Castanza

Lol. Deflect, Deflect, Deflect. I'm just here to enjoy the mental gymnasts at work--surely politicizing masks, downplaying the threat, and holding indoor gatherings in no way affected R0 in the U.S.A.! There are no levers that Trump pulled the wrong way, surely! Good night, and keep dancing for Don! What is more likely to spread the virus? A.) 35+ million protestors, rioters, and looters shouting, walking in close proximity, and crossing state lines for 3+ months straight. B.) A handful of rallies with a few thousand individuals who probably live in rural areas.

Get a hardware wallet https://www.ledger.com/

Fascinating. For me personally, very worried about how Trump is a wannabe autocrat who is moving (successfully) towards making the U.S. more like regimes in North Korea, Russia, Turkey. You don't think its a big deal? And then you've got Biden who is basically a moderate republican/centrist and won't run the country like a failed casino with his kids in charge. I don't get it lol Not sure I have your unfettered trust of the pharmaceutical industry, but yes, I'm also very grateful we have a lot of really smart scientists and companies working on vaccines and treatments. It's amazing. Biden is a moderat republican? :o Did you see his promises to raise trillions of tax and all other things? That seems like a radical left. BTW, Biden's son took a 2bn dollar loan from Bank of China in 2015. Nobody knew what happened later. It could be "forgiven" and pocketed. He needs to explain that because that is wayyyy bigger than his son's Ukraine dealings. Feel free to ignore my "moderate republican" language if it helps get the main gist. IMO Biden's more of a centrist than plenty of Democrats (take Bernie or Warren), and will basically act like a sane person as President. Don't think he'd be functionally that different over 4 years than someone like Romney, Bush, Obama. re: taxes. Biden's proposed tax changes are $4 Trillion Over 10 Years, ~400 billion a year. Maybe high if he does the whole thing. Trump tax cut is like 1.8 trillion over 10 years from google. So Biden proposal fills that back in and adds an increase of similar size. Not really seeing what is radical about these levels up or down, but okay yeah taxes would go up. Any comment on this part? You don't think its a big deal? I commented on it in the politics section.

Hala Kahiki Brewing Co. Pineapple Ale It's 5 o'clock somewhere right? Growing up, my Dad thought it was funny to take Labor Day and interpret it literally for my brother and me (man we hated that ;D). Ironically I plan to carry that tradition on this weekend and plant a few acres of alfalfa for the deer. Enjoy your weekends 8)

Investment that could potentially become primary down the road

Trimmed positions (positive) across the board by 25-50% to raise some capital. Might possibly purchase some residential acreage in the near future.

RKT - Rocket Companies Small position

You have inadvertently clarified the major fault lines in this thread. If you downplay the risks of driving, it absolutely changes the risk level of driving. You drive a little faster, run yellow lights, text, drive after a beer. And risk doesn't rise linearly, so small behaviour changes dramatically increase your risk. And it doesn't just change your risk, you increase the risk for everyone else on the road. the estimated risk of a pedestrian being killed is approximately 9% if they are hit at a speed of 30 mph. The risk at an impact speed of 40 mph is much higher, at approximately 50%. The same thing happens when you downplay the risk of a pandemic. Who do insurance companies target with high premiums for driving? Young teenage males and elderly drivers. Targeted solutions for higher risk individuals.

Michael Burry https://twitter.com/michaeljburry/status/1300128007240126464?s=21 Also: Didn't the CDC just say that only 6% of covid-19 deaths can be attributed to "only covid-19" and the other 94% had a comorbidity listed alongside covid-19 as a cause. Is this significant? To me it seems it is, but I'll let the more knowledgeable individuals say. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Comorbidities

Added to PCYO this morning.

I'm not quite sure what you're disagreeing with 100%, since my view of "socialism + capitalism" is basically "basic medical + rich people can get extra/expedited service by paying". The key point is that 100% capitalism just doesn't work in healthcare, and that's pretty clear because the USA has way higher costs, the same or worse outcomes, large numbers of people having awful financial outcomes from as a result of bad luck, and perverse, grossly-suboptimal economic outcomes where people have to hold on to a particular job to maintain health insurance. It's basically indefensible. It's worth noting that I'm in Canada (a public system), and this year people in my family have had two surgeries, both done privately, one in a public hospital and one in a private clinic. I'm open to the idea of a hybrid system, and it seems plausible to me that that a hybrid system might be optimal. The US healthcare has been messed with so many times by government. Every attempt to “control cost” has lead to greater cost. How can you argue that capitalism style healthcare systems don’t work when it really hasn’t even been allowed to be tried. As I’ve pointed out before the US healthcare system was great before big government coupled it to employers. Before HMO1973 many people didn’t have insurance simply because general visits were cheap enough to pay out of pocket. Healthcare costs were generally low because it was competitive. And catastrophic insurance was generally affordable. Also there was a plethora of pro bono medical fair for those in need. Poor individuals were also not stuck without insurance because they didn’t have a job. Likewise individuals weren’t tied to a job they hate simply because they liked the insurance. I pay $120 a month for my wife and myself. This is including dental, vision, medical. My deductible is max 6800 out of pocket. Most of these socialist type healthcare systems require me to pay roughly my full deductible every year even if I never have anything done. Instead I get to keep that “theoretical 6.8k” and max out my HSA every year. Some people might not have it like me, but America is the land of choice (for almost everything in life). Why would we not move in that direction? I would guess that over 50 years many of these governments are going to struggle with the costs of such plans. Won’t be any different than medicare, public pensions, and social security in the US. The things almost always balloon way out of their intended scope.

When, as a 'group', it is decided that life insurance will be issued to 'members', the risks are pooled and the premiums (possibly adjusted for age for obvious reasons) are essentially uniform across the board. Sometimes, it is decided to account for some specific risk factors (ie smoking status, because it is so significant and 'easy' to document) but, otherwise, the risks are pooled and you end up with a premium (adjusting for administrative costs and maybe a profit margin but let's forget about this profit part for now or consider profit as the business definition or the potential social capital gain) that reflects the pooled risks. You end up with individuals that will exhibit various levels of risk behaviors, some of which may be very far from your 'values' but you may adhere to the group life insurance program because of the net benefit it provides. What is a 'group'? Can it be a nation? By definition, pooling risks and other collective behaviors will have a tendency to impact personal preferences and 'rights'. What is it that prevents to aim for the best NPV, taking all relevant inputs (private or public)? Benjamin Franklin was not exactly a leftist but, when seeing the impact of fires in Philadelphia, decided to put in place several community features for the 'common good': community-sponsored fire brigade, an insurance company, prevention measures (the Franklin stove etc). These features had a 'government' component but included good governance aspects which apply to any endeavors, public or private, in order to maximize outcome and minimize consequences. When referring to the "directional linear path", instead of a war-type mentality, i wonder if all specific questions (healthcare, student aid etc) should not be seen from the perspective of a spectrum whereby, for some questions, one needs to pull and, for others, one needs to push. It may help to get bipartisan 'deals' without individuals having a sense that they are losing their sense of identity. i think you like quotes and i wonder what Benjamin Franklin would say and do in today's environment but when he said: "whereby every man might help another, without any disservice to him", i think he was referring to the net positive NPV concept described above. Undoubtedly there are social programs which are beneficial. But I stand by my point that they are not always the best way to do things. Many of these institutions (fire departments, police departments) which provide net positive services for community’s also present real drag in certain manners. Pensions in the public sector are a good example. Many of these institutions start out great, but quickly mutate into leeches and inefficient monstrosities. I have a friend from high school who’s dad was the fire chief. He is a great guy and will do anything to help. He had a good reputation in the community etc. he retorted last year, and the newspaper published an article. “Fire Chief Retires with Highest Pension”. He was going to be pulling a 70k a year pension in a city where the average income is low-mid 30s. It absolutely wrecked his reputation. He played by the rules, and that’s how the system worked. But even an upstanding guy can be greedy and stack their cards to get as much as they can. It’s human nature. On this flip side of this it’s easy for government to utilize these institutions created to provide a base benefit to society, and stretch them beyond their means. A good example of this is the essay . “Not Yours to Give.” Which highlights Davy Crocketts time in government. https://fee.org/resources/not-your-to-give/ I appreciate your thoughts though, and I can understand your perspective. If I had to pick a direction for healthcare in the US, I would say let’s start by uncoupling it from employers and allow it to be bought and sold in the open market much like car insurance etc. I guess this went a bit off the original topic, so any further discussion in it I’ll move to politics (probably already a thread). Thanks

How do you couple tax payer funded health insurance with vast freedom of consumerism in the US? Why should we subsidize the masses when people stuff their face with hamburgers, chain smoke, and binge drink? I think some form of assistance for those in need or low income bracket is absolutely fine. Although I do think there could be better alternatives (ex prior HMB 1973). But that question (above) would absolutely come up at some point in the US if healthcare is afforded to all. And I have little faith that it would not lead to a restriction on diet, lifestyle, and health related choices by the government. To me, it opens the door for more legislative abuse and the chipping away of freedoms. Why is political progress always viewed in a one directional linear path towards social policies?

Socialism doesn't reduce individuals to numbers unless taken to an extreme like communism. And generally I agree that reducing individuals to numbers is a very bad thing. The appropriateness of socialism depends on the problem you're trying to solve. For justice and national defence, it seems clear that socialism is the way to go. Socialism--or socialism + capitalism--clearly works better for things like healthcare and basic research. And capitalism--or capitalism with only a touch of socialism--clearly works better for things like food and widget production and distribution. Also, capitalism breaks when one can make money by killing other people. That's why there's value in actually looking at the problem and different solutions rather than assuming that because your hammer is great at pounding in a nail, it will be equally good at cutting a board into two equal-sized pieces. I think that if you are going to say things “work” then you also need to define them in terms of time. Socialized medicine may work in the short term, but it isn’t guaranteed to work in the long term. I’m not saying I’m for or against it, just as an example. Hell even Hayek was in favor of a universal healthcare plan (if it could be afforded without burden). Entitlements tends to not go away. Hence my apprehension to them. Modern politics is defined by “catching falling knives” and “doubling down”. It’s not often that societies take a step back and move against the grain or natural tendencies.

I agree, life is not a SIMS game and everything doesn’t boil down to efficiency. Life is inefficient and humans are particularly inefficient. There is no magic input/output control mechanism that will magically create a utopia where everyone has their needs met and is happy. Why? Because we are human. Socialism reduces individuals to numbers (drones basically) and ignores everything that makes people human. Yes, the end goal of socialism tries to address “humanity” but you can’t have humanity without the good and bad aspects of being human. https://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html

For me, socialism is insurance against catastrophic outcomes as a result of bad luck--unemployment insurance, medical insurance, insurance against being born in a dysfunctional family.... In socialism, you give up some extreme rewards to eliminate a some extreme catastrophes. In equity, you're taking socialism from 10% to 100%, and eliminating any and all differential outcomes. You're giving up 100% of your rewards to eliminate 100% of catastrophes. That's why I think it's reasonable to believe in socialism but not equity. If I'm shivering in the cold, it's reasonable to want to stand near a fire, but also reasonable to not want to be lit on fire. Sure sounds good on paper doesn't it?

Have been adding to $INTC the past two weeks.

I don't know, it really depends. My personal opinion is you're an asshole if you as a CEO make ridiculous sums of money. But would reducing these salaries actually make a difference? Walmart CEO makes 22m and there are 1.5m employees. Even if you assume they are all minimum wage (which they are not) then employees get what...$20 a year? As RK said, it really depends on the company (and I'm sure you agree). I think the change would be more of a perception change than anything. Some of these big tech companies could also choose to build centers or offices in less trendy areas to help "revitalize" areas. Should that also be forced though? I would say no. Not saying you think this way, but I don't like the thought process of "Well this would benefit everyone therefore it's good." as a justification for legislation. I think that's very dangerous thinking. I think this will change organically by itself over time. The current hyperbolic environment will usher in some changed at corporate levels. Hell you could probably argue that a lack of government action is forcing corporations to look internally for solutions.

LC what are your thoughts on this? I've personally seen a smallish business do this when I lived in Ohio. They manufactured precision parts for the medical and defense industry. The owner chose to pay employees a base salary of 60K. The company was very well regarded in the area and did quite well. I think it needs to be a choice though.

NIO is pretty interesting. A state backed luxury EV play with a battery as a service model that allows them to sell their cars at a 20ish% discount to Tesla. I picked up 100 "eff it" shares in May of 2019. We'll see what happens. I don't follow this space closely, but from the little I've seen they seem more mature/further along than many EV companies. Looking at the price today I'd say I've gotten pretty lucky so far ;D What about LI, have you looked into it at all? On a first look it seems less overpriced than NIO, but I know very little about the Chinese EV market. I haven't, maybe Liberty could comment? He seems to follow the industry closely. NIO at least is selling vehicles and actually rolling out their BaaS infrastructure. they have 143 stations and have completed 800,000 battery swaps. This industry is inevitable and Tesla is with 100% certainty not going to be the only big player. Lucid Motors (not publicly traded yet) also seems compelling from a product standpoint. The board seems to have some quality individuals as well (ex.) former head Tesla Model S engineer Peter Rawlinson. "Peter was Vice President of Vehicle Engineering at Tesla and Chief Engineer of the Model S, where he led the engineering of the Model S from a clean sheet to production readiness while building the engineering team. A graduate of Imperial College, University of London, Peter was formerly Head of Vehicle Engineering at Corus Automotive, Chief Engineer at Lotus Cars, and Principal Engineer at Jaguar Cars." https://lucidmotors.com/company/board

NIO is pretty interesting. A state backed luxury EV play with a battery as a service model that allows them to sell their cars at a 20ish% discount to Tesla. I picked up 100 "eff it" shares in May of 2019. We'll see what happens. I don't follow this space closely, but from the little I've seen they seem more mature/further along than many EV companies. Looking at the price today I'd say I've gotten pretty lucky so far ;D

Starter a position in PPL. Looks like they are trying to sell WPD (UK asset) and either pay down debt or acquire another US based utility. Some have speculated BRK could be interested in WPD assets.

Unless someone moves to a cheaper area there can be increased costs to remote work. Increased air-conditioning/electricity costs, office/computer/networking/bandwidth costs, etc, so I'm not sure people would be happy with decreased wages. But there is also a substantial decrease in transportation costs, so it might still be on the money saving side for most employees, I don't know. Do you think WFH would change usage that much? Most people seem to run a pretty good internet plan in their house already because of all their devices and streaming. Personally I have't changed much. I have changed my A/C habits a bit, but my bill has generally been in line with the prior year. I have saved about 3-4k miles driven from this so far which probably offsets any consumption costs. I guess it depends on the individual setup.

If the remote work idea takes off and we truly do have a reduction in urban office occupancy, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest a decrease in wages due to a reduction in cost of living? Perhaps employees would still live in the general area for lifestyle choices. Either way, I haven't seen it mentioned but it could provide some incentive for companies to push remote work with possible trade offs in productivity. Thoughts?

Adding more to RTX