Linkey

Again, at this forum people say that I "lie" when they simply don't like my formulations. Anyway, at the Reddit pose I cited above, it is said that the response rates have decreased from 70% in old times to 2% now. If the response rate in a poll is indeed only 2%, it is correct to say that this poll is fake.

You shouldn't trust the polls in the Western countries, they become more and more fake in last decades. For example, no poll could predict the victory of Trump. This is explained by the decrease of the percentage of respondents who agree to participate in the polls (response rates): when people are afraid of saying "politically incorrect" answers, they simply refuse to answer in the poll. The decrease of the response rate in USA and Europe is reported in many sources, and according to the refs below, the response rate have decread 6 or maybe 30 times in last 3 decades: Pew Research CenterResponse rates in telephone surveys have resumed their de...Response rates to telephone public opinion polls conducted by Pew Research Center have resumed their decline, to 7% in 2017 and 6% in 2018. Cambridge CoreThe Twilight of the Polls? A Review of Trends in Polling...The Twilight of the Polls? A Review of Trends in Polling Accuracy and the Causes of Polling Misses - Volume 53 Issue 4 https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-polling#:~:text=In%20January%202018%2C%20Gallup,As%20Gallup%20points%20out%2C

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany Energy in Germany is obtained primarily from fossil fuels, accounting for 77.6% of total energy consumption in 2023, followed by renewables at 19.6%, and 0.7% nuclear power.[1][2] It seems very arguing that Putin has a big lobby in EU, which forces such decisions (de-militarization and de-nuclearization). Maybe you know that a former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder is living in Russia now and working for Putin.

In 2023, the EU spended 279 billion for the defense (1.3% of GDP), while USA spended 916 billion (3.5% of GDP). I want to say that the people in European countries would vote for spending for the defense more, if any referendum was performed. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ https://eda.europa.eu/publications-and-data/defence-data

I have already explained: Russia sells the same amount of oil as before 2022, but the Russian oil now goes to China instead of Europe. If the European countries reduced the oil consumption, they would not start buying the oil from Saudi Arabia, and in this case China would still buy the oil from SA, not from Russia. The closure of German nuclear plants have increased the dependence of Europe from oil, and Europe can't stop buying the oil from SA.

Oil too. Before 2022, China bought oil from Saudi Arabia, Europe from Russia; now it is just vice versa. Besides that, if I am not mistaken, Germany is buying the petrol from India which is made in India from Russian oil.

1) In many US states and in Poland, the abortions are prohibited. At the same time, in some US states the referendums had been performed relating this question, and as far as I know, everywhere the people voted to allow abortions (both in Democratic and Republican states); 2) During the last 20 years, the Europe had been de-militarizing, the governments of the European countries did everything to reduce funding of their armies. Since 2016, Trump tried to criticize the European leaders for spending less than 2% of GDP for the armies, and only in last months he had success with this – after his public “betrayal” of Ukraine and new defeats of Ukraine. At the same time, in Switzerland several times the referendums had been performed, where people voted to keep conscription. So I am sure that people in other European countries would always vote for increasing the spending of money for their armies, if they are asked about this; 3) In Germany, the nuclear plants have been closed; at the same time, in Switzerland some referendums had been performed where people voted for keeping the nuclear plants working. The closure of last German nuclear plant in 2023 was a crime; in fact, Europe continues buying oil from Putin as before, funding his war. I can explain this statement if you don’t understand.

For those who are interested in the topic of the growth of inequality, I can suggest this article: https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf The author attributes the growth of inequality to the fact that Reagan lowered taxes for the rich in the 80s. The inequality can be measured as the percentage of the property in the world which belongs to the richest 1% of population. The author also writes that the mainstream Western media is silent about this problem or is lying. This is evident with CNN and Fox News (especially CNN). And this can be explained simply — these 1% of the richest are interested in such a state of affairs, and they control these media.

Over last 60 years, various scientific programs have been run for searching for the extraterrestrial life and extraterrestrial civilizations, such as SETI, and large sums of money have been allocated for this. For example, the scientists are now planning to send a satellite to Europa to search for microbes under the ice layer there; recently, dimethyl sulfide was found on the planet K2-18b and this caused a big stir. I have a question: are the ufologists allocated any state money? There is a hypothesis that ships of extraterrestrial civilizations fly above us, this hypothesis can be tested by scientific methods and either confirmed or refuted. Do states allocate money for this researches at all?

Do you know anything about the money multiplier? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier I suggest you to see this video, it explains many things: https://youtu.be/2nBPN-MKefA

I had mentioned Hakek above. I haven’t read Hayek’s texts in detail, but I can explain this as I understand. During the last 40 years, in the Western countries the inequality grows: the rich become richer, the poor poorer, the middle class disappears. I have seen a lot of such graphs in the Web: I am not a US resident and it is difficult for me to speculate reliably, but I have a lot of scattered information relating the subjects – some information from bloggers, some posts of the residents in the Western countries about their life – and all this information forms a general picture. Roughly speaking, 40 years ago only one member of a US family worked, now two members work, and at the same time 40 years ago the family could afford a house, now it is much more difficult. One of the reasons of this is the inflation, as I wrote in OP (rich people store their wealth in the form of assets, not money).

Here I cite myself: the price of pipyruses will remain constant in the future (in a "normal" currency, which is not constantly emited and thus does not have inflation) So if there was a currency which is constantly emited or "easend" - in the currency the price of pypicoins will remain constant. However all modern money do inflate (during last 300 years, as far as I understand), so in these money the price of absolutely everything, including the pipyruses, is growing. By the way, as I suppose, all nowadays money were firstly created in England by Isaac Newton.

I think, you haven't answered my question. Again: if there is the risk that some extremists can come to power through elections, do you think that these extremists should be not allowed to participate in the elections (instead, only good, non-extremist, liberal candidates would participate)? By the way, the word "stable", as I understand this, implies that such scenarios (extremists coming to power) are impossible; is is an oxymoron to say "Germany is stable now, but it will loose the stability if the Germans elect AfD". The Weimar Republic or Russia in 1990th were not stable.

The volatility of the bitcoins is indeed a great problem, but despite this, they continue to grow on average - similarly to gold. Can anybody here write, what is the difference between the gold and the bitcoins from the point of view of the economic theory? By the way, Friedrich Hayek (nobel prize winner) wrote that private money would save the world economy.

Do I understand you correctly, that if there us a risk that extremists can come to power through elections, then the elections must be forbidden?

The pipiruses will have a higher prices in dollar after a year, as any other goods, just because of the dollar inflation. And the dollar inflation is always higher than the bank's interest.

Stable democracies? Very interesting... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany On 23 February 2025, the AfD won 20.8% of the vote in the German federal election, second to the CDU/CSU. In April 2025, the AfD finishes as the leading party in the first time in opinion polling.[163] In May 2025 the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classified the party as a "proven right-wing extremist organisation".[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen On 31 March 2025, Le Pen, eight other MEPs, and 12 assistants were convicted of embezzlement for misappropriating over €4 million European Parliament funds to fund National Front staff. The sentences for several MEPs included bans from running for political office. Le Pen was sentenced to four years in prison and a five-year ban from running for political office, effectively disqualifying her from the upcoming 2027 French presidential election. She was also fined €100,000.[24][25][26][27][28][29] p.s. I am not a fan of AfD or Le Pen, but I see that they are usual spoilers, as Trump, Haley, DeSantis and others.

Currently there are many cryptosceptics (crypto-deniers, "no-coiners") in the world, especially in authoritarian countries, and I like to argue with such people. Below I write two simple speculations, which explain why the cryptosceptics are wrong: The inflation is in fact a hidden taxation, and this "tax" is mostly paid by poor people, not the wealthy (because wealthy people store their riches not in the form of money, but in the form of assets like real property). And this situation makes useful any things which help people to store their savings: 1) Let's assume that there is some completely useless and worthless product on the market, let's call it pipyruses; and everyone knows that the price of pipyruses will remain constant in the future (in a "normal" currency, which is not constantly emited and thus does not have inflation). One pipirus costs ten dollars. Then people will quickly understand that they can use pipiruses as means of accumulation: a worker will buy 300 pipiruses every month, and in ten years, having accumulated thirty thousand pipiruses, he will sell them and buy an apartment with this money. And this option for accumulation is obviously more profitable than dealing with banks, loans and mortgages. 2) Let's say 100 programmers have created a a cryptocurrency pipycoin for themselves and agreed to use it as an alternative money (to exchange it for real money). The price of one pipycoin is 10 dollars. And once a month, each of these programmers sells a part of his salary and buys 300 pipycoins from other programmers. Then, once every 10 years, each programmer sells 30 000 pipycoins to others and buys an apartment with this money. It turns out that for these programmers, the pipycoin is a convenient means of lending money to each other; thus, an ordinary means of exchange, i.e. money, turns into a means of accumulation, which allows these programmers to save money relatively successfully. These programmers loan the money from each other more honestly, than the banks do.

I mean the percentage of human population who lived in monarchies. As far as I know, 2500 years ago only some cities in Europe were city-states, while all Asia consisted of monarchies, and probably the same with other continents where people were already not hunter-gatherers.

What is the clan social system? I have heard that the nomads have a "freedom-loving spirit" or something like that. Maybe before the Ghengis Khan, a common mongol had a possibility to move somewhere apart from his current chief if he didn't like this chief. Now Mongolia is one of the most democratic states in Asia.

3000 years ago. In particular, the Persian empire included 40% if the whole Earth population, if I am not mistaken.

As far as I understand it, in ancient history, the Eastern despotisms dominated the world because they fought better than democratic city-states. Unfortunately, the one-man ruling is necessary for a war. At the same time, there is an opposite tendency: free countries support new ideas, including military innovations, better than unfree ones. The general weakness of Eastern-type civilization is that the science and technology developed more slowly there, than in Western-type civilizations. As for military innovations and ideas, I can suggest three examples: 1) The Swiss have historically lived very freely, and now the Switzerland is now the country with the highest level of democracy; and in the Middle Ages, the Swiss were a very powerful military force, usually defeating the knights. The secret of the Swiss's success was in the rational tactics of their "phalanx" (pikemen); 2) As I understand it, in the early Middle Ages, the Vikings had a military democracy, while in the late Middle Ages, a regular monarchy reigned in Scandinavia. Is it possible to draw a parallel here with the fact that in the early Middle Ages the Vikings could terrorize Europeans, but after 1064 they lost this advantage? 3) If I am not mistaken, the nomadic Mongols had a lot of what can be called democracy. On the other hand, Genghis Khan united them into a single centralized state, and achieved a huge military success. It seems to me that the following scenario can be natural in history: first, there is democracy in the country and this allows smart people to grow into the elite and implement innovations, and then a dictator appears who turns the whole country into a very effective military machine. In addition to the Mongols, another example was the Nazi Germany. Please comment my thoughts above.

During the recent US elections, polls were conducted in different countries to find out whom did people support more among the American presidential candidates; while in Europe the majority was for Harris, in Russia there were 7 times more people who supported Trump than Harris. This is understandable in light of the fact that the Trumpism is ideologically closer to Putinism: for example, in Russia, homophobia is part of the state ideology, and Trump also does not like LGBT. I wonder if Russians can now begin to change their views regarding their attitude to democracy. On TV, Russians have always been told that the excesses associated with LGBT in Europe, such as transgender people in big sports, are a consequence of democracy. This was facilitated by the meme invented by the leftists ruling in Europe - “democracy is not the rule of the majority, but the protection of minorities.” Now, perhaps, Trump will begin to fight with these excesses; and I hope that Russians will experience cognitive dissonance, when they will see that the Americans havedemocratically elected a president who suppresses LGBT. In Argentina, Miley is also trying to implement such a policy - he fired transgender people from the government and cut the "Ministry of Diversity". But Trump rules a much more important country, and maybe he will now stir the Hollywood and Disney, and stop the policy of propaganda of woke and BLM agenda in them. I hope that this will happen sooner; I want to emphasize that I am not a homophobe, the reasons is just that such a policy can change the worldview of Russians, and then perhaps they will stop supporting Putin and his war.

I don't understand what facts do you need. What I say is absolutely obvious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

I know, for example, that Russian government prints a lot of money for funding the Putin's war. It is really strange if you deny that the quantitave easing is the cause of inflation. Ok here are the words of Arnold Swarzenegger about the money printing: This was a link with timecode, does this forum supports the timecodes on youtube? If no, the start is at 26:06.