20ppy

I'm not saying that US should pursue confrontation policy with China because of Tibet. Just wanted to QFT. Peace. And I do not support the authoritative Chinese government and its actions, I fight them too. Peace makes sense.

Not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China The first China rule on Tibet is 1717–1720 if you look at it. It is probably reasonable to call it history. Are we now going to not even respect logic and make everything anachronistic? What logic? You said bolded above. This is clearly not true. So China's earlier rules on Tibet doesn't count? This logic. So past occupation justifies new re-occupation? I am sure Vladimir Putin would be happy to hear this. No it doesn't. But is that why we are hell bent doing what we are doing today?

Not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China The first China rule on Tibet is 1717–1720 if you look at it. It is probably reasonable to call it history. Are we now going to not even respect logic and make everything anachronistic? What logic? You said bolded above. This is clearly not true. So China's earlier rules on Tibet doesn't count? This logic.

Not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China China ruled on Tibet in 1717–1720 if you look at it. It is probably reasonable to call it history. Logic fails if we make everything anachronistic?

-->"Then we have a country starting to invade a large piece of ocean, let's and support a dangerous maniac acquiring nukes and ICBM's and, keeps threatening Taiwan and we should not do anything about it? Then let me ask you this on the latter. If it was ok to impose sanctions on a country that invaded territory where its citizens wanted the invaders, then how is it ok not to impose sanctions on a country/regime that takes over oceans, significantly threatens world piece/survival and basically want to take back by force if necessary territory where its citizens don't want them?"<-- We differ on the ways of solving issues and what the facts really are. I will only list some my side of facts: * Suppose that China is taking "large piece of the ocean" with force, yet it expelled nobody in the areas. China claims that it owned the area since the ancient times. The disputing country Philippine in this case won a UN court ruling. Philippine is not pursuing this case at this time. Call it a status quo, but it's at least peaceful. UN had a resolution on Israel with violent territory disputes and this case actually threatens lives and U.S. and world interests. * From historical perspective, for the past 200+ years and thru 2 world wars, China has not taken large pieces of land by force. Both Russia and U.S. have, not to mention all these empires of past 200 years. Ironically, the majority of the people in China and Taiwan resoundingly say that they belong to one China and they should reunite one day. Relations have been thawing for 20 years and so much so, now they can travel freely in both places. There is no invaders in this case. So much non factual stuff in all these, no wonder.

Ok, this sounds really some strategic thinking then. I can understand. With respect to history, I submit that Reagan, Gorbachev and the Collapse of the Soviet Union all had to do with lots of luck and the timing of inner workings of social systems, arguably more than the actions of the US and that of Reagan's famous line and all these are some debate for another day perhaps. As to the hope of making fall of the system in China, depending on one's viewpoint, is obviously very debatable. I'd argue for caution. Of course we should make China play fair & nice in trade and other aspects in world affairs. Yet the pragmatic social-system that is currently working for the Chinese, one can call it "communist regime" or whatever, is there for some real world reasons, just as direct "western democracy" couldn't have worked well for many places, take Singapore for example at initial stages. The Soviet Union even had enough faith to try it and we all know what happened. Now if the US and world powers somehow pressure the Chinese system to collapse in similar way or even change dramatically or too fast, God forbid, I can see millions upon millions of poor people suffer or even die, imagine blood, hunger, lawless prosecutions, civil wars, atrocities..., is it really going to be good and for who? Gradual change is the theme for human evolution and progress, and thru science and technology, we can reasonably hope to well accommodate all the needs of all and growing number of humans on earth. Then why all the needless suffering? I do suspect THE hidden and true WMD throughout human history is: ideologies. Who cares? America First, remember? Fuck all the other guys. Indeed, especially when the days of reckoning are usually on someone else's watch, except when all nukes are used up on Earth, there won't be anybody left... How the hell do we get here?! Remind me.

Ok, this sounds really some strategic thinking then. I can understand. With respect to history, I submit that Reagan, Gorbachev and the Collapse of the Soviet Union all had to do with lots of luck and the timing of inner workings of social systems, arguably more than the actions of the US and that of Reagan's famous line and all these are some debate for another day perhaps. As to the hope of making fall of the system in China, depending on one's viewpoint, is obviously very debatable. I'd argue for caution. Of course we should make China play fair & nice in trade and other aspects in world affairs. Yet the pragmatic social-system that is currently working for the Chinese, one can call it "communist regime" or whatever, is there for some real world reasons, just as direct "western democracy" couldn't have worked well for many places, take Singapore for example at initial stages. The Soviet Union even had enough faith to try it and we all know what happened. Now if the US and world powers somehow pressure the Chinese system to collapse in similar way or even change dramatically or too fast, God forbid, I can see millions upon millions of poor people suffer or even die, imagine blood, hunger, lawless prosecutions, civil wars, atrocities..., is it really going to be good and for who? Gradual change is the theme for human evolution and progress, and thru science and technology, we can reasonably hope to well accommodate all the needs of all and growing number of humans on earth. Then why all the needless suffering? I do suspect THE hidden and true WMD throughout human history is: ideologies.

Yes, the US would never threaten a state with force if it wanted to become independent. That would never happen/has never happened. Lol - that pretty much describes our foreign policy strategy... Never mind about the U.S. Civil War either...

Cardboard, I appreciate your views on investments, however, please explain to us how it is ok for a potential war between US and China?

If one looks at history, we are now back for about 100 years. Whatever good economics Trump Administration may incidentally bring about, it is at the cost of morals, progress and decency of the human race. Trump is now our president, he is a very bad human being nonetheless. To your questions, Sanjeev, voters of Trump knew who he was/is, and didn't worry much because what's the worst for them? They have been suffering anyways. According the Princeton U.'s recent study, U.S. middle aged poor whites die off younger more than any other races in historical levels. It is no wonder.

Cash and TSLA

TSLA

If it helps, watch "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" on youtube first so you know what he is talking about. As value investors, in order to be right even for new territories, understanding these issues would help.

Years back before I was a value investor, I watched his talk titled "Arithmetic, Population and Energy". Recently, however, some of his views made me rethink about the laws of arithmetic. The 10% stock market growth for the last 60 years has been called the great tailwind in investing, but I began to think seriously about it. I hope you would also find it interesting to begin thinking about these things and especially the questions. His more recent interview I have no intention to debase about his views, let's just think.

I'd appreciate some ideas on what to do with the cash balance in my IB account that is substantial. I considered 4-week T-bills but IB's bonds trading commission seems high for the yield. Also, in terms of safety, is the cash insured in anyway for the portion larger than $250,000? What would be the risks? The cash is there to take advantage of the moody market, and should be available when needed.