nsx5200

1430 bottles of beers on the wall 1430 bottles of beer. Take one down and pass it around, 1429 bottles of beer on the wall.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/zelenskyy-tells-aides-reject-trump-pitch-ukraine-mineral-reserves-rcna192426 "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has told his aides to reject Trump administration officials' proposal that would grant the United States significant access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals...[as] a form of repayment for the support Washington has provided Kyiv since its war with Russia began" "proposed the draft agreement, which would have granted the United States 50% ownership of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals...[,] titanium and iron ore, both of which are used to make a variety of technology products. Many of the minerals, however, are in areas now controlled by Russian troops, according to U.S. officials." It looks like Zelenskyy's found Ukraine's version of the silicon shield as a bargaining chip. I hope Trump makes Russia give up at least those regions that are rich in the minerals that the US is interested in. It'll give US some vested interest in keeping those region away from Russia's control, especially now that Russia is some form of China proxy.

Watching the video at even 1.5x wasn't fast enough for me. Here's the transcript for those that wants to digest it quicker. Given the past history of Trump's interaction with the media and his attempts to void the results of a past election. All I can think of is the deployment of this technique, and loyalty litmus tests in questioning the true motivation behind that speech. If there are valid counter arguments, using the same three upper levels, I'd be glad to hear it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-hesgeth-ukraine-russia-peace-nato-b2697001.html "Pete Hegseth told Nato defence ministers the US won’t support Nato membership for Ukraine - or most of its peace talk platform - leaving Zelensky little room to negotiate," Unless Hegseth has gone off the rails already, then we can assume this direction is coming from Trump. IMHO, there's nothing Trump wants from Ukraine, so they're being thrown under the bus. Maybe Ukraine can try to offer land/subsidies for Trump companies to build his hotels at? Note that The Independent leans left. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/independent-media-bias

China to boost residents' income to spur spending | Reuters Looks like they're finally trying to juice Chinese consumer into more spending.

It means that in the mature economies, and class mobility is slowing down to the point where even the middle class is starting to become out of reach. Many of the younger generations do not see a trend that will change that system, so they would rather vote for somebody who's advocating for tearing it all down, and embracing many of the systems that's outside the traditional systems (i.e. crypto). https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1099882160 "Homer's son Bart embraces the American dream - that ideal that we can follow in our parents' footsteps and do just a little better or even a lot better than the last generation did" "And then it takes this crazy turn where Bart is informed via a musical number that that may not be possible anymore." "In fact, when we crunched the numbers on "The Simpsons" household last year, we worked out that Homer would earn about the equivalent of $50,000 a year in today[2022]'s dollars. HIRSCH: Tough to send a kid to college on that kind of money, let alone get them an advanced degree..." "CARTWRIGHT: (As Bart Simpson, singing) I'll buy and sell bitcoin, build a new app, do pranks on YouTube. I'm great at that crap. Film TikTok tricks on my sick motorbike. ROBERT REICH: (As self) Your chances are slim." "REICH: (As self) The decline of unions, rampant corporate greed, Wall Street malfeasance and the rise of short-sighted politics all contributed to increased economic inequality, widespread real unemployment" With AI on the rise, along with the continuing trend towards automation that further amplify winner-take-all, no wonder all the tech companies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars(collectively) to be those few winners.

If you really want to be more of a contrarian, you would flip from somewhere in the middle, as the A's have probably been picked through first, and second order thinking would have the Z's to be picked through, leaving you with.. somewhere in the middle. Unless you do a 3rd order thinking, leaving you with... random order. Whatever you pick, enjoy your treasure hunt! It is a real luxury to sit down with your favorite drink, and some reading to keep your mind occupied and fed.

Taiwan/TSM's have to keep the most advanced chip process in Taiwan due to the effort & skill it takes to develop new chip process. The capabilities that allows TSM to produce those advanced chips is in encapsulated in its labor force, which is predominately in Taiwan. We saw that to actually get a working US-based fab, they had to transfer that knowledge to the US by actually moving the Taiwanese people. The tech bros would probably not like to pay for the tariff premium. Their best options are: push back against the tariff(aka less regulation), or move/build the AI centric data centers outside of the U.S long term. They will most likely pursue the first option as Trump is fickle and can be more easily manipulated/bribed, especially once Trump realizes the Taiwanese workers are an important part of chip making process. Buying out Taiwan might be an option, but that is essentially declaring war on China. The US's best bet is to arm Taiwan to the teeth by supporting arm sales and at least announcing very loudly the arms sales/transfer in order to signal its commitment to defending Taiwan (whether US will actually follow through with defending Taiwan is another beast). The US arms industry will also benefit from the additional revenue, which will feed Trump's base. It's a win-win scenario for Trump. IMHO, DeepSeek is just noise as no matter what happens, they have to integrate the new techniques from DeepSeek just to keep up their competitive edge with their peers. It ups the ante, but isn't a long-term advantage or disadvantage similar to the effects of ATM to banks, so it's not really relevant to the long-term chip production discussion. Disclosure: I'm have significant vested interested in Taiwan, but also hold China-centric assets. Caveat emptor.

I'll bite when it can perform "Get me Taylor Swift tickets for under $2k", or if I feel a bit more devious, "Get me a hit person with success rate of >90% on Putin for under a mil". Edit: Add Youtube demo from OpenAI

Despite my respect and gratitude for Mohnish's business analysis, it does seem like the long-term fund performance warrants some retrospective analysis in his reports, even if it's a David Einhorn style of "value investing's not working". Some mea culpas or place where more patience is needed would provide a bit more transparency to the investment style that his investors are really paying for. It's possible that this is already done, but in my brief search, it doesn't seem to be in the few public reports that I quickly pulled up. If that's already done, I apologize in advance and would appreciate a link. TIA.

Yes. That is built-in biology at work, and it's pretty fair to want that. The issue is with the multi part of the multi generational wealth transfer. I would claim that past the grand-kids, they're pretty much strangers to you. I can see why Buffet treats his more distant offspring as completely stranger when it comes to inheritances. I actually think the current thresholds before estate tax kicks in are pretty reasonable, but it's the loop-holes that bypass those thresholds that I think should be fixed. Why should the ultra-rich play by a different set of rules? The accumulated capabilities that's been built up over time is largely encapsulated in our government or in framework established by the government. It is the caretaker of last resort, and despite all the inefficiencies in the system, IMHO, the US government, unlike some other governments in the world, have at least no ulterior motive other than to serve the people(although there are plenty of scenarios where it's self serving). Many have chosen to leave it to philanthropies instead of letting the government take it at the end, and so the choice is really whether to trust the government to decide the excessive resource allocation, or for the philanthropies to decide. If you trust your kids enough to handle it, you can let them decide as well by leaving it to them.

They just need to tokenize them, and at some point, de-couple the tokens from the apartments. A new currency is born.

I find it amusingly ironic that the ones that advocate for the support of multi-generation wealth transfer would think of themselves as type B people.

Thanks for that book recommendation. I'll have to add that to my queue. It's not a popular opinion to have, but it's from a view point of "how do we create the incentive in society such that everybody, regardless of their natural ability, is able and encouraged to grow and contribute to that society in the end goal of advancing human kind?" It would be a real shame to have an Einstein-caliber offspring born in a multi-generation wealth family in a system that actively shields that offspring from having to contribute to society.

Agreed that the DEI policies are wonky and anti-merit based. When you have colored people pushing out better-performing Asians in the name of DEI, the system is broken. Never mind all holes about unequal starting point when you see many of the first or second generation Asians climbing to the top of the economic ladders when the blacks are still complaining about slavery that are 4-5+ generations ago. I'll disagree with your thinking about multi-generation wealth. It's also not right that generation wealth can be passed down, even if their future generation have not earned it. Born Rich is a interesting documentary that exemplifies that. Just because most recent rich blows it in a few generation doesn't mean in the long-run, it's a good policy for society.