no_free_lunch
-
Posts
2,429 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by no_free_lunch
-
-
I don't even know where to start. They post what suits them. It comes off as just questioning the official narrative but as you said ZH just pushes a different narrative.
-
It is the right direction. People are scared and for legitimate reasons.
-
On 3/28/2023 at 6:44 PM, cubsfan said:
You can speculate what's in Putin's mind and what he might do - but you really have no idea. That's the bottom line. The Europeans have constantly underestimated Putin. For years. Even when he took Crimea 9 years ago - they STILL underestimated him. Now you have this mess. What will Putin do if he is allowed to take Ukraine?? You don't have a clue - only Putin knows that - NATO or no NATO.
Putin only understands weak leaders. So you spend the money, stop him now - because he only understands military strength IF someone is willing to use it. That's the language despots understand.
Not just Ukraine. A similar situation in Chechnya, Georgia, Kazakhstan. Anyone who thinks Russia has a better alternative should go live there. They won't of course, it's all talk. They want the safety and power of the west.
-
It's powerful but still seems more just a task augmentation. You still need to review what it does and give it directions. Very cool stuff but most human tasks are very diverse and require near perfection.
-
57 minutes ago, Dinar said:
Korean War - Chinese killed tens of thousands of Americans in Korea. Chinese invaded Korea when it was clear that communists were going to be destroyed. Vietnam by the way another example.
China is a good example of why we shouldn't forgive forget without regime change. Look at the contrast between Germany and Japan vs China. All we have done is strengthened our enemy and yes we benefitted along the way but at what cost. If it leads to a cold war both parties in the US will be doing some soul searching to make sure that NEVER happens again.
Castanza, I can't really find much to disagree with. The only point is around nuclear use. I feel they would have been used by now if it was truly on the table. It just doesn't make sense, this is not a mortal threat to Russia. Their nuclear use doctrine does require some legitimate threat to the country and a fight in Ukraine just doesn't hit that bar. Also note that mainstream western agencies were correct in calling for the invasion. We like to downplay them because of Iraq but they were bang on here. When they start sounding the nuclear alarm I will take it seriously. Until then imo, we can't be cowered, or we become slaves.
-
Can you give us the summary castanza?
-
23 hours ago, CGJB said:
I agree with you! I hope it's not the case, but my hopes and what I think will happen are two different things.
Well you literally just said you hoped Russian stocks trade again. I mean that is part of free speech so I defend your right to say that. Just know that if you talk against Russia in Russia you are fucked. Probably literally.
-
Over 100k deaths and we are worried about some gas pipeline. A pipeline to a country threatening nuclear annihilation on anyone who opposes it. It's worth following for an intellectual exercise but really what does it matter who did it. Russia, Ukraine, Poland, USA, it's one of those but it doesn't matter. We cant pretend we support Ukraine but pump up the economy of Russia.
To me the most meaningful item is whether this represents some type of narrative shift against Ukraine. Is the west starting to lose resolve and looking to cut. 1990s gulf war shiite uprising comes to mind. Hopefully not. At any rate that's what some Russia sources are saying. It's worth being aware of.
-
Im no expert but it appears to be a big problem xerxes. Nothing new either as the article suggests. I know in the Korean War they had a lot of issues as there was no investment in conventional weapons. Everyone assumed any future war would be nuclear, it wasn't. Up until last year the west assumed it will be only limited conflicts with smaller countries.
I would really like to see a comparison of US defense spending relative to China or Russia that factors in relative cost. I have to think these countries, China in particular get a lot more bang for the buck. Higher wages in the US affect everything, the cost of personnel to production wages.
This issue is really hitting the social media space the last day or so. Hopefully it triggers people. I'm trying to trigger people. Complacency will lead to loss. If we , the west, go around assuming that we are just the best we will be defeated. Guaranteed.
-
8 hours ago, Parsad said:
I imagine the U.S. reception of scientists, doctors, engineers and technology experts from every part of the world is what partly has lead to the exceptionality of the U.S. in the last 100 years...from Einstein and Oppenheimer to Elon Musk and Andy Grove.
https://startalkmedia.com/20-immigrants-refugee-scientists-who-made-america-greater-part-1/
The Chinese are simply spending more money on research and development. Diversity and racial quotas have nothing to do with it. Higher wages, more funding for research, less red tape for development, and easier immigration would probably continue to attract more doctors, engineers, scientists and other experts. Cheers!
Wages are higher for engineers in China than the US? I doubt it. Maybe higher in China relative to other wages in China.
I don't think it's just diversity, it's relative to other career paths, say being a unionized almost anything you make the same or more than an engineer or PhD scientist. Not just talking smack either, seen it.
North America is broken. Part of the problem is we don't want to admit it.
-
20 minutes ago, Dinar said:
Well, they are funding science and we are funding welfare!
In china, most of the senior government leaders have science or engineering backgrounds, so I have read. In the US it's a bunch of lawyers, actors and less.
-
6 hours ago, shhughes1116 said:
you are suggesting that Russia is out-producing conventional munitions? As in, they are producing more than the West?Please provide a source for that statement, because it contradicts what is and has been widely known about the Russian munitions industry.
At this point, most Russian munition production is “re-processing” of existing munitions that have reached the end of their usable life. Their ability to produce new munitions is pretty limited, especially 152mm and 122mm shells. Producing artillery shells is deceivingly hard.
It's widely reported, even by Ukrainian sources. The ones I follow on telegram. However here is one link, not sure of the source, just a Google result.
I will restate though and say that Russia is outfiring Ukraine. It's possible they are drawing down inventory. I can't say for certain it's all production.
One more link:
According to Estonia’s math, a sevenfold increase is needed in output capacity among European suppliers to reach a production rate of 175,000 shells per month, up from 20,000-25,000 now. That would put Ukraine on a path within six months to replace the estimated 60,000-210,000 shells currently fired by its forces every month.
For comparison, Russian artillery averages 20,000-60,000 shells fired per day, according to the Estonian paper.
-
11 hours ago, aws said:
How do you guys feel about floating rate treasuries? Current yield is just over 5% and they can float upward if rates rise. Never really looked into them before but they seem like they should offer the highest yield unless you assume there will be substantial rate cuts within two years.
I own Canadian floats via ETf. Yield around 4%, maybe a touch higher. It's where I keep some cash buffer. Not exciting but decent safe spot.
-
Ukraine has foreign volunteers too. More and more. You have to actually be selected, require combat experience. They are ok for now on manpower.
Conventional munitions are still an issue. Russia is out producing substantially and I read that it matters. For now.
Nato needs to really push on smart but CHEAP munitions. Need the equivalent of Moores law on that stuff. Drones with basic sensors and autonomous can be built for $1000-3000, that kind of thing in scale is needed.
-
Some random notes from xerxes vid.
- Germany and France have to take some blame for standing down in 2014. NATO as well. This fed into Putins logic.
- failure of RU Intel pre invasion
- half of RU armor lost due to mechanical failure. Too high even given conditions. "unprecedented"
- weak RU leadership constant
- RU not living up to their own combined arms doctrine
- Ukr receiving exceptional Intel, frequently from the west, providing significant edge
- Ukraine ability to target logistics depots and commanders
- Defense of bakhmut may have been a Ukraine error. However many variables.
- Ukraine success in Kharkov and Kherson do not represent full scale defeat of a Russia force
- benefits of ukr foreign troops
- importance of manpads and antitank missiles in bunting Russian advance
- Mlrs critical role, targeting logistics
- difficult to relate to any conflicts in his experience
- largest conflict for west since ww2
- new tech weapons , drones, cyber attacks, ai, etc. not playing as large a role as thought previously
- still require conventional arms
- conventional artillery still very effective. Russia has significant advantage here.
-putin has no choice but a counter offensive. Stalemate and casualties unacceptable.
- likely more casualties to Ukraine to date
- strengthening of NATO, Finland and Sweden joining, are seen as losses by RU
- increases to west defense spending a result of the war also a loss
- Putin can't go backwards given these conditions
- objective likely to secure all donbass and south coast. Cut Ukraine from sea.
- possible to take down Ukraine government if losses significant
- Rus boosting manpower in spite of losses
- Russia boosting conventional munitions
- likelihood of some Russia successes. Possibly significant.
- putins goals will be to undermine nato further if victory in Ukraine. E.g. securing corridor to Kalingrad. Will NATO respond?
- question raised, "ukr is corrupt, why help them? Find political solution." He responds that it's a bigger war, a war against the west. If RU wins it sets a precedent. Undermines the west's authority.
- Defeat here emboldens China. If US can't win here , why would they help Taiwan.
- Iran and North korea are listed as learning from this as well.
- comparison to 1930s appeasement
- should supply Ukraine with what they need to resist
- his goal would be to push RU back to pre invasion borders
- Crimea cannot be retake by Ukraine
That's all I got from it. Definitely worth watching.
Cubsfan, I think the analyst in the interview broadly agrees with you.
-
I would say both parties have a lot of blame here. Many republicans are now full 1930s head in the sand isolationists which is a huge reversal. However republicans are the ones traditionally backing and serving in the military so I don't know that the US would be able to give the defense transfers it does without their prior support. Democrats are committed to defending Ukraine, mostly, but then their ESG and economic policies are at odds with fighting a sustained war with Russia. It's bad either way.
-
I sometimes will hold broad index funds James. I only do it when I'm short on ideas and afraid to hold cash. For the past 6 months it's been easier to find stuff and so I don't know if I own any etfs today.
-
I did not listen to the putin speech today but did read highlights. It is notable for things that did not happen. No general mobilization, no declaration of war, status quo more or less.
The half committed nature of the whole thing is perhaps telling, there must not be as much support at home as the pumpers would suggest. Surely if he really wanted to win this there would be stronger rhetoric and commitment. As is, they will lose this over time. I think RU holds Crimea and probably the other ore 2022 breakaway areas but eventually loses the other gains.
I caught one quote from putin about the importance of private markets and that they played a role in buttressing Russias economy over the past year. I assume this is a pitch to RU investors that the water is fine and they won't be nationalized. However it also ties into my prior point that perhaps the options here are limited for Putin.
I feel if the west can keep their resolve then Russia will strangle itself on this effort while in the West what, maybe our taxes go up by 0.5%. Meh, I can take it.
-
Ukraine is able to hold Russia off due to the weapons inflow from the west combined with their own bravery. You remove either one of those and it would be over. Support is definitely still needed.
-
I just wonder change, if any of this is really existential for the regime. They dont even CLAIM it to be as such. The RU argument is more, a failure here could ultimately lead to an existential risk. Rhyming a bit with US position on Korea back in the 50s.
On your question around sentiment in Russia, obviously I don't know but they seem to have a hard time recruiting. Conscription, prisoner soldiers, emigration, these aren't things you see when there is patriotic support. I think the people supporting it don't have to actually fight.
-
Bought some of biotechnology company Amgen AMGN. This company has performed stellar over the last 10, 20, 30 years. I don't fully understand the business but they seem to have a small tech moat. It trades around 14x 2023 earnings , quite reasonable. I've traded in and out of this one for over a decade and while it's not crazy cheap i think this is a good price and better than the alternatives I'm seeing.
Also i continue to sell things, meta for instance and build up cash.
-
Wabuffalo, they can't default but can they not get into an inflationary spiral? They print to cover the deficit, which leads to higher inflation and rates, which leads to higher deficits..
-
5 hours ago, UK said:
As pro Ukraine as I am, I could care less about Crimea. It has a history of being Russian. An offensive on it is more a tool to divert Russian defenses.
I think it would be reasonable to surrender Crimea in exchange for a return of the other areas and peace.
-
2 minutes ago, Castanza said:
"Don't trust the CIA, but trust what Russian Propaganda says".....
I never said to trust Russia propaganda but to listen to it and I'm not going to play childish word games with you.
Background story on Zerohedge
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by no_free_lunch
This summarizes it nicely spek. I have followed it since 06. During the depths of the gfc, as I recall they were not telling people to invest. I think near the absolute troughs they may have changed tune a bit but I didn't see any buy and hold calls. The sp500 is up like 5 fold since then. The opportunity cost was insane.
As we know , a broken clock is correct eventually...