he mentioned using a “trick†to “hide the decline.â€
• Context: This was one of the most controversial phrases. The phrase refers to a specific statistical technique used in a graph to combine tree ring data and temperature data. Some tree ring data after 1960 showed a divergence from actual recorded temperatures (a well-known phenomenon in climate science called the “divergence problemâ€), and the term “hide the decline†was referring to the removal of that post-1960 tree ring data in favor of actual temperature records to present a more accurate temperature trend. The use of the word “trick†here is commonly used in scientific contexts to describe a clever technique or method, rather than deception.
2. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trickâ€
• Quote: Phil Jones wrote, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.â€
• Context: This email was referring to a method used by climate scientist Michael Mann, who had published a technique in Nature to combine tree ring proxy data with actual temperature records. The word “trick†again referred to a method for improving the accuracy of a graph, not to hide data or manipulate findings. “Hide the decline†specifically referred to the post-1960 period where tree ring data was less reliable, so they incorporated actual temperature data to better reflect reality.
3. “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.â€
• Quote: Kevin Trenberth wrote, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.â€
• Context: This was part of an email from Kevin Trenberth discussing gaps in understanding short-term climate variability. He was acknowledging a scientific challenge in explaining short-term fluctuations in warming, not denying global warming. Trenberth later clarified that he was referring to limitations in the observational data and the need for improved climate models to understand short-term variability in climate patterns.
4. “We’ll keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!â€
• Quote: Phil Jones wrote, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!â€
• Context: In this email, Jones was frustrated with papers he saw as flawed or misrepresenting climate science. This quote was cited by critics as evidence of an attempt to stifle dissenting views in climate science. However, Jones and other scientists pointed out that they were discussing ensuring that credible, peer-reviewed research be included in IPCC reports and had no control over journal editorial decisions. This comment was viewed as an example of frustration within the scientific community but didn’t constitute actual censorship.
5. “This was the moment when the temperature records from the stations in China became really dubious.â€
• Quote: In another email, Jones expressed concerns about the quality of temperature data from China.
• Context: This email reflects internal concerns among scientists about data quality, something common in scientific research. It wasn’t evidence of falsifying or adjusting data, but rather a discussion of where data might be less reliable and where scientists needed to be cautious about drawing conclusions.
Each of these quotes, when taken out of context, seemed to suggest manipulation or unethical behavior. However, multiple investigations found that while the language was sometimes informal or careless, the emails did not reveal evidence of systematic fraud or misconduct. The quotes illustrate the complexities and challenges of climate science but do not undermine the broader consensus on climate change.
xxx
It seems like you’re referring to the “Climategate†incident of 2009, not directly related to An Inconvenient Truth, the 2006 climate change documentary by Al Gore. This incident involved a set of emails that were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom.
Here’s a brief overview of what happened with Climategate:
What was “Climategate�
In November 2009, hackers obtained over a thousand emails and documents from the CRU servers. These emails were between climate scientists and covered a range of topics, including research methods, data interpretation, and discussions on how to present findings in the context of climate change. The timing of the leak was significant, as it occurred shortly before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
Why were the emails controversial?
Certain quotes from these emails were taken out of context and used by climate change skeptics to suggest that scientists were manipulating data to make climate change appear more severe than it actually was. Key phrases, such as “hide the decline†and “trick,†were often cited as evidence of supposed data tampering. However, investigations later clarified that these phrases were scientific jargon, and the emails, though sometimes poorly worded, did not indicate fraudulent practices.
Investigations and Findings
Multiple independent investigations, including those by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, examined the emails. These investigations largely cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing, concluding that while some of the emails revealed frustration and poor communication, they did not provide evidence of scientific misconduct or data manipulation. The investigations confirmed that the consensus on climate change science was still robust and valid.
Connection to An Inconvenient Truth
While the Climategate emails became a tool for climate change skeptics to criticize the scientific consensus on climate change, there is no direct connection between the emails and An Inconvenient Truth. The documentary had already been out for three years when the emails were leaked. The controversy, however, did provide fuel for critics of climate action, who used it to question the validity of the climate science that underpinned much of the messaging in the documentary.
The Climategate incident underscored the importance of transparency in scientific communication and the risks of taking scientific jargon out of context.
Think human flourishing
Here are some notable quotes from Alex Epstein on environmentalism, energy policy, and fossil fuels:
On Fossil Fuels and Human Progress
1. “If you look at the big picture, human flourishing has improved immensely by having more fossil fuels, not less.â€
• Epstein emphasizes the idea that fossil fuels have been integral to human development, helping to increase life expectancy, improve health, and reduce poverty.
2. “The popular narrative says our climate impact is overwhelmingly negative. I believe it is overwhelmingly positive.â€
• He argues that while fossil fuels have environmental impacts, they also enable us to mitigate natural climate risks and improve living standards.
3. “Fossil fuels make the world a far better place. Not just a more livable place, but a far better place.â€
• Epstein asserts that fossil fuels have been key to enhancing human life by powering essential services and infrastructure that improve overall well-being.
On Environmentalism and Economic Development
4. “The environmental movement tends to ignore the benefits of affordable, reliable energy. The cost of these resources is too high to give up.â€
• He critiques environmentalism for what he sees as a failure to acknowledge the economic importance of fossil fuels and their role in modern civilization.
5. “Environmentalism has increasingly taken on an anti-humanist perspective that treats human impact on nature as inherently bad, no matter the benefit to human life.â€
• Epstein often criticizes mainstream environmentalism as prioritizing nature over human advancement, suggesting that this mindset can harm economic development and quality of life.
6. “We need to rethink the idea that everything that impacts the environment is bad, especially when it’s done to improve the human condition.â€
• This quote reflects his belief that environmental impacts should be evaluated in terms of their effects on human welfare, not solely on their effects on ecosystems.
On Energy Policy and Renewable Energy
7. “If we want a thriving economy and a healthy environment, we need to be pro-energy and pro-human, which means embracing all sources of energy, including fossil fuels.â€
• He calls for an inclusive approach to energy policy, one that values fossil fuels alongside other energy sources, to ensure reliable and affordable energy access.
8. “The real goal should not be to eliminate fossil fuels but to develop the best solutions that allow us to continue to advance and enjoy modern life.â€
• Epstein argues for a pragmatic approach to energy policy, advocating for innovation rather than strict regulations and fossil fuel elimination.
9. “There’s no energy source that matches the density, reliability, and affordability of fossil fuels right now, especially for developing countries.â€
• He suggests that fossil fuels are crucial for energy access in developing nations, where renewable alternatives may not be as feasible or affordable.
On Climate Change and Adaptation
10. “I believe we should be focused on climate mastery, not climate prevention. We should seek to adapt to and overcome climate challenges through innovation.â€
• Epstein emphasizes adaptation and technological advancement over drastic carbon reduction measures, suggesting that humans can use energy and innovation to address climate risks.
11. “Focusing on CO2 reduction as the end goal, rather than human flourishing, can lead to policies that harm human beings instead of helping them.â€
• This quote reflects his skepticism toward CO2 reduction policies, which he argues may have unintended negative consequences on human progress and well-being.
These quotes illustrate Epstein’s perspective on the importance of fossil fuels, his critique of mainstream environmentalism, and his advocacy for policies that prioritize human welfare and economic growth over strict environmental restrictions.
…
Alex Epstein is a prominent and often controversial figure in the discourse surrounding environmentalism and energy policy. As the founder and president of the Center for Industrial Progress, Epstein advocates strongly in favor of fossil fuel development and challenges many of the prevailing narratives within mainstream environmentalism. Here’s an overview of his views and contributions to the topic:
Key Arguments and Perspectives
1. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:
• Human Flourishing: In his book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,†Epstein argues that fossil fuels have been a driving force behind human progress, lifting billions out of poverty, improving health outcomes, and enabling technological advancements.
• Energy as a Moral Imperative: He posits that access to affordable and abundant energy is a fundamental moral issue, as it directly impacts quality of life, economic opportunity, and societal well-being.
2. Critique of Mainstream Environmentalism:
• Anti-Human Bias: Epstein contends that much of environmentalism is inherently anti-human, prioritizing environmental protection over human needs and economic development.
• Underestimation of Human Ingenuity: He believes that critics of fossil fuels often underestimate humanity’s ability to innovate and find solutions to environmental challenges without sacrificing energy abundance.
3. Economic and Technological Optimism:
• Market Solutions: Epstein advocates for free-market approaches to address environmental issues, arguing that technological advancements and economic incentives are more effective than regulatory interventions.
• Innovation Over Regulation: He emphasizes the role of innovation in developing cleaner and more efficient energy technologies, suggesting that market-driven progress can mitigate environmental impacts without hindering economic growth.
4. Criticism of Renewable Energy Dependence:
• Reliability and Scalability: Epstein is skeptical about the feasibility of fully transitioning to renewable energy sources like wind and solar, citing concerns about their reliability, scalability, and the current technological limitations.
• Energy Density and Storage: He points out challenges related to the energy density of renewables and the difficulties in storing and distributing energy at the scale required to meet global demands.
Reception and Criticism
Alex Epstein’s views have sparked significant debate:
• Supporters appreciate his emphasis on human well-being and economic development, arguing that his perspectives offer a necessary counterbalance to what they perceive as alarmist environmentalism.
• Critics argue that Epstein downplays the environmental and climatic risks associated with continued fossil fuel use. They contend that his focus on economic and technological optimism may overlook or underestimate the severity of environmental degradation and climate change impacts.
Influence and Impact
Epstein has influenced discussions on energy policy by:
• Challenging Conventional Narratives: By presenting a robust defense of fossil fuels, he encourages policymakers and the public to re-examine assumptions about energy, development, and environmental stewardship.
• Shaping Policy Debates: His arguments have been cited in policy debates, particularly among those advocating for less regulation on fossil fuel industries and greater investment in energy innovation.
Conclusion
Alex Epstein presents a contrarian viewpoint within the environmental discourse, emphasizing the benefits of fossil fuels and advocating for policies that prioritize human progress and economic growth. Whether one agrees with his positions or not, his contributions provoke important discussions about the balance between energy needs, environmental protection, and societal advancement.
For a more comprehensive understanding of Epstein’s views, consider exploring his writings, such as “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,†and reviewing critiques from environmental scholars and policymakers.
…
Alex Epstein is a writer and commentator known for his critical views on mainstream environmentalism. He argues that the current environmental movement often prioritizes nature over human well-being and that this approach can be harmful to human progress, especially when it comes to energy and economic development. Epstein is the author of books like The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future, where he makes the case that fossil fuels, despite their environmental impacts, have been essential for human flourishing and will continue to be crucial for future progress.
Key Points in Epstein’s Critique of Environmentalism
1. Human Flourishing as the Priority: Epstein believes that the environmental movement frequently promotes policies that he argues prioritize the environment over human needs. He asserts that humans should be empowered to alter nature to improve human lives and that technologies such as fossil fuels play a crucial role in enhancing human well-being.
2. Benefits of Fossil Fuels: Epstein often emphasizes the positive impacts of fossil fuels, arguing that they have been fundamental in improving living standards, increasing life expectancy, and reducing poverty globally. He believes that renewable energy sources like wind and solar are not yet capable of providing the reliable, affordable energy that fossil fuels can deliver.
3. Challenging the Environmental Narrative: He argues that mainstream environmentalism can exaggerate the risks of fossil fuels and downplay their benefits. Epstein contends that, while climate change is a real issue, the solutions often proposed by environmental groups could lead to more harm by hindering access to affordable energy, especially in developing countries.
4. Energy Abundance and Innovation: Epstein advocates for an energy policy that fosters abundance and innovation. He claims that limiting fossil fuel use in favor of current renewable technologies may stifle progress and innovation. He promotes the idea that humans have the ingenuity to adapt to and mitigate environmental challenges through technological advancement.
5. Critique of “Green†Policies: Epstein is critical of policies that he views as anti-development, such as strict emissions regulations and rapid transitions away from fossil fuels. He argues that these policies can harm economic growth, limit energy access, and have unintended consequences, particularly for low-income communities.
Controversies and Criticisms
Epstein’s views are highly controversial and have been criticized by environmentalists, scientists, and advocates for renewable energy. His opponents argue that he downplays the serious risks of climate change, including extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and ecological damage. They also claim that his work underestimates the potential of renewable energy technologies and overlooks the environmental and health costs associated with fossil fuel production and consumption.
Despite these criticisms, Epstein’s work has resonated with audiences who are skeptical of rapid energy transitions and favor a more gradual approach. His views have sparked debates on the balance between environmental preservation and human development, and he remains a vocal figure in discussions about the future of energy policy.
Frederick Stare made various public statements and authored writings that seemed to align with the interests of Coca-Cola and the broader sugar industry. Here are a few examples of statements attributed to him, particularly those related to sugary drinks:
1. On Sugar in the Diet:
• Stare often stated that sugar could be part of a balanced diet, suggesting that it wasn’t inherently harmful in moderate amounts. He was known to say things like, “A little sugar is not going to kill you,†emphasizing that the real problem was excessive calorie intake overall rather than sugar specifically.
2. Defending Soft Drinks:
• In public statements, Stare sometimes defended soft drinks, including Coca-Cola, as a harmless source of calories when consumed in moderation. He is reported to have said that soft drinks could be considered part of a balanced diet and that they were “not a bad snack†because they provide energy, which aligns with the interests of Coca-Cola as a producer of sugary beverages.
3. On Soft Drinks and Health Risks:
• Stare downplayed the link between sugar and health issues such as heart disease and obesity. He sometimes argued that other factors, like fat intake, were more significant contributors to these health problems. This focus shifted attention away from sugar as a primary culprit, which aligned with Coca-Cola’s interests in defending their products.
4. General Statements on Nutrition:
• Stare also made statements suggesting that focusing on single ingredients, like sugar, was not as important as looking at the diet as a whole. This was a common stance in his work, with him arguing that a variety of foods, including sugary ones, could be consumed as part of a balanced diet.
Notable Quotes Attributed to Stare on Sugary Drinks:
• “Soft drinks are useful as an energy source, especially when people don’t get enough calories otherwise.â€
• “I see nothing wrong with drinking Coca-Cola in moderation, as part of a balanced diet.â€
Stare’s position on Coca-Cola and similar sugary beverages was often to advocate moderation rather than elimination, emphasizing a perspective that didn’t single out sugar as uniquely problematic compared to other sources of calories. This stance aligns with the views he promoted through his research and public statements, which were sometimes funded or supported by industry sources.
The upside of buying and purchasing things with your own money, the pride in what you decide to buy?
Dr. Frederick Stare, a prominent nutritionist and founder of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, has been criticized for his ties to the sugar industry and other food corporations. Throughout his career, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, he received funding from sugar and food industry groups, which influenced some of his research and public statements on the role of sugar in health.
Here are some key points about his lobbying and industry ties:
Industry Funding and Influence
• Funding from Sugar Interests: Stare and his department received funding from the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), now known as the Sugar Association, as well as other food and beverage corporations. These organizations had a vested interest in shaping public perceptions of sugar’s health effects, particularly as evidence linking sugar to heart disease and other health issues began to emerge.
• Influence on Research and Publications: In 1967, Stare, along with other researchers, co-authored a review published in the New England Journal of Medicine that minimized the link between sugar consumption and heart disease. This review, funded by the SRF, instead emphasized dietary fats as the primary concern, effectively diverting attention from sugar’s potential role in heart disease and other metabolic disorders.
Public Statements and Advocacy
• Downplaying Sugar’s Health Risks: Stare publicly stated that sugar was not harmful when consumed in moderation, and he often dismissed studies that highlighted potential risks associated with high sugar intake. For example, he promoted the idea that a glass of Coca-Cola was an acceptable part of a daily diet and argued that the sugar in sodas did not contribute significantly to obesity or other health issues.
• Criticism of Counter-Narratives: Stare was vocal in his opposition to researchers and public health advocates who spoke out against sugar. He challenged the work of scientists like John Yudkin, who was an early proponent of the idea that sugar, not fat, played a significant role in heart disease. By discrediting such voices, Stare helped maintain the sugar industry’s influence over nutrition discourse.
Legacy and Impact
• Long-term Health Implications: The efforts to shift blame away from sugar contributed to decades of dietary guidelines and public beliefs that emphasized reducing fat intake over sugar. This influenced food industry practices, such as replacing fats with sugars and refined carbohydrates in low-fat processed foods, a trend that some health experts argue has contributed to rising obesity and metabolic disease rates.
• Reevaluation of Industry Influence in Nutrition: Stare’s relationship with the sugar industry has become a notable example of how industry funding can shape scientific research and public health policies. His legacy is now frequently cited in discussions about conflicts of interest and the need for transparency in nutrition research.
Dr. Frederick Stare’s involvement with the sugar industry exemplifies the broader challenges of industry-funded research and its potential impact on public health policies. His work has led to increased scrutiny on how corporate interests may shape scientific inquiry and public health recommendations.
Excessive sugar consumption is increasingly recognized as a significant contributor to metabolic diseases, which in turn elevate the risk of cardiovascular conditions such as heart disease, heart attacks, and atherosclerosis (clogged arteries). The pathways connecting high sugar intake and metabolic dysfunction to heart-related ailments are multifaceted, involving a combination of biochemical, physiological, and inflammatory processes. Below is a comprehensive overview of these pathways:
1. Excessive Sugar Consumption and Metabolic Dysfunction
a. Insulin Resistance
• Mechanism: High intake of simple sugars, particularly fructose, leads to elevated blood glucose levels. The pancreas responds by secreting more insulin to facilitate glucose uptake by cells. Chronic overconsumption can desensitize insulin receptors, resulting in insulin resistance.
• Consequences: Insulin resistance is a hallmark of metabolic syndrome and a precursor to type 2 diabetes. It disrupts normal metabolic processes, leading to elevated blood glucose and insulin levels.
b. Hyperglycemia and Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs)
• Mechanism: Persistent high blood glucose (hyperglycemia) facilitates the non-enzymatic glycation of proteins and lipids, forming AGEs.
• Consequences: AGEs contribute to vascular damage by promoting inflammation, oxidative stress, and cross-linking of collagen in blood vessel walls, making them stiff and less elastic.
c. Dyslipidemia
• Mechanism: Excessive sugar intake, especially fructose, is metabolized in the liver, leading to increased synthesis of triglycerides and very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL). High insulin levels inhibit lipoprotein lipase, reducing the clearance of triglycerides from the bloodstream.
• Consequences: Elevated triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, along with decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, characterize dyslipidemia, a risk factor for atherosclerosis.
d. Obesity and Adipose Tissue Dysfunction
• Mechanism: High-calorie diets rich in sugars contribute to excessive fat accumulation. Adipose tissue becomes hypertrophic and can secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines.
• Consequences: Obesity, particularly visceral adiposity, is linked to increased inflammation, insulin resistance, and altered lipid metabolism, all of which are risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
2. From Metabolic Dysfunction to Cardiovascular Disease
a. Chronic Inflammation
• Mechanism: Metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance are associated with elevated levels of inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukins (e.g., IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α).
• Consequences: Chronic inflammation contributes to endothelial dysfunction, promotes the formation of atherosclerotic plaques, and destabilizes existing plaques, increasing the risk of rupture and thrombosis (blood clots).
b. Endothelial Dysfunction
• Mechanism: High glucose levels and AGEs impair endothelial cells lining the blood vessels, reducing the availability of nitric oxide (NO), a vasodilator.
• Consequences: Reduced NO leads to vasoconstriction, increased vascular resistance, and higher blood pressure, all of which strain the heart and contribute to hypertension-related heart disease.
c. Atherosclerosis (Clogged Arteries)
• Mechanism: Dyslipidemia leads to the accumulation of LDL cholesterol in the arterial walls. Oxidized LDL is taken up by macrophages, forming foam cells and contributing to plaque formation.
• Consequences: Progressive buildup of atherosclerotic plaques narrows and hardens arteries, restricting blood flow. Plaque rupture can trigger clot formation, potentially leading to heart attacks or strokes.
d. Hypertension (High Blood Pressure)
• Mechanism: Insulin resistance and sympathetic nervous system activation can increase blood pressure. Additionally, renal sodium retention due to insulin effects elevates blood volume and pressure.
• Consequences: Hypertension damages blood vessels, accelerates atherosclerosis, and increases the workload on the heart, leading to left ventricular hypertrophy and heart failure.
e. Oxidative Stress
• Mechanism: High glucose levels and dyslipidemia increase the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Oxidative stress damages cellular components, including lipids, proteins, and DNA.
• Consequences: Oxidative damage exacerbates endothelial dysfunction, promotes inflammation, and accelerates atherosclerosis.
3. Direct Impact on the Heart
a. Cardiac Remodeling
• Mechanism: Chronic high blood pressure and insulin resistance lead to structural changes in the heart muscle, including hypertrophy (thickening) and fibrosis.
• Consequences: These changes impair the heart’s ability to contract and relax efficiently, increasing the risk of heart failure and arrhythmias.
b. Impaired Myocardial Metabolism
• Mechanism: Insulin resistance affects the heart’s ability to utilize glucose efficiently, shifting metabolism towards fatty acid oxidation, which is less oxygen-efficient.
• Consequences: Reduced metabolic flexibility and efficiency can compromise cardiac function, especially under stress conditions.
4. Clinical Outcomes
• Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): A result of atherosclerosis in the coronary arteries, leading to reduced blood flow to the heart muscle.
• Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack): Occurs when atherosclerotic plaque ruptures, causing a blood clot to block the coronary artery, resulting in ischemia and necrosis of heart tissue.
• Heart Failure: Chronic pressure overload and structural changes weaken the heart, reducing its ability to pump blood effectively.
• Stroke: Atherosclerosis can also affect arteries supplying the brain, leading to ischemic strokes.
5. Supporting Evidence and Research
Numerous studies have established the link between high sugar consumption, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease:
• Fructose and Metabolic Health: Research indicates that high fructose intake is particularly harmful, contributing to insulin resistance, increased visceral fat, and dyslipidemia (Johnson et al., 2007).
• Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs): Epidemiological studies have associated frequent consumption of SSBs with increased risk of coronary heart disease (Yang et al., 2014).
• Insulin Resistance and Atherosclerosis: Mechanistic studies demonstrate that insulin resistance accelerates atherosclerotic processes through multiple pathways, including increased inflammation and lipid abnormalities (Reaven, 1988).
6. Prevention and Mitigation Strategies
Understanding these pathways underscores the importance of dietary management in preventing heart disease:
• Limit Added Sugars: Reducing intake of added sugars, particularly in beverages and processed foods, can improve metabolic parameters.
• Balanced Diet: Emphasizing whole foods, fiber, lean proteins, and healthy fats supports metabolic health and reduces cardiovascular risk.
• Regular Physical Activity: Exercise enhances insulin sensitivity, aids in weight management, and promotes cardiovascular health.
• Medical Management: For individuals with metabolic syndrome or diabetes, medications may be necessary to control blood glucose, lipids, and blood pressure.
7. Conclusion
Excessive sugar consumption initiates a cascade of metabolic disturbances, including insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and chronic inflammation. These metabolic abnormalities collectively contribute to endothelial dysfunction, atherosclerosis, hypertension, and direct cardiac damage, significantly elevating the risk of heart disease, heart attacks, and clogged arteries. Addressing high sugar intake is therefore crucial in mitigating the burden of cardiovascular diseases and promoting overall health.
References:
1. Johnson, R. K., et al. (2007). Potential role of sugar (fructose) in the epidemic of hypertension, obesity and the metabolic syndrome. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension, 9(5), 341-346.
2. Yang, Q., et al. (2014). Added sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(4), 516-524.
3. Reaven, G. M. (1988). The insulin resistance syndrome: definition and dietary approaches to treatment. Annals of Internal Medicine, 108(4), 555-563.
x
Research has identified multiple pathways through which high sugar consumption can contribute to metabolic diseases and, consequently, heart disease, heart attacks, and clogged arteries. Here are the primary mechanisms involved:
1. Insulin Resistance and Metabolic Syndrome
• Mechanism: Consuming high amounts of sugar, particularly in the form of fructose (found in table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup), can lead to insulin resistance. This occurs when the body’s cells become less responsive to insulin, causing elevated blood sugar levels.
• Consequences: Insulin resistance is a core component of metabolic syndrome, which includes a group of risk factors like abdominal obesity, high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure, and high fasting blood sugar. Metabolic syndrome significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD).
2. Increased LDL Cholesterol and Triglycerides
• Mechanism: Excessive sugar intake, especially fructose, promotes the liver’s conversion of sugar into triglycerides, leading to higher levels of LDL (“badâ€) cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood.
• Consequences: Elevated levels of LDL cholesterol and triglycerides contribute to atherosclerosis, the buildup of fatty plaques inside the arteries. This narrowing and hardening of the arteries restrict blood flow, increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
3. Inflammation and Oxidative Stress
• Mechanism: High sugar intake can trigger inflammation and oxidative stress. When blood sugar spikes, it can cause an inflammatory response by promoting the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and reactive oxygen species (ROS).
• Consequences: Chronic inflammation damages the blood vessels, accelerating atherosclerosis. Additionally, oxidative stress can further damage cells and tissues within the cardiovascular system, increasing the risk of hypertension, heart attacks, and other forms of heart disease.
4. Increased Blood Pressure (Hypertension)
• Mechanism: High sugar intake, particularly from sugary beverages, has been associated with elevated blood pressure. Excessive fructose consumption can lead to higher levels of uric acid, which may inhibit the production of nitric oxide, a molecule that helps blood vessels relax.
• Consequences: When blood vessels can’t relax properly, blood pressure rises. Chronic hypertension can damage the blood vessel walls, making them more susceptible to atherosclerosis and increasing the risk of heart disease, heart attacks, and strokes.
5. Obesity and Weight Gain
• Mechanism: High-sugar diets are calorie-dense and often lead to weight gain and obesity. Sugary foods and drinks provide “empty calories†with little nutritional benefit, and excess energy from sugar is readily stored as fat in the body.
• Consequences: Obesity is a major risk factor for heart disease. It is often accompanied by other conditions such as hypertension, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia, all of which contribute to cardiovascular disease.
6. Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD)
• Mechanism: Excessive sugar intake, particularly fructose, can lead to the accumulation of fat in the liver, a condition known as NAFLD. This condition can impair liver function and lead to insulin resistance.
• Consequences: NAFLD is associated with a higher risk of metabolic syndrome, which in turn increases the likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease. As NAFLD progresses, it can also cause further complications in glucose and lipid metabolism.
7. Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs)
• Mechanism: High blood sugar levels can lead to the formation of AGEs, which are harmful compounds formed when proteins or fats combine with sugar in the bloodstream. AGEs can damage blood vessel walls and other tissues.
• Consequences: The accumulation of AGEs contributes to the stiffness and narrowing of arteries (atherosclerosis), impairing blood flow. This can lead to hypertension, a key risk factor for heart attacks, heart disease, and other cardiovascular complications.
In summary, excessive sugar intake can drive several mechanisms that contribute to metabolic dysfunction and, ultimately, cardiovascular disease. A combination of these pathways—insulin resistance, inflammation, dyslipidemia, obesity, hypertension, and NAFLD—together amplify the risk for heart disease, heart attacks, and other cardiovascular events.
Recent studies have strengthened the link between sugar and heart disease, highlighting risks associated with both traditional sugar and sugar substitutes. Here are some key findings:
1. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Research from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that daily consumption of sugary drinks increases the risk of cardiovascular disease by around 18%, even in people who engage in regular physical activity. This increased risk persists regardless of exercise levels, making a strong case for limiting intake of these beverages to reduce heart disease risk .
2. Sugar Substitutes: Common sugar alcohols, such as xylitol and erythritol, have also been linked to cardiovascular issues. Studies from the Cleveland Clinic suggest that high levels of xylitol can contribute to blood clot formation, which raises the risk of heart attacks and strokes. This risk appears to stem from the impact of xylitol on blood clotting mechanisms, as shown by elevated clot-promoting activity following consumption .
These findings suggest that both regular sugar and popular low-calorie sweeteners can have significant cardiovascular implications, challenging the assumption that sugar substitutes are always a safer option. As more research unfolds, health professionals continue to recommend moderation in the consumption of both sugar and sugar substitutes for better heart health.
The relationship between sugar consumption and heart disease has been a topic of extensive research and discussion in the fields of nutrition and cardiovascular health. Emerging evidence suggests that excessive sugar intake may contribute to the development of various risk factors associated with heart disease. Below is an overview of the current understanding of this relationship:
1. Understanding Sugar Consumption
Types of Sugars:
• Natural Sugars: Found naturally in foods like fruits (fructose) and dairy products (lactose).
• Added Sugars: Sugars added to foods and beverages during processing or preparation (e.g., sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup).
Common Sources of Added Sugars:
• Sugary beverages (sodas, fruit drinks)
• Sweets and desserts
• Processed foods (cereals, sauces)
2. Mechanisms Linking Sugar to Heart Disease
Excessive sugar consumption may influence heart disease risk through several biological pathways:
a. Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome
High sugar intake, particularly from sugary beverages, is linked to weight gain and obesity. Obesity is a significant risk factor for heart disease and is associated with conditions like hypertension, dyslipidemia, and insulin resistance—all components of metabolic syndrome.
b. Insulin Resistance and Type 2 Diabetes
High sugar consumption can lead to insulin resistance, where the body’s cells become less responsive to insulin. This condition is a precursor to type 2 diabetes, a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
c. Dyslipidemia
Excessive intake of fructose can increase levels of triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, both of which are linked to atherosclerosis (plaque buildup in arteries).
d. Hypertension
High sugar diets have been associated with elevated blood pressure, another key risk factor for heart disease.
e. Chronic Inflammation
Excessive sugar can promote inflammatory processes in the body, contributing to the development and progression of cardiovascular diseases.
3. Key Research Findings
a. Epidemiological Studies
• Framingham Heart Study: Identified added sugar as a contributor to weight gain and cardiovascular risk factors.
• Nurses’ Health Study: Linked high sugar intake with increased risk of coronary heart disease among women.
b. Clinical Trials
• Sugar Reduction Trials: Studies where reduced sugar intake led to improvements in blood pressure, lipid profiles, and insulin sensitivity.
c. Meta-Analyses
• Meta-Analysis Published in JAMA Internal Medicine (2014): Found that higher intake of added sugars was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
4. Recommendations from Health Organizations
• American Heart Association (AHA): Recommends that women limit added sugars to no more than 100 calories per day (~25 grams) and men to no more than 150 calories per day (~37.5 grams).
• World Health Organization (WHO): Suggests reducing added sugar intake to less than 10% of total daily energy intake, with further benefits below 5%.
5. Practical Dietary Considerations
a. Reading Labels
Be vigilant about reading food labels to identify and limit added sugars in processed foods.
b. Choosing Whole Foods
Opt for whole, unprocessed foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats, which are naturally lower in added sugars.
c. Beverage Choices
Limit consumption of sugary drinks such as sodas, sweetened teas, and energy drinks. Choose water, herbal teas, or beverages without added sugars instead.
d. Cooking at Home
Preparing meals at home allows better control over sugar content and overall nutritional quality.
6. Balancing Sugar Intake
While moderate consumption of naturally occurring sugars in whole foods is generally considered acceptable and part of a balanced diet, the primary concern revolves around high intake of added sugars. It’s essential to distinguish between these sources to make informed dietary choices.
7. Conclusion
Current evidence indicates a significant association between high added sugar consumption and increased risk of heart disease. The mechanisms involve obesity, metabolic disturbances, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and inflammation. Health organizations advocate for the reduction of added sugars in the diet as a preventive measure against cardiovascular diseases. Adopting dietary patterns that limit added sugars and emphasize whole, nutrient-dense foods can contribute to better heart health and overall well-being.
8. Considerations and Future Research
While the link between sugar and heart disease is supported by numerous studies, ongoing research continues to refine our understanding of the specific types and amounts of sugar that pose the greatest risk. Additionally, individual factors such as genetics, lifestyle, and overall diet quality play crucial roles in modulating these risks.
Note: It’s advisable to consult healthcare professionals or registered dietitians for personalized dietary advice, especially for individuals with existing health conditions or those at high risk for heart disease.
Nina Teicholz is a journalist and author known for her work on dietary fats, particularly in her book, The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. She argues that animal fats have been unfairly demonized for decades due to flawed nutritional science and recommends a reassessment of their role in a healthy diet. Here are some of the main points she makes about animal fats:
1. Questioning Low-Fat Guidelines
• Teicholz critiques the low-fat dietary guidelines that have been widely promoted since the 1970s, arguing that they are based on incomplete or biased science. She suggests that these guidelines, which encourage the avoidance of saturated fats found in animal products, have not led to improvements in public health and may have contributed to the rise in obesity and chronic diseases.
2. Benefits of Saturated Fats
• According to Teicholz, saturated fats found in animal products (such as butter, lard, and fatty cuts of meat) are not as harmful as previously thought. She references studies that have shown no conclusive link between saturated fats and heart disease. Instead, she claims these fats can be part of a healthy diet, supporting cellular function, hormone production, and overall energy levels.
3. Critique of Processed Vegetable Oils
• Teicholz emphasizes the potential health risks associated with the replacement of animal fats with processed vegetable oils. She argues that vegetable oils, which are high in omega-6 fatty acids, can lead to inflammation in the body and may contribute to various chronic illnesses when consumed in large amounts.
4. Historical Perspective
• Teicholz examines the history of dietary guidelines and how certain individuals and organizations influenced public perception of animal fats. She discusses how the work of certain researchers, like Ancel Keys, shaped public opinion and policy on fats, despite conflicting evidence that animal fats are necessarily harmful.
5. Support for Low-Carb Diets
• Teicholz supports the idea that animal fats can play a central role in low-carb or ketogenic diets. She argues that these diets can improve metabolic health by reducing dependence on carbohydrates, leading to stable blood sugar levels and potentially aiding in weight loss.
6. Calls for Updated Dietary Recommendations
• Teicholz advocates for updated dietary recommendations that reflect more recent research on fats. She argues that current guidelines do not adequately consider the growing body of evidence suggesting that animal fats can be safely consumed as part of a balanced diet and may even offer health benefits over processed alternatives.
Her work is part of a broader movement challenging long-standing dietary recommendations, suggesting that animal fats may be more compatible with human health than previously believed. However, it’s worth noting that her views are controversial and have sparked debate within the nutritional science community. Critics argue that while some studies support her claims, the majority of health organizations still recommend limiting saturated fat intake in favor of unsaturated fats.
Weird modern day fashion trends — who can be or become the strangest and most ironic?
Marx was a parasite
Useful idiots
Write fashionable nonsense
.
Kingmaker
Niche, arcane, esoteric, absurd
Important conclusions
Opportunity cost
Even if it is free, think the opportunity cost!
.
Market competition
Think the markets
Science doesn’t require the voice of anyone else?
Science as ideology or religion
Self interest is critical —
Loving the Fiat Standard!