Where to spend Bitcoin in the UK Luno

05-13 10:12 - 'Should the UK healthcare system (and other victims) be able to directly sue the US government for damages?' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/derrend removed from /r/Bitcoin within 265-275min

'''
I only ask because recently I remember the US passing some sort of bill which allowed private citizens to sue the Arab government over nine-eleven because they were found to be funding Al Qaeda.
Since the NSA is part of the USg and directly funded/created these electronic weapons which are currently being used for... well terrorism, don't the same principles of responsibility apply?
'''
Should the UK healthcare system (and other victims) be able to directly sue the US government for damages?
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: derrend
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Should the UK healthcare system (and other victims) be able to directly sue the US government for damages? /r/Bitcoin

Should the UK healthcare system (and other victims) be able to directly sue the US government for damages? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Why Should We Fear a Cashless World?

The Guardian, 21 March, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/money/commentisfree/2016/ma21/fear-cashless-world-contactless?CMP=fb_gu

The health food chain "Tossed" has just opened the UK's first cashless cafe. It's another step towards the death of cash.
This is nothing new. Money is tech. The casting of coins made shells, whales' teeth and other such primitive forms of money redundant. The printing press did the same for precious metals: we started using paper notes instead. Electronic banking put paid to the cheque. Contactless payment is now doing the same to cash, which is becoming less and less convenient. In the marketplace convenience usually wins. That's fine as long as people are making this choice freely. What concerns me is the unofficial war on cash that is going on, from the suspicion with which you are treated if you ever use large sums of cash to the campaign in Europe to decommission the 500-Euro note. I'm not sure the consequences have been properly considered.
We already live in a world that is, as far as the distribution of wealth is concerned, about as unequal as it gets. It may even be as unequal as it's ever been. My worry is that a cashless society may exacerbate inequality even further. It will hand yet more power to the financial sector in that banks and related fintech companies will oversee all transactions. The crash of 2008 showed that, when push comes to shove, banks have already been exempted from the very effective regulation that is bankruptcy -- one by which the rest of us must all operate. Do we want this sector to have yet more power and influence? In a world without cash, every payment you make will be traceable. Do you want governments (which are not always benevolent), banks or payment processors to have potential access to that information? The power this would hand them is enormous and the potential scope for Orwellian levels of surveillance is terrifying.
Cash, on the other hand, empowers its users. It enables them to buy and sell, and store their wealth, without being dependent on anyone else. They can stay outside the financial system, if so desired. There are many reasons, both moral and practical, to want this. In 2008 many rushed to take their money out of the banks. If the financial system really was as close to breaking point as we are told it was, then such actions are quite justified. When Cyprus's banks teetered on the cliff of financial disaster in 2011, we saw bail-ins. Ordinary people's money in deposit accounts was sequestered to bail out the system. If your life savings were threatened with confiscation to bail out a corporation you considered profligate, I imagine you too would rush to withdraw them.
We have seen similar panics in Greece and, to a lesser extent, across southern Europe. Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, recently declared that banking was not fixed and that we would see financial panic again. In Japan, the central bank has imposed negative rates and you are charged by banks to store money. This is to try and goad people into spending, rather than saving. So much cash has been withdrawn from banks that there are now reports that the country has sold out of safes.
These are all quite legitimate reasons to want to exit the system. I'm not saying we should all take our money out of the bank, but that we should all have the option to. Cash gives you that option. Why remove it? It's our money. Not the banks'. The telephone teaches us a useful lesson. At its peak in 2008, there were 1.3bn landlines for a global population close to 7 billion. Today more than 6 billion people have a mobile phone -- more than have access to a toilet, according to a UN study. Many assume that the mobile succeeded where the landline failed, because the superior technology made widespread coverage more possible. There is something to that. But the main reason, simply, is that, to get a landline, you need a bank account and credit. About half of the world's population is 'unbanked', without access to the basic financial services you need. Telecom companies saw no potential custom, the infrastructure was never built and many were left with fewer possibilities to communicate. But a mobile phone and its airtime you can buy with cash. You don't need to be banked. Almost anyone can get a mobile -- and they have. The financial system was actually a barrier to progress for the world's poor, while cash was a facilitator for them.
Six billion people around the world will have a smartphone by 2020. They will have pretty much everything they need to participate in e-commerce -- internet access, basically -- except the financial inclusion. Which is why there will be a huge role to play in the future for new forms of digital cash -- from Kenya's M-Pesa to bitcoin -- money you can use even if you are not financially included.
Cash has its uses for small transactions -- a chocolate bar, a newspaper, a pint of milk -- which, in the UK, are still uneconomic to process by other means. It will always be the fastest and most direct form of payment there is. I like to tip waiters, for example, in cash, knowing they will receive that money, without it being siphoned off by some unscrupulous employer. I also like to shop in markets, where I can buy directly from the producer knowing they will receive the money, without middle men shaving off their percentages. It also has its uses for private transactions, for which there are many possible reasons, and by no means all of them illegal. Small businesses starting out need the cash economy. Poor people need the cash economy. The war on cash is a war on them.
If you listen to the scaremongering, you'd start to think that all cash users are either criminals, tax evaders or terrorists. Sure, some use cash to evade tax, but it's paltry compared to the tax avoidance schemes Google and Facebook have employed. Google doesn't use cash to avoid tax. It's all done via legislative means. Cash means total financial inclusion, a luxury the better-off take for granted. Without financial inclusion -- and there will always be some who, for whatever reason, won't have it -- you are trapped in poverty. So beware the war on cash.
submitted by ThetruthWithin37 to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Why We Should Fear a Cashless World

The Guardian, 21 March, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/money/commentisfree/2016/ma21/fear-cashless-world-contactless?CMP=fb_gu

The health food chain "Tossed" has just opened the UK's first cashless cafe. It's another step towards the death of cash.
This is nothing new. Money is tech. The casting of coins made shells, whales' teeth and other such primitive forms of money redundant. The printing press did the same for precious metals: we started using paper notes instead. Electronic banking put paid to the cheque. Contactless payment is now doing the same to cash, which is becoming less and less convenient. In the marketplace convenience usually wins. That's fine as long as people are making this choice freely. What concerns me is the unofficial war on cash that is going on, from the suspicion with which you are treated if you ever use large sums of cash to the campaign in Europe to decommission the 500-Euro note. I'm not sure the consequences have been properly considered.
We already live in a world that is, as far as the distribution of wealth is concerned, about as unequal as it gets. It may even be as unequal as it's ever been. My worry is that a cashless society may exacerbate inequality even further. It will hand yet more power to the financial sector in that banks and related fintech companies will oversee all transactions. The crash of 2008 showed that, when push comes to shove, banks have already been exempted from the very effective regulation that is bankruptcy -- one by which the rest of us must all operate. Do we want this sector to have yet more power and influence? In a world without cash, every payment you make will be traceable. Do you want governments (which are not always benevolent), banks or payment processors to have potential access to that information? The power this would hand them is enormous and the potential scope for Orwellian levels of surveillance is terrifying.
Cash, on the other hand, empowers its users. It enables them to buy and sell, and store their wealth, without being dependent on anyone else. They can stay outside the financial system, if so desired. There are many reasons, both moral and practical, to want this. In 2008 many rushed to take their money out of the banks. If the financial system really was as close to breaking point as we are told it was, then such actions are quite justified. When Cyprus's banks teetered on the cliff of financial disaster in 2011, we saw bail-ins. Ordinary people's money in deposit accounts was sequestered to bail out the system. If your life savings were threatened with confiscation to bail out a corporation you considered profligate, I imagine you too would rush to withdraw them.
We have seen similar panics in Greece and, to a lesser extent, across southern Europe. Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, recently declared that banking was not fixed and that we would see financial panic again. In Japan, the central bank has imposed negative rates and you are charged by banks to store money. This is to try and goad people into spending, rather than saving. So much cash has been withdrawn from banks that there are now reports that the country has sold out of safes.
These are all quite legitimate reasons to want to exit the system. I'm not saying we should all take our money out of the bank, but that we should all have the option to. Cash gives you that option. Why remove it? It's our money. Not the banks'. The telephone teaches us a useful lesson. At its peak in 2008, there were 1.3bn landlines for a global population close to 7 billion. Today more than 6 billion people have a mobile phone -- more than have access to a toilet, according to a UN study. Many assume that the mobile succeeded where the landline failed, because the superior technology made widespread coverage more possible. There is something to that. But the main reason, simply, is that, to get a landline, you need a bank account and credit. About half of the world's population is 'unbanked', without access to the basic financial services you need. Telecom companies saw no potential custom, the infrastructure was never built and many were left with fewer possibilities to communicate. But a mobile phone and its airtime you can buy with cash. You don't need to be banked. Almost anyone can get a mobile -- and they have. The financial system was actually a barrier to progress for the world's poor, while cash was a facilitator for them.
Six billion people around the world will have a smartphone by 2020. They will have pretty much everything they need to participate in e-commerce -- internet access, basically -- except the financial inclusion. Which is why there will be a huge role to play in the future for new forms of digital cash -- from Kenya's M-Pesa to bitcoin -- money you can use even if you are not financially included.
Cash has its uses for small transactions -- a chocolate bar, a newspaper, a pint of milk -- which, in the UK, are still uneconomic to process by other means. It will always be the fastest and most direct form of payment there is. I like to tip waiters, for example, in cash, knowing they will receive that money, without it being siphoned off by some unscrupulous employer. I also like to shop in markets, where I can buy directly from the producer knowing they will receive the money, without middle men shaving off their percentages. It also has its uses for private transactions, for which there are many possible reasons, and by no means all of them illegal. Small businesses starting out need the cash economy. Poor people need the cash economy. The war on cash is a war on them.
If you listen to the scaremongering, you'd start to think that all cash users are either criminals, tax evaders or terrorists. Sure, some use cash to evade tax, but it's paltry compared to the tax avoidance schemes Google and Facebook have employed. Google doesn't use cash to avoid tax. It's all done via legislative means. Cash means total financial inclusion, a luxury the better-off take for granted. Without financial inclusion -- and there will always be some who, for whatever reason, won't have it -- you are trapped in poverty. So beware the war on cash.
submitted by ThetruthWithin37 to conspiracyfact [link] [comments]

Why we need to think more carefully about what money is and how it works

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with?It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.

submitted by anthropoz to sustainability [link] [comments]

I know nothing about Danish banking and finances and i'm Danish!

So, long story short I left Denmark as a very little kid and have never been back expect for a weekend trip to Copenhagen a few years back. I've lived most of my life and adult life in the UK (I'm 27), i'm basically British culturally but Danish by birth and nationality. I lost contact with my family so i have absolutely no ties to Denmark whatsoever.
My goal is to reintegrate into Denmark and hopefully buy a small cabin somewhere, I have a job in London that allows me to work remotely/WFH full time. I've been thinking about/when I settle down I would rather have my kids be in Denmark than grow up in London, aslo buying a house in London post-brexit seems like a terrible idea (but I do have settled status in UK, not a dual-national).
I have lots of savings in UK saving accounts, I also hold a small number of stocks and shares £500 mark, and a similar amount in bitcoins/cryptocurrency.
I was really happy to find this subreddit, I'm basically after the basics, I don't know any Danish people or speak Danish which has been the biggest barrier to all of this. I'm very financial aware and competent in the UK and would like to know more about the Danish system to get the confidence I need to make the move when the time comes.

  1. I have recently learnt about the CPR number and I have found mine, and I will apply for a NemID once i move to my new place in London - How does the NemID tie into everything?
  2. How do I open a Danish bank account with no address in DK?
    1. If this is possible, which bank is the best for "internationals"? (I have noticed the absence of Monzo/Starling,N26 style banks in Denmark)
  3. What should I do about my savings in British accounts if i decided to move them to a Danish bank account? Will it be taxed again?
  4. I have been aware of the challenges of buying a home in Denmark but are their government schemes like "Help to Buy" or saving accounts like the "Lifetime ISA Account" in UK that are designed for people saving up to buy a home?
    1. In layman's terms, what is the process for buying a home in DK?
  5. If, let say, I decided to move to Denmark, and work remotely from Denmark, would i also owe taxes in Denmark from my salary paid into my British bank account?
Thanks in advance.
submitted by Therioum to dkfinance [link] [comments]

My Provisional List of COVID Anomalies, Red/ False Flags & Clear Indications of Scumbaggery And Scambuggery. LIHOP, MIHOP Or HOAX/SCAM? Def Not As Described. Very Much Updated Since 1st Posting. Please Let Me Know What I’ve Missed Or Add Links. Repost, Due To Strange Disappearance of 90% Of My Post.

My Provisional List of COVID Anomalies, Red/ False Flags & Clear Indications of Scumbaggery And Scambuggery. LIHOP, MIHOP Or HOAX/SCAM? Def Not As Described. Very Much Updated Since 1st Posting. Please Let Me Know What I’ve Missed Or Add Links. Repost, Due To Strange Disappearance of 90% Of My Post.
Here’s my Top 22 list of suspicious shenanigans and red flags surrounding the COVID narrative:

  1. The Imperial College Death data - Neil Ferguson and Gates-funded Imperial College, London Model that ‘persuaded’ Johnson and Trump to lockdown. Projected 500K deaths in UK and 2.2m deaths in US, EVEN WITH LOCKDOWN. Less than 10% accuracy but 110% alarmist, and evidence that the coding was deliberately flawed and designed to inflate numbers. Gates funding everyone involved in the staged 'debacle'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164121/Professor-predicted-500-000-Britons-die-coronavirus-accused-having-patchy-record.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/coding-led-lockdown-totally-unreliable-buggy-mess-say-experts/
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/who-controls-british-government-response-covid19-part-one
https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Ferguson, with a terrifyingly consistent track record for hyping minor viruses that fail to transpire into pandemics (Swine Flu, Bird Flu, BSE etc), failing upwards as a ‘safe pair of hands‘.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11565369/useless-professor-neil-ferguson-antonia-staats/
EDIT: the material below has now disappeared twice, so I’m reposting with the 95% that disappeared some minutes ago....
2) Ferguson’s blasé attitude to his affair during lockdown - clearly not too worried for his lovers’ family, if he genuinely believed COVID was a threat. No "error of judgement", just a man who knew there was nothing to fear.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/06/ministers-hypocrisy-over-neil-ferguson-lockdown-affair
3) Hospitals cleared of patients in readiness for a pandemic that never came. Desperate for cash, doctors and nurses were financially incentivised to put down patients dying with/ of COVID on death certificates to gain payments. In US $13,000 per patient, and $39,000 per patient on ventilator etc.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/72070/this-is-how-much-hospitals-are-making-if-patients-have-coronavirus/index.html
Footage of empty hospitals worldwide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrJ9yaUOVKs
Nurses furloughed, sent home for suspected virus without testing. Nurses - with nothing better to do - on TikTok etc:
Nurses slammed for filming TikTok showing them carrying coronavirus 'body-bag':
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nurses-slammed-filming-tiktok-showing-21960411
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMHU6MtPVqQ etc
4) Games played with age and numbers, proof that only the elderly and very sick elderly were dying, but less of pneumonia and flu than in previous years. Median age of 79 in US and 82 in UK. Meanwhile whole country on lockdown.
"The median age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years (e.g. 86 years in Sweden) and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality."
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49
(table from 2/7 down the page...)
5) When this became apparent, initial scare stories in press about children dying of virus, later proven to have no merit, just to ensure the hysteria was generalised. Meanwhile, probability of a child dying from the 'virus' is 35m to 1.

https://preview.redd.it/ufir9p8nx8c51.png?width=2224&format=png&auto=webp&s=32ab3b0b0a83f3010abd9c6baf381f589bcc7c9b
"The second row shows that 2 deaths have been recorded among over 7 million school children aged between 5 and 14 (around 1 in 3.5 million), an extremely low risk — although additional deaths may be reported following coroners’ investigations. Over the last five years, there has been an average of 94 deaths registered over this 9-week period for those aged 5–14, and so the 2 Covid deaths represents only 2% of the normal risk faced by this group. That is, whatever average risk they would have faced in these 9 weeks if Covid had never existed — a risk which was extraordinarily low — was increased by Covid by only 2%."
from: https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/08/kawasaki-like-disease-affecting-children-caused-coronavirus/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8264135/UK-says-children-died-syndrome-linked-COVID-19.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8316223/Up-100-British-children-mysterious-inflammatory-disease-linked-COVID-19.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8278963/Ill-youngsters-directly-exposed-corona-victims-refused-tests-medics.html
6) The ludicrous claim that they had never considered economic and psychological DEATH toll of lockdown.
Admission they knew 200,000 lives to be lost due to lockdowns:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
"One of the most consistent themes that emerges from the minutes of SAGE meetings is how the Government repeatedly expected its scientists to account for the economic impact of lockdown restrictions – even though SAGE was not doing any economic modelling."
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/07/03/sagegate-part-one-treasury-and-downing-street-advisors-delayed-covid-19-lockdown/
Then on 20th July, the admission:
Official government estimates indicate more than 200,000 people could die as a result of lockdown and Covid’s impact on the NHS, it has been reported.Forecasts made in April calculated that 12,000 to 25,000 people could die from delays to treatment in the first six months of the pandemic, with another 185,000 deaths in the medium-to-long term.
Like they never considered this until AFTER the lockdown!
https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/20/coronavirus-lockdown-cause-200000-extra-deaths-13014848/
7) Doctors globally openly being told they can save paperwork and earn money by basing cause of death on ASSUMPTION of COVID, based on the vaguest of pretexts and symptoms.
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid19-cause-death-certificate-pcom-20200401.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/anti-vax-doctor-covid-19-death-certificates-984407/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlGkCABfyLw
Also, from the UK...Health Secretary Matt Hancock calls for urgent review into coronavirus death data in England.
It follows confirmation from Public Health England that reported deaths may have included people who tested positive months before they died.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53443724
8) The propaganda campaign against any form of alternative to vaccine (Vitamin C and D, African cures, HCQ etc)
Here’s the NIH admitting in 2005 that Chloroquine was effective against SARS:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
“The Government’s leading body for Covid19 drug trials – led by the controversial character Professor Peter Horby – Oxford’s Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health and heading the vaccine programme - stands accused of grossly misleading negative trial results for the coronavirus management drug Hydroxychloroqhine. (Conflict of interest, surely?)
The lead story in today’s France Soir – a long-respected and unaligned French daily – presents compelling evidence to suggest that the Whitehall/Cabinet Covid19 “advice” team cannot be trusted….and raises yet more doubts about BBC complicity in a false Coronavirus narrative.”
https://jonsnewplace.wordpress.com/2020/06/22/explosive-more-uk-covid-experts-facing-serious-data-manipulation-charges/
http://www.francesoir.fsociete-sante/remdesivir-une-molecule-dinteret-therapeutique-tres-discutable-sur-le-covid-19-partie ( in French)
The [Lancet’s] claim that hydroxychloroquine increases the risk of death in Covid-19 patients has been used by rivals as a stick to beat the US President, who has himself been taking the drug and hailed it a 'game-changer' in the war on coronavirus.
Mounting doubts over the study's reliability culminated yesterday when the authors retracted their study from the Lancet medical journal, whose editorial standards have also been thrown into question.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391779/Lancet-paper-warned-against-Covid-19-drug-flares-accusations-political-point-scoring.html
“The Deputy Chief Investigator of the Recovery Trial, Prof. Martin Landray, gave an interview to France-Soir. What he revealed was quite remarkable.
Firstly, the mortality rate of the hydroxychloroquine patients was a staggering 25.7%.
The recommended hydroxychloroquine dose for an adult in the UK is no more than 200 — 400 mg per day. In France, 1800 mg per day is considered to be lethal poisoning.”
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-hydroxychloroquine-scandal
https://time.com/5840148/coronavirus-cure-covid-organic-madagasca
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-vitamin-c-myth.html
9) The saturation of Gates into the narrative at every level.

https://preview.redd.it/3l08bdluole51.png?width=2224&format=png&auto=webp&s=d0311ee6b5d4df63d81c18801e740516fdf963e3
His hallowed and unquestioned presence in media as expert, the only Moses who can lead us out of this wilderness with his magic potions, release us from our prisons with his benevolence. His financial connections through BMGF to NIH, CDC, WHO, BBC, Guardian, CNN etc and of course every pharmaceutical company in existence....
https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Amazing Polly (pretty much every video this year):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm19xYwJ2nQ
Next year Gates will be the largest funder of WHO :
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/gates-foundation-donations-to-who-nearly-match-those-from-us-government
Gates funding of Impossible burger just in time for lockdown beef shortages in the US:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/08/bill-gates-backed-impossible-burger-ceo-patrick-brown-on-fighting-meat.html
“A biometric digital identity platform that “evolves just as you evolve” is set to be introduced in “low-income, remote communities” in West Africa thanks to a public-private partnership between the Bill Gates-backed GAVI vaccine alliance, Mastercard and the AI-powered “identity authentication” company, Trust Stamp.”
https://www.mintpressnews.com/africa-trust-stamp-covid-19-vaccine-record-payment-system/269346/

BBC compromised:

“Transforming lives through media”? Gates and the CIA? Can we give up the pretence that neutral Auntie speaks for - or represents - us and our best interests?


Charities and foundations - without transparency, oversight and apparently universally trusted. Call your genocidal plans ‘charity’ and not only will you look like a philanthrApist, but people will even donate to their own demise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
EDIT: For further information, I just found this webpage:
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/revealed-bbc-charity-receives-millions-in-funding-from-gates-foundation/
UK Guardian compromised:
Hear the Guardian is regrettably letting 180 staff go this week. Hopefully BMGF can find them suitable homes...
https://hectordrummond.com/2020/05/22/the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundations-sponsorship-of-the-guardian/
From the article:
“This story came from a Guardian sub-section called ‘Global Development‘.
But then I came across this 2010 Guardian story about how the Guardian has started up this new ‘Global Development’ site in partnership with… the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/how-bill-gates-buys-mainstream-outlets-journalists-and-fact-checkers/
https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php
So much information on Gates...almost “paralysed” with possibilities. Ideas?
10) Recent US and UK stories where people clearly dying of other things - cancer, suicide, motorcycle accidents etc are ascribed to COVID. Officially, George Floyd’s death should have been ascribed to COVID, since I believe he tested positive during autopsy. Might have led to a very different world...
https://cbs12.com/news/local/i-team-deaths-incorrectly-attributed-to-covid-19-in-palm-beach-county
https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-death-autopsy-coronavirus-protests-a9548386.html
HighImpactFlix video about case number “massage” and motorcycle anomalies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olz03OPeijM&feature=youtu.be
11) Recent US and UK stories of the deceitful practices by which:
i) the case numbers are conflated with all death numbers on certain days
ii) Dying "of" vs "with" COVID
iii) anyone who dies after testing positive is a COVID death
iv) cases being reported and subliminally conflated with deaths by the media, when death numbers fell too low to keep the public sufficiently terrified to accept coming measures
v) case numbers merely made up or inflated by a factor of ten, in Florida’s case last week.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/
Too many to include all here, but the recent Florida 'mistake' is here:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/florida-labs-found-significantly-inflating-positive-covid-testing-rate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta7g8BgKAXE
If this is a genuine event, what possible reason would there be to commit fraud in so many ways to keep it looking genuine, besides the need to control demolish the world economy and vaccine-shill?
12) Event 201. Drill gone live. Nuff said.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/videos.html
CORBETT REPORT:
https://www.corbettreport.com/mml2020/
Amazing Polly:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7O5RylrMUV8F/
13) The fact that there have been no surprises at all since the crisis began. Every next step had been telegraphed in the media well in advance. Everything began with the notion that a vaccine would be the only solution and the narrative has remained remarkably consistent to Event201.
14) Even with all of these statistical somersaults, the death numbers this year are not far from what they’ve been in previous years. Pneumonia and flu deaths are suspiciously down.


2020 - 6509 flu deaths in five months (Feb-June)
2020 - 6509 flu deaths in five months (Feb-June)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113051/number-reported-deaths-from-covid-pneumonia-and-flu-us/
Compared with:

2019- Flu killed 34,157 - more than twice amount for a similar period of five months this year.
2019 Flu killed 34,157 - more than twice amount for a similar period of five months this year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124915/flu-deaths-number-us/
MUCH, MUCH MORE DATA NEEDED HERE....
15) That in the space of four months, they have managed to capitalise on this crisis and remove so many rights from us permanently. An opportunity for which they’ve been waiting for years, COVID sped up the process and kept us otherwise preoccupied.
Here is my list of achieved or achievable hidden agenda:
In no particular order:
  1. Controlled demolition of the stock market/ global economy. Global reset etc
  2. Transhumanist/ AI rollout (post-human, Gates patents for human batteries linked with cryptocurrency (60606). https://news.bitcoin.com/microsoft-cryptocurrency-system/
  3. Vaccine adulation and promotion (Gates etc promising vaccine = release from captivity - pharmaceutical companies in league with WHO to drum up mandatory sales)
  4. Expediting the climate change agenda, conflating it with the virus as a call for world government and global sustainability.
  5. Plus RFID/ ID2020 tracking through vaccines (mark of the beast, without which no transaction/ employment will be possible)
  6. Demonisation and eradication of cash (total financial dominion)
  7. Mass unemployment and Universal Credit system linked to Social Credit.
  8. Bank (and corporate) bailouts – this time round it looks legitimate and necessary, no public outcry.
  9. Using and conditioning us to the concept of quarantining as a future method of control should there be any hint of unrest.
  10. Cultification of the NHS to the point of a unifying religion (clapping and donations and lionisation of medical staff during what must be the quietest time in their history)
  11. Legitimation of multiculturalism and immigration (race-baiting through NHS and volunteers, #youclapforusnow
  12. A shot in the arm for the MSM and government as a whole: no longer irrelevant and dying, people watching 24-7 since pandemic. Taking attention away from alternative media.
  13. Privatisation of NHS/ public services – corporations will step in to ‘save’ us (public gratitude replacing scepticism)
  14. Makes government look noble and heroic (wartime/ WW2 mentality fostered)
  15. COVID19 as cover story for 5G radiation/ environmental pollution/ vaccine damage etc
  16. Mass Surveillance – using 5G ‘for our safety’ to track and trace
  17. Opportunity to pass draconian laws against human rights (assembly, sectioning, travel, speech)
  18. Social alienation/ conformity as preference/ patriotic duty
  19. Prevention of assembly in order to protest draconian laws
  20. Depopulation in stages (elderly first, then with vaccines and suicides/ bankruptcy etc due to system collapse)
  21. Censorship of social media and social discourse in general
  22. Installation of 5G during lockdown to avoid scrutiny
  23. Effecting the transition of the workplace, shopping district and school to the home, ending community and all nourishing human interactions.
  24. The ‘new normal’ - social revolution and culture creation through social distancing/ queuing for shops/reinvention of the word essential/ mask wearing etc
  25. Destruction of small and medium sized businesses and the high street in general
  26. Fauci’s early dismissive comments about virus, herd immunity and futility of masks, before the script was revised.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-fauci-in-march-masks-make-you-feel-a-little-bit-better-but-unnecessary-for-general-population-warns-of-unintended-consequences
”You don’t need a mask.”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHsEmlIoE4
To the NEJM, he described COVID in March as a flu, with similar numbers predicted to suffer.
“WOW! Dr. Fauci in New England Journal of Medicine Concedes the Coronavirus Mortality Rate May Be Much Closer to a Very Bad Flu”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/wow-dr-fauci-in-new-england-journal-of-medicine-concedes-the-coronavirus-mortality-rate-may-be-much-closer-to-a-very-bad-flu/
Why the u-turn? Surely we define our experts by their consistency.
F William Engdahl article:
https://fort-russ.com/amp/2020/04/shedding-light-on-the-dishonorable-record-of-dr-fauci-a-real-mengele/
Christine Grady (Fauci’s wife) and her sinister connections to NIH and Gates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYen0g4TRU
17) Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and Nadine Dorries - The statistical chances (14%) of three members of the UK Cabinet (made up of 22 people), including the prime minister, actually catching it and one almost dying apparently, right before reversing his decision to let it pass.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-list-of-senior-government-figures-affected-by-coronavirus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51827356
A very intentionally dramatic start to our lockdown, announced by Johnson from his "death-bed", ensuring all were in the appropriate state of panic:
"Boris Johnson: Hospital doctors were ready to announce my death"
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-hospital-doctors-were-ready-to-announce-my-death/
18) Meanwhile, racism knocks the virus off the front pages and our minds for a few weeks, but we’re meant to go right back to taking it seriously when requested.
https://summit.news/2020/06/05/1200-public-health-experts-sign-letter-advocating-mass-gatherings-because-white-supremacy-is-a-bigger-threat-than-covid-19/
19) The many proven fake media stories...of long lines for testing and hospital footage from NY, mannequins in beds etc
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cbs-news-accused-by-project-veritas-of-faking-footage-in-michigan-coronavirus-testing-report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BUBTtUTOII
https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/cbs-admits-to-using-footage-from-italy-in-report-about-nyc/
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-video-operating-dummy-coron/partly-false-claim-video-shows-doctors-operating-on-a-dummy-to-exaggerate-extent-of-coronavirus-crisis-idUSKBN21P2Q8
20) International care home scandals - Deliberately mandating coronavirus carriers into crowded care homes to bump up death toll and concomitant hysteria, kill off elderly...murder?
"It is remarkable how many deaths during this pandemic have occurred in care homes. According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly 50,000 care home deaths were registered in the 11 weeks up to 22 May in England and Wales — 25,000 more than you would expect at this time of the year. Two out of five care homes in England have had a coronavirus outbreak; in the north-east, it’s half.
Not all these deaths, however, have been attributed to Covid-19. Even when death certificates do mention it, it is not always clear that it is the disease that was the ultimate cause of death..."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dying-of-neglect-the-other-covid-care-home-scandal
Her daughter Linda hit out at what she called a “scandalous” policy to release coronavirus patients into care homes and called for her mum’s death to be investigated as part of a wider review."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health/scots-gran-who-died-covid-22172074
Also, more than 40% of US ‘virus‘ deaths occur in nursing homes:
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/504885-over-40-percent-of-us-covid-19-deaths-are-linked-to-nursing-homes-nyt
21) (thanks to Reddit’s lawofconfusion!) Ventilators - All of the sudden, a clamour for them generated panic demand and buying.
“88% death rate among Covid-19 patients in the New York City area who had to be placed on mechanical devices to help them breathe.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/almost-9-in-10-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators-died-in-study
https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/06/covid19-are-ventilators-killing-people/
22) Testing inconsistencies:
Half of CDC Coronavirus Test Kits Are Inaccurate, Study Finds.
”The study... found that the testing kits gave a 30 percent false-positive rate and a 20 percent false-negative rate.”https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/half-of-cdc-coronavirus-test-kits-are-inaccurate-study-finds/ar-BB16S6M6
“According to the creator of the PCR test, Kary Mullis himself, it cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”
https://www.weblyf.com/2020/05/coronavirus-the-truth-about-pcr-test-kit-from-the-inventor-and-other-experts/
Tanzania scandal and the goat/ papaya ‘positive‘ testing (they had to put in the religious dig as a debunking attempt here, didn’t they?):
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-tanzania-testing-kits-questioned-after-goat-and-papaya-test-positive-11982864
Also, this about CT testing irregularities:
https://www.thewesterlysun.com/news/covid-19/connecticut-says-it-found-testing-flaw-90-false-positives/article_91811362-a9b3-53ab-9485-00067ce9e0d5.html
Funny how all the “mistakes” err on the side of positive...

submitted by secretymology to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Why We Should Fear a Cashless World

The Guardian, 21 March, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/money/commentisfree/2016/ma21/fear-cashless-world-contactless?CMP=fb_gu

The health food chain "Tossed" has just opened the UK's first cashless cafe. It's another step towards the death of cash.
This is nothing new. Money is tech. The casting of coins made shells, whales' teeth and other such primitive forms of money redundant. The printing press did the same for precious metals: we started using paper notes instead. Electronic banking put paid to the cheque. Contactless payment is now doing the same to cash, which is becoming less and less convenient. In the marketplace convenience usually wins. That's fine as long as people are making this choice freely. What concerns me is the unofficial war on cash that is going on, from the suspicion with which you are treated if you ever use large sums of cash to the campaign in Europe to decommission the 500-Euro note. I'm not sure the consequences have been properly considered.
We already live in a world that is, as far as the distribution of wealth is concerned, about as unequal as it gets. It may even be as unequal as it's ever been. My worry is that a cashless society may exacerbate inequality even further. It will hand yet more power to the financial sector in that banks and related fintech companies will oversee all transactions. The crash of 2008 showed that, when push comes to shove, banks have already been exempted from the very effective regulation that is bankruptcy -- one by which the rest of us must all operate. Do we want this sector to have yet more power and influence? In a world without cash, every payment you make will be traceable. Do you want governments (which are not always benevolent), banks or payment processors to have potential access to that information? The power this would hand them is enormous and the potential scope for Orwellian levels of surveillance is terrifying.
Cash, on the other hand, empowers its users. It enables them to buy and sell, and store their wealth, without being dependent on anyone else. They can stay outside the financial system, if so desired. There are many reasons, both moral and practical, to want this. In 2008 many rushed to take their money out of the banks. If the financial system really was as close to breaking point as we are told it was, then such actions are quite justified. When Cyprus's banks teetered on the cliff of financial disaster in 2011, we saw bail-ins. Ordinary people's money in deposit accounts was sequestered to bail out the system. If your life savings were threatened with confiscation to bail out a corporation you considered profligate, I imagine you too would rush to withdraw them.
We have seen similar panics in Greece and, to a lesser extent, across southern Europe. Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, recently declared that banking was not fixed and that we would see financial panic again. In Japan, the central bank has imposed negative rates and you are charged by banks to store money. This is to try and goad people into spending, rather than saving. So much cash has been withdrawn from banks that there are now reports that the country has sold out of safes.
These are all quite legitimate reasons to want to exit the system. I'm not saying we should all take our money out of the bank, but that we should all have the option to. Cash gives you that option. Why remove it? It's our money. Not the banks'. The telephone teaches us a useful lesson. At its peak in 2008, there were 1.3bn landlines for a global population close to 7 billion. Today more than 6 billion people have a mobile phone -- more than have access to a toilet, according to a UN study. Many assume that the mobile succeeded where the landline failed, because the superior technology made widespread coverage more possible. There is something to that. But the main reason, simply, is that, to get a landline, you need a bank account and credit. About half of the world's population is 'unbanked', without access to the basic financial services you need. Telecom companies saw no potential custom, the infrastructure was never built and many were left with fewer possibilities to communicate. But a mobile phone and its airtime you can buy with cash. You don't need to be banked. Almost anyone can get a mobile -- and they have. The financial system was actually a barrier to progress for the world's poor, while cash was a facilitator for them.
Six billion people around the world will have a smartphone by 2020. They will have pretty much everything they need to participate in e-commerce -- internet access, basically -- except the financial inclusion. Which is why there will be a huge role to play in the future for new forms of digital cash -- from Kenya's M-Pesa to bitcoin -- money you can use even if you are not financially included.
Cash has its uses for small transactions -- a chocolate bar, a newspaper, a pint of milk -- which, in the UK, are still uneconomic to process by other means. It will always be the fastest and most direct form of payment there is. I like to tip waiters, for example, in cash, knowing they will receive that money, without it being siphoned off by some unscrupulous employer. I also like to shop in markets, where I can buy directly from the producer knowing they will receive the money, without middle men shaving off their percentages. It also has its uses for private transactions, for which there are many possible reasons, and by no means all of them illegal. Small businesses starting out need the cash economy. Poor people need the cash economy. The war on cash is a war on them.
If you listen to the scaremongering, you'd start to think that all cash users are either criminals, tax evaders or terrorists. Sure, some use cash to evade tax, but it's paltry compared to the tax avoidance schemes Google and Facebook have employed. Google doesn't use cash to avoid tax. It's all done via legislative means. Cash means total financial inclusion, a luxury the better-off take for granted. Without financial inclusion -- and there will always be some who, for whatever reason, won't have it -- you are trapped in poverty. So beware the war on cash.
submitted by ThetruthWithin37 to ShrugLifeSyndicate [link] [comments]

I went through Ghislaine Maxwells Reddit account and compiled a list of everything and everyone she supports and attacks.

So I am basing this list off of the headlines she puts as the titles on Reddit. And you can get a sense on who she supports and who she attacks just off the title. And if it paints the people in a positive or negative light. It took me about 2 hours to go through her whole profile and record the named individuals. And Yes I am counting both living and dead people as well. Some of these people may have connections to Epsteins Sex Cult and others don’t. I also find it fascinating while browsing through her account that she is heavily against facial recognition technology. You can’t have facial recognition technologies identifying Epstein walking down the Street now can we? That would blow up the NWOs main narrative that he offed himself.
Also a few articles I found that I thought were interesting based on headline alone (I didn’t actually read them yet) about child sex rings being busted by police.
People she Attacks:
Brett Kavanaugh,
Donald Trump,
David Duke,
Richard Spenser,
Stefan Molyneux,
Boris Johnson ,
Mark Zuckerberg ,
Eric Trump ,
Putin,
Bolsonaro ,
Pompeo
Companies/Governments/Government Organizations she Attacks:
Facebook ,
Chesapeake Energy,
KKK,
GOP,
G20,
Apple News,
Trumps Justice Department ,
Walmart ,
All Lives Matter,
Blue Lives Matter,
Irish Lives Matter ,
Exxon,
Koch Industries,
API,
Fox News
People She Defends:
Snowden ,
Kelly Fairhurst,
Pope Francis ,
Greta Thunberg,
Bill Gates,
Susan Rice,
Maduro,
Dr. Theresa Tam,
Trudeau,
Keith Ellison,
Jamaal Bowman,
Dr. Jose Gregorio Hernandez,
Kelly Walsh,
Don Walsh,
Dr. Fauci,
Corrado Amitrano,
George Floyd,
Jane Goodall,
Dominic Raab
Companies/Governments/Government Organizations she Defends:
China
Autonomous Zone in Seattle ,
Black Lives Matter ,
The New York Times,
Amnesty International ,
Bitcoin ,
Twitch,
Youtube,
Amazon ,
Microsoft ,
IBM ,
Democrats/DNC,
Twitter, Venezuela ,
Iranian Oil,
Iran,
Ikea,
Sanofi,
US Supreme Court ,
WHO,
UN Human Rights Council
https://www.reddit.com/worldnews/comments/gstkg4/uk_police_arrest_650_people_seize_3_million_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
https://www.reddit.com/worldnews/comments/hf3alk/a_city_in_eastern_china_is_introducing_a_system/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
https://www.reddit.com/technology/comments/gu6r1g/covid19_misinformation_protrump_and_qanon_twitte?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
submitted by Stevemagegod to conspiracy [link] [comments]

10 things in tech you need to know today

  1. Facebook removed dozens of Trump ads that falsely blamed refugees for spread of COVID-19. "We don't allow claims that people's physical safety, health, or survival is threatened by people on the basis of their national origin or immigration status," a Facebook spokesperson told NBC.
  2. Palantir officially began trading via direct listing on Wednesday. The New York Stock Exchange established a reference price of $7.25 per share, valuing the company at about $16 billion ahead of its official debut.
  3. Facebook is merging its Messenger and Instagram direct message features, allowing users on Instagram to send chats to people on Facebook and vice versa. The news comes over a year after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the company was planning to integrate its Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp platforms.
  4. Google unveiled the Pixel 5, its next flagship smartphone. Google's Pixel line doesn't have as big of a presence in the market as it rivals from Samsung, Apple, and Huawei, but the company often uses the phones to introduce new Android features.
  5. Apple is giving CEO Tim Cook over $38 million in stock to stay with the company through 2025. Cook could earn an additional 333,987 shares in Apple stock — which could vest at 200% of their value — depending on Apple's performance across that period.
  6. The UK government overrode warnings its $1 billion startup rescue fund risked wasting taxpayer money on second-tier companies. A newly published letter from March reveals the CEO of the British Business Bank thought there was insufficient evidence that the Future Fund could provide taxpayers "good value for money."
  7. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked the SEC to investigate secretive data firm Palantir before it hit the stock exchange. Among the congresswoman's concerns is Palantir's longtime penchant for secrecy, which she wrote could hurt future investors.
  8. China is reportedly preparing an antitrust investigation into Google at Huawei's request. Huawei suggested the probe last year, two people with knowledge of the matter told Reuters.
  9. Google is reportedly committing to the future of the office by taking extra workspace near its London HQ. The tech giant is also extending a lease of a 160,000 square foot office building in the city that was due to expire in 2021.
  10. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey criticized Coinbase's CEO for telling his employees not to engage in activism, Bloomberg reports. "#Bitcoin (aka "crypto") is direct activism against an unverifiable and exclusionary financial system which negatively affects so much of our society," Dorsey tweeted on Wednesday.
Link to article
submitted by autobuzzfeedbot to buzzfeedbot [link] [comments]

A realistic way forwards (long, but I believe important)

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”, as well as large numbers of confused and worried "ordinary" people. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with? It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.
submitted by anthropoz to ExtinctionRebellion [link] [comments]

My Very Provisional List of COVID Anomalies, Red/ False Flags and Clear Indications of Scumbaggery. LIHOP, MIHOP Or HOAX/SCAM? Def Not As Described. Need Your Help To Source References and Links For Existing Categories And Add New Ones. This is WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE. I Know I've Missed Tonnes...Ideas?

My Very Provisional List of COVID Anomalies, Red/ False Flags and Clear Indications of Scumbaggery. LIHOP, MIHOP Or HOAX/SCAM? Def Not As Described. Need Your Help To Source References and Links For Existing Categories And Add New Ones. This is WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE. I Know I've Missed Tonnes...Ideas?
Here’s my Top 22 list of suspicious shenanigans and red flags surrounding the COVID narrative:

  1. The Imperial College Death data - Neil Ferguson and Gates-funded Imperial College, London Model that ‘persuaded’ Johnson and Trump to lockdown. 500K deaths in UK and 2.2m deaths projected in US, EVEN WITH LOCKDOWN. Less than 10% accuracy but 110% alarmist, and evidence that the coding was deliberately flawed and designed to inflate numbers. Gates funding everyone involved in the staged 'debacle'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164121/Professor-predicted-500-000-Britons-die-coronavirus-accused-having-patchy-record.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/coding-led-lockdown-totally-unreliable-buggy-mess-say-experts/
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/who-controls-british-government-response-covid19-part-one
https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Ferguson, with a terrifyingly consistent track record for hyping minor viruses that fail to transpire into pandemics (Swine Flu, Bird Flu, BSE etc), failing upwards as a ‘safe pair of hands‘.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11565369/useless-professor-neil-ferguson-antonia-staats/
EDIT: I‘ve reposted, but thought I’d put back the 95% that disappeared some minutes ago....
2) Ferguson’s blasé attitude to his affair during lockdown - clearly not too worried for his lovers’ family, if he genuinely believed COVID was a threat. No "error of judgement", just a man who knew there was nothing to fear.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/06/ministers-hypocrisy-over-neil-ferguson-lockdown-affair
3) Hospitals cleared of patients in readiness for a pandemic that never came. Desperate for cash, doctors and nurses were financially incentivised to put down patients dying with/ of COVID on death certificates to gain payments. In US $13,000 per patient, and $39,000 per patient on ventilator etc.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/72070/this-is-how-much-hospitals-are-making-if-patients-have-coronavirus/index.html
Footage of empty hospitals worldwide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrJ9yaUOVKs
Nurses furloughed, sent home for suspected virus without testing. Nurses - with nothing better to do - on TikTok etc:
Nurses slammed for filming TikTok showing them carrying coronavirus 'body-bag':
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nurses-slammed-filming-tiktok-showing-21960411
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMHU6MtPVqQ etc
4) Games played with age and numbers, proof that only the elderly and very sick elderly were dying, but less of pneumonia and flu than in previous years. Median age of 79 in US and 82 in UK. Meanwhile whole country on lockdown.
"The median age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years (e.g. 86 years in Sweden) and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality."
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49
(table from 2/7 down the page...)
5) When this became apparent, initial scare stories in press about children dying of virus, later proven to have no merit, just to ensure the hysteria was generalised. Meanwhile, probability of a child dying from the 'virus' is 35m to 1.

https://preview.redd.it/exxx18mdn8c51.png?width=2224&format=png&auto=webp&s=d9f00fd75d396a945a4244eab07b37325706eca3
"The second row shows that 2 deaths have been recorded among over 7 million school children aged between 5 and 14 (around 1 in 3.5 million), an extremely low risk — although additional deaths may be reported following coroners’ investigations. Over the last five years, there has been an average of 94 deaths registered over this 9-week period for those aged 5–14, and so the 2 Covid deaths represents only 2% of the normal risk faced by this group. That is, whatever average risk they would have faced in these 9 weeks if Covid had never existed — a risk which was extraordinarily low — was increased by Covid by only 2%."
from: https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-risks-of-covid-particularly-to-children-and-younger-adults-a5cbf7060c49
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/08/kawasaki-like-disease-affecting-children-caused-coronavirus/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8264135/UK-says-children-died-syndrome-linked-COVID-19.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8316223/Up-100-British-children-mysterious-inflammatory-disease-linked-COVID-19.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8278963/Ill-youngsters-directly-exposed-corona-victims-refused-tests-medics.html
6) The ludicrous claim that they had never considered economic and psychological DEATH toll of lockdown.
There was a press conference in June on BBC, where they said "saving lives" from the virus was considered more important. Hard to believe, but I can't find the footage yet...
"One of the most consistent themes that emerges from the minutes of SAGE meetings is how the Government repeatedly expected its scientists to account for the economic impact of lockdown restrictions – even though SAGE was not doing any economic modelling."
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/07/03/sagegate-part-one-treasury-and-downing-street-advisors-delayed-covid-19-lockdown/
7) Doctors globally openly being told they can save paperwork and earn money by basing cause of death on ASSUMPTION of COVID, based on the vaguest of pretexts and symptoms.
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-covid19-cause-death-certificate-pcom-20200401.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/anti-vax-doctor-covid-19-death-certificates-984407/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlGkCABfyLw
Also, from the UK...Health Secretary Matt Hancock calls for urgent review into coronavirus death data in England.
It follows confirmation from Public Health England that reported deaths may have included people who tested positive months before they died.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53443724
8) The propaganda campaign against any form of alternative to vaccine (Vitamin C and D, African cures, HCQ etc)
“The Government’s leading body for Covid19 drug trials – led by the controversial character Professor Peter Horby – Oxford’s Professor of Emerging Infectious Diseases and Global Health and heading the vaccine programme - stands accused of grossly misleading negative trial results for the coronavirus management drug Hydroxychloroqhine. (Conflict of interest, surely?)
The lead story in today’s France Soir – a long-respected and unaligned French daily – presents compelling evidence to suggest that the Whitehall/Cabinet Covid19 “advice” team cannot be trusted….and raises yet more doubts about BBC complicity in a false Coronavirus narrative.”
https://jonsnewplace.wordpress.com/2020/06/22/explosive-more-uk-covid-experts-facing-serious-data-manipulation-charges/
http://www.francesoir.fsociete-sante/remdesivir-une-molecule-dinteret-therapeutique-tres-discutable-sur-le-covid-19-partie ( in French)
The [Lancet’s] claim that hydroxychloroquine increases the risk of death in Covid-19 patients has been used by rivals as a stick to beat the US President, who has himself been taking the drug and hailed it a 'game-changer' in the war on coronavirus**.**
Mounting doubts over the study's reliability culminated yesterday when the authors retracted their study from the Lancet medical journal, whose editorial standards have also been thrown into question.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391779/Lancet-paper-warned-against-Covid-19-drug-flares-accusations-political-point-scoring.html
“The Deputy Chief Investigator of the Recovery Trial, Prof. Martin Landray, gave an interview to France-Soir. What he revealed was quite remarkable.
Firstly, the mortality rate of the hydroxychloroquine patients was a staggering 25.7%.
The recommended hydroxychloroquine dose for an adult in the UK is no more than 200 — 400 mg per day. In France, 1800 mg per day is considered to be lethal poisoning.”
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-hydroxychloroquine-scandal
https://time.com/5840148/coronavirus-cure-covid-organic-madagasca
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-vitamin-c-myth.html
9) The saturation of Gates into the narrative at every level. His hallowed and unquestioned presence in media as expert, the only Moses who can lead us out of this wilderness with his magic potions, release us from our prisons with his benevolence. His financial connections through BMGF to NIH, CDC, WHO, BBC, Guardian, CNN etc and of course every pharmaceutical company in existence....
https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Amazing Polly (pretty much every video this year):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm19xYwJ2nQ
BBC compromised:

“Transforming lives through media”? Gates and the CIA? Can we give up the pretence that neutral Auntie speaks for - or represents - us and our best interests?
Charities and foundations - without transparency, oversight and apparently universally trusted. Call your genocidal plans ‘charity’ and not only will you look like a philanthrApist, but people will even donate to their own demise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
EDIT: For further information, I just found this webpage:
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/revealed-bbc-charity-receives-millions-in-funding-from-gates-foundation/
UK Guardian compromised:
Hear the Guardian is regrettably letting 180 staff go this week. Hopefully BMGF can find them suitable homes...
https://hectordrummond.com/2020/05/22/the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundations-sponsorship-of-the-guardian/
From the article:
“This story came from a Guardian sub-section called ‘Global Development‘.
But then I came across this 2010 Guardian story about how the Guardian has started up this new ‘Global Development’ site in partnership with… the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So much information on Gates...almost “paralysed” with possibilities. Ideas?
10) Recent US and UK stories where people clearly dying of other things - cancer, suicide, motorcycle accidents etc are ascribed to COVID. Officially, George Floyd’s death should have been ascribed to COVID, since I believe he tested positive during autopsy. Might have led to a very different world...
https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-death-autopsy-coronavirus-protests-a9548386.html
HighImpactFix video about case number “massage” and motorcycle anomalies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olz03OPeijM&feature=youtu.be
11) Recent US and UK stories of the deceitful practices by which:
i) the case numbers are conflated with all death numbers on certain days
ii) Dying "of" vs "with" COVID
iii) anyone who dies after testing positive is a COVID death
iv) cases being reported and subliminally conflated with deaths by the media, when death numbers fell too low to keep the public sufficiently terrified to accept coming measures
v) case numbers merely made up or inflated by a factor of ten, in Florida’s case last week.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/
Too many to include all here, but the recent Florida 'mistake' is here:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/florida-labs-found-significantly-inflating-positive-covid-testing-rate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta7g8BgKAXE
If this is a genuine event, what possible reason would there be to commit fraud in so many ways to keep it looking genuine, besides the need to control demolish the world economy and vaccine-shill?
12) Event 201. Drill gone live. Nuff said.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/videos.html
CORBETT REPORT:
https://www.corbettreport.com/mml2020/
Amazing Polly:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7O5RylrMUV8F/
13) The fact that there have been no surprises at all since the crisis began. Every next step had been telegraphed in the media well in advance. Everything began with the notion that a vaccine would be the only solution and the narrative has remained remarkably consistent to Event201.
14) Even with all of these statistical somersaults, the death numbers this year are not far from what they’ve been in previous years. Pneumonia and flu deaths are suspiciously down.

2020 - 6509 flu deaths in five months (Feb-June)
2020 - 6509 flu deaths in five months (Feb-June)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113051/number-reported-deaths-from-covid-pneumonia-and-flu-us/
Compared with:

2019- Flu killed 34,157 - more than twice amount for a similar period of five months this year.
2019 Flu killed 34,157 - more than twice amount for a similar period of five months this year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124915/flu-deaths-number-us/
MUCH, MUCH MORE DATA NEEDED HERE....
15) That in the space of four months, they have managed to capitalise on this crisis and remove so many rights from us permanently. An opportunity for which they’ve been waiting for years, COVID sped up the process and kept us otherwise preoccupied.
Here is my list of achieved or achievable hidden agenda:
In no particular order:
  1. Controlled demolition of the stock market/ global economy. Global reset etc
  2. Transhumanist/ AI rollout (post-human, Gates patents for human batteries linked with cryptocurrency (60606). https://news.bitcoin.com/microsoft-cryptocurrency-system/
  3. Vaccine adulation and promotion (Gates etc promising vaccine = release from captivity - pharmaceutical companies in league with WHO to drum up mandatory sales)
  4. Expediting the climate change agenda, conflating it with the virus as a call for world government and global sustainability.
  5. Plus RFID/ ID2020 tracking through vaccines (mark of the beast, without which no transaction/ employment will be possible)
  6. Demonisation and eradication of cash (total financial dominion)
  7. Mass unemployment and Universal Credit system linked to Social Credit.
  8. Bank (and corporate) bailouts – this time round it looks legitimate and necessary, no public outcry.
  9. Using and conditioning us to the concept of quarantining as a future method of control should there be any hint of unrest.
  10. Cultification of the NHS to the point of a unifying religion (clapping and donations and lionisation of medical staff during what must be the quietest time in their history)
  11. Legitimation of multiculturalism and immigration (race-baiting through NHS and volunteers, #youclapforusnow
  12. A shot in the arm for the MSM and government as a whole: no longer irrelevant and dying, people watching 24-7 since pandemic. Taking attention away from alternative media.
  13. Privatisation of NHS/ public services – corporations will step in to ‘save’ us (public gratitude replacing scepticism)
  14. Makes government look noble and heroic (wartime/ WW2 mentality fostered)
  15. COVID19 as cover story for 5G radiation/ environmental pollution/ vaccine damage etc
  16. Mass Surveillance – using 5G ‘for our safety’ to track and trace
  17. Opportunity to pass draconian laws against human rights (assembly, sectioning, travel, speech)
  18. Social alienation/ conformity as preference/ patriotic duty
  19. Prevention of assembly in order to protest draconian laws
  20. Depopulation in stages (elderly first, then with vaccines and suicides/ bankruptcy etc due to system collapse)
  21. Censorship of social media and social discourse in general
  22. Installation of 5G during lockdown to avoid scrutiny
  23. Effecting the transition of the workplace, shopping district and school to the home, ending community and all nourishing human interactions.
  24. The ‘new normal’ - social revolution and culture creation through social distancing/ queuing for shops/reinvention of the word essential/ mask wearing etc
  25. Destruction of small and medium sized businesses and the high street in general
  26. Fauci’s early dismissive comments about virus, herd immunity and futility of masks, before the script was revised.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-fauci-in-march-masks-make-you-feel-a-little-bit-better-but-unnecessary-for-general-population-warns-of-unintended-consequences
”You don’t need a mask.”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHsEmlIoE4
To the NEJM, he described COVID in March as a flu, with similar numbers predicted to suffer.
“WOW! Dr. Fauci in New England Journal of Medicine Concedes the Coronavirus Mortality Rate May Be Much Closer to a Very Bad Flu”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/wow-dr-fauci-in-new-england-journal-of-medicine-concedes-the-coronavirus-mortality-rate-may-be-much-closer-to-a-very-bad-flu/
Why the u-turn? Surely we define our experts by their consistency.
F William Engdahl article:
https://fort-russ.com/amp/2020/04/shedding-light-on-the-dishonorable-record-of-dr-fauci-a-real-mengele/
Christine Grady (Fauci’s wife):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkYen0g4TRU
17) Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and Nadine Dorries - The statistical chances (14%) of three members of the UK Cabinet (made up of 22 people), including the prime minister, actually catching it and one almost dying apparently, right before reversing his decision to let it pass.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-list-of-senior-government-figures-affected-by-coronavirus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51827356
A very intentionally dramatic start to our lockdown, announced by Johnson from his "death-bed", ensuring all were in the appropriate state of panic:
"Boris Johnson: Hospital doctors were ready to announce my death"
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-hospital-doctors-were-ready-to-announce-my-death/
18) Meanwhile, racism knocks the virus off the front pages and our minds for a few weeks, but we’re meant to go right back to taking it seriously when requested.
https://summit.news/2020/06/05/1200-public-health-experts-sign-letter-advocating-mass-gatherings-because-white-supremacy-is-a-bigger-threat-than-covid-19/
19) The many proven fake media stories...of long lines for testing and hospital footage from NY, mannequins in beds etc
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cbs-news-accused-by-project-veritas-of-faking-footage-in-michigan-coronavirus-testing-report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BUBTtUTOII
https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/cbs-admits-to-using-footage-from-italy-in-report-about-nyc/
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-video-operating-dummy-coron/partly-false-claim-video-shows-doctors-operating-on-a-dummy-to-exaggerate-extent-of-coronavirus-crisis-idUSKBN21P2Q8
20) International care home scandals - Deliberately mandating coronavirus carriers into crowded care homes to bump up death toll and concomitant hysteria, kill off elderly...murder?
"It is remarkable how many deaths during this pandemic have occurred in care homes. According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly 50,000 care home deaths were registered in the 11 weeks up to 22 May in England and Wales — 25,000 more than you would expect at this time of the year. Two out of five care homes in England have had a coronavirus outbreak; in the north-east, it’s half.
Not all these deaths, however, have been attributed to Covid-19. Even when death certificates do mention it, it is not always clear that it is the disease that was the ultimate cause of death..."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dying-of-neglect-the-other-covid-care-home-scandal
"The daughter of a 91-year-old gran who died of Covid-19 she contracted in a care home is demanding to know why her mum was “sacrificed” by ministers.
Retired teacher Anne Duncan died in Edinburgh’s Western General Hospitaltwo days after her family managed to force a move out of the care home in the city where they feared she would die alone.
Her daughter Linda hit out at what she called a “scandalous” policy to release coronavirus patients into care homes and called for her mum’s death to be investigated as part of a wider review."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health/scots-gran-who-died-covid-22172074
Also, more than 40% of US ‘virus‘ deaths occur in nursing homes:
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/504885-over-40-percent-of-us-covid-19-deaths-are-linked-to-nursing-homes-nyt
21) (thanks to law of confusion!) Ventilators - All of the sudden, a clamour for them generated panic demand and buying. Cuomo desperate, while he sat in front of a warehouse wall full of them. Hegelian dialectics at play. Trump apparently withholding, Trump giving them out like Oprah, then the evidence that they were killing most people on them.
“A giant study that examined outcomes for more than 2,600 patients found an extraordinarily high 88% death rate among Covid-19 patients in the New York City area who had to be placed on mechanical devices to help them breathe.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/almost-9-in-10-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators-died-in-study
22) Testing inconsistencies:
Half of CDC Coronavirus Test Kits Are Inaccurate, Study Finds.
”The study's lead author, Sin Hang Lee, MD, director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, found that the testing kits gave a 30 percent false-positive rate and a 20 percent false-negative rate.”https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/half-of-cdc-coronavirus-test-kits-are-inaccurate-study-finds/ar-BB16S6M6
“According to the creator of the PCR test, Kary Mullis himself, it cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”
https://www.weblyf.com/2020/05/coronavirus-the-truth-about-pcr-test-kit-from-the-inventor-and-other-experts/
Also, this about CT testing irregularities:
https://www.thewesterlysun.com/news/covid-19/connecticut-says-it-found-testing-flaw-90-false-positives/article_91811362-a9b3-53ab-9485-00067ce9e0d5.html
Funny how all the “mistakes” err on the side of positive...
submitted by secretymology to conspiracy [link] [comments]

How Data Centralization Ends by 2030

Link to Coindesk: https://www.coindesk.com/data-centralization-2030
The next 10 years will witness the systematic manipulation of human life at a scale unrivaled in history. For all the recent controversies over privacy and surveillance, the real threat is ahead of us.
Unless new approaches to online identity and data management take hold, both governments and private actors will move inexorably from knowing you to shaping you. Blockchain-enabled decentralization will develop as the only viable response to the iron logic of data centralization.
Blockchain believers often talk as though today’s early-adopter use cases, such as cryptocurrency trading and decentralized finance, will lead straight to mass market adoption. As the inevitable ‘killer apps’ appear, so the story goes, blockchain-based systems will conquer the mainstream. One might imagine that we’ll all soon be trading digital collectibles and relying on token-curated registries for accurate information. Governments will lose control over money, and blockchain-based smart contracts will replace court-enforced legal agreements. Uber, Facebook and the banks will wither away in the face of tokenized alternatives.
This narrative is wishful thinking. In most markets, intermediaries will endure for the same reasons they always have: they provide value. The Ubers and Facebooks – and yes, even the banks – tame complexity and produce coherent, convenient, de-risked experiences that no decentralized community can ever match. Early adopters use blockchain-based systems for ideological reasons or to get rich on cryptocurrency speculation. The billions behind them in the mainstream will not. The lock-in power of network effects creates high barriers for alternative economic systems. And the need for trust disqualifies decentralized solutions that are havens for criminals, incapable of effective compliance or vulnerable to catastrophic attacks – which, regrettably, means virtually all of them today.
Truly decentralized blockchain systems will reach critical mass not out of hope but out of necessity. Powerful actors and mainstream users will adopt blockchain as a counterbalance to digital behavior-shaping by governments and private platforms. Dramatic innovations such as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), which manage activity automatically through smart contracts, will become significant at the end point of this process, once the foundations are in place.
Big data and artificial intelligence, pitched as freeing us from human frailties, are becoming powerful tools for social control. This is occurring along two parallel tracks: surveillance authoritarianism and surveillance capitalism. Through massive data collection and aggregation, China’s social credit system envisions an airtight regime of perfect compliance with legal and social obligations. Many other governments, including liberal democracies, are adopting similar techniques. The potential for catching terrorists, child predators and tax evaders is simply too appealing – whether it’s the real objective or a cover story.
"WHAT WE NEED IS A TECHNOLOGY THAT ALLOWS FOR SHARING WITHOUT GIVING UP CONTROL. FORTUNATELY, IT EXISTS."
Meanwhile, private digital platforms are using troves of data to shape online experiences consistent with their business models. What you see online is, increasingly, what maximizes their profits. Companies such as Google, Amazon, Tencent and Alibaba can build the best algorithms because they have the most data. And they aren’t interested in sharing.
Regulatory interventions will fail to derail the self-reinforcing momentum for ever more centralized data repositories. They may even accelerate it by creating layers of compliance obligations that only the largest firms can meet. Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) actually increased the market share of Google and Facebook in online advertising, and so it is not surprising to see such incumbents actively welcoming the prospect of more regulation.
The only lasting solution is to change the economics of data, not to impose private property rights; that would accelerate the market forces promoting data centralization. Giving you “ownership” over your data means giving you legal cover to sell it, by clicking “OK” to a one-sided contract you’ll never read. The problem is not ownership, but control. In today’s algorithm-driven world, sharing and aggregating data increases its value, producing better models and better predictions. The trouble is that once we share, we lose control to centralized data hogs.
What we need is a technology that allows for sharing without giving up control. Fortunately, it exists. It is called blockchain. Blockchain technology is, fundamentally, a revolution in trust. In the past, trust required ceding control to counter parties, government authorities or intermediaries who occupied the essential validating roles in transaction networks. Blockchain allows participants to trust the results they see without necessarily trusting any actor to verify them. That’s why major global firms in health care, finance, transportation, international trade and other fields are actively developing cross-organizational platforms based on blockchain and related technologies. No database can provide a trusted view of information across an entire transactional network without empowering a central intermediary. Blockchain can.
Adopting any new platform at scale, along with the necessary software integration and process changes, takes time – especially when the technology is so immature. But today’s incremental deployments will serve as proofs-of-concept for the more radical innovations to come. Chinese blockchain networks are already managing tens of billions of dollars of trade finance transactions. Pharmaceutical companies are tracking drugs from manufacturing to pharmacies using the MediLedger platform. Boeing is selling a billion dollars of airline parts on Honeywell’s blockchain-based marketplace. Car insurance companies are processing accident claims in a unified environment for the first time. These and other enterprise consortia are doing the essential technical and operational groundwork to handle valuable transactions at scale.
The need for transformative approaches to data will become acute in the next five years. Every week, it seems, another outrage comes to light. For instance, users who posted photos under Creative Commons licenses or default-public settings were shocked they were sucked into databases used to train facial-recognition systems. Some were even used in China’s horrific campaign against Uighur Muslims. Clearview AI, an unknown startup, scraped three billion social media images for a face identification tool it provided, with no oversight, to law enforcement, corporations and wealthy individuals. The examples will only get worse as firms and nations learn new ways to exploit data. The core problem is there is no way to share information while retaining control over how it gets used.
Blockchain offers a solution. It will be widely adopted because, behind the scenes, the current data economy is reaching its breaking point. Outrage over abuses is building throughout the world. The immensely valuable online advertising economy attracts so much fraud that the accuracy of its numbers is coming into question. Communities are looking for new ways to collaborate. Governments are realizing the current system is an impediment to effective service delivery.
The technologist Bill Joy famously stated that no matter how many geniuses a company employs, most smart people work somewhere else. The same is true of data. Even giants such as Google, Facebook and Chinese government agencies need to obtain information from elsewhere in their quest for perfect real-time models of every individual. These arrangements work mostly through contracts and interfaces that ease the flow of data between organisations. As Facebook discovered when Cambridge Analytica extracted massive quantities of user data for voter targeting, these connection points are also vulnerabilities. As tighter limits are placed on data-sharing, even the big players will look for ways to rebuild trust.
The blockchain alternative will begin innocuously. Government authorities at the subnational level are deploying self-sovereign identity to pull together information securely across disparate data stores. This technology allows anyone to share private information in a fine-grained way while still retaining control. You shouldn’t have to reveal your address to confirm your age, or your full tax return to verify your stated income. The necessary cryptography doesn’t require a blockchain, but the desired trust relationships do.
Once people have identities that belong to them, not to banks or social media services, they will use them as the basis for other interactions. Imagine a world where you never need to give a third-party unnecessary data to log into a website, apply for a job, refinance a mortgage or link your bank account to a mobile payment app. Where you can keep your personal and professional profiles completely separate if you choose. Where you can be confident in the reputation of a car mechanic or an Airbnb or a product made in China without intermediaries warping ratings for their own gain. The convenience of user experiences we enjoy within the walled gardens of digital platforms will become the norm across the vastness of independent services.
We will gradually come to view access to our personal information as an episodic, focused interaction, rather than fatalistically accepting an open season based on preliminary formal consent. Major hardware companies such as Apple, which don’t depend on targeted advertising, will build decentralized identity capabilities into their devices. They will add cryptocurrency wallets linked behind the scenes to existing payment and messaging applications. Stablecoins – cryptocurrencies pegged to the dollar, pound or other assets – will help tame volatility and facilitate movement between tokens and traditional currencies. Privately created stablecoins will coexist with central bank digital currencies, which are under development in most major countries throughout the world.
Once this baseline infrastructure is widely available, the real changes will start to occur. DAOs will begin to attract assets as efficient ways for communities to achieve their goals. These entities won’t replace state-backed legal systems; they will operate within them. As numerous controversies, crashes and hacks have already demonstrated, software code is too rigid for the range of situations in the real world, absent backstops for human dispute resolution. Fortunately, there are solutions under development to connect legal and digital entities, such as OpenLaw’s Limited Liability Autonomous Organisations and Mattereum’s Asset Passports.
Today, the legal machinery of contracts strengthens the power of centralized platforms. User agreements and privacy policies enforce their control over data and limit individuals’ power to challenge it. Blockchain-based systems will flip that relationship, with the legal system deployed to protect technology-backed user empowerment. Large aggregations of information will be structured formally as “data trusts” that exercise independent stewardship over assets. They will operate as DAOs, with smart contracts defining the terms of data usage. Users will benefit from sharing while retaining the ability to opt out.
"DATA WILL BE TREATED NOT AS PROPERTY BUT AS A RENEWABLE RESOURCE, WITH THE COMPETITION FOR ECONOMIC VALUE IN THE APPLICATIONS BUILT ON TOP OF IT."
Many significant applications require aggregation of data to drive algorithms, including traffic monitoring (and eventually autonomous vehicles); insurance and lending products serving previously excluded or overcharged customer groups; diagnosis and drug dosing in health care; and demand forecasting for economic modeling. Collective action problems can prevent constructive developments even when rights in data are well defined. DAOs will gradually find market opportunities, from patronage of independent artists to mortgage securitization.
The big data aggregators won’t go away. They will participate in the decentralized data economy because it provides benefits for them as well, cutting down on fraud and reinforcing user trust, which is in increasingly scarce supply. Over time, those who provide benefits of personalization and targeting will more and more be expected to pay for it. A wide range of brokering and filtering providers will offer users a choice of analytics, some embedded in applications or devices and some providing services virtually in the cloud. Governments will focus on making data available and defining policy objectives for services that take advantage of the flow of information. Data will be treated not as property but as a renewable resource, with the competition for economic value in the applications built on top of it.
The most powerful benefit of open data built on blockchain-based decentralised control is that it will allow for new applications we can’t yet envision. If startups can take advantage of the power of data aggregation that today is limited to large incumbents, they are bound to build innovations those incumbents miss.
The surveillance economy took hold because few appreciated what was happening with their data until it was too late. And the cold reality is that few will accept significantly worse functionality or user experience in return for better privacy. That is why the blockchain-powered revolution will make its way up from infrastructural foundations of digital identity and hardware, rather than down from novel user-facing applications.
This vision is far from certain to be realized. Business decisions and government policies could make blockchain-based data decentralization more or less likely. The greatest reason for optimism is that the problem blockchain addresses – gaining trust without giving up control – is becoming ever more critical. The world runs on trust. Blockchain offers hope for recasting trust in the networked digital era.
submitted by BlockDotCo to u/BlockDotCo [link] [comments]

More Governments Will Use Blockchain Technology If It Adapts To Their Needs

Link to original article: https://www.wales247.co.uk/more-governments-will-use-blockchain-technology-if-it-adapts-to-their-needs/
Blockchain technology is one of the greatest innovations of the 21st century, yet so little of the world actually benefits from it right now.
One of the reasons for this is the lack of government adoption, with only a handful of forward thinking nations adopting it in production so far. I believe that, were more governments to adopt this powerful technology, the mass adoption by large swathes of the global population would follow.
However, for this to happen, blockchain technology needs to change. At present, the decentralised networks that are most established simply aren’t designed for governments. They advocate anonymity and a lack of centralised control above all else. The reality of the world we live in though is that people recognise the role of a centralised government as their elected representatives.
For blockchain technology to really benefit the average citizen, it needs to adapt to the societal structures we recognise today. To do this, it needs to understand the needs of the governments we elect to represent us and adapt to the requirements of these increasingly important users.

Existing blockchain isn’t designed for government

The history of blockchain technology is mostly one that focuses on the rejection of control by the state. Bitcoin was developed as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system over a decade ago precisely because the group of cypher punks at the heart of its early development wanted to build a value exchange mechanism outside of government control.
The system they build has grown into one that sections of traditional finance have gradually increased their exposure to but the regulatory status of Bitcoin is still fluid rather than set in stone. Of course, blockchain technology now exists outside Bitcoin in various different guises. Also, there are governments that have chosen to embrace the underlying technology in order to improve their services for citizens.
Estonia, the small Baltic state, is probably the best example of this. The country embarked on its drive to digitise its government at roughly the same time that blockchain emerged, in response to a series of cyber attacks that crippled the state. As part of the 99% of government services that are now available as e-services, Estonia has blockchain-based government registries for courts, property and healthcare.
It is not alone either. Sweden and Georgia are other examples of states that have deployed blockchain in production to power government services. However, for all of these encouraging examples, the reality is that most governments – and the most powerful ones in particular – have not embraced blockchain in the way some early advocates of the technology had predicted.
Furthermore, even where governments have embraced the technology, they have mostly chosen permissioned, private blockchain in favour of the well-established public blockchain that many technology enthusiasts prefer. That’s because public blockchain isn’t designed for governments to use. It usually embraces anonymity and rejects the idea of a controlling authority, even if that is an elected representative government.

Central Bank Digital Currencies are coming

The thing that could totally change this dynamic though is Central Bank Digital Currencies or CBDC. Almost every leading nation is now weighing up the possibility of issuing a CBDC and using blockchain technology to do so.
This trend has come about for a few reasons. Firstly, there is the fact that citizens are gradually but increasingly choosing to make digital payments over cash payments. This is good for governments because digital payments are more efficient and easier to deal with than cash, particularly in terms of taxation and compliance.
Then there is the fact that the move towards CBDCs is undoubtedly a response to the rise of other digital assets. Firstly, there was Bitcoin, which governments generally don’t agree with but can at least see the benefits of, especially as a transparent and auditable record of transactions and quick, efficient value transfers. Then, came ‘private money’ in the form of initiatives like Facebook’s Libra, which could potentially remove a large chunk of the control governments have over the monetary system.
Therefore CBDCs just make sense to governments from both a benefits and a risks perspective. This is why we’re seeing so many nations and central banks getting involved. We know that the People’s Bank of China is well on the way to developing its own blockchain-based CBDC, even though the details are unclear. We also know that major leading central banks such as the US Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of France and Bank of Japan are weighing up how to issue a CBDC.
Earlier this year, the Bank of England issued a discussion paper called ‘Central Bank Digital Currency: opportunities, challenges and design’, which my company L3COS responded to. We know that existing blockchain technology will not meet the needs of CBDC initiatives. What is needed is a totally different type of regulated, permissioned and decentralised blockchain.

How blockchain must adapt for governments

To fully understand what governments need from blockchain technology, we need to first understand what they want to achieve. CBDCs are very important right now but the reason they are exploring these initiatives is so they can use them to underpin regulated digital economies.
The great benefit of blockchain technology is that it allows individuals to interact in a decentralised and peer-to-peer manner. They can interact in a totally automated way that utilises smart contract technology to exchange value quickly and easily. Governments want to embrace this type of efficient market innovation but they want it to occur in a digital economy where compliant activity is enabled and criminal activity is eliminated.
To do this, they need to regulate blockchain and this is why I have designed L3COS as the world’s first regulated, blockchain-based operating system. It operates a triple layer consensus mechanism that allows governments to regulate digital economies in which businesses and individuals can operate in a totally decentralised way.
Governments sit in the top layer, controlling super nodes that communicate with one another via a unique Proof of Government protocol and managing onboarding of other entities into the system. Businesses operate in the second layer and individuals the third, although all layers can interact with each other via smart contract-based decentralised applications, which power government and commercial services.
Such a system not only reflects the societal structures we all recognise but also enables representative governments to embrace blockchain technology for their needs. As more governments embrace the technology, so will more of their citizens and then we will see the true power of blockchain to transform society for the better.
submitted by BlockDotCo to u/BlockDotCo [link] [comments]

AITDblockchain is declaring war against anti-Globalization.

AITDblockchain is declaring war against anti-Globalization.
What consequences will Anti-Globalization bring?
World financial structure is experiencing shocks from wide range of Anti-Globalization moves. The results of the impact are diversified. Overall, the impacts of Anti-Globalization are mostly negative: Economy recession, extensive unemployment rate, global payment channel forced to shut down, economy monopoly.
To fully understand the disadvantages of Anti-Globalization and fight against it, first we need to understand how "Anti-Globalization “begin. Anti -Globalization movement enthusiasm has been skyrocketing since 2016. Unlike any other protests from previous years, the participants, size, global influences of this Anti-globalization protest are exceeding any previous Anti-Globalization protests.
The root cause for Anti-Globalization ideology skyrocketing is that many countries started looking for new economy support after economic crisis happened in 2008, overall global economy recovery experienced fatigue; The main characters are UK and US in this movement, Brexit and Global trade protectionism accelerating is the direct cause for this Anti-Globalization movement.
This vigor and vital anti-globalization movement brings tremendous influences to world economy, there are two obvious impacts.

https://preview.redd.it/h3vwhd1y88m51.png?width=652&format=png&auto=webp&s=88b6902d5f6e20629bd881f871fe06ea9463daa9
US Manufacturing industry back flow: Data shows that US manufacturing industry' increased value was around 30% worldwide in the 2000 market and rapidly decreased to 17% in 2014 worldwide. Therefore, in recent years, US is enforcing the method to facilitating manufacture backflow; US is requiring their corporation to stop investment in building companies outside of US, moving companies back to US as soon as possible. On one hand, US is giving corporations large portion of tax deductions for corporations which move back to US. On the other hand, US is putting pressure on corporations and declaring increasing border trade taxes if companies refuse moving back to US; In terms of real situation, many foreign companies show the tendency of moving back to US, as time goes by, this phenomenon will be more obvious. US manufacturing industry back flow will cause other countries' economy status to be unstable. It is not a friendly move for most countries which economy status stay in medium level.
Enhancing trade protection: US indicates that it will collect punitive tariff for those countries have trade surplus, comparing manufacturing back-flow phenomenon, this movement will cause unpredictable influences for trade deficit countries. If US is insisting on continuing this evil competition, it will experience endless trade revenge. Once these types endless competitions start spreading across the nation, it will not only disrupt the order of international trade, but also have influences on global economy development.
Fully armed and resist recession
In many years, Anti-Globalization has undefined impact on world economy, many countries’ manufacturing industries and employment rate have suffered certain level of influences; Many countries’ economy development were restricted under monopolistic operation; Until 2009, Bitcoin father Satoshi Nakamoto distributed the First digital currency-Bitcoin, after that, digital currency was brought into public. As Bit-coin value starts climbing, Bitcoin decentralization and consistent distribution amount traits are bringing hopes to financial practitioners.
In recent years, economy crisis and anti-globalization are continuing constantly, financial field starts experiencing digital assets initiatively or passively just because digital currency is able to use blockchain technology as it's layer structure, achieving open source finance. At the same time, Bit-coin decentralization trait is entrusting high flow value and financial expansion spaces to Bit-coin.
As blockchain industry is growing at extreme speed, the concept of decentralization has becoming well-known vocabulary compare to two to three years ago. People rarely ask "what is blockchain" now; As blockchain technology is developing and promoting, assets digitalization and finance globalization are becoming one of the important tools to fight against anti-globalization.

https://preview.redd.it/dqjd29zy88m51.png?width=647&format=png&auto=webp&s=79abd577fd13053b3b8b54971ee3cd0e085c1936
Currently, Global central banks are starting exploring and developing digital assets, hoping to build a broad future through digital asset system for national economy development; Britain, Japan, Sweden multinational government are promoting Central Banks Digital Currency research development process.
Under strong upcoming anti-globalization movement, technical power seems to be extremely important, we can use the best block chain technology to build a decentralized financial system which links the whole world , allowing assets digitalization working on chain, achieving global finance online incorporation in order to fight against the negative impacts that brings by anti-globalization; From trade to social networking, from payment to loan, decentralized finance platform can almost satisfied bright future vision such as to resist economy recession, to create financial future etc.
In multiple decentralized financial platform projects, AITD Blockchain technique and global financial layout are performing at its best level; Base on the understanding of blockchain, AITD Blockchain will provide convenient and efficient deposit, loan, payment, settlement, transfer, electric invoices, digital credit, account management, currency exchanges, P2P finance, investment money management, financial information according public chain infrastructure facilities and also through assistance of modern digitalized communication, blockchain, mobile communication and internet of things techniques so on, which are a series of whole seamless direction , convenient, safe, high speed decentralized financial services.
AITD Blockchain will transfer traditional banks services completely to block chain community , which is to build a brand new decentralized banking systems; The main services are operating completely online for decentralized banks, which are covering the globe without considering time and spaces constraint; Meanwhile, decentralized banking system has powerful and safe platforms, ensuring procedures can be completed online, easy processes, convenient services, fast, efficiency, reliable, allowing 7*24 services available. Decentralized banks are customer oriented, achieving public sharing,transparent,open,global interrelated.
Global finance, Connect the world
Teams are indicating that the original purpose is circulating around world for AITD Blockchain, it allows digital assets linking value, integrating blockchain application into daily life is our ultimate graceful goal;AITD Blockchain team and consultant are mainly coming from Singapore, Europe and America, Australia and Hongkong(China) etc. who have rich working experiences and deep understanding in technique development, blockchain digital assets and financial fields.
AITD Blockchain will be designed to be a completely open blockchain platform, any developers can start DAPP development based on AITD public chain; Therefore, AITD Blockchain will not interrupt developers and DAPP directly, platform employees can communicate with developers instantly, to provide long-term operation and healthier DAPP ecosystem establishment advice. AITD Blockchain is going to achieve around 10 thousand DApps ecosystem bearing capacity goal, realizing real globalized financial ecosystem.

https://preview.redd.it/pf03t3c098m51.jpg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f18a87669fdad48f41cd14d5958adbf310d753a
Public chain is going to adopt STTC consensus algorithm , perfecting incentive mechanism, fully encouraging nodes participation, bringing more value benefits for project participants’. AITD Blockchain is integrating banks, insurance, Trust, even social networks and financial trade diverse grounded ecosystems etc., building global decentralized financial ecosystem, achieving all data to be uploaded on chain, which is defined as valuable future, covering the globe through powerful and perfect financial ecosystem, driving finance to develop globally, providing strength for economy downturn which caused by fighting against anti-globalization.
Currently, AITD Blockchain is not only creating smart public chain, overcoming cross chain technical bottleneck; but also cooperating with multiple public chain developing team, building various field of cross chain DApp ecosystem which is covering insurance, Trust , game competition, social networking; AITD Blockchain is allowing developers mainly concentrating on business logic through DOCKER'S easy arrangement, realizing developers friendly, achieving perfect balance between data transparency and business secret.
At the same time, AITD Blockchain vast application scenarios are including insurance, Trust, communication, finance, trade game, supply chain, corporation services etc., multiple blockchain appropriate grounded application scenarios; In the near future, blockchain technology will achieve broad grounded application in government affairs, media, medical health, internet of things, supply chain, entertainment various industries, creating infinite applied value for soceity,AITD is going to generate new complete ecosystem and powerful business value as blockchain technique is extending globally; Team is believing that AITD Blockchain ecosystem will bring new round era opportunity to merchants from different fields, individual, bank industry, and all other industries.
Besides that, AITD Blockchain can also provide fair, justice, compliant, reliable, free flowing value platform to global qualified blockchain digital assets project. Providing fair, efficient, open, technical environment for global digital economy in order to slow down economic predicament under anti-globalization trend; AITD Blockchain is following the idea of " Connect the world, crypto enlightening the future, the ultimate goal is to achieve Universal deposit, Universal exchanges, Universal transfer for global financial assets.
submitted by AITDBlockchai to u/AITDBlockchai [link] [comments]

FedNow - The United States Government Bitcoin Competitor Bitcoin explained and made simple  Guardian Animations ... UK Government coronavirus update: Track and trace system ... Bitcoin Basics (Part 1) - Bitcoin to End Government and Change the World... Get Out Of The Banking System Now

Bitcoin is a currency that is, by design, completely independent of any government and its established financial system. Bitcoin strips governments of their power to create more money. The cryptocurrency awards users who provide its digital system with administration power. Bitcoin latest: UK government announces 'crypto task force' to guard against dangers of digital currencies. Individuals, businesses, developers: learn from our simple Bitcoin guides. How Bitcoin works, what is Bitcoin, what is blockchain, how to buy Bitcoin, what is Bitcoin mining and more. In fact, government digital currencies could herald a new era of centralization, posing serious questions about privacy and the viability of true cryptocurrencies like bitcoin. Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH.

[index] [163] [34497] [6674] [19484] [9125] [3297] [16267] [30011] [5014] [34964]

FedNow - The United States Government Bitcoin Competitor

Health Secretary Matt Hancock leads the UK Government's daily coronavirus press conference. (Subscribe: https://bit.ly/C4_News_Subscribe) Mr Hancock is joine... I Tried Day Trading Bitcoin for a Week I Beginner Crypto Robinhood Get two free stocks when you sign up to this Stock Trading App: https://act.webull.com/kol... Leading people to address the very real concern of can Governments ban Bitcoin or Can Governments stop Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. Category Science & Technology; Show more Show less. The United States Federal Reserve has finally responded to the Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency technology with their own technology to revolutionize the banking and payment system to compete with what ... Get our free Bitcoin course here - https://chrisdunn.com/free-bitcoin-course This Bitcoin basics video series will explain Bitcoin for beginners. You'll lear...

#