President-Elect Trump trades

[james22]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Trump

 

President-elect Trump

[Buckeye]

8 minutes ago, dealraker said:

What I don't get......

 

I came here to get some umph in my investing (which honestly I've gotten a boat load of but still..) and yet not a one of you brow beat this old codger, not one of you got in my face screaming at me that not only was Trump gunna win but that Tesla was the most under-valued stock market cap wise on the planet.  I just had to watch Dan Ives on CNBC tell me that Trump would "unlock" another trillion in market cap for Tesla  -------- and billions almost trillions ago not one of you punched ole deal in the face 'bout buyin' the damn stock.

 

Yea...not one of you!  I swear to God I'm never gunna forgive you guys!  And it was me, little ole foggy brained stumbling in the sand (you guys did see the Biden video...right?) ancient man me--- like the ex pres --- that had to do the BEAT DOWN work for you on Dollar General.  My God dudes....why was I having to do that when you younguns should have been hollerin' TESLA.

 

Yawl liked DOLLAR and not TESLA?   What the hell?????????

 

Come on guys stop arguing about Teflon Trump, ain't nothin' takin' him down (by the way Greg I think Trump is the mainstream/establishment now, the old game is history) and Elon was by far.....by leaps and bounds....running circles around ALL of us while we debated..........DOLLAR GENERAL!?!?    Oh my God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

You are right Deal, no one is going to change anyone else's mind about Donald Trump.  We are only going to further entrench into our current beliefs.  Red's non-answer answer to my question tells me everything I need to know about Red.  When we were talking about Black and Brown immigrants, he was pounding the table that the only thing that matters is whether they follow the law or not.  It was completely black and white (or should I say black and brown).  So because following the law is so important to him (remember he had t write out a whole post about it), I ask, Red, do you think Donald Trump follows the law?  And he doesn't answer.  Classic non-answer answer.

 

What I am trying to remind myself of, and maybe some other members who will listen, is Don Keogh's maxim about playing too close to the foul line.   

[Vish_ram]

26 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

But everything is not a ponzi scheme.  When you purchase an asset and don't care about the subsequent price, but rather the return you get in the form of distributions and/or tangible/liquidation value, how is that a ponzi?

how do you do liquidation? who do you sell the company to?

 

i'm sure you're selling it to other firms. This is ponzi. If you're the only owner of the asset and entire population perishes, then the value of what you own is zero. There are good ponzi's and bad ponzis (value destructive)

Edited Monday at 09:13 PM by Vish_ram

[Gregmal]

I think the bar doesnt matter for public office because in order to get to that high a level of politics you need to be a pretty big scumbag...or super wealthy, which typically entails the same ethical compromises. Romney or Bloomberg perhaps the exceptions. So when we talk Clinton or Bush or Biden....it just comes down to how well they hide it and how well their allies manipulate perception. Joe Biden has a half dozen mansions despite being a public servant his entire career...square that? Theres overwhelming evidence he engaged in pay for play. But because he's not "labelled" a convicted felon"...I just hold him in higher regard? Not me. 
 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, rkbabang said:

 

 

My point was that even in 2017 the thought that I could move the price of Bitcoin by posting here was too ridiculous to be taken seriously, and today it is beyond absurd to think anyone here has anything to gain by writing posts on the internet here or elsewhere about Bitcoin.   If/when bitcoin succeeds it will be because billions of people, millions of institutions, and hundreds of governments all want to own it.  It will not be because of CoBF posts. The very notion is delusional.

 

"When bitcoin succeeds it will be because billions of people, millions of institutions, and hundreds of governments all want to own it."  Ok so your sole thesis involves getting more people on the Bitcoin boat?

[james22]

3 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

 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.

 

I find it perplexing that value-oriented investors haven't looked at the returns of growth over the last ~15 years and questioned if they aren't missing something.

 

Munger: All intelligent investing is value investing.

 

3 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

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

 

There's a saying that "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." The widely discussed distinction between value and growth made some people believe they only had hammers, when in fact they potentially had access to a whole toolbox. Now we live in a complex world where a range of tools is required for success.

 

https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/default-source/memos/something-of-value.pdf

[73 Reds]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

You are right Deal, no one is going to change anyone else's mind about Donald Trump.  We are only going to further entrench into our current beliefs.  Red's non-answer answer to my question tells me everything I need to know about Red.  When we were talking about Black and Brown immigrants, he was pounding the table that the only thing that matters is whether they follow the law or not.  It was completely black and white (or should I say black and brown).  So because following the law is so important to him (remember he had t write out a whole post about it), I ask, Red, do you think Donald Trump follows the law?  And he doesn't answer.  Classic non-answer answer.

 

What I am trying to remind myself of, and maybe some other members who will listen, is Don Keogh's maxim about playing too close to the foul line.   

LOL, I'd go back and read my posts if you really care - makes no difference to me though.

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

I think the bar doesnt matter for public office because in order to get to that high a level of politics you need to be a pretty big scumbag...or super wealthy, which typically entails the same ethical compromises. Romney or Bloomberg perhaps the exceptions. So when we talk Clinton or Bush or Biden....it just comes down to how well they hide it and how well their allies manipulate perception. Joe Biden has a half dozen mansions despite being a public servant his entire career...square that? Theres overwhelming evidence he engaged in pay for play. But because he's not "labelled" a convicted felon"...I just hold him in higher regard? Not me. 
 

So now your argument is that all politicians are scumbags, so that makes what Trump has done ok?

[73 Reds]

4 minutes ago, Vish_ram said:

how do you do liquidation? who do you sell the company to?

 

i'm sure you're selling it to other firms. This is ponzi. If you're the only owner of the asset and entire population perishes, then the value of what you own is zero. There are good ponzi's and bad ponzis (value destructive)

The distinction is, when it comes time to sell there are accepted metrics available to provide you with a range of value.  No such metric(s) are available to value BTC.   

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

LOL, I'd go back and read my posts if you really care - makes no difference to me though.

Still didn't answer Red, did you?  What's wrong, cat got your tongue.   Me thinks that you don't want to answer on record, classic lawyer move. 

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

I find it perplexing that value-oriented investors haven't looked at the returns of growth over the last ~15 years and questioned if they aren't missing something.

 

Munger: All intelligent investing is value investing.

 

 

There's a saying that "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." The widely discussed distinction between value and growth made some people believe they only had hammers, when in fact they potentially had access to a whole toolbox. Now we live in a complex world where a range of tools is required for success.

 

https://www.oaktreecapital.com/docs/default-source/memos/something-of-value.pdf

OK, so now we are supposed to use the fact that Bitcoin has gone up in value for the last 15 years as all the proof we need that it will continue to do so into the future?  Got it, thanks!

Edited Monday at 09:23 PM by Buckeye

[Gregmal]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

So now your argument is that all politicians are scumbags, so that makes what Trump has done ok?

I vote for policies that I believe have the best chance of positively impacting my life. I believe in low taxes, small government, and effective policing to keep people safe. I dont care about the individual names on the ticket because largely theyre 95% a mirage that results from manipulative propaganda, media alliances, and wasteful spending.

 

You're asking this question as if Trump has murdered people...meanwhile, there is actually some evidence to suggest previous presidents and politicians have...but what? because they dont have the "convicted felon" tag...theyre all good? Essentially, as long as you are not aware of everyones baggage...theyre clear? Not for me. 

[Gregmal]

Like whats the gist thats being implied? We shoulda voted for Kamala because we think she's a nicer person than Trump? And that later if it came out she wasnt, well, whoa is me I was just ignorant its not my fault? Well, maybe, but a lotta people just ate that humble pie with Biden...and realized they had someone with dementia who could barely function hidden from them, and well, the last 3+ years speak for themselves.

 

If nothing else, a lotta people learned the media is full of liars, huge spending from donors skews the picture you have, and most of it is manipulative rubbish. Many people just saw that just because the media screams "Trump is HIlter", doesnt make it true. And when it isnt true, no one is there to compensate them for the problems the alternative created for them. 

[Sweet]

3 hours ago, Buckeye said:

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?

 

 

 

     

Generally speaking?  I don’t know if he follows the law or not.

 

In this specific case I’d lean towards the view that he would have paid Daniel’s regardless of his presidency bid - he has a record of doing just that which means no case to answer to.
 

Normally this type of campaign finance violation is taken up by the DOJ or the FEC, but it wasn’t, and what’s not normal is a politically motivated prosecutor in a Democratic state taking on a federal issue.  
 

Bragg has many quotes saying he was going to get Trump, he’s not impartial.

 

It was prosecuted in Manhattan, one of the most Democrat leaning places in the US and the jury almost certainly leaned that way.  Trump is a polarising political figure, if the jury is biased the trial can’t be fair.  No actions were taken to try ensure he got a jury of his peers - i.e. Dems and Reps in equal amounts.
 

The payment occurred in 2016 beyond New York’s own statue of limitation laws for these crimes.  They found a way around the law, which (I think - could be wrong) was to link the book keeping entry of it a year later.  But if he didn’t commit a campaign finance crime then there is no book keeping crime.

 

The main witness is Michael Cohen, a convicted liar who also lied on the stand by saying he had nothing to gain from Trump’s conviction, even though he had made lots of money talking about Trump.

 

It has been reported that there were a range of irregularities pre-trial and during the trial… but I don’t really know enough about the legal cases to know what is normal - so I ignore but mention.

 

Overall I’d side with others.  If this wasn’t Trump it wouldn’t be brought.  If it was outside of NYC there would be no conviction.  The DA was politically motivated - clearly.

 

Edited Monday at 09:49 PM by Sweet

[73 Reds]

12 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Like whats the gist thats being implied? We shoulda voted for Kamala because we think she's a nicer person than Trump? And that later if it came out she wasnt, well, whoa is me I was just ignorant its not my fault? Well, maybe, but a lotta people just ate that humble pie with Biden...and realized they had someone with dementia who could barely function hidden from them, and well, the last 3+ years speak for themselves.

 

If nothing else, a lotta people learned the media is full of liars, huge spending from donors skews the picture you have, and most of it is manipulative rubbish. Many people just saw that just because the media screams "Trump is HIlter", doesnt make it true. And when it isnt true, no one is there to compensate them for the problems the alternative created for them. 

Yeah, if you polled 100 people long before the election and asked them who they would like to see run for President, how many would have chosen last week's candidates?  Recent Presidential elections have come down to the lesser of two evils.  Its a binary choice and therefore you are entirely correct that policies, not the person are what is most important.  

Edited Monday at 09:49 PM by 73 Reds
missed word

[Sweet]

1 minute ago, 73 Reds said:

Yeah, if you polled 100 people long before the election and asked them who they like to see run for President, how many would have chosen last week's candidates?  Recent Presidential elections have come down to the lesser of two evils.  Its a binary choice and therefore you are entirely correct that policies, not the person are what is most important.  

Isn’t elections always about the lesser of two evils?

 

When one side believes Trump is Hitler you can see why they vote against Trump, some push politically motivated prosecutions, some even try to kill him.

[Gregmal]

3 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Isn’t elections always about the lesser of two evils?

 

When one side believes Trump is Hitler you can see why they vote against Trump, some push politically motivated prosecutions, some even try to kill him.

This was the gist of identity politics. The democrats started by using the media to smear people, when it didnt work, their smears became more and more aggressive. It worked brilliantly at first. Obama literally ended Mitt Romneys campaign by calling him a racist out of touch billionaire, even though there was absolutely no basis for it. Which as Trump proved too resilient for that, they just kept going. Which is how we end up at some claim as preposterous as "Trump is Hitler"....

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, Gregmal said:

This was the gist of identity politics. The democrats started by using the media to smear people, when it didnt work, their smears became more and more aggressive. It worked brilliantly at first. Obama literally ended Mitt Romneys campaign by calling him a racist out of touch billionaire, even though there was absolutely no basis for it. Which as Trump proved too resilient for that, they just kept going. Which is how we end up at some claim as preposterous as "Trump is Hitler"....

There is a segment of society that wants to believe that.  The media, both legacy media and social media are much to blame.  My issues with legacy media go back 40+ years - long before identity politics.  When great news men like Chet Huntley and Walter Cronkite were replaced by Networks with agendas that have become much clearer over time, the current divide we have in this country is easily explainable.

[LC]

Well let me first say I am extremely jealous of all the Bitcoin bulls. You have made lots of USD and so congrats. I wish I would have just gotten out of my own way and bought some like my buddy Nate told me back in 2012.

 

That said, I still don’t see the use. Ease of transfer? It’s very easy to send USD. I don’t think that alone is really a valuable feature. Venmo, Zelle, etc…

 

”Hard money”? Gold has existed for a millennia. There’s a reason we don’t peg our currency to a fixed asset. The fixed nature is a bug, not a feature. 

[rkbabang]

26 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Like whats the gist thats being implied? We shoulda voted for Kamala because we think she's a nicer person than Trump? And that later if it came out she wasnt, well, whoa is me I was just ignorant its not my fault? Well, maybe, but a lotta people just ate that humble pie with Biden...and realized they had someone with dementia who could barely function hidden from them, and well, the last 3+ years speak for themselves.

 

 

It's funny in my neighborhood there is a woman who is a state rep and I basically am diametrically opposed to everything she stands for.  A lot of my neighbors put her sign in front of their houses, because she lives in the neighborhood and is "such a nice woman".  I told one of my neighbors who said that to me that I don't care how nice she is, I'm against everything she stands for, all the bills she's co-sponsored, and all of the votes she's made.   I'd rather vote for a complete asshole that I agree with than a nice woman who I don't.

 

[Vish_ram]

34 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

The distinction is, when it comes time to sell there are accepted metrics available to provide you with a range of value.  No such metric(s) are available to value BTC.   

 

You've hit the nail on the head. The rules for store of value are different from those of other assets that produce income etc. The metrics for those that produce dividends/income/profit are like P/E, P/S etc. or use IRR, TWR etc

 

Since Gold we've not had a global asset in last few millennia. The valuation of such an asset is always tricky and not discussed much in mainstream.

[Paarslaars]

12 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

This was the gist of identity politics. The democrats started by using the media to smear people, when it didnt work, their smears became more and more aggressive. It worked brilliantly at first. Obama literally ended Mitt Romneys campaign by calling him a racist out of touch billionaire, even though there was absolutely no basis for it. Which as Trump proved too resilient for that, they just kept going. Which is how we end up at some claim as preposterous as "Trump is Hitler"....

 

Mmm I look at this from an outsider but that was not how I experienced Obama vs Romney.

I thought, compared to the last 3 elections, that one was actually quite civil and polite.

To me it looked like Romney lost because there was not a single thing I can remember he actually stood for... Obama had a few things going for him, he also had class in the way he carried himself. 

 

I would even argue that using a smear campaign instead of running on facts, is what cost Hilary the election. She lost her own voters in the process of trying to make Trump lose his.

[rkbabang]

54 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

"When bitcoin succeeds it will be because billions of people, millions of institutions, and hundreds of governments all want to own it."  Ok so your sole thesis involves getting more people on the Bitcoin boat?

 

 

Yes, same as any investment.  Usually when I sell a stock it is because I think it is overvalued. i.e. more people want to buy it than is reasonable.  I hope for this for all my investments.   Sure you can own a stock you think is undervalued for decades and tell yourself a good story about how you've been buying cheap, but if no one ever wants to buy it when you  eventually need the money and want to sell you will not get what you think its worth.  You always hope that one day everyone will want to own what you have. That said, my thesis on Bitcoin is not that "I need to get more people on the Bitcoin boat," it is that almost everyone will someday realize that Bitcoin is the hardest asset known to man and will want to get on the Bitcoin boat.  There is a difference.  You keep implying that I or other people posting about bitcoin think that we have some roll to play in its success.  I can assure you we don't, and we don't think that we do.  If my thesis depended on people posting to the internet I would definitely not own any.

 

 

[james22]

53 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

OK, so now we are supposed to use the fact that Bitcoin has gone up in value for the last 15 years as all the proof we need that it will continue to do so into the future?  Got it, thanks!

 

You miss the point.

 

But go back to rehashing the election. Maybe you'll be able to overturn the results?
 

And bashing bitcoin. Maybe your "value-oriented" investment returns will beat mine by year's end?

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, Vish_ram said:

 

You've hit the nail on the head. The rules for store of value are different from those of other assets that produce income etc. The metrics for those that produce dividends/income/profit are like P/E, P/S etc. or use IRR, TWR etc

 

Since Gold we've not had a global asset in last few millennia. The valuation of such an asset is always tricky and not discussed much in mainstream.

We often hear that gold is a "store of value" but if so, it's a pretty bad one, wouldn't you say?  With BTC, how can you ascertain whether the price you pay is reasonable if there is no way to measure it?  I've never even thought about owning currencies as a store of value; that is the purpose of using dollars to invest in other assets that hopefully generate a return.  The return has to somehow be measured and the dollar is as good as any other measurement  - at least from a volatility standpoint.  Otherwise, in a free society even the barter system makes more sense to me.