OK, lets' play with the AI:

A universal medium of exchange, like currency, simplifies transactions.

For thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of years people did just fine without a de facto currency. Trade happened, people built infrastructure and plumbing and great cities.

So, maybe it makes it more "simple," which is exactly how it was first sold to the public, but it isn't necessary.

Mainly the way it makes it more simple is by reducing the requirement for people to think about the value of their things. It is by taking away our understanding of the value of things that the monopolies have set the value of things, and we have been led down the path of consumerism.

The entire concept of "simpler" being "better" is not always true, yet it is always suggested as true. Simpler is actually worse in many of the ways our lives have been made simpler. Our understanding of the world around us and indeed, our very souls are destroyed by our "simple" lives.

Wake up. Go to work. Build The Machine. Come home. Watch TV. Go to bed. Die.

Ahhh, the simple life.

intrinsic value is subjective and can fluctuate, leading to inconsistencies in trade and potentially creating market instability.

This suggests that a "currency" leads to consistent trade and "market stability." I consistently trade completely different amounts of Federal Reserve Notes for gas. Is that what "consistent trade" means? And of course, there's the reasonable question: WHEN HAS THE MARKET EVER BEEN STABLE??

Back when we had barter people had to have knowledge of the local value of an item to "gain" on a transaction. Those with the most knowledge of the local value of an item (or what someone else might be willing to trade for it) gained the most. But if all you want is "apples" and you have "fish," all you need to do is find someone who wants your fish, and is willing to trade apples, or is willing to trade for something you can trade for apples. The world worked perfectly fine like this for thousands of years. I'm sure, with our modern technology, and the creation of virtual marketplaces, we would do just fine.

the argument dismisses the importance of a central authority in maintaining economic stability

YOU BET YOUR ASS IT DOES

Who is the real "central authority" maintaining our economy?

How stable has our economy been made by their actions?

What is the "business cycle" really?

Fiat currencies, managed by central banks, provide the flexibility needed to respond to economic crises, by adjusting interest rates or money supply.

All wars are banker wars. All crises are banker crises. Put that in your AI pipe and smoke it.

In a free market, resources of any kind can be hoarded and manipulated, leading to potential inequalities and economic instability.

Yes, but hoard apples and I'll buy pears. No one needs apples. No one needs gold. No one needs any single commodity, so have at it. And if someone hordes something that is truly needed by the entire populace then we do what we have always done, we go to war. Only in this case the war will be waged on the single individual or small group of people doing the hoarding. How long would that war last? Like, if people actually knew that the Cabal was behind all this shit, how long would they last? How likely is a person or group to try to hoard something essential when the last person that tried it ended with their head on a spike?

In addition, this hording of "resources of any kind" that can "lead to potential inequalities" is not solved by a regulated market. Indeed, all resources are owned by a single entity today, so apparently the Centralized Authority brand of market can do the same thing, only better.

All of these arguments rely on there being no controlling entity running the world. It relies on people being ignorant of such an entity. It relies on the situation as it is perceived to be today, not as it actually is.

Every argument relies on premises. In this case, there are too many false premises, and the argument falls apart.

it doesn't completely address the complex challenges of economic systems, and may create its own set of problems

It does address the complex challenges of economic systems. It just requires people to gain knowledge of what a Free Market means. The AI argues for "simpler," what it really means is "simpletons."

"It may create its own set of problems" is not an argument, but a supposition, based on fear, without evidential support. Thus is the world manipulated to fall into another's designs.

OK, lets' play with the AI:

A universal medium of exchange, like currency, simplifies transactions.

For thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of years people did just fine without a de facto currency. Trade happened, people built infrastructure and plumbing and great cities.

So, maybe it makes it more "simple," which is exactly how it was first sold to the public, but it isn't necessary.

Mainly the way it makes it more simple is by reducing the requirement for people to think about the value of their things. It is by taking away our understanding of the value of things that the monopolies have set the value of things, and we have been led down the path of consumerism.

The entire concept of "simpler" being "better" is not always true, yet it is always suggested as true. Simpler is actually worse in many of the ways our lives have been made simpler. Our understanding of the world around us and indeed, our very souls are destroyed by our "simple" lives.

Wake up. Go to work. Build The Machine. Come home. Watch TV. Go to bed. Die.

Ahhh, the simple life.

intrinsic value is subjective and can fluctuate, leading to inconsistencies in trade and potentially creating market instability.

This suggests that a "currency" leads to consistent trade and "market stability." I consistently trade completely different amounts of Federal Reserve Notes for gas. Is that what "consistent trade" means? And of course, there's the reasonable question: WHEN HAS THE MARKET EVER BEEN STABLE??

Back when we had barter people had to have knowledge of the local value of an item to "gain" on a transaction. Those with the most knowledge of the local value of an item (or what someone else might be willing to trade for it) gained the most. But if all you want is "apples" and you have "fish," all you need to do is find someone who wants your fish, and is willing to trade apples, or is willing to trade for something you can trade for apples. The world worked perfectly fine like this for thousands of years. I'm sure, with our modern technology, and the creation of virtual marketplaces, we would do just fine.

the argument dismisses the importance of a central authority in maintaining economic stability

YOU BET YOUR ASS IT DOES

Who is the real "central authority" maintaining our economy?

How stable has our economy been made by their actions?

What is the "business cycle" really?

Fiat currencies, managed by central banks, provide the flexibility needed to respond to economic crises, by adjusting interest rates or money supply.

All wars are banker wars. All crises are banker crises. Put that in your AI pipe and smoke it.

In a free market, resources of any kind can be hoarded and manipulated, leading to potential inequalities and economic instability.

Yes, but hoard apples and I'll buy pears. No one needs apples. No one needs gold. No one needs any single commodity, so have at it. And if someone hordes something that is truly needed by the entire populace then we do what we have always done, we go to war. Only in this case the war will be waged on the single individual or small group of people doing the hoarding. How long would that war last? Like, if people actually knew that the Cabal was behind all this shit, how long would they last? How likely is a person or group to try to hoard something essential when the last person that tried it ended with their head on a spike?

All of these arguments rely on there being no controlling entity running the world. It relies on people being ignorant of such an entity. It relies on the situation as it is perceived to be today, not as it actually is.

Every argument relies on premises. In this case, there are too many false premises, and the argument falls apart.

it doesn't completely address the complex challenges of economic systems, and may create its own set of problems

It does address the complex challenges of economic systems. It just requires people to gain knowledge of what a Free Market means. The AI argues for "simpler," what it really means is "simpletons."

"It may create its own set of problems" is not an argument, but a supposition, based on fear, without evidential support. Thus is the world manipulated to fall into another's designs.

OK, lets' play with the AI:

A universal medium of exchange, like currency, simplifies transactions.

For thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of years people did just fine without a de facto currency. Trade happened, people built infrastructure and plumbing and great cities.

So, maybe it makes it more "simple," which is exactly how it was first sold to the public, but it isn't necessary.

Mainly the way it makes it more simple is by reducing the requirement for people to think about the value of their things. It is by taking away our understanding of the value of things that the monopolies have set the value of things, and we have been led down the path of consumerism.

The entire concept of "simpler" being "better" is not always true, yet it is always suggested as true. Simpler is actually worse in many of the ways our lives have been made simpler. Our understanding of the world around us and indeed, our very souls are destroyed by our "simple" lives.

Wake up. Go to work. Build The Machine. Come home. Watch TV. Go to bed. Die.

Ahhh, the simple life.

intrinsic value is subjective and can fluctuate, leading to inconsistencies in trade and potentially creating market instability.

This suggests that a "currency" leads to consistent trade and "market stability." I consistently trade completely different amounts of Federal Reserve Notes for gas. Is that what "consistent trade" means? And of course, there's the reasonable question: WHEN HAS THE MARKET EVER BEEN STABLE??

Back when we had barter people had to have knowledge of the local value of an item to "gain" on a transaction. Those with the most knowledge of the local value of an item (or what someone else might be willing to trade for it) gained the most. But if all you want is "apples" and you have "fish," all you need to do is find someone who wants your fish, and is willing to trade apples, or is willing to trade for something you can trade for apples. The world worked perfectly fine like this for thousands of years. I'm sure, with our modern technology, and the creation of virtual marketplaces, we would do just fine.

the argument dismisses the importance of a central authority in maintaining economic stability

YOU BET YOUR ASS IT DOES

Who is the real "central authority" maintaining our economy?

How stable has our economy been made by their actions?

What is the "business cycle" really?

Fiat currencies, managed by central banks, provide the flexibility needed to respond to economic crises, by adjusting interest rates or money supply.

All wars are banker wars. All crises are banker crises. Put that in your AI pipe and smoke it.

In a free market, resources of any kind can be hoarded and manipulated, leading to potential inequalities and economic instability.

Yes, but hoard apples and I'll buy pears. No one needs apples. No one needs gold. No one needs any single commodity, so have at it. And if someone hordes something that is truly needed by the entire populace then we do what we have always done, we go to war. Only in this case the war will be waged on the single individual or small group of people doing the hoarding. How long would that war last? Like, if people actually knew that the Cabal was behind all this shit, how long would they last? How likely is a person or group to try to hoard something essential when the last person that tried it ended with their head on a spike?

All of these arguments rely on there being no controlling entity running the world. It relies on people being ignorant of such an entity. It relies on the situation as it is perceived to be today, not as it actually is.

Every argument relies on premises. In this case, there are too many false premises, and the argument falls apart.

it doesn't completely address the complex challenges of economic systems, and may create its own set of problems

It does address the complex challenges of economic systems. It just requires people to gain knowledge of what a Free Market means. The AI argues for "simpler," what it really means is "simpletons."

"It may create its own set of problems" is not an argument, but a supposition, based on fear, without evidential support. Thus is the world manipulated to fall into another's designs.

OK, lets' play with the AI:

A universal medium of exchange, like currency, simplifies transactions.

For thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of years people did just fine without a de facto currency. Trade happened, people built infrastructure and plumbing and great cities.

So, maybe it makes it more "simple," which is exactly how it was first sold to the public, but it isn't necessary.

Mainly the way it makes it more simple is by reducing the requirement for people to think about the value of their things. It is by taking away our understanding of the value of things that we have been led down the path of consumerism.

The entire concept of "simpler" being "better" is not always true, yet it is always suggested as true. Simpler is actually worse in many of the ways our lives have been made simpler. Our understanding of the world around us and indeed, our very souls are destroyed by our "simple" lives.

Wake up. Go to work. Build The Machine. Come home. Watch TV. Go to bed. Die.

Ahhh, the simple life.

intrinsic value is subjective and can fluctuate, leading to inconsistencies in trade and potentially creating market instability.

This suggests that a "currency" leads to consistent trade and "market stability." I consistently trade completely different amounts of Federal Reserve Notes for gas. Is that what "consistent trade" means? And of course, there's the reasonable question: WHEN HAS THE MARKET EVER BEEN STABLE??

Back when we had barter people had to have knowledge of the local value of an item to "gain" on a transaction. Those with the most knowledge of the local value of an item (or what someone else might be willing to trade for it) gained the most. But if all you want is "apples" and you have "fish," all you need to do is find someone who wants your fish, and is willing to trade apples, or is willing to trade for something you can trade for apples. The world worked perfectly fine like this for thousands of years. I'm sure, with our modern technology, and the creation of virtual marketplaces, we would do just fine.

the argument dismisses the importance of a central authority in maintaining economic stability

YOU BET YOUR ASS IT DOES

Who is the real "central authority" maintaining our economy?

How stable has our economy been made by their actions?

What is the "business cycle" really?

Fiat currencies, managed by central banks, provide the flexibility needed to respond to economic crises, by adjusting interest rates or money supply.

All wars are banker wars. All crises are banker crises. Put that in your AI pipe and smoke it.

In a free market, resources of any kind can be hoarded and manipulated, leading to potential inequalities and economic instability.

Yes, but hoard apples and I'll buy pears. No one needs apples. No one needs gold. No one needs any single commodity, so have at it. And if someone hordes something that is truly needed by the entire populace then we do what we have always done, we go to war. Only in this case the war will be waged on the single individual or small group of people doing the hoarding. How long would that war last? Like, if people actually knew that the Cabal was behind all this shit, how long would they last? How likely is a person or group to try to hoard something essential when the last person that tried it ended with their head on a spike?

All of these arguments rely on there being no controlling entity running the world. It relies on people being ignorant of such an entity. It relies on the situation as it is perceived to be today, not as it actually is.

Every argument relies on premises. In this case, there are too many false premises, and the argument falls apart.

it doesn't completely address the complex challenges of economic systems, and may create its own set of problems

It does address the complex challenges of economic systems. It just requires people to gain knowledge of what a Free Market means. The AI argues for "simpler," what it really means is "simpletons."

"It may create its own set of problems" is not an argument, but a supposition, based on fear, without evidential support. Thus is the world manipulated to fall into another's designs.

OK, lets' play with the AI:

A universal medium of exchange, like currency, simplifies transactions.

For thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of years people did just fine without a de facto currency. Trade happened, people built infrastructure and plumbing and great cities.

So, maybe it makes it more "simple," which is exactly how it was first sold to the public, but it isn't necessary.

Mainly the way it makes it more simple is by reducing the requirement for people to think about the value of their things. It is by taking away our understanding of the value of things that we have been led down the path of consumerism.

The entire concept of "simpler" being "better" is not always true, yet it is always suggested as true. Simpler is actually worse in many of the ways our lives have been made simpler. Our understanding of the world around us and indeed, our very souls are destroyed by our "simple" lives.

Wake up. Go to work. Build The Machine. Come home. Watch TV. Go to bed. Die.

Ahhh, the simple life.

intrinsic value is subjective and can fluctuate, leading to inconsistencies in trade and potentially creating market instability.

This suggests that a "currency" leads to consistent trade and "market stability." WHEN HAS THE MARKET EVER BEEN STABLE?

Back when we had barter people had to have knowledge of the local value of an item to "gain" on a transaction. Those with the most knowledge of the local value of an item (or what someone else might be willing to trade for it) gained the most. But if all you want is "apples" and you have "fish," all you need to do is find someone who wants your fish, and is willing to trade apples, or is willing to trade for something you can trade for apples. The world worked perfectly fine like this for thousands of years. I'm sure, with our modern technology, and the creation of virtual marketplaces, we would do just fine.

the argument dismisses the importance of a central authority in maintaining economic stability

YOU BET YOUR ASS IT DOES

Who is the real "central authority" maintaining our economy?

How stable has our economy been made by their actions?

What is the "business cycle" really?

Fiat currencies, managed by central banks, provide the flexibility needed to respond to economic crises, by adjusting interest rates or money supply.

All wars are banker wars. All crises are banker crises. Put that in your AI pipe and smoke it.

In a free market, resources of any kind can be hoarded and manipulated, leading to potential inequalities and economic instability.

Yes, but hoard apples and I'll buy pears. No one needs apples. No one needs gold. No one needs any single commodity, so have at it. And if someone hordes something that is truly needed by the entire populace then we do what we have always done, we go to war. Only in this case the war will be waged on the single individual or small group of people doing the hoarding. How long would that war last? Like, if people actually knew that the Cabal was behind all this shit, how long would they last? How likely is a person or group to try to hoard something essential when the last person that tried it ended with their head on a spike?

All of these arguments rely on there being no controlling entity running the world. It relies on people being ignorant of such an entity. It relies on the situation as it is perceived to be today, not as it actually is.

Every argument relies on premises. In this case, there are too many false premises, and the argument falls apart.

it doesn't completely address the complex challenges of economic systems, and may create its own set of problems

It does address the complex challenges of economic systems. It just requires people to gain knowledge of what a Free Market means. The AI argues for "simpler," what it really means is "simpletons."

"It may create its own set of problems" is not an argument, but a supposition, based on fear, without evidential support. Thus is the world manipulated to fall into another's designs.

OK, lets' play with the AI:

A universal medium of exchange, like currency, simplifies transactions.

For thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of years people did just fine without a de facto currency. Trade happened, people built infrastructure and plumbing and great cities.

So, maybe it makes it more "simple," which is exactly how it was first sold to the public, but it isn't *necessary."

Mainly the way it makes it more simple is by reducing the requirement for people to think about the value of their things. It is by taking away our understanding of the value of things that we have been led down the path of consumerism.

The entire concept of "simpler" being "better" is not always true, yet it is always suggested as true. Simpler is actually worse in many of the ways our lives have been made simpler. Our understanding of the world around us and indeed, our very souls are destroyed by our "simple" lives.

Wake up. Go to work. Build The Machine. Come home. Watch TV. Go to bed. Die.

Ahhh, the simple life.

intrinsic value is subjective and can fluctuate, leading to inconsistencies in trade and potentially creating market instability.

This suggests that a "currency" leads to consistent trade and "market stability." WHEN HAS THE MARKET EVER BEEN STABLE?

Back when we had barter people had to have knowledge of the local value of an item to "gain" on a transaction. Those with the most knowledge of the local value of an item (or what someone else might be willing to trade for it) gained the most. But if all you want is "apples" and you have "fish," all you need to do is find someone who wants your fish, and is willing to trade apples, or is willing to trade for something you can trade for apples. The world worked perfectly fine like this for thousands of years. I'm sure, with our modern technology, and the creation of virtual marketplaces, we would do just fine.

the argument dismisses the importance of a central authority in maintaining economic stability

YOU BET YOUR ASS IT DOES

Who is the real "central authority" maintaining our economy?

How stable has our economy been made by their actions?

What is the "business cycle" really?

Fiat currencies, managed by central banks, provide the flexibility needed to respond to economic crises, by adjusting interest rates or money supply.

All wars are banker wars. All crises are banker crises. Put that in your AI pipe and smoke it.

In a free market, resources of any kind can be hoarded and manipulated, leading to potential inequalities and economic instability.

Yes, but hoard apples and I'll buy pears. No one needs apples. No one needs gold. No one needs any single commodity, so have at it. And if someone hordes something that is truly needed by the entire populace then we do what we have always done, we go to war. Only in this case the war will be waged on the single individual or small group of people doing the hoarding. How long would that war last? Like, if people actually knew that the Cabal was behind all this shit, how long would they last? How likely is a person or group to try to hoard something essential when the last person that tried it ended with their head on a spike?

All of these arguments rely on there being no controlling entity running the world. It relies on people being ignorant of such an entity. It relies on the situation as it is perceived to be today, not as it actually is.

Every argument relies on premises. In this case, there are too many false premises, and the argument falls apart.

it doesn't completely address the complex challenges of economic systems, and may create its own set of problems

It does address the complex challenges of economic systems. It just requires people to gain knowledge of what a Free Market means. The AI argues for "simpler," what it really means is "simpletons."

"It may create its own set of problems" is not an argument, but a supposition, based on fear, without evidential support. Thus is the world manipulated to fall into another's designs.