TwoCitiesCapital

Like 2020? or 2022? Or was it supposedly shutting down liquidity/higher rates that was supposed to kill Bitcoin? Like 2023/2024?

I disagree here. I spend time telling others because for the first 9-years I was on your side of the argument. Until I realized I was wrong. Bitcoin doesn't need me proselytizing and convincing one or two people to accept it. It'll continue with, or without me, doing that. I just hope to be able to help someone else realize they were were as wrong as I was - before it's too late to matter. Call it an act of charity. Because the price of BTC, and my net worth, is wholly unimpacted by me convincing you.

Sound a lot like the USD

Lets make it more interesting. Let's say BTC falls ~40% to $60k. Are you still wrong on it having no value outside of liquidity? Because it's still at $60k? Or are you right on it having "no value" because it fell significantly but still retained significant value?

I'm sorry, but QE ended in 2018. Don't you remember the higher rates and the breaking of the overnight repo markets? We had 2-years of QT until COVID hit. Bitcoin didn't go to 0. And we've been in a period of rising rates and falling liquidity for like the last 12-18 months. And BTC went up 4-5x. I think you need to rework your model.

I didn't need your permission - but glad I have it.

It didn't end in 2009. Or 2014. Or 2018. Or 2022. Every decline has bottomed higher and every top has topped higher. Why do you believe this time will be different?

They're "risk-on" "pro-growth" assets for the time being. Political/trade uncertainty threatens that. While BTC is uncorrelated from stocks - it still follows the mantra of "in a crisis - correlations go to 1". It dropped dramatically in both 2020 and 2022

You're giving his followers too much credit. Remember - they re-elected him after seeing the results of his first 4 years. Facts don't get in the way of their opinions. It really is.... Some of the smartest people I know don't hold Trump to the same intellectual rigor they hold anyone else to. Crazy how politics turns the brain off. Hypocrisy is a hallmark of the evangelical right. They're terrified of "Sharia law", but aim to enforce their own interpretation of the Bible on everyone. It's not about principles or freedom or tolerance - it's about enforcing their way of life ok everyone else.

I dunno. S&P earnings free 10.5% annualized. The index itself was 9% annualized. Seems pretty far from hell? Obama's figures far outperformed both Trump's and Bush's. Was that also hell? Or evidence of his obvious cognitive decline.... I don't disagree with you here. Few elections have been so impacted by the highschool dropouts..... I love that you call it "my" party. I've voted right or third party every election of my life....until Trump. A candidate that stands for absolutely NONE of the traditional Republican values. But yes - me and my left wing WSJ friends who believe facts matter and the DJT has already proved himself to be a shit president should create a new party now that DJT has co-opted the right with zero principals to stand on. Family values? Yes - let's ask the guy with three failed marriages who was banging porn stars while married. Balanced budgets? Yes! Let's elect the self described "debt guy" who ran a casino into the ground and ran the largest deficits we've ever seen without a war or recession to blame them on. Small government? Yes! Let's elect the guy who believes in governing via executive order and coming into your classroom, your bedroom, and your boardroom with government politics. So Republican of him.

Trump was president in 2020 when the 10-year hit 0.25%. He didn't refinance shit. You're still giving him too much credit.

Facts like over the last 35 years the economy and stock market have both grown faster under Democrats? Those kind of facts? Or facts like every single US recession in the last 35 years was presided over by a Republican? Or that Trump's biggest business success was selling the lie that he was good at business? Those kinds of facts? Or the fact that his first four years was a disaster? You're right. Facts don't matter.

I think you'll have time to see how the markets react vs fundamentals. After all - nominal earnings contracted on the S&p 500 for 2-years and it still went up. Real earnings are even scarier. Plenty of time to position fundamentals vs the market psychology. The short-term response doesn't have to match fundamentals. You'll have the opportunity to see how the market reacts, how companies fundamentals are impacted, and make your bets accordingly after-the-fact. We don't have to pay the guessing game on Monday which presupposes that 1) markets are rational and 2) that markets know the impacts of the policy changes

Perhaps. I don't subscribe to the beliefs of every person I'm responding to via quoting. Trump will be balancing no deficits this term. He doesn't know how to. In his personal life, business life, or prior political life - this man has never lived within his means. It's foolish to think it magically changes. The tarriffs have the unintended consequence of raising taxes on his illiterate followers AND those who can read. But it's not about that - it's about showing he's the biggest kid on the playground - just like it's always been. Why else tear up the trade agreements he put in place himself?

People thought it'd be any different than his disaster of 4 years in office. Go figure. Don't believe you're lying eyes ...or the lying understanding of his first 4 years office....or the lies of economic/stock market performance under Democrats vs Republicans. Well, the same people who believe tarriffs doesn't raise prices and the wall was paid for by Mexico don't believe you. I just don't know who to believe?!?? The evidence? Or the people who say Trump is right? +1 Trump ripped up NAFTA to rewrite NAFTA and is now pissed off and wants to redo it. 100% bluster and 0% substance. Almost like it was obvious to half of us... If you actually believe Trump is "trying to balance the deficit", I'm not even sure it's worth a discussion. He's a self proclaimed "debt guy" who ran a casino into the ground. The man doesn't know how to stick to a budget if his life depended on it. He "loves the uneducated" and takes advantage of that by selling this as patriotism when it's just a dick measuring contest. You heard it here first - there will be exactly 0 years of the next 4 where the deficit is sub-1 trillion. Elon's history is not one of working well with others. I snorted with laughter when he was made co-head of DOGE. Let alone having to share the limelight and authority with Trump....

We have leverage - sure. But I don't know if it's common sense to fuck over your neighbors simply because you have leverage and don't want to cut spending. "I could spend responsibly - but why should I when I can simply bully those I have power over?!?!" But what do I know. I'm just a raging liberal that subscribes to the leftist views of the WSJ

Fingers crossed Would love to buy more at those prices.

+1 My base case is the status quo will continue. Is why I have been selling shares this entire run-up. It's possible we get a other amendment to change the current arrangement, but I do not believe it's a priority for Trump. I expect a whole lot of nothing to happen.

I don't know what "long term winning strategy" means if winning for 15-years ain't it....

If you've been wrong on direction for over a decade, at some point you should start asking what you've missed instead of standing staunchly in the wind. If Nebraska was undefeated for 15 years, eventually you'd do well to stop talking shit and start betting on them.

The amount they will get the gov't is largely insignificant relative to the types of deficits he ran and likely will run. This isn't going to be a priority for him I don't think. Just like it wasn't last time. It's not really retained earnings - it's an increased liquidation preference to the government. It's asking them to give up even more money today, than 4-years ago, to let them go. Every year, the governments position becomes more entrenched with people asking the government to give up more and more of what it owns in favor of common/preferred shareholders. What incentive does the government have to do that? I think you're making this harder than what it is. It didn't get done because the gov't doesn't want it done. Why should the government do anything/give up anything. They already beneficially own 100% of the enterprises capital/profits into perpetuity without having to put in another cent, do any hard work, put it on the government's liabilities, or giving anything up to new shareholders. At any point, the Treasury could have forfeited the lawsuits. They didn't. They continued to fight them. Trump was just fine pillaging them for 4-years like Obama had done in years prior. All he changed at the end of his term was a new agreement that hamstrung Biden from being able to use the cash. It was political vindictiveness. Not b/c he wanted a fix for shareholders.

So far, every naysayer about Bitcoin has been wrong when judged by price. They're all hoping that the next 10-years will, for some unexplained reason, be different than the last 15 in terms of its adoption/price trends. So the though goes "Buffett WILL eventually be right about Bitcoin....even though he's been wrong for more than a decade".

Yes. EVERYONE gets more if the common are wiped out...except the common holders. I don't think wiping out the common by diluting them to oblivion is going to scare off investors any more than the government stealing the companies in the first place is scaring them off. I am still skeptical anything gets worked out though - because the gov't getting 100% of profits/retained earnings/capital into perpetuity while putting nothing up, doing no work, and further entrenching their position every year that goes by is best for the government...unless if the courts actually do something.

Maybe the DAX is simply becoming more like America? The stocks go up regardless of what earnings are doing.