Palantir

I don't see why Iran having nukes is such a great threat. I highly doubt Iran has designs of launching them on us, and I believe a stronger Iran is an important bulwark against KSA. We should continue to work to stop more nations from getting nukes, but I don't believe fixating on Iran is a worthwhile goal.

How do you know US intelligence could not figure out whether Iraq had nukes or not? Furthermore, if Iran does get organized and more powerful, so what? I'd be happy with Iran balancing out KSA.

Are you valuing MLAB? My issue is there's so much expenditure on acquisitions, your future levels of earnings/cash flow are real high, but your current yield is pretty low due to high rates of reinvestment. No different from valuing AMZN or a firm that's buying back stock aggressively.

I don't really understand the long case for coal, with cheap gas, plants will be moving over to NG, which diminishes the market, exporting it is a possibility, but if prices are low, how feasible can it be to export coal to China given that they have coal reserves of their own? We haven't even gotten to the potentially heavy environmental regulations that could come up. Met coal does sound interesting tho.

You should buy a Surface Pro, you are pretty much their target market. It is a tablet, it is a laptop, and if you connect it to a monitor, you have a desktop. I would get the one with 8MB Ram.

You are being handed a job as a PM at age 25? That's awesome.

I agree with oddball, why are financial success and professional success mutually exclusive? It seems that many seem to look down on "sales", but I think that is the core of building a business, not being a mythical "capital allocator".

I am a free cash flow investor. I invest in anything that pays me lots of free cash flow. It can be a little microcap like RSKIA, giants like GOOG or fast growing tech stocks like RHT. Frankly my mental models are limited, but I am working to expand it.

Also pro-US export.

wow 25k?

The quantity of money injected into the system is replacing what was lost earlier during credit contraction. It does not necessarily mean that the aggregate money supply has increased. Furthermore, if V increases, it should be very easy to soak up liquidity given the size of the Fed balance sheet. And if V does increase, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be a giant spring, it can be a gradual increase in velocity.

I agree with everything you said. Regarding the bolded, I agree there are vested interests in selling gold investment products, but I think that is secondary to this criticism being 100% politically motivated - the usual "Evil government (and Obama) is debasing the dollar and inflating us into poverty!".

Except that the "increase in money supply" is a cause of inflation, not inflation itself. Inflation really is about a general rise in price levels.

So if this bull market doesn't "burst", we're not in a bubble then? whew.

What is a "bubble"?

I just heard an ad for Vistaprint on the radio...might have to look at this.

I'm heavily skeptical Israel has the ability to strike Iran. Think about it, where would they strike? Irans nuclear facilities are spread throughout the country, and in some cases in difficult to reach locations. To do real damage, they'd need to carry out multiple airstrikes over hostile airspace far away from home soil, and I don't believe they can.

Michael burry.

Given the bolded, why do you want to play it? :) (serious question)

Why would you be preparing for an "inflationary environment"? It seems bizarre to base an investment case on "beating inflation".

There is always something attractive somewhere. No excuses, play like a champ.

I was looking at it too.... I like its cannibalistic tendencies.

So what? The goal of the Fed is not to protect the "saver", or is it a prime policy goal. It is concerned with macroeconomic stability, and savers are collateral damage.

The Fed's job is really a lot more expansive than the dual mandate. Technically, it is there to preserve prices and jobs, but really, the deeper reason for its existence lies in its ability to act as a lender of last resort.

OMG. This guy doesn't grasp the fact that consumption bundles today are very different from those in Jimmy Carter's time. This really makes my head hurt. Then he doesn't seem to grasp that some types of price rises, especially those linked to specific commodity input costs, can be very ephemeral, which is very different from long term core inflation. On top of that we need to read through the typical WSJ attack on Obama and the Fed. So tiring.