rkbabang

Agreed. The problem with investing in China is ownership. If I understand it correctly you don't really own a share of the actual company when you buy a Chinese stock the way you do if you own a share of a company in any western democracy. You own some shell corp outside of China with some complicated legalese that gives you some rights to the earnings of the company. But the CCP could just change its policy and make all of those shares worthless overnight. It can completely screw over all foreign shareholders in all Chinese companies any time it wishes. That fact coupled with what Spek wrote above, just makes any Chinese investment off limits for me. I am ok with some political risk, I hold Petrobras for example, but the political risk in China is just far too high for me to be comfortable with.

I like Ghiradelli, but my new favorite is Trader Joe's 85% Uganda Chocolate. It's amazing, even better than Ghiradelli IMHO. https://www.traderjoes.com/home/products/pdp/066292

AI has always been 20 years away for something like 70 or 80 years and all of the sudden huge leaps seem to be being made now. Hopefully fusion is next.

Sold my NVDA and bought more JOE

You just have to ignore those people. Most people are pessimists. Study after study shows that the average person thinks that things were better at some point in the past and the world is going to shit. It isn't a surprise that they always think the market will drop from whatever point it is at today and if it has recently gone up it won't last. This is why optimists are not only happier, but richer.

I think the press is going to start trying to change the narrative on Buffett and turn him into some kind of villain because he never completely towed the ESG line and more importantly he’s rich so obviously he’s evil and did bad things. You watch, mark my words 10 years after he’s gone he will not be looked on with respect by the next generation. No industry leader will dare not do what their expected of ESG wise if even Buffett can be turned into a villain. A good book on ESG that I’m currently reading is “Capitalist Punishment”. I highly recommend it. Capitalist Punishment: How Wall Street Is Using Your Money to Create a Country You Didn't Vote For https://a.co/d/hgiy09W

Amen. He just can’t believe that there’s no absolute arbiter of good and bad. He keeps saying so it’s just your opinion and I keep saying yes, you’ve got it. Over and over again.

I saw this on twitter yesterday. I'm skeptical. The way I look at it is that microsoft loses nothing by saying if you generate electricity with your fusion plant we will buy it. https://twitter.com/Helion_Energy/status/1656283665398403072?s=20

I completely agree with you here. I followed a similar path and actually did think for a while that Big-lier was the "next Buffett". Googling for more info on Sadar was how I found the MSN groups version of this board back in 2008. It might be that there will be another Buffett someday, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't think there will be anyone comparable to Buffett again in my lifetime.

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy." --Donald Trump If a woman let's you do it then it is not a violation of the non-aggression principle to grab her by the pussy. I have no problem with sexual contact between consenting adults. If he broke any laws and was not punished that is a problem with our legal system not my values.

In what way did he violate the non-aggression principle? Did he kidnap his wife and hold her hostage? Did he force people to buy or sell property to him at gunpoint? I'm not getting you? I think capitalism is fine. (edit: obviously running for president is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but he had his wife and billions before he ran for office)

I don't get why you think it is silly to want to live in a world where those that are aggressive are shot by their intended victims. That is the world I want to live in. There is a reason the gun is called an equalizer.

Sure you are correct and many people DO have this morality. You've basically just described the ruling class in a socialist society (sit back and have others do work for you). But logic tells me that if everyone had that morality the world would be a place less to my liking. It is physically possible for everyone to not aggress on everyone else, but it isn't possible for every human on earth to sit back and have other humans do all of their work for them. Common sense says that if something isn't generalizable then it can't work as a general rule. So if everyone can't be the rulers, there will be conflict. A world of constant conflict would be less desirable to me.

Slavery violates the nonagression principle. Sure it would be possible for someone to choose to listen to everything I tell them to do and work for me endlessly without pay, but that person wouldn't be a slave, because they would be free to change their mind at any time and just get up and leave. A slave is someone who will be aggressed against if they refuse to work or try to leave.

That is what I assumed as well, that it was a Fidelity imposed limitation. It doesn't bother me much though because the price I get is often a few cents cheaper than my limit and the way I use options a few cents in one direction or the other doesn't matter much. I tend to buy long dated out of the money options. If a few cents mattered then I was wrong on my thesis for buying them.

On Fidelity I can place a limit order only in $0.05 increments, but it is sometimes filled at a better price not divisible by $0.05

Reason isn't random. Take a course in logic, there is nothing random about logic and reasoning. I derive all of my moral and political beliefs from one 1st principle. Sometimes called the Nonaggression Principle. Basically: No one has a right to initiate force or fraud, and no one has the right to delegate the initiation of force or fraud to others. That isn't something handed down to me by a god, I had no vision in a dark cave, I didn't find it on a golden tablet, no angel came to me with the good news. It is just something humans made up and I think it would be a better world if everyone lived according to it. Maybe the fact that I think like this is just some random wiring in my brain. I could be like 99% of people and think that delegating the initiation of force to a government is just fine. The wiring in my brain might be somewhat random, but certainly guided somewhat by genetics and evolution. And I'm just fine with that. I am who I am and I think the way I think. I've changed my mind about stuff before and I may change my mind again. There are no absolute truths. I only like the nonaggression principle because if people obeyed it that would create a world more to my liking.

I could have been 7 feet tall, I could have had red hair, I could have been gay or trans, I could have been born a lot of different ways, but I happened to have been born the way I was. Yes, that is just random chance. I exist and your god doesn't, so yes I think that I am more correct than your imaginary friend.

Probably a few hundred shares of BRKB. I wrote 4/21 $320 covered calls about a month ago, it's 321+ right now. It's in my IRA so no capital gains taxes, so I'll probably buy back my shares on the next down day.

Well, yeah, violent crime has been decreasing steadily for 30+ years, it can go up quite a bit and still be lower than it was in the early 90s.

I've never understood why, for the most part, people who understand the benefits of capitalism and support small government and property rights are for the most part bigots and the people who celebrate personal freedoms are for the most part collectivists of some stripe (socialist, democratic socialist, commies, etc). What's even rarer then trans people is people who support all forms of human freedom. And unfortunately that's no joke.

Protect "the children" from what? Roving gangs of trans kidnappers? The anti-gay conservatives said the exact same thing a generation ago about homosexuals, and two generations ago about brown people. Protect the children my ass. I spent more of an effort to protect my kids from religious conservatism than I did from gays and trans people. In fact we looked for opportunities to introduce our kids to people who were different. Both our kids turned out straight and non-trans (like 90+% of the population does), but they certainly knew that we'd have accepted them regardless of how they chose to live.

When I see people saying things like "those same people are the same people" and making it sound like this is some monolithic group with all the same goals it reminds me of 30 years ago when I first started paying attention to politics the conservative boogeyman was homosexuals with the "gay agenda". Oh my god the gays all want homosexual sex to be considered normal and they are telling our children this. They want the ruin marriage by being able to get married! It all sounded like bigotry to me back then and this all sounds like bigotry to me now. Same thing a generation or two earlier with "mixed-race" relationships. History doesn't repeat, but it sure rhymes.

Those are different issues. I agree with keeping biological men out of women's sports for safety issues and not giving drugs and surgery to minors for the same reason minors shouldn't be allowed to get tattoos. Sure there are nuts on every side, but many conservatives are nuts in the other direction.