Political Posts

[Xerxes]

I watch the interview and the second part about crypto where it got heated, it seems to me that the only piece of a shit in that discussion is Joe and not Grantham. 
 

Joe behaviour is unacceptable. Almost as if he went out to the bar with the boys last night and still had a bit too much morning after and he just wanted to fuck up Andrew Ross interview. 
 

Grantham is a billionaire at his age and he didn’t do that by being wrong about the market more than he is right about them. And the business he build in GMO was not about being a doomsayer as some had suggested in this thread. 
 

Do I want him to be wrong absolutely. It gave me chills listening to him in 2021 but he was right, … up until ChatGPT came along and gave birth to the artificial intelligence boom. 
 

 

Edited Saturday at 09:37 PM by Xerxes

[cubsfan]

5 hours ago, Blake Hampton said:

If you read what I write, you would likely come to the conclusion, and rightly, that I disagree with much of what Kernen has to say.

 

But I oddly still like him. I think CNBCs lineup with Andrew, Becky, and Joe is perfect. I don’t know. It’s kind of like having @cubsfan on the board. He drives me crazy but I still think his views are important to consider.

 

We call that progress Blake! LOL

[Blake Hampton]

11 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

Joe's behaviour is unacceptable. Almost as if he went out to the bar with the boys last night and still had a bit too much morning after and he just wanted to fuck up Andrew Ross interview. 

 

Insecure aggression is the MAGA way.

[Blake Hampton]

2 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

We call that progress Blake! LOL

Strong journalism makes an effort to eliminate bias in its reporting. If it's full of opinions, it ain't news. CNBC I think finds a good balance between its co-anchors.

Cubs, I wish that you would find a way to consume better journalism. Read The Economist or the WSJ. It would be good for you.

[Munger_Disciple]

I thought Joe's behavior in that interview was disgraceful. It's fine to ask a guest tough questions on TV but he should treat them with respect. Grantham might have called more bubbles than there were actual ones but he has a very decent long term track record and seems like a good human being from what I know publicly. 

Edited Saturday at 10:06 PM by Munger_Disciple

[Spekulatius]

17 hours ago, NnnnotSoSmart said:

Grantham is certainly a nut job.  His crazy and glaringly unscientific obsession with "climate change" is evidence of it.  

 

A Grantham quote from an interview in 2022: 

 

"It strikes me as utterly trivial and only producible by economists. [...] The guy who got the Nobel Prize for it [William Nordhaus], for his work on climate change — actually he spelled it out. He said, 'Even if there was 10 degrees centigrade, it would only cost something in the range of 10 percent of GDP.' To which I say, 'Dudes, we will be long gone as a species at 10 degrees centigrade.' It is quite obvious at 1.1 [°C] that we are already having trouble. At 2, we will be struggling and societies will fail here, there, and everywhere. At 3, in a sense, forget about it [...] At 10 degrees . . . You cannot find a serious climate scientist who would bet that society, as we know it on a global basis, will still be around at 5 degrees centigrade. I have met a lot of them, and I ask them this question. Not one thinks we have any material chance of a stable society at 5 degrees centigrade." 

https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jeremy-grantham/

 

In a 2012 Nature commentary, he urged climate scientists: "Be persuasive. Be brave. Be arrested if necessary. This is not only the crisis of your lives — it is also the crisis of our species' existence." He argued understatement is more dangerous than overstatement for this issue. 
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/11/financier-jeremy-granthams-be-brave-advice-to-climate-scientists/

 

He is not wrong. A 10 Deg C increase in temperature results in  our world looking more like Mad Max. 

[Blake Hampton]

1 minute ago, Munger_Disciple said:

I thought Joe's behavior in that interview was disgraceful. It's fine to ask a guest tough questions on TV but he should treat them with the respect. Grantham might have called more bubbles than there were actual ones but he has a very decent long term track record and seems like a good human being from what I know publicly. 

 

Look at your president. I believe we are past the point of worrying about the outbursts of news anchors unfortunately.

[matthew2129]

The only thing more comically wrong then his bear/short calls are his long calls. Bro was a China bull in 2020/2021

[Blake Hampton]

I think economic calamity is certain.

I believe we will soon see the greatest financial crisis in human history: frozen credit, collapsing asset markets, desperate money printing in order to save us from it, and finally extreme inflation as that newly created money ultimately reaches the real economy. I often fear a complete currency collapse.

Our country is running historic deficits during full employment. Our last two recessions both nearly led to economic collapse. We have an erratic leader, a broken Congress, and an apathetic public that has completely checked out.

Our currency sits at the center of the global financial system. And never before in history have we seen trade imbalances of the size they are today.

And the worst part is that no one cares.

 

We're all just sitting here waiting to see how far faith alone can take us.

 

But maybe Trump will save us. He likes to paint himself as a god and has convinced the MAGA crowd that his record of failure will somehow lead to solving our greatest problems. I am doubtful.

Edited Saturday at 10:37 PM by Blake Hampton

[Blake Hampton]

It feels almost obvious to me, and it makes me feel crazy that seemingly no one else sees it. Maybe I am.

Edited Saturday at 10:34 PM by Blake Hampton

[matthew2129]

7 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said:

.. and finally extreme inflation as that newly created money ultimately reaches the real economy

 

Sounds bullish for stocks tbh lol

[Blake Hampton]

3 minutes ago, matthew2129 said:

Sounds bullish for stocks tbh lol

 

How Inflation Swindles the Equity Investor: Warren Buffett, May 1977

I actually have the original Fortune issue sitting on my shelf. I've probably read it 10 or 20 times.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Blake Hampton said:

Strong journalism makes an effort to eliminate bias in its reporting. If it's full of opinions, it ain't news. CNBC I think finds a good balance between its co-anchors.

Cubs, I wish that you would find a way to consume better journalism. Read The Economist or the WSJ. It would be good for you.

 

I have not watched CNBC for years, after years of watching it.  From occasional clips I see - looks like somewhat balanced with Kernan being conservative and Sorkin plenty left.  

 

I'll take your word for it.

[Jay Rent]

Blake  -

 

In 1977,  Microsoft had $380K in revenue and 9 employees.

 

Apple innovated with the Apple 2 computer. 

 

In 1978 my parents overpaid for the house we grew up in with a 9.75% mortgage rate.

 

All survived inflation.

 

Never does Buffett say bet against the US.  

 

Pockets of the market, economy and politics will always be scary but stay the course and you will come out for the better.     

 

Grantham, Katsenelson (financial marketers) were saying in 2022 (when inflation first became a concern) that markets could not possible grow more after the first rebound (of course they were also pushing further market disasters at the bottom).     

 

Look at earnings on the SP since (not just market returns)

 

 

[Red Lion]

5 hours ago, Blake Hampton said:

 

I think economic calamity is certain.

I believe we will soon see the greatest financial crisis in human history: frozen credit, collapsing asset markets, desperate money printing in order to save us from it, and finally extreme inflation as that newly created money ultimately reaches the real economy. I often fear a complete currency collapse.

 

Don’t you hold cash/t-bills? Or am I mistaking you with another poster? 

[patterson]

Newsom is proposing that “every American owns a stake in the future being built by AI through a national public equity fund that takes a major stake in the new economy.” https://gavinnewsom.substack.com/p/its-time-for-a-national-billionaires. Sanders suggests a much more aggressive plan that's unlikely to gain traction. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/opinion/artificial-intelligence-bernie-sanders.html.

 

As we know, over the past decade or so, the Republicans have moved away from supporting relatively free markets and have embraced protectionism, pushing the Fed to lower rates, and taking equity stakes in companies that the administration deems vital to the national interest. At the same time, the Democrats, far from a free-market party to begin with, have moved further to the left on economic issues (see the recent NY primary winners).

 

I don’t think proposals like Newsom’s will play well with primary voters who don’t want the government picking winners and losers or subsidizing AI, and I hope other Democratic candidates don’t pick up on this. On the other hand, I am concerned that (in my view) bad economic ideas will proliferate in times like these, particularly once primary season gets underway and if the AI mania is still in full swing by then.

[LC]

1 hour ago, patterson said:

I am concerned that (in my view) bad economic ideas will proliferate in times like these, particularly once primary season gets underway and if the AI mania is still in full swing by then.

 

AI infrastructure as a resource could be compared to oil - do you think Norway's wealth fund is a similarly bad economic idea? 

[John Hjorth]

15 hours ago, Sinbius said:

Not sure I would call someone that had donated already half on his net worth toward environmental causes (and has in program to donate something like 95%) a piece of $hit...

 

And I would stop blaming people giving bad advice...and start accounting people for their own decision in their own finance...

 

And if you think about it...for the people that do not get that is bad advice...it is actually good advice  ...it is not that everybody should invest...

 

Yeah, @Sinbius,

 

Here at CofB&F, we are a bunch, a community, of individual DIY investors, that do our very best to steer clear of the costs related to the involvement of the institutional imperative, and we all know it's not in our power to save world from it.

 

But we can actually still make a difference, a material difference for others than our selves,  for some near and dear to us.

 

Keeping the bulwark up, intact and running some times calls for, requires mentally venting to decompress, which is what I think Greg [ @Gregmal ] did here by starting this topic.

[Spekulatius]

6 hours ago, LC said:

 

AI infrastructure as a resource could be compared to oil - do you think Norway's wealth fund is a similarly bad economic idea? 

It’s a bad analogy, because the oil in Norway was already there. There is no AI sitting somewhere above or below the ground waiting to be unlocked -it’s has to be build first. If you don’t build it, there will be nothing.

Edited yesterday at 12:41 PM by Spekulatius

[John Hjorth]

9 hours ago, patterson said:

... On the other hand, I am concerned that (in my view) bad economic ideas will proliferate in times like these, particularly once primary season gets underway and if the AI mania is still in full swing by then.

 

8 hours ago, LC said:

AI infrastructure as a resource could be compared to oil - do you think Norway's wealth fund is a similarly bad economic idea? 

 

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

It’s a bad analogy, because the oil in Norway was already there. There is no AI sitting somewhere above or below the ground waiting to be unlocked -it’s has to be build first. If you don’t build it, there will be nothing.

 

I'm not totally sure how to read your above post @Spekulatius, but Norwegian O&G exploration was in the early Norwegian O&G days almost also a merely a concept, which took a lot of O&G engineering, R&D and CAPEX to bring it to reality, production.

 

The practice of what I would call Norwegian successful state capitalism in the Norwegian O&G venture is an interesting study, that we perhaps should descuss in a topic outside this topic.

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

 

 

I'm not totally sure how to read your above post @Spekulatius, but Norwegian O&G exploration was in the early Norwegian O&G days almost also a merely a concept, which took a lot of O&G engineering, R&D and CAPEX to bring it to reality, production.

 

The practice of what I would call Norwegian successful state capitalism in the Norwegian O&G venture is an interesting study, that we perhaps should descuss in a topic outside this topic.

Because the oil is a valuable resource. That doesn’t mean it easy to get out, but it does mean the state can charge 80% taxes in Norway and the exploration and production is still profitable for Equifor.

But there is no AI resource lying in the ground to be explored and produced. It‘s IP and needs to be created by entrepreneurs or there won’t be AI. Thats why it is entirely different.

Edited yesterday at 03:30 PM by Spekulatius

[cubsfan]

3 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

It’s a bad analogy, because the oil in Norway was already there. There is no AI sitting somewhere above or below the ground waiting to be unlocked -it’s has to be build first. If you don’t build it, there will be nothing.

 

THAT makes all the difference.

[Spekulatius]

I talked with my mom and the temperatures in the city she lives reached 40 DegC. It’s unbearable for some especially older people. not great but sooner or later German homes and apartment will need air conditioning. I lived in Germany recall the hot summers in 1976, 1983 and 2003 occurred after I left.

The currently one beats them all by quite some margin and the official summer has barely begun.

 

Climate change looks pretty real to me and countries e8ll have to adapt. I think air conditioning units and heat pumps  (which can heat and cool) should sell fairly well.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 03:41 PM by Spekulatius

[patterson]

9 hours ago, LC said:

 

AI infrastructure as a resource could be compared to oil - do you think Norway's wealth fund is a similarly bad economic idea? 

I don't know too much about Norway's sovereign wealth fund, but I understand that it is a vehicle to invest surplus tax revenue coming from oil. The fund does not act as a political or strategic owner (if you look at its holdings, it may as well be an index), is not permitted to own more than 10% voting shares, and is mandated to invest only in assets outside of Norway.

[John Hjorth]

On 6/27/2026 at 12:10 AM, Spekulatius said:

A gas station masquerading as a county runs out of gas:

 

 

The Moscow Times [June 28^th 2026] : Putin Vows to Ensure Russia’s Security Amid Ukraine Retaliatory Strikes

 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Naturally, everybody can count on that and take it as a given, despite other puclicly available facts. [*shrugg*   }