Blugolds

If you are unable to view due to paywall Link here works: https://archive.ph/W35zj

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-18/warren-buffett-in-contact-with-biden-officials-on-banking-crisis?leadSource=uverify wall

Berkshire does have women and minorities on the board, but rather than insult them by treating these highly accomplished individuals as props to generate a checkmark on some diversity grid, the proxy emphasizes that they were selected due to what they bring to the table in terms of experience and ownership. In response to a shareholder proposal that is intended to force Berkshire into the practices of most other large companies, the proxy responds with the following statement: Readers of the biographies covering Mr. Buffett’s life know that he was an advocate for civil rights from the earliest days of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He has also made numerous comments over the years about the loss to individual businesses and to society as a whole when women are discriminated against in employment markets. None of this seems to matter to politically driven pressure campaigns intended to intimidate businesses to elevate skin color, gender, and sexual orientation over ownership and business acumen when it comes to corporate governance. Rational, logical, a voice of reason. I'd expect nothing less from Omaha. As someone racially/ethnically diverse, its refreshing to read that BRK #1 priority is shareholder benefit. I dont need the board to have an African/Asian, LBGTQ director on the Board, I need them to have the best person for the job. If that person happens to also be African/Asian LBGTQ, good for them. But you cant get your board seat on that merit alone... The people who demand that there is diversity for diversity sake on a BOD are essentially demanding what they are attempting to combat. A BOD full of diversity with no merit is just as bad as a BOD with zero diversity full of rich old white guys aka "yes" men who got the position based on the good 'ol boy network or their alma mater. Swinging to one extreme is no better than the opposite extreme they are attempting to replace. Its madness. As mentioned, Omaha should be the least of their concerns, as they have always been a lighthouse of integrity in the turbulent ocean of deceit that is wall street. Said simply, their barking up the wrong tree.

Curious what you estimate BRK book to be if you think below book is coming, I think we'll probably get a good shot at much more favorable ratio...but I would be surprised to see below book without some significant event/crisis. Dont get me wrong, the cheaper BRK gets the happier I am, and I would be ecstatic to see those opportunities..but based on my conservative estimate of book, I think ability to buy below book might be a little optimistic. Personally I like to see BRK <$300, but IMO its not in "sexy" territory yet, another $25-$30/share drop before I start getting super excited. Even at todays prices Im estimating P/B (not that its as solid a metric as it used to be) around historical average 1.36...I dont start licking my lips until =< 1.2.

Cliff Notes: Im the only one telling the truth The other guy is lying Their lies are as obvious as a rotten piece of fruit You're smart enough to recognize a rotten apple arent ya? Good then you agree they're liars. But just in case you were wondering if you could eat around it, just remember, rotten fruit, and the tree it grew on gets "cut down and burned" hint hint... Isnt that like the ULTIMATE gaslight? "Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that hinges on creating self-doubt. “I think of gaslighting as trying to associate someone with the label ‘crazy,’” says Paige Sweet, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Michigan who studies gaslighting in relationships and in the workplace. “It’s making someone seem or feel unstable, irrational and not credible, making them feel like what they’re seeing or experiencing isn’t real, that they’re making it up, that no one else will believe them.” Gaslighting involves an imbalance of power between the abuser and the person they’re gaslighting. Abusers often exploit stereotypes or vulnerabilities related to gender, sexuality, race, nationality and/or class. “The most distinctive feature of gaslighting is that it’s not enough for the gaslighter simply to control his victim or have things go his way: It’s essential to him that the victim herself actually come to agree with him,” writes Andrew D. Spear, an associate professor of philosophy at Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan, in a 2019 paper on gaslighting in Inquiry. (...) When gaslighting gets partisan, politicians may use the power of messaging to create false narratives, explains Latif. They may even try to undermine constituents’ sense of reality for supporting an opposing idea or questioning the perpetrator’s narrative in the first place." Gaslighting is defined as an “elaborate and insidious technique of deception and psychological manipulation” used to “undermine the victim’s confidence in his own ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong, or reality from appearance, thereby rendering him psychologically dependent on the gaslighter”

Wrote/writing BRK puts

@rkbabangyeah thats an interesting thought and IMO makes perfect sense...potential for behaviors/traits to develop and pass along through the generations that are not necessarily a positive contributing to advancement and "selected" to lead and continue...but also not bad enough to be weeded out. Interesting to think about where that "line" might be and maybe those things/traits that arent a hard NO for advancement, but also arent a strong YES will eventually fall off, but maybe it just takes longer to weed out. I dont know if you are familiar with the Russian farm fox experiment, I first read about it in a big article in National Geographic many years ago. The interesting thing to me, and what made me think about and remember this was what you said about insignificant side effects or unintended results that arent a game changer either way...showing up. And thats exactly what has happened with these fox. Breeding based ONLY on level of tameness, and the continuation and encouragement of that trait alone. But other traits that were "insignificant" but shared with current domesticated dogs started showing up. Changes in color of the coat, ears started drooping, tails started curling, craniofacial morphology, the face of the fox started to change to a more juvenile look. -For the last 59 years (2018) a team of Russian geneticists led by Lyudmila Trut have been running one of the most important biology experiments of the 20th, and now 21st, century. The experiment was the brainchild of Trut’s mentor, Dmitri Belyaev, who, in 1959, began an experiment to study the process of domestication -Every generation he and his team would test hundreds of foxes, and the top 10% of the tamest would be selected to parent the next generation. They developed a scale for scoring tameness, and how a fox scored on this scale was the sole criteria for selecting foxes to parent the next generation. -Belyaev knew that many domesticated species share a suite of characteristics including floppy ears, short, curly tails, juvenilized facial and body features, reduced stress hormone levels, mottled fur, and relatively long reproductive seasons. Today this suite of traits is known as the domestication syndrome. Belyaev found this perplexing. Our ancestors had domesticated species for a plethora of reasons—including transportation (e.g., horses), food (e.g., cattle) and protection (e.g., dogs)—yet regardless of what they were selected for, domesticated species, over time, begin to display traits in the domestication syndrome. Why? Belyaev hypothesized that the one thing our ancestors always needed in a species they were domesticating was an animal that interacted prosocially with humans. We can’t have our domesticates-to-be trying to bite our heads off. And so he hypothesized that the early stages of all animal domestication events involved choosing the calmest, most prosocial-toward-human animals: I will refer to this trait as tameness, though that term is used in many different ways in the literature. Belyaev further hypothesized that all of the traits in the domestication syndrome were somehow or another, though he didn’t know how or why, genetically linked to genes associated with tameness. -Belyaev was correct that selection on tameness alone leads to the emergence of traits in the domestication syndrome. In less than a decade, some of the domesticated foxes had floppy ears and curly tails (Fig. 2). Their stress hormone levels by generation 15 were about half the stress hormone (glucocorticoid) levels of wild foxes. Over generations, their adrenal gland became smaller and smaller. Serotonin levels also increased, producing “happier” animals. Over the course of the experiment, researchers also found the domesticated foxes displayed mottled “mutt-like” fur patterns, and they had more juvenilized facial features (shorter, rounder, more dog-like snouts) and body shapes (chunkier, rather than gracile limbs) (Fig. 3). Domesticated foxes like many domesticated animals, have longer reproductive periods than their wild progenitors. Anyway, some of that is basically what I was trying to say regarding horses. And the insignificant traits in the fox could also have similarities in humans. If you understand these basics, the concept that the SAME thing is/has happened to humans over thousands of years, IMO it makes more sense. The article goes into more detail regarding explanation of genetics, brain chemistry if you want to look into it further. I find it really fascinating. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x

^^ this, I tried previously to explain this with the analogy. This is pretty basic stuff here. Maybe a simpler analogy instead of eskimos, horses. You have a stable full for racing. You make them all run 1 mile and record times. Each year you do the same, and you take the bottom 25% with slowest times and you kill them. The fastest horses are kept and breed and each year the cycle repeats. Race, time, cut the bottom 25%. After several cycles your avg overall 1 mile time for the stable as a group will increase. This is a management style taught in business school. Continually cut the bottom performers, refresh and reevaluate, and do it again. The winners remain and the losers are gone and the overall performance of the company by whatever metric you choose increases in the direction you want. Human behavior to advance civilization is the same, just stretched out over thousands of years. Hard to see how this is not so obvious. But to be fair, the other side of the discussion probably feels the same way about my viewpoint. At the end of the day, who cares, if it’s working for someone and improving their life to believe the way they do, good!

Haha WOW, I dont know whats more impressive, the rap, or my strong feelings of inferiority from ChatGPT's mic drop.

I like the layout but wonder why you cant create a portfolio of stocks you want to keep tabs on rather than always having to search each individually. Seems like a pretty basic offering that all the other info providers have ie. Finviz, yahoo, google.

Morality evolved because it is what is necessary for the majority to adhere to for civilization to progress. Its the natural result of thousands of years of trial and error. To have a functioning, progressing society, the major moral pillars are necessary and they were figured out years ago and passed down as a blueprint for what works. Call it natural selection, evolution, whatever, the winners survive, the losers dont. Lets look at it from a different angle, rather than "morality" ie no stealing, no killing etc etc lets just look at the most basic survival. You have a "tribe" that lives in the northernmost part of the globe, the inughuit, formerly known as "polar eskimos" they are a group of Inuit. For this example let these folks represent ALL of humanity. This tribe is split down the middle, half of the tribe wants to hunt/gather/work together and make shelter to escape the elements (let this represent acting "morally" as most would define it today). The other half of the tribe doesnt make shelter from the elements a priority, doesnt hunt/gather to store food and refuses to work together to accomplish these things for the good of all of their half of the tribe (let this behavior represent acting immorally). Without a supernatural being telling this tribe that they should store food/shelter themselves from the severe elements and work together...it works itself out. Those who figure out what "works" (what is moral) survive and continue, learn, work together and progress and those who do not, probably die or see what they are doing isnt working, the other half of the tribe has a better quality of life, so they change and adapt behavior proven to work. You put a group of people together, some believe "anything goes" and they steal, rob, kill and behave in all sorts of immoral ways. This becomes absolute turmoil, and the other half of the group says, hey, these guys are a pain, we cant get anything done, they're wrecking everything we have worked hard for etc and they are outcast, killed, or maybe they just dont survive because rather than helping their neighbor, conducting commerce honestly, working hard, they are out throwing a wrench in everything productive and structured, so they fail...the "good/moral" group flourishes and progresses either ending the bad group (maybe they are outcast and cant survive without working together, maybe they are killed) or the "moral" group just surpasses them by such a large margin that the bad group becomes insignificant or alters behavior to mimic what works. Divine intervention isnt needed for this to happen, it would happen naturally. Nazis, honor killings dont last because that isnt what progresses civilization. You cant have a tyrant attempting genocide that lasts for very long before the rest of the group (on earth) says HEY! You're F*ing up a good thing here! And throwing a wrench in the normal balance of things and stops it. A group that continually kills for honor, pretty soon doesnt have people left to kill, fizzles out, people figure out that doesnt work, and that idea/belief/experiment is found to be faulty and falls by the wayside. Civilization adapts/learns...and progresses without those extreme beliefs/ideas. This has been evident throughout history. Extreme views fizzle out when they upset the status quo. Humans crave stasis/equilibrium, we want to be comfortable, and severely "immoral" behavior is not conducive to what has allowed civilization to progress this far. Thats why I think its funny that people too often people add unnecessary complexity to a topic and it makes for less rational thinking. The above is the most rational explanation for morality "aka rules/guidelines how we should live, what works". The idea that there is an all powerful being that previously made himself accessible or presented himself (depending on what you believe) to everyday common folks regularly, provided these "guidelines/rules" and then disappeared for thousands of years just isnt logical. If there is one true religion, and one all powerful being that wants people to live a certain way, then why the mystery? If humans have free will, why nothing recent? Why not regular interaction (present day) so that there was not 1000's of interpretations all claiming to know unequivocally the "right/true" answer. Just lay it out there...do this, no secrets, no confusion...do it or dont, your choice but no guessing. Why the stark difference in temperament between the new testament and the old. "God is love" but trolls Abraham to slit the throat of his son and then burn the body. Pretty messed up really. If there was a cult leader today that told a follower to trick his son to go with him up on a mountain, then tie him up, lay him down on an alter, put sticks on his chest and just as he is about to slit the poor kids throat, the cult leader is like...WHOA dont do it...yeah I was just kidding, just wanted to see if you would really do it man. What is moral about that? You'd think the guy was pretty sick. And what about Isaac, imagine you're a young boy, your hero, your dad, wants a male bonding camping trip up on a mountain, and you're excited...you get up there and he jumps you, ties you up, puts you on an alter, and walks over with a torch and a knife, by this time you're freaking out, probably pleading with your dad. Dad! What are you doing! You said we were going camping! I love you! Your dad raises the knife up above you, laying there, tied up, vulnerable, cant move, crying and just as Dad is about to deliver the death blow, stops...says he heard a voice tell him not to do it. Takes the rope off you, helps you hop off the alter and says...alright! lets camp! How would that affect your relationship with your dad? How would that traumatize you. You would either never speak to him again, run away, or think that your dad was a schizophrenic psychopath. Genesis 22 1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. 2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." 3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." (Doesnt tell these two guys what he is up to) 6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" (Wait a sec, somethings not right here!) 8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. (Not telling Isaac what he's in for) 9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. 12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." What about 2 Kings 2:24? Some "small boys" tease an old guy for being bald, he cant take a joke and asks God to take care of these punks, so he sends 2 female bears to tare 42 (FORTY TWO) to shreds...maul them! What is moral about that? Plenty of other examples in the Bible of behavior that anybody today would call irrational and immoral. I can acknowledge proof of intelligent design. I dont think this entire set up (nature, math, galaxy, human body systems) came about via an accident, but if there is/was a grand architect, they seem to have grown bored with the project and moved on to something else. And maybe, the work is done, maybe the sand castle is built, and it was never meant for anything more than to enjoy for a bit and then for the tide to come in and wash it away, maybe its just an experiment to see how long it takes. You have billions of people for thousands of years pleading with a supernatural being for help and leadership. "They kingdom come, they will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." H E L P U S !!! Man cant rule himself, govern us. Put an end to this suffering, we're struggling, you created all this, its a mess, please fix it, we want you to fix it! Nothing...crickets. All the problems in the world, the struggles of mankind and nothing...but he wants you to honor your father and your mother, only pray to him for help, dont use his name in vain when the help doesnt come and remember the day he took a break. Why? EDITED: Seems like Richard and I share the same sentiment and he was faster on the draw/submit button.

Also IMO BHE has the largest potential for deployment of tremendous amounts of future capital for "satisfactory" rates of return. Who knows what the future holds as far as the path the US takes with energy, but BHE has huge advantages in the ability to offer options with little red tape, quick decisions made to go in directions that would otherwise require approval from shareholders, securing of financing etc with competitors that doesnt exist with BHE. Potential for almost unlimited investment if the numbers make sense providing win/win opportunities for customers, states and BRK shareholders. When I look at BRK as a whole, BHE is what gets me most excited for the future as a shareholder.

Amazing America has got to where it is without Trump all these years. Clearly the only way America will survive is if Trump is re-elected...and we cant afford to not have him in office ever again, perhaps its in the best interest of America to abolish the term restrictions for the presidency...so that we may benefit from his superior guidance and leadership for the rest of his life..hopefully he will also train his son in the ways as a future successor. Biden is a senile goof, plenty of issues there...Trump is the ultimate con-man. Amazing how he claims to be an expert in everything and the ONLY one with the right answers. Politicians are synonymous with empty promises..but Trumps MO is that the country is doomed without only HIM. The US has had a lot of bad leadership in its history, and it's still here, it will survive Biden, and it will be fine without Trump. Plenty of other options on either side of the aisle, no reason to go back to this Joker.

Same, Im that guy with savings plan (401K) with limited options, all high ER funds with mediocre to poor returns vs SP, so the index with ultra low ER and DCA makes it appealing, not ideal, just better than other options in that account. Ironically, I have more options investing HSA funds than in my 401K, IRA is also self directed with unlimited options. Taxable holds significantly more than 401K and obviously you can do what you like with that, so I view the 401K as the set and forget, dont pay much attention to it even though its maxed every year for the last decade plus. Can only play the hand you're dealt as best you can. Out of all investment dollars, I've always mentally considered 401k and Pension as a cherry on top, main focus has always been IRA,HSA and taxable accounts, these hold the bulk anyhow and the only which I can "control".

Consumers have jobs, and no foreseeable risk of the majority losing them, and they don’t have to worry about losing their homes/housing…so there really is no reason to stop spending. They might complain about the price of gas, or utilities or groceries or whatever else, but do any of them really STOP buying? Do you really think they’re gonna say…whoa, alright, beans n franks this month kids, Nope, its the name brand sugar cereal, snacks, pop, chips, still grabbin that pack of Marbs, still grabbin the case of beer, still gettin the new iPhone, new pair of Nikes, LULU pants etc etc…American consumers gonna consume…give ‘em a job, and a place to sleep, a plastic card and get the F outta their way. Think about it, pervious generations had magazine ads, and TV commercials to brainwash them as consumers…now the avg American spends how much time on social media per day, that is essentially one GIANT commercial for all things consumable? If its not the brands, companies themselves its their influencers, reels, snaps, toks telling people that if you wanna be cool, pretty, rich etc this is what you need.There has never been a time in human history that the avg person has been more inundated with consumer branding, advertisements etc telling them every where they look, SPEND! BUY! Literally never in history has there been more minutes out of every day that the avg American has been subject to marketing. I used to think that more consumers thought like I did, but that was flawed thinking, they don’t. If I don’t buy something that I think it overpriced, its on principle, they don’t think that way, they complain and buy anyway, because lets be real, if the majority of them were financially literate and made good choices they wouldnt be in the situation they’re in statistically, they don’t make good choices when it comes to their health, and they don’t make good choices when it comes to their bank account/checkbook. I called 5 dealerships in 2 states last week to price out a new Honda ATV 4 wheeler for the cabin, best price, I would finance with them if it gave me a better OTD price (then just pay off the next month) or pay cash, up to them. Every single one came back between $1900-$2200 OVER MSRP. 2 years ago my cousin bought one for $200 UNDER MSRP and it wasnt a special deal, and these weren’t limited hard to find machines, they had 8-10 in stock ready to go, in all 3 color options. Consumers are spending, stimulus bucks or not, they don’t care, I think they just accept the new normal, they whine and complain but none of them actually STOP buying, it ends up “well, what are ya gonna do?” And that is the extent of it and the music plays on. I don’t see any serious scary stuff that is gonna be a problem, and like I said, the loss of purchasing power for the middle class isnt gonna do it, because they’ve been getting F’d for decades and here we are, still spendin, so thats nothing to worry about from a consumer spending standpoint. The beast is alive and it needs to feed, let it eat.

@changegonnacomewhat your describing has been happening to the middle class for decades, its just sped up a little. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ And it will continue. Earnings don’t have to decrease, a little creative finance and marketing…smaller portions in the same packaging, taller/thinner packaging to hide the smaller portions but appear the same..maintains margins. Thinner rolls, smaller cans, lighter bags. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/01/package-sizes-shrink-inflation/ https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-06-08/shrinkflation-companies-shrink-package-sizes-inflation-ploy For items that packaging cant be manipulated by, vehicles, electronics etc. Especially those that are financed, they extend the note and close them on payments, what’s that? You want to be below $XXX/mo, no problem we can do that, for <$XXX/mo….for 124 mo you’ll be enjoying your new XYZ as soon as we finish the paperwork. The avg consumer doesn’t care about inflation…they say it hurts, and they feel it, but look at the consumer debt, they’re putting significant amounts of monthly expenses on credit cards, thats how they are making it, because they haven’t got a “Real” raise in decades..make the minimum payment on the collection of cards in your wallet and kick the can down the road. If they want a bag of Doritos, they’re gonna buy it even if it’s now $8. They might complain, but they still buy it, and they still have all the other stuff, the memberships, the subscriptions, the snacks, the clothes, vehicles etc. Charge it.

^^ This Same with LULU, everything is priced to the upper level of what the market will bear. All companies want to increase prices to find that line where it negatively impacts sales...then back off just a touch. isnt this basic theory? I live in the largest metro area between this state and my neighboring home state. McDonlads prices here are actually not much different than my home area. That is to say, $8 for breakfast meal, around $13 for a burger value meal. That actually surprised me. I have a cabin in a small recreational community about 2.5hrs from the metro. Summer sees some tourism but the rest of the year its dead. Also, the county is the poorest in the state, by a wide margin, I saw the statistics and its like 40+% below the poverty line and on assistance, pretty much zero college degrees, avg age mid 40's. Wages at that Mcdonalds are low, primarily 16yr old kids at the counter with one middle aged manager. Its not labor costs, they are charging what the market will support (or what they can get away with, however you want to look at it). Ironically I have also noticed that when at the cabin, there is a WMT about 15-20 min away, only offering like that for an least an hour in every direction...the prices at that WMT are HIGHER for many things than at home in the major metropolitan area! These are for staples that we regularly buy at home, and dont want to pack the car when we go, so we end up shopping there for the stuff at the cabin. Noticeably higher prices and I cant help but feel for those folks that live there year round in a 1970's trailer with bags of leaves around the skirting for insulation, 10 immobile cars in the front yard, the entire county besides the stuff right around the lake is straight out of a Jeff Foxworthy routine. I was actually just talking to a guy I know who has moved back to our area with our company, he was previously down south working at a BMW plant setting some things up for them. It was a nightmare with labor. Nobody wanted to work, even the employees he dealt with. Income is low, education is poor and they are getting paid around $30k/yr full time. If you look at the stats on several southern states it is similar to the county I described above. There are entire counties down south with the majority of the pop on welfare. Work ethic and employee/employer understanding is completely different north/south. Nobody wants to work down there. Those that do are majority migrants, legal or illegal. My coworker said it was a serious problem filling positions, and when filled they literally showed up half of the week. Firing them didnt matter because you would just be back at square one, and the new hire would just pull the same stuff once on board. I could not believe the stories he was telling me. Regardless, we see it everywhere. I had a new shop built last fall. Menards used to have a $175 delivery charge and raised it to $250 due to fuel costs when diesel was at its peak...fuel surcharge has remained in place while fuel costs have returned in line, more normal. Compare $3.50 diesel to $5.50 diesel, avg delivery route and the fact that the semi truck that delivered my materials made 3 other stops all paying the increased fuel surcharge. There is fat there. Nobody said that businesses had to be fair in what they charge and a capitalist would argue that it is the duty of the business to charge the absolute most they can. I suspect they will never drop, but what do you do? People need materials delivered..you cant transport trusses, pallets of sheeting, sheets of steel roofing/siding in your pickup or trailer so the consumer is faced with eating the hike or not doing the project. Granted, as a percentage of overall project cost it is nothing, but combine that with the fact that literally everything at Menards is now 3x the price it was a year or two ago and it adds up.

Yes back to the topic at hand. Did you see the German interview with Petraeus? He explained why the M1 shipping to theatre was unlikely (he didnt say absolutely not) due to the complexity of the weapon and maintenance. I have seen the M1 and watched many videos of teams operating but I guess naively did not consider maintenance requirements on the battlefield. I have no first hand knowledge of the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine powering the tank. I do have first hand knowledge of the GE LM6000 which is a turbo shaft aeroderivative. Different applications for sure, but also similarities in that the maintenance on these is very particular, very specialized and when running properly are amazing, however when there are issues, you aren’t gonna pull off a “farmer fix” with a pair of vice grips and bailing twine. (My experience is that they are very finicky and very regularly have “issues”) You have to have specialized technicians perform the work to spec. Even when operating perfectly, the required maintenance interval is relatively small. Think of it like aircraft that need “annuals” at X amount of hours. If you think about that, to take the tank out for a day or so, it has to return to be serviced for several days potentially, by an entire specialized crew. I saw one report that for every hour of operation on the M1 hour meter it requires 8hrs of maintenance. There is a reason that they have entire crews of “system maintainers” aka mechanics to service these. When you consider the hydraulics, electronics, optics, weapons etc and the maintenance, parts, and logistics of servicing these machines just to operate and compare that to the Leopard Diesel its easy to see which option makes the most sense. I saw an article that said the US will send 31 M1 to Ukraine but unsure how much they will be used or in what capacity, perhaps power perceived is power achieved in that respect. Or it was a symbolic shipment that gave the green light to Germany, I don’t know. I have seen in person, annuals conducted on Airbus EC145 with dual turboshafts and what was required was staggering. The tools, space, cleanliness required to do basic maintenance was amazing and it’s hard for me to comprehend that being done in theatre when a simpler option is available that Ukraine is more familiar with.

Has been discussed numerous times, its one battalion. Like minded folks can be found in every military in the world probably, and when the wolves are knocking at the door Im not going to ask the guy in the foxhole next to me what his ideologies are as long as his gun is pointed down range. US Military has documented skinheads as well as a significant number of MS13 gangsters. Yes Nazi are bad, but it doesn’t detract from Russias actions, the real issue/problem.

Was pretty clear that I had questions and was hoping you would answer, why post if not willing to explain and help people understand? Is that not the goal of this forum? Helping each other to understand?

So there is no insurance against loss of BTC you're saying. My point was with real estate, even though the insurance premium is a cost (that is covered by the renters monthly payment, essentially I am passing the cost on to them to insure the property that they are paying me rent to occupy, so it really doesnt cost ME anything) I am guarded against total loss of the asset. Hell I have owned properties before that actually would have benefited me to have burn down because the were insured for more than what I thought was FMV, the check from the insurance company would have been more than I could have sold the place for. I would obviously never commit fraud, but there is a reason that people do, or try. So the way I see it personally, there is no way I can have total loss with RE/insurance as an asset vs BTC, there are many ways to lose ie. hacking, loss of password, forgotten password, loss of thumb drive etc. There are tons of reports of people losing/forgetting their passwords and employing professionals to "crack" it. So this it a double edged sword. At the risk of weakening my point, if you forgot the password, it is not total loss, it is still recoverable...BUT then what does that say about stored crypto security? Its either one of the other, either it is the ultimate security and unhackable, uncrackable...and when you forget/lose it, its gone...and that is some pretty serious risk...or its not...and then the risk comes from the fact that rather than "good guys" helping you get it back for a percentage...the "bad guys" can get it too. Eminent domain is a little different. I will agree on the force of sale, that sucks, but you also have the option of legal representation to argue for a better price if you think its grossly under FMV. From state/legal website: State law on eminent domain condemnations is very clear that property owners have the right to receive at least the fair market value for their property when they don’t have a choice to decline the sale. Fortunately, you do not have to simply accept whatever the government offers; you have the right to make a counter-offer and negotiate for the full amount you deserve. Just compensation is based on what your property would be valued at on the open market, considering the various uses for the land. The government will base its offer on an appraisal conducted by an appraiser of its choice. You can then have an independent appraiser analyze the value of your land and present its findings, arguing that your land is actually worth more than the government’s offer. So IMO that addresses the (potential) forced sale issue via eminent domain. To me the real issue is the price you receive for the asset, because the forced sale to me is nothing. Unless it is the Dutton ranch, in the family for hundreds of years I would say that the majority of people, if given FMV and forced to sell might be apprehensive but if made whole via FMV, would just move on. To play the devils advocate, you could say that forced sale to the gov could actually save them the hassle of showing, listing, the property, to be fair, that is assuming that gov offered FMV is indeed FMV and they didnt have to retain an attorney to negotiate a higher value. But the real issue is the price determined by them right? But isnt that what is happening with BTC? Rather than the gov determining the price you can sell for, the market is? If the gov offered at or above FMV and forced me to sell...ok sounds good. I at least have the OPTION to negotiate a higher price, futile or not, there is no option for that in the market, if you want/have to sell for whatever reason..whatever the market is offering is what you get. RE: Can force sale (no big deal to me if not been in family for 4 generations) Buyer determined price (negotiable) = You really dont own it BTC: Cant force sale (unless margin) Market/volume determines price (non-negotiable) = but THIS you "really" own? I dont see much difference really This is where we disagree. The gov has proven time and again that they can access/seize crypto. There are tons of articles about how the Gov can find crypto and then sieze it. NONE of these criminals cooperated with authorities in these instances...still seized. Clearly the gov does NOT need your cooperation to find/sieze crypto. It would make it easier for them, but their abilities are getting better also, if they want it, they will find/take it, by not cooperating, ultimately you are just slowing them down, but if they want it, the end result is the same. https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/politics/fbi-north-korea-hackers-30-million-axie-infinity/index.html#:~:text=The FBI and private investigators,claw back the stolen money. The Treasury Department has tried to crack down on the North Korean hackers’ targeting of cryptocurrency by sanctioning some accounts that they use to move money, and a “mixer,” or service that the hackers have allegedly used to launder stolen cryptocurrency. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-seizes-23-million-cryptocurrency-paid-ransomware-extortionists-darkside by reviewing the Bitcoin public ledger, law enforcement was able to track multiple transfers of bitcoin and identify that approximately 63.7 bitcoins, representing the proceeds of the victim’s ransom payment, had been transferred to a specific address, for which the FBI has the “private key,” or the rough equivalent of a password needed to access assets accessible from the specific Bitcoin address. This bitcoin represents proceeds traceable to a computer intrusion and property involved in money laundering and may be seized pursuant to criminal and civil forfeiture statutes. https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2022/02/us-department-of-justice-aided-by-cryptocurrency-exchanges the DOJ used “clustering analysis” – essentially pattern recognition algorithms – to scan the blockchain for transaction patterns, thereby assisting investigators in untangling attempts to obfuscate the flow of funds. US Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui praised the method as “one of the most reliable bases for a search ever.” Federal law enforcement agencies have signed multimillion-dollar contracts with multiple developers of such tools, highlighting law enforcement’s focus on the cryptocurrency space and the important role the crypto community can play in helping the government root out illicit activity. This just isnt true. A couple of the articles I posted above showed that the keys/passwords were recovered even though encrypted! They were not badly secured! They were secured orders of magnitude better than the avg person with crypto, these were professionals that KNEW what they were doing and went to great lengths to hide/protect stolen crypto...still seized. You said "You can literally not get hacked if your keys never touch the internet" so I'll ask again...I can not hand my friend a BTC for payment correct? Im honestly asking because I dont know and you didnt mention it, that I saw. So how do you facilitate a transaction? Im assuming your thumb drive doesnt have bluetooth that you put close to your friends wallet and they recognize each other and transfer funds...assuming this has to be done via the internet? If that is the argument, BTC is only ultimately secure/safe when it is on an external drive, never touching the internet, and you remembering the password in your head, not writing it down anywhere, piece of paper in security deposit box (cause they look there with warrant too) or on a cloud drive somewhere...its only REALLY safe when you would have no ability to use it? Is this correct? So then what is the point of owning it if the argument is that it is safe from gov seizure (proven false) or hacking (proven false). I just dont see the case for it being much safer...sure safer if you have it and never use it, then its no different than any other thumb drive I own that I never use, its essentially worthless. If I have a Ferrari, but I dont want to get a ticket in it, and I dont want to lose it to the repo man, and I dont want to get in an accident, and I dont want someone to steal it, so the only truly safe place for it is in a vault locked under a cave...what is the value of the Ferrari because I cant use it for what it is intended for...You cant make an argument that BTC is imperviable to seizure or theft ONLY when it is essentially then useless. I could be wrong, maybe you dont need to use a gatekeeper to facilitate a transaction on the internet? Let me know if there is a way that I can use my BTC to buy things or pay people without ever using the internet, because there must be something Im missing here. I honestly dont see how those are valid arguments for BTC and if Im not understanding something I would like to know, Im being genuine here.

Please help me understand because when I read this I think: Real estate is, when compared to Bitcoin: * Easier to unintentionally destroy outside of fault of your own That is why you have insurance...is there insurance for Bitcoin? Honest question, can you insure Bitcoin against left, or left of password/hacking? If my house/rental burned to the ground tomorrow, as long as everyone was safe, other than personal pictures or an heirloom, I wouldnt lose an ounce of sleep over it, its fully insured at todays FMV. * Easier to take by government (eg disown for "common" good) Gov can take whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of the item if they deem its use for illegal activity, terrorism etc. I get it, keep your password on external drive in a security deposit box that only you know about...like burying gold in the backyard, or using a treasure map. BUT eventually to USE bitcoin dont you have to go online? Eventually? and if you are hacked etc cant they just be there waiting for you to access it? Or how about using some kind of "vinmo" equivalent to facilitate the transaction, what happens if they are hacked. I dont know much about how all this works so maybe Im exposing my ignorance, but I honestly dont know. Through blockchain analysis and good old-fashioned police work, law enforcement and blockchain analytic experts was able to recover more than 50,000 bitcoin from Zhong. They even uncovered crypto stored on a computer submerged under blankets in a popcorn tin in a bathroom closet, according to the press release. October 2022, Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume, suffered a $570 million hack. The company said a bug in a smart contract enabled hackers to exploit a cross-chain bridge Also the other thing Id mention, although maybe the guys in the thread here dont believe that BTC will replace fiat currency...I would say the VAST majority of guys I know that own BTC think it will, thats their entire shtick..they start with "only so many can be mined" then "better get in now while prices are down" then how much it "could" be worth when the last BTC is mined...then "gonna replace Fiat". Its like there is a scripted pitch for crypto, yes shitecoins also but the majority of people are talking BTC cause thats the "real" one. I guess another thing getting back to security..pass code secure on your thumb drive locked away...eventually you will use it online, through some platform..I cant hand my neighbor a BTC right? I had an employer once that had their own network, locked down, heavy security, log-in password, changed regularly, posters to stop hackers everywhere in the hallways, emails sent regularly trying to get employees to trip up from the IT team to teach suspicion etc. They had one little program that was on the network that pulled data from the internet to use in calculations..that was the one little pinhole in the entire fortress...and thats all it took. I guess I just do not believe that eventually, if someone wants something bad enough, and you are online, they are able to find a weakness and exploit it. Not saying that cant happen with a wad full of cash either...but I just have a hard time believing that BTC has no vulnerabilities. Im open minded, these are just questions I have off the top of my head regarding the comparison and what I have seen/heard.

I agree and I dont get it either. People talking out of both sides of their mouth and its a waste of time. You hear about impending recessions that the market "just hasnt realized yet" and then in the next breathe complaints that there are no value opportunities because "efficient market theory" has priced everything in. Humans have bias and naturally want to look for confirmation, reading tea leaves to paint a narrative that they either want...or fear. Its much less stressful to play the ball as it lays. Take what is presented. To your point, markets are gonna market. These guys should WANT volatility! Why wouldnt you? I dont understand why someone that wasnt say, 5 years from retirement, WANT another recession, and view it as a once in a decade or more OPPURTUNITY to make some serious money. And honestly if you are close to retirement you should be positioned as such anyway, so even then it shouldnt be catastrophic. The manic Mr Market analogy shouting crazy price offerings. Literally ANY other item goes on ridiculous discount...70" Sony flatscreen TV normally $1500 at the store, you walk buy and they have it on clearance for $100 or a $400 Xbox for $50 because some kid at the store made a mistake with the barcode scanner or read the pricing sheet wrong, nobody would assume the item was junk, they would just quietly fill a cart up and make their way to the checkout line, but when it comes to solid businesses that they have held or are looking to take a position in, they freak out. WHAT $400 XBOX is now worth $50?! I better go home, kick my kid off his game, and throw that thing on Craigslist while I still can!! LOL New BMW on the lot for $5000 anyone? Rolex in the display case for $300? Philosophically I sometimes think of this like Walt Whitmans writings: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes". He is embracing something seen as a shortcoming (seeming unreliable), into a positive. The idea that a person has to adhere to hard principles all the time , but doesnt acknowledge that principles can change. We want consistency all the time or risk appearing weak or unreliable. Whitman says the person who never contradicts himself doesnt think deeply enough or is too simple minded. Applied to the market. If you are thinking enough, your strategies should change as opportunities present, rather than wishing for (or expecting) slow and steady increases in the market that allow cookie cutter DCF projections, accept, expect, and embrace volatility. Acknowledge that the market doesnt always stick to hard principles and you dont have to either. Continuing with your analogies, the ship is most safe in the harbor, but thats not what ships are made for. Safe space for investors does not present the best opportunity for investors. AND when you buy solid companies, for instance BRK (obviously) and COST, I think of the WB's analogy, to focus most on picking the right person to marry, and then not worry if you paid a little too much for the ring. What a horrible way to live, constantly trying to predict things that are nearly impossible, stress when things are good because something MIGHT happen, stress when those fears become REALITY, stress when things happen that you didnt see coming. Just roll with it.

This sounds like the IRS was asking for investors opinion, what investor would be a proponent for paying tax on paper gains?