Luke

The US also didnt hate the congo, but the leadership didnt do what they wanted so they had to kill him and remove him.

Wouldnt have been the first time: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/17/patrice-lumumba-50th-anniversary-assassination When the atrocities related to brutal economic exploitation in Leopold's Congo Free State resulted in millions of fatalities, the US joined other world powers to force Belgium to take over the country as a regular colony. And it was during the colonial period that the US acquired a strategic stake in the enormous natural wealth of the Congo, following its use of the uranium from Congolese mines to manufacture the first atomic weapons, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. With the outbreak of the cold war, it was inevitable that the US and its western allies would not be prepared to let Africans have effective control over strategic raw materials, lest these fall in the hands of their enemies in the Soviet camp. It is in this regard that Patrice Lumumba's determination to achieve genuine independence and to have full control over Congo's resources in order to utilise them to improve the living conditions of our people was perceived as a threat to western interests. To fight him, the US and Belgium used all the tools and resources at their disposal, including the United Nations secretariat, under Dag Hammarskjöld and Ralph Bunche, to buy the support of Lumumba's Congolese rivals , and hired killers. Trying to prevent Independence of the Kongo, the country with the richest mineral depot of africa... You cant even make this shit up...

And if the aristocrats that control the economy get lazy and decadent. Nothing good will follow: (Roman Empire) Official cruelty, supporting extortion and corruption, may also have become more commonplace.[54] While the scale, complexity, and violence of government were unmatched,[55] the emperors lost control over their whole realm insofar as that control came increasingly to be wielded by anyone who paid for it.[56] Meanwhile, the richest senatorial families, immune from most taxation, engrossed more and more of the available wealth and income[57][58] while also becoming divorced from any tradition of military excellence. One scholar identifies a great increase in the purchasing power of gold, two and a half fold from 274 to the later fourth century. This may be an index of growing economic inequality between a gold-rich elite and a cash-poor peasantry.[59] Moral crisis "Formerly, says Ammianus, Rome was saved by her austerity, by solidarity between rich and poor, by contempt for death; now she is undone by her luxury and greed (6 Amm. xxxi. 5. 14 and). Innumerable are the statements of Church Fathers that stigmatize the immorality of both the nobles and the poor. Salvianus backs up Ammianus by affirming that greed (avaritia) is a vice common to nearly all Romans".[62]

Quoting from one of the great tencent write ups posted by a while back @Spekulatius This is the approach of the CCP. Leaders are groomed, sometimes from late teens, to climb the ladder within the party. Looking through their resumes, these are well-educated technocrats from China’s elite families, much like the way a CEO might climb the ranks from engineer to executive. These top families within China own or exert control over most all companies and strategic assets. The executive leadership of most companies are tightly interwoven with the CCP. Importantly, this is not a trend “to-come”. This is how business has been run for the last decade. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/cpc/centralcommittee/index7.html All of them with University degrees, multiple with MBAs, Doctor of economics, Enginnering degrees etc. Cant be that stupid... Why i think China will prosper better with their societies< The fundamental difference between “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and Western-style democratic capitalism lies in the origins of their worldviews: Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism and Judeo-Christianity

Talking about these problems. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/02/leonard-leo-federalist-society-00094761 Leonard Leo, who helped to choose judicial nominees for former President Donald Trump, obtained a historic $1.6 billion gift for his conservative legal network via an introduction through the Federalist Society, whose tax status forbids political activism. Leo’s dual roles have served to attract one key backer — Trump. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump promised that his nominees would “all [be] picked by the Federalist Society.” Yet, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation, the list of Supreme Court nominees that Trump drew from in creating a conservative supermajority was devised by Leo alone. Neither the organization’s top brass nor its board directors had any official role in crafting it. Judges for life, handpicked by someone receiving lots of money.

From that point of view, the skepticism against the US and the tight control of authoritarian governments on their countries gets more understandable.

Recently our Minister President of Bavaria met with De Santis, obviously the most popular german parties are also more or less controlled by elite capital, to a less degree than the US though. The left party completely collapsed as is the case in the US, right wing parties on the rise (AFD, alternative for germany, bought and paid for>https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-unterstuetzung-die-spur-zu-milliardaer-august-von-finck-a-1240069.html)

China knows this, in order to become economically stronger than the US, opening up their country to western ,,democracies,, would just lead to disadvantages and US control, like it is the case with Japan, Germany, Britain etc.

Just to add it here too, just posted it in the india thread. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B# Clearly, when one holds constant net interest-group alignments and the preferences of affluent Americans, it makes very little difference what the general public thinks. The probability of policy change is nearly the same (around 0.3) whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favor a proposed policy change (refer to the top panel of figure 1). Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence. What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

China, Russia etc know very well that if they would implement a democracy, US capital and intelligence would just come into the country and try to install leadership that does what the US wants. Thats why the US hates China, not because they are hurting people in concentration camps but because they can not be controlled. So whenever i hear the hate on authoritarian leadership, i often cringe because we have exactly that as well in western nations, just hidden. Its already bought and paid for.

@Spekulatius Do you think the US is a democracy too? I feel like we are getting blinded by this word. I remember this study by Princeton> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B# Clearly, when one holds constant net interest-group alignments and the preferences of affluent Americans, it makes very little difference what the general public thinks. The probability of policy change is nearly the same (around 0.3) whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favor a proposed policy change (refer to the top panel of figure 1). Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence. What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

Yes agreed I think in FIHs case the discount should even be more narrow since they also own private companies unavailable to us. Pershing Square Holdings can just be cloned and bought directly. I guess over time with good performance the market will take notice. If not also fine. Does anybody know how the tax rules for this vehicle are? Do they pay taxes when their stakes issue dividends? How is that situation in India?

Well said

What i meant is that if Fairfax India keeps compounding nicely, i think the book value will get back to something around 1x book from the current 0.7x book. So we wont only capture the book value gains after fees but also the closure of the discount. I hope my logic is understandable. So for me, buying this for way less than book gives possible extra returns, if India and Fairfax India gets in favor after outperforming in a decade or so.

Assuming India as a country lifts off and the picks in Fairfax India continue to compound well over the next decade, the discount should close, we get the closure to 1x Book and the Book Value return. Fees will eat up returns of the closure to book value so one could say at current valuation and closure in year 10, we are getting the pure returns by Fairfax India for free. Looks like a pretty nice bet.

Fairfax-India-AGM-2023 (1).pdf For some reason i have trouble finding this on the internet again so i will post it here just in case they removed the presentation. In case somebody didnt have a look, its a nice overview of FIH.

Opened a position in Fairfax India!

Yeah saw that, fascinating...

+1

Yep, i think nobody really knows at the moment. Waiting for official statements by russian government.

Questionable how this new regime would position themselves, could become even worse. It will definitely shake things up good or bad.

Incredible development, wouldnt be surprised if many soldiers who are tired of the war join these movements. Anything can happen really but this war takes one hell of a turn right now. @sleepydragon Yeah, China is watching and so much is going wrong for russia, taiwan looking more and more unattractive...

Incredible whats going on, been listening to the news for the last few hours. In german state media they interviewed some military expert who was quite serious about the size of this threat. Military is tired and weakened, Prigoschin having respect by many, much better trained combatants than the average russian soldiers. This is taking a very interesting path...

Anybody here into classical music? Having a nice listen at the moment, all time favourite and out of this world:

Also, quite ridiculous how much money was spent on this rescue mission. If I go to Everest, to get rescue, I have to pay for expensive private insurance companies and have to hope they don't just leave me on the mountain. Then we have OceanGate, a fraudulent company, taking huge risks for tourism playing with the lives of a few billionaires and the taxpayer pays for 5 days of fuel for airplanes, Armies and what not to get these people out. WTF? If someone decides to go to Everest, he has to pay for the consequences or hell be left alone on the mountain. The same should count for OceanGate and Pakistani billionaires. I hope their families have to cover this bill at least...makes it very difficult to empathize with them for me. Actuall homeless population starving in some countries, lack of healthcare etc and they spend a couple of millions+ to save a few idiots who took risks to see a boat on 4000meter depth...!