The overarching promise of fintech is that technology makes it easier to provide financial services to people who historically have had little or no access to them. Indeed, several fintech companies aim to eliminate long-standing barriers so that people — typically younger people and people of color — can more easily save, invest and build wealth for themselves.
Dubbed “the next disruptor” by Deloitte, central bank digital currencies could affect the global financial system as a whole.
Will it create a more circular economy or a perfect dystopia? Exactly what the future holds for CBDCs beyond their debut is too early to tell. But experts seem to agree that one thing is certain: CBDCs are on the way.
Put simply, a central bank digital currency is a digital fiat currency. CBDCs act like traditional banknotes, but come in a programmable, digital form.
Unlike existing digitized capital, like the numbers tallying our bank balances or tendered online at checkout, CBDCs differentiate themselves by being liable to the Federal Reserve versus a commercial bank.
Currently, there are two types of government-backed money in circulation: physical currency and digital balances tied to commercial banks. If adopted, CBDCs would establish a third payment option without replacement or a reduction in value of those in existence.
In theory, policymakers would be able to delete or airdrop money into citizens’ digital wallets at will.
“You can imagine that in a recession, airdropping money that has an expiration day of, say, one week into citizens’ digital wallets would be an effective way to force people to consume and thus stimulate the economy,” said Scott Byron, head of venture and research at crypto exchange platform AscendEX. The 472 million payments in financial relief paid to U.S. households impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, could have been auto-distributed if CBDCs were in effect.
The second fact is that purebloods will be vilified for thinking rationally. They wanted us dead then and they still do.
David DeGerolamo
h/t WRSA
The corporate media in America has completely dropped the COVID pandemic narrative in the second half of 2022 — it’s almost as if our corrupt corporate and political elites want you to forget their two-year propaganda campaign to impose universal vaccinations, public masking, and lockdowns.
What has happened? They’re all scrambling to obscure the next stage of the COVID pandemic: The Big Kill.
Mortality statistics from the first half of 2022 have finally been released from a handful of countries— and what started as terrible anecdotal evidence a year ago has now hardened into a nightmarish data-storm.
The Big Kill.
That’s the phrase Dr. Hodkinson has coined for the rapid increase in excess mortality rates across the vaccinated world.
For example, let’s take a look at the data from Denmark — the increase in excess deaths in 2022 is very serious.
It’s the same story everywhere now. Deaths are way up, and vaccine injuries are way up too. This is now happening on such a scale that it’s impossible to cover it up with the usual media gaslighting tactics. (If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of the excess death data, you should read the Ethical Skeptic’s research.) There’s a mix of disturbing anecdotal evidence along with singular personal tragedies in the daily news that’s hard to miss. One day, you read that myocarditis has increased 100x in Canada among children — and the next day, you read that a 4 year old boy who was the public face of Argentina’s national vaccination campaign has passed away.
You watch yet another media personality collapse on live TV — and you think to yourself: is this the fifth or sixth time I’ve seen this in the last few months?
Excerpt from a post today on ZeroHedge:
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which mocked Americans for taking Ivermectin to treat Covid-19, now says their campaign telling people to “stop” taking it was informal and just a recommendation, according to an argument made by government lawyers during a recent hearing.
“The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin,” Isaac Belfer, one of the lawyers, told the court during the Nov. 1 hearing in federal court in Texas according to the Epoch Times.
“They use informal language, that is true,” Belfer continued, adding “it’s conversational but not mandatory.”
Yet, in 2021 the FDA created a web page titled “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19,” before then tweeting: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
Full story on ZeroHedge
I posted an exercise yesterday to gauge people’s ability to analyze information into intelligence. As I said in that article, intelligence drives the battlefield. Based on the comments, I strongly recommend purchasing this package from Forward Observer. This intelligence will help you make valuable decisions and eliminate a deficit that appears to be one of our weakness points in facing the future.
David DeGerolamo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daily video live streams with the team breaking down what’s in the report.
In Focus – special reports and topical deep dives into major events and trends shaping our lives and the world.
PLUS access to the Forward Observer Library — a collection of government, military, and foreign documents of interest
Black Friday Bonus:
Subscribe Monthly Subscribe Annually & Get Black Friday Bonuses
