scorpioncapital

Yes, although i don't think it has collapsed at all in Canada. The conservatives in canada are as far left as the Democrats in the US and are actually far LEFT vs even the conservatives in Europe. In other words, the labels do not do justice to the fact that it is all a gradient and Canada is still too left for its own health.

the value of currencies probably has to do with both tangible and intangible factors - just like evaluating a company. If some country has too big of a government sector, it might have a poor stock market but the currency may still be strong enough. But when even the government involvement in foreign policy and trade comes up against the same walls that an individual or business might like debt, economic freedom, tariffs, wasteful and unproductive spending, then the currency could weaken as well.

So the idea is that any nuclear weapon nation can invade and take over any other nation just because they can 'fall back' on a nuclear strike?

well he could sell his chevron stake and own 100% of oxy, I would imagine the total exposure to oil would be similar yet he'd control 100% of the cashflows.

A decent rebuttal from an industry veteran - https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/anarchist-drugs-all-yeahboy Really, the major idea I see here is not the amateurish synthesis of existing drugs (which is probably very dangerous anyway) but access to medicines on the patient's terms. Why isn't everyone in every country able to get access to a specific drug? Why one country allows it, another doesn't approve it - at the same time? Why do we have to go through some gatekeepers because the 'State' is paying for it? This is especially true as most of the world has public healthcare systems. The point is that drugs aren't always available on the patient's terms - especially if they depend on Big Brother subsidizing it. There is too much power given to the medical profession and the Government. Cost is the other issue, in the case where it isn't subsidized, you are able to get a doc to give you a prescription, no strings attached - it could be very expensive to buy. Improve cost and access and none of this is necessary. Another aspect is new cell therapy type drugs. This is going to be much more complex to deliver, and expensive. However, if this guy can show that things can be done cheaper in a decentralized way, people might start to question why It's so expensive.

The flipside of disallowing litigation (as some countries have done) is that REAL crime is under compensated by virtue of being compensated by the whims of the Government (usually its pocket book and the desire not to raise taxes, which essentially makes the entire population complicit in underpaying for real crimes). That seems a bit problematic too.

There is a qualitative element here which is very important: it isn't automatic that anyone can figure out if the reinvestment return can continue upward at those rates without end. It is important to figure out how long that can last as well. A business is a real thing. A good business is nice to know or have but the mechanics of reinvestment should be studied to see how stable those numbers can be and the term and why. These are real human beings producing these results in the real world. There are all kinds of obstacles from regulations to competitors as well as opportunities that go into that final number.

I can't even seem to make money on companies that have already announced to be acquired these days much less 'might be acquired' lol.

He had 200 billion prior to the sale. He had enough money. Is he about to buy a 300 billion business? As for cash being better than even Apple, it is a possible idea. It is very strange to explain this very large sale. Perhaps he wants to reduce the volatility of Berkshire stock in a crash relative to the market (or high p/e stocks that will not do as well as cash if inflation picks up alot)? Or perhaps he was never comfortable with tech in general and so has a bias against it , especially after monster gains?

Perhaps diversification? At least a minimal amount? If you had even 10 positions which is fairly concentrated, you might rebalance your largest holding. I don't think anyone would own 1 or 2 stocks, that would require a super high level of confidence and I don't recall most any investor owning 1 or 2 stocks even if you were super smart. This means outside investors, not founders of companies who might own all their wealth in one stock before diversifying.

If you run out of space, you build skyscrapers. If you run out of physical infrastructure, you write books, or get more efficient, or discover an asteroid and go get some resources - that's all 'asset lite'. Intellectual property is quite highly valued short of acute shortages like war taking oil or chips offline as an example. Even that would recover in time.

You mean the voters are more radical in saying 'what the hell' and rolling the dice on very different leaders? I suppose that is one way that a democracy can be subverted from within via their own people. Heck, I can even see democracy leading to dictatorship. Just vote the wrong people in who then change the rules. Not sure if that is possible in some countries like the US. From what I read, the founders of the nation were very suspicious of government - and possibly voters too. So they created extra systems that made it hard to dismantle the entire system. But I'm not actually sure if it isn't possible. However, I suspect its not just the voters. But implementation of ideas. In the end there are also financial restraints. To some degree, voters give up their day to day country to 'expert government', which may be anything but expert before the damage is done. I actually have a bigger respect now for 'wealth creation'. It is so silent and invisible, yet it is the engine from which many potential successes derive from.

how are such left elections different than say in Canada or the US or Europe? Seems the results are very similar? Are they somehow a different 'flavour' in Mexico? I find it strange that a left woman leader would allow so much drug cartels and crime in their countries. I mean something as simple as water or food safety in two countries has nothing to do with left or right I would imagine. I think this left / right debate is missing something. There are lots of cultural factors that go into how a country ends up operating in real life, not just the leanings of the politicians.

He seems too focused on value (sometimes involving too much debt or lack of growth) to the point of falling for value traps. Then he had some biotech investments which I never understood - too random and how does it mesh with value anyway? Perhaps a focus on growth , even GARP might have been better? Then again, big size of the company might also be an issue.

so if it is not gun to head we can say complicit? I mean, she can easily emigrate if she wanted to? How did that work out for other emigrant high level officials? I believe the KGB was/is still hunting them abroad with threat of poisoned assassination.