wachtwoord

Great investment thesis, Greg. [And from here, please don't expect me to participate in this topic.] Well Greg is wrong there but the feeling he's basing the decision on is real. What he should do (if he really wants to put "who knows?" to rest) is do what he does when he decides to invest in a stock. He wrote on this board he looks at stocks and looks for a reason that makes it uninvestable so he can stop looking at it and move to the next company. That is easy to do here too (easier than with stocks, because the crap is so much more on the surface). Just look for insurmountable problems. Examples: Problems with the initial distribution (pre-mining or the founders continue to assign part of the mining reward to themselves for "development"). Problems with being centralized rather than distributed (what is the added value of a centralized crypto, either by organization or technically?) Is it even a cryptocurrency? Is there mining? Is it a token? is it a "stable coin" (aka unprotected, non-yielding loan to a not trustable 3rd party) Do the idea behind it, and the differences with Bitcoin make any sort of logical sense? Just those 4 questions will eliminate nearly all of them. Of course no-one has to do this, but saying it's unknowable is like saying it's unknowable which stocks are investable and which are not. Simply untrue (unless you take the statement literally: you can rarely know anything ever with absolute certainty).

The court decision is outrageous as her swaps were done before the rules banning it were active. In non-banana jurisdictions there's a little thing called legal certainty. Then again the UK once post facto changed the statute of limitations and prostecuted people for (old) crimes on the basis of that.

It's easy to waste money if it's not your own money you're wasting but money you took from others. It's also easy to be popular by handing out money you took from others. Politicians are the parasite class of society.

He'll call in sick for 2 weeks lol! Not more childish than labour has been behaving.

Zerohedge and Mike Sherlock - you need better sources. Their data is correct. Human caused climate change doesn't exist, it's all normal "natural" cycles mostly caused by the sun. Mainstream "scientific" evidence is just a bunch of scammers/incompetents extrapolating a rising temperature from an extremely small sample (last century) while ignoring the context of the milenia before that. On top of that they blindly conclude humans are the cause, without presenting any evidence (not even faulty evidence). All politically influenced "science" becomes unscientific. In the current age that's economics (Keynsianism), climate change and studies to do with minorities or women. In the Middle Ages the church had political control of much "scientific" research as well. I would be called a "flat Earth denier" and "Earth is the center of the universe denier" back then I guess. In the future people will look back at the politically influenced science from today with the same shame as we do now for those examples. So there is no doubt that current climate changed is influenced by the liberal agenda, however as mentioned earlier, if one had a discovery that suggested with a good deal of certainty that climate change was caused by factors other than humans, the researcher would immediately become famous, potentially win a Nobel Prize, and journals would be stepping over themselves to get it published. No they wouldn't. There's lots of (published AND statistically significant) research the sun cycles have high correlation with the historic temperature fluctuations on Earth. This not ground braking or new. It's just impopular right now because it doesn't help the socialistic large government political agenda.

Zerohedge and Mike Sherlock - you need better sources. Their data is correct. Human caused climate change doesn't exist, it's all normal "natural" cycles mostly caused by the sun. Mainstream "scientific" evidence is just a bunch of scammers/incompetents extrapolating a rising temperature from an extremely small sample (last century) while ignoring the context of the milenia before that. On top of that they blindly conclude humans are the cause, without presenting any evidence (not even faulty evidence). All politically influenced "science" becomes unscientific. In the current age that's economics (Keynsianism), climate change and studies to do with minorities or women. In the Middle Ages the church had political control of much "scientific" research as well. I would be called a "flat Earth denier" and "Earth is the center of the universe denier" back then I guess. In the future people will look back at the politically influenced science from today with the same shame as we do now for those examples.

Using images and simple language so even the lazy confirmist collectivists can follow: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-warming-fraud-exposed-pictures

I think you used CSU rather than CSU.to ;) He wrote that in his blog.

Indeed, I read is as: Premise: because of this and this change Apple's income will seem lower on the books. Conclusion: This lowers the value of Apple Even if one accepts the premise, the conclusion in just ridiculous. Unless they mean to conclude that the price will go down because the market will not understand the effect from the premise. But they just reported this in mainstream media .... ???

1. Looks like it 2. Yen is much weaker than CHF. Also there's likely more demand for these.

True deflation is impossible as central banks never shrink the monetary base. Deflation as Keynsians tried to peddle the term for the last decades (increase of purchasing power relative to goods) is possible in the short term through market folly. When that happens negative interest rates still are unnatural as you could (or at least should be able to) just hold cash without lending it away. In my opinion this is just signs of the current system crumbling. They'll just replace it with a new system though (just like they did with Bretton Woods) and before too long most will have all but forgotten about it.

On overall basis, I do, actually. The question is if this is warranted, or I'm naive. Perhaps it's not only about the Danish legal system, but also about that I live a place, where we have some kind of a "dual legal" system - the legal system and The Law of Jante. Parts of the Danish press practise The Law of Jante zealously. Here is a hilarious example. ["You can't speed up a Tesla when it's standing still" and "I haven't filed a police report for violence against me by the officers because they were two against one." [ : - D]] The real problem is that I may be severely biased here because I forget about such cases [related to equality for the law] in the long run - simply because I don't give a damn about them [like example above], and because I haven't really seen some appalling evidence that there exist exemptions from equality for the Law. There is a risk that the casuality in this line of thinking may be logically flawed. So, thank you for asking, wachtwoord. Thanks for answering. I read that Junte law thing before and it's against everything I stand for. It clearly places collectivism (and ostracizing standing out or being special) over individualism and I despise that. Is this actually taken seriously? (I may be missing something important here as reading the other article with Google translate and it didn't make much sense at all how the wealthy man defended himself). I don't trust our (Dutch) legal system very much. Judges often make (large) mistakes (false convictions in criminal cases are not acceptable AT ALL), are above criticism and give ridiculously low punishments for heavy crimes (murder, aussault, rape etc) even though the law allows far higher punishments (how can you give a sentence less than the crime?) On the other side of the coin the US system is clearly worse. First off the prosecutor there gets rewarded per conviction so is motivated (and will!) try to convict even if he knows full well the suspect is innocent (even if he has evidence that shows that, which he will then withhold). The system in Holland does not force the prosecutor to prosecute unless he believes that to be warranted and sharing evidence that hurts his case (and helps the suspect) is mandatory. You'll often see cases where prosecutors ask the judge to dismiss the case. Secondly, while settlements are everywhere, in the US these are extraordinarily popular. People are told to confess (even if not guilty) and take a low punishement or go to trial and threathened with far higher punishments. Do I really have to explain to a forum of intelligent people how that will inevitably lead to a great many false confessions out of fear? Confessions out of mental torture should not be admissable in court.

Do you trust yours? :/

Institutions that hold lots of "cash" (e.g. banks) have to store it somewhere. They think (on aggregate) a guarenteed loss on the bonds is superior to the alternatives. Additionally, the rates are really only this low becausecof central bank inteference (primarily QE). People need to accept we don't have a free market (in fact, at least since the inception of central banks, we never did).

Sounds fair. If the city thinks its worth X surely they'd love buying it with 30% discount! ;)

Two "jammed" owners of comparable property should buy each other's property (swap) at a low (or at least realistic) valuation. Or would that be unlawful?

I would imagine has more experience than most putting up with shady guys. He'll just bide his time as this too shall pass.

Because of being incompetent? Perhaps its a way of shifting money around in a tax effecient way with plausible deniability. It certainly seems a bit on the shady side.

Very true, the simplest solution meaning the one with the fewest low probability assumptions, not just the simplest to state such as "god did it" or "it's all a simulation" Do scientists not also do this by saying "time did it"? We just assume given large amounts of time that something has/will happen based on mathematical probability. They all seem equally arbitrary to me. It also doesn't benefit science to simply ignore the possibility of a God or a Simulation. It doesn't necessarily help it either. I think it's ignorant when people like Dawkins say there absolutely is no God. I much prefer people like Sam Harris who are open to the idea, but don't let it deflect them from scientific empirical study. Science does not find truth, it approaches it. I want to briefly respond to this as well. There are very few things that are impossible (most things we call impossible are simply highly unlikely to the extreme). God, when defined as "an omnipotent entity that exists within our universe" is an example of something that is impossible, see the omnipotence paradox (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox ) However if we change the definition to "nigh-allpowerful" or speak of an entity outside our universe (as no observation outside our universe is possible) we revert to highly improbable (due to the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit)

I enjoyed reading your reasoning based on inversion and fully agree. The only way any of this changes is if faster than light travel is possible in our universe or some way around it such as intact wormhole traversion of matter or information. At this point that seems unlikely though. Thanks for the factual correction. I was an order of magnitude off on when life developed on earth it seems :)

Yes you are exactly correct in the paragraph above. The conclusion I draw is that we have not been visited, or at least we are no longer being visited. My personal opinion based on nothing concrete is that intelligent life is rarer than most scientists think and we may be the only intelligent species in the Milkyway right now. There are surely others in other galaxies (there are just too many of them to think otherwise), but we may have this one to ourselves. The problem is both space and time. First off space is vaste and for two worlds to communicate or even visit they need to develop a reasonable distance from each other. Remember, for now we believe the maximum space of matter or information is one light year per year. This is extremely limitting and makes it quite unlikely already for intelligent life that developed independantly from each other to meet. Now add time to the equation. The period of time that there has been life on Earth is miniscule a few 100 million years versus the 14 billion years the universe is old (1.4%). Of those few 100 million years humans have existed for roughly 200.000 (0.2%, so 0.0028% of the age of the universe). And the we have only discovered using radio signals 130 years ago or so, space travel 50 years ago. So to meet the alien civilization needs to not only be close enough but also reach this level of civilization at the exact time we are at that level as well. The odds of that are tremendously small, even with millions of different uncorrelated species developing in the universe throughout its existance thus far. And the I did not even consider physical or psychological reasons that make learning of each others' existance impossible or unlike (eg the inability to decern the other entity as a life form, no desire the explore, the knowledge that staying hidden is much safer due to the likely existance of von-neumann machines etc). People that say there must be no life in the universe because we have not observes it are highly uninformed. It's actually quite likely there is and has been and still we will never know.

France is the worst ruled European country. Venezuelan stocks will perform very well at some point as well on a short time frame. Direct consequence of hitting rock bottom, not of it being a good place to invest.

Doesn't need to be local. I'm not from the us and simply found a US library that allows (free) signup which allows online signup. Did this years ago to read Morningstar.

Why are they IPO'ing now? Do they think they reached their ceiling, do they need investments and can't borrow cheaply enough or do insiders simply want to cash out and diversify their risk?

Thanks for the report! Now I really want to read an update (post mortem): how did the margins, valuations and metrics evolve over the 5 year period? Can the difference between the prediction (-1.1% p/a) and reality (+9.8% p/a) be explained by variance or is the model invalidated? What are the chances of either? Did they update their model? Edit: For anyone interested they speak about it in their 2018Q4 report: https://www.gmo.com/europe/research-library/and-the-winner-wast-bills/