Sweet

Bound to spike higher. I think what matters here is if Israel decide to respond to Iran. Conceivably if nearly all of them are intercepted then I can see it fizzling out. However, I could also see the US and Israel just deciding fuck it, this is the last straw.

Luca, respectfully, I don’t know what you are talking about. ‘Buys the government’ - really? In the US there is undoubtedly too much money in politics, way too much, but ‘buy the government’ - I don’t see that. There have been several rebuttals of that paper which I could find online which argue the analysis and conclusions are flawed. Nevertheless I agree with the paper that rich influential people have an outsized impact on government policy, that is obvious, but that’s far away from saying it’s a capitalist oligarchy. The money and lobbying in the US does need addressed. I disagree that ordinary people have no impact. This paper was published before the 2016 election of Trump and the Brexit vote in the UK which categorically destroys such an idea. In both instances the vast majority of influence groups and rich people took the side which opposed Trump and Brexit and they lost. Another recent example is the referendum defeat in Ireland.

I really need to proofread my posts a lot more. How you managed to understand what I meant with all those errors I’ve no idea lol. Edited the original.

The problem is too often your philosopher king morphs into a tyrant king and there is no way to get him out. Being able to choose your leader and the rules you want to live by is is an outcome too, the most important one arguably, and it’s flipping important one in the long run. Democracies can select the ideas and people which govern them, in your alternative you can’t. That is why in the long run democracies have produced better outcomes on the whole, because it’s an open competition of ideas. Your idea that the West have ‘capital oligarchies’ is not something I recognise. Please evidence it.

These types of discussions involve much wishful thinking, turning a blind eye to the actions of non-democratic nations, or reading history with blind folds on. There are things Democratic nations could do better or are weak at. However theorising about what system is better is simplistic. There are many different types of governments and leadership throughout history such and I think we can reasonably infer what outcome we can expect from a particular type of government. So instead of theory it’s better to look at the data and simply ask ‘compared to what?’ If you think x is better compared to y - OK, what does the data say.

Yeh these things are a crap shoot, I have seen many zeros but only a few heroes. I think it is too easy to fool yourself into thinking you know way more about the prospects of particular drugs products than you really do.

I think at some point Boeing is a buy but I would be uncomfortable getting in now especially since I don’t think the fallout is over. Wider changes are required and it’s going to be a while. Starbucks has long interested me, I was tempted by it recently but passed on it. I think there is greater profit margins through cost cutting - they are building out a lot of stores right now. Not sure how much they can expand. Great business but some of the sheen has come off recently. Don’t know anything about Brown-Forman, currently looking at it, and I’ve no interest in Charter.

It's larger than I thought, they need to cut spending. It doesn't have to go to 0% of GDP, but it needs to be below GDP growth.

It’s been connected to the funding of Ukraine John.

Sure, and he is right, they are one of the oldest civilisations in the world, the people are dedicated and hard working. However munger based a lot of things on trust and morals and whilst I think the ordinary Chinese people have that in buckets, I find the domination of their country by a single party and one man immoral, and I don’t trust the party or its leader.

Munger’s investment is BABA is one I could never understand as it seemed entirely at odds with his philosophy on life. Apologies for mis-ID’ing you. Thought you were Chinese.

I could be wrong, but I think Luca is Chinese but living in Europe.

Yes that’s a difference but not the main one, it’s the differences in the system that are most important which I described in my post earlier. You claimed an investment in China and US stocks are ‘both are the same thing’. It’s not in my view. The US system is inherently less risky for investors.

Disagree. Sorry Luca. I can’t understand how you are unable to see what are clear differences.

@hillfronter83 my comment disappeared by I agree. They really aren’t the same. Separation of powers in the US is an important difference.

That’s a generalisation, there are differences in the two systems and those matter in practice. The US has separation of powers and a restraining constitution. The US President doesn’t have the power of Xi, can be blocked by courts or Congress, and the balance of power in both houses of Congress can be changed every two years through elections. You note that “china can regulate the bad parts in their markets and will do so”. Yes they are so effective at that because power is concentrated but that cuts both ways. Say a Chinese president decides he doesn’t like a particular company, goes on another anti-corruption drive, sours in capitalism, or prohibits capital from leaving the country. What is there to restrain him? Investing in China comes with that risk and that risk is why I don’t invest in China.

I don’t think it’s obvious. An investment in China is to invest alongside the CCP and whatever way the political wind is blowing. Although it’s unlikely you also cannot rule out measures like being unable to get your money out of China. Not to mention the huge amounts of innovation from the top US tech companies that nobody can compare to.

I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m saying it’s not in Trump / Republicans interest to have a deal on the border before the election because it would hurt their election chances. I disagree that the funding for Ukraine has to be connected to the border.

I know cubs, I read parts of the deal and the criticism of it, and I agree it’s BS. What I’m saying is that even if the perfect deal was on the table there is no incentive for Republicans to take it before the Nov election.

Good episode about Havana Syndrome and who is likely causing these injuries to US spies and diplomats (seemingly the Russians) opps wrong one, this one. The top one is the older ones:

I was of the same opinion originally, the optics of this looks like Biden cares more about the national security of Ukraine than the US. I’ve changed my mind though, the issue in Ukraine is too important. Republicans should fund Ukraine and then make the border an election winning issue. It’s also clear Trump don’t want a deal on the border going into the Nov election.

Republicans blocking funding unless border issue dealt with. But Biden also has the power to provide aid to Ukraine as President and he isn’t doing it.

What the hell! Up another 40%. This thing could just steam roller higher as more learn about it.

When you say we were at the centre of provocation Greg what do you mean? That the West was happy to embrace Ukraine if that was its wish to align closer with us? That’s not a provocation in my view. You mentioned previously that McCain interfered in Ukraine, so far as I can tell the West supported the Ukrainian people and the parliament who wanted closer ties with Europe. Putin seen it as a provocation for war, but is it? At what point are we just regurgitating Putin’s views? A settlement in a week would be Ukraine doing what Russia says. Claims that Putin was ready for a peace with Ukraine and allow it to be free and independent are not true. He wanted control one way or another. And in any case how could you trust Putin when he just breaks agreements as he sees fit. I’m all for supporting no war too. In practise though Putin believes in war if it furthers his political goals, like many dictators before him. The West for the most part does not believe in going to war because your neighbour takes a different political direction. It was Putin that brought war to Ukraine, not the West, and there is no doubt about that either.

We still compete globally in a battle of ideas. The Ukrainian people want closer alignment with Europe and its parliament voted for it. The then pro-Russian Ukrainian President vetoed the bill and tried to force closer ties with Russia on Ukraine and he was turfed out in 2014. Putin’s Russia doesn’t want that for Ukraine. From your postings elsewhere I’d guess that you and I have very similar political views - except on this. And I don’t understand why many others who broadly share my political views are then agnostic about who wins in Ukraine. Ukraine: a friendly country, wants to ally with us, wants to be more like us, shares our values and has looked for our leadership. Putins Russia: dictator which is openly hostile to us, that seeks to undermine our countries in many ways, its values are whatever Putin wants. How can we be agnostic about the side?