USA has the least upwardly mobile population on Earth
I think I found the study you are referring to... but it only compared the US to rich white European countries, and it placed behind: France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark - not quite "Earth"! None of those countries have large minority populations being held down by racism like we have in the US. Poor blacks in the US are twice as likely than whites to stay in the income bracket they were born into, even after controlling for non-racial factors. They are 4 times less likely to end up in the top 5% of income earners. At least part of the problem with inter-generational mobility in the US is racial.
but the fact of the matter is that the USA has the least upwardly mobile population on Earth
Do you have a source for this?
but what the business world does seem to do is raise the profile of the most unscrupulous, manipulative and greedy
These aren't traits I'd look for in a friend or mate, but who am I to decide what kind of personality makes the most successful businessman? This is exactly the reason that corporations need to be regulated.
These aren't the people who should be influencing the structure of our economy or our financial system, let alone science policy, health policy, foreign affairs, etc...
Why on earth not? What metric is stronger than success? I'd argue that "intent" doesn't even rank.
what we end up with is a plutocracy by proxy
Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing. The difference in my mind is that there is some turnover in the pool of rich and powerful, and there are powerful lobbyist organizations for "the other side": environmental groups, unions, etc.
My corporation will own my house, car, buy food and clothing. As a condition of employment it will require me to live in company housing and use the company car.
It obviously won't work unless you close tax loopholes. Every benefit you receive would have to be taxed at fair market value. You can get a company car, but you'll be taxed on it. Same with company housing, food, or clothing.
wouldn't that be a good way to put issues like Roe v. Wade to rest? (may be not a good idea, jus' wonderin')
I worry that federal-level referendums would undermine some of the constitutional weighting of the smaller states. Smaller states are over-represented in congress and in presidential elections - any referendum system based on popular vote would undo this. Some might say "good!", but that's another conversation altogether.
Further, it is my firm belief that the US is diverse enough that we should only have federal rules and solutions where it unquestionably benefits the whole country. Immigration, military, financial regulation, currency, etc absolutely need to be nationalized. I fear that adding federal referendums would greatly expand the number of "national" rules as every group tries to enforce their will on everyone else.
I don't think the abortion "debate" will ever be put to rest. Access to abortions has long been popularly supported, and I don't feel like voting on it every single time there is an election:)
I advocate keeping the income tax, doing away with most deductions, treating capital gains as income, and setting the corporate tax rate to 0%. Corporate money has to flow into private hands at some point - tax it there and end the shenanigans. As a bonus, we'd get a lot of foreign headquarters here that would hire a moderate number of people, if only to collect the mail:)
The problem is that the government would lose the "tax incentives" card, and they'd have to find a new carrot or make better use of their sticks.
I'm using "full democracy" to describe a situation where you need less representation because the decisions are all put to a vote. You are using it to describe what I would call "universal suffrage". I am pro universal suffrage and anti-full-democracy.
That is assuming, I infer, that some other (governing) body is informed enough.
Well, yes. For instance, you set up a bridge authority and let a bunch of civil engineers and bureaucrats take care of the bridges. Sure, it gets corrupt and bloated... it's government after all, but on balance you are still better off than letting the whole populace vote on maintenance spending and the like. And you periodically clean house to reset some of the corruption and bloat, which is where the power ultimately resting with the people comes in.
I also agree that the people most, ultimately, be able to decide on any issue. But it has to be treated as an extreme circumstance, and while it should be very easy to get a ballot initiative going on the local level, it should be progressively harder as you approach the Federal level. In the US, I'm not sure ballot initiatives are appropriate at all on the federal level.
My point is that in the US we can insist on high safety standards at our nuclear facilities. If Canada were producing all of our power with Canadian nukes, we wouldn't have that option, even if they were building them all right on our border.
Not to say that Italy would do a better job with nuclear safety than France - I just don't see how "banning" nuclear power and then buying it from someone else next door actually accomplishes anything except removes control and oversight.
I have to profess being American, and thus, ignorant about the intricacies of UK politics - but my impression is that Europe in general is a bit more elitist than the US. And I don't say this in any derogatory way... the people in Europe seem to be more accepting of elitism - I mean, several European states still retain monarchies, and in the UK they still have a house of Lords! In the US, the real men "in power" are the businessmen, not the politicians. While there certainly is a lot of advantage to having rich parents, Americans do love to point out all of the richie-rich power brokers who come from modest means. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Larry Elison are our richest men, and they all came from middle class (or lower) origins. While certainly not a meritocracy, the business world does tend to trim the idiotic. There are other powerful forces - unions, environmental groups, etc - but I think that the businessmen wield the most influence.
In fact, a reliance on lobbyists is a un-resounding disqualification for a legislator.
I wasn't claiming that they would get all of their information from lobbyists - just that they are certainly going to hear them out if they depend on them socially or politically.
The majority is using their position of power to force restrictions that don't exist on the majority onto the minority. They don't restrict the height of church steeples - just towers on mosques. They are targeting the minority directly, and for no practical reason.
If you didn't have agreement on many fundamental things, you wouldn't even have a functioning society.
Agreed, but we're not talking about fundamental things - we are talking about worshiping Invisible Man v3.0 instead of v2.0. Actually, it wasn't even that - it was how high the towers could be at their mosques. Making them worship in shorter buildings is nothing but humiliation - putting the minority in its place. And it reflects fear by one sector over society over another. If anything, such action will cause more separation in society - not more assimilation, as you would want if people are to "agree on many fundamental things".
Don't like the society you're in? Go move to another one
Let me illustrate why this is not a good idea: Jews, pre-war. Where would you move if you were Jewish? Where is this friendly place where you aren't being severely limited because of your religion/ethnicity? It simply isn't an option for people move elsewhere sometimes - either because they don't have the means, they don't have roots elsewhere, or because everywhere is hostile.
Just look at how the USA is doing these days:
Okay. Now, bear in mind that the USA at a federal level is pretty far removed from any kind of pure democracy. 1/3 of our government is not even elected, and the President is not elected by popular vote.
no one can agree on the simplest thing, like whether religion should be taught in school,
The argument isn't whether religion can be taught in school - it's over whether religion can be taught as science, or whether one religion can be favored in school over another. I can't think of a single place in the US where this is a serious debate - it's been shot down everywhere, despite a determined minority.
whether there should be any social programs at all (it's not a question of how much here, it's a question of no social programs whatsoever vs. a giant welfare state: one side wants to kill every social program but keep plenty of corporate welfare, the other side wants even more corporate welfare but also a giant welfare program for individuals too),
I don't think that's a fair statement. Currently, (many) Republicans are proposing that Medicare be changed from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan, whereas Democrats want it to remain defined-benefit. Social Security and Welfare are not currently being seriously debated. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare should exist. "Corporate Welfare" is just tax cuts/incentives. I don't think corporations should be taxed at all, so I have little sympathy there.
It's simply not sustainable, and it's going to collapse like a house of cards at some point. The Mortgage Meltdown of 2007-8 was just the tip of the iceberg.
The US needs to get it's finances in order, but it is not anywhere near collapse. Japan and many European countries are in far more debt and pay far more for debt servicing than the US.
Now look at China: they're also a big country, except they're really really successful.
Don't you think you ought to look at more than a 10 or 20 year run up from dirt poor to only dreadfully poor before you make a statement like that? This China talk reminds me of the Japan talk in the 80s. Yes, the Chinese coast is quickly becoming a very cosmopolitan and affluent place. But China has many deep problems - self-imposed inflation, a real estate bubble, dependence on food and energy imports, and a restless billion very poor pe
Gold, at least pre-electronics industry, doesn't have a whole lot of intrinsic value. Mostly, it's just scarce and so people's hoarding instincts go all batty. Just like diamonds. You can make lots of shiny pretty things that look just like diamond. But those are easily obtainable, so when I proposed did I buy a really big shiny emerald or ruby or cubic zirconia? Hell no! Those would cost a few dollars and can be made in a lab! I spent thousands on a stupid diamond. Or at least, they told me it's a diamond...
Yes, most savings in the US is probably in real estate, and that is probably good - so long as people aren't speculating (hoarding) the real estate. Hoarding isn't good for the economy, which is why when the banks started hoarding cash the government just printed more. "Quantitative Easing" lol.
Each mechanism that prevents abuse of power by the majority can also be implemented in a direct democracy.
I'm not a political scientist, and I won't wear that hat and pretend to be.
But I will say that the Swiss, sitting right in the heart of progressive Western Europe, didn't give women full suffrage until the 1990s. This either makes them a terrible example of a democracy, or it makes them not a democracy at all until very recently.
Right. I thereby propose that voting right be subjected to a test
You conveniently glossed right over the fact that I proposed the solution being better public education. Nowhere did I propose restrictions on voting rights.
I pay people to do dangerous things for me (like putting shingles on my roof), they take the care to have safety equipment, training, insurance, etc.
Do you pay people to build nuclear facilities upwind from you? Do you have absolutely no say whatsoever in the safety systems installed at those plants?
At least when it's your roof, the worst case is a wet ceiling.
Does the minority have some sort of divine right to decide what is 'best' for everyone else?
To tell you the truth, if the US ever got to the point where it was teaching theology in school and branding as "science", we'd be doomed anyway. I'd rather throw my weight behind a minority movement to reform education despite the objections of the majority and risk a possible loss of democratic ideals.
Nuclear power isn't quite on the same level, since Italy is surrounded by other countries that will be thrilled to take their money in order to provide power. I'm not sure what we'll do for power in the US, but I have a feeling it rhymes with "bowl" and tastes like mercury poisoning.
Look at every strip mall in your area, odds are there is a Chiropractor. Coincidence? No. Alternative medicine and its caregivers are at the forefront of subluxation, autism and cancer research.
We have loads more churches than chiropractors. You'd better get moving, or the clergy are going to beat you to that cure for cancer!
We'll have to learn to live with less --- like only heating ONE room, rather than the whole house.
It might not be quite so dramatic, but you have the right idea. It's common to see zoned heating, 98% efficient furnaces, highly-rated insulation, etc. Hell, you even see people retrofitting old houses with these things. All of this is in response to increased energy costs. I've lived in a 100-year-old row house and a much larger 40-year-old single-family home with upgraded heater and insulation. The cost to heat was about the same, despite the much larger size of the house. One of my colleagues at work spends $0/month average on electricity for his heat because he installed a heat pump and solar panels. Granted, there was enormous up-front cost, but his payback is currently going to be about 7 years. And of course we all know someone with a pellet stove:)
Anyway, I don't think we'll quite get back to 1800s living - they were so inefficient it is breathtaking. Fireplaces burning wood or coal, and most of the heat going straight up the chimney! In any event, in terms of carbon footprint, the lowest per capita in the US is New York City - it seems that urbanization and living on top of one another is pretty efficient. You can do a lot with electricity - not everything needs oil.
it has always provided us with greasy charlatans whose chief qualifications are their social connections and their charm.
But those social connections are the hedge against mob rule. True, the politician might not be qualified to talk about nuclear power. But Politician #1 might lean on a nuclear power lobby for support and has to give their opinion more weight than the masses. Politician #2 might lean on environmental groups for support and has to take their opinion into account.
What emerges is imperfect and often frustrating, but is still better than mob rule or deferring to an elite ruling class directly.
Tell this the swiss. Their centuries old tradition of direct democracy was wrong all along!
I'll see your long-standing democracy and raise you suppression of freedom of religion. Pure democracy works great when there are no pesky minorities to worry about. Swiss-style politics isn't for everyone.
You mean, is it wise to let people decide their own fate, versus letting an individual (let's call him "dictator for life") figure out the answers for them?
Education is essential to making an informed decision. Full democracy is folly, since no population is fully educated enough to make every decision involved in governing.
Governance should be open and honest, but not every issue should be decided by a democratic vote.
(As a side note, this is why more affluent people should be pro-pubilc-education. A critical mass of ignorance in a democracy is disastrous.)
If you mainly use US dollars, but had some cash in lets say chinese yuan and it would lose 30% of its value, that's a real loss. If your Bitcoins lose 30% of their value, that's a very real loss too.
Either way, cash is a terrible investment. One should try to use cash for exchanges, and it is prudent to have some cash on hand, but the bulk of one's savings should not be in dollars or bitcoins.
Slashdot Mirror
USA has the least upwardly mobile population on Earth
I think I found the study you are referring to... but it only compared the US to rich white European countries, and it placed behind: France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark - not quite "Earth"! None of those countries have large minority populations being held down by racism like we have in the US. Poor blacks in the US are twice as likely than whites to stay in the income bracket they were born into, even after controlling for non-racial factors. They are 4 times less likely to end up in the top 5% of income earners. At least part of the problem with inter-generational mobility in the US is racial.
but the fact of the matter is that the USA has the least upwardly mobile population on Earth
Do you have a source for this?
but what the business world does seem to do is raise the profile of the most unscrupulous, manipulative and greedy
These aren't traits I'd look for in a friend or mate, but who am I to decide what kind of personality makes the most successful businessman? This is exactly the reason that corporations need to be regulated.
These aren't the people who should be influencing the structure of our economy or our financial system, let alone science policy, health policy, foreign affairs, etc...
Why on earth not? What metric is stronger than success? I'd argue that "intent" doesn't even rank.
what we end up with is a plutocracy by proxy
Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing. The difference in my mind is that there is some turnover in the pool of rich and powerful, and there are powerful lobbyist organizations for "the other side": environmental groups, unions, etc.
My corporation will own my house, car, buy food and clothing. As a condition of employment it will require me to live in company housing and use the company car.
It obviously won't work unless you close tax loopholes. Every benefit you receive would have to be taxed at fair market value. You can get a company car, but you'll be taxed on it. Same with company housing, food, or clothing.
wouldn't that be a good way to put issues like Roe v. Wade to rest? (may be not a good idea, jus' wonderin')
I worry that federal-level referendums would undermine some of the constitutional weighting of the smaller states. Smaller states are over-represented in congress and in presidential elections - any referendum system based on popular vote would undo this. Some might say "good!", but that's another conversation altogether.
Further, it is my firm belief that the US is diverse enough that we should only have federal rules and solutions where it unquestionably benefits the whole country. Immigration, military, financial regulation, currency, etc absolutely need to be nationalized. I fear that adding federal referendums would greatly expand the number of "national" rules as every group tries to enforce their will on everyone else.
I don't think the abortion "debate" will ever be put to rest. Access to abortions has long been popularly supported, and I don't feel like voting on it every single time there is an election :)
I advocate keeping the income tax, doing away with most deductions, treating capital gains as income, and setting the corporate tax rate to 0%. Corporate money has to flow into private hands at some point - tax it there and end the shenanigans. As a bonus, we'd get a lot of foreign headquarters here that would hire a moderate number of people, if only to collect the mail :)
The problem is that the government would lose the "tax incentives" card, and they'd have to find a new carrot or make better use of their sticks.
We're just using different definitions.
I'm using "full democracy" to describe a situation where you need less representation because the decisions are all put to a vote. You are using it to describe what I would call "universal suffrage". I am pro universal suffrage and anti-full-democracy.
That is assuming, I infer, that some other (governing) body is informed enough.
Well, yes. For instance, you set up a bridge authority and let a bunch of civil engineers and bureaucrats take care of the bridges. Sure, it gets corrupt and bloated... it's government after all, but on balance you are still better off than letting the whole populace vote on maintenance spending and the like. And you periodically clean house to reset some of the corruption and bloat, which is where the power ultimately resting with the people comes in.
I also agree that the people most, ultimately, be able to decide on any issue. But it has to be treated as an extreme circumstance, and while it should be very easy to get a ballot initiative going on the local level, it should be progressively harder as you approach the Federal level. In the US, I'm not sure ballot initiatives are appropriate at all on the federal level.
My point is that in the US we can insist on high safety standards at our nuclear facilities. If Canada were producing all of our power with Canadian nukes, we wouldn't have that option, even if they were building them all right on our border.
Not to say that Italy would do a better job with nuclear safety than France - I just don't see how "banning" nuclear power and then buying it from someone else next door actually accomplishes anything except removes control and oversight.
It might have less fissile material, but it also has a lot less containment!
I have to profess being American, and thus, ignorant about the intricacies of UK politics - but my impression is that Europe in general is a bit more elitist than the US. And I don't say this in any derogatory way... the people in Europe seem to be more accepting of elitism - I mean, several European states still retain monarchies, and in the UK they still have a house of Lords! In the US, the real men "in power" are the businessmen, not the politicians. While there certainly is a lot of advantage to having rich parents, Americans do love to point out all of the richie-rich power brokers who come from modest means. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Larry Elison are our richest men, and they all came from middle class (or lower) origins. While certainly not a meritocracy, the business world does tend to trim the idiotic. There are other powerful forces - unions, environmental groups, etc - but I think that the businessmen wield the most influence.
In fact, a reliance on lobbyists is a un-resounding disqualification for a legislator.
I wasn't claiming that they would get all of their information from lobbyists - just that they are certainly going to hear them out if they depend on them socially or politically.
What exactly is the problem there?
The majority is using their position of power to force restrictions that don't exist on the majority onto the minority. They don't restrict the height of church steeples - just towers on mosques. They are targeting the minority directly, and for no practical reason.
If you didn't have agreement on many fundamental things, you wouldn't even have a functioning society.
Agreed, but we're not talking about fundamental things - we are talking about worshiping Invisible Man v3.0 instead of v2.0. Actually, it wasn't even that - it was how high the towers could be at their mosques. Making them worship in shorter buildings is nothing but humiliation - putting the minority in its place. And it reflects fear by one sector over society over another. If anything, such action will cause more separation in society - not more assimilation, as you would want if people are to "agree on many fundamental things".
Don't like the society you're in? Go move to another one
Let me illustrate why this is not a good idea: Jews, pre-war. Where would you move if you were Jewish? Where is this friendly place where you aren't being severely limited because of your religion/ethnicity? It simply isn't an option for people move elsewhere sometimes - either because they don't have the means, they don't have roots elsewhere, or because everywhere is hostile.
Just look at how the USA is doing these days:
Okay. Now, bear in mind that the USA at a federal level is pretty far removed from any kind of pure democracy. 1/3 of our government is not even elected, and the President is not elected by popular vote.
no one can agree on the simplest thing, like whether religion should be taught in school,
The argument isn't whether religion can be taught in school - it's over whether religion can be taught as science, or whether one religion can be favored in school over another. I can't think of a single place in the US where this is a serious debate - it's been shot down everywhere, despite a determined minority.
whether there should be any social programs at all (it's not a question of how much here, it's a question of no social programs whatsoever vs. a giant welfare state: one side wants to kill every social program but keep plenty of corporate welfare, the other side wants even more corporate welfare but also a giant welfare program for individuals too),
I don't think that's a fair statement. Currently, (many) Republicans are proposing that Medicare be changed from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan, whereas Democrats want it to remain defined-benefit. Social Security and Welfare are not currently being seriously debated. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare should exist. "Corporate Welfare" is just tax cuts/incentives. I don't think corporations should be taxed at all, so I have little sympathy there.
It's simply not sustainable, and it's going to collapse like a house of cards at some point. The Mortgage Meltdown of 2007-8 was just the tip of the iceberg.
The US needs to get it's finances in order, but it is not anywhere near collapse. Japan and many European countries are in far more debt and pay far more for debt servicing than the US.
Now look at China: they're also a big country, except they're really really successful.
Don't you think you ought to look at more than a 10 or 20 year run up from dirt poor to only dreadfully poor before you make a statement like that? This China talk reminds me of the Japan talk in the 80s. Yes, the Chinese coast is quickly becoming a very cosmopolitan and affluent place. But China has many deep problems - self-imposed inflation, a real estate bubble, dependence on food and energy imports, and a restless billion very poor pe
Gold, at least pre-electronics industry, doesn't have a whole lot of intrinsic value. Mostly, it's just scarce and so people's hoarding instincts go all batty. Just like diamonds. You can make lots of shiny pretty things that look just like diamond. But those are easily obtainable, so when I proposed did I buy a really big shiny emerald or ruby or cubic zirconia? Hell no! Those would cost a few dollars and can be made in a lab! I spent thousands on a stupid diamond. Or at least, they told me it's a diamond...
Yes, most savings in the US is probably in real estate, and that is probably good - so long as people aren't speculating (hoarding) the real estate. Hoarding isn't good for the economy, which is why when the banks started hoarding cash the government just printed more. "Quantitative Easing" lol.
Each mechanism that prevents abuse of power by the majority can also be implemented in a direct democracy.
I'm not a political scientist, and I won't wear that hat and pretend to be.
But I will say that the Swiss, sitting right in the heart of progressive Western Europe, didn't give women full suffrage until the 1990s. This either makes them a terrible example of a democracy, or it makes them not a democracy at all until very recently.
Right. I thereby propose that voting right be subjected to a test
You conveniently glossed right over the fact that I proposed the solution being better public education. Nowhere did I propose restrictions on voting rights.
Bonneville Power Administration
Um, you know the whole world isn't filled with rivers waiting to be dammed, right? Could BPA have shut down their other baseload plants without hydro?
Where is the difference?
Italy is downwind of France.
I pay people to do dangerous things for me (like putting shingles on my roof), they take the care to have safety equipment, training, insurance, etc.
Do you pay people to build nuclear facilities upwind from you? Do you have absolutely no say whatsoever in the safety systems installed at those plants?
At least when it's your roof, the worst case is a wet ceiling.
Does the minority have some sort of divine right to decide what is 'best' for everyone else?
To tell you the truth, if the US ever got to the point where it was teaching theology in school and branding as "science", we'd be doomed anyway. I'd rather throw my weight behind a minority movement to reform education despite the objections of the majority and risk a possible loss of democratic ideals.
Nuclear power isn't quite on the same level, since Italy is surrounded by other countries that will be thrilled to take their money in order to provide power. I'm not sure what we'll do for power in the US, but I have a feeling it rhymes with "bowl" and tastes like mercury poisoning.
Look at every strip mall in your area, odds are there is a Chiropractor. Coincidence? No. Alternative medicine and its caregivers are at the forefront of subluxation, autism and cancer research.
We have loads more churches than chiropractors. You'd better get moving, or the clergy are going to beat you to that cure for cancer!
We'll have to learn to live with less --- like only heating ONE room, rather than the whole house.
It might not be quite so dramatic, but you have the right idea. It's common to see zoned heating, 98% efficient furnaces, highly-rated insulation, etc. Hell, you even see people retrofitting old houses with these things. All of this is in response to increased energy costs. I've lived in a 100-year-old row house and a much larger 40-year-old single-family home with upgraded heater and insulation. The cost to heat was about the same, despite the much larger size of the house. One of my colleagues at work spends $0/month average on electricity for his heat because he installed a heat pump and solar panels. Granted, there was enormous up-front cost, but his payback is currently going to be about 7 years. And of course we all know someone with a pellet stove :)
Anyway, I don't think we'll quite get back to 1800s living - they were so inefficient it is breathtaking. Fireplaces burning wood or coal, and most of the heat going straight up the chimney! In any event, in terms of carbon footprint, the lowest per capita in the US is New York City - it seems that urbanization and living on top of one another is pretty efficient. You can do a lot with electricity - not everything needs oil.
it has always provided us with greasy charlatans whose chief qualifications are their social connections and their charm.
But those social connections are the hedge against mob rule. True, the politician might not be qualified to talk about nuclear power. But Politician #1 might lean on a nuclear power lobby for support and has to give their opinion more weight than the masses. Politician #2 might lean on environmental groups for support and has to take their opinion into account.
What emerges is imperfect and often frustrating, but is still better than mob rule or deferring to an elite ruling class directly.
Tell this the swiss. Their centuries old tradition of direct democracy was wrong all along!
I'll see your long-standing democracy and raise you suppression of freedom of religion. Pure democracy works great when there are no pesky minorities to worry about. Swiss-style politics isn't for everyone.
You mean, is it wise to let people decide their own fate, versus letting an individual (let's call him "dictator for life") figure out the answers for them?
Education is essential to making an informed decision. Full democracy is folly, since no population is fully educated enough to make every decision involved in governing.
Governance should be open and honest, but not every issue should be decided by a democratic vote.
(As a side note, this is why more affluent people should be pro-pubilc-education. A critical mass of ignorance in a democracy is disastrous.)
That must be why no-one lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If you mainly use US dollars, but had some cash in lets say chinese yuan and it would lose 30% of its value, that's a real loss. If your Bitcoins lose 30% of their value, that's a very real loss too.
Either way, cash is a terrible investment. One should try to use cash for exchanges, and it is prudent to have some cash on hand, but the bulk of one's savings should not be in dollars or bitcoins.