This zero hedge obsession with the gold standard and simplistic view that if it were reinstated the problems listed would be largely eliminated makes it hard to take them seriously. You know who also is not on the gold standard? Every other country where a large range of conditions exist.
> This zero hedge obsession with the gold standard and simplistic view that if it were reinstated the problems listed would be largely eliminated makes it hard to take them seriously. You know who also is not on the gold standard? Every other country where a large range of conditions exist.
I'm unfamiliar with zerohedge beyond this article, but I can empathise with any fond remembrance of a fiscal system that wasn't (intentionally or otherwise) designed to provide a perpetual and ineluctable boom-bust cycle.
I wasn't alive at the time, though I was present for Australia's following of the crowd (the global peer pressure was enormous by then) as we floated our AUD. The reason, comically stated at the time, was that 'it hasn't worked anywhere else, so maybe it will work here'. We adopted the same mantra for the introduction of GST (a la UK's VAT).
Anyway, I'll often recommend John Ralston-Saul whenever the subject of Bretton Woods comes up - he had this to say, tritely, in his Doubter's Companion (1994):
"A system for international financial management and stability which was put in place by the Allies, minus the Soviets, in 1944 and destroyed in 1973 by President Richard Nixon without consideration being given to a replacement.
"Nixon hoped in this way to solve some short-term American economic problems by re-creating the sort of financial disorder in which the largest power would be best placed to benefit. It could be said that this was the single most evil act undertaken by an elected leader in the postwar period. Other leaders should not be discouraged, however. The opportunity to do worse is perpetual."
His concern (fleshed out much more seriously in his other works) is not so much that the gold standard was by any measure The Best System, but rather that replacing it with a demonstrably even worse system was a horrendously woeful decision.
Yeah using the gold standard limits the pace of progress of society to the pace of which gold can be mined, which is a completely arbitrary unnecessary limit ever since printed money was invented.
>This zero hedge obsession with the gold standard and simplistic view that if it were reinstated the problems listed would be largely eliminated makes it hard to take them seriously. You know who also is not on the gold standard? Every other country where a large range of conditions exist.
When the developed world went off the gold standard it flipped how taxation works. Without a gold standard, the fiat money + government no longer can tax.
Mind you, the 'gold' factor doesnt matter. Maybe it's a crypto standard or oil or something. It doesnt matter but right now it's broken. If the USD and all these other currencies dont go back on a standard, it effectively means a caste system will form.
Instead, you have the endless pressure to drop taxation, but the government can only pretend to drop taxation. If you look at the USA, every single tax break has been entirely fake with no actual or real net change in taxation. Fully intentional because nobody can touch that.
> You know who also is not on the gold standard? Every other country where a large range of conditions exist.
Every other country follows usa. After the second world war finished europe was reconstructing and depleted of any financial power
so america set the tone in finance since it was the biggest winner. That s how we got the removal of the gold standard and dollar as the reserve currency for every other country.You make it seem as if every country reached the conclusion that gold standard must go by itself.
The first plot is especially troubling. The last time the top 1% had as much as the bottom 90% was right on the eve of WWII.
Now, an exclusively economic interpretation of history is certainly wrong, but one cannot refrain from thinking that this much inequality won't lead to social unrest at best, flat out war at worst
There's no peaceful way out of this dilemma - the ultra-rich have the money to corrupt the politicians. They get to write the rules that make them even richer. Meanwhile, democracy's mechanisms are no longer working.
no wonder. those nice 1% distracted americans into a war of races (while we all agreed long that there is only one race it isn't the case anymore looking at fox, cnn, biden, paski, white and black racial movments,...).
they did that right after occupy wall street. they understood that this movement was dangerous for them because targerting the right people responsible for the racism, inequalities and theft in western societies. and instead of fighting against us they just poured money into minority-based marketing so that now the goldman sachs of the world sponsor the gay pride and other minority movements to push the narrative that racism is because of the "way society is" hell they even call it "systemic racism" so that way it is something dumb that you name and never understand, hiding away the fact that those 1% are the one creating this system and profiting off it from every poor person and middle class in america. whatever their color.
There doesn't even have to be a conspiracy for this to occur.
Companies always want to seem like the good guys, so they'll jump on any trend that doesn't hurt them. BLM, LGBTQ+ (), etc. are issues that companies don't have to lose anything to take part in. Advocating for (e.g.) unions is something the Amazons of the world don't want to promote. This creates bias on every level which suppresses topics that are inconvenient for the powers-at-be.
People fighting over race is very convenient for the 0.01%, so no effort will be made to end that fight.
( Not that these aren't important, just that there are important issues that are not discussed on the same level.)
There is no direct link between civil-rights awareness increases and Occupy ending. Occupy simply ended like most cultural movements end: organizers were slowly coopted by the system, one way or the other, because people get old and settle down. In my 40+ years of life, I've seen multiple movements with similar themes emerge and subsume, they are like tidal waves. In many ways, they are just a path for certain personality types to carve their role in society.
On the other hand, civil-rights advancements are a slow but well-rooted change in social attitudes. Because these ideas are not conflictual with capitalism (in fact they complement it, by expanding the market for goods and services to under-represented groups), they get swallowed and repackaged by the system, becoming mainstream.
I applaud for having the balls to post zerohedge here. I only skim the headlines most of the time but now and again, they post a really good article with in-depth information if you have the patience to see past the heavily opinionated commentary. If you're into finance and can handle it, it should be on your reading list. Variety is the spice of life.
I disagree with the premise of the article. If someone has negative assets, they are poorer than people with zero assets. The article paints access to credit as a form of wealth, which it is, but in the end wealth is measured by accumulated assets, as a proxy indicator for earning potential.
If you use credit to acquire assets, real estate for example, you won't move the needle on your total net worth. So, the overindebted in the US are those who used credit for expenses or for failed investments. They are poorer than those with zero debt.
The only exception that I can see, and which the article does not mention, is the use of credit for acquiring untangible assets, such as education. The correction would be to measure earning potential per individual, instead of net-assets, but that is basically impossible at large scale. We are stuck using net assets as a proxy for earning potential. Sum of wealth is an acceptable measure of income inequality.
This is a fair criticism but the numbers still work out similarly if you look at disposable income.
The question isn't how much wealth the bottom 50% or 80% or 90% of a given country has, the question is if we should want society to be structured in such a way that one person can command upwards of $100bn and what having one or more persons with this much financial power does to the democratic system they are supposed to be a part of.
If capitalism means voting with your dollar, and democracy means every vote counts the same, how can the two systems coexist if the dollar amounts are so unevenly distributed.
The point doesn't hinge on specific numbers, those just define the exact magnitude of the problem. You can say you prefer capitalism, where power flows into the hands of a few from "the market", or you can say you prefer democracy, where power remains in the hands of the people (or in representative democracies temporarily flows from the electorate into the hands of a few elected until the next election). But you can't say you prefer both.
The way the economic system is in the US and many other countries each year the ratio will keep getting worse till the system breaks. If the economy grows 2-3% and 80-90% of the growth is captured by 1-2% of the population each year more and more wealth moves to the rich.
Taxing the rich is just 1st part of the solution the 2nd part is getting that money into the hands of the actual poor where as currently larger part of government taxes go back into the pockets of the rich. Food stamps subsidised health care etc are the bogey man created to hype up the right and the left but majority of that money also goes back to the rich.
Wonder how many HN readers are part of the 1% income earners ... but 0.1% is another thing of course.
How is it going with Wealth Tax proposal from the Democrats? It sounds reasonable: "2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million, rising to 3% for wealth over $1 billion."
I wonder how much wealth the 0.1% has compared to the rest of the 1%, because I'm sure the problem is about that 0.1% or 0.01%. Very rich people must have a lot of influence.
The post is flagged and the comments greatly seem to support the 1% rhetoric (its not us its the .01%!,taxes don't work(because the rich dont pay them), wealth distribution is evil (as long as its not the rich who get the funds distributed to them of course, thry have no problem sucking money/value like a vacuum).
I’m sure it’s the upper 1%, especially. Still, what’s different about life when you move from the 2% to the 1%?
I would hypothesize an experience where you realize that your money can work harder than you can. Also, this whole intergenerational wealth vision. What’s that like?
should they pay more than 40%? i do not know the answer to this question. a lot of people say yes because even if they pay the majority of taxes, they pay less in percentage points off their income. others say that they're paying more than their fair share (60% of taxes for just 5% of earners).
The biggest mistake that people make is thinking that taxing the rich will actually fix anything.
These people are very rich because they control stuff. They control the services, everything you NEED to pay for. The more you tax them, the more they will charge YOU for these services.
"Banana republic" implies more than what the dictionary definition is. If you look at the wealth distribution in any example "banana republic", you'll find a few very wealthy people/warlords and many dirt poor with close to nothing in between
My pet peeve is 'third world' (in lower case), originally intended as Third World (in upper case). An alternative presented by certain countries as the Cold War heated up. Binding together to resist ceding functional sovereignty to either the First World (US and its allies) or Second World (the USSR and its allies).
It is today usually employed neutered of its casing and tossed around by First World citizens as a general unfalsifiable pejorative towards places that are less politically or economically stable. In many cases because of First World decisions such as Bretton Woods 1973.
Yes words can change meaning, but this is a particularly devious evolution.
That might be the way one dictionary choose to define the term. But the term as I've known it for decades refers to any entity that has the distinguishing property of the small Central American Republics which exported fruit to the United States: A very small wealthy minority preceding over the much larger mass of poor.
The definition of "banana republic" being used here is
> a country with an economy of state capitalism, whereby the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class.
Given that only the laws that are accepted by financial elite are passed and preference of poor people doesn't matter you'd have to influence (scare?) only the rich people to achieve some change.
You can completely skip making the public aware or trying to get politicians onboard.
If you made as much as a nurse makes per year, but per day instead, then after a full career you would still not have as much as one of Norway's richest men.
Kjell Inge Røkke didn't have much when he started out, now he has close to 20 billion Norwegian kroner. Roughly 2.3 billion USD.
A nurse starts out at a bit above 400 000 kr (48 000 USD). If they paid you a years salary every day for a regular 5-day workweek, 46 weeks a year (to account for holidays) and you worked from when you were 20 and retired at 70. You would still only make 4.8 billion kr, roughly 1/4 of what Røkke has made so far.
414000 * 5 days * 46 weeks * 50 years = 4 761 000 000
I wish Brazil, which is really a Banana Republic, had the same wealth and quality of life of US. The article doesn't know what a Banana Republic really is, and is downsizing how awful is live in a real Banana Republic.
Its not a D measuring contest. The fact is lot of poor/lower middle class people in the US are not doing good. Saying that things are better compared to Brazil and other countries helps no one.
Much as I hesitate to show any support for a Zerohedge article - this is probably linked to all the money creation and the lack of inflation. It is becoming more obvious what happened to the money.
Sure this is a problem but if the American people had the reasonable expectation of being cared for, with respect to healthcare and end-of-life care, a lot of this 1% wealth chasing would not be occurring.
If you want a good read about how the *****y the US healthcare system is, this is a very worthwhile read. Ironically the author is the screenwriter of “Girl, Interrupted” and the story she writes is about how her son got screwed by the US healthcare system and is titled “Boy, Interrupted”. It also shows you how desperate people get for specialized care, and will shell out unfathomable amounts of money for “treatment” at sketchy places: https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/06/boy-interrupted-a-story...
Ironically, the last straw for me, when it came to living in America was my diagnosis of akathisia (just like the linked story), which is 1000x worse than it sounds. I have severe depression and I had been taking my medications as prescribed. Because of my taking these medications, I developed severe akathisia.
Literally, before all hell broke loose from the severe akathisia (of which I likely had to varying degrees for years) my highly respected neurologist in movement disorders immediately wrote a scathing report of my situation with the diagnosis. He also gave a ton of recommendations. He also wrote letters to all of my doctors. He did this all within an hour and took the situation extremely seriously.
Unfortunately, even though he is technically a high powered doctor, the US healthcare system has taken a tremendous amount of power away from doctors in general. So a scathing write up in my medical record plus letters to all of my doctors (with recommendations) was all he could really do for me.
I literally ended up in the ER 6 times in a week, with improper help. I kept on being discharged over and over again without any further help and even got in to trouble with the law multiple times.
One time, after being drugged with Ativan (a benzodiazepine) and Ketamine (a general anesthetic) in the ER, from which I had been discharged. I had called my mother and she was going to pick me up from the hospital. She was well on her way for picking me up.
Honestly, I thought I was just waiting outside on the sidewalk right next to the ER, for my mother, but something very wrong had happened. All of the sudden I see a cop car pull up about 30-40 feet away from me and they were headed my way to talk to me.
Obviously the number one rule is to never talk to the police under any conditions. Traffic stops are a good time to practice that, by the way. The best thing you can do is say “no comment, I need to talk to my lawyer first.” Anyways I was drugged up to the extreme so it was not like I was not talking and running my mouth to both of the cops observing the situation.
Obviously I had caused some sort of public disturbance and somebody had called the cops on me and clearly I should have never been discharged from the hospital. Honestly, I have no idea how, when, or even where the public disturbance occurred (obviously this is public record but it is not healthy for me to investigate the situation further).
Anyways, after the cops talked to me, they said that an “emergency detention order” was being issued and that I was going to be forced to get treatment at the ****hole hospital which had improperly discharged me after being hella ativaned and ketamined up.
Long story short, I had 3 interactions with the cops in 1 week. Prior to that I had only had 2 interactions with the police in my adult life (+14 years). Both were traffic stops, but neither were for moving traffic violations (burnt out headlight and expired registration during COVID-19). I was tremendously lucky that I was never charged with anything over that week from hell, and the cops managed to see that something was “off”.
Anyways, like in the above link (excellent storytelling by the way so it is a worthwhile read), there are common denominators that I share with the writer’s son.
I am a dual US|European Union (Croatian) citizen and I fled the US after the final hospital trip (from hell actually...it was the worst hospital trip of all time and I am hardcore chronically ill just in general) for Croatia exactly 21 days later (I had to obtain legal documents).
Because of my training in electrical engineering, which I am profoundly fortunate to have, I do LORETA (technically sLORETA) neurofeedback training completely on my own to help heal my brain, just like the person in that story.
Anyways, there is much more to the story that is better not put in writing. Just know that there is nothing that will bring me back to the USA.
From my pov, seems like the top 1% has wealth in stock, company valuation, which is only done by the middle class and lower class, buying stock. So everything they have is handed to them by the ones who buy the stock.
Quit doing it.
Why do people buy so much stock, is that because they want to invest in companies? sure there are cases of that, but most importantly they don't want to see their money devalue with the inflation caused by gov policies.
ZeroHedge is a pretty nasty propaganda outlet to find it's way to this website. You should read the comments, it's mostly Q-ANON and radical far-right trolls, and their batting average on their economic predictions nears 0%. It's doomer media and totally unfit for this community IMO.
[+] [-] jahnu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jedd|4 years ago|reply
I'm unfamiliar with zerohedge beyond this article, but I can empathise with any fond remembrance of a fiscal system that wasn't (intentionally or otherwise) designed to provide a perpetual and ineluctable boom-bust cycle.
I wasn't alive at the time, though I was present for Australia's following of the crowd (the global peer pressure was enormous by then) as we floated our AUD. The reason, comically stated at the time, was that 'it hasn't worked anywhere else, so maybe it will work here'. We adopted the same mantra for the introduction of GST (a la UK's VAT).
Anyway, I'll often recommend John Ralston-Saul whenever the subject of Bretton Woods comes up - he had this to say, tritely, in his Doubter's Companion (1994):
"A system for international financial management and stability which was put in place by the Allies, minus the Soviets, in 1944 and destroyed in 1973 by President Richard Nixon without consideration being given to a replacement.
"Nixon hoped in this way to solve some short-term American economic problems by re-creating the sort of financial disorder in which the largest power would be best placed to benefit. It could be said that this was the single most evil act undertaken by an elected leader in the postwar period. Other leaders should not be discouraged, however. The opportunity to do worse is perpetual."
His concern (fleshed out much more seriously in his other works) is not so much that the gold standard was by any measure The Best System, but rather that replacing it with a demonstrably even worse system was a horrendously woeful decision.
[+] [-] jseban|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeltz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sleepysysadmin|4 years ago|reply
When the developed world went off the gold standard it flipped how taxation works. Without a gold standard, the fiat money + government no longer can tax.
Mind you, the 'gold' factor doesnt matter. Maybe it's a crypto standard or oil or something. It doesnt matter but right now it's broken. If the USD and all these other currencies dont go back on a standard, it effectively means a caste system will form.
Instead, you have the endless pressure to drop taxation, but the government can only pretend to drop taxation. If you look at the USA, every single tax break has been entirely fake with no actual or real net change in taxation. Fully intentional because nobody can touch that.
[+] [-] over_the_raibow|4 years ago|reply
Every other country follows usa. After the second world war finished europe was reconstructing and depleted of any financial power so america set the tone in finance since it was the biggest winner. That s how we got the removal of the gold standard and dollar as the reserve currency for every other country.You make it seem as if every country reached the conclusion that gold standard must go by itself.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zkomp|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giansegato|4 years ago|reply
Now, an exclusively economic interpretation of history is certainly wrong, but one cannot refrain from thinking that this much inequality won't lead to social unrest at best, flat out war at worst
[+] [-] Tepix|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredestine|4 years ago|reply
they did that right after occupy wall street. they understood that this movement was dangerous for them because targerting the right people responsible for the racism, inequalities and theft in western societies. and instead of fighting against us they just poured money into minority-based marketing so that now the goldman sachs of the world sponsor the gay pride and other minority movements to push the narrative that racism is because of the "way society is" hell they even call it "systemic racism" so that way it is something dumb that you name and never understand, hiding away the fact that those 1% are the one creating this system and profiting off it from every poor person and middle class in america. whatever their color.
[+] [-] Rarebox|4 years ago|reply
Companies always want to seem like the good guys, so they'll jump on any trend that doesn't hurt them. BLM, LGBTQ+ (), etc. are issues that companies don't have to lose anything to take part in. Advocating for (e.g.) unions is something the Amazons of the world don't want to promote. This creates bias on every level which suppresses topics that are inconvenient for the powers-at-be.
People fighting over race is very convenient for the 0.01%, so no effort will be made to end that fight.
( Not that these aren't important, just that there are important issues that are not discussed on the same level.)
[+] [-] toyg|4 years ago|reply
On the other hand, civil-rights advancements are a slow but well-rooted change in social attitudes. Because these ideas are not conflictual with capitalism (in fact they complement it, by expanding the market for goods and services to under-represented groups), they get swallowed and repackaged by the system, becoming mainstream.
[+] [-] me_me_me|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kiryin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] maratc|4 years ago|reply
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS228821959920140404
[+] [-] sergiosgc|4 years ago|reply
If you use credit to acquire assets, real estate for example, you won't move the needle on your total net worth. So, the overindebted in the US are those who used credit for expenses or for failed investments. They are poorer than those with zero debt.
The only exception that I can see, and which the article does not mention, is the use of credit for acquiring untangible assets, such as education. The correction would be to measure earning potential per individual, instead of net-assets, but that is basically impossible at large scale. We are stuck using net assets as a proxy for earning potential. Sum of wealth is an acceptable measure of income inequality.
[+] [-] hnbad|4 years ago|reply
The question isn't how much wealth the bottom 50% or 80% or 90% of a given country has, the question is if we should want society to be structured in such a way that one person can command upwards of $100bn and what having one or more persons with this much financial power does to the democratic system they are supposed to be a part of.
If capitalism means voting with your dollar, and democracy means every vote counts the same, how can the two systems coexist if the dollar amounts are so unevenly distributed.
The point doesn't hinge on specific numbers, those just define the exact magnitude of the problem. You can say you prefer capitalism, where power flows into the hands of a few from "the market", or you can say you prefer democracy, where power remains in the hands of the people (or in representative democracies temporarily flows from the electorate into the hands of a few elected until the next election). But you can't say you prefer both.
[+] [-] xbmcuser|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JimWestergren|4 years ago|reply
How is it going with Wealth Tax proposal from the Democrats? It sounds reasonable: "2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million, rising to 3% for wealth over $1 billion."
[+] [-] jokoon|4 years ago|reply
This chart is always quite revealing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
I made this to summarize:
https://i.imgur.com/BgoGzrI.jpg
[+] [-] effingwewt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Freskis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naveen99|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dr_dshiv|4 years ago|reply
I would hypothesize an experience where you realize that your money can work harder than you can. Also, this whole intergenerational wealth vision. What’s that like?
[+] [-] garmaine|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mickjagger|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmlx|4 years ago|reply
should they pay more than 40%? i do not know the answer to this question. a lot of people say yes because even if they pay the majority of taxes, they pay less in percentage points off their income. others say that they're paying more than their fair share (60% of taxes for just 5% of earners).
[+] [-] zarkov99|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] traveler01|4 years ago|reply
These people are very rich because they control stuff. They control the services, everything you NEED to pay for. The more you tax them, the more they will charge YOU for these services.
[+] [-] madengr|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] garmaine|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drstewart|4 years ago|reply
>Learn to pronounce
>noun
>a small state that is politically unstable as a result of the domination of its economy by a single export controlled by foreign capital.
Do words just not have meaning anymore?
[+] [-] kiryin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaycuriou|4 years ago|reply
It is today usually employed neutered of its casing and tossed around by First World citizens as a general unfalsifiable pejorative towards places that are less politically or economically stable. In many cases because of First World decisions such as Bretton Woods 1973.
Yes words can change meaning, but this is a particularly devious evolution.
[+] [-] dotancohen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|4 years ago|reply
> a country with an economy of state capitalism, whereby the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class.
[+] [-] mandmandam|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|4 years ago|reply
You can completely skip making the public aware or trying to get politicians onboard.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/4...
[+] [-] hmottestad|4 years ago|reply
Kjell Inge Røkke didn't have much when he started out, now he has close to 20 billion Norwegian kroner. Roughly 2.3 billion USD.
A nurse starts out at a bit above 400 000 kr (48 000 USD). If they paid you a years salary every day for a regular 5-day workweek, 46 weeks a year (to account for holidays) and you worked from when you were 20 and retired at 70. You would still only make 4.8 billion kr, roughly 1/4 of what Røkke has made so far.
414000 * 5 days * 46 weeks * 50 years = 4 761 000 000
[+] [-] chii|4 years ago|reply
The nurse earning 400,000 per day would out-earn Kjell Inge Røkke, if she invested that money in the market.
https://www.calculator.net/interest-calculator.html?cstartin...
[+] [-] cerradokids|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sumedh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roenxi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] disabled|4 years ago|reply
If you want a good read about how the *****y the US healthcare system is, this is a very worthwhile read. Ironically the author is the screenwriter of “Girl, Interrupted” and the story she writes is about how her son got screwed by the US healthcare system and is titled “Boy, Interrupted”. It also shows you how desperate people get for specialized care, and will shell out unfathomable amounts of money for “treatment” at sketchy places: https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/06/boy-interrupted-a-story...
Ironically, the last straw for me, when it came to living in America was my diagnosis of akathisia (just like the linked story), which is 1000x worse than it sounds. I have severe depression and I had been taking my medications as prescribed. Because of my taking these medications, I developed severe akathisia. Literally, before all hell broke loose from the severe akathisia (of which I likely had to varying degrees for years) my highly respected neurologist in movement disorders immediately wrote a scathing report of my situation with the diagnosis. He also gave a ton of recommendations. He also wrote letters to all of my doctors. He did this all within an hour and took the situation extremely seriously.
Unfortunately, even though he is technically a high powered doctor, the US healthcare system has taken a tremendous amount of power away from doctors in general. So a scathing write up in my medical record plus letters to all of my doctors (with recommendations) was all he could really do for me. I literally ended up in the ER 6 times in a week, with improper help. I kept on being discharged over and over again without any further help and even got in to trouble with the law multiple times.
One time, after being drugged with Ativan (a benzodiazepine) and Ketamine (a general anesthetic) in the ER, from which I had been discharged. I had called my mother and she was going to pick me up from the hospital. She was well on her way for picking me up.
Honestly, I thought I was just waiting outside on the sidewalk right next to the ER, for my mother, but something very wrong had happened. All of the sudden I see a cop car pull up about 30-40 feet away from me and they were headed my way to talk to me.
Obviously the number one rule is to never talk to the police under any conditions. Traffic stops are a good time to practice that, by the way. The best thing you can do is say “no comment, I need to talk to my lawyer first.” Anyways I was drugged up to the extreme so it was not like I was not talking and running my mouth to both of the cops observing the situation.
Obviously I had caused some sort of public disturbance and somebody had called the cops on me and clearly I should have never been discharged from the hospital. Honestly, I have no idea how, when, or even where the public disturbance occurred (obviously this is public record but it is not healthy for me to investigate the situation further).
Anyways, after the cops talked to me, they said that an “emergency detention order” was being issued and that I was going to be forced to get treatment at the ****hole hospital which had improperly discharged me after being hella ativaned and ketamined up.
Long story short, I had 3 interactions with the cops in 1 week. Prior to that I had only had 2 interactions with the police in my adult life (+14 years). Both were traffic stops, but neither were for moving traffic violations (burnt out headlight and expired registration during COVID-19). I was tremendously lucky that I was never charged with anything over that week from hell, and the cops managed to see that something was “off”. Anyways, like in the above link (excellent storytelling by the way so it is a worthwhile read), there are common denominators that I share with the writer’s son.
I am a dual US|European Union (Croatian) citizen and I fled the US after the final hospital trip (from hell actually...it was the worst hospital trip of all time and I am hardcore chronically ill just in general) for Croatia exactly 21 days later (I had to obtain legal documents).
Because of my training in electrical engineering, which I am profoundly fortunate to have, I do LORETA (technically sLORETA) neurofeedback training completely on my own to help heal my brain, just like the person in that story.
Anyways, there is much more to the story that is better not put in writing. Just know that there is nothing that will bring me back to the USA.
[+] [-] _rebocador_|4 years ago|reply
Quit doing it.
Why do people buy so much stock, is that because they want to invest in companies? sure there are cases of that, but most importantly they don't want to see their money devalue with the inflation caused by gov policies.
[+] [-] bmitc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] criley2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmartorell|4 years ago|reply