@ 2efaa715:3d987331

# Cost of a 1960s Diet vs Modern Food Costs by Decade > The following is a result from ChatGPT's "deep research" feature when asked to analyze what a "1960s diet" would cost in each subsequent decade. > The CPI and basket of goods is constantly adjusted to "reflect consumer purchasing behavior", but this metric overlooks the fact that _consumer behavior itself is guided by prices_. Just because someone _does_ buy something doesn't mean they would _prefer_ this good over another (potentially superior) good, all it tells you is that they _did_ buy it. When the cost of living off of higher quality foods becomes too great to bear, consumers will trade-down to lower-quality foods. When the CPI reflects this, even a "steady inflation number" hides the fact that **quality of life** has degraded. > If you don't want to read the whole thing, at least check out the conclusion at the end. Everything from here down was generated by the AI after rounds of nudging by me. > Also the cover image, obviously (lol) Following a **1960s-style diet** – rich in red meat, dairy, and unprocessed “whole” foods – has become increasingly expensive over time. Below we examine each decade from 1960 to the present, tracking how much the cost of that fixed 1960s diet rose and comparing it to the **prevailing food costs (CPI)** shaped by consumers adapting their eating habits. Key staples like red meat, dairy, grains, and processed foods are highlighted to show the impact of inflation on a traditional diet versus switching to cheaper substitutes. ## 1960s: Baseline of Affordable Abundance - **Percentage Increase in Cost:** Food prices rose modestly in the 1960s (around **2–3% per year**). Over the decade, maintaining the same 1960 basket led to roughly a **25–30% increase** in cost ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=1960%2424.38%200.91,0.35%25%201968%2428.06%203.24)). This was a relatively small jump compared to later decades. - **Cost in Era’s Currency:** For example, if a household spent **$100 per week in 1960** on the typical foods (plentiful beef, whole milk, butter, eggs, etc.), by **1970** that same diet cost about **$125–$130** in nominal dollars. Everyday items were cheap: ground beef was only **$0.30 per lb in the late 1950s**, and butter about **$0.75 per lb ([Grocery Store Prices for 14 Items in 1957 | HowStuffWorks](https://money.howstuffworks.com/Grocery-store-prices-for-14-items-in-1957.htm#:~:text=4%3A%20Ground%20Beef)) ([Grocery Store Prices for 14 Items in 1957 | HowStuffWorks](https://money.howstuffworks.com/Grocery-store-prices-for-14-items-in-1957.htm#:~:text=When%20they%20weren%27t%20cooking%20with,fashioned%20butter%20today))**. Americans could afford more of these foods as incomes grew. - **Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted):** The official food Consumer Price Index (CPI) climbed at a similar pace (~28% increase from 1960 to 1970 ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=1960%2424.38%200.91,0.35%25%201968%2428.06%203.24))), since consumer behavior hadn’t drastically shifted yet. Few felt pressure to substitute cheaper foods because inflation was mild. In fact, many families **ate more** of these staples as prosperity rose – U.S. **beef consumption per person increased from ~63 lbs in 1960 to 84 lbs by 1970**, while chicken rose from 28 to 48 lbs ([National Chicken Council | Per Capita Consumption of Poultry and Livestock, 1965 to Forecast 2022, in Pounds](https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/#:~:text=1960%2063,5)). Any cost savings from “behavior changes” were minimal in the 60s. (One early example: margarine was already replacing some butter for health/cost reasons, but butter was still affordable in 1960 at ~$0.75, so sticking to butter didn’t break the bank ([Grocery Store Prices for 14 Items in 1957 | HowStuffWorks](https://money.howstuffworks.com/Grocery-store-prices-for-14-items-in-1957.htm#:~:text=When%20they%20weren%27t%20cooking%20with,fashioned%20butter%20today)).) Overall, adapting one’s diet wasn’t necessary for budget reasons in the 1960s, as **food was relatively cheap and inflation low**. ## 1970s: Soaring Prices Hit Traditional Diets Hard - **Percentage Increase in Cost:** The 1970s brought **surging food inflation**. A fixed 1960s-style diet would cost roughly **double (+100% or more)** by the end of the decade. In particular, **meat and dairy prices skyrocketed**. Beef prices **roughly doubled** from 1970 to 1980 (the BLS beef index jumped from the 40s to nearly 100 ([Beef and veal price inflation, 1935→2025](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Beef-and-veal/price-inflation#:~:text=17,386))), contributing to an overall ~**120% increase** in the cost of a meat-heavy 1960s basket during the 70s. By comparison, overall food-at-home prices rose about **121%** in that span ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=1973%2438.45%2016.30,1981%2473.39%207.30)) – a huge jump in itself. The worst spikes came in 1973–74, when food prices jumped **15–16% in a single year ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=,Bureau%20of%20Labor%20Statistics))**. - **Cost in Era’s Currency:** Someone stubbornly sticking to their 1960 grocery list in this era paid a steep price. If they spent $100 per week in 1970, by **1980** they’d need to spend roughly **$220–$230** for the same items. For instance, mid-decade a pound of steak that cost ~$1 in the late 60s might cost $2–3 by the late 70s. Whole milk prices also roughly **doubled** in the 70s ([Fresh whole milk price inflation, 1939→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Fresh-whole-milk/price-inflation#:~:text=32,324)). This era’s inflation was so severe that it forced a re-budgeting for those insisting on expensive staples. - **Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted):** While **all** consumers felt the 70s price shock, those who **adapted their diets mitigated the impact**. Many Americans reacted by **buying less red meat or switching to cheaper proteins**. Notably, when beef became very expensive (meat prices jumped **5.4% in just one month in early 1973 ([1973 meat boycott - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_meat_boycott#:~:text=Meat%20prices%20began%20to%20rise,3))**), consumers staged a “meat boycott” and turned to poultry, pork, or beans. Poultry was a big winner – chicken prices did rise (44% in 1973 ([Fresh whole chicken price inflation, 1935→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Fresh-whole-chicken/price-inflation#:~:text=,Bureau%20of%20Labor%20Statistics))), but over the decade chicken remained cheaper per pound than beef, and **per capita chicken consumption climbed while beef consumption dropped** ([National Chicken Council | Per Capita Consumption of Poultry and Livestock, 1965 to Forecast 2022, in Pounds](https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/#:~:text=1978%2087,0)). Processed and shelf-stable foods also gained favor as thrifty alternatives; for example, consumers might buy canned soups or powdered drink mixes which had smaller price increases. The **official CPI (which reflects some substitution)** still rose dramatically (~**105%** for food in the 70s ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=1973%2438.45%2016.30,1981%2473.39%207.30))), but the true **cost of living was a bit lower for those who adapted**. By cutting back on expensive items (or stretching them – e.g. more casseroles with grains/veggies and less meat), families could keep their food spending increase somewhat below the headline inflation. In short, a person clinging to the high-red-meat, butter-on-everything diet of 1960 ended up paying **much more** in the 70s, whereas those who embraced **cheaper substitutes (chicken instead of steak, margarine instead of butter, generic and processed foods)** softened the blow. The late 1970s also saw food costs stabilize under price controls, rewarding those who diversified their diet away from the costliest staples. ([Chicken leads U.S. per person availability of meat over last decade | Economic Research Service](http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=105929)) *Per capita availability of meat in the U.S., 1910–2021. **Beef** (gray line) peaked in the 1970s and then declined as prices rose and consumers ate more **chicken** (yellow line). Chicken overtook beef as the most consumed meat by 2010, thanks to its lower cost and dietary shifts ([Chicken leads U.S. per person availability of meat over last decade | Economic Research Service](http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=105929#:~:text=The%20supply%20of%20chicken%20available,9%20pounds%20per%20person)). Pork (red) held roughly steady, while fish (purple) remained a small share. This illustrates how Americans adjusted their protein sources over decades in response to price and preferences.* ([Chicken leads U.S. per person availability of meat over last decade | Economic Research Service](http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=105929#:~:text=The%20supply%20of%20chicken%20available,9%20pounds%20per%20person)) ## 1980s: Slowing Inflation and New Dietary Habits - **Percentage Increase in Cost:** Inflation cooled in the 1980s, making food prices more stable. Even so, a fixed 1960s diet saw about a **50% cost increase** over the decade. That means the same basket that cost $100 in 1980 would cost around **$150 by 1990**. This increase was much lower than the 70s, but still notable. Meats and dairy had smaller price jumps now (beef rose ~38% from 1980–90, milk ~45% ([Fresh whole milk price inflation, 1939→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Fresh-whole-milk/price-inflation#:~:text=32,324))), and overall food-at-home prices climbed ~**40–50%** ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=1979%2463.33%2010.81,1987%2486.60%204.32)) ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=1989%2496.14%206.57,1997%24122.41%202.49)) in the 80s. - **Cost in Era’s Currency:** If our traditional-diet shopper spent $220/week in 1980 (continuing the prior example), by **1990** they’d be spending roughly **$330** for the same groceries. For instance, a gallon of whole milk that cost about $1.50 in 1980 might be ~$2.20 by 1990; a pound of ground beef around $1.20 in 1980 could be ~$1.75 in 1990. These nominal increases were easier to manage than the wild 70s, but still added up. - **Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted):** In the 80s, **consumer behavior had permanently shifted** due to the prior decade’s lessons. Many households continued to favor **cheaper or leaner foods**, and this helped keep their actual cost of living lower than if they had stuck to the old diet. For example, **butter consumption plunged** (per capita fell from 7.5 lbs in 1960 to ~4.5 lbs by 1980) as people used margarine and processed spreads instead ([cameracopy4.qxd](https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/41035/15333_aer780g_1_.pdf?v=74489#:~:text=commodity%2C%20illustrates%20the%20underlying%20dynamics,the%20processed%20dairy%20products%20group)). Butter lost its hefty weight in the price index, reflecting how few people still bought it regularly by the 80s. Similarly, beef was no longer king – Americans were eating **20% less beef than in the 70s, and far more chicken**, which was mass-produced cheaply ([Chicken leads U.S. per person availability of meat over last decade | Economic Research Service](http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=105929#:~:text=The%20supply%20of%20chicken%20available,9%20pounds%20per%20person)). The **CPI’s market basket was updated in 1987**, locking in these new habits (more poultry and convenience foods, fewer expensive staples). As a result, **official food inflation** in the 80s was moderate, and those who already had adapted their diet felt roughly the same ~50% rise as the CPI. However, someone who *refused* to change – still buying large quantities of red meat, whole milk, fresh butter, etc. – would have spent **more** than the average person. They missed out on the savings from things like **economy cuts of meat, bulk grains, and processed goods** that became popular. By the late 1980s, the U.S. food system was delivering **cheaper calories** (e.g. refined grains, corn oil, sweeteners) on a huge scale. Families that incorporated these cheaper ingredients (think Hamburger Helper, microwave dinners, soda instead of milk) kept their grocery bills lower. Indeed, food became a smaller share of household spending: it fell from **28.5% of the family budget in 1960 to about 17% by 1980 ([cameracopy4.qxd](https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/41035/15333_aer780g_1_.pdf?v=74489#:~:text=A%20review%20of%20changing%20weights,All%20items))**, a testament to how adapting food choices and benefitting from cheaper options lowered the relative cost of living. ## 1990s: Cheaper Alternatives in an Era of Low Inflation - **Percentage Increase in Cost:** The 1990s saw **very low food inflation** by historical standards. Maintaining the exact 1960s diet through this decade would raise costs by only about **25–30%**. Food-at-home prices increased roughly **2–3% per year** or **~27% total from 1990 to 2000 ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=1989%2496.14%206.57,1997%24122.41%202.49)) ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=1997%24122.41%202.49,2005%24146.89%201.93))** – similar to general inflation. - **Cost in Era’s Currency:** Continuing our scenario, $330/week in 1990 for a 1960-style diet would become about **$420–$430/week by 2000**. Many staple food prices barely crept up. For example, a loaf of bread or a dozen eggs only rose by a few dimes over the whole decade. In some cases prices even stagnated or fell: U.S. farm commodities were abundant (grain surpluses kept costs of cereal, flour, and animal feed low). The late 90s had such cheap raw ingredients that milk, meat, and sugar prices were relatively stable. - **Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted):** By the 90s, **behavior-adjusted costs were markedly lower** than our fixed diet scenario, because consumers had spent two decades optimizing their food spending. The **prevailing diet in the 90s was very different from the 60s**, driven by cost efficiency and convenience. Shoppers embraced warehouse clubs and discount supermarkets, bought **private-label/store brands**, and leaned heavily on **processed foods** that benefited from cheap oil and corn. For instance, instead of whole fresh foods for every meal, families might use instant pasta mixes, boxed cereals, and soft drinks – items produced at scale and often cheaper per calorie. This kept **average grocery bills lower**. In fact, the cost of living for food rose so slowly in the 90s that it was common to “trade up” some items (like occasionally buying steak or exotic fruits) and still stay on budget. A person strictly sticking to a 1960s whole-food diet (cooking from scratch, lots of fresh meat and dairy) would **not** enjoy those processed-food savings. By this time they’d be paying **noticeably more** than the average consumer for the same caloric intake. Studies began to note a troubling pattern: **healthier whole foods were getting relatively more expensive, while unhealthy processed options remained very cheap**. (For example, fresh produce prices in the U.S. rose faster than soda and snack prices in the 80s/90s.) The overall CPI for food was low in the 90s, reflecting these substitutions. A clear sign of the era: **fast-food value meals and junk snacks proliferated**, offering calories at rock-bottom prices. Those who adapted their diet to include these inexpensive foods saw a **much lower increase in their cost of living** – and in some cases, food spending as a share of income hit record lows. Meanwhile, someone clinging to only unprocessed “old-fashioned” foods would have a higher grocery bill and experienced a higher effective inflation than the behavior-adjusted CPI. In short, the 1990s made it **easier than ever to save money on food – if you were willing to eat like a 1990s consumer**. ## 2000s: Diverging Diet Costs – Whole Foods vs Processed - **Percentage Increase in Cost:** Food costs in the 2000s rose at a modest pace, very similar to the 90s. A fixed 1960s diet would increase about **25–30% in cost** over the decade (roughly keeping up with general inflation). From 2000 to 2010 the food-at-home CPI climbed ~**29%** ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=1997%24122.41%202.49,2005%24146.89%201.93)) ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=2005%24146.89%201.93,2013%24181.02%200.90)). There were a couple of price spikes mid-decade (e.g. 2007–2008 saw grain and dairy price jumps), but also some years of minimal change. - **Cost in Era’s Currency:** Our hypothetical shopper spending $420 in 2000 would be around **$540 per week by 2010** for the same basket. Key 1960s staples did get pricier in the 2000s: e.g. whole milk went from about $2.80/gal in 2000 to $3.50+ by 2010; ground beef from ~$1.80 to ~$2.25/lb over the decade. But the increases were gradual. Notably, by 2010 many traditional items (meats, eggs, dairy) were **cheaper in real terms than in the 1970s** – thanks to efficiency gains – even if nominal prices edged up. - **Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted):** The 2000s is when the gap between a “traditional whole-food diet” and the **average diet’s cost** really started to widen. The official CPI remained fairly low, in part because consumers kept shifting towards **cheaper ingredients and prepared foods**. Two diverging trends emerged: - Many consumers, facing tight budgets especially after the 2008 recession, doubled down on **low-cost, energy-dense foods**. This meant more refined grains (white bread, pasta, rice), processed snacks, sweetened drinks, and fatty meats – all of which were inexpensive and often on promotion. These items benefited from globalized supply chains and agricultural surpluses, keeping their prices down or rising very slowly. For example, corn-based sweeteners and oils were so cheap that soda and fried foods remained very affordable in the 2000s. - On the other hand, some consumers began seeking **healthier “whole” foods** (organic produce, whole grains, lean meats). But these often came at a premium and saw higher inflation. Someone maintaining a 1960s-style home-cooked diet (lots of fresh ingredients) fell into this category almost by definition. They would have experienced **higher effective inflation** than the average. Research confirms this divergence: in recent analyses, the **cost of a healthy recommended diet has risen faster than the cost of an unhealthy diet**. For instance, during 2019–2022, prices of healthy foods (fruits, veggies, lean proteins, etc.) jumped **12.8% in one year**, whereas “unhealthy” food prices rose only **7–9%** ([ Healthy Food Prices Increased More Than the Prices of Unhealthy Options during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Concurrent Challenges to the Food System - PMC ](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9967271/#:~:text=diet%20cost%20increased%2017.9,less%20affordable)). This pattern had been building over the 2000s. Thus, those who **adapted by buying the cheapest processed options saw a smaller cost-of-living increase** than those buying whole foods. By the end of the 2000s, the U.S. was in a situation where **following a 1960s diet cost significantly more than an average 2000s diet**, even though overall inflation was mild. In practical terms, a family could slash their grocery bill by switching from fresh-cooked dinners with milk to, say, boxed mac-and-cheese with soda – and many did. The CPI implicitly captured this shift: food remained about ~13% of consumer spending in the 2000s (near historic lows), partly because people found ever-cheaper ways to eat. ## 2010s: Relative Stability (Until a Shock) - **Percentage Increase in Cost:** The 2010s were a decade of **exceptionally low food inflation**. A fixed 1960s diet’s cost rose only about **15–20%** in total through 2010–2019. For most of those years, food prices grew less than 2% annually (some years even saw slight deflation in grocery prices ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=2011%24175.09%204.80,0.20%25%202018%24185.51%200.45%25%202019%24187.14%200.88))). From 2010 to 2020 the food-at-home index went up about **16%** ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=2009%24166.51%200.47,0.20)) ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=2017%24184.68,2024%24237.27%201.19)) – the slowest growth of any decade in this analysis. - **Cost in Era’s Currency:** In our running example, $540/week in 2010 for the old-fashioned diet would become roughly **$620–$630 by 2020**. In other words, nearly flat in real terms. Many staple food prices were remarkably steady. A gallon of whole milk hovered around $3.50–$4 throughout the decade; a pound of chicken breasts stayed near $1.99 for years. The **shale oil boom** and low energy costs, plus technological advances in agriculture, helped keep food production and transportation cheap. By the late 2010s, Americans enjoyed some of the **lowest food inflation on record**. - **Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted):** With inflation so low, the difference between sticking to a 1960s diet and the average diet’s cost was less pronounced *during* this decade – everyone benefited from stable prices. However, it’s important to note that by the 2010s the **average diet was very far removed from the 1960s diet**, largely for economic reasons built up over prior decades. The average American in 2019 was consuming lots of inexpensive processed foods and far less of the pricey whole foods that defined 1960. This meant their cost of living was inherently lower. For those still following a traditional diet, their basket cost hadn’t risen much in the 2010s, but it was starting from a **much higher base** relative to typical consumers. In effect, the “gap” was already baked in. Government data continued to show that **healthy food plans cost more** – a trend consistent with the idea that a whole-food diet remained pricier than the mix of convenience foods most people bought. By the end of the 2010s, food was only about 12–13% of household expenditures on average, reflecting decades of substitutions and cheaper alternatives keeping costs down ([cameracopy4.qxd](https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/41035/15333_aer780g_1_.pdf?v=74489#:~:text=A%20review%20of%20changing%20weights,All%20items)). A person eating like it’s 1960 (lots of red meat roasts, fresh veggies, whole milk) in 2019 would likely be spending well above that share. In summary, the 2010s offered a **breather**: low inflation meant even “old diet” holdouts weren’t punished by price hikes, but they were still paying more than those who had long ago adapted to the economical 2010s food landscape. *(Note: The **early 2020s** have seen a sharp inflationary spike for food, largely due to pandemic disruptions and war. Interestingly, this spike hit fresh foods and meats harder than processed foods, echoing the long-term pattern. For example, in one study the cost of a healthy diet rose **17.9%** from 2019–2022, whereas the typical less-healthy diet rose **9% ([ Healthy Food Prices Increased More Than the Prices of Unhealthy Options during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Concurrent Challenges to the Food System - PMC ](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9967271/#:~:text=diet%20cost%20increased%2017.9,less%20affordable))**. This underscores that when inflation strikes, sticking to a traditional wholesome diet tends to *cost more* than making do with cheaper substitutes. As of 2022–2023, consumers again coped by buying store brands, cutting meat consumption, etc., to soften the blow – much as they did in the 1970s.)* ## **Conclusion: Traditional Diet vs Adaptive Diet – Which Costs More?** Over six decades, inflation has raised all food prices, but **not uniformly**. Someone maintaining a fixed 1960s-style diet from 1960 through today would have seen their food costs rise far more than the official “cost of food” suggests – because the official index assumes people adjust their buying. In fact, by 2020 such a person would be spending roughly **8–10 times** what they spent in 1960 on food in nominal dollars, whereas the behavior-adjusted CPI for food rose about 8-fold ([Beef and veal price inflation, 1935→2025](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Beef-and-veal/price-inflation#:~:text=Between%201935%20and%202025%3A%20Beef,beef%20and%20veal%20was%20higher)) ([Fresh whole chicken price inflation, 1935→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Fresh-whole-chicken/price-inflation#:~:text=are%20805.12,02%20difference%20in%20value)). That implies perhaps a **20–25% higher cumulative cost** for the fixed diet follower. The biggest contributors were **red meat and dairy:** these had higher-than-average inflation over the long run. For example, beef prices rose much faster than overall prices (3,637% since 1935) ([Beef and veal price inflation, 1935→2025](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Beef-and-veal/price-inflation#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U,45%20difference%20in%20value)), while chicken (a cheaper substitute) had lower inflation (805% since 1935) ([Fresh whole chicken price inflation, 1935→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Fresh-whole-chicken/price-inflation#:~:text=are%20805.12,02%20difference%20in%20value)). Consumers responded accordingly – eating less beef and butter, and more chicken and margarine, as decades passed. Grains and processed foods, often mass-produced from low-cost commodities, helped keep modern diets affordable; whole foods did not see such dramatic cost efficiencies. In each decade, **those who adapted their food choices enjoyed a lower cost of living increase** than those who stuck with the old-school diet. The 1970s illustrated this vividly (households that substituted chicken or pasta when steak prices spiked avoided some of the worst budget pain). By the 2000s and 2010s, the **typical American diet was heavily “behavior-adjusted” for cost** – full of cheaper oils, sweeteners, and protein sources – which kept the **CPI food inflation** relatively low. Meanwhile, a person trying to eat like it’s 1960 (lots of red meat, whole milk, homemade meals) ended up paying a premium each year to do so. In summary, **inflation heavily penalized the maintenance of a 1960s diet**. Each decade saw that fixed basket get relatively more expensive, especially for categories like red meat and dairy. In contrast, Americans who embraced **cheaper substitutes and new foods** managed to keep their food spending growth below the inflation that a “fixed basket” would imply. This behavior-adjustment – switching from costly whole foods to economical processed and alternative foods – has been a key reason the **reported CPI for food** rose more slowly. It quantifies how much lower the cost of living was for those who adapted: often shaving **several percentage points off per-year inflation**, and cumulatively making food far more affordable than it would have been under the old diet. The trade-off, of course, is that while the **traditional 1960s diet was nutritious but now expensive**, the **modern adapted diet is cheaper but often less healthy**. Consumers effectively used substitutions to **counteract food inflation**, saving money at the expense of dietary changes. The decades-long outcome is clear – financially, **eating in 2023 like it’s 1963 will cost you significantly more** than eating like a 2023 consumer, due to the compounding effect of differential inflation and behavior shifts over time. **Other Sources:** - U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Historical CPI data for food categories ([Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation#:~:text=1973%2438.45%2016.30,1981%2473.39%207.30)) ([Beef and veal price inflation, 1935→2025](https://www.in2013dollars.com/Beef-and-veal/price-inflation#:~:text=17,386)) - USDA Economic Research Service – Food price reports and consumption trends ([Chicken leads U.S. per person availability of meat over last decade | Economic Research Service](http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=105929#:~:text=The%20supply%20of%20chicken%20available,9%20pounds%20per%20person)) ([cameracopy4.qxd](https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/41035/15333_aer780g_1_.pdf?v=74489#:~:text=commodity%2C%20illustrates%20the%20underlying%20dynamics,the%20processed%20dairy%20products%20group)) - *The Value of a Dollar* – mid-20th-century grocery prices (e.g. 1957 butter, beef) ([Grocery Store Prices for 14 Items in 1957 | HowStuffWorks](https://money.howstuffworks.com/Grocery-store-prices-for-14-items-in-1957.htm#:~:text=4%3A%20Ground%20Beef)) ([Grocery Store Prices for 14 Items in 1957 | HowStuffWorks](https://money.howstuffworks.com/Grocery-store-prices-for-14-items-in-1957.htm#:~:text=When%20they%20weren%27t%20cooking%20with,fashioned%20butter%20today)) - Congressional Research Service – Food inflation and consumer responses ([1973 meat boycott - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_meat_boycott#:~:text=Meat%20prices%20began%20to%20rise,3)) - Academic study on healthy vs unhealthy diet cost inflation - ([pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9967271/#:~:text=diet%20cost%20increased%2017.9,less%20affordable))

@ 889b19eb:ff45973f

A Bitcoin seed phrase, also known as a mnemonic phrase or recovery phrase, is a list of words which store all the information needed to recover your Bitcoin wallet. The seed phrase is effectively a master key to your wallet and having secure backups of your seed phrase ensures you don't lose your stack in the case of a hardware or software wallet failure. There are various physical backup mediums including steal plates and discs you can stamp your seed phrase onto but another option is to store your seed phrase securely in your head. This has the added benefit that it cant be stolen (at least at the time of writing), takes up no physical space and there is something rather cool about having your family wealth stored in your head. A Mnemonic is simply a system such as a pattern of letters, ideas, or associations which assists in remembering something. This blog post describes two Mnemonic systems I use to remember my seed phrase as well as other lists and numbers. The Linking System All mnemonics are based on some sort of linking system, the idea is to take the items you want to remember and create scenes and images that you can picture in your mind, this helps lock the information into long term memory. When thinking up these visualisations try to keep the following in mind: 1. The picture should be vivid. Try and see the picture clearly and in focus, imagine yourself stumbling upon the scene or witnessing the events in first person. Let yourself emotionally engage with it for a moment. If the picture is amusing find it funny. If it’s disgusting, actually find it repulsive. focus on how each image makes you feel. Is it funny? Disgusting? Dangerous? Actually take some time to feel that emotion. 2. The elements of each picture should interact. Picturing A and B stood next to each other won’t work. A could be made of B; or dancing with B; being inserted into B; or using b as some sort of implement. 3. The picture should be unusual. If you are linking ‘man’ and ‘cup’, for example, don't use an image that is ordinary. ‘a man drinking from a cup’ for example is too normal. The picture will be more memorable if the man is trying to drink from a giant cup, or is sucking the cup into his face, or if there is a tiny man in a cup trying to get out before the tea gets poured in. Try and be creative and bizarre as possible in order to make a lasting impression. If the above is starting to make you feel nervous, its actually very straight forward and doesn't require much practice or creative genius. You will be surprised how quickly you can pick this up and how images will just be effortless conjured up to promptly land at a particular word or task you want to remember. The following example was taken from Derren Brown's fascinating book [Tricks of the Mind](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/945683.Tricks_of_the_Mind) which first introduced me to these techniques. After reading the next section of this post you will be able to recall the following seemingly randomly words in perfect order and even in reverse. You will likely still be able to recall them weeks later. Telephone Sausage Monkey Button Book Cabbage Glass Mouse Stomach Cardboard Ferry Christmas Athlete Key Wigwam Baby Kiwi Bed Paintbrush Walnut Before beginning try reading the above words and see how many you can remember, minimise the window and see how many you can type out or write down from memory. You might get half a dozen without any special techniques. Now take some time to read the following, remember to take note of how the images are making you feel and take your time, don't just skim read. Telephone/Sausage: Trying to dial an old-fashioned phone using a flaccid, uncooked sausage. It feels revolting and cold to the fingers, and is utterly impractical to work the dial. I can maybe get the dial around a little way, but then it just purrs back into place. Sausage/Monkey: Watching footage from a wildlife documentary of a monkey, in the jungle, cooking a sausage over a barbecue. These are rare monkeys, and this is the first time they have been filmed. Next to him he has a selection of dips. Monkey/Button: You no longer have to spend valuable time doing up your own shirt buttons. You now have a trained monkey to do such things. You stand there in your socks and he does up all the buttons with his clever simian fingers. Button/Book: It’s a book entirely about buttons, and in order to open it you have to unfasten a line of big colourful buttons down the side. Hugely impractical marketing gimmick. Makes opening it really irritating. Book/Cabbage: Opening up a book to have a quiet lunchtime read, only to find that the cover and all the pages have leaves of rotten stinking cabbage stuck to them. The stench is terrible, and the pages are ruined. Someone has played a stupid joke on you, and now you’ve got fetid cabbage juice all over your fingers. Cabbage/Glass: A beautiful but enormous cabbage, realistically created out of glass. The artist is proudly showing it off, flicking it with his fingers and making a ‘pinging’ sound. Everyone’s standing around with glasses of wine appreciating it. Personally you think it’s ridiculous and ugly. Glass/Mouse: You go to drink a glass of wine, to find that the wine has gone and there’s a tiny mouse in the bottom of the glass. The mouse is clearly drunk, and is wearing a party hat with streamers over his shoulder. A party blow-out extends limply from his mouth, and he’s hiccuping bubbles, like a seventies cartoonist’s depiction of a drunkard. Mouse/Stomach: Unfortunately I can think only of that urban myth unfairly surrounding Richard Gere some years ago. If you’re not familiar with it, then imagine your tummy full of squeaking mice, which then stream out of your navel like the rats out of Hamelin. Stomach/Cardboard: A pregnant lady covering her stomach with cardboard from old boxes. Taping it around her, until she is enormous. Now she feels protected. Cardboard/Ferry: Image of a big P&O ferry sinking in the sea because in a spectacularly misjudged move to save money, the entire boat was manufactured out of cardboard. People are escaping from dinghies, unaware that they are made not from rubber but from ordinary paper. Ferry/Christmas: A little ferry sat on top of a Christmas tree, perhaps at a school for the hard of hearing. Little streamers, windows, everything. Tinsel around the hull. Christmas/Athlete: It’s you and all the relations you normally spend Christmas with, running around a race-track in the snow with party hats and crackers trying to beat Kelly Holmes to the finish-line. Your nan is doing superbly, racing ahead in her coat, hat and bag, giving the double-gold winner a run for her money. Athlete/Key: The winning athlete is given a four-foot-long golden key on a ribbon as a prize. She tries to hold it up for the audience as the National Anthem plays, but it’s extremely heavy, and she wishes she could have just had an ordinary medal. Key/Wigwam: A key hangs unnoticed from the headgear of a Native American Indian who is unable to get into his wigwam to go to the loo. Hugely frustrating for him. You can picture him, all red-faced. See the key glinting in the light as he searches for it. Wigwam/Baby: Latest New Age fad: put your baby to sleep every night in a wigwam. Dream-catcher included. Imagine a giant baby asleep inside, snoring, making the sides of the wigwam suck in and blow out. Baby/Kiwi: A baby shoving green furry kiwi fruit into its mouth. One after another. A huge pile of them waiting to be eaten. Green kiwi juice all down its bib. Throwing up kiwi vomit. He loves kiwis, the little tinker. Kiwi/Bed: Tucking up a little kiwi for the night in a big king-size bed. Pulling the covers almost over it, then sitting next to it and reading it a story about the Little Kiwi, until it falls asleep. Bed/Paintbrush: You’ve changed your décor and the bed no longer matches. So rather than buy new covers, you paint them the same colour as the walls. Sloshing paint over the entire bed, watching it go hard and uncomfortable. Paintbrush/Walnut: Not owning a nutcracker, you’re forced to try and smash open a great big walnut with the end of a paintbrush. Trouble is, you’re using the brush end, which isn’t working, and there’s paint splashing everywhere. It’s a mess, but you really want that walnut. Now minimise the window again and see how many words you can recall now, start by thinking of the "telephone" and see where it takes you. You should be able to easily recall the whole list. As a bonus round try recalling the list in reverse order starting with "walnut", it should be just as easy. Number Pegs The linking system is great for remembering things in order (or even reverse) a more powerful system which allows you to recall any word at any position in the sequence without running through from start to finish like you need to do with the linking system is to use a number peg. This creates and index which allows you to recall each word of your seed phrase by its index number. Unlike the standard linking system it will also not break down if you forget one word in the middle of the list. Additionally the system can be used in reverse to remember long numbers or even a whole deck of cards. The Major / Consonant System The Major or Consonant system is probably the most common peg system in use. First you translate digits into consonants, I use the following which is provided in Derren Brown's Trick of the Mind as this is what I have become use to, but feel free to adapt or create your own as desired. z/s - Z is in zero and the S sound is most similar to Z l - They look similar (l for lemur) n - two downward strokes on a small n m - three downward strokes r - fouR f/v - FiVe, again they are similar sounds b/p - b looks simlar to 6 and P and B sound and look similar t - 7 looks like a capital T ch/sh/j - the GH in eiGHt, and then the J is the nearest to these sounds g - a written g can resemble a 9 Each consonant is then associated with a short word that contains that consonant. z/s - zoo l - ale n - hen m - ham r - whore f/v - hive b/g - bee t - tea ch/sh/j - shoe g - goo for two-digit numbers, convert each digit into a consonant using the table above. Then find a word that uses those two consonants as their first two consonants. l, z/s - lice l, l - lily l, n - line l, m - lime l, r - lorry l, f/v - laugh l, b/p - lip l, t - light l, ch/sh/j - ledge l, g - leg n, z/s - nose n, l - nail n, n - nanny n, m - gnome n, r - nero I have only supplied words up to 24 as this is all you will need for a Bitcoin seed phrase but for other applications you would normally have a list of words up to 99 or even 999. Once you have your list of words and their associated numbers, you then use the linking system to link the index word with the word in your seed phrase, so the first word in your seed phrase will be linked with the word "ale" the sixth word in your seed phrase will be linked with "bee" and so on and so forth. Take the following seed phrase for example: joke owner layer tail diagram armor input train head promote tuition eager You might link the words as follows. 1. joke / ale - drinking a pint of ale and laughing at a joke and choking on it and coughing ale all over yourself. 2. owner / hen - Visualize a hen laying golden eggs and the proud owner showing it off to an envious neighbor. 3. layer / ham - peeling layers of pork off a small ham like an onion. 4. tail / whore - you get back to your room with a whore and are surprised to find a big fluffy tail when she drops her draws. 5. diagram / hive - you are working on a big blueprint/diagram of a hive, imagine it in front of you on a drawing board. 6. armor / bee - a high armoured medieval bee, perhaps on horseback with a spear. 7. input / tea - you are using a vending machine and instead of taking coins the coin slot takes teabags for payment, imaging selecting an item and inputting tea bags for payment. 8. train / shoe - imagine a big shoe train, a steam train that is a shoe with wheels on the bottom pulling a carriages down a train track. 9. head / goo - you are on I'm a celeb and have to plunge you head into a big bucket of goo. 10. promote / lice - two lice soldiers, one has been given a promotion the other is pinning a medal on his chest. 11. tuition / lily - Imagine you are in a classroom, but instead of desks, there are giant lily pads. Each student, including you, has to sit atop a lily pad. The tuition fee for the course is actually a handful of lily flowers, which you hand to the instructor. 12. eager / line - Picture a group of people standing in a line, so eager they begin stretching their necks out like giraffes to see the front of the line, vying for the first glimpse of what's to come. Once you have compiled your list, think of a number between 1 and 12 and turn the number into your peg word and see what image emerges. That should then get you back to your seed word. Try a few with the example above. And there you have it, once you have completed the exercise above for your seed phrase or phrases, you have now stored your life savings in your head and are safe in the knowledge that you have an always on backup for when disaster strikes. Although this method is very powerful you will need to run through the list every do often to keep it truly cemented. links * [The Art of Memory](https://artofmemory.com/)

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

Bitcoin's journey from a cryptographic experiment to a widely recognized financial asset is a testament to the rapid evolution of digital currencies. Since its inception in 2009, Bitcoin has captivated the attention of technologists, investors, and the general public alike. Its decentralized nature and potential for high returns have made it a subject of intense interest and debate. The recent introduction of Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) marks a pivotal moment in this journey, potentially heralding a new era of mainstream acceptance for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. This development is not just a milestone for Bitcoin enthusiasts but also a signal to the broader financial community about the evolving nature of investment and the growing importance of digital assets. **Table of Contents** - Understanding Bitcoin ETFs - Bitcoin's Journey to Mainstream Acceptance - The Impact of ETFs on Bitcoin's Perception - Risks and Challenges - The Future of Crypto with ETFs - Conclusion - FAQs **Understanding Bitcoin ETFs** A Bitcoin ETF represents a seismic shift in the way investors can access the world of cryptocurrencies. Traditionally, investing in Bitcoin required a certain level of technical know-how, including understanding cryptocurrency exchanges, digital wallets, and the concept of blockchain technology. This complexity has been a significant barrier to entry for many potential investors. A Bitcoin ETF simplifies this process dramatically. Investors can buy and sell shares of the ETF through traditional brokerage accounts, just as they would with any other stock or fund. This accessibility opens the doors to a broader range of investors, from individuals seeking to diversify their portfolios to institutional investors looking for regulated exposure to the crypto market. The ETF structure also provides added security and regulatory oversight, addressing some of the key concerns around cryptocurrency investments. **Bitcoin's Journey to Mainstream Acceptance** The path of Bitcoin to mainstream acceptance has been anything but straightforward. In its early days, Bitcoin was primarily a tool for tech enthusiasts and libertarians, valued for its decentralization and potential as an alternative to traditional currencies. Over time, its appeal broadened, attracting attention from venture capitalists and forward-thinking investors. High-profile endorsements, increasing media coverage, and a growing recognition of its potential as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation have further propelled Bitcoin into the financial spotlight. Each surge in Bitcoin's price brought more attention and legitimacy, although it was often accompanied by skepticism and warnings of a bubble. The introduction of futures trading on major exchanges and the gradual embrace by major financial institutions have been critical in Bitcoin's journey towards legitimacy. **The Impact of ETFs on Bitcoin's Perception** The launch of Bitcoin ETFs is more than just a new investment product; it's a symbolic bridge between the traditional financial world and the frontier of cryptocurrency. For years, Bitcoin has been viewed with a mix of fascination and skepticism by the mainstream financial community. The introduction of ETFs changes this dynamic significantly. It offers a familiar and regulated framework for investing in Bitcoin, which can assuage the concerns of risk-averse investors and financial advisors. This development is likely to lead to broader acceptance and understanding of Bitcoin as a legitimate asset class, potentially leading to more stable pricing and reduced volatility. It also sets a precedent for other cryptocurrencies, suggesting a future where digital assets are as commonplace in investment portfolios as stocks and bonds. **Risks and Challenges** While Bitcoin ETFs offer new opportunities, they also come with their own set of risks and challenges. The cryptocurrency market is known for its dramatic price swings, and Bitcoin is no exception. Investors in Bitcoin ETFs must be prepared for a potentially turbulent ride. Regulatory challenges are another significant concern. The legal and regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies is still evolving, and changes in government policies or regulations could have a substantial impact on Bitcoin and Bitcoin ETFs. There's also the risk that the introduction of ETFs could lead to increased speculation and potentially inflate a price bubble. Moreover, traditional financial analysts and economists continue to express skepticism about the intrinsic value and long-term stability of Bitcoin, often comparing it to historical financial bubbles. **The Future of Crypto with ETFs** The introduction of Bitcoin ETFs could mark the beginning of a new chapter in the story of cryptocurrencies. As these products gain acceptance and attract more investment, they could pave the way for a broader range of crypto-based financial products and services. This integration into the global financial system could lead to cryptocurrencies becoming a standard part of diversified investment portfolios, alongside stocks, bonds, and commodities. The potential impact on the broader financial market is significant. Cryptocurrencies, led by Bitcoin, could challenge traditional notions of asset allocation, risk, and return. They also offer the potential for innovative financial products and services that leverage blockchain technology, further integrating digital currencies into the fabric of global finance. **Conclusion** The launch of Bitcoin ETFs is a significant milestone in the evolution of cryptocurrencies. It represents a convergence of the traditional financial world and the innovative, sometimes turbulent world of digital currencies. While this development brings new opportunities and a degree of legitimacy to Bitcoin, it also comes with challenges and risks that should not be underestimated. As the financial world continues to evolve, the role of cryptocurrencies and their impact on global markets and investment strategies will be a fascinating and important area to watch. **FAQs** **How does a Bitcoin ETF differ from buying Bitcoin directly?** Unlike direct Bitcoin purchases, which require a cryptocurrency exchange account and a digital wallet, a Bitcoin ETF can be bought and sold like a regular stock through a brokerage account. **Why are Bitcoin ETFs considered a milestone for cryptocurrency?** Bitcoin ETFs represent a significant step towards mainstream acceptance of Bitcoin, offering a familiar and regulated investment option to both individual and institutional investors. **What are the risks involved in investing in Bitcoin ETFs?** The risks include the inherent volatility of Bitcoin prices, regulatory changes, and potential market speculation that could impact the stability and value of these ETFs. **How might Bitcoin ETFs affect the future of cryptocurrencies?** Bitcoin ETFs could pave the way for more crypto-based financial products, integrating digital currencies more deeply into the global financial system and potentially reshaping investment strategies. **Are Bitcoin ETFs suitable for all investors?** Bitcoin ETFs, like any investment, may not be suitable for everyone. They are best suited for those who understand the high-risk nature of cryptocurrency investments and are looking to diversify their portfolio. **That's all for today** **If you want more, be sure to follow us on:** **NOSTR: croxroad@getalby.com** **X: [@croxroadnews.co](https://x.com/croxroadnewsco)** **Instagram: [@croxroadnews.co](https://www.instagram.com/croxroadnews.co/)** **Youtube: [@croxroadnews](https://www.youtube.com/@croxroadnews)** **Store: https://croxroad.store** **Subscribe to CROX ROAD Bitcoin Only Daily Newsletter** **https://www.croxroad.co/subscribe** ***DISCLAIMER: None of this is financial advice. This newsletter is strictly educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any financial decisions. Please be careful and do your own research.***

@ bc575705:dba3ed39

Jazz is a genre that has always thrived on evolution. From its early roots in New Orleans to the boundary-pushing experiments of the 20th century, jazz has continuously reinvented itself, adapting to the times while preserving its soulful essence. As a modern music producer, I find endless inspiration in jazz, reimagining its classic elements to resonate with contemporary listeners. In this post, I’ll share how I approach blending the timeless qualities of jazz with modern techniques and styles. ## **What Makes Jazz Timeless?** At its core, jazz is about freedom, improvisation, and emotional depth. Its intricate melodies, rich harmonies, and dynamic rhythms have a universal appeal that transcends eras. What makes jazz so timeless is its ability to tell stories through sound, evoking feelings that are deeply personal yet universally understood. ## **Bringing Jazz Into the Present** Modern listeners often seek music that feels familiar yet fresh. To bridge this gap, I focus on preserving the essence of jazz while introducing elements from contemporary genres like lo-fi, ambient, and electronica. Here’s how I reimagine jazz for today: **Sampling:** Sampling classic jazz records allows me to connect with the genre’s rich history while giving it a new context. By chopping, pitching, and looping segments of iconic performances, I can create textures that feel nostalgic yet innovative. **Electronic Beats:** Jazz drumming has always been a cornerstone of the genre, with its swing and syncopation adding energy and depth. By pairing these rhythmic foundations with modern electronic drum patterns, I create a hybrid sound that appeals to both traditional jazz fans and electronic music enthusiasts. **Improvisation in Production:** Just as jazz musicians improvise on their instruments, I bring an element of spontaneity to my production process. Whether it’s experimenting with synth leads or recording freeform solos on piano, I aim to capture the spirit of improvisation that defines jazz. **Fusion of Textures:** Combining the organic warmth of live instruments like saxophones and trumpets with the polished sheen of synths and ambient pads creates a soundscape that feels both intimate and expansive. ## **Artists Who Inspire This Fusion** Several artists have mastered the art of blending jazz with modern elements, inspiring my own approach: **Robert Glasper:** Known for merging jazz with R&B and hip-hop, Glasper’s work shows how flexible and relevant jazz can be in today’s music scene. **Kamasi Washington:** His epic compositions and lush orchestrations prove that jazz can be grand and cinematic while remaining deeply rooted in tradition. **BadBadNotGood:** This group seamlessly integrates jazz with contemporary genres like electronic and hip-hop, creating music that feels both fresh and timeless. ## **How This Shapes My Music** In my compositions, I aim to reimagine jazz as a living, breathing art form. For example, I might start with a classic jazz chord progression, then layer it with lo-fi textures, minimalist beats, and atmospheric effects. The result is music that pays homage to the past while embracing the possibilities of the future. One of my favorite techniques is to record live solos—whether on piano, guitar, or synth—and process them with modern effects like reverb, delay, or granular synthesis. This approach preserves the raw, emotive quality of the performance while placing it in a contemporary context. ## **Why Jazz Matters Today** In a world that often feels fast-paced and chaotic, jazz offers a sense of grounding and introspection. Its emphasis on improvisation and self-expression reminds us to slow down, listen, and connect with our emotions. By reimagining jazz for modern audiences, I hope to introduce new listeners to its timeless beauty while inspiring others to see it as a genre with limitless potential. Jazz is far from a relic of the past. It’s a vibrant, evolving art form that continues to inspire and connect people across generations. By blending its classic elements with contemporary techniques, we can ensure that jazz remains as relevant and impactful as ever.

@ 8f69ac99:4f92f5fd

O Estado Social tem sido um pilar das políticas sociais europeias há décadas, oferecendo uma rede de segurança aos cidadãos através de diversos programas governamentais. Contudo, com a evolução das economias e o envelhecimento da população a pressionar os recursos públicos, este modelo tradicional enfrenta desafios crescentes. Custos em alta, ineficiências burocráticas e efeitos indesejados têm gerado um debate cada vez mais intenso sobre a sua sustentabilidade. Como alternativa, o Rendimento Básico Universal (RBU) ganhou destaque, prometendo simplicidade, mas trazendo preocupações quanto ao custo e aos desincentivos ao trabalho. Há, porém, uma opção mais equilibrada que merece atenção: o Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo (IRN). Diferente da assistência social convencional, o IRN oferece apoio financeiro a quem está abaixo de um limiar de rendimento definido, sem exigir que procurem emprego ou dependam de ajudas públicas. Ao reduzir gradualmente os subsídios à medida que os rendimentos aumentam, incentiva a produtividade e preserva a iniciativa pessoal. Neste artigo, vamos explorar o IRN em profundidade, destacando as suas vantagens sobre os sistemas tradicionais, abordando as falhas do RBU e avaliando o seu potencial como uma reforma transformadora na Europa. Num contexto de mudanças económicas e demográficas, o IRN surge como um caminho prático para um sistema que equilibre apoio, dignidade e sustentabilidade. ## Problemas dos Sistemas Tradicionais de Assistência Social O Estado Social tradicional, embora bem-intencionado, tem sido alvo de críticas crescentes pelas suas ineficiências e consequências inesperadas. ### Ineficiência e Burocracia Estruturas administrativas complexas frequentemente atrasam os sistemas de assistência social, levando a desperdícios de recursos. Programas sobrepostos e serviços redundantes aumentam os custos, sobrecarregando os contribuintes. Por exemplo, várias entidades podem oferecer benefícios semelhantes, enquanto processos morosos atrasam a ajuda a quem precisa. Com o envelhecimento da população europeia a exigir mais apoio, estas ineficiências põem em risco a estabilidade financeira, desafiando os decisores políticos a repensarem a distribuição de recursos. ### Incentivos Perversos A assistência social pode, sem querer, desencorajar o trabalho e perpetuar a dependência. Surgem "armadilhas de assistência" quando os benefícios são estruturados de forma a que ganhar um salário resulte numa redução abrupta da ajuda, tornando o emprego menos atractivo do que permanecer no assistencialismo. Isso cria um ciclo em que os beneficiários hesitam em procurar trabalho ou formação, comprometendo as suas perspectivas a longo prazo. Com o tempo, tais sistemas arriscam criar uma cultura de dependência, minando a iniciativa pessoal e prendendo indivíduos numa estagnação económica. ### Peso Económico A pressão financeira do Estado Social está a intensificar-se com as mudanças demográficas na Europa. Populações mais envelhecidas requerem maior apoio, elevando os custos e exigindo impostos mais altos ou gastos públicos acrescidos. Isso desvia recursos da inovação e do investimento, podendo travar o crescimento económico. Sem reformas, estas despesas crescentes podem tornar-se insustentáveis, obrigando os governos a encontrar soluções que mantenham o apoio sem comprometer as finanças. ### Estigma Social Além das questões económicas, a assistência social traz muitas vezes um custo social. Os beneficiários enfrentam frequentemente estereótipos de preguiça ou incompetência, o que gera vergonha e diminui a autoestima. Este estigma pode dificultar a mobilidade social, tornando mais complicado sair da dependência. Resolver isto exige um sistema que não só apoie, mas também capacite, reduzindo preconceitos e promovendo inclusão. Face a estas falhas, a Europa precisa de explorar alternativas que prestem ajuda de forma mais eficaz. O Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo apresenta-se como uma opção promissora, capaz de enfrentar estas questões sistémicas. ## O Caso Contra o Rendimento Básico Universal (RBU) O Rendimento Básico Universal surgiu como uma ideia ousada para combater a pobreza e a desigualdade, oferecendo a cada cidadão um pagamento fixo independentemente das suas necessidades. No entanto, a sua simplicidade traz desvantagens significativas. O custo do RBU é um obstáculo enorme. Implementá-lo em toda a Europa exigiria fundos avultados, pressionando orçamentos já sobrecarregados pelos compromissos actuais do Estado Social. Isso poderia implicar subidas acentuadas de impostos ou cortes noutros serviços, enquanto a criação da infraestrutura administrativa necessária traria mais despesas. Há também quem tema os desincentivos ao trabalho: se todos receberem o mesmo valor, alguns podem sentir menos motivação para trabalhar ou arriscar em projectos empreendedores, podendo afectar a vitalidade económica. Além disso, a abordagem universal do RBU sacrifica eficiência. Ao distribuir fundos de forma igual, não dá prioridade a quem mais precisa, entregando recursos aos mais ricos enquanto dilui o impacto sobre os pobres. Esta falta de foco levanta dúvidas sobre a sua capacidade de combater a desigualdade de forma eficaz. Embora o apelo do RBU esteja na sua universalidade, estes desafios apontam para a necessidade de uma solução mais direccionada—e é aqui que o IRN entra em cena. ## Compreender o Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo (IRN) O Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo propõe uma abordagem refinada ao apoio social, combinando assistência com incentivos. No seu cerne, define um limiar de rendimento base—digamos, 1.000 euros por mês. Quem ganha menos recebe um subsídio proporcional à diferença, enquanto quem ultrapassa esse valor paga impostos para financiar o sistema. Por exemplo, com uma taxa de subsídio de 50%, quem não tem rendimentos recebe 500 euros, e quem ganha 400 euros recebe 300 euros, elevando o total para 700 euros. À medida que o rendimento se aproxima do limiar, o subsídio diminui, desaparecendo nos 1.000 euros, altura em que a tributação começa. Veja-se uma ilustração simples: | Rendimento Mensal (€) | Pagamento IRN (€) | Rendimento Total Após IRN (€) | |-----------------------|-------------------|------------------------------| | 0 | 500 | 500 | | 400 | 300 | 700 | | 800 | 100 | 900 | | 1.000 | 0 | 1.000 | | 1.200 | - (impostos aplicam-se) | 1.200 - impostos | Isto garante que trabalhar compensa sempre: ganhar mais aumenta o rendimento total, evitando a armadilha da assistência. O financiamento vem de um imposto fixo—talvez 19%—sobre os rendimentos acima do limiar. Quem ganha 1.500 euros, por exemplo, paga 95 euros sobre os 500 euros acima de 1.000, ficando com 1.405 euros. Este modelo fiscal simples facilita a gestão e assegura equidade. | Rendimento (€) | Rendimento Tributável (€) | Imposto (€) | Após Imposto (€) | |----------------|---------------------|---------|------------------| | 1000 | 0 | 0 | 1000 | | 1200 | 200 | 38 | 1162 | | 2000 | 1000 | 190 | 1810 | O IRN _pode_ ser de participação voluntária, através de um contrato. As pessoas podem aderir ao sistema se precisarem de apoio ou rejeitá-lo se não aceitarem ajuda estatal, evitando os impostos associados ao financiamento do IRN. Quem optar por sair pode reentrar em caso de dificuldades, equilibrando liberdade de escolha com pragmatismo. Para libertários desconfiados de ingerências governamentais, isto torna o IRN um compromisso—um passo para longe do assistencialismo coercivo e em direcção a maior autonomia. Filosoficamente, o IRN não é um objectivo final, mas uma ponte. Ao simplificar a ajuda e reduzir a burocracia, pode abrir caminho para soluções privadas, como caridade ou apoio mútuo, diminuindo o papel do estado ao longo do tempo. Características como a avaliação de meios e a indexação à inflação reforçam a sua adaptabilidade, garantindo que o apoio permaneça justo e relevante. ## Vantagens do Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo (IRN) O IRN destaca-se onde o Estado Social tradicional falha. Os seus subsídios decrescentes incentivam o trabalho, premiando o esforço à medida que o rendimento sobe e impulsionando a produtividade. Isto contrasta fortemente com as armadilhas da assistência, encorajando as pessoas a procurarem formação ou a arriscarem em empreendedorismo sem medo de perder apoio de repente. Na gestão, o IRN é revolucionário. Substituir um emaranhado de programas por um único sistema reduz a burocracia e os custos, canalizando recursos directamente para quem precisa. Um processo de pagamento único elimina sobreposições, tornando a entrega de ajuda mais rápida e eficiente. A dignidade é outro ponto forte. Ao oferecer escolha e evitar supervisão intrusiva, o IRN escapa ao estigma do assistencialismo, dando aos beneficiários autonomia para gerir as suas finanças. Isso promove o autorrespeito e um sentido de controlo, quebrando o ciclo de dependência. Economicamente, a flexibilidade do IRN sobressai. Adapta-se às flutuações de rendimento, direccionando a ajuda exactamente onde é necessária. Estudos indicam que pode reduzir a pobreza, melhorar a mobilidade social e até beneficiar a saúde, ao aliviar o stress financeiro, oferecendo um impulso abrangente ao bem-estar. ## Responder às Críticas ao Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo (IRN) Nenhuma política escapa a críticas, e o IRN tem as suas. Os libertários veem, e bem, os impostos como roubo, e embora o IRN não elimine esta tensão, suaviza-a. Ao condensar o Estado Social num sistema claro e simples, reduz a intromissão estatal face à burocracia actual. Os seus incentivos ao trabalho alinham-se com valores de responsabilidade, tornando-o um passo aceitável a curto prazo. O financiamento preocupa, sobretudo em países europeus já muito tributados, mas uma taxa fixa oferece uma solução. Simples e previsível, minimiza os custos administrativos e assegura contribuições justas, sustentando o IRN sem sobrecarga excessiva. Há também quem debata o seu impacto social—uns chamam-lhe um subsídio fácil, um _hand-out_, outros um sistema demasiado voltado para o mercado. Ainda assim, o IRN encontra um meio-termo, oferecendo uma rede de segurança que recompensa o esforço sem controlar vidas. Passar para o IRN exige eliminar gradualmente os programas antigos e informar o público sobre os seus benefícios: um governo mais leve, menos dependência e maior iniciativa pessoal. Para quem sonha com um futuro sem estado, o IRN não é o destino, mas um movimento prático rumo a sistemas de apoio voluntários, promovendo uma cultura de autossuficiência. ## Conclusão O Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo não é perfeito, mas é um avanço claro face ao _status quo_. Reduz os excessos do Estado Social, promove trabalho e dignidade, e oferece à Europa uma reforma viável perante as pressões económicas. Para os contribuintes, promete eficiência; para os beneficiários, oportunidade. Numa região onde o assistencialismo está profundamente enraizado, o IRN surge como um passo ousado, mas possível, para um futuro mais livre e sustentável—um que capacite as pessoas enquanto alivia o peso do estado. --- _Photo by [The New York Public Library](https://unsplash.com/@nypl?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-sign-that-says-pay-your-tax-now-here-kAJLRQwt5yY?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash)_

@ 8da249fe:ecc00e09

Se você está começando no mundo do Bitcoin e das criptomoedas, já deve ter ouvido falar em "hot wallets" e "cold wallets". Mas qual é a diferença entre elas? E qual é a melhor opção para armazenar seus ativos digitais com segurança? # O que é uma Hot Wallet?  Uma hot wallet (carteira quente) é uma carteira conectada à internet. Isso significa que ela é mais acessível e fácil de usar para transações rápidas. As hot wallets podem ser: **Carteiras móveis** – Aplicativos como BlueWallet, Trust Wallet e outras. **Carteiras de desktop **– Programas instalados no computador, como Electrum e Exodus. **Carteiras web** – Serviços online como a carteira do próprio Binance ou outras exchanges. **Vantagens da Hot Wallet** ✅ Acesso rápido e fácil para transações diárias. ✅ Interface amigável, ideal para iniciantes. ✅ Geralmente gratuita para uso. **Desvantagens da Hot Wallet** ❌ Maior risco de ataque hacker, já que está sempre online. ❌ Se o dispositivo for infectado por malware, suas chaves privadas podem ser comprometidas. # O que é uma Cold Wallet?#  Uma cold wallet (carteira fria) é uma carteira que não está conectada à internet, tornando-se muito mais segura contra hackers. Elas podem ser: **Carteiras de hardware **– Como Ledger Nano S, Nano X ou Trezor. **Carteiras de papel **– Impressão da chave privada e do endereço em um papel. **Computadores ou dispositivos offline** – Um computador dedicado apenas para armazenar criptomoedas, sem conexão com a internet. **Vantagens da Cold Wallet** ✅ Segurança máxima contra ataques cibernéticos. ✅ Ótima opção para armazenamento de longo prazo. ✅ Controle total sobre suas chaves privadas. **Desvantagens da Cold Wallet** ❌ Menos prática para transações diárias. ❌ Pode ser mais cara, no caso das carteiras de hardware. ❌ Se você perder sua chave privada ou backup, pode perder o acesso aos fundos. # Qual escolher: Hot ou Cold Wallet? A escolha depende do seu perfil de investidor: Se você faz transações frequentes, uma hot wallet pode ser mais conveniente. Se você quer armazenar Bitcoin com segurança por muito tempo, a cold wallet é a melhor opção. Muitos usuários combinam as duas, mantendo uma pequena quantia em uma hot wallet para o dia a dia e guardando a maior parte dos fundos em uma cold wallet. Independente da escolha, lembre-se sempre de manter suas chaves privadas seguras e fazer backups regularmente! Gostou do conteúdo? Compartilhe sua opinião nos comentários!

@ 95cb4330:96db706c

Tackling big tasks can feel overwhelming, but by breaking them down into smaller steps, prioritizing effectively, and setting clear milestones, you can maintain focus and make steady progress. --- ## 1. Divide the Task into Manageable Steps Instead of viewing the task as one massive undertaking, split it into specific, actionable steps to create a clear roadmap. 🔹 **Example:** If your goal is to launch a new product, break it down like this: - Conduct market research - Develop a prototype - Build a marketing strategy - Create a launch plan - Execute the launch Each step is now more manageable and can be worked on independently. --- ## 2. Prioritize Based on Impact & Urgency Not all tasks are equally important. Prioritize effectively to avoid wasting time on low-value activities. ✔ **Use the Eisenhower Matrix:** - **Urgent & Important:** Do immediately. - **Important but Not Urgent:** Schedule it. - **Urgent but Not Important:** Delegate it. - **Neither Urgent nor Important:** Eliminate it. 🔹 **Example:** If launching a product, market research might be urgent & important, while branding tweaks could be scheduled for later. --- ## 3. Set Milestones & Deadlines Assign deadlines for each step to track progress and stay motivated. ✔ **Example:** Instead of saying, "Launch the product in 6 months," break it down: - **Market research:** Week 1-2 - **Prototype development:** Week 3-6 - **Marketing strategy:** Week 7-8 - **Launch execution:** Week 9-10 By setting clear deadlines, you create a sense of accountability and prevent procrastination. --- ## 4. Take Consistent Action ✔ Focus on completing one step at a time. ✔ Celebrate small wins—progress builds momentum. ✔ Stay adaptable—if needed, refine your steps as you go. 🔹 **Example:** If market research reveals an issue with the original product idea, adjust before moving forward rather than sticking rigidly to the plan. --- ## Final Thought By approaching big tasks systematically, you reduce overwhelm, maintain clarity, and steadily progress toward success. 👉 **Action Step:** Take a current big task you're facing. Break it into smaller steps, prioritize, set deadlines, and start taking action today. 🚀 ---

@ 95cb4330:96db706c

Break down complex problems into their fundamental truths and build solutions from the ground up. This approach fosters creativity and avoids relying on assumptions. --- ## How to Implement First Principles Thinking 1. **Deconstruct the Problem** - **Identify the core components:** Question assumptions and remove preconceived notions. - **Ask:** What do we know for sure? What can we verify as a fact? - **Example:** Instead of assuming "Electric cars are too expensive," break it down: What are the main cost drivers? Batteries, manufacturing, and distribution. 2. **Challenge Assumptions** - **Question the status quo:** Many constraints are based on tradition or outdated thinking, not necessity. - **Ask:** What if this assumption is wrong? How else could it be done? 3. **Rebuild from the Ground Up** - **Start with the fundamental truths:** Use the identified truths to construct new solutions using logic and creativity. - **Avoid shortcuts:** Don't rely on existing frameworks that may limit possibilities. - **Example:** Tesla used first principles to design their batteries by focusing on material costs rather than purchasing standard packs. 4. **Foster a Creative Mindset** - **Think like a scientist or engineer:** Break, test, and experiment to find new pathways. - **Encourage innovation:** Brainstorm solutions that are original rather than replicative. --- ## Why It Works This method avoids reliance on assumptions and encourages fresh perspectives. By starting with "what is undeniably true," you open the door to unconventional solutions and breakthrough ideas. ---

@ 95cb4330:96db706c

Implementing Decision Journals, as practiced by leaders like Jeff Bezos and Ray Dalio, can significantly enhance your decision-making skills by promoting reflection and continuous improvement. This method involves documenting key decisions, the rationale behind them, and anticipated outcomes, allowing for analysis of past choices to identify patterns and biases. --- ## Understanding Decision Journals - **Definition:** A decision journal is a structured record where you log important decisions, including the context, your thought process, and expected results. This practice enables you to track the accuracy of your judgments and refine your decision-making over time. --- ## Examples in Practice - **Jeff Bezos:** The founder of Amazon utilizes a "Regret Minimization Framework" to guide his decisions. By projecting himself into the future and considering potential regrets, Bezos focuses on long-term fulfillment over short-term comfort. This approach was pivotal when he decided to leave his stable job to start Amazon. - **Ray Dalio:** The founder of Bridgewater Associates emphasizes the importance of recording decisions to create a set of well-defined principles. Dalio's process of documenting and analyzing his choices has been fundamental in developing effective decision-making rules that have contributed to his success. --- ## Implementing a Decision Journal 1. **Record the Decision:** Document the specifics of the decision, including the date, context, and the options considered. 2. **Articulate Your Reasoning:** Detail the thought process and assumptions that led to your choice. 3. **Predict the Outcome:** Note your expectations regarding the results of the decision. 4. **Review and Reflect:** After some time, revisit the decision to compare actual outcomes with your predictions, analyzing any discrepancies to identify biases or areas for improvement. --- ## Action Step Begin by selecting a current decision you are facing. Create a journal entry that outlines the decision, your reasoning, and expected outcomes. Schedule a future date to review the decision and assess its results. Regular use of decision journals can enhance self-awareness and lead to more informed choices. --- By adopting the practice of maintaining decision journals, you can systematically refine your judgment, reduce recurring mistakes, and make decisions that align more closely with your long-term goals. **Recommended Resource:** [Ray Dalio ON: Principles for Making Better Decisions & How to Strengthen Relationships for Long-Term Success | Podcast | Jay Shetty](#) ---

@ 95cb4330:96db706c

Embracing a Bias Toward Action, as exemplified by leaders like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, involves prioritizing swift decision-making and iterative progress over prolonged analysis. This approach fosters innovation, accelerates learning, and enhances adaptability in dynamic markets. --- ## Understanding Bias Toward Action - **Definition:** A Bias Toward Action emphasizes initiating tasks promptly and refining them through continuous feedback, rather than striving for perfection before implementation. --- ## Examples in Practice - **Elon Musk's Rapid Prototyping:** At SpaceX, Musk employs an iterative design methodology, rapidly developing and testing prototypes to accelerate learning and innovation. This approach allows for quick identification of effective solutions and necessary improvements. [newspaceeconomy.ca](https://newspaceeconomy.ca) - **Jeff Bezos' Two-Way Door Framework:** Bezos introduced the concept of "two-way door" decisions at Amazon, distinguishing between reversible and irreversible choices. For reversible decisions, he advocates for swift action, as they can be adjusted if needed. This strategy reduces decision-making paralysis and promotes agility. [aboutamazon.com](https://aboutamazon.com) --- ## Implementing a Bias Toward Action 1. **Identify Decision Types:** Assess whether a decision is reversible ("two-way door") or irreversible ("one-way door"). For reversible decisions, prioritize speed and be willing to iterate. 2. **Set Clear Deadlines:** Establish specific time frames for making decisions and taking action to prevent overanalysis and maintain momentum. 3. **Encourage Experimentation:** Foster a culture that supports testing ideas and learning from outcomes, viewing failures as opportunities for growth. --- ## Action Step Reflect on a project or decision you've been postponing. Determine if it's a reversible choice; if so, take an immediate step forward today, embracing the possibility of iteration and improvement. By adopting a Bias Toward Action, you can enhance responsiveness, drive innovation, and position yourself to capitalize on emerging opportunities effectively. ---

@ d5c3d063:4d1159b3

ถ้าคุณเชื่ออะไรบางอย่างมาตลอดชีวิต แล้ววันหนึ่งกลับพบว่ามันอาจไม่เป็นอย่างที่คิด นี่คือความรู้สึกของผมในวันนั้น เป็นครั้งแรกที่ได้นั่งฟังหมอป๊อป DietDoctor Thailand บรรยายสดๆ ในงานสัมมนา “Nutrition 101 - โภชนาการพื้นฐาน” Healthy Hut - โรงบ่มสุขภาพ เอาตรง ๆ นะ...ความรู้สึกเหมือนผมไม่ได้กำลังฟังหมอคนหนึ่งพูด แต่เหมือนกำลังนั่งฟังนักปรัชญามากกว่า . หมอป๊อปไม่ได้มาบอกว่าเราต้องกินอะไรหรือห้ามกินอะไร แต่ท่านตั้งคำถามให้เราคิดตาม เช่น "ทำไมวัวถึงกินหญ้าได้ทั้งวันโดยไม่มีปัญหาระดับน้ำตาลในเลือด...แต่มนุษย์กลับเสี่ยงเป็นเบาหวานจากการกินคาร์โบไฮเดรต" มันเป็นคำถามที่ฟังดูเรียบง่ายแต่กลับทำให้ผมฉุกคิดถึงความเข้าใจที่เรามีมาโดยตลอด ผมนั่งฟังแล้วก็เริ่มทบทวนสิ่งที่ตัวเองเคยเชื่อ บางที...สิ่งที่เราคิดว่าถูกต้องมาตลอด อาจเป็นเพียงสิ่งที่เราถูกบอกให้เชื่อเท่านั้น เช่น เราต้องกินข้าวให้ครบทุกมื้อเพราะมันเป็นแหล่งพลังงานหลัก หรือเคยเชื่อว่าเบาหวานเป็นเรื่องของกรรมพันธุ์ แต่วันนั้นผมได้เข้าใจว่ามนุษย์ไม่ได้ถูกออกแบบมาให้กินแป้งมากขนาดนี้ ร่างกายสามารถเผาผลาญไขมันเป็นพลังงานได้ดีกว่าคาร์โบไฮเดรต และเบาหวานไม่ใช่เรื่องของโชคชะตา แต่มันเกี่ยวข้องกับพฤติกรรมการกินของเราเอง . เมื่อสิ่งที่ผมเคยเชื่อว่าจริง อาจไม่ใช่สิ่งที่ถูกต้องเสมอไป ผมเลยคิดว่า…นอกจากเรื่องอาหารแล้ว ยังมีเรื่องอื่นอีกไหมที่เราถูกสอนมาโดยที่ไม่เคยตั้งคำถาม ผมมักจะนึกถึงเรื่องเศรษฐศาสตร์ เราถูกบอกให้เชื่อว่าเงินเฟ้ออ่อน ๆ ดีต่อเศรษฐกิจ เราถูกบอกว่า CPI เป็นตัววัดเงินเฟ้อที่แม่นยำ เราถูกบอกว่าเงินต้องถูกควบคุมโดยรัฐ มันคล้ายกับเรื่องโภชนาการเลยครับ เราถูกสอนว่าต้องกินแป้ง ต้องกินผักผลไท้ ต้องกินข้าวเช้า ต้องกินอาหารให้ครบ 5 หมู่ แต่ในความเป็นจริง...ร่างกายเรามีกระบวนการทางชีวภาพที่เกิดขึ้นตามธรรมชาติ ซึ่งช่วยปรับสมดุลเมื่อได้รับสารอาหารที่เหมาะสม แล้วถ้าระบบนี้ถูกก่อกวนซ้ำ ๆ ด้วยคาร์โบไฮเดรตและน้ำตาลมากเกินไปอาจนำไปสู่ปัญหาสุขภาพในระยะยาว เช่นเดียวกันกับระบบเศรษฐกิจ ถ้ารัฐเข้าไปแทรกแซงเรื่อย ๆ ก็จะส่งผลให้กลไกตลาดไม่สามารถทำงานได้อย่างมีประสิทธิภาพและตามมาด้วยปัญหาในระยะยาว . แล้วถ้าเราเปรียบเทียบระบบการเงินเป็นอาหาร เงินเฟียตก็เหมือนอาหารแปรรูปที่ถูกทำให้ดูดีแต่มีผลกระทบต่อร่างกายเราในระยะยาว ส่วนบิตคอยน์ก็เหมือนเนื้อสเต็กเป็นอาหารธรรมชาติ ที่ไม่มีการแปรรูป ลองคิดดูว่า...ถ้าเราหยุดกินน้ำตาลสักพัก ร่างกายจะค่อย ๆ ฟื้นฟูและปรับสมดุลของตัวเอง เช่นเดียวกับเศรษฐกิจที่สามารถกลับมามั่นคงได้หากปล่อยให้ตลาดเสรีทำงานตามกลไกธรรมชาติ เงินที่ไม่ได้ถูกควบคุมจากส่วนกลางก็เหมือนอาหารที่ไม่ผ่านการแปรรูป ไม่มีการปรุงแต่งหรือเปลี่ยนแปลงตามใจผู้มีอำนาจ . สิ่งที่ผมได้จากหมอป๊อปวันนั้น ไม่ใช่แค่ความรู้เรื่องอาหาร แต่มันคือทักษะในการตั้งคำถาม ...ถ้าอาหารที่เรากินมาตลอดจากความเชื่ออาจไม่ดีอย่างที่คิด แล้วสิ่งที่เราเชื่อเกี่ยวกับเศรษฐกิจล่ะ !? ...ถ้าเบาหวานสามารถหายได้โดยไม่ต้องใช้ยา แล้วถ้าผู้คนสามารถเลือกใช้เงินได้อย่างเสรี เศรษฐกิจจะดีขึ้นไหท การเรียนรู้ไม่ใช่แค่การฟังแล้วเชื่อ แต่เป็นการฟังแล้วตั้งคำถาม เพราะความจริง ไม่ได้ขึ้นอยู่กับสิ่งที่เราถูกสอนมาเสมอไป แต่เกิดจากการเข้าใจธรรมชาติของมันอย่างแท้จริง และเมื่อเรามีความรู้ความเชื่อก็สามารถเปลี่ยนแปลงได้ #RifhtShift #โรงบ่มสุขภาพ #HealthyHut #สุขภาพดี #ความรู้สุขภาพ #Siamstr