Luke

He differentiates between industrial capitalists and financial capitalists. Private equity who buys up apartments, lobbies the government for rent liberalization and then squeezes working class families with high rents are parasites. People who abuse their workers, prevent unionization etc are parasites. Not ALL capitalists are parasites and he never said that. But there are some folks that do only harm in this system and thats whats important to point out. The more important point is: The left is lost in fights that benefit the financial type of capitalists, gender equality, diversity etc. Even if they focus on economic abuse they forget the most important thing: HOW do people get rich and HOW do societies get wealthy? And how can we politically use that knowledge to increase the wealth for our societies? The way he framed china seeing this is, that china allowed the western market mechanism and benefitted of it but also received the bad parts of the west, high inequality, monopolization, overleveraged gamblers that do no good (real estate developers hello) etc. Its now for them to decide what kind of ways are endorsed to get rich and which ways are not endorsed or even regulated.

Those guys are from the previous generations and indeed had much better times and prospects. But the times have changed and the liberalization at universities really lead to what @thepupil described. The suicide rate for PHD students is by a large factor higher than to the already higher rate for normal students compared to non studying peers in the same age group. A phd is a race to the bottom and really badly paid. In my opinion you must hate yourself to a degree to put up with it. For the few who attain the PHD and then go into university, i think they deserve a high salary and good working conditions considering they did almost 10 years of high level studying. Of course that is likely different for literature and arts where i do understand that some things are questionable. But anything science related is a tough nut.

I dont know about the situation in the US but professors in the EU are suffering shitbags, slaves during exhaustive PHDs, tons of debt, bad pay compared to efforts, hard to become tenured, hard to get funding, publication pressure etc The professors i know dont make bank, work hard and are an asset to the country. Maybe a tiny percentage of gender professors do weird things but its super hard to get to these positions too.

If you would have listened to the interview, he talks about exactly that at minute 50:00. The problem with today's left, wrong focus of the problem, china and milton friedman etc He also didnt celebrate Marx, but he pointed things out that marx already talked about, which are a correct assesment of the current economic situation.

i loved all of the movies, alien original, prometheus, covenant, alien vs predator. I fear this one will be to generic, they should have done a sequel to covenant...

He is not a communist advocate, but you can't deny several observations Karl Marx did. Being a professor is an important job in our societies, and he certainly provides a lot of value too, nothing about being a parasite.

Reigniting labor and focussing on the real economy, investment in technology and productivity growth while keeping the consumer's buying power high enough. The only problem for china would be tariffs and artificial suppression of demand by the west.

Also regarding "chinese marxists thought". This rings the bells regarding CCP interventions that tackle exactly this: Marx and many of his less radical contemporary reformers saw the historical role of industrial capitalism as being to clear away the legacy of feudalism—the landlords, bankers, and monopolists extracting economic rent without producing real value. However, that reform movement failed. Today, the finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sector has regained control of government, creating neo-rentier economies. The aim of this postindustrial finance capitalism is the opposite of industrial capitalism as known to nineteenth-century economists: it seeks wealth primarily through the extraction of economic rent, not industrial capital formation. Tax favoritism for real estate, privatization of oil and mineral extraction, and banking and infrastructure monopolies add to the cost of living and doing business. Labor is increasingly exploited by bank debt, student debt, and credit card debt while housing and other prices are inflated on credit, leaving less income to spend on goods and services as economies suffer debt deflation." Hudson also argues Marx was too optimistic. History did not go in the direction of Capitalism evolving into Socialism—at least not yet. Since the 1930s today's modern capitalism is dominated by non-productive rentier classes. In classical economics, which includes Marx, the proletariat as a class is better off paying as few rents as possible. This is because wages can be lower if workers have less overhead. This lowers the price of goods they produce lower, making them more competitive on the international market. This is also the logic of making healthcare a public commons run not-for-profit by the government. This enables wages to be lower for workers. Non-productive rents, tactics and strategies are making all countries, the US included, less self-sufficient. This connects back with the idea of a debt jubilee; and, with taxing non-productive activity, not workers and manufacturing. The cost of doing nothing is high. Left to run wild, the ever-growing need for debt and rents causes history to regress back to a neo-feudal system; where, your employer pays for your healthcare, provides you your housing and keeps workers in debt permanently.

Michael Hudson (born March 14, 1939) is an American economist, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City. Hudson notes that the existing economic theory, the Chicago School in particular, serves rentiers and financiers and has developed a special language designed to reinforce the impression that there is no alternative to the status quo. In a false theory, the parasitic encumbrances of a real economy, instead of being deducted in accounting, add up as an addition to the gross domestic product and are presented as productive. Hudson sees consumer protection, state support of infrastructure projects, and taxation of rentier sectors of the economy rather than workers, as a continuation of the line of classical economists today. I have enjoyed this interview, Hudson is really coming into it from a different angle but makes many good points that especially hit home to how the chinese government sees the economy right now: Financial capitalism vs industrial capitalism. Real economy vs empty factories in NY that are revamped as luxury apartments. Especially his points regarding using other countries cheap labor force with preventing their development rings a bell. I think he is worth reading and listening to. EDIT: He was also sceptical about the mortgage fiasco pre 2008: In an April 2006 article in Harper's, just before the Great Recession of 2007-08, Hudson predicted a crash of US housing prices.

Bought more Lufax as already said in the thread, this time on NYSE.

I didnt know he deleveraged from margin. In that case, yes, i understand.

If you are talking about margin of safety, yes it is less here, but the overall market is way worse. If you can find something a lot more attractive i would of course understand selling

There are so many catalysts, Fairfax India, Eurobank, further capital allocation of the really significant cashflow compared to market cap, EVEN if underwriting slightly declines. If they are successful, Fairfax will look very different in 5–10 years compared to now. It's hard to find this ability of compounding in any other stock for a decent price. I'd maybe start selling the stock from my monstrous position at 40-50b marketcap. Still a buy here honestly.

I'm here for the rally Jerome! Surprise us!

If I compare Adulph hidler Coin to the n**** butt token, it looks quite undervalued honestly

https://twitter.com/hkuppy/status/1770495938676588625

26b marketcap and 4b operating income for 4 years+. Thesis is still at the beginning of playing out

Seriously? Why is that? 0 Problems buying this for me as a german. Just executing the order on IB easy.

All i said is that he doesnt like the idea of military bases croaching closer and closer to where he spend his time. Is that not a valid argument? The US clearly doesnt like that either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis To my information they have 3 coordination systems of one has to be programmed in a way Ukrainian soldiers can not do (Harald Kujat as a general should probably know). Especially if they want to circumvoid russian air control, one system that uses local geographic information points is especially important, apparently. Directly from our state media: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/scholz-taurus-ukraine-102.html France and UK can program these without having problems with their own constitution. We cant do it.

Hope you enjoy your amusement! It's amusing to me that you think Russia won't notice that and will immediately retaliate that move. If the us decides to push their military bases further and further to russia, i understand that they are doing something about it. What do you think will happen if china builds military bases at the border to mexico? Do you think the US will "negotiate"

If the US wants to fight an active war against russia, they can decide to do that but i hope for our own lives that germany wont join the madman move.

And regarding your proposal of sending ukraine Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missiles. 1. In order to correctly program these weapons you need highly qualified personal which ukraine lacks. That means that german personal need to take these weapons into one of our bases, program it before use and then give it back to ukraine. 2. Our constitution is different from UK, France and US which is why programing these weapons here would mean actually entering this war within our own legal system, which we obviously dont want and our chancellor also doesnt want. 3. The taurus missiles can fly up to 500km and can enter into deep concrete layers. It is highly likely that IF ukraine uses these that they will fly deep into the russian territory to destroy important bases and more. Russia will significantly escalate the situation if that happens and also escalate the situation with the country who programmed these weapons. Id would be the start of a new phase were we really get involved. 4. Its highly likely that russia escalates the war with tactical nuclear weapons to protect them in that case, something nobody wants. Its time to deescalate, get back to the negotiating tables and stop sending more and more deadly weapons that do nothing. Our politicians are voted for so they protect our safety and freedom, sending taurus to ukraine actively interfers here and IMO politicians who further deescalate should be banned from being in politics and go to prison for treason.

Because these are accusations without any basis and they are used to gag criticism. Kujat is a highly respected general and does not deserve conspiracy theories. They basically show that ukraine is in a pat situation and not winning this "war". Ukrainian General Zaluzhny said that publicly (he also got lots of criticism for doing that by selensky. selensky of course needs to maintain the image that they are progressing to get further funding) : https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/11/01/ukraines-commander-in-chief-on-the-breakthrough-he-needs-to-beat-russia 1. Ukraine drafted 500000 man because they are losing way more soldiers than Russia: https://www.ft.com/content/d7e95021-df99-4e99-8105-5a8c3eb8d4ef 2. They can not break through the barriers Russia set up with the current gear, that's why they are desperate for even stronger weapons (Taurus) 3. In order to break through the line Russia set they need proportionally 3x+ more soldiers because so many die in the front fire, it just so hard to break through and they don't have the personal nor the weaponery. 4. Russia mass produces drones that kill the tanks they got too easily. I never said it's not nuts what russia is doing to ukranians. I do think it's nuts to keep fighting when losing is inevitable. They could save ten thousands, hundred thousand lives when they get back to negotiating. Right now they are running into their deaths, which doesn't make sense. You have, in my opinion, a completely wrong assessment of the leadership in Russia. We have to agree to disagree on that. Putin IS willing to negotiate and negotiations were even quite successful before Ukraine was deterred by foreign forces that have significant investments in this war, as you already summarized. This is a misplaced analogy, and we are not in WW2 times anymore. Russia has nuclear weapons, the game changed. It is not a logical fallacy, it is an observation. You sit in your american basement and propose that other countries fight a war that could get them in significant danger while facing 0 of the consequences. What is "cowardly" about accepting that losing is inevitable and saving ones life? Absolutely nothing. Putin didnt want this to happen but the developments happening in Ukraine posed significant danger to russias security, hence the invasion. And again, you dont simply "significantly respond" to a country with nuclear weapons. So you are actively using WW2 analogies to this war in ukraine, that shows your motive and assesment of the size of this conflict and the willingness of how far you would go here. I fundamentally disagree with your assesment of the motives of the russian government, this is not japan in 1945. Negotiations about ukraines neutrality, armistice and resolution are realistic and possible. Do you know with how many soldiers putin came into ukraine? It was 200000 vs 400000 active ukranian soldiers with western weapons. How do you infer here, that his goal was "taking the whole of ukraine".