Linkey

Firstly, you should read about the Easterlin paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox The economic growth itself does not do anybody happier. During last 500 years, the productivity of labour of the planet has increased maybe 1000 times, but the people haven't become happier because of this. So, an inefficiency of governing the country will be only a small problem with the referendum democracy. Only psychological factors can make the society happier, and they include the aim in life, which helps people gather friends (for friendship people need to have common aims).

Current idea of modern (representative) democracy is simple and looks fine: the population choses between several professional politicians in power via voting. However, in fact this does not work: these professional politicians establish a “cartel agreement” (often even unconscious) and a monopoly of elites on information, and this prevents people who do not belong to elites from starting a political career (only Zelensky as exception). Here I suggest “democracy 2.0”, and the main aspect of it is a big number of referendums, which are performed maybe each week. This system will motivate common people to study sciences like economics for more competent voting. The referendums can be performed online; currently some IT decisions like DeFi can be used for guaranteeing that the votes will be calculated both closed (anonymous) and confidently/honestly (I can explain this later). Here is most important idea: these multiple referendums will not be referendums in strict meaning, because they will not have a legal force; instead, they will reveal what people want, and the power will have to fulfill the will of nation. If a referendum was “profane”, theoretically the power can reject is in the interest of people, but it will have to explain this later, after leaving the power – otherwise the politicians who ignored the will of nation will be imprisoned via a decision of people via a new referendum. I mean that the people will be able to either imprison somebody, or vice versa give somebody a juridical immunity, via a referendum.

Israel is currently afraid of starting a full-scale war with Iran, because Iran is bigger and has more resources. However, I believe that Israel could easily win this war if it turned it into a nonzero sum game and set its goal to interest the Iranian people and turn them into an ally. To do this, Israel needs to announce in social media that it is starting an offensive with only one goal - performing a referendum in Iran with the following questions: 1) Unblocking Youtube; 2) Freeing political prisoners; 3) Abolishing censorship and repressive laws; 4) Transferring power from the Ayatollah to the President; 5) Amnesty for all Iranian military personnel who went over to Israel's side. Israel must emphasize that it will play by the rules, and aims to make the Iranian people an ally; It is necessary to promise that the Iranian people will be able to vote against all these points in a referendum, and Israel will accept this choice. Why the Israeli authorities didn’t choose this path?

Nobody has denied this connection. You claimed that Ozempic and Mounjaro affected these, and you have given no evidence of that. I watched this information somewhere in a vlog. Currently I tried to find this information, and found e.g. the following: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-ozempic-and-wegovy-might-change-your-favorite-food GLP-1 drugs—initially designed to help treat type 2 diabetes by triggering insulin release—can cause weight loss by making people feel full faster. But some people report that in addition to an increase in satiety, they experience changes in their preferences for specific foods—they find meats suddenly repulsive, fried foods too heavy and savory snacks unappealing. On online forums and in scientific surveys, some people have expressed a general loss of interest in food overall—a few have even said that the drugs have redefined food as a necessity rather than a joy for them.

I tried to find studies relating the connection between the pleasure from food and phychological factors; GPT agreed with this statements, and provided me a lot of refs like these: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3498255/#:~:text=In%20the%20present%20studies%2C,about%20orange%20juice%20%28suggesting https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/166275/arcp1069.pdf?sequence=2#:~:text=We%20also%20identify%20key,marketing%20context%2C%20including%20social https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244021989318 It is not clearly stated in these studies what I wrote, but the number of refs also matters, and in general, the refs lead to this conclusion.

The idea of psycho-activity is mine: previously I watched a science blogger who said that our pleasure from food is psychological to a significant extent. So I thought that suppressing this pleasure is a psycho-activity.

In last years, Elon Musk have been using Ozempic against obesity: https://www.axios.com/2024/12/26/elon-musk-ozempic-mounjaro-weight-loss As far as I can see, the Ozempic can be considered as a psycho-active drug (usually, the pleasure from eating is maybe rather psychological then physiological). And here is some more information: it seems that last time Musk have lost his mind: Maybe these two facts are related?

In last years, Elon Musk have been using Ozempic against obesity: As far as I can see, the Ozempic can be considered as a psycho-active drug (usually, the pleasure from eating is maybe rather psychological then physiological). And here is some more information: it seems that last time Musk have lost his mind: Maybe these two facts are related?

The West has adopted the ideology of protecting LGBT and other minorities. I am not a homophobe and I rather support the original idea, but now this policy has led to some abuses (Putin's propaganda loves to talk about them in order to instill in Russians hostility towards the West and democracy). As examples of these abuses I can name transgender people in big sport, or gender-neutral toilets. I hope you respect Sabine Hossenfelder, and even she has become concerned about this topic: https://youtu.be/cZ9YAFYIBOU One of the reasons why Americans elected Trump was his promise to end such things. However, Trump is an unpleasant person in other aspects, so it is very likely that after 4 years the Americans will elect a president from Democrats who will return all this to the way it was. If Trump was smart, he would hold an all-US referendum proposing to enshrine only two genders in the constitution and so on, but unfortunately he is not smart (if he was smart, the ruling class would not have allowed him to participate in the elections).

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.