Jump to content

  1. What's new in this club
  2. I have heavily invested in a lesser precious metal... lead. Oh wait ... I prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse..
  3. So I've been reading this book over the last couple of weeks. The arguments seem super solid and well thought out...... basically the bubbles are all collapsing in order and will end with the Government debt and currency bubbles popping. Basically.... don't be the last person out of the party..... Problem is ... when? I think we have all been nervous of the "national debt".... and it is 3 or 4 more trillion now than when this book was printed. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the book.... and what % of gold do you hold in your portfolio after reading this?
  4. Is it time to be holding something other than US dollars / equities?
  5. E-commerce platform Shopify recently launched an enhanced version of its messaging capabilities in the form of Shopify Chat. Live chat capabilities can be particularly useful for a business’ e-commerce, as customers who chat with a brand convert three times more often than those who don’t.12 Shopify Chat aims to be a difference-maker for the company’s core users, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), helping them stay personal and prompt with their customers. The announcement follows Shopify’s foray into the fulfillment business with the Shopify Fulfillment Network. The company wants to connect merchants with third-party logistics providers and help remove barriers to entry for new businesses. 12. Shopify, “Shopify Chat: Close More Sales Through Real-Time Conversations,” Aug 14, 2019.
  6. The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) released a three-year plan to strengthen the country’s financial technology sector. The central bank dubbed fintech the “new engine” of development in the financial industry and identified six key steps for China to engage.10Included among them involves using fintech to improve the quality of the country’s financial services and to strengthen financial risk prevention and control capabilities.11 Fintech continues to disrupt traditional financial services with more accessible, efficient and affordable products. But fintech is more than a product. It’s an ecosystem of digital tools designed to meet a multitude of needs across markets and industries. China’s stated commitment to a fintech ecosystem figures to have far-reaching implications. 10. The PBOC, “The People’s Bank of China issued the “FinTech Development Plan (2019-2021),” Aug 22, 2019. 11. Ibid.
  7. cost of living in Nicaragua is cheaper than in Costa Rica, but currently I wouldn´t recommend someone to move in. Others may differ my opinion and say it is still safe
  8. Nicaragua has everything that Costa Rica has to offer — the same Pacific coastline, the same crashing surf, the same rain forest, the same bio-diversity — plus a whole lot more that no other country can compete with, including the colonial jewel of a city Granada. All of these delights are available for a song. Specifically, Nicaragua today offers three appealing and dramatically differing choices for the potential retiree: Granada, the Spanish-colonial city by the lake; San Juan del Sur and environs along this country’s southern Pacific coast, one of the best surfing destinations in the world; and the northern highlands, still off the beaten path but perhaps most interesting of all if you’d like to combine your lifestyle objectives with an investment upside. Just how affordable can this country be? A couple could live here on as little as $1,200 per month, and you could own your own brand-new condo in the center of Granada, built to North American standards, for as little as $99,000. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/retire-to-nicaragua_b_8532672
  9. You already know you have another home outside the U.S.
  10. Costa Rica is not the place for bargain-basement living. It is the most expensive country in Central America. In many ways, it’s a victim of its own success, so to speak. It’s safe, stable, with a growing economy. But in Costa Rica, you will find a high standard of living that is still far below the cost of living in the U.S., Canada, or Europe. How much it will cost you, of course, depends on your lifestyle. But many expats report living comfortably on budgets of between $2,000 and $3,000 per month. Spend more, and you will have a lifestyle that would never be possible back in the United States. Rents range from $300 to $600 per month for a small home or condo to $1,200 to $2,000 per month for a large house with a large yard, depending on location. Rural areas are cheaper, and ocean and urban properties are more. You won’t need to give up anything if you retire to Costa Rica…except cold winters. Need modern appliances? A high-speed Internet connection? Cable and satellite TV? Costa Rica has all the services and infrastructure in place to meet all your needs. And because the cost of labor is low, you may be able to employ household help that will enable you to vastly improve your quality of life. It’s not surprising that expats, especially Americans and Canadians, are attracted to Costa Rica. With one of the highest standards of living in Latin America and a variety of different climates to suit all tastes, Costa Rica is the perfect retirement destination. https://internationalliving.com/countries/costa-rica/retire/
  11. Well thank you. Only problem is I would have to come up with $41,615 You should start putting it down on paper now.
  12. On a novel, you mean? It's already written in my head. Maybe someone will find this and build a season of "Ozark" for Netflix, or maybe it fits the type of chemistry-teacher character they used for "Breaking Bad." The title can be "AL, CHEMIST" as in "I, ROBOT." Don't know if anyone else ever came up with this idea, but if anyone wants to use it, it's all yours. Don't even need (or want) credit for it. 😎
  13. I agree, although technically, not exactly. It could be extremely expensive to alloy tungsten with the right amount of say iridium, osmium, platinum or rhenium to fool anyone. (And it doesn't alloy well with platinum.) But osmium is fairly cost effective, and makes a good tungsten alloy. Also, although this is true, the atomic weight of an atom is different from its density in solid matter. You can have a very heavy atom, but in its "solid" state, certain metals weigh more per cubic cm than their atomic weights would lead you to expect. Notice from a chart below that Tungsten is already nearly a perfect match to gold in terms of density/displacement. 19.25 vs 19.30, a difference of less than three thousandths of the total. There is about twice as much osmium on earth as there is gold, and you only need enough to mix a small percentage into the tungsten, a much more common and cheaper metal. The osmium will cost you $400 an ounce, the tungsten will cost you about $1.71 a troy ounce, and the gold about $1,500 an ounce. If my math is right, the mix is going to be about 98.50% tungsten and 1.50% osmium to create a total density of about 19.3004 (to equal gold) So make 98 ounces of the mix for just over $38,600, and add a thick 2 ounces of solid gold plating for $3,000 and my total cost is $41,615 for a gold bar that weighs in at a value of $150,000 for 100 ounces. Smelting, plating and assay equipment is paid for after I pass my first bar. ---------------------------------------references----------------------------------- Snippets from several sources: The abundance of gold in the Earth's crust is estimated to be about 0.005 parts per million. (Currently around $1500/troy ounce.) Osmium is .001 ppm. As of 2018, it sells for $400 per troy ounce (about 31.1 grams), and that price had held steady for more than two decades, according to Engelhard Industrial Bullion prices. The current price of tungsten is approximately US $19.85 per pound. (454 grams) The abundance of tungsten in the Earth's crust is thought to be about 1.5 parts per million Tungsten-heavy metal alloys and tungsten alloys with titanium, tantalum or rhenium and dispersion-strengthened tungsten composites. Rhenium is even cheaper ($250/troy ounce) but might be harder to isolate as a separate metal. Some molybdenum contain from 0.002% to 0.2% rhenium. More than 150,000 troy ounces of rhenium are now being produced yearly in the United States. Metal Density (g/cm3) Iridium 22.65 Osmium 22.61 Platinum 21.09 Rhenium 21.02 Neptunium 20.45 Plutonium 19.82 Gold 19.30 Tungsten 19.25
  14. The only thing the USA has to do to get completely out of 22 trillion dollars in debt, is to mint 22 coins (perhaps 3 feet in diameter, and made of depleted Uranium so as to discourage theft, for ONE TRILLION DOLLARS EACH. iT'S LEGAL TO HAVE A FANTASY VALUE ON COINS .... AS WE DO NOW. Perhaps with former President Barack Hussein Obama's picture on one side, (the very best gun salesman the USA ever had ... factories running 24/7/365 could not keep up with the demand for eight years...), and a schematic of Sol Solar System on the reverse. THEN, paper money could be issued for monies already on deposit ... the 22 TRILLION dollars, and the USA could buy back all of it's debt. Completely legal in every way.
  15. Only gold displaces an exact amount of volume of water for an exact amount of weight. Same with everything else. Every atom of every different element is a different size and weight. The problem is that measurement is a science, AND a fine art.
  16. I guess a person could mix two other metals (Lead Osmium and Tungsten or something like that) to get a very similar weight/displacement, and then coat it with gold. But that isn't even the problem here. This is pure gold, through and through. No problem with the metal, only the stamp.
  17. That is why assays should be taken by drilling all the way through a gold bar, with a small drill bit, and examining the shavings, and do weight and water volume displacement comparisons.
  18.  




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.