Crypto as Loan Collateral
Crypto Briefing wrote a report about JP Morgan Chase ($JPM) accepting crypto as collateral. I have tried to speak with people about it; most folks have no idea what this means. This is a watershed moment in digital asset marketability.
Margin loans are loans that institutions provide to individuals who own traditional assets, such as stocks, bonds, and ETFs. The loans are collateralized by the assets and are typically used to provide liquidity in fiat without selling the underlying assets. For example, if you own $10,000 worth of stocks and need $1,000 to cover an expense, you can take a margin loan instead of selling 1/10 of your holdings. Usually, these loans are taken at very low interest rates, which makes them attractive compared to capital gains tax. Historically, crypto assets are not eligible for margin loans. There are a few specialized institutions that provide this service, but none of the traditional institutions have to date.
$JPM offering a crypto-collateralized loan service is a giant step toward institutional acceptance of crypto. This is good news for folks who use crypto as a hedge against fiat and traditional finance, and bad news for those who use crypto as an escape therefrom. Institutional reliance upon $BTC and $ETH means institution-level regulation is just around the corner. We’ll see what the future holds.
Workforce AI
There were some leaked messages out of Amazon discussing how to replace around 600,000 jobs with robotics and AI. Some say blue collar work is looked down on these days. Others say otherwise. Some people got all up in a tizzy about this due to a lack of knowledge.
I believe the current iteration of workforce robotics is a direct result of the attack on masculinity. Men don't want to just pick what they are going to do, do it without need for thanks and admiration, and leave everyone the hell alone. Everyone wants a ticker tape parade for being part of society. I do not believe the jobs are looked down on, but they are not sought after by our young men either. This is made evident by the fact that there are a multitude of unemployed men and a multitude of job openings - they ain't up and at ‘em. Young men are all trying to do fancy jobs that let you collect a paycheck while sitting on your ass skinny af, rather than doing hard labor that requires strength and grit.
I think it is more of a forced shift toward automation than a total removal of blue collar jobs - at least in the near term. What's happening currently is a push to lessen the burden for hiring not a push to eliminate what presently works. In other words: Amazon plans to not hire 600k workers rather than planning to layoff 600k workers. Also Amazon corporate denies the claim; they say one team is gaming this out to see if it works and no decision has yet been made.
We know the AI workers are not as good as humans. We are working hard to make AI better, but we know it is not a reasonable near-term target. Today's major issue is the availability of workers. People are not willing to do warehouse labor anymore. The USPS, Amazon, FexEx and other fulfillment companies feel the burden the hardest. There has been a shortage of warehouse workers and truckers in this nation for 3 decades. If people won't step up to the plate, we have to put a machine in there.
No company wants to buy a $10million worth of robotics (plus a support contract with an engineering firm) to do a blue collar job - it isn't cost effective. Even a unionized workforce is cheaper than an AI workforce. They want to buy AI if it is their ONLY option. Further, if they buy the machine, they are locked in - there is no going back. The sunk cost into robotics would be a strong driver toward the future use of robotics.
I used to do warehouse work. Real warehouse work for a real don't-give-a-fk-about-your-safety company. It's not surprising that people don't want to do that, but we all want to buy the products that result from that work. If we keep buying, who is going to produce if we don't step up and do it?
Lazy
I have been lazy; contented; involuntarily compliant. This is unacceptable. Last week, We, the People, took a tremendous loss. Charlie Kirk was an inspiration, and for that, we shall remain eternally grateful. He was never lazy; never contented; never involuntarily compliant. He lived his faith each and every day. More of us need to do so; for, our time might be short.
I am pledging an oath here and now to stay engaged, involved, and working for my children’s future and their children’s thereafter. My discipline shall be turned toward the work. Last night, I was welcomed to the YGOP of Ellis County. The energy in the room was palpable. We were thick with faith and constitution. They allowed me a few minutes of their time to speak.
Many folks have asked me privately what I think about the assassination. The upshot is that I do not want to leave a world for our posterity where folks take lives when a microphone is available for discussion instead. That world sounds treacherous; it sounds like hell.
Why does this one feel different?
Mr. Kirk’s death hits different from the others. I have heard this many times from independent people. I think this is simple. He was not President. He was not a Legislator. He was not a Judge. He was not a billionaire CEO, the director of a Super PAC, or some other position of power. He was just a person with a microphone. If he was a target, so are you. If you speak, if you write, if you podcast, you are a target.
This is no longer a battle of flesh; this is a battle of spirit. No longer is death the punishment for a physical violation. Now, to our enemies, death is punishment for thought and faith. This is why this one feels different. It is different - fundamentally, radically, and spiritually different.
How did we get here?
I have no idea how we got here - I can surmise, I can speculate, I can hypothesize - I can only offer a limited view of our socio-political ills. Worship and Sacrament have declined, and so with them have morality, values, comfort, and stability.
Atheists consistently give credence to Judeo-Chrstian values. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Kurt Vonnnegut (all self-proclaimed atheists) have expressed admiration for the value and belief system presented by the Judeo-Christian line of faiths. The latter even stating, “If what Jesus said was good, and so much of it was beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not? If Christ hadn’t delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn’t want to be a human being. I would just as soon be a rattlesnake.”
The only people who find no use in the faiths of our founders are those who want a life of kingship, dominion, and powerlust. If one has nothing to worship, one begins to worship oneself. Humans will eventually have a crisis of morality, and if one worships oneself and makes the wrong choice, one will surely make a subsequent wrong choice. Down the line of wrong moral choices lies a demon. Without a solid moral foundation outside oneself, in adulthood, one becomes the very demon every child fears.
Without Worship and Sacrament, we are a nation without an absolute morality. We come a nation of self-worshippers - a nation of demons.
What can be done?
We speak. We carry the message. We inspire the next person. Even atheists understand the moral and societal supremacy of the Judeo-Christian line of faiths when followed. Jesus walked the land, met people where they were, and taught them. He was not a preacher, but a teacher. We need to teach; we need to provide adequate support and opportunities for the lessons of our forebearers to permeate the culture and restore this nation and its citizenry to moral clarity. There is no time like the present, and there is no people like our people. It is incumbent upon us to get to WORK.
Questioning Science is How Science is Done
This is true but most folks engaging in the discussion don't understand how to question science. Hypothesis is the first step. No hypothesis, no science. Conclusion is the last part. If you start with a conclusion then cherry pick articles that support that conclusion, you are not "doing science" - you are doing propaganda.
"I don't believe in {thing}" is not a hypothesis; it is an antithesis. Although hypothesis and antithesis have the same root, the latter is a literary tool while the former is a scientific tool. Propaganda is a literary skill, not a scientific skill. You are doing propaganda, not science.
An example: Saying "I don't believe in climate change" then finding record temperatures in the past or moderate temperatures in the present is an antithesis followed by cherry picking: this is propaganda.
Saying "I believe climate has always changed by not less than 1°C but not more than 3°C per century, barring celestial extinction events" then performing back breaking archaeology and painstaking historical analysis to find evidence of temperature changes over the past 40 million years and reporting the findings would be a hypothesis followed by evidence gathering. This is science.
A thesis is a statement set forth that can be explained and developed through conversation, reading, and argument. An antithesis is the opposite of a particular stated thesis and can be likewise explained and developed. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is something that can be rigorously tested and experimented upon. As a whole, I find that the American political class is able to develop theses but wholly ill-equipped to deal with hypotheses. This is how we get stuck in an endless cycle of back-and-forth election, after election, after election.
I believe it would be up to the conservative class - real conservatives, not neo-con nonsense artists - to correct this national malady. When a liberal says, “all white people are racist,” an unhelpful response would be the antithesis: “not all white people are racist”. This gets us nowhere. A better response (there are a seemingly limitless bounty thereof) would be a hypothesis such as: “There have been anti-racist whites throughout our Nation’s history, and this tradition continues today.” Then it is a small matter to complete the work to test the hypothesis, gather results, and form the proper conclusions. We need to do better, and this is how we do better.
The onslaught of nonsense pouring from the Democrat party is only to be resisted by an equal and opposite onslaught of reason. Devolving into “they state ‘X’ so I state ‘not X’” would help no one. We need to be measured and reasonable in our approach that we may lift the nation from its current place and onto a road toward a more prosperous future.
Black History with Patriot’s Revival
A few weeks ago, I was a part of a panel discussion on Black History. I am not a fan of dividing history by race; however, if that is the current state of the matter, we must work within it to dismantle it and move to a better, more race-neutral future. The episode can be found in many places:
Vaccines are Corporate Products
The Left is of two minds when it comes to healthcare. They, one one hand, cheer and laud a broken kid who capped a CEO. On the other hand, they push sweeping vaccine mandates and attempt to destroy anyone (and that person’s entire family) if he decides to go a different path.
I recently came across this message:
This is an overbroad generalization. There are conditions (such as hemoglobinopathies) that make certain people susceptible to problems that are risks of vaccines. A quick read of the effects and post clinical results sections of an FDA insert can be illuminating. Those so-called "anti vaxxers" - as the Left calls them - do not "vax" as a result of the risks involved. Risks that were discovered strictly under doctor's orders.
I have a hemoglobinopathy and the threat is real. Further, I have a heart murmur that puts me at extreme risk of syncopic episodes. When a vaccine insert describes contraindications to hemoglobinopathies or it states syncope as a risk; I should not take that vaccine. It isn’t an ignorance of medicine, it is a deep and abiding respect therefor!!!
Vaccines are products sold by corporations. There are risks with any product and no sweeping judgment could possibly account for the efficacy of any product for all persons. It is interesting that when a CEO gets popped by a broken kid the Left celebrates, but when kids die of vaccine reactions the Left remains steadfast on the corporation's side. The assumption, "anti vax implies ignores doctors," is an ill-informed one at best and at worst a clickbaiting grift for social media self-aggrandizement.