I agree about the problem with credit unions and IT security. I wonder about how much investment one must put into such security before you get a real and effective protective result. I think it's an area where a lot of money is wasted on fools and bad services.

I'm just anti-currency at this point. I don't see how bit coin or any currency can solve problems caused by currency, those who issue currencies, those who manipulate them, and those who rig the the system so bankers "growing" a social construct make more than farmers growing food.

The problem I see, and I probably say this above, is that essential things our species had a very easy time with-- food and shelter-- are now tied to and made difficult by currency. How many generations of humans have had to secure shelter either via a 30 year mortgage or a 2 1/2 month security deposit, a credit check, a bank statement, proof of ID, the legal contract of a lease, and first and last month up front? Same with food. We live successfully on almost every acre of land on the earth. Problems with survival certainly exist in some areas. Inuit people dealt with growing too old to be of use to society and being a burden on loved ones and a drain on limited resources by just walking off into the wilderness to die. But, the fact that they lived long enough to become burdens shows there were successful in ways that should make us question ridiculously low life spans in segments of civilized society now and more so historically.

In the US, fish stock has been depleted and I blame currency. hear me out. In NYC, large farms like what was on Delancey St are gone. They do not grow their own food. They were replaced by factories and sweat shops, but now those are gone and Wall St grows "money", the media industry distribute lies for money, and the rest of the population mostly support those industries either through education or entertainment or food and services. How did such a large population in a region just stop producing their own food? By burdening the food production capacity of other regions and other populations, by exchanging food for currency. But food is real and currency is a social construct. Gardeners and farmers often have to experiment to find the best practices for the specific bit of land they are on. If the experiment fails, they produce less. No one bails them out, instead it is something taken advantage of as farm bankruptcies weaken farmers and enable the investor classes to buy up the land. Also and counter-intuitively, governments have paid corn farmers to destroy corn to keep prices up, and this kind of thing still happens as recently Vermont paid farmers to destroy milk to keep the prices up.

Why are prices kept up by limiting supply? Excess could feed people, or stored for the future. It's done to make the flow of currency balanced in some way, but also to keep the food out of the mouths of the poor and to keep fed the mouths of the idle who produce only social constructs.

People who make nothing but money also dream up ways of making new money, but if those ideas are bad they've also dreamed up ideas to protect themselves from from the kinds of catastrophes farmers face with their efforts fail. Marx spells this out better than I, but essentially politics is an arena reserved for those with the free time and money to participate. The overworked and underpaid off far away from centers of power are unable to influence the actions of government in the same way as those who manipulate social constructs.

The only solution I see is to disentangle the necessities for life from the constraints of currency, and to treat farmers or health care workers or the building trades, as something separate from lower forms of life like politicians or bankers or movie stars. That is not to say these lower forms of life should not be rich or famous, but those who provide for our material needs need a level of security that just is not provided for in a society run by people who deal mostly in social constructs.