Castanza

Starts at 6:00

Sold 15% of my $AMD position to free up some cash.

Starter position in TPL and STOR

Curious, does this also comes with mineral rights? I'll be traveling down there for work most likely in June and also will be visiting a sister in-law. Any recommendations of "non-touristy" things to do in Santiago?

Looks like it paid off well for you. Nice call!

CACC Earnings missed. Share price down 8% today and 2020 earnings projections are estimated to be down 30-60%.

Subprime auto loan "sector" is somewhat interesting. Possibly a play on Santander Consumer USA? Apparently they are only verifying like 8% of income for their auto loans. You have to think the auto sector would take a massive hit in a slowdown. Used car market is already quite saturated. Add in thousands of delinquencies and banks are stuck with newish vehicles (now used) at artificially high prices. I'm not an auto bug as some on here so maybe someone else who has followed this can shed more light on the topic.

It’s similar in Germany, corporate taxes aren’t much higher there than in the US. Also, health care isn’t free either, it’s paid for in taxes, which is a capped tax of 15.5%, 8.2% paid by the insured and 7.3% is paid by the employer. It’s not free by any means. Then what’s the benefit? Because rough math for someone earning 65k a year would be 5,330 (-960, -1k, -3k) and you’re basically at my insurance except I’d have $370 less. Make more pay more. I know my coworker makes somewhere between 100-120k usd so that would put him close to 10k costs in healthcare using the numbers you provided. It’s similar in Germany, corporate taxes aren’t much higher there than in the US. Also, health care isn’t free either, it’s paid for in taxes, which is a capped tax of 15.5%, 8.2% paid by the insured and 7.3% is paid by the employer. It’s not free by any means.

Those figures for health care costs in Czech republic sound way off base. Have you had a chance to verify that somehow. Keep in mind anecdotal evidence from taxpayers is not always true. For example, I cant count how many people I have met that dont understand fundamental personal finance stuff like marginal tax rates. Certainly! I generally take everything with a grain of salt. But I know about 20ish people who live here currently and only 1 of them seems to have an issue with the insurance. $80/m 1k deductible 3k max oop and $20 copay (none for preventative). For healthy people this is no expensive by any means. And I definitely don’t have the best insurance around.

Thanks for that simple yet insightful perspective.

I travel to Germany about 3 month total including Prague, Costa Rica, and Mexico for work. I work daily with many people from these countries and the ones who are here in the US on work visa beg and moan and cry not to go back when their visas come up for expiration (and I wish they didn’t have to go). They ALL want to have their visas extended. Not to mention that 80% of them have kids while they’re here. I was talking with a coworker Standa a little bit ago. He said he loves the US health insurance. He pays $80 a month company pays like $200ish where as in Prague he said he was paying 10k a year through taxes etc. Now Germany and Prague are not terrible in any sense. Beautiful countries. But the idea or argument that “oh well, the worst we can be is like so and so.” Is completely counterintuitive. Why does the US exist in the first place? It certainly doesn’t exist to be like Europe. If you all like Europe so much then why choose to live in the US? You sound like the homeschool kids who complain about missing out on sports that the local school offers. You can’t have the cake and eat it too.

Wouldn’t it be easier to start building a position in $GLD or some other gold etf if she gets the nomination? Not to mention going to more cash.

I have to agree. The simplicity of this site is what appeals to me. No fuss straight forward raw information. It's a lot like the old SiliconInvestor site but with much more streamline functionality. One thing I really like is the lack of ability to "like" or "dislike" others posts. I think it encourages more conversation rather than some forums like Reddit that skew good and bad information. Either way I'm sure Sanjeev will make the right decision. Edit: Will buy a T-shirt for sure.

I agree, this has bothered me for quite some time as well. You can get a EV SSL Certificate from Comodo for a few hundred a year. You probably don't even need that level as there is really only one payment transaction, but for the minimal cost more it wouldn't hurt.

Let me correct that for you. Libertarian Science The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress. Nice one. :) Not only that, remember it's the government that mainly funds science so they can certainly bias its direction as well. So, if the issue is for the government to control, direct and introduce bias as a primary driving force, how do you reconcile with the following: 1-federal funding of R/D per GDP has been decreasing, 2-federal funding versus corporate funding ratio has been going down and 3-federal funding to environmental science has not increased despite the dogmatic and alarmist take described above? https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/RDGDP.png https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/USFund1.jpg https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Disc-1.jpg Disclosure: I think a balance between corporate and public funding allows to find a compromise between basic research which is necessary for long-term outcomes and also produces constructive surprises, and more applied research with potential short-term applications and profitability. A constructive discussion may help to help define that balance, governance and incentives but I don't understand how undermining a model that has worked so well can not result in less progress or even regression. I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in research. It certainly has benefited the average citizen in the past. But too much govt dictates the direction of research. Especially when you take the government as a consumer and add in the political agenda. Wind and solar are a good example of this nonsense. The govt is not pursuing the path of the best tech (nuclear) and instead letting politics lead the way. I mean look at the Wright Brothers. The govt basically laughed them out of the building and said flight wasn’t possible. Then two guys in a bike shop proved them wrong with 2k. But we also have good examples of a meshing between govt funded and public sector funding (eg. spacex) The issue is trust. Can we trust the govt to choose the best path forward for R&D? Could we trust the top scientists to choose the best path forward using tax payer dollars? Not sure, because anytime humans are involved we have poor decisions being made. But, personally I would rather let a guy like Musk off the chain than allow Nancy Pelosi or Mitch determine what tech is the best moving forward. So it turns out government return on R&D funding (mainly giving money to universities has high rates of return): https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/ Why? Govt is likely bad at picking winners and losers, but most research has little payoff to the discoverer. For example, the invention of the internet, GPS, Satellites/rockers, many times doesn't inventors rich, it later made the companies that commercialize the idea, rich. This is why things like basic science research, defense research etc, have such high ROI. Researches benefit very little, but the externality benefit to others is massive. Thus there is an underinvestment into basic research (ie research not designed at improving an existing product or service). Wartime spending is often extreme and reckless. We also hired plenty of Nazis after WWII (operation paperclip). Again, I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in any capacity. There have been benefits (internet etc). But even that is difficult to quantify because you can’t really say the private sector wouldn’t have been able to accomplish it. Your bias seems extreme in favor of govt. Govt funding has also given us ridiculous research spending on trivial things such as treadmills for shrimp....it’s easier to waste money of tax payers. Imagine the outrage of shareholders if companies wasted millions on stuff like in the below link. https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/wasteful-government-spending/

Let me correct that for you. Libertarian Science The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress. Nice one. :) Not only that, remember it's the government that mainly funds science so they can certainly bias its direction as well. So, if the issue is for the government to control, direct and introduce bias as a primary driving force, how do you reconcile with the following: 1-federal funding of R/D per GDP has been decreasing, 2-federal funding versus corporate funding ratio has been going down and 3-federal funding to environmental science has not increased despite the dogmatic and alarmist take described above? https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/RDGDP.png https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/USFund1.jpg https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Disc-1.jpg Disclosure: I think a balance between corporate and public funding allows to find a compromise between basic research which is necessary for long-term outcomes and also produces constructive surprises, and more applied research with potential short-term applications and profitability. A constructive discussion may help to help define that balance, governance and incentives but I don't understand how undermining a model that has worked so well can not result in less progress or even regression. I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in research. It certainly has benefited the average citizen in the past. But too much govt dictates the direction of research. Especially when you take the government as a consumer and add in the political agenda. Wind and solar are a good example of this nonsense. The govt is not pursuing the path of the best tech (nuclear) and instead letting politics lead the way. I mean look at the Wright Brothers. The govt basically laughed them out of the building and said flight wasn’t possible. Then two guys in a bike shop proved them wrong with 2k. But we also have good examples of a meshing between govt funded and public sector funding (eg. spacex) The issue is trust. Can we trust the govt to choose the best path forward for R&D? Could we trust the top scientists to choose the best path forward using tax payer dollars? Not sure, because anytime humans are involved we have poor decisions being made. But, personally I would rather let a guy like Musk off the chain than allow Nancy Pelosi or Mitch determine what tech is the best moving forward.

Let me correct that for you. Libertarian Science The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress.

So you are telling me because every physicist agrees that gravity is a fundamental force that invalidates it? The reason no one is challenging CO2 = global warming is that no explanation makes more sense. It's important to know that, climate models are continually improving, so while they all generally agree that carbon causes global warming, they have taken into account more factors like the melting ice caps, Siberia, gulf stream etc (this is not my area of expertise so I don't pretend to know these things well), so they are improving. At some point attempts to falsify climate change caused by carbon have failed and so the refinements all take that as given. That is also how science progresses. Once given enough evidence, some things are taken as given and further theories build upon these facts to model even more nuanced phenomena. The existence of gravity and its theory are not just based on scientific consensus/agreement, but they can be objectively confirmed (or refuted) using empirical evidence. The model (law) of gravity can predict forces/motions of objects with 99% accuracy (e.g., we get rockets on the Moon). The climate change theories and models (horribly inaccurate), as of now, are mostly based on subjective consensus and insufficient data; therefore, inferences made based on them should not be taken as scientific facts. Global warming is also confirmed and could have been disconfirmed by empircal evidence. Global tempratures have been getting warmer since the industrial revolution. Even if we can't get the exact magnitude of some hidden phenonenom, doesnt mean we can't say with high certainty what the direction is. For example demand is downward sloping ie when price goes up quantity, goes down. The elasticity of demand with respect to price cannot be accurately measured, but economist are sure to the point that it has become axiomatic that, generally, demand is downward sloping. Someone commented about how when politics effects science, science can't be trusted. I think many of these models were developed before there was such political controversy in these topics. Keep in mind it wascthe scieintist who first pushed this movement. What changed is the former tobacco lobbiest who told you not to believe what basically every climate scietlntist will tell you is true. Academics have liberal biases generally yes, but if you can demonstrate that a theory such as man made climate change is false, this would get you fame in the academic community equivalent to something like a Nobel. Thus there is hige incentive for people to challenge the prevailing wisdom. The fact that no one can do this, means that scientists are all in agreement and the fact is likely true. - Global Warming is confirmed. The cause is not. - Going against the grain in science typically leaves you jobless and unfunded. No fresh grad just entering the field is going to waste one year of (lucky they even got it)funding on a revolutionary idea that challenges the scientific church and their 80 year old theories. Especially if they want to make a career out of it. You really think the scientific community where people spend entire careers on single topics, writing books, giving speeches etc are gleefully willing to just have their theory abandoned by some non-consensus theory from an unknown scientist trying to make a name for themselves? Then you don't know humans...Take a look back through history at all the inventions and inventors that have been completely stonewalled out of the scientific community. Tesla himself comes to mind.

That is a very ignorant statement as it conflates scientific fact and scientific theories. Vaccines and flat earth is testable and repeatable. People who don't believe in the benefits of vaccines or that the earth is round are blatantly ignoring science. When talking about evolution there are two things that people tend to lump together. The first is Natural Selection and the other is evolution of life from single cell organism to complex organism transitioning between species. The first is clearly proven. It's found both in documented history and in the fossil record and even today in modern life (dogs, horses, etc). The other which includes transitional species is not found in the fossil record. If there is a field of science that has the least amount of certainty it would be paleontology. Climate change is certainly a mix of both and I think that is the reason why most people are frustrated with it. That and because it has to potential to actually impact your life financially where the others mentioned have zero bearing on your life except maybe the anti-vaccine nonsense. I don't think we should be making any rash decisions but at the same time should focus on it as an issue. But the community needs to be more open to causes and reality. My personal issue with it is the clear political agenda and power grab from the UN down.

The ozone layer is 3 millimeters thick on average in the atmosphere, yet we agree that it has significant effects in blocking UV rays. The entire atmosphere is 8Km high. source: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson_SH.html What’s your point? The Ozone makes up .00000038% of the total atmosphere by your numbers. So what, 9mm of pollution a year? No idea what the distribution of this is in the 8km layer.

Just spit balling here on my phone: There are 62,500 power plants in the world. Let’s assume they are all terrible red tag coal plants (max pollution) 725,000 tons each a year. Earths Atmospheric volume is 5140 trillion tons. Power plants produce 0.00000815% of the total atmospheric volume in pollution a year. Over 150 years that would be .0012 % of atmospheric volume. There are 3 trillion trees on the planet. Trees are estimated to absorb 13-48 pounds of CO2 a year. Let’s just take it less than average and say 25lbs of CO2 a year captured by a single tree. Soooo 75 trillion pounds or 37.5 billion tons of CO2 is sequestered by trees a year. Trees sequester 0.00000729% of the total atmospheric volume a year in CO2. So for shits and giggles let’s use the trees to offset the coal plants...0.00000089% of the earths total atmospheric volume in pollution a year. Over 150 years that would be 0.000129% of atmospheric volume. Yes, this ignores other forms of pollution, volume density of gases etc, but it also ignores other “anti pollution?” mechanisms. What all this means? No effing clue but that percentage makes it hard for me to believe we have any significant impact on anything. Could we get to 1% if we included every source of pollution? It’s like saying a natural gas burning pilot light would eventually heat a domed sports arena located in Antarctic. Again, I can’t answer for the impact of these percentages. Edit: apparently all automobile and industrial activities produce 24 billion tons of CO2 a year. So that would be 0.000004ish % of total atmospheric volume.

Seems we have similar fleeting experiences with Geology. The university I attended had an emphasis around paleontology which was pretty interesting, but not what I was after. I did get to participate in a dino dig out near in the bad lands Montana section and the Green River Formation in Wyoming. But yeah, I had zero desire to be a paleontologist. The other aspects of geology (resources, formations, stratigraphy, etc.) stuck with me. I backpack a lot and often get those book with info on local formations and strata.

It’s definitely a fringe theory regarding oil origins. But the book is an interesting read regardless. However it was recommended to me by a Geology prof who had 30 years of oil and gas industry experience. It would be interesting to see the experiments tried again today with modern drilling technology. Where do you practice geology? If you care to share.

There doesn't seem to be too many discussions on this forum regarding interests or professions other than investing. Not sure if there are any on here who study geology professionally or as a hobby but here are a few topics I follow loosely and find interesting. Deep Hot Biosphere is a book I read in college while studying Geology. It was always an interesting hypothesis to read about. It seems the fracking industry has sparked new interest in the topic but more from a human involvement perspective instead of naturally occurring. - https://www.pnas.org/content/114/27/6895 Similar topic but in regards to Natural Gas Facking and the introduction of microbes which are creating entire ecosystems in the biosphere. -

I did do some reading in Ardmore about a year ago and it seemed that their tankers were specifically equipped to ship low sulfur fuel which is going to become the standard fuel option for ships due to emission regulations. Again take this with a grain of salt as I quickly lost interest in the sector and didn’t do any type of deep dive. But it seemed that although their fleet was a bit older they were better positioned and sort of cornered the market on distributing this fuel.