(Part 3) Best products from r/explainlikeimfive

First, the 90% figure you heard is from research done by Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhardt. They wrote a book called This Time is Different, which analyzes financial crises and government finances over several centuries. They also wrote a paper called Growth in a Time of Debt which analyzed correlations between economic growth and debt ratios. There is some debate on the 90% figure, including both the methodology and questions as to whether high levels of debt lead to decreased growth or decreased growth leads to high levels of debt, but the facts themselves are not disputed.

If the US were to run a surplus and pay off all of its debts, the first obvious conclusion is that there would be no long term US Treasury bills in existence. (Short term debt would probably continue to be used to smooth the collection of tax revenues against expenses). The first issue that would arise from this is holding reserves. According to the Basel Standards, which are international banking standards most developed countries adhere to, banks must hold certain safe assets in reserve on their balance sheet in proportion to the riskier assets, such as investments and loans, that they hold. Government securities are popular as reserve assets, as more stable governments, such as Germany, America and Canada, are deemed to be completely safe, yet unlike cash or equity, still earn a rate of return, however small. They are also immediately redeemable for cash, and tend to go up in value during financial crises, as investors seek to invest in safe assets, making them excellent assets to buffer against risk. Many pension funds and institutional investors also hold government securities, as this provides them with the same benefits. If government securities didn't exist, some other asset would need to be found that is deemed safe, or more institutions would need to hold assets in cash and forego the added interest income.

Another issue would be questions regarding the risk-free interest rate. As US government securities are deemed perfectly safe, investors will frequently make reference to a perfectly safe asset when deciding what the appropriate interest rate for riskier assets would be. Many financial formulas, such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model, make reference to the risk-free rate. However, if the US government continues to issue short term debt, this debt's interest rate could be used, or some other asset's interest rate could be used, to determine what a market risk-free rate should be.

Lastly, as the dollar is the world's reserve currency, and many international parties do business deals in dollars as they conclude that the value of the dollar will not significantly shift over short periods of time, a failure to issue Treasury bills may send investors seeking a new medium of exchange. The euro is seen as too questionable, the yen has far more significant issues than the dollar given Japan's deficits and anemic growth, and the Chinese government has far too many restrictions on the yuan for it to be a viable currency for international transactions.

Currently, the US government's ability to borrow in dollars and act as the world's reserve currency is a jealously guarded privilege, as other countries essentially pay us for the privilege of lending money to us. This Exorbitant Privilege and its effects on the global economy have been debated by economists for a long time. Some, such as the above linked book by Barry Eichengreen, see it as a massive benefit to the US, while others, such as Paul Krugman, see a world in which other countries, such as China, buy US debt to prop up the value of the dollar, thus diminishing the value of their own currency, and giving products manufactured in their country a significant price advantage. If the US stopped issuing debt, parties could no longer buy US debt on the open market, and drive up the value of the dollar. This would cause the value of dollar-denominated assets to fall, and could cause the relative value of US labor to fall, which could lead to a rise in manufacturing employment in the US, as American made goods become cheaper on the international market. This is a pretty hotly debated topic, so a lot of this is speculation. There is a lot of info out here, but a quick Google search yielded a couple articles from The Economist on this topic, and an article on Paul Krugman's stance on this. This is a whole separate issue in itself.

I think the main question though is why the US would want to stop issuing debt. Obviously it is unacceptable to run structural deficits the country is unable to close, and issuing debt should be a choice rather than a necessity. However, if rates of return are higher than rates of interest, a controlled debt issuing can be positive. For example Apple has $27,000,000,000 in debt. No one claims that they are on the verge of bankruptcy, mostly because they have $75,000,000,000 in assets. If you can borrow money at say 3%, and invest it in something, like developing iPads, that offers a rate of return of say 10%, your profit is 7% times the amount that you borrowed. This is known as leverage, and is covered by the Modigliani-Miller Theorem. It is interest rates and rates of return, not capital structure, that matter.

This is why analogies to how the US is like a household, and needs to manage its budget, are foolish. A household can rarely borrow at low interest rates, and rarely has significant investment opportunities, so taking on debt is usually a bad idea. But corporations and governments exist to undertake investment opportunities, and these frequently have high rates of return. The US government, in particular, not only has high demand for its debt, but issues debt in a medium, dollars, that it has sole control over producing. I'm not saying the US should always issue debt, just that it should issue debt carefully, and shouldn't always not issue debt. This is the problem with running a business or a government: it's a lot more complicated, and requires a lot more math, than people realize.

For further info on this, the books I cited above would be helpful. Paul Krugman's book Depression Economics is probably worth reading. Here is a corporate finance textbook that you can get for $5, as it's an older edition. Here is an economics textbook that you can get for $14. Lastly, The Economist is an excellent newspaper to follow these issues, as are The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

TL;DR: It's debatable. It would affect the value of the dollar, banking reserves, and many financial calculations. Debating it, however, requires more than understanding the economic impact, but also an understanding of corporate and governmental finance, and how this differs from household budgeting.

As others have mentioned, most Asian people are lactose intolerant. From a western perspective this seems odd, but is actually the "normal" human condition. Everything that follows is from Marvin Harris's book Our Kind, which I'm trying to simplify into ELI5 style.

Lactose is the sugar in milk. Your body can't use lactose, and has to break it down into simpler sugars. This is done by the enzyme lactase. "Naturally" mammals produce lactase while they are nursing from their mothers, but then stop producing it as they grow older because "naturally" they won't ever consume milk again.

I say "naturally" and "normal" because humans are different, we developed agriculture and domesticated other animals. This takes us out of the natural cycle a bit, allows us to do things our biology wasn't really intended for. However, natural selection still applies - if we do something that increases our survival rate and success at reproducing, that trait will be selected and pass on to the next generation, propagate and become "normal". These traits can be genetic (genes, like being strong or fast) or cultural (memes, like wearing makeup).

When we started domesticating milk-producing animals such as goats or cows, we gained the option to consume milk as adults. Our natural state does not allow us to do that, but some individuals would be different and possess a mutation wherein they would continue producing lactase as adults, allowing them to consume milk. In some cultures that trait was very valuable, resulting in increased survival and reproduction, thus the trait became very common and eventually the "normal". In other cultures the trait had no net gain and therefore does not propagate, and so not the "normal".

So what's the difference in the cultures? What makes adult lactase production a big win for those of Northern European descent, but pretty worthless for East Asians? It has to do with geography and available sources of calcium and vitamin D.

You need calcium in your diet. You can get that calcium a few different ways - milk being one, leafy green vegetables being another. To make use of calcium your body also needs either vitamin D or lactose. You can get vitamin D from seafood, or your body can make it when exposed to sunlight. Without vitamin D, lactose assists with the use of calcium. So, cultures with easy access to leafy greens plus sunlight or fish, calcium is taken care of and milk has no advantage. Cultures without access to leafy greens - or without access to sunlight or seafood - need dairy either as a source of calcium, or a source of lactose to use the calcium, or both.

This leads to the difference between dairy that's fermented (yogurt or most cheese) or unfermented (straight up milk). Fermented dairy products still have the calcium, but the lactose is broken down into simpler sugars, so lactase is not necessary to digest it. Therefore a culture with access to fish or sunlight but not leafy greens would benefit greatly from keeping dairy animals, but don't benefit from still creating lactase as adults - they consume the milk as yogurt or cheese to get all the calcium they need and make use of that calcium thanks to vitamin D.

So now finally, enter the Northern Europeans - the people that would eventually become western society as we know it today - developed in a climate that required them to bundle up most of the time due to extreme cold, so no sunlight to make vitamin D. They also had very little seafood in their diets at the time (~12,000 years ago), and limited access to leafy green vegetables. Calcium and vitamin D are lacking. So, those individuals who possessed the ability to consume unfermented dairy as adults had an advantage. They survived and bred more frequently, thus passing the trait on and making it "normal". Within 5000 years after the domestication of dairy animals, 90% of northern Europeans possessed the ability to produce lactase into adulthood and dairy of all types was commonplace.

Meanwhile let's consider China ~12,000 years ago. Leafy greens were a major part of the diet, so calcium is not an issue. Those in coastal areas developed fishing techniques much earlier than Europeans, as well as a trade infrastructure to transport that seafood pretty far into the mainland, so vitamin D is not an issue. Thus no advantage to unfermented dairy consumption among the bulk of Chinese. Only those far inland and to the north would have an issue - those peoples who became the Mongols, who did consume dairy. Furthermore even fermented dairy never took hold in Chinese culture because of their trade networks - the Chinese were able to obtain their labor animals from other cultures (tibetans, mongols, etc) - therefore did not breed their own cows or goats. Pigs were the primary meat animal raised. With no need for dairy, and without really having it around in the first place, they developed into a culture with virtually zero dairy of any type. And much like the Northern Europeans went on to culturally dominate western civilization, Chinese culture influenced many others in Asia.

So... in summary (TL;DR): Dairy consumption has 2 extremes produced by geography and available diets: Lots of dairy including raw milk driven by Northern Europeans, and virtually zero dairy of any kind driven by the Chinese. Between those extremes are everybody else, who for the most part made use of fermented dairy for its calcium, but remain lactose intolerant.

And now I've taken so long to write this wall of text that no one will see it. Oh well. Clearly I was wrong!

Edits for clarity and grammar.

Edit 2: I'm getting a lot of follow up questions on specific cultures - this isn't a complete history of the world, it doesn't cover everyone. I am not an anthropologist, as I said in the first paragraph this is an attempt to simplify the work of Marvin Harris, specifically his book Our Kind. I'd say that book is like the Cosmos of anthropology - it's an excellent read, very approachable, and great at chaining together complex history, geography, and biology to tell the story of modern human evolution. If you want more detail on what I wrote, I highly recommend starting there.

I agree with all the comments made so far, but I think we're missing one element:

We want our friends to like us for introducing them to it. We want recognition of being cool / cultured / having good taste - whatever.

My favorite author* on child psychology says that the deepest desire, the deepest motivator, for all people is a need to be seen. We want to be seen as valuable and something special, be accepted for who we really are. Sharing what we like is a form of openness and vulnerability, and that makes us even more focused on getting the right feedback, so we get nervous about whether this movie, or show, or music actually made the mark.

That's why I value it greatly when friends share their interests with me, and I make sure they are seen when they share.

Wow! Thanks for the Gold!

• *Pursuant to feedback: Jesper Juul is the author I was referring to, and two great books are "Your Competent Child" and "Here I Am! Who are You?"

First off, I'm going to define some terms to make sure we're on the same side when it comes to the word "artificial".

​

Gemstones (rare, pretty looking rocks like diamonds, sapphires, rubies, etc) are be categorized this way:

• Natural - came out of the ground, cut to look nice and sold pretty much as it (except for being cut)
  
• Genuine - came out of the ground, treated in some way (like adding color improvement), cut, and sold
  
• Synthetic - made in a lab, but chemically the exact same structure as the gemstone that came out of the ground, STILL A REAL DIAMOND! JUST DIDN'T COME OUT OF THE GROUND, still very valuable, but about 25% less than natural diamond
  
• Imitation - fake gemstones, (made from glass, cubic zirconia, plastic, etc.) has very low actual value, still legal to sell as long as you tell the customer it is imitation
  
  ​
  
  Ways you can tell cubic zirconia from a natural or synthetic diamond:
  
  

1. It will not be as hard as a real
   
2. It will not have the same sparkle when you shine a light on it
   
3. It will look completely flawless (real diamonds are not)
   
4. It will usually be completely colorless (real diamonds are not)
   
5. If someone is trying to pass it off as real, they will usually sell it below market value
   
   ​
   
   Ways you can tell a natural diamond from a synthetic, this is a lot harder and you could not know for sure
   
   using the naked eye. Synthetic diamonds will be nearly flawless in inclusions (little imperfections in the structure) ,
   
   and color. But still, some natural diamonds are like this.
   
   ​
   
   The only way to know for sure is to have it sent to the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) for analysis. They can usually tell by looking at the color and inclusions in the diamond. In addition, synthetic diamonds are tiny etchings on them that are invisible to the naked eye saying that they are synthetic. You need special tools to see this though. Also, synthetic diamonds are categorized.
   
   ​
   
   tl;dr: You can't tell a lab grown diamond by yourself. You have to have it sent off to be looked at. However, you can usually tell a cubic zirconia by yourself if you know what to look for.
   
   ​
   
   Forgot to mention, another way a consumer can easily tell a real diamond from cubic zirconia is by using a diamond tester: https://www.amazon.com/HDE-Accuracy-Professional-Jeweler-Selector/dp/B009H4WGWK/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=diamonds+tester&qid=1556744168&s=gateway&sr=8-3-spell

I would say that countries are really complex systems that cannot be simplified with a couple of variables into developed and underdeveloped.

I always thought that this oversimplification made sense but then I migrated from India to the US and realized that the United States is actually archaic in a lot of things that India is good at. A big example would be mobile payments and mobile internet in general - Even the poorest of Indians are comfortable using mobile wallets and more Indians have mobile wallets than they have credit cards. I think India sort of skipped the plastic money phase and went straight to mobile.

Planet Money has an excellent podcast on the topic of how and who determines the variables that make a country developed or underdeveloped - https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/01/31/582233478/episode-821-the-other-davos
Essentially it works just like how an inefficient, political system works - The powerful and well networked get to make the decision on what matters

Another thing to factor in is democracy and functioning of the government. There is and there never will be truly altruistic leaders. Every individual is essentially motivated by self interest. So lets a leader comes into power in a developing country, he will have a cohort of individuals whom he has to keep satisfied for him to stay in power longer. This cohort will consist of people who have the most resources in the country - Industrialists, people who own the media etc. The smaller the number of people he has to please, the better it is for him. If the country becomes developed, then there will be more people to keep satisfied and thus it becomes harder for the leader. So development is actually counter-intuitive for someone who wants to stay in power.

There are some interesting exceptions - Saudi Arabia, China etc. It would be really good if someone can explain the rationale of leaders in these countries and how they stay in power. It's difficult to rely on stats such as the Gini coefficient in these authoritarian countries - cause they may be manipulating it.

A really good book on this topic - https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

There is a video that explains the book perfectly. Could not find it. sorry.

Deviating a bit to reply to one of the comments....

One of the comments here say that knowledge comes at the charity of developed countries - nothing could be further from the truth. Developed countries invest in developing countries purely for utilitarian purposes. China for rare earth minerals and manufacturing, Inda and Bangladesh for clothes etc. There is nothing wrong with this. Capitalism at work. I think one thing that badly affects developing countries is "Interventionism". That is rich people thinking they exactly know what a kid in Kenya needs. This has historically lead to more inequalities and even civil wars in Africa. If you really want to help someone, just give them a small loan, they will know what to do with it.

I'm going to go against the grain here with my recommendation. I'm a guy who was in a similar position years ago. I've since transitioned from web development to game programming and have working knowledge of 7+ languages.

Dude, don't sweat these feelings you're having. You're just at a wall. We all reach different kinds of walls in this career and they're really the best thing ever. It means you're about to jump ahead in skill by at least 10x. You just got to find the trigger for it. Be patient and try different things. Go check out Udacity and do some courses on there. Also this is the time to start reading books. Not just any cheap book you find. Good books that will give you the perspective of an industry professional. Books like JavaScript: The Good Parts, Code Complete, The Pragmatic Programmer, or The Little Schemer. Also it doesn't matter what language the books are in to enjoy it. 98% of all programming languages are the same anyways, which you'll soon learn. For the most part, they just have moderately different ways and syntax to do the same thing.

I would recommend not switching platforms from the web. One of the most important skills guys like us can have is seeing where technology is heading and betting on the right horse. It's very clear that webapps are going to be even more important in the future. You can already make desktop apps with web technology naively in pretty much all major OSs now.

I say learn JavaScript front and back. Read JavaScript: The Good Parts and JavaScript: The Definitive Guide cover to cover. Once you learn JavaScript it'll be very easy to transition to any C-based language, which is most of them. In fact I credit JavasScript for giving me the basics to jump to just about any language comfortably and pick it up in a few weeks.

After that, learn a good server side language like Java, Python, or C#. (C# is in very high demand, and has many applications) Or learn all three and you'll be very well positioned career wise. Well, make sure to get some experience with SQL too for good measure.

Also if you want to have a good challenge instead of being bored on those easy things, like drawing shapes, why don't you try Udacity's fine WebGL course? Jumping in the deep end isn't bad as long as you don't expect it to be easy.

> Female genital mutilation is done with the intent to make it so women do not experience pleasure from sex.

Nope. It's done for many different reasons in different parts of the world. Many tribes etc., consider it a sexual enhancement.

> Male circumcision was originally done because it reduced the risk of penis infections.

Nope. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

> Even today, male circumcision reduces the risk for many diseases and STDs.

Good news! So does slicing off bits of the labia lips in women! Time to get the knife out on little girls eh?

Note: I am against ALL genital mutilation of females, males and intersex. Please don't interpret this post as supporting any of these activities.

Everything I have posted below is factual; but it's supposed to be educational - to help folks clear up their confused thinking around this issue. Thanks

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

If the amputation of the mucus membranes of the male genitals results in a lowering of HIV infection; then it would not be unreasonable to assume that the amputation of the mucus membranes of the female genitals would produce the same effect. Indeed, as the total surface area of mucus membranes in females is so much greater than that of males, the effect may be even greater.

However, most western peoples will be repulsed by the idea of amputating parts of an infant female's genitals to obtain some future protection from a disease. All the more so, when nearly 100% protection can be obtain from HIV infection by use of condoms.

But this repulsion does not arise when the prospect of amputating parts of infant male genitals. This is clearly because such activity has become "normalised" in the west. This is the issue.

Like male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect.

You'll often come across members of the medical community saying that FGM has no "health" benefits, and if women have their clitoris amputated, then their sex life comes to an end. Then they say that MGM has lots of "health" benefits and that men's sex life is not affected.

But it's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' circumcised. Plus there are many so-called potential "health benefits" - such as a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.

The visible part - the glans clitoris - is only a small part of the whole clitoris. So when a woman suffers partial or total amputation of the external clitoris when undergoing FGM, only a small part of her clitoris is removed. Thus she often can enjoy a full and satisfying sex life.

The truth about the female clitoris

Learn how large the female clitoris is; and how the external glans clitoris is just a small part of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/clitoraltruthin.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Clitoral-Truth-Secret-Fingertips/dp/1583224734

"Seven Things to Know about female Genital Surgeries in Africa"

— By the public policy advisory network on female genital surgeries in Africa.

"Western media coverage of female genital modifications in Africa has been hyperbolic and one- sided, presenting them uniformly as mutilation and ignoring the cultural complexities that underlie these practices. Even if we ultimately decide that female genital modifications should be abandoned, the debate around them should be grounded in a better account of the facts."

http://www.taskforcefgm.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hast81.pdf

Female Circumcision & Health Benefits

"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."

Note: when it's found that circumcising female genitals reduces HIV/AIDS it's called a "conundrum" rather that a wonderfully exciting "medical" opportunity to reduces HIV/AIDS.

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

"Georgia State University, Public Health Theses" — a USA University of international renown:

The Association between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and the Risk of HIV/AIDS in Kenyan Girls and Women (15-49 Years):

"RESULTS: This study shows an inverse association (OR=0.508; 95% CI: 0.376-0.687) between FGM and HIV/AIDS, after adjusting for confounding variables."

"DISCUSSION: The inverse association between FGM and HIV/AIDS established in this study suggests a possible protective effect of female circumcision against HIV/AIDS. This finding suggests therefore the need to authenticate this inverse association in different populations and also to determine the mechanisms for the observed association."

"This study investigated whether there is a direct association between FGM and HIV/AIDS. Surprisingly, the results indicated that the practice of FGM turned out to reduce the risk of HIV. While a positive association was hypothesized, a surprising inverse association between cases of female circumcision and positive HIV serostatus was obtained, hence indicating that FGM may have protective properties against the transmission of HIV."

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=iph_theses

"National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania - 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS in women who have have parts of the genitals amputated:"

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf

Female Circumcision Does Not Always Reduce Sexual Experiences

"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abstract

"The Journal of Sexual Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"The New Scientist" (references a medical journal)

Female Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Activity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html#.Uml2H2RDtOQ

"Journal of General Internal Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female "Circumcision" - African Women Confront American Medicine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497147/

Medical benefits of female circumcision: Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528

"Pediatrics (AAP)" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Genital Cutting Advocated By American Academy Of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.short

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

So legitamcy, like others have said.

Then other things from the Dictator's Handbook:

1. It helps keep their supporters in line
   
2. It helps them get money
   
   2 is fairly straightforward. Current efforts to help democratize autocracies like to demand changes in governance in exchange for loans; Since giving loans / debt forgiveness without changes doesn't result in change, commonly. So an easy answer for a dictator is to just throw a sham election and say: "See? I'm all democratic n' shit". If they're sneaky enough to do the rigged election right, then they can meet the letter of the terms of the loan / debt forgiveness and immediately get themselves more money.
   
   1 is a bit of a walk, but in summary: dictators need people to rule (someone to run the police, someone to collect the taxes, etc), so they pay their supporters to keep them in line while stealing from the populace. But their supporters are also those that are most likely to work to overthrow them, so a ruler needs a way to keep them in line in addition to the rewards I mentioned. One easy way is to show that they're replaceable, you get replacements from the population that supports them. A sham election can then be used to show a wide range of support from the populace; This isn't very convincing to any thinking person, but does create uncertainty about how popular a leader really is (since there are some actual supporters in that 90%+ voting rate that the election returns) and thus how unlikely it would be to stir up a rebellion to overthrow the leader. This balance of "carrot" and "stick" helps to keep the supporters in line and off balance.
   
   Good overview by CGP grey. It doesn't cover the election per-say, but it does get you used to thinking like this.
   
   Also since I'm less than half way through the book there may be other reasons, but these were the reasons I've come accross.

If you want to learn more, I would absolutely say take courses on it. My friends who are engineers have mentioned a lot of companies look very favorably on engineers who have business/finance knowledge, especially if you want to move into management.

If you wanted a book to read, I'd recommend Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Graham was an investment professional in the early 1900s who managed to make money through the Great Depression in the stock market. In his later years, he taught a finance class at Columbia and according to legend only one student ever got an A in that class, and that student was Warren Buffet. Look for an updated edition, as the book was written in the late 1960s, so some of the examples are pretty dated. This is the version I have. It looks like there is a newer revised edition too.

If you like podcasts (I am a huge podcast junkie), the podcasts from The Motley Fool are good and not very technical. Vanguard also puts out good podcasts, but those are a bit more technical. Planet Money from NPR is a good one that covers topics in economics in a way that is both interesting and engaging.

If you're a student, you can get a great deal on a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, which now includes a digital subscription iirc. I had it all through college, and it was a great resource. Seriously, it's $50 for the year. It's worth it.

Note: I am against ALL genital mutilation of females, males and intersex. Please don't interpret this post as supporting any of these crimes.

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female


> They aren't in any sense analogous procedures...

Not true:

Like male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect.

You'll often come across members of the medical community saying that FGM has no "health" benefits, and if women have their clitoris amputated, then their sex life comes to an end. Then they say that MGM has lots of "health" benefits and that men's sex life is not affected.

But it's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' circumcised. Plus there are many so-called potential "health benefits" - such as a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.

The visible part - the glans clitoris - is only a small part of the whole clitoris. So when a woman suffers partial or total amputation of the external clitoris when undergoing FGM, only a small part of her clitoris is removed. Thus she often can enjoy a full and satisfying sex life.

The truth about the female clitoris

Learn how large the female clitoris is; and how the external glans clitoris is just a small part of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/clitoraltruthin.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Clitoral-Truth-Secret-Fingertips/dp/1583224734

Female Circumcision & Health Benefits

"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

Note: when it's found that circumcising female genitals reduces HIV/AIDS it's called a "conundrum" rather that a wonderfully exciting "medical" opportunity to reduces HIV/AIDS. This deeply sexist attitude must cease.

"National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania - 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS in women who have have parts of the genitals amputated:"

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf


"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abstract

"The Journal of Sexual Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"The New Scientist" (references a medical journal)

Female Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Activity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html#.Uml2H2RDtOQ

"Journal of General Internal Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female "Circumcision" - African Women Confront American Medicine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497147/

Medical benefits of female circumcision: Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528

"Pediatrics (AAP)" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Genital Cutting Advocated By American Academy Of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.shortLike male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect.

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

So I'm by no means an expert on this, but a while back I read a book called The Dictator's Handbook that goes into why executives and monarchs do this to their companies/counties.

A condensed version of the book can be seen by watching this CGP Grey video.

The TL;DW version of this:

Nobody rules alone. Executives have to answer to their board of directors, who in turn have other people they have to answer to and so on and so forth. These people have the power to throw you out if you don't please them.

How do you please people best? Bribe them. Give them incentives to keep you as top dog. How do you get the resources to bribe? Pillage your country/company for wealth.

You shower your immediate underlings with gifts and benefits and they won't oust you. Partially because they're in a good situation from it. Partially because if they do there is a risk that they'll get culled in a change of power (fewer people = more wealth for each person).

As a result top executives who find that they cannot get the resources to give to their underlings by improving the company will instead just grapple for anything they can get a hold of to keep their position.

This is of course a simplified explanation and the book goes into it way better.

For anyone that's interested in a longer explanation of why GDP is not wealth, why /u/LvS, beyond being a douche, is also wrong, here you go:

As /u/fakedyfakefake said above, wealth is a cumulative measure of the [dollar] value of assets held by a person or a nation at a given moment in time.

GDP (which stands for Gross Domestic Product) is the total dollar value of all the final goods and services produced within a country's geographic borders within (typically) one year.

To illustrate this difference, my wife and I own a house. While the construction of said house counted toward 1950's GDP (since that's when it was built) and the improvements that my wife made in 2016 counted toward 2016's GDP (since that's when they were done), that my house exists does not count at all toward GDP in this year, 2019. If we end up selling the house sometime this year, then the difference between what my wife paid for the house and what we sell it for would count toward GDP. If we do not sell it this year, then my house's existence does nothing for GDP save for its use of e.g. utilities.

As another example: I purchased a computer in December of 2018. I still have said computer. My purchasing that computer counted toward's 2018's GDP and it still counts toward my wealth today in 2019 despite it not counting in any way toward 2019's GDP.

Somewhere below, /u/LvS points out that nobody cares about the GDP of individual people. While he's not wrong to say that nobody is really interested in the GDP of individual people, his point is also 100% unequivocally and indisputably irrelevant. GDP is made up of the trillions upon trillions of purchases made by individual people. In fact, it's literally defined as the sum of the total number of dollars that individuals spent over the specified time period (again, typically one year). Alternatively, we can also sum up the total amount of income earned by individuals over that same time period and, through the magic of the Circular Flow model of the economy, arrive at the same answer for GDP, since total income by definition exactly equals total expenditure.

While I believe that Murray Rothbard's importance in economics is overexaggerated by people who have read his work and undervalued by people who have not, I do think that there is significant wisdom in his quote: “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

/u/LvS is clearly in a state of ignorance when it comes to economics. As such, it is not I that should "just shut up," but him/her/whatever pronoun /u/LvS prefers.

GDP in no way, shape, or form "creates" wealth. Wealth is not an indicator in any way of the GDP of the past nor is GDP today an indicator of wealth in the future. Individual people create wealth through voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange. /u/LvS would do well to read Dirk Philipsen's "The Little Big Number: How GDP Came to Rule the World and What to Do about It."

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Big-Number-World-about/dp/0691166528

The Clean Wehrmacht myth is a blatant lie. The Wehrmacht were repeatedly involved in war crimes, including the extermination of undesirables, and at the very least most, if not all, members were aware that their government was pursuing a campaign of violence against civilians and had purged undesirables (such as cripples and mentally ill) from society back home. The Wehrmacht may have been normal men, but that does not mean they are free of the blame for what occurred during World War 2.

Here are some resources regarding the Clean Wehrmacht Myth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht

https://www.amazon.com/The-Wehrmacht-History-Myth-Reality/dp/0674025776

https://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Eastern-Front-Nazi-Soviet/dp/0521712319

https://www.amazon.com/War-Extermination-Military-Studies-Genocide/dp/1571814930

I'd also add Ordinary Men to that list, as it's a very interesting study/discussion of how plain people like you and me can become bloodthirsty exterminators of other people in the right circumstances. https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492122897&sr=1-1&keywords=ordinary+men

Edit: Done replying to comments in this thread, it's exhausting. None of the argumentation is new. To quote the Duke of Wellington, "they came on in the same old way...". The materials are there for you to explore and read. You can form your own judgments based on facts and rigorous research, that's the beauty of a free and open society, the kind of society Nazi Germany was actively trying to prevent. The reason the Clean Wehrmacht myth needs to be refuted is because, as I've said in another comment, it presents an ignorant view of history that allows us to avoid the hard truth, learned largely from World War Two, that ordinary men who would otherwise be considered honorable, decent people can take part in atrocious crimes or, at the very least, hear about them and be permissive or even supportive of them. If we deny that, we can't learn to prevent such things happening again.

Edit 2: Honestly last thing, I just want to add a comment by one of the mods of r/askhistorians specifically relating to this subject. It's honestly the best comment on Reddit I've ever seen regarding this subject and it has a list of plenty of resources for those who want to investigate this issue further: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xc03h/just_how_much_of_the_wehrmacht_was_dirty/cy3cxs0/

I'm late to this party, but let me chime in with what I've learned over the years of being a fermentation fan. Now, I don't know what they do in labs, but growing cultures in labs is a fairly modern development anyway.

But, outside of the lab, how do you maintain a consistent strain? Generally, you don't. ;)

Because it doesn't matter if the English Ale Yeast we have today is genetically equivalent to what was used 100 years ago, as long as it's a strain of yeast that makes something that tastes like English Ale, right? The point is the product, not the particular strain of microbe.

Generally, people are receiving their cultures from others who are already producing it; those who know what the product is supposed to BE. Smell, taste, texture/mouthfeel can be very precise tools. If a particular culture comes up different, they either toss it or propagate it based on what they view as the ideal product.

Studies have shown that the particular makeup of sourdough cultures, for instance, can depend on the ambient temperature and "rhythm" of feeding, the flour used, the water used, etc.

So, the consistency comes down to human tradition. One thing people can do is attempt to control all aspects of the fermentation. The same ingredients, from the same sources, used in the same processes, in the same environment, made in the same rhythm. This can't stop random mutations, but it provides consistent selection pressure and can provide a better baseline to notice when things have changed.

Anyone who's attempted to maintain a culture long term "in the wild" has had a batch go off. You learn to keep backups frozen, dried, or multiple concurrent batches to account for that.

If you'd like more reading on the topic, Sandor Katz has an entire section in The Art of Fermentation titled "Fermentation as a Coevolutionary Force" that's more or less related. The book as a whole is a fantastic resource for fermentation enthusiasts.

I know what you mean. Some of my patients have amazing insurance and I'm so jealous. I wish my deductible was only $250 and I had 100% massage coverage after that...(though to be honest, quite a few of them take it for granted...but that's a rant for another day).

I can make some recommendations to help though. I suggested to someone else that they buy a Rumble Roller. The $45 you'll spend for that 12 inch one is definitely worth it (and not just for your neck - use it anywhere). Roll out your upper back and mid back (since your traps extend to your T12 vertebrae) by either lying on the roller and sliding back and forth or leaning back against a wall and moving up and down.

And do neck rolls! Drop your right ear to your right shoulder, and slowly roll your head forward until your left ear is even with your left shoulder. Slowly roll to the front again, and when your right ear is back over your right shoulder lift your head up. If you need an extra stretch put your hand on top of your head to add a little weight (don't pull down though, just let gravity work). DO NOT roll your neck back. It puts too much strain on the muscles in the front of your neck, and it's an unnecessary stress on the structures that run though it (trachea, veins/arteries). This is a great stretch to do in the shower when you've got some hot water to warm them up as well :)

That's a big myth, but it's only "capitalism all the way" if it benefits corporations -- things tend to get very pampered, protective and socialist if a regulation helps corporations. Great books on the subject: The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer, and Republic, Lost.

The advice to "sleep on it" is not to be able to think about it at night, but to give yourself time to calm down from short term emotions that might be connected with a decision.

There is a book about decision making called ["Thinking Fast and Slow"] (http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555) with an explanation of how decisions can be made in those two ways, fast - intuitively, pretty much - and slow - using rational thought.

Both those approaches have their advantages and drawbacks, so you often can make a correct "fast" decision, but doing so will prevent you from checking back with the other thought process. So allowing you to do that is pretty much the value of "sleep on it".

From a purely musical perspective, from that of the professional musician, it's offensive to hear amateur "DJ's" claiming they have musical skill. And it IS musical skill. I used to go to Clubs when I was in conservatory, to Tunnel and Twilo and Roxy. There was a marked difference between DJ ProducersBoyToy and Danny Tenaglia or Junior Vasquez. Yes, there is a talent, a sense for something that goes beyond music, but it is conveyed through music.

It is music, and it's a skill. Probably an extremely talent-dependent skill, but you're not going to convince me DJ's never get better and sensing and feeding the crowd's energy over time.

The DJ RandomTools at bars these days... if you can't even match a beat, if you can't make a continuous rhythm or a flow that makes sense... you may as well let iTunes take care of playing your playlist.

Some of the greatest DJ's couldn't match beats? Or didn't as an aesthetic choice? Or couldn't because they took one pill too many?

If you can't match beats, buy this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Rhythmic-Training-Robert-Starer/dp/0769293751

Just looking at it the image makes my eyes water. It's legendary. I think every music school/department uses it. If you can get 1/4 way through this book, matching beats will be nothing.

As far as cheap stuff (see: residential) goes, Ubiquiti is pretty good. This might be overkill but this one has a second ethernet port that would function the way you want. Also looks like it comes with a PoE module.

https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Networks-802-11ac-Dual-Radio-UAP-AC-PRO-US/dp/B015PRO512/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1484673176&sr=1-1&keywords=ubiquiti&refinements=p_72%3A1248879011

You might be able to save $30+ by going with a Netgear (they make access points as well) but my general philosophy is to buy good stuff off the bat and not have to worry later.

All benefits go really rich people and corporations.

Why? Because really rich people and corporations are getting better and better at buying off our political system. (Link.)

Thanks for the well thought out and written response. Would you consider cases of advanced age like Sue Barry to be outliers then? Her book kicked off quite a bit of discussion in the field when it dropped (disclosure: my wife is an OD and knows Sue well).
> New England Journal of Medicine: “One axis of [Barry’s] book is a graceful and grateful appreciation of a newly acquired ‘ability to see the volume of space between objects and to see each object as occupying its own space’ – revelations that allowed her to live ‘among’ and ‘in’ the things of this world and gave her first movements of snow falling, trees branching, and a faucet arcing out of the sink…. The book’s main contribution, however, is exposing the wrong-headed dogma that acuity and binocular vision can be restored only during a critical developmental period.”

Daniel Kahneman wrote an excellent book called Thinking, Fast and Slow, which deals with this very issue.

Kahneman purports that the human mind operates according to two distinct systems. One is fast: instinctive, automatic, habitual, subconscious. The other is slow: deliberate, takes effort, concentrated. Some things we do instinctively or subconsciously because that is what it means to be a living human: breathing, for example. Some things we do instinctively because we have done them so many times that concentrated effort, though possible, is deemed unnecessary by our minds. When our minds determines that concentrated effort is not required, we begin to operate without thinking. This is the difference between driving home, which you've done many times, and driving to an unfamiliar destination.

These are the basics of what Kahneman explains far more brilliantly in his book, which I highly recommend.

Please correct any contextual errors :)

Doctors used to have to make house calls because there were no doctors' offices. There were some hospitals or convalescence homes, but they were run by charities or clergy and were places where you were given comfort rather than actual treatment.

Their profession was a very low-status one, and house calls reflected that. Doctors had to drive long distances to treat people, were paid very little, and had low status because they were largely ineffective. It wasn't until the start of the 20th century -- with the advent of clean water, antibiotics, and cleaner surgeries -- that doctors had more status, a union of professional peers (the AMA), and offices or hospitals to work with.

Source:http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Transformation-American-Medicine/dp/0465079350

If you're interested in questions like this, you should really take a look at Guns, Germs, and Steel, the good old classic by Jared Diamond. I love it because it confronts questions about human history from a very academic perspective.

Sort of. That would require a real wall of text to explain. The tl;dr, though, is that health markets do not function like most markets because people will pay whatever it takes to stay healthy. So when the govt tried to intervene, even in helpful ways, it backfired.

The Hill Burton Act (1959 I believe) tried to build a ton of hospitals and train a shit-ton of doctors because more supply should make the market more competitive and drive down prices, right? Nope. Those doctors just prescribe more stuff and since you don't know you're going to buy it.

The HMO Act of 1973 was supposed to drive down prices by putting caps on what doctors could do. It screwed up in a few ways, the most far-reaching was by creating a huge administrative/bureaucratic structure that had to be supported. That structure is so well-entrenched now that no real public option (like universal health care) seems possible anymore.

It's worth noting that the HMO Act was Nixon's Plan B after his universal healthcare proposal was shot down by...democrats! After Watergate the democrats thought they would take the House and pass better universal healthcare. That never happened and now probably never will. As someone said on Reddit a few days ago, take away Watergate and Vietnam and Nixon would look like a radical progressive today.

Main Source: Paul Starr's The Social Transformation of American Medicine

The mind loves cognitive ease. Thinking requires energy from the body -- your heart rate increases, pupils dilate, etc.

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman covers this in depth in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow

http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

Hangon that's BS, some fermenting foods are exactly what we evolved to love - the overripe fruit contains shedloads of sugars that are great. Some forms of fermentation greatly increase the bioavailability of certain nutrients. That's all vague and hand-wavy, so I'll recommend Sandor Ellix Katz' book The Art of Fermentation as it is exceedingly well-cited, bloody interesting, and tells me to drink beer. I think...

> Debt is not bad at all.

Not true. Debt carries interest. Lots of debt means lots of interest must be paid. Interest payments come out of the government's budget. Debt can overwhelm a government's budget. This is currently happening in countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland, but there are lots of historical examples to point to. See Rogoff and Reinhart!.

Where do we stand today? The US government has $15.9 trillion in debt. Just paying the interest on that debt requires 6% of the federal budget. As the US government takes on more debt, it must devote an increasing portion of the federal budget to paying interest. If US debt doubled and all else remained constant, the US would have to spend 12% of the federal budget on interest payments. (In reality not everything else is constant.)

> there is no clear, simple effect.

One clear and simple effect of higher debts is that more money must be spent on interest payments. These extra outlays often lead to a decrease in the social safety net. We are seeing this in Europe.

Nations with central banks can print money to pay the added interest, but that causes problems too. It may be possible to argue that on balance government debt is good but it is not possible to argue that government debt is not bad at all.

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393061310/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311947161&sr=8-1

Must-read for topics like the one you are describing. There is a strong belief that Europe had the right blend of raw resources, timely technological discovery, and immunities to otherwise lethal pathogens. Meaning that if we were to turn back the clock and let everything play out again, Europe would likely be a colonial power just as it was in our history.

A good book on the matter http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555. The same is true if you ommit letters or words. A lot of road signs actually this to allow you to read at fast speeds.

Book recommendation:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Intelligent-Investor-Definitive-Investing/dp/0060555661

Graham is the grandfather of value investing and influenced individuals like Warren Buffet.

So a Ubiquiti setup would need 1 router + 1 AP? Like this:

Router:
https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Unifi-Security-Appliance-USG/dp/B00LV8YZLK/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8

and

AP:
https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Networks-802-11ac-Dual-Radio-UAP-AC-PRO-US/dp/B015PRO512/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Read this book: The Intelligent Investor

If you're looking for a way to make quick money and become millionaire quick then that book isn't for you.

Someone wrote an entire book on this: http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393061310/

tl;dr: Europe was much better suited for farming and such so society there could develop faster. You should probably just read it though. There was also a series of documentaries you could watch.

Absolutely not! To understand why, I need you to exterminate from your head the idea that a router provides WiFi. Within the realm of real networking, a router merely routes data between your local network and the internet. Instead, WiFi is generated by access points which you plug into that Ethernet port in the room on the other side of the house.

Generally, your network stack will look something like this.

Internet ---Fiber--> Modem ---Cat 6 ---> router --Cat 6--> switch --Cat 6 (in walls)--> Access Point --WiFi --> Phone.

Check out a book called “Thinking fast and slow” by Daniel Kahneman. It goes into this type of stuff, and how we have two types of systems in our brain that do what you’re describing.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0374533555/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_adGTCb56Y9JY2

Summary: https://fourminutebooks.com/thinking-fast-and-slow-summary/

For one thing, it's cold enough in East Asia and Europe (note they're at similar latitudes) for germs to die every winter, so people live longer and technology can advance accordingly. In the case of Australia, humans inhabited the continent and killed off all the big game before they domesticated anything, so they didn't have the advantage of cows and horses. In Africa, in order to avoid diseases carried by mosquitoes, people traditionally lived in small communities far from water sources, meaning they have to put in a lot of effort to carting water. This means that they lacked the benefits of a city like job specializations, etc.

"Guns, Germs and Steel" is a really interesting read to answer this question more fully.

There was a Cracked article that made me think we don't get the whole story about Native Americans. Supposedly they were very advanced, but a plague wiped them out and allowed Europeans to conquer them.

You might be interested in this book:

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Kahneman has done Nobel-award winning research into the way human beings make irrational decisions and why. The TL;DR is that the brain has two distinct systems for thinking -- a strong, fast, emotional and relatively dumb one, and a weaker, slower, rational, much smarter one. When you "think with your gut" you're using the first system, and when you ponder something carefully and make a rational choice you're using the second system.

So what you had here was a good example of the two systems being in conflict. The dumber but stronger emotional system probably said something like "Ugh, I don't want to walk up those stairs! I can do this with a butter knife." The smarter but weaker rational system then pointed out that this was pretty dumb, but it wasn't strong enough to override the "fast" system, which is all about short-term tactics, not long-term strategies. The slow system then sent you off to Reddit to complain about how your fast system is an idiot.

Edit: I wasn't aware the the ebook links were unauthorized so I've removed them per request of the moderators.

out of 2,827 amazon reviews over 2,500 are 4 star+. I am very intrigued.

"Modern wheat, in particular, is responsible for destroying more brains in this country than all the strokes, car accidents, and head trauma combined. Dr. Perlmutter makes a persuasive case for this wheat-free approach to preserve brain health and functioning, or to begin the process of reversal." --William Davis, MD

My response to this, is literally, wtf.

I am currently reading another book, Thinking fast and slow, I'm only 30 pages in and love it. It's more of a http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555 less diet focus, more psychology. This book is legit.

But if I finish it I might pick this up, though I'm not going to lie. I am a very discerning reader. Whole grains destroying your brain..? Wtf are they getting at... Let's all just eat a bunch of salami + cream cheese while avoiding oatmeal and bam! healthy diet! yeah, right...

But I am open minded. Forward motion! At the same time, give me your best shot! Bet I could run a 24 mile marathon faster then almost everyone who reviewed that book... >:)

Read this. If you want to know what's going to happen, just look at Ethiopia in the 70's. The famine wasn't the result of drought. The famine was a deliberate move on the part of the Ethiopian government. The people that starved every year were considered waste. They weren't making any of the government's constituents money, so they weren't important enough to feed. That's where we are headed in this country. If you really want a solution, and you aren't just trolling, you need to get off your ass and teach people how to be self-reliant. Shit's about to get so bad that even your little rant will seem utterly meaningless.