PW(ㆆ_ㆆ) @privatewhy

Look for capital-light businesses:

I made a mistake. Peter Navarro is not a 3rd rate economist. He is just a cretin.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb @nntaleb

2 years ago

Peter Navarro could be considered, at best a 3rd/4th rate economist by his own professional standards, which says a lot since economists are not often bright. Besides, he can't grasp dose-response.

30 88 973 520K 118

Markets rallying and then falling because some guy says 'The president will decide what the president decides' and the president saying he has decided and that is that... and you expect me to hold equities?

How’s this for a simple approach? We keep 10% across the board tariffs for the special privilege of doing business with the U.S. to compensate us for the investments we have made in global defense, health and otherwise, and to compensate our country for historically unfair trade practices that have contributed to our massive deficits and national debt. We keep the pressure on China to resolve materially unfair trading practices, IP theft, currency manipulation, and other practices that have disadvantaged our nation. We pause reciprocal tariff implementation for 90 days so we have time to engage in private negotiations with other countries, focusing first on those whose tariffs and practices have materially interfered with the competitiveness of U.S. manufactured goods in their markets. Lastly, we consider that: (1) it does not make sense to have balanced trade with countries that are smaller than us and that have fewer resources to spend on US goods, i.e., we will forever be buying more from Madagascar than they will buy from us, (2) attempting to bring back jobs in low-wage manufacturing is not good for America, acknowledging, for example, that Bangladesh and Vietnam are better places to produce textiles and athletic shoes than here, (3) U.S. ‘exports’ of software, IP, finance, and other services are high value and important sources of trade that are not reflected in traditional measures of exports and imports, and if included in the calculations would make the balance of trade statistics look much more balanced, (4) our multinationals’ subsidiaries that sell services in foreign countries that are not counted in the balance of trade calculation, but generate profits, value and future dividends are good for America, (5) a goal of generating a dollar of exports for every dollar of imports is not a useful one, particularly on a country-by-country basis in light of our massively higher standard of living, and having the largest economy in the world. Lastly, the current trading system, while far from perfect or fair to the U.S., has served us extremely well so we need to be prudent in how we change it so as not to upset the world order in such a manner that it disadvantages our country over the long term.

Das #Sondierungspapier enthält mit Steuerantlastungen für Investitionen und Arbeitseinkommen gut Ansätze, es fehlen aber konkrete Ausgabenkürzungen, denn Rüstung sollte nur vorübergehend mit Schulden finanziert werden. Das muss in den Koalitionsverhandlungen kommen.

TEN POINTS ON TARIFFS Tariffs are not a good idea for the US. Deregulation should be pursued instead. Here's why. (1) Tariffs only protect the home market. First, at best, tariffs protect the US home market. But China only sends ~16% of its goods to the US! So even Trump's 10% tariff doesn't phase them, because they are selling 84% to other countries: (2) Tariffs hurt allies. Next, as the US imposes tariffs on allies, they become less likely to abide by US-requested trade restrictions on China. For example, the Netherland is no longer classifying ASML machines as dual-use, opening them up for China. (3) Tariffs are small incentives at high costs. Third, tariffs are at best a small incentive on the margins to manufacture in the US. A producer might make more money over the long run if a tariff is sure to persist. But these huge tariffs keep blinking in and out, which is the worst of all worlds. The uncertainty means you can't plan on tariffs being there tomorrow, and the high cost means you can't ignore them when they are imposed today. Breaking supply chains in this way just wrecks anyone exporting or importing into the US. (4) Tariffs don't help exports. Once retaliatory tariffs are imposed, US companies become even less competitive abroad in the 100+ countries where American and Chinese products compete. In fact, US tariffs open the door for China to move into Western Europe, Canada, and Mexico — the only places it hasn't yet become the dominant trade partner: (5) Tariffs aren't specific. Remember, the US has a money printer! So it can just directly invest in specific industries it thinks are strategic, rather than adopting the extremely imprecise instrument of tariffs. Subsidizing alcohol to Canada is not strategic. (6) Tariffs aren't realistically autarkic. There are only 77M MAGA but almost 1B+ in the EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand combined. There is just no way that 77M MAGA can produce as much as that "Golden Billion" economic union set up at great expense over 80 years. If you push the world to make everything autarkically within a single country, then China wins — because it has 1B+ scale. (7) Tariffs are irrational nationalism. Relatedly, tariffs do not correctly implement the who/whom or friend/enemy distinction. MAGA should understand that many allies like @PierrePoilievre are non-American, while many declared enemies are Blue Americans. If you're alienating Canadian conservatives while subsidizing the American far left, you're doing it wrong: (8) Tariffs are a diplomatic loser. While the US is alienating economic allies, China is signing free trade agreements (FTAs) with dozens of countries. The PRC has ~25 signed and 18 more on the way. (9) Tariffs are an unnecessary fight. Given that Republicans already inherited a Hot War with Russia, a Cold War with China, and a Cold Civil War with Democrats...why open up completely new conflicts with Canada (!?) (10) Tariffs aren't deregulation. Finally, easing domestic regulation is far better for improving production than adding new regulations in the form of tariffs. Because deregulation doesn’t cause retaliation, and it also unlocks new production. There is political will to deregulate, so why not do that? TLDR: don't increase regulation via tariffs. Deregulate instead.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Leader of the Free World 🇺🇦🇪🇺🇬🇧🇨🇦🇳🇿🇦🇺🇯🇵🇰🇷

Your 9-5 pays the bills Your 5-9 builds the generational wealth

🚀 Earn passive income with Grass! 🌱💰 Get rewarded for sharing your unused internet bandwidth – no effort required! Sign up with my referral link & start earning Grass Points → app.getgrass.io/register/?refe… 🔗 #PassiveIncome #Crypto #GrassNetwork #SideHustle

Poors (aspire to) own real estate… …the rich own equities.

A memecoin is a zero-sum* lottery. There is no wealth creation. Every buy order is simply matched by a sell order. And after an initial spike, the price eventually crashes and the last buyers lose everything. * It’s actually negative sum if the platform takes a cut.

Germany's economy shrunk again and is now in the longest stagnation since WWII, with 2025 predicted to be the same. Why: Overregulation, energy costs, taxes, shrinking population, China competition, unproductive mass migration, global tensions, decarbonization, poor digitization

There’s no greater value investing opportunity right now than shorting $UVXY when the $VIX is high. Volatility always subsides over time, and without reverse splits, $UVXY’s intrinsic value is destined to trend toward zero.

Reminder: buying at an all-time high has been a better strategy than buying on any other day $SPX pic.x.com/qcTPTBfJXB

Marty Zweig's Investing Rules are as good as it gets.

I view SUI as this cycles SOL, only one cycle behind on the maturation curve (as reflected by Market Cap). Even though all metrics show SUI is growing faster than SOL at the same time in it's lifecycle, I conservatively assume that SUI will follow the same growth rate. This places SUI at 4 to 6x from here, or $15 to $22. I know this is outrageous, but it's actually rather muted compared to SOLs ascent. I don't know why anyone invests in any other asset class.

#crypto adoption is at the same levels as the internet in 1998 No you are not too late

Overbought conditions are "piling up"! S&P 500 is currently greater than 5% above it's 50-DMA and 10% above its 200-DMA. During the nearly 2-yr long bull market, EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. such conditions have been met, $SPX has checked back to its upward sloping 50-DMA, just a matter of when, not if. History informs the best approach is to add exposure during consolidation. History informs the worst approach is to sell into consolidation, hoping to buyback lower. Be on the right side of history. $SPY $QQQ $DIA $ES_F $NYA $IWM

The distribution of return on capital (ROC) for the broad index of companies shows a bell curve (normal distribution) in addition to very large tails. The bell curve shows that most companies earn circa 5% to 10% ROC (which is inadequate). However, the data also shows left and right tails, which are companies that earn -20% ROC or less, and those that earn +20% or more (especially a large tail of those with ROC +30%). The tails signify very poor companies versus the highest quality businesses. Great investors are only interested in HQ businesses because they: 1. increase the odds of success 2. mitigate risks and permanent loss of capital 3. increase the magnitude of payoffs