Castanza

Well some of investing it temperament and emotion. Dealraker has shown how remaining agnostic towards your positions can be beneficial in the long run.

Thats fair, and I deleted my comment so as to not ruffle feathers. When the markets are down people discuss it. Likewise when it’s up. It’s the nature of the beast. Nothing is certain and the market can change. I think most on here know that it’s a fools errand to invest solely based on macro predictions. But I still enjoy the commentary and time people put into their posts. The comment came across as “I’m entitled to specific types of posts.” Having a wide range of topics to discuss is beneficial overall to the forum. And I welcome anyone who takes a good amount of time to share their thoughts on mostly any particular topic. I’ve learned a lot from you, thePupil and BG regarding real estate. Dealbreaker has been interesting as of late discussing his investment career. Bill has been great with his Fed/treasury insights. How’d that fishing trip go?

10,000 years of humanity and for only 200 some odd years we have had the stock market. Is this the end all be all in your opinion? This is the perpetual motion machine that will drive humanity forward for the rest of eternity? Further it’s only been 50 years since we haven’t had a currency backed by a hard asset. No disrespect, but even if you have no clue what crypto is; it’s extremely naive to believe that the financial systems will not change again. It’s also extremely naive to ignore the clear problems with current MMT and debt financed banking. This system is doomed to fail at some point. The alternative may or may not be crypto. If crypto is such “idiocy” then why is every central bank in existence exploring options? Lastly crypto (shit coins) =/= Bitcoin. They are two different classes at this point. If you’re going to argue against crypto then at least be more creative than “this is how it is now and how it will always be”. I’m still skeptical myself primarily due to government intervention. But the technology itself IS as solid as can be. I’ve listed a personal anecdotal use case above about a family member. But yeah! F$&& all those people stuck in third world countries living under tyranny day in and day out.….how dare they look for alternatives.

Yeah that makes sense. I’d say the preachers are a two sided coin for adoption. But the more I read the more this whole “thing” feels like the top of the first inning.

This is why I can and can't listen to Saylor. Recently listened to the Lex Fridman podcast with him as a guest. At one point he sounds very reasonable describing the utility of BTC in a global economy, the problems with fiat and trust, etc......then he starts droning on about the weight of energy and how everything is vibrating at some frequency and moving blocks of energy instantly......Somehow this relates to BTC at some deep level....not sure. But he sounds like a cult leader at times when he starts going down that road. Maybe my semi smooth chestnut sized brain simply can't comprehend it. To me BTC is interesting because it's digital gold, incorruptible, anonymous, scarce, easily transportable, borderless etc. These past few weeks it definitely seems like the powers at be are discussing it more and more. You had Kevin McCarthy bring it up yesterday. You've got the UK looking into CBDC. Sounded pretty Orwellian if you read through the docs. I also think a lot of people who don't like BTC (including myself to a degree) get hung up because their view is primarily US based. My brother in law who has a company is Laos uses BTC pretty frequently because the govt over there could at any point in time take his business. So it's a means of protecting some assets.

GOOGL In case non of you are aware. Alphabet is going out of business, everyone will download Edge as their mobile browser and Bing with ChatGPT integration will be the new king and everyone will forego the rest of the Chrome suite.

Risk assets ran on the news that the Fed could or was considering cutting. The same thing occurs almost every time. So the question isn't why it's down, but why it was up?

I wonder what older generations said when they saw their children and younger generations telling them to invest in the stock market? They too probably thought it was foolish and better to save your money in your mattress. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” This applies to more than just science

Agreed...beating yourself up over past decisions is a good way to negatively influence future decisions as well. Instead you should analyze why you made that decision and if you still agree with the reasoning then move on. If you don't then adapt and carry on. Just getting started with investing I bought NVDA 50 shares at $30.xx and 100 shares of AMD for $8.xx....I sold Both about a year later for $68 and $21 thinking I've made out like a bandit. Which I did! But also missed a Hell of a lot more growth on those tiny positions. So from then on I mostly just buy and hold. I do sell here and there but I'd almost rather take the risk of a company going to zero than missing out on upside 5,10, 15 years down the road. Exactly how I view my small positions in INTC and TSN currently. In my generation I think too many people use money they need to live to invest and this greatly impacts their decision making. I see a lot of people prioritizing investing over paying off student debt, having an emergency fund etc. Couple that with their subscription based lifestyle that has to constantly be fed and there isn't much "I don't need it" money left over to invest. It's more, I don't need it today but I might next month; so at the first sign of trouble they hit that sell button.

I am very skeptical of BTC and have low confidence that it will be able to stand if government forces in the US deem it unsavory. However, it's the best financial tool that exists outside of the "system" and I think that will/could have some utility in the future. Take a look across the pond and the CBDC that is being proposed. Expiration dates on savings, push a button limitations on what you can buy and when you can buy for people the government decides needs those restrictions (kids and mentally unstable....and?). Nobody is saying sell stocks to buy BTC. At least not on here. A 1% position is prudent imo. Still 90% stocks and plan on being that way for as long as I can see.

Forever? Economies don’t exist in vacuums. The Piper always gets paid in the end….

Have to admit....anytime I hear Munger, Dalio, Dimon or any other "financial expert" pop off about Bitcoin with a seemingly uneducated opinion it just makes me want to buy a bunch.

Agreed, I used to be a believer that it was happening at a large scale but I don’t buy that anymore. Maybe for luxury goods that can be manufactured and sold at higher costs with better margins? Not sure. It would definitely have to be able to support Union wages etc. Labor costs have to be balanced in order for the shift to happen imo. Until the lower class in Thailand or Vietnam is on par with Union workers here in the US. I don’t see how it will ever change in any meaningful way. The industrial boom in the US worked sort of because the lack of logistics. Economies were more localized. Once there was reliable abundant long distance shipping at reasonable rates it opened the rat race for the lowest wage work force.

Does anyone follow the “de-globalization” trend we keep hearing about? I’m not really convinced we will see meaningful jobs come back to the states. Seems way more likely the factories will just get moved to the next hospitable third world country.

haha very nice! Something tells me you're getting in at precisely the right time

@GregmalNice looking house, congrats! Is this a second house; or a moving to Florida full-time house?

"Don't trust the CIA, but trust what Russian Propaganda says".....

Sometimes you have to embrace the market irrationality with some healthy skepticism. Too much of one or the other leads to poor returns. The world does not exist in a textbook. What @changegonnacome said makes sense from a technical/fundamental standpoint. But it doesn't capture the other side of the coin "sentiment, emotion, hype, motives" that can also act as market moving influencers or more accurately exacerbate, draw out, delay, or negate expected moves in the market. The market moves on sentiment, fundamentals and technicals. There is a bit of irrationality behind all of them in my opinion.

Well it doesn't really matter if you agree or disagree. What i wrote was a simplified version of the US's Counter Insurgency Field Manual. It's what the West is planning for and has been silently implementing from Day 1 of the invasion. We have 20+ years of research on Counter Insurgency and have a CIA/SF that is pretty damn good at implementing and establishing Insurgencies. Russia's goal was a quick take over and it failed. So now they are in an uncomfortable situation where they have to expend more resources than they want to and basically at a standstill. The exchange of shells won't go on forever and is not an end al be all strategy for either side. Russia has to push in further and install leadership in areas to maintain control. Ukraine either has to expel Russia or make it a living hell for them to exist there and deplete their resources, manpower, and will over time. The West is clearly supporting the conventional war aspects now and planning for the coming insurgency that's inevitable should Russia try to hold Ukraine. https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-may-take-central-role-if-russia-invades-185258008.html https://mwi.usma.edu/war-books-building-counterinsurgency-library/ If you haven't read Petraeus's book I recommend it.

@no_free_lunch IEDs are probably the single most effective tool used in war over the last 80 years outside of the Atomic Bomb. There is a reason the US DOD had to spend billions figuring out ways to over come them. It creates an almost untenable situation for the invading force. Simple IEDs built by people with no education, no money, and nothing but an AK47 some flip flops and a walk-in talkie stopped histories most powerful military in its tracks. So if a military with unlimited resources couldn’t stop and insurgency how is Russia a country with scarce resources, short supply of munitions s, poor training and a crippled economy going to do it when the other guys have western backing (seemingly unlimited funds). Counter Insurgency has almost never worked. (Columbia is the “bestish” example of it working) 10-2=12 Things Russia will need to be able to do if they wish to maintain control of Ukraine and overcome an insurgency. 1. ⁠Establishment of a local ally as a power broker. For this to succeed it is important to be flexible with who you talk to (old enemies and ideologically not palatable actors can make do). Having a potent local ally is better than having “ideologically clean” one. 2. ⁠Divide et Empera. Majority of countries have competing factions/ethnicities. Exploit old grievances and creat new ones so that those factions seek support from invading force. 3. ⁠Radicalize opposition (by elimination of moderate wing) so it has less support from inside and outside. 4. ⁠Quickly provide well being and efficient administration on occupied territories while denying it for the uncontrolled ones. 5. ⁠Support local allies without interference - locals can rule locals better than anyone, so don’t impose your values when it’s unnecessary. 6. ⁠Creat image of perpetuality of current administration so that local population can’t see any alternatives. 7. ⁠Engage and integrate local armed formations into central command so that potential insurgents are on your payroll and somewhat controlled. This is not going to be an easy thing to do and I’d say the odds of western powers allowing it are slim to none. Ukraine is already littered with mines and IEDs. Problem currently is that it’s very poorly organized. In fact Ukraine is not even sharing information regarding location of mines with troops as they rotate in and out. The US has recognized this (at least some have) and there are a handful of groups/organizations that are dedicated specifically to this task. Night Vision is also a huge advantage for Ukraine and will continue to grow as they get more of it. It was the US’s biggest advantage in Iraq. Outside of a few groups the majority of Russian troops are not issued nvg. At the end of the day, you can’t kill your way out of a COIN environment. It simply doesn’t work. Russias military is pretty much equipped to only do this at this point in time. So no I think it will be impossible for Russia to maintain any type of control over Ukraine even if they turn every city to rubble. Parts of it on the Eastern front? Possibly….but that could simply come about by negotiations. But hey, you’re right in wrong because 1945 or something like that…..

History is not always indicative of the present. There is also a significant amount of Russian citizens fighting for Ukraine...Russia is not the same as the USSR. This is a ridiculous comparison. Watch some interviews and listen to some podcasts with people who are there and are seeing first hand accounts of what's happening on the ground. No offense to you....but I will listen to the opinions of US SF (who are the best in the world at what they do insurgency guerilla warfare, unconventional unit tactics, and training up native troops) then your desire to constantly compare this to WWII or what happened in Chechnya. Just a month ago you were lambasting everyone on here for saying the West shouldn't try to negotiate a peace deal. You were saying "The Ukrainians will never give up they will fight tooth and nail till the end." Now all of a sudden you're just coming to your own conclusion that Russia is going to capture and execute 100k Ukrainians and break their resolve.

Without Western support, sure...but does that look like it's going away anytime soon? Highly doubtful. This is an opportunity the West cannot pass up. Russia has been a thorn in the side of NATO for a long time, and this is the opportunity to put an end to that. I think it's pretty clear what the West wants. Chechnya is like 6k square miles tucked between Russia and Georgia. Ukraine has 230k square miles with bordering NATO countries. That is an Apples to Oranges comparison. Russia does not have the resources or supply chain/logistics network to support that. The Russians trying to maintain power will look more like Rome trying to conquer Germania. Russian regulars do not have the will power for that. Most (not all) of the war crimes being committed have come from the conscripts and mercenaries so I highly doubt you'll see Russian regulars mass executing 100k people. More and more US Special Forces troops are going into Ukraine through private institutions and charities. Ukraine is becoming more and more tactically, medically, and organizationally sound by the day. Couple this with the growing number of Chechens (who are extremely capable) fighting for Ukraine and you have a better recipe for success.

The West loves a good proxy war. Taking full advantage of the situation to make sure Russia ends up as a third world country. The West will drag this out as long as possible. Everyone knows, even if Russia manages to win “militarily” there is no chance in Hell they would ever be able to hold Ukraine. The insurgency would be untenable. Also starting to look like the Chechens might seize the opportunity for some revenge. What a bizarre conflict. You’ve got Chechens fighting for Russia and for Ukraine. Then you have the awkwardness of former US troops fighting for Ukraine working with the very Chechens they saw in conflict in Afghanistan.

What do you mean with a back wall? I just built one with the Uplift v2 frame. Built my own top for it. Seems really solid so far. For cable management you can just get a Startech 2x2 tray and screw it to your top. Better than what comes with most desks. https://www.startech.com/en-us/cables/ad2x2