On Multi-Currency System

     Having multi-currency for a national economy for long durations isn't a bad idea at all.  If the nation is super Aryan, then it's very possible, and will be smooth throughout the whole processes.  A hard-backed currency, as oppose to paper currency would have tiny difference on the reality side, as for this time it's the right leadership up there.  Upkeep of a nationalized currency is a fraction of the entire gross domestic product, something of microscopic importance and size in the whole scheme of things that is.
     Having this type of currency system is mirror and parallel to having both the EU and US dollar inside one nation.  There is little functional differences, and the only trouble it may cause might be supersticious ones - thoughts and feelings stirred by the number 2 as oppose to 1 single uniform currency.
     Whether printing of currency should be allowed or not for federal state has been more so a question of is the current leadership, the establishment trustworthy.  Seeing how things are in essence that way, our government will put little blockade to forbidding the state banking system to print cash in the future.  In an alternate set of words: it comes ultimately down to who is in the leadership and not so much the actions exprsesed out of there - a good trustworthy leader will do good at their worst, while a glutton pudge lord of some kid would spell out falsehood at their best chances.
     Whether having 1 currency or 2 currency or 3 or more main currency (multi) carries minor siginifiance and importance in the grand view of the nation.  We like to use this principle throughout our thinking and design formulation efforts: as long as the soil and the condition environment is good, things will naturally fix itself.  Where as without such naturalis, chaos spawn, and rifts pull things to often unsuspected discourse and perputual dysfunctions.
      On the topics of printing currency: printing excess would result in inflation and regional monetary disbalance.  The previous regime has been doing this for greedy reasons, while for any righteous state, it's unecessary, and indeed a secondary effective means to get to the goals.  A drunken righteous state perhaps would print money in large sums, as due to the lack of assessment and such.  Whereas concious one, not the best idea for them to - not only there exists little reasons to, the gain to effort ratio is also absent.  Printing in sudden bursts would cause unwarranted prices, often regions within regions.  Printing in over-time period smoothes things (the sudden spikes on the graphs) out.  Printing doesn't add values to the net sum of the gross domestic product, more so gains through de-valuing the other, in essence.  We see printing as a "loser state's option" as besides the glaring moral reasons, only a state that's behind the forefront of innovation and culture status would need to use this option - true leadership would have all the monetary power needed and be in well reserve.



     Splitting agrilculture products (life basis needs) with luxurious items is indeed a great idea.  There are several advatanges of this that the otherwise scenario could not provide:
- natural deterrence for petty crimes, shutting down the desire and inclination as well altogether
- natural class system
- prevents overgrowth and faulty operations of certain businesses (now they won't go splash over-zones, and go monopolizing, also their intentions get shut down (repelled) completely)
- promotes local community (now people chase and want to talk to the higher item manufacturers)
- it's reasonable to be this way, overall
- a natural social security system
- reflects the nature of consumables vs fixed items (such as appliances and electronic gadgets)
      For the art design of these two fundamental currencies, similar color schemes and themes can be given to make them (thus all currencies) look uniform.  Two very seperate looking currencies instir the thought of national fragmentation.  Another reason being people liking to associate the number 1 as prime and good, where as the number 2 as symbols for omen, as national currencies.  For the superstition sakes, so to speak, both currencies which most citizens will have in their pockets will take on uniform color schemes plus formats. (the difference-fulness may not be necessary to be introduced or announced to the public)

-  -  -  -  -  -

Additional Tags: factories, storage warehouse, facilities,

♣♠♦ Three Card Poker - Probability Calculations ♦♠♣

WINWINWINWINWINWIN

WINWINWINWINWINWIN

WINWINWINWINWINWIN

WINWINWINWINWINWIN

WINWINWINWINWINWIN

WINWINWINWINWINWIN

WINWINWINWINWINWIN

3 Card Poker

Chance of no qualify for dealer (queen or higher it is to auto-qualify (automaticaly qualify) )

      chance of no queen or higher for 1 card pull/show: (13-3)/13 = 9/13 = 0.69231 = 69.231%

      chance of no queen in "second" card pull/show: 0.69231 X 0.69231 = 0.47929

             le chance of no queen or higher in third and final card, which is, is:  0.47929 X 0.69231 = 0.33182, which is equal to 33.182%

33.18% = chance for no queen in all hand
66.82% = chance for queen or higher in all hand

33.18% chance dealer qualifies in void in certain
66.82% chance dealer definately qualifies to play


-  an Ace in 3 card poker on the player's side or of any should be considered big hand
-  large hand doesn't symbolize/tell/indicate should play as dealer's low cards but in pair or flush formation can really ruin the overall pleasure, composure especially.  The underlying effects brought on makes this thing extra in-mane
-  flush and straight occurs usually when smaller cards are in hand, good to be aware thy of
-  the 33.18% chance for dealer to not qualify should tell something about how when player's hand correspond to low aussi, there does exist chance dealer not have great cards either (and in fact, this gives a great opportunity for ultra pathetic hand to overcome otherwise traverse, beating dealer's for theirs does not qualify)  (this is a le hidden golden snitch, yes)
-  going in with just a Queen-high may not be wise, for single card high King from dealer can beat it, even with later cards being much stronger.  This usually brings pretty poor experience and that's where the nightmare rampages up - since this hand that was suppose to be win was set to be lost, and the player did lose a lot since betted up, now next rounds that will be (usually are) dealer's wins would act as extension/amplifier for this loss streak  (aye, this is how most 3-card poker loss streaks, very bad rounds for the player begins like / starts in)



`

大局之变，then 小局何有乐乎？

         Yes, truly indeed that's very true - if the major momentualsis alters/shifts/changes, then the smaller scenarios which live within the giant, would get motioned along. Only in special circumstance/cases of local setting unchanged by the giant's new direction, does this philosophy/proverb/statement does not come into play.
         If someone were to bet what's most worth it, which road (to take) would bring forth highest gain for Ash Ketchum and his pokemons, then the one that guess on going unorthodox, or non-standard, would indeed be correct / guessed correctly - in fact not a guess, but likely a well thought conclusion, by the ways.  In life, often things are of a fallacy andor a paradox. Having too much wealth turns out as proven by history of last few hundred years to be an actual empty dream - that actual wealth is not in the gains, but in the process - the goal had always been a draw to get to the real goals accomplished - which are the means. Again we see the same underlying common philosophy/pattern/behavior in every corner or place in nature. In progress of a strand of a specie, the desire to obtain dominance put forth acceleration to finding temporarily stronger mates, which often in case shuts down the ones that could have great potential in later century usages or situations, while majority of the time, contributes to the preceived and highly locally biased and full-trusted "growth".  This blog post itself follows the same pattern - it's a paradox - at very same time it's stating the fundamental universe in a "neutral" perspective, it nevertheless (has to) contain bias - even if the blog writer tries very best at attempting an absolute neutral perspective, which we know does exist, the blog writer will never reach that point, however close may be.  Now with the current political situation, the very steps Saurons have made, in fact, and indeed like written in the prophecy will bring itself to its eventual death - the righteous forces will come back - and in fact it's never been fully defeated - for its initial large fall was in actual a large trickery, deceived the Saurons well - and it would be that precisely that would lead fate to the resurrection of righteous forces line, alongside Sauron meets its demise.
         In reality, no standard is the standard, the English word the should be removed from the dictionary in my opinion - for there needs to reason to define it - any attempt at defining it would technically be an intrusion of freedom of thought - and an utter barbaric vile manner/method/action. And yet every standard is the standard, in someone's opinion, isn't it. The mighty never-wiped-out cockroaches continue to exist in large numbers, especially in places humans do not know, nor want to know.  In their mind, we would be the freaks, while cockroaches to humans, the samething holds also true. Behind each side's opinions, a hidden, untangible secret force "supports" either side - one does not tolerate the other in these pair, for chemically they are even inert/disassociative - a very scent of one another in this scenario would bring both complete demise - it's nature very itself dictating this play here - no matter how much one tries to like the other side - one still has to act in accordance, as if, almost - for, one cannot, and no one can overcome force of nature itself.  What gets preceived as wrong or negative may just be right, for everything is purely subjective, meaning highly dependent and in fact solely dependent on the person speaking, isn't it, so ta speaks? The actual road to success does not get dictated nor dictate-defined by one side or the other, or someone or another two person(s), but rather by nature itself. If I had chosen the road, which is to go unorthodox, so willingly, then perhaps that's my standard, and also the global standard, if I will.