JRM

I guess let's invert the issue. What if instead of focusing on making electricity production for Bitcoin "green" we spent that time and money on making the existing grid more "green". Powering homes, EVs, and industrial loads with renewable energy seems like a more noble cause than generating heat in a warehouse somewhere in China. There is not an unlimited amount of resources in the ground necessary to make solar panels and batteries. Why waste our resources on mining Bitcoin only to slow adoption where it actually matters. I also read an argument that mining for gold is bad for the environment, too, so we should all switch to Bitcoin. It's ironic because mining for precious metals is necessary to build the processors, the electrical conductors, and the renewable power sources for the mining operations. I'm not trying to crap on Bitcoin, just the energy waste seems counterproductive. Also, this is good for a laugh: https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/dogecoin-co-creater-calls-elon-musk-self-absorbed-grifter

Another article: https://qz.com/1982209/how-bitcoin-can-become-more-climate-friendly/?utm_source=reddit.com

A lot of the mining is done in China, and I'm confident that the mining is powered largely by coal. Here's a source, but don't know how accurate: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-power-consumption-of-bitcoin-mining/ Regardless of what the hodlers are saying about Bitcoin being powered by renewables (which I think is mostly bullshit), its still an extreme waste of energy and resources. There's also an argument I've heard that mining bitcoin is somehow a solution to the load mismatch with renewable power generation. The argument goes something like mine bitcoin during times when the load is low. This obviously is asinine and makes no sense in reality. Mining bitcoin does nothing to stabilize a power grid based on renewable sources. Ark's white paper about Bitcoin mining energy usage has been torn to shreds by anybody with any sense of how energy actually works. What I don't understand is how did Tesla invest $1.5B in Bitcoin and overlook this obvious 'feature'? Elon claims Tesla will no longer accept Bitcoin as payment, but will still hodl Bitcoin on the balance sheet. Does anybody believe what this guy says? At least this has caused a new group to turn on Elon and his peddling of techno-babble BS.

Like I said, the workshop I attended was not the standard course and was kind of a "demo" for these options trading strategies. I was already very familiar with options, but the course did talk about some things I thought were useful for thinking about scaling into and out of positions with options. Anyways, I think if you sign up you should expect material closely based off of the books, but applied to current markets.

I sat in on a course while I was pursuing my master's degree in finance. The teacher was teaching a value investing course and was very outspoken about the traditional efficient market theory and CAPM that was being taught. This class introduced me to Phil Town's books and methods (this was 2010 timeframe). I continued my "value investor" education on my own, but around 2012-2013 timeframe I had the opportunity to attend a Rue #1 workshop for free in Atlanta. My understanding is it wasn't too uncommon to get a free or mostly free seat at a workshop, at least at the time. The workshop I attended was a little unusual because he invited an options trader (who I won't name). The guy was teaching options trading strategies to generate cash flow which could then be deployed in value stocks. His claim to fame was that Karen the Supertrader (look her up) was one of his students. Within a few years she blew up big time (video below). Anyways, when I was sitting in on the investing course we were screening stocks that fit the Rule #1 criteria. All I can say is if I had put all of my money in a basket of these stocks most of them would have worked out big time over the next 8-10 years (Monster Beverage, Tractor Supply, Google, Apple, and probably a dozen more). The only one I was big into was Apple, which ironically, Phil and the other guy shit on the whole weekend during the workshop. I still have a picture somewhere of them talking shit on Apple stock while they were both using Macbook laptops on stage. If you're a beginner investor, its not the worst way to dip your feet in the water and possibly meet some other people. The workshop comes off a little like a self-help pump up session. If you're a new investor and can afford the $300, then I would say its probably worth it. Just understand its not always as easy as it sounds, and not everyone who attends his workshops is an investing legend.

More relevant is how many weekly call option lottos can I buy on BRK.B with a $1,400 stimmy check?

More anecdotes. I haven't spent any time looking at housing, but was perusing zillow this morning for houses in our neighborhood (for some friends). I saw the zestimate on my house, and was blown away. We've been in our house 7 years and the zestimate was about 10% below the purchase price at the time or purchase. Naturally, I felt like we may have overpaid a little, but we liked the location. The zestimate is now 40% above our purchase price. Even crazier, my wife's parents sold their beach house in the Gulf Shores area in Alabama (closed yesterday). They owned it for two years and realized a 50% gain.

A free market economy needs a clearing function to wipe out mal-investment and mis-management. The current environment is supporting money-losing enterprises; but also nurturing 'innovative' companies that may be able to flourish someday. We will be stuck in this conundrum until the wealth gap is addressed and markets are allowed to clear again, IMO.

I have done my best to hear both sides of the argument, and the deflationary argument still makes the most sense to me. I have to admit I don't understand all of the monetary plumbing or moving pieces. I think where the models fall apart is when confidence in the dollar is lost. This doesn't appear to be accounted for anywhere. Anecdotally, I hear people (non-finance types) talking more and more about "money printing" and increasing inflation. The observance of rising prices, for most people, has to have a psychological effect. If confidence is lost, then MMT doesn't work (in my opinion). There almost has to be a single basic assumption that is the lynchpin for unwinding this whole experiment.

That's because we are told this inflation is 'transitory'; as if anyone could possibly know that. Also the 10 year treasury rate has been trending up. If inflation is not transitory and real rates are negative, then gold should perform just fine. Either the fed is lying to us or they are lying to themselves. It would be very scary if they think they are actually in control at this point.

There is no hard cap on the number of doge coins that can be mined.

That's a shame. I lived in Chicago in 2003, and it was probably the best time to be there in the last 100 years. My wife and I used to visit at least once a year since we met. We've stopped that tradition and I'm not sure I feel comfortable visiting with our kids now. I feel like we're headed back to the 1970's.

I've read his book about Allied Capital. I also try to follow what he writes about and invests in because I generally agree with him. So what has changed in 20 years? Einhorn still seems to be worried about the SECs whereabouts in his shorts positions?

lol. I think it was Jim Chanos who said something to the effect of don't count on regulators taking action for your short thesis to work.

The millennial you are describing is the exception, not the norm. I am also technically a millennial and have been a homeowner for 12 years. I know most people in our demographic have not had the same experience.

It doesn't seem possible, but I think Gregmal is likely correct. We are in the first stage of a housing demand boom. Supply is tight in many markets, and millennials are getting out of debt and out of their parents basement. They are starting to form families, and the next 5 years is likely going to be strong for housing in the US. Student loan forgiveness will only help to accelerate this trend. Even if there are a lot of boomers selling to downsize, they still have to live somewhere. Don't forget, the population of 'kids of boomers' is larger than the population of boomers in the US.

If people are allowed to pick BRK with a extra dose of AAPL, then surely I can pick a couple of ETFs. MSOS - I don't know who the winners will be in the U.S cannabis market, but there will be winners. One of the rare opportunities where retail investors can get in before institutional money. SIL - Silver miners should benefit from the coming onslaught of battery, solar panel, and electric grid investments. Silver mine production is slowly declining and we are likely near an upward inflection of industrial demand. At current spot price it is not economical to open up silver only mines. A lot of silver is currently mined as a byproduct of mining for gold or other more valuable metals. If the price does go up it will take years to bring new production online. IMLP - I don't own this one, but I feel like sticking with the ETF them. I own individual pipeliners with heavy NG exposure.

I'd be lying if I said I won't get some satisfaction out of watching some of the momo tades blow up.  I can only sit quietly and listen to people I know brag about how much they are up in their 401k by converting the entire balance to Tesla stock along with people I know who are looking to quit their job to be a full time day trader with nothing more than a buy-the-dip strategy and no stop loss. I shouldn't care what other people do, but I do care.  My psychological bias\weakness is a need to be right.

There were winners and losers in the 1970s. I've heard my father commenting many times about how that period of inflation rapidly paid off the house and brought the family a higher standard of living. His pay rose with inflation. Yes, it's great for people with debt, but horrible for people living on fixed incomes or cash savings. Hence the boomer retirement plan of buy the biggest house you can mortgage then downsize when its time to retire.

A fool and his money were lucky to have met in the first place. Does Elon still need a loan?

I guess I feel like there has to be a critical flaw with modern monetary policy, I'm just not sure I can quite put my finger on it. Just like the mantra of 'home prices always go up' leading up to the housing bubble, it seems likely that MMT has a similar flaw. I think that critical flaw may be that confidence in the US Dollar is required to keep the game going. Supply chain issues should be temporary and resolve over time; like the great toilet paper shortage of 2020. But what happens if Biden signs an infrastructure spending bill that requires more physical resources than we are capable of producing? One example would be declining silver production worldwide and increased demand (potentially) for solar panels, EV batteries, grid upgrades, etc. Not to mention solar panels and wind turbines will likely need to be replaced after 20-30 years of operation. My understanding is higher commodity prices are required to make recycling solar panels profitable at this point in time. Despite all of the deflationary pressures that exist today, inflation seems like a good bet in the next few years. Especially when the Fed has stated that inflation is their goal.

I hear all of the arguments for deflation and increasing the money supply to match demand and I nod my head and generally agree. But there are things that just don't pass the smell test. For one, the case-schiller housing index is at an all time high while the housing component of the CPI is flat to down. The C-S index is looking at actual home prices whereas the CPI housing component is calculating an "implied rent" which I can't figure out how it is determined. The fed makes excuses for prices of things which are going up as supply side, so the market will work out supply issues? Really? How does that work, exactly, with natural resources? I also can't get past the idea that the dollar only has value if people have confidence in it. Last year there was a run on toilet paper. Part of the reason for the shortage was supply chain driven (people going to the bathroom more at home vs work or restaurants). However, a large part of the shortage was due to people hoarding unnecessary amounts of toilet in fear that they would run out. What happens if a critical mass of people (or foreign countries) lose faith in the dollar as a currency? To me that's where all of this fancy money supply logic falls apart. The fed can create as much money supply as it wants, but at the end of the day there is a risk of supply side inflation if not enough goods are produced in the real economy.

Well said. Not a risk to be ignored. Now, imagine if inflation due to what Powell calls "bottlenecks" ends up being 6-10%, and interest rates follow. In 1970s, some claim cause was oil bottlenecks and minimum wage increases prior to that. If the probability comes true this time, beyond minimum wage increases, wonder what will be the bottlenecks with pricing power of current era that we'll try to blame for starting inflation when looking back. Oil is a good linchpin because so much of our economy revolves around it. I think there is a good case for higher oil prices this summer. There is also a shortage of housing, and millennials are starting to move out of their parent's basement. Lumber is up, but housing could drive the economy for the next few years, too.

Isn't the individual US consumer/voter also often massively short the dollar via a highly levered 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and, perhaps, other debt such as school loans? And how easy is it to reduce nominal wages alongside deflation? All good points. The falling interest rates for the past ~40 years has masked the decline in real wages for the majority of workers. I guess back to my original question, how much does declining interest rates skew the deficit-to-GDP percentage that wabuffo posted? I don't know if it is easily quantifiable, but it seems like our heavily financialized economy is responsible for a good portion of GDP instead of actual productivity increases or exports.

Haven't they also benefitted from a massive increase in asset prices driven by declining interest rates? That's true, but I think the wealth is pretty concentrated.