President-Elect Trump trades

[Luke]

9 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Why does the US need a strategic bitcoin  reserve? What is the strategic purpose?

 

By the way currency reserves in treasuries or sovereign bonds do create interest income

Good questions!

[Sweet]

35 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Ok so you're not going to explain to us the intricacies of white collar crime, when committed in the State of NY?  That's all I am asking. You started your post by bringing up the legality of what Donald Trump has done.  All I said was that it was my understanding that white collar crime, when committed in the State of NY is serious business.  And it is also my understanding that the interpretation of those laws is extremely esoteric.  Thats all.  Can anyone dispute either of those two sayings?

 

You replied (gaslighted) with...well here in the UK we have a person who is in jail because of social media posts and another lady who is in jail for killing a bunch of babies, but we're not sure if she did it.  Not sure how that's relevant to Donald Trump paying hush money to a porn star in NY but ok, you are free to go with that defense.  

 

You also mention that we are here to "discuss and question the verdicts of judges", when Donald Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers...further showing that you maybe don't have a clear understanding of the law.   

 

And then your big closing argument is "yea but Donald Trump has a long history of paying hush money."  So that makes it legal?  And you do realize that when one is running for the highest-level of office, in the most powerful country on Earth, that they will be held to higher legal standard?

 

All I was trying to say was that the law (especially around white-collar crime) is extremely complicated, and before we all start playing lawyer on this forum, we should recognize that.  

 

I'm surprised at how unsporting your response was buck.

 

I don't like your attempt to off-limit discussions by appealing to 'white collar crime is extremely complex' - I don't accept those manufactured boundaries.  It's deliberately avoiding specifics by generalising.

 

I posted about the cases in the UK because those also involve complex law and complex cases, but we don't limit discussion on them because its hard to understand.  Especially not when they are important.  That's the thread of relevance.

 

Paying hush money in and off itself is not a crime buck.  You don't seem to know this.

 

Edited November 11 by Sweet

[Luke]

7 minutes ago, james22 said:

The same as any speculative attack, swapping weak (printable) fiat for the hardest asset known.

Yep. If you knew your macroeconomics, you would know that you don't want to own the hardest asset as a currency if you lead a government that engages in the dynamic capitalism that leads to so much prosperity

[rkbabang]

4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Not sure if you are being sarcastic but your post is true.  My point is that your post and every other post extolling the virtues of Bitcoin should include the following message…
 

***This advertisement has been paid for by Bitcoin***

 

 

When I started the Cryptocurrencies thread¹ I did so, not because I thought the people here could move the price of Bitcoin, but because it was something I thought was going to make a lot of money for me and wanted to share the idea here for others to take advantage of.  You are completely delusional.

 

¹https://thecobf.com/forum/topic/20408-cryptocurrencies/

 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Paarslaars said:

 

Was at a carnaval with my wife and family, you know, that wholesome stuff the dems despise these days.  

 

I like the Viking example, had the same thing in mind. Sure Viking might want to load up more, don't want to speak for him, but only up to a point. At one point, someone needs to buy into the story. Not to mention that it goes deeper, you need people to buy into every story of every FFH subsidiary because otherwise thoses businesses won't sell anything. The entire economy is based on supply & demand and demand is based on people buying into stuff... it cannot be easier to comprehend than this.

 

It is always about people buying into a story. Look at Apple, millions of people in line to buy inferior hardware just for the story.

 

Anyway, pretty much done with this topic though.

I gave you my trump trade, do with it as you please.

FYI: BTC is up 4% today and MSTR 16%, you can believe I'm wrong but with these numbers I love to be.  

"At one point, someone needs to buy into the story."  Once again you are spreading lies that you claim are fact.  No holders of FRFHF need anyone to buy into the story.  Because if no one buys into the story Fairfax will have their back.  

And then you try to circle jerk yourself into somehow trying to conflate customers who consume products that Fairfax's investees have to offer, with people buying Bitcoin?  I can't go any further down this path with you.  

 

It's the old ball under the blanket with you Bros.  You get pushed on a single point and it's always..."yea but."  Crypto is gold, crypto is friends and family, crypto is reserve currency, crypto is a Picasso.  It's almost like all of you Bitcoin fans spend all of your time trying to figure out what Bitcoin is like.  And the reason you do it is because every new lie that you tell about what Bitcoin is (or what it can be) gets more people in the boat.  

 

You have been  correct (so far) that Bitcoin is (and maybe will be) a great Trump trade.  No one is disputing that.  

 

You have also shown to me that you don't really understand the difference between a company like Fairfax and Bitcoin.  And now I know that when (or if) I see you posting on an on about some other topic that your thoughts should be handicapped.  

 

My original entrance into this thread was to try to find out from you Crypto experts, if I was correct in thinking that the only thing that makes the price of Bitcoin go up, is getting more people into Crypto.  And is sounds like the answer has been a resounding yes.  

 

 

Edited November 11 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

3 minutes ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

When I started the Cryptocurrencies thread¹ I did so, not because I thought the people here could move the price of Bitcoin, but because it was something I thought was going to make a lot of money for me and wanted to share the idea here for others to take advantage of.  You are completely delusional.

 

¹https://thecobf.com/forum/topic/20408-cryptocurrencies/

 

How am I completely delusional RKBA?  Can you please expound on that comment? 

 

I am not saying in any way that you are wrong for owning Bitcoin or for posting about it.  You understand that, correct?  And that is great to hear that you have made a lot of money for yourself with Bitcoin.  My original question/point was...what makes the price of Bitcoin to go up?  Is is solely from getting more people of adopt the use of Crypto?  If so, then you (and any other forum member who owns Bitcoin) have a vested interest in getting more people in the boat.  Ans sure, ok maybe you're not doing that here, right now, but in the end all roads lead to getting more people into the boat.    

[Longnose]

I've stopped debating crypto on this forum. 

 

But i am still a big advocate and everytime i talk to anyone about it. It is not from a position of hey join in this fad cuz im making money. Its from a positition of BTC is better. This weekend my wife and I went out and had a young babysitter. My wife was like I need to stop and get cash to pay the baby sitter and I said tell her to open a BTC wallet and ill pay her in BTC. 

The reality is the kid could open a wallet in 10 mins and I could send her $2 or $2M dollars without a bank or anyone else in the middle literally like i was handing her cash. 

 

The government cant print more of this currency and devalue it. 

People cant take it from me if I dont allow them. 

 

Its just all around better....

 

Get in the boat or dont i dont care. 

 

But yes, the earlier you are in the boat the better off youll be as youll have more of the infinitely divisible pie.

[gfp]

You didn't actually pay the babysitter in Bitcoin did you?  That's what venmo is for Longnose

[james22]

58 minutes ago, Luke said:

...its based on nothing but air and a story that doesnt make sense.

 

This will cost you.

[Longnose]

1 minute ago, gfp said:

You didn't actually pay the babysitter in Bitcoin did you?  That's what venmo is for Longnose

I would have, but no i did not. 

 

I know the girls family and they likely do not have exchange to offload it back to USD. 

 

But adoption will happen. 

[Buckeye]

23 minutes ago, Sweet said:

 

I'm surprised at how unsporting your response was buck.

 

I don't like your attempt to off-limit discussions by appealing to 'white collar crime is extremely complex' - I don't accept those manufactured boundaries.  It's deliberately avoiding specifics by generalising.

 

I posted about the cases in the UK because those also involve complex law and complex cases, but we don't limit discussion on them because its hard to understand.  Especially not when they are important.  That's the thread of relevance.

 

Paying hush money in and off itself is not a crime buck.  You don't seem to know this.

 

Ok another circle-jerk gaslighting response.  I am not attempting to "off-limit discussions." You are completely free to discuss whatever topic you would like, I am not saying otherwise.  My original comment was basically "Hey, before we all start playing lawyer on this forum, can we agree that white-collar crime (especially in NY) is extremely complicated."  And it sounds like you agree with me there.  And you have even given us a example of how little of the law you understand with your comment of "discuss and question the verdicts of judges", when Donald Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers"  Would you care to correct this comment?  

 

And now your big closing statement is "Paying hush money in and of itself is not a crime buck.  You don't seem to know this."  Actually yes, I do completely understand this Sweet.  I can pay some hushmoney to whomever I want to, because I am some boner that no one cares about. 

 

But do you understand that paying hush money, while you are running for the highest elected office in the world carries a different set of legal standards?

[james22]

30 minutes ago, Luke said:

Yep. If you knew your macroeconomics, you would know that you don't want to own the hardest asset as a currency if you lead a government that engages in the dynamic capitalism that leads to so much prosperity

 

You'd want to own it as a store of value.

 

 

Jeez, you guy's aren't even wrong.

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

You'd want to own it as a store of value.

 

 

Jeez, you guy's aren't even wrong.

***This post has been paid for by Bitcoin***

[TwoCitiesCapital]

12 hours ago, Buckeye said:

So you are comparing your relationship to your friends and family to Bitcoin? 

My original point/question was…what causes Bitcoin to rise in price/value? Is it only getting more people to want it, buy it, store it? If so, Ok.  Then someone like you, who I presume owns Bitcoin, has a vested interest in getting as many people as possible interested in wanting it, buying it and storing it. 

 

With a stock like BRK or FRFH, you don’t need to try to encourage more people to buy it. Viking has been pounding the table on FRFH (very thankfully for me), but as a shareholder he has no vested interest in other people wanting it or buying it. He doesn’t care if nobody buys it, because FRFH surely will. 
 

That’s what’s weird to me. 

 

 

 

I'm saying that there are numerous examples of things that have immense value that don't lend themselves to DCF valuations. 

 

Bitcoin is but one example. Relationships another. They don't have to be similar to one another is outside of the angle that they have value outside of a DCF calculation. 

 

Every stock price moves only because people are buying it or selling it. Sure - you provide the example of Fairfax. Now go to the Fairfax India thread and scroll back to anything from more than a month ago - is years worth of posts expressing discontent that the price doesn't reflect the NAV despite underlying business performance and the company repurchasing shares. 

 

Bitcoin price only going up with new buyers, and those buyers having a vested interest in its rise, is not limited to Bitcoin, or companies who don't repurchase their own shares, or companies that do. All are subject to the same arrangement of supply/demand dynamics that can be entirely disconnected from the underlying fundamentals for extended periods of time. 

 

7 hours ago, Milu said:

I think Bitcoin will be a great long term trump trade with large drawdowns in the short term. If trump does want to go the route of a strategic reserve it's in his interest to talk down bitcoin so that they can buy it on the cheap. The last thing he wants is for the price to keep shooting upwards before he gets his chance to back up the truck.

 

Bitcoin isn't a Trump trade. It has done this every 4 years. It did it last when Biden was elected. And last when Trump was elected. And before that? When Obama got his second term. 

 

It doesn't matter who is in the White House - sound money wins over unsound money. 

Edited November 11 by TwoCitiesCapital

[Sweet]

4 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Ok another circle-jerk gaslighting response.  I am not attempting to "off-limit discussions." You are completely free to discuss whatever topic you would like, I am not saying otherwise.  My original comment was basically "Hey, before we all start playing lawyer on this forum, can we agree that white-collar crime (especially in NY) is extremely complicated."  And it sounds like you agree with me there.  And you have even given us a example of how little of the law you understand with your comment of "discuss and question the verdicts of judges", when Donald Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers"  Would you care to correct this comment?  

 

And now your big closing statement is "Paying hush money in and of itself is not a crime buck.  You don't seem to know this."  Actually yes, I do completely understand this Sweet.  I can pay some hushmoney to whomever I want to, because I am some boner that no one cares about. 

 

But do you understand that paying hush money, while you are running for the highest elected office in the world carries a different set of legal standards?

 

The crux is whether Trump's money to Daniels was a campaign donation, and whether it fell foul of breaking campaign finance laws.  I explained this earlier so I don't know why you are asking if I understand the legal standard.

 

I don't have anything to correct on my point of being able to discuss the merits of verdicts.  Juries judge, Judges judge - verdicts are what is challenged and what I was referring to (clearly I might add).

 

There is nobody gaslighting you Buck.  If you don't know what gaslighting means look it up.  I'd appreciate it if you used it appropriately.

 

And yes I am sure white-collar crime is complicated... so what though.  Overall I'm pleased that you are allowing us to speak about the convictions. 

[dealraker]

Hey...heck...the most valuable thing now about Bitcoin is that it is inferior and ancient tech...we've given up on it being used for anything and that makes it more wholesome given....well.... you know that the typical common criminal use of the other stuff.  Oh yea...and there's only gunna be 21 or em too..that scarcity thing we got going...get in now...get in FAST or you'll regret it forevermore.

 

And we all know the big man backing the bit is easily the most successful economic thinker of our time.  The bit with some DJT stock?  You got the complete portfolio right there baby.

 

Oh...I do admit that the new era sound principled business being promoted by the soon-to-be hyper successful pres is happening while the Dems decide how to celebrate their typical most important news of the day...that a formerly gay, then transgender, and now non-binary "them/they" is the "first" of its race to become something or another.

 

Life as we have it from both "sides".... it is the NEW NEW THING.  Where's Michael (Lewis) when we need him?   

[Longnose]

22 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

I'm saying that there are numerous examples of things that have immense value that don't lend themselves to DCF valuations. 

 

Bitcoin is but one example. Relationships another.

 

I absolutely loved the section in Guy Spiers book about social compounding. Such a great concept and he accredits much of his success to the exercise of thank you notes and gratitude. 

[rkbabang]

18 minutes ago, Longnose said:

42 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

Bitcoin is but one example. Relationships another.

I absolutely loved the section in Guy Spiers book about social compounding. Such a great concept and he accredits much of his success to the exercise of thank you notes and gratitude. 

***This post has been paid for by Gratitude***

Edited November 11 by rkbabang

[james22]

39 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

***This post has been paid for by Bitcoin***

 

42 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

. . . sound money wins over unsound money. 

 

If given the choice of what money to accept, people will accept the money they believe to be of highest long-term value, and not accept what they believe to be of low long-term value. If not given the choice and required to accept all money, good and bad, they will tend to keep the money of greater perceived value in their own possession and pass the bad money to others.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law

 

Where's the payment?

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

 

I'm surprised at how unsporting your response was buck.

 

I don't like your attempt to off-limit discussions by appealing to 'white collar crime is extremely complex' - I don't accept those manufactured boundaries.  It's deliberately avoiding specifics by generalising.

 

I posted about the cases in the UK because those also involve complex law and complex cases, but we don't limit discussion on them because its hard to understand.  Especially not when they are important.  That's the thread of relevance.

 

Paying hush money in and off itself is not a crime buck.  You don't seem to know this.

 

 The Trump case in NYC was simple. The government made up and twisted law to get Trump. It worked as a political prosecution. No crime, no victim - a total joke of a case. It's easily reversed and will be.  The very definition of a kangaroo court. 

[Gregmal]

3 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 The Trump case in NYC was simple. The government made up and twisted law to get Trump. It worked as a political prosecution. No crime, no victim - a total joke of a case. It's easily reversed and will be.  The very definition of a kangaroo court. 

Yup, not only do we have recordings and admissions from people within the prosecutors office stating that no one in the country besides Trump would've had these charges brought against them, but you also have concrete evidence, via voting results, that confirm Trump certainly didnt get a fair trials amongst his "peers"...

[73 Reds]

1 hour ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

When I started the Cryptocurrencies thread¹ I did so, not because I thought the people here could move the price of Bitcoin, but because it was something I thought was going to make a lot of money for me and wanted to share the idea here for others to take advantage of.  You are completely delusional.

 

¹https://thecobf.com/forum/topic/20408-cryptocurrencies/

 

@rkbagang I, for one am glad you started the thread, for no other reason than reading the various arguments - both for and against, and the rationale behind each.  I do find it a bit perplexing that there would be so many proponents on a value-oriented investment board and have a hard time reconciling being an investor in Berkshire/Fairfax and also an owner of BTC.  The thought process behind owning each is just so different.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

6 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

@rkbagang I, for one am glad you started the thread, for no other reason than reading the various arguments - both for and against, and the rationale behind each.  I do find it a bit perplexing that there would be so many proponents on a value-oriented investment board and have a hard time reconciling being an investor in Berkshire/Fairfax and also an owner of BTC.  The thought process behind owning each is just so different.

 

To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 

 

Having more tools means you can use the appropriate tool for the job. 

 

Valuing BTC is more akin to valuing commodities/currencies and cash flows aren't really part of the equation. Utilizing tools like stock-to-flow and theories around network valuations and growth lends themselves to BTC valuation in a significantly better way than tools intended to analyze as businesses. I can use one set for Fairfax to have seen it was stupid cheap back in 2021 and made it my largest stock position and I can use another set today to see that Bitcoin was stupid cheap at the start of this year and have it be my largest asset position. 

 

BTC is still probably stupidly cheap when we look back from 5-years, but like all investments it becomes less compelling and more risky the higher the price gets. 

Edited November 11 by TwoCitiesCapital

[rkbabang]

5 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

@rkbagang I, for one am glad you started the thread, for no other reason than reading the various arguments - both for and against, and the rationale behind each.  I do find it a bit perplexing that there would be so many proponents on a value-oriented investment board and have a hard time reconciling being an investor in Berkshire/Fairfax and also an owner of BTC.  The thought process behind owning each is just so different.

 

Thanks, yes absolutely.  I've always held multiple investment types, sort of like a diversification of styles I guess.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

 

The crux is whether Trump's money to Daniels was a campaign donation, and whether it fell foul of breaking campaign finance laws.  I explained this earlier so I don't know why you are asking if I understand the legal standard.

 

I don't have anything to correct on my point of being able to discuss the merits of verdicts.  Juries judge, Judges judge - verdicts are what is challenged and what I was referring to (clearly I might add).

 

There is nobody gaslighting you Buck.  If you don't know what gaslighting means look it up.  I'd appreciate it if you used it appropriately.

 

And yes I am sure white-collar crime is complicated... so what though.  Overall I'm pleased that you are allowing us to speak about the convictions. 

OK Sweet, thank you for your reply.  I think this quote: "And yes I am sure white-collar crime is complicated... so what though."  Helps me understand your position.  I only started on this topic because we had a few members comment on the validity of Trump's legal issues, and I thought, hey before all of us boners, who have not spent 7 in school and several thousands of hours practicing law probably may not have the best interpretation of this topic.  That's it. 

 

And the only reason this topic came up was because while Deal was getting slammed for "encouraging illegal immigration" which he very clearly never advocated for, Red pointed out that either you follow the law or you don't follow the law.  It's as simple as that.  I understand that and completely agree with that point. 

 

So besides all of the "kangaroo courts" talk- which a great term to throw around if part of your Bitcoin thesis involves the degradation of the US Financial and Legal system - can you please answer one question for me Sweet -

 

Do you think Donald Trump follows the law or not?

 

 

 

     

Edited November 11 by Buckeye