If you have assets in a bank, stock market, investment platform, 401(k) or other pension then there are a number of risks that threaten not only the existence of those funds but your access to them.

First of all, don't expect to hold onto them unless you go along with the government's game of Simon says. For example, there is a good chance that you will be forced to get digital ID to access these in the future.

Vietnam is an example of what is likely to come soon, where biometrics were made mandatory to access all bank accounts. The 86 million accounts which weren't biometrically verified were frozen and are now being closed. Transfers equivalent to around $390 or more also require biometric verification.

Many in the western world have also had their bank accounts frozen or closed for perfectly legal political views. And now when you move or withdraw money you may be asked what the purpose is and the bank may deny your request if they don't like your answer (just one example). Banks are also required to report anything deemed suspicious to the government.

If such restrictions can be applied to bank accounts, there's no reason why they can't be applied to accounts at stock exchanges and accounts with 401(k) and pension providers.

In Hungary and Poland, all private pensions were seized by the government and nationalized, leading many to accuse the government of stealing their pensions. Existing state pensions aren't safe either, as they are often considered unsustainable due to unchecked government spending and aging populations.

Banks and pension providers can also fail, as we saw in 2023, and US banks have continued to fail every year since then. While on paper there are often guarantees to cover such events, these usually only cover up to a certain amount, and these may not be honored during a financial crisis.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/50037354

The problem

If you have savings in a bank, stock market, 401(k) or other pension then don't expect to hold onto them unless you go along with the government's game of Simon says. You will be forced to get digital ID to access these in the future.

Vietnam is an example of this, where biometrics were made mandatory to access your bank accounts. The 86 million accounts which weren't biometrically verified were frozen and are now being closed. Transfers equivalent to around $390 or more also require biometric verification.

Many in the western world have also had their bank accounts frozen or closed for perfectly legal political views. And now when you move or withdraw money you may be asked what the purpose is and the bank may deny your request if they don't like your answer (just one example).

Another reason to avoid banks is that they watch everything you do and are required to report anything deemed suspicious to the government. Your bank is probably selling your transaction data too. Your pension provider probably sells your data too. Banks and pension providers also fail, especially when there are financial crises.

The solution

There are many alternative stores of wealth and ways of transacting, each with positives and negatives. I won't get into them here, but a simple one is precious metals - they are easy to understand, work for offline and private transactions, don't require others to adopt certain technologies and they are a stable store of value which may well give better returns than bank interest or even stocks. Now may be a good time to move as well - seeing as precious metal prices have dropped substantially.

It's very easy, but you can start with a single coin or bar to get comfortable with buying and holding precious metals. It doesn't have to be expensive, it can be a $70 pure silver coin. While there are scams out there they mainly rely on inflated prices or certificates for metals you don't physically possess. These are easy to avoid if you pay close to the spot price for the metal you're buying.

For small transactions and those with mainstream businesses you will have to rely on cash, but this is preferable to digital surveillance and money you don't own. Precious metals can be sold quite easily to coin shops, jewelry stores, pawnshops and online metal dealers. In the US ID checks are not required, but you will usually have to report sale to the IRS. Having friends and neighbors who are willing to trade cash for metals with you will also help.

Another option for small transactions with neighbors are old coins with low amounts of silver in them. 35% silver nickels currently have a melt value of $3.88 and can be purchased online for about $3.92 each. You can also buy old silver quarters and silver dollars at prices close to their melt values.

The problem

If you have savings in a bank, stock market, 401(k) or other pension then don't expect to hold onto them unless you go along with the government's game of Simon says. You will be forced to get digital ID to access these in the future.

Vietnam is an example of this, where biometrics were made mandatory to access your bank accounts. The 86 million accounts which weren't biometrically verified were frozen and are now being closed. Transfers equivalent to around $390 or more also require biometric verification.

Many in the western world have also had their bank accounts frozen or closed for perfectly legal political views. And now when you move or withdraw money you may be asked what the purpose is and the bank may deny your request if they don't like your answer (just one example).

Another reason to avoid banks is that they watch everything you do and are required to report anything deemed suspicious to the government. Your bank is probably selling your transaction data too. Your pension provider probably sells your data too. Banks and pension providers also fail, especially when there are financial crises.

The solution

There are many alternative stores of wealth and ways of transacting, each with positives and negatives. I won't get into them here, but a simple one is precious metals - they are easy to understand, work for offline and private transactions, don't require others to adopt certain technologies and they are a stable store of value which may well give better returns than bank interest or even stocks. Now may be a good time to move as well - seeing as precious metal prices have dropped substantially.

It's very easy, but you can start with a single coin or bar to get comfortable with buying and holding precious metals. It doesn't have to be expensive, it can be a $70 pure silver coin. While there are scams out there they mainly rely on inflated prices or certificates for metals you don't physically possess. These are easy to avoid if you pay close to the spot price for the metal you're buying.

For small transactions and those with mainstream businesses you will have to rely on cash, but this is preferable to digital surveillance and money you don't own. Precious metals can be sold quite easily to coin shops, jewelry stores, pawnshops and online metal dealers. In the US ID checks are not required, but you will usually have to report sale to the IRS. Having friends and neighbors who are willing to trade cash for metals with you will also help.

Another option for small transactions with neighbors are old coins with low amounts of silver in them. 35% silver nickels currently have a melt value of $3.88 and can be purchased online for about $3.92 each. You can also buy old silver quarters and silver dollars at prices close to their melt values.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/49749386

If the video isn't working, try these links:

• https://cdn.videy.co/8f2f25e11.mp4
• https://streamable.com/0xj1ni (slightly better quality but only up for 2 days)

Clipped from full hour long video (around 49 minutes in): https://www.bitchute.com/video/jmhFAjqbxnQ

Europol report: https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/The-Unmanned-Future-Report.pdf

If the video isn't working, try these links:

• https://cdn.videy.co/8f2f25e11.mp4
• https://streamable.com/0xj1ni (slightly better quality but only up for 2 days)

Clipped from full hour long video (around 49 minutes in): https://www.bitchute.com/video/jmhFAjqbxnQ

Europol report: https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/The-Unmanned-Future-Report.pdf

Many are complaining about fuel prices going up because of the war on Iran, but prices were already high because of high taxes:

• US fuel taxes make up 20+% of the price
• European fuel taxes make up half of the price
• It appears 7.6% of the German government's revenue comes from fuel taxes.

You can avoid these taxes by making your own diesel at home, potentially saving money while reducing waste and being less dependent on geopolitical affairs.

Biodiesel is easy to make from new or used vegetable oil and can be used instead of diesel in 21st century cars.

• Short version: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Bio-Diesel
• Long version: https://www.dudadiesel.com/biodiesel.php

If you want to save a lot of money, ask restaurants for their old cooking oil cheap or for free. Biodiesel can also be made from animal fat, which is cheaper than vegetable oil, but there are fewer guides on the process.

Diesel can also be made from used motor oil if you have a centrifuge and a still for distillation: https://carobjective.com/how-to-make-diesel-fuel-from-used-motor-oil/

How to make a simple still from a pressure cooker, copper tubing and bucket: https://www.instructables.com/How-to-make-a-still/

Making a fractional distillation column isn't that much harder: https://www.instructables.com/Build-a-Lab-Quality-Distillation-Apparatus/

With this you could potentially separate crude oil into various components and use them for both gas and diesel cars, stoves, heating, oil lamps or sell them. Small sellers may be exempt from taxes depending on where you live.

For gasoline you could also try the ideas here, although they seem to be expensive or impractical for road users: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Synthetic-Gasoline

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/49663892

Does technology provide more jobs than it takes away? In the modern world where most industries are constantly changing, most jobs are completely unnecessary, many are unproductive and people can move countries to find work it can be difficult to judge this claim. But we can go back before benefits, government-funded useless jobs, international travel and chaotic job markets. If we do that we can see more clearly how technology has affected the availability of jobs.

The Second (or British) Agricultural Revolution provides one example of technological change. Did it lead to more jobs or less? Here's what I learned about this today. Most of this information comes from here and the pages it links to.

This revolution wasn't an overnight technological development which led to a temporary wave of unemployment that ended as new jobs were invented. This was a gradual change over hundreds of years which led to rising unemployment and poverty that didn't go away.

The lead up to it began in the 1400s with enclosed farms that were able to make better use of the land and crop rotations. This became more common into the 1500s and meant that fewer people needed to work on the farms, causing some to slide into poverty. The government and nobles of the time were apparently unfamiliar with non-temporary unemployment except as a result of laziness or disability. It was a totally alien concept to them. In reaction to increasing numbers of beggars and vagrants the government passed laws to punish them. At the time making poverty harsh was seen as a way to motivate people to get jobs. This approach didn't seem to work as by the end of the 1500s the government decided to change their approach and begin making Poor Laws. The first (Old) Poor Laws provided housing, money, food and clothing to those who were unable to work because of age or illness, but at the same time the able-bodied could be made to work in houses of correction as punishment for being a "persistent idler".

The British Agricultural Revolution really started to take off in the mid-1600s and by the end of the century unemployment and poverty had increased further, leading to the workhouse movement. These gave housing and employment to the poor and reserved houses of correction for punishment. But put poverty didn't end and around 1 million Britons may have relied on poor relief by the end of the 1700s. The number of able-bodied males taking poor relief was rising and again this has been attributed to the enclosure movement that increased agricultural productivity.

Because machines were taking people's jobs, there were widespread riots that destroyed machines in 1830, known as the Swing Riots. The existing system of poor relief wasn't able to handle all the poor people so in response to this and the riots the New Poor Law was passed in 1834. This made it harder for the able-bodied to get relief and made workhouses harsher to discourage leeching. The new system was a complete failure because the unemployed either went without any provisions or suffered in prison-like workhouses. There was no attempt to undo whatever had caused all the jobs to disappear in the first place.

In the end the Poor Laws gave way to country councils providing public housing, government pensions and eventually the full UK welfare state. The Poor Laws were an early example of a European welfare program that influenced the development of welfare states beyond the UK.

So considering all this, do we really think technology has helped or hurt the public's ability to get jobs?

Before the 1500s it was unheard of to be unemployed unless it was temporary or you were too old or sick to work. Now find one developed country where that's the case today. I'd wager you can't. And what could possibly be responsible for that? Is it the increased population? Globalization? I don't think so. More people means more mouths to feed and more jobs. Globalization didn't take away the jobs in Britain between 1500-1900. The most reasonable explanation is that technology and efficiency improvements have caused the lack of jobs by taking over more and more of the productive work, leaving humans with pointless jobs or no work at all. And what good are efficient systems if they put us out of work so we can't afford anything? Maybe efficiency can be bad and sometimes it's good to do things the hard way?

Does technology provide more jobs than it takes away? In the modern world where most industries are constantly changing, most jobs are completely unnecessary, many are unproductive and people can move countries to find work it can be difficult to judge this claim. But we can go back before benefits, government-funded useless jobs, international travel and chaotic job markets. If we do that we can see more clearly how technology has affected the availability of jobs.

The Second (or British) Agricultural Revolution provides one example of technological change. Did it lead to more jobs or less? Here's what I learned about this today. Most of this information comes from here and the pages it links to.

This revolution wasn't an overnight technological development which led to a temporary wave of unemployment that ended as new jobs were invented. This was a gradual change over hundreds of years which led to rising unemployment and poverty that didn't go away.

The lead up to it began in the 1400s with enclosed farms that were able to make better use of the land and crop rotations. This became more common into the 1500s and meant that fewer people needed to work on the farms, causing some to slide into poverty. The government and nobles of the time were apparently unfamiliar with non-temporary unemployment except as a result of laziness or disability. It was a totally alien concept to them. In reaction to increasing numbers of beggars and vagrants the government passed laws to punish them. At the time making poverty harsh was seen as a way to motivate people to get jobs. This approach didn't seem to work as by the end of the 1500s the government decided to change their approach and begin making Poor Laws. The first (Old) Poor Laws provided housing, money, food and clothing to those who were unable to work because of age or illness, but at the same time the able-bodied could be made to work in houses of correction as punishment for being a "persistent idler".

The British Agricultural Revolution really started to take off in the mid-1600s and by the end of the century unemployment and poverty had increased further, leading to the workhouse movement. These gave housing and employment to the poor and reserved houses of correction for punishment. But put poverty didn't end and around 1 million Britons may have relied on poor relief by the end of the 1700s. The number of able-bodied males taking poor relief was rising and again this has been attributed to the enclosure movement that increased agricultural productivity.

Because machines were taking people's jobs, there were widespread riots that destroyed machines in 1830, known as the Swing Riots. The existing system of poor relief wasn't able to handle all the poor people so in response to this and the riots the New Poor Law was passed in 1834. This made it harder for the able-bodied to get relief and made workhouses harsher to discourage leeching. The new system was a complete failure because the unemployed either went without any provisions or suffered in prison-like workhouses. There was no attempt to undo whatever had caused all the jobs to disappear in the first place.

In the end the Poor Laws gave way to country councils providing public housing, government pensions and eventually the full UK welfare state. The Poor Laws were an early example of a European welfare program that influenced the development of welfare states beyond the UK.

So considering all this, do we really think technology has helped or hurt the public's ability to get jobs?

Before the 1500s it was unheard of to be unemployed unless it was temporary or you were too old or sick to work. Now find one developed country where that's the case today. I'd wager you can't. And what could possibly be responsible for that? Is it the increased population? Globalization? I don't think so. More people means more mouths to feed and more jobs. Globalization didn't take away the jobs in Britain between 1500-1900. The most reasonable explanation is that technology and efficiency improvements have caused the lack of jobs by taking over more and more of the productive work, leaving humans with pointless jobs or no work at all. And what good are efficient systems if they put us out of work so we can't afford anything? Maybe efficiency can be bad and sometimes it's good to do things the hard way?