haidut

Ooh, ok, thanks. Since the numbers in that column were preceded by the "$" sign I thought they were in dollars and referred to something else. Speaking of that something else - the numbers you had in Column I are strikingly close to the officially projected amounts of what a "wealthy" person in each one of those cities would be (in dollars). I mean the US cities only. For example, for the Bay Area that number is in the $4m-$5m range, for DC it is in the $2m-$3m range, etc. I am guessing it is just a coincidence but it drew my attention and since I did not know what the column stood for I asked. It turns out it was not what I thought :-)

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what does the "USD-CLP" column (column I) in the "Ranking" tab stand for?

Nothing novel about this discovery/hypothesis. It is basically a simplified rehash of Gilbert Ling's Association Induction Hypothesis (AIH), which stipulates no membranes for cells and cellular entities as purely phase transition phenomena driven by adsorption of water on proteins/potassium and structured by sunlight.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20070042/

Ling's work was first published in the 1950s and more than 70 years later the untenable theory of cell membranes is still promoted and taught in biology classes, despite being conclusively disproven by Ling, Pollack, Szent-Györgyi (Nobel laurate), etc. Now, we get to hear portions of the AIH effectively getting plagiarized and republished by scientific groups without any reference to the extensive work done by those scientists mentioned above. Well, I guess as long as science is getting on the right track after 70 years of "soul searching", a little plagiarism is worth it, right?

https://www.cell.com/trends/microbiology/fulltext/S0966-842X...

"...Gerald Pollack has written a rollicking romp through cell biology that should rock the science. He has taken the principles of physical chemistry and applied them to the fundamental processes of the cell in a lucid explanation of how these ‘engines of life’ might work. To be fair, the experimental science is mostly not his own, but represents his deep understanding and appreciation of the work of people such as Gilbert Ling and Albert Szent Györgyi. If they are collectively correct, this work represents a paradigm shift in cell biology, and Pollack performs a service comparable to the popularization of Copernicus by Galileo. (The author is not shy about the extreme nature of his views and draws his own analogy to the Copernican revolution in the opening paragraphs.) Pollack has hit upon water structuring by proteins and phase changes to explain everything from cell division to muscle contraction, expanding the idea of phase changes to include everything from voltage changes to conformational changes in proteins."

Not only has it not been rejected, there is strong evidence that the lockdowns were, in fact, largely useless.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...

Yep, and in fact it was project MKUltra that came up with the concept of "learned helplessness" (another name for induced depression) as a result of the torture experiments on people like the Unabomber. The funny thing is that civilian psychiatrists continue to insist that depression can only develop in genetically susceptible individuals and cannot be due to environmental stimuli only. Yet, the military/intelligence bases a lot of its "enhanced" psyops/interrogation techniques on the idea that stress/torture is perfectly sufficient to induce depression (even suicide) in ANY individual.

http://haidut.me/?p=952

Interestingly enough, when I tried to bring up the issue of "learned helplessness" as a very common state of mental health these days, I got heavily downvoted in another thread (though lately the posts seem to have recovered a bit).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24635610

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24632657

and that same lack of genuine social relations is what creates psychotic reactions such as what you see in Kaczyinski.

Nice analysis...but that last part is false. The psychotic reactions of the Unabomber are a direct result of his torture at the tender age of 16 while at Harvard, as part of project MKUltra. I would like to see what ethics review board approved that "research" (on a minor btw) and why the freak who conducted this torture was not only never held accountable, he went on to become one of the 20th century's most respected psychologists.

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

"...Henry Alexander Murray (May 13, 1893 – June 23, 1988) was an American psychologist at Harvard University, where from 1959 to 1962 he conducted a series of psychologically-damaging experiments on undergraduate students, one of whom was Ted Kaczynski, later known as the Unabomber."

"...Kaczynski's lawyers later attributed his hostility towards mind control techniques to his participation in Murray's study.[26] Some sources have suggested that Murray's experiments were part of Project MKUltra, the Central Intelligence Agency's research into mind control."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/impromptu-man/201205...

"...The experiment involved psychological torment and humiliation...The Harvard study aimed at psychic deconstruction by humiliating undergraduates and thereby causing them to experience severe stress."

Also, I think commenting on voting activity is considered bad form here.

OK, sorry if it was a personal attack.

As far as the actual commenting on downvotes - well, if such downvotes are in support/defense of obvious signs of mental illness (e.g. the exact term in this case is "learned helplessness") then I will point that out even if it is against the HN culture.

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

Medical reality trumps culture any time, at least for me.

Whether I'm /s or not is, frankly, immaterial. My comment is true de facto.

It actually matters, a lot. If a significant portion of the population acquires "learned helplessness" that will in and of itself lead to collapse. I have to ask - does this approach work for you? Namely, being disengaged from life and trying forcing yourself to enjoy it when it is quite obvious things are pretty bad right now? So bad in fact, that 1 in 4 young Americans are seriously contemplating suicide - an "unraveling" of the social fabric?

https://theintercept.com/2020/08/28/the-social-fabric-of-the...

I am pretty sure he/she was NOT joking or being /s, and is now downvoting my comments. To make matters worse, his comments shows up as the top comment for the thread currently, so apparently quite a few top HN contributors agree with this "approach".

which the public responds to with indifference and numbness and another drive through at McDonalds.

Look through the responses in this thread. At least 2-3 other people described that their approach to the impending collapse is...to ignore it...and to also make sure they enjoy the nice September weather and to ruminate on their impending richness from cashing in on stock options. I sincerely hope these comments were /s or a joke. If not...well, then maybe this is why we are in this situation now - a good portion of the public is severely lobotomized to care about anything else but frozen pizza.

The one thing that is guaranteed is that if your M.O. is to ignore the issues that threaten to cause nationwide (or global) collapse then things will never get fixed. I am astounded to see several comments in this thread that are basically the approach the crew of sinking Titanic embraced - i.e. the ship is sinking and the people are running around like headless chickens so we better get those bands ready and playing festive music. Unbelievable!

To be fair, if you think that consistently ignoring potentially civilization-ending issues is the road to mental "health" and focus...you may want to consult a doctor. Yes, THAT kind of a doctor. I am willing to bet you will get quite a lecture on "owning your issues".

The consequences would not be simply severe. There is an actual law passed by US in 2002 authorizing military action against ANY country (including NATO members!) working to bring US citizens to the Hague for a trial at ICC. And yes, that law explicitly allows invading the Netherlands and attacking ICC if needed in order to prevent war crime trials against US citizens. To make matters worse, there are rumored secret extensions (by executive action) of that law allowing LETHAL action against ANY individual(s) (as opposed to countries) who work towards getting a US citizen to trial at the ICC. See my comment in response to the use who you said was living in a fantasy world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

User @jaywalk said you live in a fantasy but it is actually an understatement! How come you have never heard of the "American Service-Members' Protection Act", which Bush signed into law SPECIFICALLY for de-facto preventing ICC from ever trying a US citizen for war crimes???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

https://www.wearethemighty.com/us-can-invade-the-hague

"...In 2002, then-President George W. Bush signed the American Service-Members' Protection Act into law, authorizing the use of military force to free its citizens from incarceration and trial by the International Criminal Court. The act, dubbed the "Hague Invasion Act" for the name of the city in the Netherlands where the ICC holds prisoners, allows the President to use the American military to free its service members or those of any allied country who might be captured for trial there. More menacingly for potential U.S. allies, the act allows the United States to end military assistance for signatory countries to the ICC treaty, unless they agree not to extradite American citizens to The Hague."

That law explicitly authorizes the US military to INVADE the Netherlands and attack the ICC in order to free a US citizen on trial there. Netherlands is a NATO member, just like the US!! Not to mention a party to a number of other non-aggression pacts the US has with most Western European countries. That law Bush pushed for and signed makes the entire NATO idea a freaking joke. No country is safe if it ever dares to arrest US military members, no matter how horrible the war crimes committed by them. As they say in the commercials "but wait, there is more!" There are also multiple secret executive actions and DOJ "legal opinions" accompanying that fascist/evil law and the rumor is those secret amendments authorize covert LETHAL action by US special forces against foreign government officials (or any other foreign individual for that matter) working towards bringing a US citizen to trial at the ICC in Hague.

So, I would be thrilled to know what customs officials you have in mind that would be willing to get assassinated (covertly) for doing ANYTHING that can be construed by the US as aiding/abetting the capture and bringing a US citizen to ICC for a war crime trial. Even if you find such kamikazes, no country would dare issue orders authorizing its own officials to perform such acts against US military personnel.

So, no offense, but what world exactly are you living in!?!?

A good post, and I am surprised that somebody of Gross' insight has just now become aware of the elephant in the room, considering the signs of "corporate socialism" have been written all over the wall since the 1980s financial crises. Here is a piece by Slate sounding more or less the same tone.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/coronavirus-tsa-...

I get your point, but what my title says is exactly what the quote from the popular press article states. See my own comment to my post towards the end of the comments list in this thread. I did not come up with this title out of nowhere or to make clickbait-y.

Excerpt:

"...Infections and deaths onboard suggest that the disease’s true fatality ratio in China is about 0.5 percent, though that number may vary from place to place, researchers report March 9 in a paper posted at MedRxiv.org. That 0.5 percent is far less than the 3.4 percent of confirmed cases that end in death cited by the World Health Organization, but troubling nonetheless. The WHO’s number has come under fire because the true number of people infected with the virus worldwide is not known."

Link to the actual study:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v...

Nothing but LIES and PROPAGANDA! BBC is unfortunately on par with the National Enquirer (NE) when it comes to bias and reliability. And I have repeatedly observed that the NE is actually really good in reporting true upcoming issues at least in the celebrity world.

First and foremost, as the BBC "article" states, Latvia and Lithuania are potentially worse than Bulgaria. Not that being second to last in terms of population growth is anything to brag about but this is yet another example of BBC "journalism" that serves primarily a propaganda purpose. Why single out Bulgaria when it seems the same problem plagues many former Eastern Block countries?? Furthermore, if you look at the stats on Wikipedia, the last reliable data available for Bulgaria was from 2015. Based on that data there were 10+ other countries worse than Bulgaria in terms of population decline.

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

If you look at the actual UN report the BBC cough..shitpost...cough references you will see that, again, it does NOT single out Bulgaria as the "winner" in this category but mentions it along other countries with largely the same problems. Many of those countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc have been praised relentlessly by UK media as a model of embracing capitalism after socialism's collapse. Yet they seem to also be in pretty dire states, not unlike Bulgaria. Actually, one of the countries mentioned in the report on par with Bulgaria is Andorra - a rich tax haven, hardly on anybody's list as a country to bitch about in any capacity, including population.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Hig...

"...The largest relative reductions in population size over that period, with losses of around 20 per cent or more, are expected in Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and the Wallis and Futuna Islands."

"...As a proportion of the total population, the largest projected declines are for Lithuania and Bulgaria, where the projected population in 2050 will be 23 per cent smaller than in 2019, followed by Latvia (22 per cent), the Wallis and Futuna Islands (20 per cent), and Ukraine (20 per cent)."

"...Another eight countries or areas also experienced population decrease of more than five per cent since 2010: Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna Islands."

And last but not least, the BBC shitpost itself states that Bulgaria does not keep stats on emigration, which (again as the article states) is the biggest factor in these "terrifying stats" on population shrinkage.

"...Low birth rates are the biggest factor for such steep decline. But what sets Bulgaria apart from other declining European countries is its massive outbound migration. The government does not keep reliable statistics but some economists, including Cvetan Davidkov, estimate that at least 60,000 Bulgarians leave each year.

So...the famous BBC decided to do a "sky is falling" article based on the unofficial estimates of one economist!? How convenient!

Anyways, unfortunately I will have to call malice on this one instead of stupidity, even though BBC has lately been the source of some really stupid crap. If you do a quick search on the negative press concerning Bulgaria you will find out that the vast majority of it comes from the UK. In fact, I challenge Bulgarians reading this and living in the UK to find me a single positive article on Bulgaria published in the British press in the last 15 years. Nothing but shitposting about Bulgaria while at the same time heaping praise on the "Baltic wonders" such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and even Ukraine. Well, as both Wikipedia and the UN report make it quite clear, those "wonderful" countries have very little to brag about when it comes to either economy or population. If life is so great in the Baltics, why is everybody there leaving too, on par with Bulgarian emigration rates??

I will also have to disagree strongly with other people saying mrtksn's comments are spot on. The reality is much simpler. Bulgaria, together with the rest of the Eastern Block, was unlucky enough to move towards a capitalist economy and Western "values" at a time when these ideas were already in decline in the West itself. So, by the time the country had changed sufficiently to embrace a capitalist economy and lifestyle...there was nothing left to embrace. The Western world is crumbling too, but of course, it will oppress and abuse small countries like Bulgaria long before it admits its own shortcomings. Basically, Bulgaria spent the 90s battling mafia and corruption and that was the true "transition" period, akin to the American "Frontier" times. When the (illegal) redistribution of wealth was more or less complete, and the country was deemed sufficiently "civilized" to join institutions such as the EU, Bulgaria realized that the West had nothing to offer except predatory practices that destroy the standard of living in Bulgaria. Those "rich" Western countries are themselves collapsing, and UK is one of the worst in that respect. You need to look no further than the Brexit fiasco to see how desperate things in the UK are. The sad reality is that the last 19 years (since year 2000) have been lost time for the West and as such the situation in "newcomer" capitalist countries like Bulgaria would be proportionally worse. As a result, even the characteristics of the Bulgarian emigration have changed dramatically. In the 1990s, people leaving Bulgaria (like myself) were mostly intent on leaving for good. Having lived through 2 massive recessions and seeing that the shitshow in the West is rapidly catching up with the Bulgarian one, many of those "permanent" emigrants migrated back to Bulgaria. This reverse emigration was especially evident after the 2008 recession when about 40% of the young Bulgarians who left their country in the 1990s to go to school/work in US an Western Europe came back to Bulgaria and settled there. WHERE IS THE BBC ARTICLE ON THAT PHENOMENON?? This reverse emigration continues to this day and in fact the little data that is available on the subject suggests that it is primarily talented/educated/wealthy Bulgarians that are coming back while the new emigrants to the West are mostly blue collar workers. Moreover, even those new blue collar emigrants are not emigrating permanently. The attitude towards immigrants and hence the employment/financial opportunities for them have drastically soured in the West over the last 10 years. So, when these new emigrants go to another country they quickly realize that life in the new country won't be much easier or significantly better renumerated compared to Bulgaria. So, most of them stick around for a year or two and then they come back.

In summary, IMHO most UK media (including BBC), is on a crusade against European former communist countries but is particularly biased and vicious towards Bulgaria. This has been going on since the times of Churchill who is famous for repeatedly stating that he will "uproot that thorny bush" (referring to Bulgaria) that is interfering with UK imperial foreign policy. While Bulgaria is clearly not in a good spot population-wise, it is not much different from most other former Eastern Block members. The problems Bulgaria faces have a lot more to do with the decline of capitalism (late stage capitalism anyone?) and Western democracies in general, than some kind of inherent problems with the country as BBC and other UK media have been consistently insinuating over the last 100+ years. Bulgaria was simply kind of "late to the show". So, the combination of a transition period and crumbling Western world left the country stuck between a rock and a hard place. However, despite all the lies and propaganda in UK media, the country is probably experiencing reverse, quality, emigration by having many of the Western-educated Bulgarians who left for good come back home. In addition, many of the blue collar workers who leave the country are only doing so temporarily. Upon realizing the harsh conditions in the countries they try to emigrate to, most of them come back within 2-3 years.

There is simply no true journalist any more. It's mostly clikbait shitposting even by "respected" outposts such as BBC or The Economist. The closest you will come to real journalism these days is ProPublica but even they have been succumbing to Mammon lately.

What comes out of many Western media outlets these days is simply a version of "Look, over there - these other countries have it worse than us!" It's nothing but a diversion tactic to shift attention from how rapidly deteriorating quality of life has been in the West over the last 20 years. Just my 2c.

Thanks. There could be others. The bombing of Saudi Arabian oil fields and a war with Iran comes to mind. Let's see what the OP had in mind. Maybe it is something else entirely.

Personally I think the Fed is keeping interest rates down to defuse a massive geopolitical conflict that is closer to blowing than anyone realizes, but that doesn't explain why banks are worried about getting stiffed by each other.

And what might that massive geopolitical conflict be?

Why is nobody in this thread mentioning the the 800lb gorilla in the room?? That is, in a capitalist system the homeless, mentally-ill, "problematic", disturbed, troubled, etc are simply considered useless and frankly purposefully pushed to the edge with the hope that they will simply...die. That is the fundamental truth in any capitalist society - you either deliver value or you perish. Who will pay for these people to be housed, treated, re-integrated, educated, fed, etc in times of largely non-existent real economic growth, where almost 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that-4-i...

The answer is, of course, nobody. For all the talk about caring for the homeless and in general those who are at the bottom of society, the sad/brutal reality is that society as a whole does not want these people around. So, they keep getting squeezed and in turn keep squeezing the few who are willing to help them or at least listen to their woes. That is what is giving the author PTSD, not interacting with mentally ill every day. Namely, the realization that a sizeable minority of the US population are simply considered junk and are purposefully pushed towards death. But she only saw part of the story. The scarier truth is that almost 80% of Americans (all those people living paycheck to paycheck) are only one job loss or chronic illness away from the same faith. More than 2/3 or all banckrupcies are related to medical bills.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most...

And when you add to the above that empathy in general has declined by almost 50% over the last 2 decades you'd have to be a psychopath not to start getting PTSD symptoms or at the very least a very serious case of clinical anxiety disorder or even psychosis.

https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/bedj96/the_end_...

Just think about this for a second. If most people around you do not give a rat's *ss about you even when you are doing OK, what happens if you meet with bad luck and go downhill?? Anxiety, depression, bipolar, psychosis, suicide, etc - all of these can be explained rather easily by the simple reality that most people live in terror every day to be surrounded by people they do not care about and those do not care in return.

Talent shortage and sucker shortage are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there is good evidence that the former can drive the latter. Basically, most of the talentless people also tend to lie about their experience, educational background, knowledge level, previous salaries, career preferences, etc to compensate for their lack of talent. It does NOT work of course, most of the time, but what do they stand to lose? So, when this goes on for some time the HR departments start to assume everybody is a talentless, lying, P.O.S. as it is simply cheaper and less taxing on corporate resources to go with that assumption if the majority of interviewers truly are like that. Yes, they may miss a star here and there, but they will also save themselves an HR-wide (and beyound) burnout and a ton of wasted money. I will be the "negative Nancy" in this thread and say that unfortunately there has been a drastic drop in IQ scores around the world over the last 30 years. https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/iq-scores-have-be...

That is bound to manifest itself in the generally quality of prospective employees. The term "idiocracy" takes that idea to the extreme...but unfortunately is not far from the truth. In my experience, a general rule of thumb in Fortune 500 HR (and even large federal agencies) is that a star will almost never apply directly through the front door. There will be either recommended by a trusted insider or will find an ingenious way to demonstrate their talent. For all the rest, the assumption (mostly correct) is that they are junk or at the very least significantly overrating their self-professed abilities/talents/worth/salary/etc. So, what looks like a sucker shortage is simply the trend for lower value default offers most HR departments will put out there based on the (reasonable) assumption of the (low) quality of the person up against them.

...or more likely (and scarier) answer is that there has been NO net growth for the country in the last 3 decades, and all we are seeing is redistribution of wealth. Add up the growth numbers (in dollars) of the counties mentioned in the report as growing and then subtract the dollar amounts of economies that shrunk. Are you getting the same number as I am? Mine is negative, and when adjusted for inflation is really scary. No wonder SEVENTY EIGHT percent of working Americans live paycheck to paycheck. And non-working ones? Well, you can guess yourself. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck...

Beat them up? That all? Seriously, is everybody asleep?!

The FBI was standing ready so assassinate all the leaders of Occupy "if deemed necessary". See my comments to other posters in this thread and the links I provided. Once the news leaked that snipers were in place even the hardcore Occupy members decided to fold their tent (literally). Most people can probably deal with a few beatings, some will even sue for brutality and win decent awards, and maybe get some police scum fired. But suing is not an option if you get killed, and most people (rightly) draw the line there and decided a protest is not worth it. The society that lets that happen is a gang of drooling imbeciles, zombified by decades of SSRI and anti-anxity therapy, psyops by media and government, and kept in constant fear by being on the brink of financial ruin 24x7. How can you expect people to care about political protests if most of them worry to death about the next day, every day?? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18682331 https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck...

Summary of the second link above, if you don't read it - SEVENTY EIGHT percent of working Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck! You can only imagine the financial situation of "non-working" Americans. So, do you think in that state anybody would care the slightest bit about a political protest?? The 99% are nothing but slaves and the 1% own us. Any other discussion is empty talk...or a psyop.

Similar response to the one I made to other commenters in the thread. The MUCH bigger story is FBI standing ready to kill Occupy protestors with snipers "if deemed necessary". All of these disruption tactics articles are just "soft" news to gently irritate the public and convince it that the truth is known, is regularly leaked and the press will keep the public informed. The real truth (the planned murder of activists MLK-style) is mostly NOT known, virtually no news outlets write about it, and FBI refused to declassify it. The truth is this: If somebody is a real threat to established order they get killed, plain and simple. This should be the discussion, not "disruption" tactics of the police and how allowable/legal they are.

The MUCH bigger story is FBI standing ready to kill protestors with snipers "if deemed necessary". All of these disruption tactics articles are just "soft" news to gently irritate the public and convince it that the truth is known, is regularly leaked and the press will keep the public informed. The real truth (the planned murder of activists MLK-style) is mostly NOT known, virtually no news outlets write about it, and FBI refused to declassify it. The truth is this: If somebody is a real threat to established order they get killed, plain and simple. This should be the discussion, not "disruption" tactics of the police and how allowable/legal they are.

See my response above to the comment you are replying to. It is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than that. The government had tasks force with snipers ready to eliminate the leaders "if deemed necessary". FBI refused to disclose who those snipers were, but since no arrests were made it is quite obvious the snipers are not some local criminal gang. This has been going on since the early 20th century and has to do with money. Not race, and not human rights. Money, and only money. Class warfare of the purest kind. Both MLK and Kennedy are probably the most notable examples of people who were quickly killed when they tried to change the system and enfranchise the poor. You probably think of MLK as a racial rights leader, but that's only 10% of the story. The other 90% are his efforts to end the oligarchy that rules America and as soon as he started talking about poor vs. rich instead of black vs. white, he was promptly killed. I am not even sure why we are even having these discussions, as not much can be done about it. The world is basically an international fascist regime, and the presence of separate countries is largely meaningless. We are all ruled by a handful of multi-national corporations that obey no laws, and are accountable to nobody. See the recent news about J&J knowingly selling for decades baby powder contaminated with asbestos. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18684384

If something so horrible (knowingly killing babies) can happen so habitually and be concealed for decades, then who the hell cares about freedom of speech or your civil rights?!? Seriously, wake the fk up!

As bad as these tactics sound, they were still laughably benign compared to the plot to kill Occupy leaders by snipers. https://www.chron.com/houston/article/Occupy-Houston-assassi...

The FBI refused to release documents or identify the group that had snipers tracking Occupy leaders in Houston but if you read the redacted documents it becomes quite clear it was a government agency. The redacted documents contain lines that basically said the sniper "group" would take out any Occupy leaders "if deemed necessary". That latter language is used to describe government agency activities, not some renegade alt-right group who decided to take out Occupy by force. If the FIB has knowledge of ANY criminal group ready to take out people on-demand "if deemed necessary" there would be quite a few arrests, even if no murders took place. The fact that FBI arrested nobody in that plot speaks volumes about who the snipers were. Either the FBI itself, the Houston SWAT team, or some 3-letter agency that officially does not exist.

Those same forces that were ready to take out Occupy leaders are the same forces that killed MLK. Most people, even African Americans, do not know that MLK's biggest threat to the established order was not his campaign for racial equality. It was his campaign for economic equality. As soon as he made the issue class instead of race, he was killed. MLK planned something called "Poor People's Campaign" and envisioned a million-people-strong demonstration in DC with the goal of non-violently interfering with government business and "occupying" the capital until the demands of the poor people are heard. Does it sound eerily similar to the Occupy group? Where do you think the Occupy leaders got the idea from? It was a re-incarnation of the MLK campaign from the start. And just like back in MLK's days, the government stood ready to murder the inconvenient leaders. Thankfully, it did not get to that point but it is quite obvious that individual rights and the law in general in the Western capitalist "democracies" are long gone.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/obery-m-hendricks-jr-phd/why-... "...Yet in December, 1999, after hearing the testimony of over 70 witnesses, including the owner of a restaurant close to the murder scene who admitted his complicity in the plot to kill King, an interracial jury in Shelby, Tennessee unanimously concluded that King’s murder was the result of a conspiracy of unnamed “GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.”

It is way overdue that we ALL wake up and realize the truth - we ALL live in an international fascist dictatorship that knows no boundaries and obeys no laws. The laws are just for us, to keep us from disturbing the status quo. And no matter how hard organizations like ACLU et. al fight for the rights of the common person, it is a lost cause from the start as these secret entities do NOT follow laws. They cannot be reformed. President Kennedy said the same thing about the CIA (that it cannot be reformed) and he was killed a month later. I think it is rather obvious where this whole process is going.

Unfortunately, history repeats itself, even for the people who learn from it.

Yes, that's why I said in my post "assuming rates stay the same". But thanks for chiming in anyways.

OK, thanks. Then what would buying a 3-month one once a year give me? Still 2.32%, or 2.32% / 4? Also, since right now the 3-year bond offers more than a 5-year one, why would anyone prefer to buy the 5-year bond? Doesn't the 3-year one offer the same (or better) return over a shorter period of time?

OK, I have a (probably stupid) question. If the 3-month T-bond rate is say 2.32%, does that mean that I can buy such a 3-month security 4 times in a row in a given year to get a total of 4 * 2.32 = 9.28% ROI on the money I am using to invest? Actually, the return would technically be higher than since the second, third and fourth times I am buying the T-bond I will use not only the original cash I had on hand but also the 2.32% return I received each time I bought the T-bond. So, assuming everything is re-invested in the 3-month T-bond the total ROI for a given year would be about 9.6% (assuming the rates stay the same of course). A ROI of 9.6% is quite good and beats stock market return over most years, while also being virtually risk-free. Am I missing something here? Why invest in a (risky) stock market unless you can reasonably expect a return in the double digits that can compensate for the extra risk, compared to a 9.6% risk-free ROI from T-bonds? Please pardon my ignorance and thanks in advance.