pull down to refresh

Silly Darth. Some of us have expenses... Can't live off oxygen
Going back to fiat is not an excuse...
Going to borrow more money to pay your expense, it means you are not earning enough to cover them. That is total FIAT MINDSET, you will be always in debt, a debt slave.
reply
How can people, in their right mind, spend more than they take in? Credit cards are only good if you pay them off BEFORE interest payment is required. Otherwise you only dig a hole you cannot get out of, so, stop digging.
reply
This is how fiat twisted their mind, to borrow more to spend more. The savings word is eliminated fr;m their mind.
reply
The people that save have either not been fully indoctrinated or come from a different country. I think that many Oriental countries have very high savings rate because they are by-and-large told that they have to fend for themselves in old age. They save like maniacs and watch their savings closely. The question is; who put us in this mindframe.
reply
reply
So what “smart guys” are doing now? EXACTLY what banksters did in the 17th century: offering to those gold owners, a place to deposit their valuable gold coins, into a bank vault, in exchange for a piece of paper, an IOU of x amount of gold. Now they are offering digital platforms for Bitcoin owners, to lend their BTC for a % of interest. But nobody ask: “from where is coming this %of BTC interest, if will not be created more BTC?”.
Yes, but you have to ask yourself who the smart guys are. To be able to avoid THEM you have to be able to identify THEM. Better yet, don’t ever bother with THEM, don’t go into debt and don’t borrow their fake money and don’t give them the traction they get from people being asleep.
no, it means your income is in BTC, silly.
Is the ultramaxi Darth really gonna go tell me to go get another (fiat) job?!
reply
No, spend only less of what you earn. If you need to borrow more money to pay your expenses, it means you have a spending problem not an income problem...
reply
no it doesn't. Read what I said again
reply
deleted by author