Dinar

That's a bullshit argument and you know it ! Australia was the place where England sent its convicts, so obviously whites would be the largest criminal element in Australia. Particularly when there was no immigration from Asia, and so it was only whites and aborigines. There is a difference between Islam and Christianity. Islam demands war on non-believers, Christianity preaches peaches. Judaism prohibits proselytizing, Islam demands it. Islam demands that all non-Muslims are treated as second class citizens. I don't recall Confucius making the same demands. There is a reason that everyone want to immigrate to Europe and US and nobody want to immigrate to Pakistan, or Iran, or Egypt or Libya or Uzbekistan, Tajikistan!

Except that they are not. Look at crime rates among Afghans in Germany versus Ukrainians. Look at employment rates of Syrians versus Poles. Look at who commit terrorist acts around the world - it is Afghans, Pakistanis, Arabs, Chechens. It is not Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, or Mexicans or Chinese or Indians or Koreans. Name me one Islamic country where non-Muslim minorities are treated well! Where are the Bahai and Zoroastrians of Iran? Where are the Christians of Bukhara? What happened to Christians in the Ottoman Empire? What was does to Yezedies and Assyrians in Iraq? What is being done to Alawites and Druze in Syria? What happened to Christians in Lebanon? You don't see Chinese or Mexicans in the US demanding special accommodation, try to have a pretty girl in a mini skirt walk in an Arab/Turkish neighborhood in Germany/France and see what happens. A Jew can walk in a skull cap in a Chinese neighborhood in the US/Europe, nothing will happen, now try the experiment in an Arab/Pakistani/Turkish neighborhood. Islam has no tolerance for non-Muslims, read the Koran! It is there in black and white! Jews were expelled from Iraq, a place where they had lived for more than 2,500 years after being brought there against their will. Same thing happened in Iran - Jews were forcibly brought there 2,500 years ago, and again forced out. These things did not happen when Zoroastrians ran Persia, these things did not happen when Iraq was run by Christians. Happened under Muslim rule.

Yes.

Because Germans want Germany to remain Germany and not turn into Afghanistan, Pakistan or Turkey. Where should the immigrants go? Back to where they came from.

Everyone knows how the underlying problem gets solved. Either all Muslims from Kashmir get deported to Pakistan, or all non-Muslims leave Kashmir and Kashmir is handed over to Pakistan. The problem is of course even if Kashmir is handed over to Pakistan, and all non Muslims leave, then the grievances switch to the fact that Muslims in the rest of India are not treated "properly." Of course everyone forgets that Christians and other non-Muslims can only dream of being treated in the Moslem world the way Muslims are treated in India.

The problem is that many Germans have legitimate concerns, whether about energy transition or mass immigration, and the mainstream parties ignore them. Had France ended immigration thirty years ago, I doubt Le Pen would have been as popular as she is, nor do I think AFD would be getting even 10% of the vote had Germany not welcomed millions of Syrians/Turks in the past three decades and not got crazy about renewables. When mainstream parties ignore concerns of a large swathe of the electorate, electorate has no choice but vote for extremists.

Nazis executed dozens of my relatives. I don't hold modern Germans responsible for this. If someone advocates mass murder today, certainly that is not acceptable. However, we cannot hold a nation responsible for what its forefathers did. Most nations/people did abhorrent things - Mongols, Turks, Arabs & Moslems, Assyrians, Egyptians, Romans, Hungarians, USSR - massacre at Katyn/Creation of North Korea/Mao's mass murder, China - creation of North Korea, Japan - WWII, Ukrainian nationalists over the centuries, Poles, and the list goes on

Yes, thank you. I finally listened to you and bought stock in December of 2023 in size, after buying a token position in 2022. It was tough though paying 50% more for the major lot vs my first lot.

Listen, you know the research is bullshit when the author says risk is measured by volatility. Also, the "researchers" never checked whether their sample size was representative.

Let me clarify what I meant. If tomorrow I read that 1000 Chinese, who live in Vancouver, have Canadian citizenship and are doing quite well economically decide to move to NYC, then that shows to me that NYC is attractive. If on the other hand 1000 people with third grade education living in Chinese countryside move to NYC, that shows me nothing. Similarly, if 5000 people of Iranian heritage, who are Canadian citizens and doing very well economically move from Toronto/Ottawa to NYC, that tells me that NYC is an attractive place. If 5000 Iranians move directly from Iran to NYC, that tells me nothing. That was my point. When people move from attractive places to NYC, that tells me that NYC is attractive. When people move from horrible places, that tells me nothing about NYC.

Yes, it matters who replaces New Yorkers who leave, Americans or foreigners. If Americans replace New Yorkers that leave, that means the city is an attractive place to live. If people from Yemen/Syria/Somalia/Jamaica/Venezuela/Haiti replace New Yorkers who live, that just means is that NY is more attractive than a failed state with a civil war/gang violence not that it is attractive to people from Paris, London or Boston or North Carolina.

Who flooded back into the city? Families with kids fled and did not return. I can buy a 3 or 4 bedroom in Manhattan at the same price that it traded 10 or 12 years ago. Real estate prices in many parts of Manhattan have not changed in ten years. Rents have grown at less than inflation in the past decade. If it wasn't for foreigners moving in, the population of the city would have shrunk 10%+. By the way, the number of kids in public schools in NYC is down 10%+ since 2016. I track Clipper Realty (CLPR). The rents in any of their buildings have not exceeded 2016 levels, after adjusting for inflation. As a matter of fact, they have lagged inflation. If your theory was correct, then you should have expected massive rental growth that significantly exceeded inflation caused by massive immigration on top of flat domestic population. Did you see this? No, rents have lagged inflation since 2016 despite massive population influx from abroad. US citizens have fled NY en masse.

That's not correct. There was a flood of people out of NYC driven out by incredibly bad de Blasio (mayor) and horrible state legislature and governor (free criminals acts). In many parts of Manhattan, real estate prices have not changed for a decade.

My guess is that prior to early March, hedge funds were very, very long, probably on leverage as well, as optimism regarding deregulation, and expectation that tariffs were just a negotiating tactic made people optimistic. Then it probably went the other way, as leverage was eliminated or drastically reduced. You could see it in stock movements, as stocks like PM or KO would be up sharply on the day when the market would be down a lot. Now, hedge funds are probably a lot less long than they normally are, and are looking for reasons to get back in. (I do not think that hedge funds are net short, just a lot less long than they normally are. Heck, Mark Mobius, not a hedge fund guy, is 95% in cash.)

Probably means that you are unlikely to see another 7-10% down day in the next several months, and if economic news/tariffs get resolved in the market friendly direction, the market will rip.

There is a short case on Erie by Herb Greenberg, you should look into it.

Article on Bloomberg saying that the only trade that hedge funds have been comfortable with in April was shorting US stocks.

Cool podcast, thank you. I don't think anyone but the Chinese will buy them. India will not, neither will the rest of Asia, since China has disputes with Vietnam, India, Philippines, Japan, Taiwan. We will have to agree to disagree, I think it is a lot harder to do it than you think. Engines are even harder. Time will tell you is correct.

O'k, we will have to agree to disagree. Rolls Royce does not have an engine for the narrow body market right now, not clear if they will be able to develop one.

Dude, you think China has not tried to develop an aircraft engine? Do you know how difficult it is? Russia which had a thriving aerospace industry no longer produces its own planes (Sukhoi regional is an exception) nor its own engines. And yes, US could absolutely forbid the JV from selling planes - first step is to prohibit sale of US/GE made products into JV and then the JV is over and Safran has to produce stuff that GE has produced before.

Because us government will forbid it

No, it is ge/safran joint venture

Who do you think will buy the Chinese planes? By the way, the moment GE/Safran/Pratt stop selling engines to China, how will Comac fly?

Yes it does. People who are sloppy in one area, tends to be sloppy everywhere. The work is probably riddled with mistakes, it is just that they are not as obvious. (I am not defending tariffs, my point is that this research is garbage.) Cuts in government jobs are necessary, tariffs on Canada are hard to understand. There are millions of households where someone is employed either directly or indirectly by the government. If 25% of these households are worried that they will lose income, most of these households will cut consumption materially. These households also tend to be high income households. A friend's brother has been a lawyer for the IRS for more than a decade and the brother's wife is a nurse. The IRS guy is worried that he will be fired and they have started to cut consumption.

Charlie, you may very well be right. However, what is Gundlach's track record? Is he any good?