Open Power Association Files Patent for 'Direct Conversion of Nuclear Energy into Electricity'

Thanks to David Nygren of the LENR Forum for posting about a new patent application which has been filed by the Open Power Association in Italy for an apparatus “for direct conversion of nuclear energy into electricity and
cogeneration of thermal energy from general LENRs, in particular from a new kind.”

Ugo Abundo of the Open Power Association has published this document in English which summarizes the claims of the application and provides some illustrations: Here’s an excerpt:

The major items of the claims are:
– an activation of the fuel mixture by an adjustable neutron gun;

– a cycle of exothermic reactions involving Li-Be-H to promote secondary
neutron emission, enhancing reaction rate under magnetic field control, to
provide α and β rays emission;

– a separation of charged particles by a three electrode capacitor, under an
adjustable electric potential, and gas pressure control; then, a system for
extracting electric current is available from well-known technology;

– a system for removing the generated thermal energy is provided;

– a system for capturing unused neutrons (previously moderated), by a boron
layer, with removal of secondary thermal energy is also provided;

– a system for preventing any emission of radiation in the external environment
is finally provided.

Ugo Abundo states that free licenses will be available to selected partners, while some royalties ‘will guarantee scientific updating.’

The full text of the application, mainly in Italian is available here:

David Nygren says this thread on the LENR Forum can be used to submit questions to Ugo Abundo:

65 Replies to “Open Power Association Files Patent for 'Direct Conversion of Nuclear Energy into Electricity'”

  1. Will be Wonderful if this is a different method to Mr.Rossi (IH), that completely bypasses the thousands of patents they are trying to acquire to stop the free use of the technology.
    They seem like those people that tried to patent sections of the genome etc. that thankfully was stopped.
    Once again we wait for some indisputable practical proof of words.
    Good luck to them and all others that can get around life destroying patents.

    1. You probably also want free music and video downloads without any payment to those that produce it. Also free redistribution of money and resources. You clearly do not understand the motive for people and companies to make the large investment in time and money to produce new things. Nobody prevented others from developing LENR earlier, so why wait until a large effort is made and then say steal it!

      1. Leonard, understand your capitalistic view and sympathise with it’s outdated doctrine.
        Times are no longer as they where and we have indisputably become an uncaring Oligarchy, if you consider that best for everyone then fine, I just put up proof that things would be better with change.
        Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world’s population, says Oxfam

        1. You’re ignoring that government / oligarch partnerships are behind much of it … created by people who pretend to care and speak as you do … I hope that advances like LENR allow people to truly be free …

        2. $1.76T in the hands of just 62 people. Sounds bad, eh. Ok, let’s take all their money away and give it to the 3.5 billion people breeding away in poverty. Woohoo $500 each, then back where we started…

          To me, this little bit of math shows that letting some people get rich is a better way to go so they can accomplish big things for everyone.

          1. I have no problem with people getting rich as long as they pay their fair share of taxes. Unfortunately the super rich never get enough so they lobby Congress to provide them with loop holes in the tax code.

            Result is Congress gets bought off and when there isn’t enough money in the treasury they go after the little guy.

          2. There is an argument to be made that since shareholders pay taxes on capital gains and dividends that taxing corporations is double taxation and is not beneficial to an economy. Many ultra wealthy individuals probably have most of their wealth in unrealized gains on their holdings but do pay fair taxes on their income. Speaking generally of course as country specific loopholes can distort that picture.

          3. I’m familiar with this argument and also that US Corporations have the highest tax rates in the world. In actual fact many multinationals however pay no US federal taxes at all if they don’t repatriate their profits gained over seas. The tax rates may be higher but the loop holes are even bigger.

            The US also is one of the few countries that requires individual citizens who reside out of country to pay Federal taxes on income earned working overseas.

            What’s good for the goose should also be good for the gander in my humble opinion.

          4. Google, Facebook etc are good examples of how we all can benefit from a concentration of capital. Like everything in life, concentration of capital is a double edged sword. It solves some problems and creates others.

        3. georgehants, you seem to not observe that every government with a socialist economy has failed. China nominally has a communist government and socialist economy, and was failing big, so converted to a capitalist economy (the government itself does not matter, only the type economy). Now it has become very successful. Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Greece, etc. all tried socialism. Venezuela did well as long as the large oil reserve was priced high, but collapsed economically when oil came down (a large natural resource is not a sustainable economy). There is no example of a long term socialist economy that has a success without extreme natural resources, and they all fail in the long term.

          1. I think you might be confusing socialism with totalitarianism. There are a substantial number of democratic socialist countries with capitalist economies. The Scandinavian countries come to mind and I would also regard my own country Canada as a democratic socialist country which a large part of the population are quite happy with and support politically.

          2. It is not the system: the failure lies in us, human beings, interpreting and implementing whatever the dream would or could be.
            It is not a question of capitalism or socialism, we live in a new era: Anthropocene. It is a matter of recognizing this change, where upstarts lend a glimpse of how pervasive the new sharing economy is likely to become.
            With this new era, we can either be complacent in our uninterested knowledge of the doom, or death, of millions of fellow human beings; or, we can begin to consider that each person has the same right to breathe the planet’s air, the same right – if at all possible – to a less than unfair chance for survival.

      2. I think you miss the point that LENR is probably a natural phenomenon that is NOT ‘man-made’ ….. methods of control or enhancement may reimbursable , but not the reaction itself

    2. George, thanks again for investing your time, love and attention and being the voice of a serious percentage of the followers of this blog, that want this technologie available for ALL the people of this world, not just the rich and powerfull in the “first world”, dreaming about “flying cars” and exploiting asteroids in space and exploiting the ‘other’ part of humanity (90% ?) … !!! Illusions…
      Despite all depressing signs that ‘l’histoire se repete’ and that Rossi cs is getting more and more entangled in an ango/american (or worse) kapitalistic pitfall : they are determined to “put a bl…/ meter” on this !!
      In spite of my my limited knowledge of physics as a mathematian by education, I sence that this phenomena (LENR) is much broader than we now perceive and that it can’t be hyjaced with US patents, I sincerey hope so…
      We need a theory the non-corporate laboratories and garage-tinkerers can work on : Axil axils of the world : UNITE !
      (frank : please forgive me my disguised blasphemies) :<))

      1. yes That is exactly where I think this is headed…’.I sense that this phenomena (LENR) is much broader than we now perceive and that it can’t be hyjaced with US patents’…..because.LENR itself is a natural occurrence , like fire . So mechanisms can be patented , but not the process itself (and there will be limitless methods to utilize LENR once it is better understood)….. Unfortunately its now just a few cavemen playing with a flame in an isolated valley…….soon it will spread like wildfire 😉

  2. I like your thinking, but i take it one step farther.

    The dealer has his own million$, He wont be there to sell them cars. He’s on permanent vacation in the Bahamas along with all those who produce our food. It’s a long swim as Airline employees also didn’t show up for work.

    Those who “stole” the Escalades are all waiting at the gas pump wonder why there is no gas. 🙂

    There is a guy laying in a hospital bed pressing his service button wondering after 3 days if that nurse will ever show up.
    Oh Wait. i guess that’s normal. 🙁

    1. You are probably right. Thank goodness we will have robots to step in. It’s hard to believe people worry about robots stealing jobs.

      1. With the changing demographics in the world, we will need robots in order to assure everyone is taken care of. Dependent on who’s number you go by, 3 of 4 people will be to young, to old or to disabled to fend for themselves.

    2. I think that the motivation to do the things good are coming from the fear that not doing so you will loose something.
      In capitalism, the motivation is not to loose your salary or money to buy nice stuff and survive. In an economy of abundance you have to change the motivation that moves and motivates you .e.g. to have fear from your boss and loose your salary, if you dont do things right. :). Notice that, it is not the money who keeps things going or motivates you directly. The money is just the exchange vehicle between what you need to do and what you want to have. Disadvantages, of money is that price is volatile and can be tricked (inflation) by the ones who have the print machines. Advantage is that is portable and direct to use.
      I say that money will still be around because although many things will be cheap or free we will wish real state things that will not be needed for survival, but for luxury reasons. However, bitcoin is the solution to the tricks we see with the money today. Bitcoin can remove that volatile feature of the current money.

      I guess in the future we all we have a base salary or a global salary based on bitcoins which can finish the poverty and hunger. The persons that wants to to have more luxury things and accumulate or have more power or control can still go and try to create more real state things, like new medicines, new technologies, that provides more money.
      Another contra-intuitive consequence of this global salary is that having the global salary will help to reduce overpopulation. You have to understand that the reasons to have more kids in developing countries is not because they can or the have access to resources. Just the opposite, they had more childs because that was the only option to survive. If you get old in an unstructured society where survival is not guarantee your best rent insurance is your family. Your kids!. With high child mortality, is not enough to have two it is needed to have more so that you ensure that they will survive to take care of the farm and care about you.
      Last word, it is also obvious that in terms of energy required to produce something, songs and films are receiving more than enough for the effort. I think we cannot compare products that are easily reproduced and “massified” with real state products that cannot be cloned. We are talking here about the influence of the information technology where the prices are reduced each year.
      In my opinion, services is what need to be cashed, flat rate services.
      Of course, the same logic will follow for this premise about the global salary and prices. There will be a flat free rate for all and a real state flat rate that cost money. The difference between one an the other will be shifted with the time because, as always happens, information technology will offer new capabilities.

      1. I agree, money is but an exchange medium. Much better then the barter system. Inflation is far more complex then printing or not printing money. The U.S. pumped over 6 trillion$ into the world economy by itself. Where is the inflation.

        Inflation is all about the balance of supply and demand. It does not need any outside influence to take place. That said, Printing money & applying it to promote demand in certain segments of the economy can effect inflation by increaseing demand beyond the ability to supply.

        Economic centers such as New York city can effect inflation. Having limited space for housing, real estate(Housing) is very expensive and rising(demand can never be met) thus requiring higher wages. This makes nearly everything in New York cost more. This has an inflationary ripple effect that can spread around the world.

        “bitcoin is the solution to the tricks etc…”
        You’ve been mislead. The value of bitcoin fluctuates. It is more like a commodity & is more volatile then any currency. I recall a couple years ago it lost 50% of it’s value in a couple days. That’s a 50% loss for any who were in possession of it.

        Bitcoin was something a few people made a fortune off of in the beginning by exchanging it for real curency. In reality, it is a pyramid scheme still in the process of playing out. It’s longevity is only due to it’s limited quantity, but at some point it will still bottom out. It also has no physical backing. All losses are borne by who hold them.

        “I guess in the future we all have a base salary or a global salary based on bitcoins which can finish the poverty and hunger.”

        Bitcoins or any other currency will not eliminate hunger. Only increased food production can eliminate hunger.

        Your basic needs-
        You ask for a minimum of 4 fish to feed your family tonight. OK, But you best go catch 4 fish. If you don’t catch 4 fish, I can not give them. I can not provide for your basic needs unless you provide the basic product.

        Or are you suggesting I take/steal them from someone else?
        The way that works is those that I take from without compensation will merely produce far less. Thus everyone lives in poverty.

        Due to modern society, people have become disconnected to their reality. There are no guarantees. The best society can “try” to do is provide the circumstances for people to provide for themselves.

    1. I agree – this sounds like a fast one!
      I am a big supporter of patient rights, but unless these folks have a working example, then this seems VERY much like patent trolling.

      So Rossi announces that he achieved electricity production from LENR, and someone else comes along and files a patent on Rossi’s invention.

      This I suppose why Rossi is VERY often hesitant to release details of his LENR devices, since others without having made or crated anything will attempt to take credit for his work.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  3. Well all the greed vs magnanimity is just fine. Different sides of the same coin. I do hope Rossi is successful, like I believe he will be. I’d wholeheartedly welcome all others to build E-Cat like devices. Everybody sell to all those $500 ’empowering’ machines. Sell them to the new masses of independent non-rich, We won’t give a hut about money when, when we all everlasting E-Cats, or equivalents!

  4. I have no problem with capitalism but I do have a problem with crony capitalism as it is practiced in the West.
    I also have a problem with banks that believe profits should be privatized but losses socialized.

    Bankers feel they are entitled but folks that have paid their FICA taxes for social security for 40 years or more on the job are considered to be leeches when they retire and expect a SS check each month.

    1. Indeed. And this is one of the major functions of any government, to assure honest competition. “Crony capitalism” is the exact antithesis of honest competition, using the power of the state to suppress competition.

  5. I enjoyed and agree with your comment in general but I would like to point out that technology improves standards of living and improved standards of living tend to depress birth rates. The development of cold fusion tech will at the same time allow the earth to support more people with a higher standard of living and will also stem population growth.

    1. In the Star Trek series, people are paid. Instead of currency, they recieve credits. There is also rank, privilege, the ruling class & the elite.

      If one conforms to society(contributes in a meaningful way), there basic needs are met. If they do not conform, they are poor street people. In the series, it portrays that the vast majority conform, But not all.

      I think the important point is that they provide opportunity for all that make an effort. Today, even if your ready & willing, there may be no opportunity.

      1. “Instead of currency, they receive credits.”

        It is still “money”, no matter what it is called. This is what the communist purists who post here seem unable to grasp….there will ALWAYS be some means of value exchange, whether it is barter, dollar bills, or credits. And it will be “money”.

        1. Exactly, It is still a rose.

          And interestingly, The writers who have a whole range of artistic freedom, still can’t come up with a workable society that doesn’t involve a hierarchy of some sort.

  6. LOL. Capitalism is in the process of developing the answer to “(not) destroying the planet” as we speak….see the two recent flight and recovery of reusable rocket booster stages (Falcon 9 (Elon Musk-Tesla) and Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos-Amazon). Mankind will soon, thanks to evil capitalism, have access to the resources of the entire solar system to provide raw materials, and eventually off-planet production and living sites.

    And although LENR can drastically accelerate the above process, it is NOT necessary for it to happen.

    What you fail to understand is that capitalism and technology mutually boost one another in an accelerating cycle of improvement…..socialism does not. Socialism has produced poverty wherever it has been tried.

    1. I up voted you because I mostly agree with what you said. Granted the system that the modern world has used to develop its current technological capabilities was not pure capitalism it was a hybrid of both capitalism and socialism/central planning. Neither system in and of itself works, they are all predisposed to extreme’s. Also China’s historically recent explosion should also show that pure capitalism is not required for continued development. What is required is for people to not only have the desire for change but to also have the will to pursue it. In a Pure capitalistic system it is assumed that if one can make profit from something that is sufficient enough of a driver. In a socialistic/central planning system the state must provide that drive. This is what we see in China. The communist party had a problem and its proper solution was the only way they could maintain power so they have embarked on this massive technological modernization. As a result they have taken some of the ideas of capitalism, merged them with state owned companies to drive their development.

      Compared that to the US of today, We are contented in a way. Sure we have problems, but there is zero national consensus on which problems are most important and even less consensus on which approach is best to resolve those problems. Now from a capitalistic perspective, this shouldn’t be an issue because the only thing that matters is can you make profit/create value from solving a problem. unfortunately a lot of the problems facing us have a high barrier of entry. Which means trying to solve them requires convincing those with the capital to invest in your particular solution. Now this mostly side steps the problem with waiting on government to decide what they want to support. But that is only true so long as the barrier to entry isn’t a government regulation or the requirement for the completion of research so basic that only government (more accurately the people) have the clout necessary to back it.

      So from where I stand the problem isn’t the system of governance a society chooses. It is much more basic than that. It is what is the “thing” that functions as the driver of development. For a country that embraces most of the ideas behind capitalism its government has to not only protect it from its extremes. But also make sure that the barriers to entry for solving most problems are low enough that any citizen of that country can undertake them. If your country chooses Socialism/central planning then the ruling party must be populated with visionary leaders.

      1. “What is required is for people to not only have the desire for change but to also have the will to pursue it.”

        They also must have the freedom and access to the resources (capital) to do so.

        Either private parties provide the capital or government does. If government is the sole source of capital, it will virtually always prioritize wrongly. If only private parties are the source of capital, larger projects will probably not be undertaken.

        Societal experience has simply proven that a mixed system simply works better.

        1. Again almost completely agree. I don’t believe Government ALWAYS chooses incorrectly. It is just that the likely hood that they will is higher and the affects of that poor choice is much worse. This is primarily because the way government tends to choose is they choose one thing, or the thing that they choose creates barriers to entry for others interested in other solutions. The counter example I would point to is China. Clearly the communist party in China hasn’t ALWAYS chosen incorrectly. Though I doubt all their choices have panned out the way they would have liked it. But eventually their run of great leadership will dry up or they will get a premier that cannot hold a candle to those that came before. And then the number of bad decisions will swamp the good ones.

          1. Not necessary that “…government AWAYS chooses incorrectly.” And if that is what you understood from my comment, it certainly was not what I meant. All that has to happen is for one system to perform consistently statistically better than the other over time. I suspect that even a ratio as low as 51/49 forces success of one system over another, if worked over a long enough time period. Of course, the higher the percentage of “good choices”, the faster the process will happen.

            Governments have learned over time that they have better success if they “choose more than one thing”. This is why US grant funding agencies like ARPA, DARPA, and the like have the legislative charter to put at least 10% of their budget grants into “wild hare/blue sky” research.

            Neither “pure communism” or “pure capitalism” is “best”. Empirical evidence (societal experiments) have shown that a mix of the two simply succeeds better. The difficulties come from the extremists on the “pure communism” side foisting (or trying to foist) their views on others by force. Since the “pure capitalists” do NOT work to institute their position by force, they are just ignored.

          2. I think we are in agreement on this. I only disagreed with the usage of always in the context you chose. I believe the following saying is true

            “Only a Sith believes in absolutes”

          3. I think the major advantage capitalism has over government planning is the speed with which it responds when a plan is not working. A capitalist will run out of financial capital which quickly brings a failed idea to an end. Governments hang on to a failed idea for a much longer period because they have to first run out of political capital which usually has no bearing at all on the economics of the failed idea.

  7. OK, I have an acquaintance who thinks I should reduce my fossil use. That I should exchange my speedboat for a sail boat.

    I told him I would give it a try. But as we well know, the wind is not dependable, your just helpless in a calm and it often just works against us even when tacking. Sooo I created a hybrid.

    So what do ya think?

  8. A device that generates free neutrons is a recipe for heavy activation (making radioactive) the fuel, the containers, and anything inside the wax or boron shielding.

      1. My comment is not about the e-cat. I am referring to the open power patent: “– an activation of the fuel mixture by an adjustable neutron gun;
        – a cycle of exothermic reactions involving Li-Be-H to promote secondary
        neutron emission,…”

  9. It is interesting how this page follows exactly the Cold Fusion story where 95% of scientists find themselves completely unable to even look at Evidence or keep an open-mind.
    Happily the percentages on this page are much more healthy, perhaps that reflects the higher percentage here that have an open-mind and are able to honestly look at Evidence beyond their education.
    In any event it is good that Cold Fusion brings to the surface such important considerations that adversely effect so many people Worldwide.

    1. “Clearly being proposed”

      Clearly proposed where?? Certainly not in any of your postings. And that despite multiple requests for such “proposition”.

        1. ‘Fraid not. Using the search box on ECW with your phrase “not communism but a new system” turns up ONE link. Doing the same on Google turns up three.

  10. True capitalists do not care who they sell to, they only care if you can pay. Governments imposed the embargoes not the capitalists selling the goods.

    1. Depends on how you define a “True” capitalist. I think a “True” capitalist desires to improve the life of his family and of all those around him. Our friend Darden might be a “True” capitalist. As in all aspects of life there are good people and bad people.

      1. I had a chance to hear one of the Koch brothers yesterday on NPR (National Public Radio). I believe that he is a true capitalist. The conventional interpretation of their actions is that they are a pair of meanie heads. All I heard was a very well-intentioned and knowledgeable libertarian whose main focus is to try to reduce the size of big government. He even believes in the necessity of environmental regulations.

  11. Thanx for posting Linda. I mostly agree with what you have stated, with the exception of the use of titles to express socio/economic structures. The terms capitalism, communism. socialism, and others, are wide open to interpretation. What we are talking about; what everyone should be talking about is Greed.



    excessive consumption of or desire for food; gluttony


    excessive desire, as for wealth or power

    Greed rules the earth. Mankind directly, the Earth and everything on it indirectly.

    Greed is structural. It has become our way, or perhaps always did. I’ve only been here for 6+ decades so I can’t speak for the prior past. Others do, but the greedy have changed, or obfuscated history.

    Sure, there are individuals who are greedy (not talking about needy), but I don’t think they are the real problem. People (individuals) are generally good. Groups of good people often degenerate into the organizational philosophy of greed. You may say the basis is due to one or another social construct with one of the above titles, or something else, but that disguises the problem.

    The corporate greed for wealth (which is the fundamental cause for the political positioning for power) has put us where we are today, and if allowed to continue will ensure the further degeneration of mankind. It’s inevitable.

    The solution? Easy to say; hard to do. Redefine what “wealth” and “value” mean. Take (what we call) money out of the equation. Also, find a way for truth based education (not my area of expertise).

    To bring this back to the field of interest that has us gather here; affordable energy production to all. Who really cares if it’s accomplished by E-cats, Orbos, ZPE, huge clanking “perpetual” machines or whatever. The freedom to not be beholden to the ubiquitous and powerful structure of greed is what I strive for.

    I wish I had more company.

  12. It is interesting to note that Pierre Trudeau, who was an intelligent person and was the prime minister of Canada for about 15 years (and a professor of History, before), was of the opinion that the creation of nation-states slowed down the progress of our civilization. He was in favor of City-States, without the federal governments, as in the times of the flowering Greek civilization. Some people call this idea an Anarchy, but the Anarchy has a number of different flavors (and generally the bad flavors are considered to be the representations).

  13. Old Persian proverb
    He who knows not,and knows not that he know not is a fool, shum him.
    he who knows not and knows that he knows not,
    Is a child, teach him.
    he who knows,and knows not that he knows, is asleep, wake him.
    he who knows and knows is wise,follow him.

    I might add, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32 ), along with my favorite, if you add a half truth + a half lie it = a LIE, if your being lied to and know it, how long are you going to except it.

  14. The flaw in this logic is that the government cannot give you money WITHOUT FIRST taking away that wealth from someone else!

    That wealth one has is the result of the person’s productive capacity. No one is going to come to your house, clean your floors, clean up your stinky bathroom and then cook you dinner without receiving compensation.

    The issue thus becomes not the government giving you money, but in fact forcibly TAKING that value and resources from someone to give to you.

    So the government cannot give you anything unless they take some resources and value away from someone else. As a society has less and less people paying taxes, then you wind up with a case like Greece. So government workers, policeman, doctors etc. don’t pay taxes, but are in fact CONSUMERS of tax dollars. When you have too many consuming tax dollars and NOT paying taxes, you wind up with a very rotten siltation.

    So in most countries, say a teacher, or doctor or policeman don’t pay taxes (they file taxes at the end of the year, but they are not paying into the tax system). If such people were paying taxes, then the MORE of such people hired by the government would create more taxes for the government to spend then such people cost the government.

    I mean, the government could hire everyone into the military, but the budget deficits would soar and cost the government MORE than each person they hire pays in taxes. Now who will you have actally paying into the tax system now?
    Greece reached the point in which few people were willing to work in the private sector because they had to work 14 hours a day to make ends meet. Why not just work for the government, and laugh at all those silly people actually paying into
    the tax system (and slaving away to create wealth in society).

    The problem of course is you eventually run out of those people actually paying into the tax system. You can “easy” define such tax payers as:

    If more of such people exist in society, then the government will have MORE money to spend at the end of the year as opposed to less money.

    Governments can ONLY spend money and resources they FORCIBLY take away from people and the ONLY tax paying people are those that pay more tax dollars then what they receive from the government are such people actually paying taxes.

    So teachers, police, military, and in most counties even Doctors etc. are NET tax consumers. Each one of these kind of people cost the government MORE in tax dollars that such people pay to the government.

    So we must not confuse the “act” of filing taxes as opposed to those actually paying more dollars into the tax pot then what they consume out via tax dollars.

    Governments can ONLY realise more taxes by having MORE people in a society actually paying NET tax dollars, else no one will exist to actually pay taxes into the system – all remaining people will be consumers of tax dollars, be they a teacher, or someone on welfare – they all cost the government MORE then what they pay into the system.
    The “instant” a country passes the above line of less tax payers is about the same time their economies start swirling down the toilet. Socialism only works if you have enough people to take things away from!

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  15. Both the Soviet Union and China communist regimes were sufficiently rich in resources so that no “embargo” of them was possible. They both failed. The SU disintegrated (mostly) into the individual pre-communist-empire nation states. China simply adopted capitalism while not calling it that. I suspect Venezuela also falls in this category. And, I think 99% of embargoes disappeared with the Cold War.

  16. “where everyone trades their most valuable commodity, time, for a 30 year mortgage”

    Or you could trade your time to perform labor to build your home.
    You are in essence trading your time for someone else’s time. Homes do not appear from nothing. The become from someones labor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *