Castanza

These stories are/will become the norm.

Sold out of PLTR and NIO today and yesterday. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

I'm not so sure that their lockdown is entirely responsible for their low case count. Australia is in summer right now and it's becoming increasingly clear that this virus is highly seasonal. We didn't hit zero in the US during summer. The numbers actually went UP as we entered summer coincident with lifting restrictions. The summer increase in the US was almost entirely relegated to the sunbelt stats, where it was so hot that people had to gather indoors. Perhaps seasonal isn't the right word but rather the conditions that force people to gather in enclosed settings. And holiday travel. On the other hand, restaurants and bars were able to seat people outdoors. But how does this differ from Australia's state of Victoria? So you're advocating for extreme lockdowns like Australia? Didn't they only allow people 1 hour of "outside time"?

Happy Thanksgiving everyone

50% of PLTR 200% gain 70% of NIO 270% gain I'll play with house money from here :o I thought there was supposed to be a rotation into value happening....Hopefully it comes soon enough. Edit: r/wallstreetbets is having one hell of a day

Originally picked up 100 shares around $3.50 After my GOOG options play in May I said F it and added 400 shares at $17 end of August. Completely speculative position with really high risk, but hey I'm young and the EV boom is only going to happen once.

I agree, the EV bubble is insane. Did not expect this to run up so fast. My joke of a position is quickly turning from "Hey babe, we can get a new range, dishwasher, and fridge." To "Hey babe, we can get a new range, dishwasher, fridge, tankless water heater, washer/dryer and possibly a new set of irons :o" I can't help but smirk at my NIO position ;D

What time do you start and end work? That can make all the difference for making family events (sports, recitals, etc). Test the route out if you’re considering it. There are nice easy long commutes and ones which could be shorter but much more involved (heavier traffic, multiple exists, terrible roads etc.). Make a pros and cons list. If you really want the dream home and 100% work from home then talk to your boss. I just went through this process. I’m moving 1.5hrs away from where I am now to get more land, better house at a cheaper price, closer to family (not too close ;D). I will be 100% wfh permanently with a requirement of 1 day a month in office for training etc. My commute is literally 4 turns and 95% of the trip is one main highway. I also needed manager approval specifically for my team (no big deal) and it will not affect my career in any aspect since my team is smattered globally anyways.

I would assume masks are certainly beneficial during surgeries. But I cannot speak to that. My wife has worked in a few different hospitals now, all top of their field level 4 NICUs. Some hospitals required gloves and masks for specific procedures and others did nor require anything except washed hands for the same procedures. It seems there is not a lot of uniformity in some healthcare best practices (which is shocking). She looked into this as it worried her at first, but both hospitals took stances with peer reviewed research to back their "best practice" choices.

Sold 80% INTC position (break even) Bought AAPL - Valuation is a bit stretched, but they are best in class with a lot of cash and solid product pipelines imo. Sometimes you have to pay up

NYC has been through worse in the past (GD tent city in central park) and will probably go through more troubled times in the future. People who get fed up with taxes will leave, and people who have big ambitions and no experience paying high taxes will gladly move in and take a shot at hitting it big in the Big Apple. For every person trying to escape a big city there is someone trying to escape their small town.

And income mobility is better achieved through more regulations, more license, more barriers to entry, higher taxes, and more red tape? This is a very odd response to what I said. I was talking about income mobility, and you suddenly seem to believe that everything the government does is therefore about income mobility. (It isn't, you know. When the government prevents people from discarding cyanide into your drinking water, they're not doing so to increase income mobility.) That said, some government policies can help income mobility and some government policies can hurt it. Generally, America's pretty terrible at income mobility compared to almost all other western countries. I think it's a major contributor to the completely messed up political situation America is in right now. (If you like, read that to mean, "the rise of AOC" rather than "the rise of Trump". It's the opposite sides of the same "no income mobility" coin.) I agreed with your post. I was just highlighting some issues that can and do attribute to wealth inequality. But the government often seems to think that these implementations fix things. AMA is a good example of what I’m talking about. There is a premium and high barrier to entry to being a doctor in the US. Same with engineers etc. There is second and third order effects down stream from this type of structure.

Yep, this is right. That's why you don't want inequality to become excessive. If you're working hard and can't feed your kids and your child died because you can't afford healthcare, then there's a lot of incentive to say, "the rich are evil, we need equality." Like, clearly your life sucks, so why wouldn't you attempt to destroy the system in the hope that what's rebuilt is better for you? That's why the extremes of communism and capitalism are both problematic. You need to have inequalities so that people can strive for more, but not such great inequalities in an unforgiving system that it becomes clear that striving for more won't actually accomplish anything. The way to stop that "the rich are evil, we need equality" message from materializing is by ensuring the system supports income mobility. And income mobility is better achieved through more regulations, more license, more barriers to entry, higher taxes, and more red tape? Government is a value trap. Doubling down on failed policy is equivalent to catching a falling knife. Policy is never reversed. When was the last time government said, you know what this policy really hasn’t worked for the last 20 years. Maybe we should remove it. Instead it’s always, well it hasn’t worked so let’s just tweak it.

Equality of outcome is a fools errand. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell....Parent's can't guarantee equality of outcome for their own children living under the same roof, with the same resources. Yet, the government thinks it can legislate to produce equality of outcome for millions of people?

Those that think communist countries have wealth equality have never been (or studied) a communist country. People there are about as equal than the animals in Orwell’s Animal farm. Everyone knows this...but a key message when the transition to communism is made is "the rich are evil, we need equality"

In the US can the government build a hospital, staff it and offer healthcare to sick people? Yeah, it’s called the VA and it’s fucking terrible LOL

Good thing silver is a byproduct of mining lead, copper, gold, and zinc :P It's absolutely possible though. But silver currently is a tier 1 product for panels. If the goal is to increase efficiency, decrease footprint, and decrease costs then going with a sub par product wouldn't make much sense no? I guess inefficiencies could be reduced in other areas to make up for the difference. SunDrive is doing without silver and seem to be turning out solid products. I'm more so saying I feel more diversified with silver than gold simply because of it's industrial demand.

I would agree that silver is a better proposition on the fundamentals. Not just the demand side but also the current price ratio to gold. There's also less gold nuts speculating in silver so your price won't get whipped as much based on "mood". The downside is that you don't really have good silver mining pure plays out there so you have to go physical. There could also be an interesting long/short trade if you want to go after that silver-gold differential. First Majestic Silver looks relatively interesting.

I think silver is a bit more interesting. The EV and solar boom that is just getting started is heavily reliant on silver. It's a key element (best in class currently) for batteries and panels. Even as efficiency increases the demand is still growing due to sheer volume. There is already a shortage globally on an annual basis, and is projected to grow exponentially. From a mining perspective, silver is much harder and time consuming to mine than gold. There is also far fewer good productive mines out there. Yet the price of silver hasn't moved much. Mines need higher prices to be profitable, couple that with increased demand and it's difficult to not see silver ticking up over the next decade.

ATCO

Wrong thread?

Last week added to: ATCO, PCYO, RTX, BAC, WFC, INTC, and started new 3% position AAPL This morning started positions in ESRT, PGRE, VNO. Still cheap with the vaccine news.

Anyone have the cajones to lever up at this point?

They discourage consumption. So what? Here we are in an environment where nobody has any savings and we have to pump trillions of dollars in stimulus money into the economy to keep everything moving forward. Maybe it's simplistic, but allowing people to save more and spend as they see fit is not in and of itself a bad thing no? So what? First of all it's not true that nobody has any savings. There are tons of savings. It's the poor people that have no savings. And yes there's a lot of them. Second, you are aware that consumption=production right. Lowering GDP hasn't been very good for prosperity or stimulating economic activity... historically speaking. Third, you want to incentivize poor people to increase their savings by hiking their tax bill? This has got to be one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. I'm not saying tax the poor more and I'm not saying lower GDP. But you seem to be coming from the angel that GDP is all that matters. I think there is more to it than that. I don't believe higher taxes on the rich solve issues long term. It's a temporary stimulus in an of itself. I think deregulation, shrinking of govt and govt spending and allowing individuals to keep more of what they earn in general is the best way forward. Sorry but that's exactly when you're saying when you're talking about regressive taxes to encourage saving among the poor. You pretending it's not so doesn't change it. The whole shrink the government so that people can keep more is also pretty much bullshit. Most of the government spending is on healthcare, education and military. Those aren't discretionary items. People will have to consume those. In order for the people to keep more of what they earn the private sector will have to provide those goods cheaper. Out of those 3 (2 really) which one does the private sector offer at a lower price? Arguably both healthcare, education Consumption tax is regressive if you view it plainly as you do. There are many ways to structure a consumption tax that even has attributes of a progressive tax while still allowing this to be mostly volunteer. Canada has done quite a few studies on this in the mid 2000's and the results were positive. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The straight up progressive tax bracket has been anything but perfect here in the US. https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iacpro/5808138.html I also prefer a Negative Income Tax structure as well. Yeah. That's bullshit on the education and healthcare. The paper that you've posted here is. Not really a paper or a study. It pretends to be a paper but it's really more like a deck for a conference. It was written by some political prof at Mount Royal junior high and it's clear that he doesn't know what a regressive tax is. It employs a series of other fallacies as well to try to make its "thesis". At this point it's pretty clear that you're not dealing in facts here. This from someone who didn't want to make it political. Hey you guys heard it here first. The World Tax Czar rb scoffs at individuals like Friedman, Hayek, Sowell and their puny intellect. Stop recording tax history because the only way forward is a progressive tax! Not only that but he has also found a foundational truth that the private market cannot provide cheaper healthcare and education than the government! JFC, lets make this guy the supreme leader now and call it a day. Enjoy your weekend rb exiting stage left.

They discourage consumption. So what? Here we are in an environment where nobody has any savings and we have to pump trillions of dollars in stimulus money into the economy to keep everything moving forward. Maybe it's simplistic, but allowing people to save more and spend as they see fit is not in and of itself a bad thing no? So what? First of all it's not true that nobody has any savings. There are tons of savings. It's the poor people that have no savings. And yes there's a lot of them. Second, you are aware that consumption=production right. Lowering GDP hasn't been very good for prosperity or stimulating economic activity... historically speaking. Third, you want to incentivize poor people to increase their savings by hiking their tax bill? This has got to be one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. I'm not saying tax the poor more and I'm not saying lower GDP. But you seem to be coming from the angel that GDP is all that matters. I think there is more to it than that. I don't believe higher taxes on the rich solve issues long term. It's a temporary stimulus in an of itself. I think deregulation, shrinking of govt and govt spending and allowing individuals to keep more of what they earn in general is the best way forward. Sorry but that's exactly when you're saying when you're talking about regressive taxes to encourage saving among the poor. You pretending it's not so doesn't change it. The whole shrink the government so that people can keep more is also pretty much bullshit. Most of the government spending is on healthcare, education and military. Those aren't discretionary items. People will have to consume those. In order for the people to keep more of what they earn the private sector will have to provide those goods cheaper. Out of those 3 (2 really) which one does the private sector offer at a lower price? Arguably both healthcare, education Consumption tax is regressive if you view it plainly as you do. There are many ways to structure a consumption tax that even has attributes of a progressive tax while still allowing this to be mostly volunteer. Canada has done quite a few studies on this in the mid 2000's and the results were positive. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The straight up progressive tax bracket has been anything but perfect here in the US. https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iacpro/5808138.html I also prefer a Negative Income Tax structure as well.