flesh

I’m not maga, just want the deficit at 3% if gdp and wars to end. However your comment is premature, also, you’re assuming goals that aren’t goals. I’ll be looking at results over time and not much else. Not temporary feelings. All the haters need to ask themselves now, what if anything would they consider a win. Write it down. Look at it in a couple years. There will be some and of course there won’t be because different goals.

See below. The problem is insofar as we know is multi faceted. Caffeine works better after adenosine levels have come down. Also sleep studies show some correlations with better sleep if you wait 90 minutes. There’s strong evidence that drinking more than two shots espresso equivalent for an average male affects sleep quality. Also very strong evidence that drinking within 12 hours of sleep time does as well. The closer to sleep time of course it’s non linearly worse. I’ve been focused on optimizing sleep for about a year now… love espresso so had to get it dialed. anecdotally, I’ve found the above true. Also it helped reduce sluggishness later in the day. Also most have a habit of drinking when they wake and then needed more and they just are horribly out of rhythm but don’t know different. I have Brian Johnson’s nutty putty pudding recipe upon waking (with the nuts on the side so it’s a smoothie) and a tbsp of high polyphenol olive oil and w protein added and feel great. Double shot 90 minutes after waking. No more caffeine. Adenosine levels follow a natural cycle throughout the day and night, primarily influenced by sleep and wakefulness. Here’s how adenosine levels change during sleep and after waking: 1. Adenosine Levels During Sleep: • Throughout the night, adenosine levels gradually increase as a byproduct of brain activity and cellular processes. This buildup of adenosine is thought to promote sleepiness and the need for rest. • The more deeply you sleep, the higher the adenosine levels become. The longer the sleep period, the greater the adenosine buildup, which contributes to the feeling of “sleep debt” that needs to be recovered. 2. Adenosine Levels 1–2 Hours After Waking: • After waking, adenosine levels begin to decrease because the body starts using energy and processing the byproducts of the previous day’s brain activity. • 1 hour after waking: Adenosine levels are still relatively high but beginning to drop. You might still feel some sleepiness or grogginess at this point. • 2 hours after waking: Adenosine levels continue to decline and you’ll generally feel more alert, as the body’s natural wakefulness processes ramp up. By this point, your body has likely cleared a significant portion of adenosine, and the sleep inertia (grogginess) begins to dissipate. Drinking caffeine during the early stages of waking (especially within the first 30–60 minutes) may not have as potent an effect since adenosine levels are still relatively high. However, waiting a bit longer (like 90 minutes or so) allows adenosine levels to decrease, and this can make the caffeine more effective at enhancing alertness.

You want to find coffees 3rd party tested for toxins and mold. Costs more. Many coffee packed with anti nutrients. also you need to wait at least 1 hour after waking to drink it ideally 90 minutes. Limit to double shot espresso caffeine equivalent. Has to do with adenosine levels and actually benefitting from it. don’t drink any caffeine for 12 hours before bed, proven to disrupt deep sleep cycles.

Great article. I hope the result is Europe looking to balance the trade deficit and the usa being contented. I am concerned about free speech stuff in Europe. I think it’s obvious ai is instrumental in the future of any world leading countries. Europe regulations will likely stifle and has stifled its own prospects.

This thread, although it would be fantastic if it simply contained people’s best ideas minus ad hominem attacks and or implications of idiocy on one’s counterpart, is important for investing.

Not sure if sachs has all his facts straight as a lot of its personal experience and I basically believe nothing anybody says but insofar as what he says is true and when I out the I put the usa in Russia’s shoes, I’ve no doubt we would’ve been even more aggressive.

Did you read dalio? Of course in an ideal world you’d you dl grow gdp massively. How much would you have to grow gdp to get our current 2t a year deficit down to 3% of gdp? Do the calculation at freezing govt costs and then do it again assuming the rate of govt spending minus Covid in the last few years. it’s simply not realistic. Seriously read the article. Or watch this If you can’t engage at this level and with the idea in mind that there’s is a timeline that’s not forever involved and have a real path forward to getting it done that doesn’t rely on Clintonian democrats 90’s era you aren’t serious. I’d happily vote for Clinton if he was saying and doing what he did in the 90s. Kamala is not that.

I’m with dalio. Call me a trumper, I see the opposite of the will to do this on the other side and this is 80% of why I voted for trump this time. (I voted Hillary) All I want is what dalio wants. I see zero evidence the left will do it. I see the first chance since the mid 90s to get something done. The rest is noise to me. I have zero faith in the left to do it in any way. I see no evidence it can actually be accomplished in this climate without pissing everyone off. The real selling point is by reducing the deficit rates can come down and reduce interest costs by 100s of billions.. multiplier effects. If you haven’t read dalio in full on the subject recently it’s very informative. “There are three main types of levers that can be pulled to control the deficit: tax increases, spending cuts, and lower interest rates. To achieve the goal of stabilizing debt relative to income, it would take about a 11% increase in taxes, about a 12% cut in spending, or about a 3% cut in interest rates, all else being equal, if just one lever were used alone. Of course, any one of these numbers alone is way too large, so managing the adjustment will require a good combination of two or three of them.” https://time.com/7221862/ray-dalio-cut-the-budget-deficit/

Regarding what trump said about Canadians/ didn’t say about Canadians I can’t be positive. He talks a lot. I’m assuming the Canadians here who feel this way are saying this in response to “ they don’t treat us fairly” and stuff that sounds like that? Or maybe “they are ripping us off”? if this is the case, this would be in the context of tariffs, tariff like stuff like value added taxes, subsidized industries, outright bans of certain products, the size scope and magnitude thereof, or anything else not listed already that has a distorting effect on free and fair competition. I have not done nor have I seen a credible analysis that takes into consideration all distorting effects that are a part of determining free and fair competition. If it exists I’d be happy to see it. Also, I’m not sure how one could take this personally as an American or a Canadian? It is either fair or it’s not or I suppose it’s close enough? Show me the evidence is what I’d say to trump or a Canadian here. I will get around to this personally but haven’t had the time as so much is happening. It’s possible trump is right and vice versa afaik. I haven’t heard him say anything specific to the quality of the people or culture of Canadians. If he has obviously that’s pathetic and simply untrue. That said, the usa and maybe Canada(?) need some industries to stay alive and relevant moving forward while maintaining a diversified supply base of all essential items. We need steel, ammo, cutting edge tech, energy, etc. how does one maintain this without tariffs? Ideally you would find ways to reduce the input costs of such essentials, sometimes you can’t. By definition, you cannot grow an industry in the USA without shrinking your imports of those items elsewhere. Which means anyone elsewhere will be unhappy about it. I guess you could try to maintain current x import and grow x internally but that’s splitting hairs and not possible in political practice and not expedient enough practically in many cases. Another reason is that usa middle class is being hollowed out, if capitalism continues to create growing inequalities you may need to maintain some industries despite their higher costs for now (distorting free and fair competition). I know of no better source for smart Canadians that I can access which is why I’m posting this here. If you consider China clearly there’s far different reasons. the video debate regarding tariffs I posted in this thread is food for thought.

I’ll second all of this. I’d add term limits. Not sure what they’d be but way too short to be a career and therefore no pensions, unless proportional to the shortened term limits. 6-8 years max for anyone at any level. Additionally , any high ranking politicians isn’t allowed to work in any area post service that can influence directly future politics. Like lobbying and joining boards that hire lobbyists etc. Regarding what to cut and where I love it all! Yes cut all stupidity and with what’s at stake now cut every dpt. Defense as well. We don’t need fighter planes we need drones at 1/100 the cost. Etc. Cutting 10-20% of our current bloated spending is not difficult in govt.. you could do it in most private companies as well. these ideas could go on forever and I had totally given up on all of them. Now I see some light for some of them for the first time. The reality is none of this will get done unless it’s done now.

Let’s say you sell Brk covered calls 10 days or less expiration at 4% strike or more above current prices and never sell them during earnings releases. At 10% of more annualized. What’s the logic of how this fails? trade costs? Brk jumps 20% in a day every ten years? Curious. Anyone have any idea beyond efficient market?

So let’s try to steel man this. Am I the orange man? Do I have a history of being a loudmouth? Did I say I support him or could one infer that some of his ideas I might support in some ways but not all? Do I have a history of peddling bullshit? Does “every” supporter of trump deserve the moniker “douchnozzle”? does trump use many of these debate tactics? Yes. I often don’t feel it’s substantiated. But not always. in what context does he use them? As a president. Are we presidents? Does this response add to us learning? Does my response feel honest or am I possessed by an animus?

Btw I think we could actually learn from each other by steel manning each other as opposed to below. Learning for us is what important please. Therefore no more “orange man”. Guys, after all the mistakes you’ve made investing.. and the certainty you mistakenly had beforehand.. recognize this applies everywhere. Unless we get down to cogito ergo sum or kants “thing in itself” something else is always more fundamental. It can’t be otherwise. A “faux pas” in a debate refers to a social blunder or mistake that can negatively affect the debater’s credibility or effectiveness. Here are some common faux pas to avoid: 1. Personal Attacks (Ad Hominem): Attacking the opponent personally instead of addressing their arguments. This weakens your position and can make you seem unprofessional. 2. Interrupting: Constantly cutting off your opponent or not allowing them to speak can make you appear disrespectful and can undermine your argument. 3. Lack of Evidence: Making claims without supporting evidence or relying on personal anecdotes instead of facts or studies. This can damage your credibility. 4. Overgeneralizing: Making sweeping statements or using absolutes like “always” or “never” without solid proof can make your argument seem illogical and exaggerated. 5. Not Addressing Counterarguments: Ignoring valid counterarguments or refusing to engage with the other side’s points can make you appear evasive or unprepared. 6. Appealing to Emotion: Relying too heavily on emotional appeal rather than logical reasoning can backfire, especially if it feels manipulative or lacking substance. 7. Failing to Listen: Not paying attention to the opponent’s points or failing to engage with their arguments properly can show poor debate skills and can weaken your own case. 8. Misquoting or Misinformation: Using inaccurate facts or misquoting the opponent can quickly undermine your integrity and weaken your argument. 9. Overloading with Information: Bombarding the audience with too much information or irrelevant details can confuse and lose your audience’s attention. 10. Being Overly Aggressive: Being too combative or aggressive can alienate the audience or your opponent, making you appear less reasonable or composed. Avoiding these faux pas can help maintain a strong, logical, and respectful debate, enhancing both your credibility and effectiveness.

I think this debate might elucidate some of the ideas on tariffs. I be always been a libertarian so I had to deal with some cognitive dissonance to get on board with the idea. Where Im at now is simply this.. against who and how large and why? If you can’t answer those questions regardless of the country involved.. you haven’t begun. min reading Schopenhauer atm and it takes all my focus but I’ll come around and add my 2c later. Short takes. Greenland.. depends on the deal.. do they want to come and are they compensated? It could help with lasting peace as the north melts and previously unusable land and waterways create new lands to fight over. Who do you want to have them? Obviously force/violence is unacceptable. Canada as a state obviously can’t be forced and won’t be. Personally I’d rather be under usa laws and taxes but this is a nothing burger. doge.. Keynes was right some might say but I’ve read him and the part where after stimulating you pay down debt never happens. You can’t cut anything except maybe defense under democrat rule. Under Biden the govt head count accelerated. If we are ever going to cut spending it has to be forced.. just like Obamacare was. It has to be fast and ferocious. The dems will just stimulate and add govt headcount again to pad their economic numbers so daddy’s got to do it. dalio in a recent interview says the magic number is getting the deficit to 3% of gdp.. everything falls in line there. Interest rates on govt debt drops independent of the fed. Saves 100s of billions in interest costs annually. I’d cut a lot more than trumps discussed so far but I’m a libertarian. I’d also let top earners fed rate go to 39% for now. I’d have a different sort of progressive tax rate. Based on how many years you’ve made x income the more years your rate slightly ratchets up.. let people get rich first get into the game. ukraine costs to much. Whether is 200b or 300b with no end in sight. People are dying. I would not let my son fight for a slice of land and die for it. I certainly wouldn’t. We can’t afford it. Recently macron said Europe gave 40% or 60% of the money to Ukraine but that eu will get the rest back in the form of frozen Russian assets. Biden did not do anything but give. We need the money back. If the eu keeps more I’m sure they won’t mention it. Certainly everyone doesn’t expect usa to give 100s of bs out of the kindness of our hearts indefinitely and to anyone? Again it depends on the final deal.. if we get 300b in minerals with a cap there.. what’s the big deal. You pay for defense now or you pay later. if the eu wants to pay and fight forever then go ahead. btw it’s obvious to me knowing trump that he’s framing this in terms of Putin not all bad and Zelensky not all good because he knows it’s easier to get Putin to bite on a deal this way allowing the massive ego of Putin to remain in tact is likely the only way a deal gets done. We need this done. People dying for stupid land.. costing us and we can’t afford it. My background is sales and marketing though so maybe other haven’t considered this.

Check out The Terror, from 2018, the first season, based on a book written by Dan Simmons, famous for writing a top five sci fi book all time, Hyperion. Also, hyperion is awesome if you haven't read it. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2708480/episodes/?season=1&ref_=tt_eps_sn_1

This has come around previously. As always and at least for some people the errors are in the assumptions. I have a close friend with 2m who will inherit about 750k within 5-10 years. He single 50 years old. He convinced he needs at least 2m and a house paid for. another good friend has 15 m and he’s convinced he just needs one more big exit and he’ll be done. Many here posit the idea that they’d be bored if they retired but presumably they won’t be when they retire at x age and with x wealth. I mostly retired at 34 with a net worth of 600k, 11 years ago. 450k of that in cash and retirement accounts. Rest in home equity. By mostly I mean I’ve worked about 2 full time years since then comprised of 3-6 month part time stints of 10-20 hours a week interspersed with sometime years of no work. It seemed rather obvious to me back then that I didn’t know what I would do to find meaning absent winning the money game and the socioeconomic status that came with it however that was the very problem I wanted to solve. I knew that marketing or investing was only something I did for money.. something I definitely wouldn’t do if I didn’t need the money. it took some years to fill that hole but I can honestly say there’s nothing to go back to and the cost of my precious time left would be far too high to ever spend any considerable amount of time doing abstract empty unfulfilling exercises. What I do is rock climb, dirt bike, read, spend time with my family and friends. Basically I’ve studied nearly everything at a conceptual level and had plenty of time to climb and dirt bike and scuba around the world and with my family. Financially, I was able to do this by cutting all costs… line by line over time.. of course focusing on and learning about what I did/did not care about. I bought a cheap house back then that already had a mother in law apt in the basement. Mortgage is 1500/month and renter pays 1200/month. I didn’t get married because that would obviously change the equation and seemed ill advised considering I only wanted one child. I found a woman willing (after some convincing) to cover half of most costs. My costs are only 35k year before vacations and extras.. like a new dirt bike etc. I actually spend about 50-60k year. Net worth has tripled since then. Nobody suspects I have money and I like it that way. I never liked how people treated me when I made 1m/year in todays dollars back in 05/6/7 etc. it’s an alienating effect. For your psyche and others. in 15 years the home will be paid for and I’ll have a renter paying 2k/month plus in the apt. I’ll have zero debt and six figures income without working. id suggest there’s much to discover and that waiting until your physically and mentally impaired is not the best time to do it. Just know you don’t know and you won’t until you have the time. The assumption of boredom I posit is the mistake. It’s not been grounded until you’ve experimented with the alternatives. In todays age you have to create the alternative. That’s the adventure. The adventure many throughout history had as default. That is, time. Time to wonder. Recently I jumped on the Bryan Johnson and slim land program. Longevity Olympic guys. When first presented with their ideas it seemed overwhelming and a bit ridiculous. That phase lasted months but I had the time for it to seep in. Now I’m three months into it. Perfect diet. 20/supplements a day. Health markers going from good to great. Now it’s easy and automated and inexpensive. Line by line. I recently did two one arm pull ups with my right arm, a pb for me at 45, been climbing since 17. Tied my pb of two one arms with the left hand. Set a new pb of hanging one handed off one pad edge longest time ever just yesterday while home sick with a cold. My circulation is improving rapidly and sleep as well. I’ll be taking the 800$ full bio marker test next year and see where I’m at with 300 bio markers. Point is, this was never my cup of tea before but now it is, and it’s obviously good and easy in hindsight and definitely not something I would have done while working hard. It’s clearly worthwhile, super health. What I do of course may not be what you would do, but most people will never know.

Lords of finance has a lot of relevant overlap of the topic. It’s also a fascinating read… who ever thought money had so much to do with govt decision making in wars? Haha

Anyone get updated brk b book value?

The advice, if true, for a holding company concentrated in Tesla for tax purposes is pretty heinous. Maybe not according to law, but who would do that?

Nc at 28.xx

Not that it's relevant, or is it? Buy a house with a mother in law, complete amenities, separate parking/entrance and rent it. My renter pays 80% of my mortgage, which is at 2.8%. In 20 years it will be paid off and the renter at the inflated prices 20 years hence will pay for 1/3- of my retirement. You don't worry or at least it seems a stretch to worry, when your renter will cover your mortgage in 5-10 years. Where I'm at 1/10 houses come with such mother in laws. No brainer. If you earn 10% a year on the 2.8% debt, your house is not only free, it pays you. Just break the rules, it's easier. The price of a single family w mother in law is the same as a single family as opposed to a duplex. Continuing this simple idea, I can rent my current house as two units, which will bring in 2x the mortgage. Using that extra cash flow allows me to buy a bigger better house that also has a mother in law for free when accounting for the basic math. So that's what I'm doing now. Well, as soon as rates come back down that is. With a 7% mortgage that changes the calculation to just a good deal but not free which isn't tolerable.

Just skimmed this last page... isnt ibkr paying me 4.82 on cash right now? Simple?

The orville was good, especially season three. Also the new star trek with captain pike is good. The three body problem an award winning trilogy written by a chinese guy is coming to netflix soon, although I have little hope of their ability to bring it to the screen. I've read the foundation series by asimov and the apple tv version literally leaves out the most interesting parts.

My buddy and I have talked about this forever... for us in Utah it's 2m and a home paid for. We assume 5-10% returns annually on the 2m although weve both done better since the gfc unsurprisingly. If you have no debt and 100-200k in income, I really don't get what more you're looking for. Personally, I can't even think of anything I care about buying that I don't have. I have trimmed costs strategically by figuring out what I actually care about. I did experience spending 2-300k/year for a few years so I know I don't care about that. Alot of it was wasted on dumb clothes, unhealthy dinners, lame vacations, new cars, undesirable women, all of a lifestyle I give zero F#$%% about now. I guess my ideal is much more realistic to achieve and nobody would think of it as rich. The books I won't read and the interesting things I won't learn/see/experience are a much larger problem than whether I have 2m or 20m. That said, alot of us will end up rich, 10m, some of us are there no doubt... it's inevitable.

It doesn't take much to have a Moral north star. If you can grant me that it's better to eat steak than to have your arm repeatedly broken every day for your entire life. This combined with an evolved psychology is all we need to get there. Using a genes eye view looking to replicate itself. My genes want to replicate themselves, my kin share some of my gene's so my genes want them to replicate as well and so on decreasingly through those that share my genes. Therefore it is good that my genes don't die and that they replicate. My instinct/morality is to ensure that happens to varying degrees depending on the degree of relatedness. Also, to some degree, at the group level/multi level, those that are better at cooperating and planning for the future outperform those who aren't so they are selected for. This could be RichardGibbons metal balls/laws/norms/incentive constraint disincentive systems incrementally tweaked over time. It's at this level that rkkabang is claiming his law principal of non agression or non coercion applies. I could go on but I think this gets us there. 1. It's better to have your arm broken than to be skinned alive. We could run tests and ask people their pain level to confirm. We could measure their bodily reactions as well. Heart rate, blood pressure, adrenalin, fmri's,whether or not they asked you to kill them and get it over with. etc. Is it subjective if all evidence points towards being skinned alive is worse than getting your arm broken? From all known perspectives? 2. Genes want to replicate themselves and you share genes with those related to you. Those people who help your genes/kins genes replicate are also valuable to a lesser degree. Is this subjective thought/reasons? Do you choose your sex drive subjectively at all times throughout your entire life? Is it subjective that women are more likely to choose symmetric and large men, costly energetically, and therefore unconscious evidence of good genes when they ovulate, but don't care when they aren't ovulating? We need laws norms that align with 1 and 2 in order to get the most out of us.