Nostr notes by nasdaq

Der Mitarbeiter, dem man Überreaktion vorwirft, ist oft ...

2026-10-27T09:07:14Z

Der Mitarbeiter, dem man Überreaktion vorwirft, ist oft derjenige, der als Einziger den Preis der Situation laut ausspricht, den alle anderen längst im Stillen mitrechnen. In einem keiner letzten Jobs habe ich mehrfach gehört, ich hätte überreagiert, wenn ich Kollegen und mich verteidigt oder Vorgänge beim Namen genannt habe, während der Rest des Teams den Blick auf die Tastatur senkte. Dabei ging es nicht um Kleinigkeiten, denn ich habe erlebt, wie Kollegen vor versammelter Mannschaft von der Führung auf ihre Fehler gestoßen und abgemahnt wurden, wie Chefs vor dem Team erklärten, man säubere gerade die Firma, womit die Entlassung einzelner Kollegen gemeint war, und wie Verdachtsmomente auf Vertragsverletzungen und Betrug im Raum standen, über die niemand sprach.

Die Beobachtung, die mich seitdem beschäftigt, betrifft die Logik hinter dem Wort Überreaktion, denn es misst eine Reaktion immer an dem Maß, das die Mehrheit für normal hält, und nie am Maß dessen, was tatsächlich passiert ist. Wenn ein Vorgesetzter einen Menschen vor seinen Kollegen bloßstellt und neun von zehn Anwesenden schweigen, wird das Schweigen zum Standard erklärt, und wer dann widerspricht, steht automatisch als der Auffällige da. Das Schweigen der Mehrheit beweist dabei weder, dass alles in Ordnung war, noch dass die Lage harmlos war, sondern es zeigt lediglich, dass die meisten Menschen die Kosten des Widerspruchs höher einschätzen als den Nutzen und deshalb rational, aber nicht richtig handeln.

Eine Firma, in der Führungskräfte Mitarbeiter öffentlich demütigen, Entlassungen mit dem Wort „säubern“ und „aussortiert“ beschreiben und Betrugsverdacht aussitzen, sendet ein Signal über Kultur, Kontrollsysteme und die Qualität der Zahlen, das in keiner Bilanz steht und trotzdem jede Bilanz am Ende einholt.

Mich hat diese Erfahrung gelehrt, dass derjenige, dem man Überreaktion vorwirft, häufig bloß früher reagiert als die anderen, weil er die Schwelle zum Handeln niedriger ansetzt oder weniger bereit ist, sich an das Unerträgliche zu gewöhnen. Und genau diesen Kollegen und Vorwürfen sollte man Aufmerksamkeit schenken. Wer aufgrund von Fakten widerspricht, dem sollte der Begriff Überreaktion zu denken geben, denn er sagt oft mehr über die Person aus, die ihn benutzt, als über die Person, die er treffen soll.

Der praktische Schluss - wenn ein Raum voller kluger Menschen schweigt, während ein Einzelner widerspricht, lohnt es sich, dem Einzelnen zuzuhören und die Argumente zu prüfen, bevor man den Konsens als Beweis nimmt. Manchmal stellt sich heraus, dass der Widerspruch übertrieben war, und dann hat man nur ein paar Minuten verloren. In einigen Fällen jedoch, in denen er berechtigt ist, hat man etwas gesehen, das alle anderen erst Monate ode Jahre später bemerken, und genau dort liegt der Vorsprung, den man weder durch Fleiß noch durch Rechenleistung kaufen kann.

The central risk in the AI is a timing mismatch between capital ...

2026-10-09T13:50:39Z

The central risk in the AI is a timing mismatch between capital expenditure, technological depreciation, commercial adoption and the cost of financing. Albert Edwards (Société Générale) draws a parallel between today's AI investment boom and the Asian economic miracle before the 1997 crisis:

1. One of the most meaning evidences comes from productivity data, where Apollo estimates that output per hour is growing at roughly 2.5%, without a corresponding acceleration in total factor productivity, which measures how efficiently labour and capital are combined to produce output. An economy can become more productive simply by giving workers more equipment, computing power and infrastructure, while the efficiency with which these resources are used improves much less dramatically. This distinction matters enormously for AI, because the investment thesis ultimately depends on businesses generating substantially more economic value from their resources, rather than merely spending more money on increasingly powerful machines. The absence of a measurable productivity acceleration does not prove that AI is failing, since adoption, organisational restructuring and the redistribution of economic gains can take years, but it does mean that a significant part of today's investment case remains dependent on future results.

2. The second problem is depreciation, which becomes particularly important when technology develops faster than the accounting assumptions used to estimate the useful life of equipment. US business gross investment is estimated at approximately 15.5% of GDP, while net investment after depreciation is only around 3.5%, suggesting that a substantial portion of capital spending across the economy replaces worn-out or obsolete assets rather than creating additional productive capacity. These aggregate figures illustrate why the distinction between capital expenditure and economically productive capital matters - if AI accelerators, servers and data-centre infrastructure lose commercial value faster than companies anticipate, reported profits may overstate sustainable earnings because depreciation expenses fail to capture the actual economic cost of maintaining a competitive position.

The numbers become more challenging when the expected returns are translated into the revenue required to justify the spending. GS estimates that major cloud providers could invest approximately $1.73 trillion during 2026–2027, while a model targeting a 15% return would require roughly $1.42 trillion in cumulative revenue during 2028–2030. These are scenario-dependent estimates rather than established forecasts and the required revenue would not necessarily come exclusively from direct AI subscriptions, since productivity gains, advertising, cloud services and other commercial applications could also contribute to the economics. How much incremental revenue and profit must the AI ecosystem generate to compensate investors for the capital deployed, the cost of financing and the rapid obsolescence of its infrastructure?

This is where the comparison with the Asian crisis becomes particularly relevant, because investment booms often appear strongest precisely when capital is easiest to obtain and the assumptions supporting new projects are least frequently challenged. As long as financing remains available, companies can expand capacity on the expectation that demand will eventually catch up, but if monetisation disappoints while borrowing costs rise, the same projects can become difficult to refinance or justify economically. The resulting adjustment can spread well beyond the companies building the infrastructure, affecting lenders, private-credit funds, equipment suppliers and investors whose valuations depend on years of uninterrupted growth. The underlying vulnerability remains familiar: investment commitments are made today against cash flows that may arrive much later or never reach the level originally assumed.

“I managed $15 billion in Fidelity Magellan, and the most ...

2026-10-04T07:51:07Z

“I managed $15 billion in Fidelity Magellan, and the most important lesson I can give you is this: the price you pay is the only thing that determines whether you make or lose money over time. Everything else is noise.

I’ve seen people buy the world’s biggest companies (Coca-Cola, Disney, Gillette) at 50, 60, 70 times their earnings because they were convinced the growth would never end. When the growth slowed, even a little, the stocks got crushed. Quality didn’t save them. Price killed them.

I’ve also bought companies that were disasters (companies losing money, companies in declining industries, companies no one wanted) and made 10 or 20 times my money because I paid so little that the only direction was up. The margin of safety was in the price, not the story.

There’s no such thing as a good stock at any price. There’s only a good price for a stock. If you pay too much, you lose. If you pay enough, you can be wrong about almost everything and still win.

I multiplied my money 29 times in La Quinta Inns, a company no one had heard of. I multiplied my money 20 times in Philip Morris when it was the most hated stock in America. I didn’t need a crystal ball. I needed a low price. That’s been true since 1920 and will be true in 2120. The price you pay is the only margin of safety you’ll have.”

Peter Lynch

Paarallelen, von denen ich gesprochen habe: ...

2026-09-30T12:12:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…4k6g
_________________________

Paarallelen, von denen ich gesprochen habe: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/plus6aaa69aa91d8cffaad47b39f/junger-afd-waehler-ich-bin-20-schwul-habe-migrationshintergrund-und-waehle-die-afd.html

Investing has the same trap: every additional “opportunity” ...

2026-09-25T15:14:13Z

Investing has the same trap: every additional “opportunity” creates another reason to hesitate. The more assets, themes and scenarios you keep on the table, the easier it becomes to confuse diversification with a complete lack of conviction. At some point, the hardest investment decision is deciding what to remove.

The S&P 500 refuses to crash simply because investors have ...

2026-09-17T15:58:39Z

The S&P 500 refuses to crash simply because investors have been conditioned like Pavlov’s dogs: Trump is in charge, stocks only go up, and any minor dip is just a temporary glitch before the inevitable rebound. As The Wall Street Journal noted, everyday investors have thrown all caution to the wind and keep blindly buying, completely convinced that the market has a literal safety net. To top it all off, everyone is sitting around waiting for Trump to deliver his signature pre-election market pump.

In “Artificial Intelligence and the Brave New World in ...

2026-09-13T14:27:25Z

In “Artificial Intelligence and the Brave New World in Finance“ the Princeton economist warns that financial markets will become increasingly unintelligible to humans because trading decisions are increasingly being made by AIs.

They will still understand us, though. "Al agents can learn how humans think and respond,” he writes, “while humans may be unable to understand or reliably anticipate how those agents will act."

This “asymmetric understanding” will be a problem.

At the most basic level, Brunnermeier warns that asymmetric understanding between humans and AIs could undermine the Hayekian purpose of markets: “Price signals are the mechanism that steers a decentralized economy,” he explains. But if we don't understand what’s driving prices, we won’t know what they’re signaling.

Misreading the signs, we might steer the economy off a cliff.

We’ll have trust issues, too.

With AI agents trading freely in markets, collusion, manipulation, and rogue trading will become undetectable to humans. “Under asymmetric understanding,” Brunnermeier writes, “the AI agent’s objectives can neither be fully specified in human categories nor verified from the outside, so that misalignment becomes undetectable.”

If we can’t detect misalignment in markets, we’ll just assume they’re misaligned. If we assume they’re misaligned, we won’t invest. If we don’t invest, we won’t build anything.

This could come to a head in a market crash.

If human investors are unable to understand what’s causing a crash, they’ll be reluctant to cushion the fall by taking the other side of it. They may just sell instead. “Asymmetric information deters some traders from participating,” Brunnermeier warns, “and can make a market break down entirely.”

Scary stuff.

https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/18595/brunnermeier.pdf

"If you think your boss is stupid: remember you wouldn't ...

2026-09-13T14:25:07Z

"If you think your boss is stupid: remember you wouldn't have a job if he was any smarter" - John Gotti

“You can’t print molecules, you can’t print calories, you ...

2026-09-12T15:13:06Z

“You can’t print molecules, you can’t print calories, you can’t print atoms … Buy the entire complex: own energy, own gold, own silver, own grains, own copper, own every single one of these markets right now because they are underinvested and there are disruptions all over the world.”
- Carlyle Advisor and former head of commodity research at Goldman Sachs Jeffrey Currie

Current situation“We had no time to think about these dreadful ...

2026-09-05T11:43:35Z

Current situation“We had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us… each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that people could no more see it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.”

- Milton Mayer, German philologist / "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans" 1933-45 (University of Chicago Press)

Funny how the “best place in the world to live” still can’t ...

2026-08-13T06:06:04Z

Funny how the “best place in the world to live” still can’t convince its own youth to stay. One has to ask who commissions this kind of propaganda and what they're actually trying to distract from.

Perhaps Spain should simply fuck off from Africa, and the Ceuta ...

2026-08-01T08:16:21Z

Perhaps Spain should simply fuck off from Africa, and the Ceuta problem would solve itself.

In Deutschland ist alles stabil ...

2026-07-30T15:05:44Z

In Deutschland ist alles stabil

Upper social level base in US ...

2026-07-29T17:47:34Z

Upper social level base in US

Who can relate? ...

2026-07-29T14:48:01Z

Who can relate?

Nostr event nevent1qqsfcw93p3schx4yvn87z09w49a4az7s6lg730ue05ywcaax6atc45qzyq6stks9lz4wage97a7p4my7r0r5fzxhczg3zx479nvu5f430yrwjcy3c5h

2026-07-29T14:06:32Z

Epic

6-pillar “Rule Breaker” selection framework: • Dominating ...

2026-07-29T06:39:03Z

6-pillar “Rule Breaker” selection framework:

• Dominating an important, emerging industry.
• Possessing a structural, long-term moat.
• Buying momentum rather than bargains.
• Placing a heavy emphasis on elite human capital.
• Finding companies with cult-like product love and raving fans.

Actively targeting stocks that are mocked or called “grossly overvalued” by traditional Wall Street media.

quoting
nevent1q…40pc
David Gardner has spent 3 decades identifying companies like Amazon, Nvidia, Netflix and Tesla long before they became consensus holdings. His framework is remarkably different from the way most investors are taught to evaluate stocks. A few ideas stand out:

1. Exceptional companies often become better investments after large price increases. Gardner deliberately looks for stocks that have already appreciated sharply. A rising share price signals that something meaningful is happening inside the business and that customers, employees, partners and investors are increasingly paying attention. Success creates momentum beyond the stock chart itself. Higher valuations make it easier to attract talent, raise capital and strengthen competitive advantages, creating a feedback loop that many investors dismiss simply because the stock "already went up."

2. Wall Street spends enormous effort valuing companies while largely ignoring the people running them. Financial models capture earnings, cash flows and balance sheets with remarkable precision, yet they have almost no way of quantifying the quality of management. Gardner considers this one of the largest blind spots in investing. A founder with exceptional capital allocation skills can compound value for decades, while poor leadership can quietly destroy even an outstanding business. That difference rarely appears in a screening model.

3. The market repeatedly mistakes volatility for failure. Amazon, Netflix, Nvidia and many of Gardner's biggest winners lost more than half their market value at various points. Those declines were painful, but they were temporary. The more important question was whether the underlying business remained the leader in its industry or whether competitors had fundamentally changed the game. Price movements often create far more anxiety than changes in business quality.

4. Business model innovation deserves at least as much attention as technological innovation. Netflix became disruptive long before streaming. The real breakthrough was replacing a transaction-based business with a subscription relationship while eliminating late fees, one of the industry's largest sources of customer frustration. Gardner pays close attention to companies that redesign how an industry works rather than simply offering a better product. Those changes are often underestimated because they don't initially look revolutionary.

5. Entire technological revolutions rarely produce all of their biggest winners immediately. Gardner compares artificial intelligence to the early internet. The internet itself was never an industry; it became the foundation upon which entirely new businesses emerged years later. Uber, Airbnb and many other transformative companies appeared long after the internet became mainstream. His expectation is that AI will follow a similar pattern, with many future leaders still unknown today.

6. Overvaluation can become a surprisingly useful filter. Gardner noticed that many of his greatest investments shared an unusual characteristic: respected analysts consistently called them absurdly expensive. Amazon, Tesla and Nvidia all spent years carrying valuations that appeared impossible to justify using conventional metrics. As revenue, profits and market opportunities expanded, those valuations gradually became ordinary. The disagreement itself became informative because extraordinary companies often look expensive while they are building extraordinary businesses.

Perhaps the most interesting thread running through Gardner's philosophy is that he spends relatively little time searching for statistically cheap businesses. His attention stays on companies creating new markets, attracting exceptional leadership and changing customer behavior. Those characteristics are difficult to capture in a spreadsheet, yet they are often the factors that separate companies capable of compounding for decades from those that merely look inexpensive today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdYig-aQseY

David Gardner has spent 3 decades identifying companies like ...

2026-07-29T06:38:26Z

David Gardner has spent 3 decades identifying companies like Amazon, Nvidia, Netflix and Tesla long before they became consensus holdings. His framework is remarkably different from the way most investors are taught to evaluate stocks. A few ideas stand out:

1. Exceptional companies often become better investments after large price increases. Gardner deliberately looks for stocks that have already appreciated sharply. A rising share price signals that something meaningful is happening inside the business and that customers, employees, partners and investors are increasingly paying attention. Success creates momentum beyond the stock chart itself. Higher valuations make it easier to attract talent, raise capital and strengthen competitive advantages, creating a feedback loop that many investors dismiss simply because the stock "already went up."

2. Wall Street spends enormous effort valuing companies while largely ignoring the people running them. Financial models capture earnings, cash flows and balance sheets with remarkable precision, yet they have almost no way of quantifying the quality of management. Gardner considers this one of the largest blind spots in investing. A founder with exceptional capital allocation skills can compound value for decades, while poor leadership can quietly destroy even an outstanding business. That difference rarely appears in a screening model.

3. The market repeatedly mistakes volatility for failure. Amazon, Netflix, Nvidia and many of Gardner's biggest winners lost more than half their market value at various points. Those declines were painful, but they were temporary. The more important question was whether the underlying business remained the leader in its industry or whether competitors had fundamentally changed the game. Price movements often create far more anxiety than changes in business quality.

4. Business model innovation deserves at least as much attention as technological innovation. Netflix became disruptive long before streaming. The real breakthrough was replacing a transaction-based business with a subscription relationship while eliminating late fees, one of the industry's largest sources of customer frustration. Gardner pays close attention to companies that redesign how an industry works rather than simply offering a better product. Those changes are often underestimated because they don't initially look revolutionary.

5. Entire technological revolutions rarely produce all of their biggest winners immediately. Gardner compares artificial intelligence to the early internet. The internet itself was never an industry; it became the foundation upon which entirely new businesses emerged years later. Uber, Airbnb and many other transformative companies appeared long after the internet became mainstream. His expectation is that AI will follow a similar pattern, with many future leaders still unknown today.

6. Overvaluation can become a surprisingly useful filter. Gardner noticed that many of his greatest investments shared an unusual characteristic: respected analysts consistently called them absurdly expensive. Amazon, Tesla and Nvidia all spent years carrying valuations that appeared impossible to justify using conventional metrics. As revenue, profits and market opportunities expanded, those valuations gradually became ordinary. The disagreement itself became informative because extraordinary companies often look expensive while they are building extraordinary businesses.

Perhaps the most interesting thread running through Gardner's philosophy is that he spends relatively little time searching for statistically cheap businesses. His attention stays on companies creating new markets, attracting exceptional leadership and changing customer behavior. Those characteristics are difficult to capture in a spreadsheet, yet they are often the factors that separate companies capable of compounding for decades from those that merely look inexpensive today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdYig-aQseY

German officials are working behind the scenes to identify ...

2026-07-28T11:37:04Z

German officials are working behind the scenes to identify Chinese economic vulnerabilities that they could exploit if the European Union finds itself in a trade war with the world’s second-largest economy.

The German government is informally mapping China’s weaknesses by analyzing trade flows, supply chains and company-level data, according to people familiar with the matter. The exercise is aimed at identifying where China remains dependent on German and European technology, specialized components and industrial know-how and where Beijing could face pressure in a potential economic confrontation.

Initial findings include the German companies Trumpf SE and Carl Zeiss AG, key suppliers of technologies used by ASML Holding NV to manufacture machines that make advanced semiconductors, as potential vulnerabilities in China’s supply chain, said the people, who requested anonymity because of the highly sensitive nature of the assessment. The report may also include semiconductor firms such as Siltronic AG, Aixtron SE and SUSS MicroTec SE, whose highly specialized technologies occupy critical positions across the supply chain.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz has recently hardened his stance on China, concluding that Germany risks being caught between the strategic rivalry of the US and China unless it develops greater resilience and leverage of its own. EU leaders last month tasked the European Commission, which handles trade matters for the bloc, with presenting a slate of new trade defense measures to confront what they deem to be an unsustainable deficit with China that exceeds €1 billion ($1.1 billion) a day.

“Yes, there are dependencies, but these dependencies are mutual. That also applies to issues such as rare earths,” Merz said this month when asked how to deal with China. “We can only withstand unfair competition if we defend ourselves against it.”

The effort to prepare contingency measures in case China again weaponizes critical raw materials, as it did last year in the case involving Nexperia, forms part of 34 non-public measures formulated in Germany’s national security council aimed at strengthening resilience and reducing strategic dependencies, according to one of the people.

The vulnerabilities are concentrated in highly specialized products, intermediate goods and services that Chinese companies are still unable to replicate. While China has caught up dramatically in sectors such as automobiles and industrial machinery over the past decade and now competes with German firms on quality, it remains dependent in niche, technology-intensive areas requiring highly specialized know-how.

In many of those sectors, Germany’s most powerful lever would not only be halting exports of machinery and components but also suspending maintenance and servicing of equipment already operating in China, the people said.

Germany is having confidential exchanges with companies, including ones about country-specific risks, according to a government official when asked to comment on the new assessment. The official added that Germany’s policy on China hasn’t changed and there is no plan for mandatory data collection from companies.

One of the most important sectors in the assessment is the semiconductor industry, which underpins virtually every modern electronic device and has become central to the global race for technological leadership in artificial intelligence. While Netherlands-based ASML is already barred from exporting its most sophisticated machines to China, it continues to operate a large installed base of older-generation systems that require maintenance, spare parts and technical support.

Another sector Germany is looking at is advanced patented medical products, something China depends on, particularly as its population ages. Experts say, however, that this would be among the most politically and ethically sensitive options because it could directly affect patients.

German officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, stressed the work should not be viewed as a hostile policy toward China and said Berlin remains committed to economic cooperation. The objective is simply to be prepared because other countries are doing the same and to ensure Germany can negotiate with Beijing from a position of strength if necessary. Berlin’s goal is to establish greater reciprocity with China, one official said.

A spokesperson from Trumpf said the company doesn’t supply strategically significant products to China, while a spokesperson from Carl Zeiss said the firm is in regular contact with German and European authorities and cooperation is guided by legal requirements. Spokespeople from Wacker Chemie and K+S said they hadn’t been contacted by the government on this matter.

The rest of the companies cited either didn’t respond to a request for comment on the German government’s assessment on Chinese dependencies or declined to comment on details of the talks with officials.

Other significant sectors outside high technology that employ millions of Chinese workers include steel, chemicals, plastics, textiles, toys and household appliances, according to Tobias Gehrke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations researching China’s vulnerabilities. A disruption in these industries could quickly become politically sensitive for Beijing by affecting employment, local economies and social stability - issues closely watched by China’s leadership.

“China plays foul by handing out massive subsidies and preventing a currency appreciation, but we want to remain fair,” said Juergen Matthes, head of international economic policy at the German Economic Institute. “The point isn’t to use all these instruments. It’s to preserve them as game theory options, because otherwise you’ve already lost before negotiations even begin.”

A cautious political approach to interventionist policies has long been central to Germany’s market-driven, export-oriented economic model. Yet Merz and Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil have noticeably hardened their rhetoric toward China in recent weeks, reflecting a broader shift in Berlin toward economic security and strategic resilience.

Klingbeil has floated mandatory joint ventures for non-European companies to ensure technology transfer - a strategy China itself has used for decades to extract know-how from foreign companies seeking access to its market. A reform package introduced by the coalition in early July included such a push and other measures aimed at strengthening Germany’s economic sovereignty and resilience.

“The objective is not to cut China off from technology forever,” Tordoir said in an interview. “The objective is to show that Germany has teeth, to remind Beijing that China also has critical dependencies on Europe.”

Heute früh vor dem Laufen wollte ich checken, wie mein Post zu ...

2026-07-27T17:03:08Z

Heute früh vor dem Laufen wollte ich checken, wie mein Post zu Indien performt. Was ich stattdessen zu sehen bekam, sagt mehr über den Zustand der deutschen Debatte als jede Statistik.

Fall 1: Jemand aus meinem Netzwerk postet, Pool im Hintergrund, wohl ironisch gemeint: Migranten hätten es gut in Deutschland: Gratis-Fahrräder, Gratis-Hilfe, Gratis-Bibliotheken, finanziert von den "eigentlichen" Deutschen. Darunter: eine Wand aus offenem Hass gegen Migranten. Einer meiner Follower.

Fall 2: Ein Kontakt ersten Grades postet, dass ein CDU-Politiker in Magdeburg eine Spende an die AfD-Wahlkampagne gemacht hat und schreibt dazu, viele CDU-Mitglieder würden im Grunde nicht CDU, sondern AfD wählen. Wieder: dieselbe Kommentarspalte, derselbe Reflex gegen alles, was anders denkt, anders glaubt, mit Akzent spricht.

Wer AfD und Anti-Migrationspolitik unterstützt und dabei Hass gegen Menschen sät, hat in meinem Netzwerk nichts verloren.

Fall 3: offizielle Quelle diesmal - Bayerische Staatszeitung, von Facebook empfohlen. Die Zahl: 37% der Kriegsflüchtlinge aus der Ukraine sind arbeitslos - die Formulierung allein macht schon die Runde in den Kommentaren: schöne Autos, Restaurantbesuche, Döner, das übliche Repertoire. Was die Statistik nicht sagt - der Großteil dieser Flüchtlinge sind Frauen mit kleinen Kindern. Deren Männer sind in der Ukraine an der Front, nicht hier, nicht erwerbstätig, nicht wählbar als Gegenrechnung. Die Kita-Plätze in Bayern sind knapp, für alle, nicht nur für Zugezogene. Sprachkurse im Eiltempo. Und diese Frauen haben sich das nicht ausgesucht - sie sind nicht hierher gezogen, um hier ihr Leben aufzubauen, sie sind vor einem Krieg geflohen, den Deutschland und alle Steuerzahler mitfinanzieren. Meine Gegenfrage: Wie hoch ist die Erwerbslosenquote deutscher Mütter mit Kindern im Vorschulalter? Diese Zahl würde ich gerne mal nebeneinander sehen.

Zurück auf LinkedIn, diesmal linke Posts. Klingen auf den ersten Blick gut, wie die rechten auch. Auf den zweiten Blick führen beide ins selbe Ergebnis: Zerrüttung. Bei rechts kennen wir das Muster. Bei links auch - Kuba, UdSSR, Nordkorea, DDR.

Was sich seitdem verändert hat: Linke Bewegungen sind vielerorts zum Vehikel für politischen Islamismus geworden - eine ideologische Bewegung, die über sie Ziele und Werte durchsetzt, die mit den westlichen, aber auch mit linken Grundwerten kaum vereinbar sind. Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau ist das offensichtlichste Beispiel: eine Bewegung, die "alle sind gleich" predigt, macht Platz für Strömungen, die das nicht so sehen.

Der 7. Oktober ist der Punkt, an dem diese Instrumentalisierung sichtbar wurde. Und an alle Linken, die Islamisten gegen Israel in Schutz nehmen, habe ich eine direkte Frage: beim Massaker auf dem Nova-Festival haben die Angreifer nicht erst gefragt, ob jemand links oder rechts ist, sie haben jeden getötet, der nicht zu ihnen gehörte, wahllos, ohne Unterschied. Würdet ihr wollen, dass das eurem Partner passiert, eurer Tochter, eurem Sohn, euren Eltern, Freunden, Nachbarn oder allen zusammen, vielleicht auch in Deutschland? Genau das sind die Leute, die ihr gerade verteidigt.

Linke, queere Aktivisten - reist mal zur Solidarität nach Gaza, mit offenen Haaren, Hand in Hand mit der Partnerin. Wie würde es euch dort tatsächlich ergehen? Das ist keine Nebenfrage.

Und dasselbe Muster woanders: Kaschmir-Terrorismus gegen Indien, wiederkehrende Anschläge, das erklärte Ziel bestimmter Gruppen aus Pakistan und Bangladesch, nicht nur Kaschmir, sondern deutlich mehr indisches Territorium (eigentlich wollen sie wohl alles zwischen Pakistan und Bangladesch bis zum Hyderabad nach Süden) zu beanspruchen. Wer diese Methoden unterstützt oder relativiert, ob in Nahost oder Südasien, steht auf der falschen Seite, unabhängig vom sonstigen politischen Programm.

Israel wurde einmal auf sozialistischen, egalitären Grundwerten mitgegründet - der Kibbuz-Gedanke, Gleichheit unabhängig von Herkunft. Das war der Ausgangspunkt und auch deshalb kam damals Unterstützung aus der Sowjetunion, neben der Geopolitik.

Dann: Rabin, der einen Frieden mit den Palästinensern und eine Zwei-Staaten-Lösung wollte – ohne Kompromiss geht es nicht. Er wurde ermordet, von Anhängern des politischen Lagers, das Israel heute regiert. Seitdem geht die Entwicklung in eine Richtung, die ich beim Namen nenne: Rechtsruck mit faschistoiden Zügen. Man muss sich nur anhören, was Minister wie Ben-Gvir öffentlich über Muslime sagt, und sich fragen, ob das in einer funktionierenden westlichen Demokratie folgenlos bleiben sollte. Bislang bleibt es das.

Und die israelische Gesellschaft selbst ist entlang scharfer Linien geschichtet: wer als Jude gilt, wer Wehrdienst leistet, wer nicht, wer in Israel geboren ist, wer nicht, wer wie lange im Lande wohnt usw. Superreiche in New York, die sich um nichts kümmern. Ultraorthodoxe Rabbiner, die sich von der Wehrpflicht und vielen gesellschaftlichen Pflichten ausnehmen, während sie selbst gesellschaftlich privilegiert bleiben - eine Struktur, die an Kastenwesen erinnert, nicht an eine moderne Demokratie.

Zum 7. Oktober bleiben unbequeme Fragen offen, die bislang niemand befriedigend beantwortet hat: Wie kamen manche Eltern innerhalb einer halben Stunde aus Tel Aviv, um ihre Kinder zu retten, während Armee, Luftwaffe und Panzer stundenlang nicht vor Ort waren? Recherchen der Washington Post und der New York Times haben Fragen dazu aufgeworfen, wie viel Vorwarnung es gab und wie damit umgegangen wurde, inklusive jahrelanger Finanzierungsflüsse über Katar nach Gaza, Vorbereitungen und Übungen zum Angriff vom 7 Oktober, von denen Massad gewarnt und von denen die israelische Regierung Bescheid wusste. Hat die israelische REgierung den 7 Oktober passieren lassen um dann die Unterstützung der Bevölkerung bei neuen Kriegen zu bekommen? Das sind Fragen, keine Antworten. Aber sie verdienen, gestellt zu werden.

Und die Mitte? Zu CDU, CSU, SPD, Grüne, FDP: Ihr wart schon immer die Mätressen der großen Imperien - Sowjetunion, Russland, Amerika, je nach Jahrzehnt der passende Gönner. Und daran hat sich nichts geändert. Nur dass ihr jetzt, wo eure Umfragewerte fallen, anfangt, die AfD zu kopieren. Ihr übernehmt deren Rhetorik, deren Programme, notdürftig maskiert, um wenigstens einen Teil eures Elektorats zu halten. Schande.

Das ist der Versuch, ein sinkendes Schiff zu retten, ohne das Leck zu finden, geschweige denn zu stopfen. Und das Leck ist bekannt: die verschwundenen Quellen billiger Energie, billiger Rohstoffe, Öl, Gas. Genau da. Keine Flüchtlingsdebatte, keine Arbeitskräfte-Debatte, keine Steuererhöhung rettet Deutschland, solange diese Ressourcenbasis fehlt. Das war und ist der eigentliche Motor jedes wirtschaftlichen Fortschritts.

Und ihr arbeitet nicht an diesem Problem. Nicht weil ihr es nicht seht, sondern weil eure aktuellen Auftraggeber euch nicht erlauben, das Thema Russland überhaupt anzufassen. Das ist der ganze Punkt.

Zur Einordnung, was "Stärke ohne eigene Ressourcenbasis" historisch bedeutet hat: Selbst Nazis kamen nicht ohne diesen Treibstoff aus, finanziert über geraubtes Vermögen, konfisziertes jüdisches Eigentum, eroberte Gebiete. Kein Modell, das man sich wünschen sollte, aber ein Beleg dafür, dass auch die zerstörerischste Form von "Stärke" eine Ressourcenbasis brauchte, die sie sich mit Gewalt verschafft hat.

Der eigentliche Punkt: sucht euch einen Ort, an dem ihr gut leben könnt - nicht den, den Politiker, Oligarchen oder eine aufgehetzte Mehrheit für euch vorgesehen haben. Wer zu lange in einem System bleibt, das einen als Kanonenfutter behandelt, verliert am Ende mehr als nur Zeit.

Nach der ganzen Kritik, die ich hier geäußert habe (gegen die Linken in Deutschland, gegen die Rechten, gegen die Mitte-Parteien) kommt jetzt zwangsläufig die Frage: wen wählt man dann? Wie lebt man dann eigentlich?

Ich antworte. Ehrlich.

Wäre ich Deutscher, ohne Migrationshintergrund, würde ich mich vermutlich von der AfD-Propaganda kaufen lassen und AfD wählen. Denn kurzfristig würde es dadurch im Durchschnitt tatsächlich besser laufen. Aber mittelfristig würde die AfD anfangen, Konflikte mit den Nachbarn zu suchen - so lange, bis sie welche findet. Und diese Konflikte würden langfristig in Krieg münden, weil man dann billige Ressourcen braucht, um sie zu finanzieren. An diesem Punkt würde das Projekt scheitern. Und wenn es scheitert, kommen Russland, China, USA und teilen Deutschland wieder in ihre Einflusszonen auf. Zusammengeführt wird es nicht schnell, sondern erst dann, wenn die Großmächte es für nötig halten. Und dann steht Deutschland wieder da, wo es historisch immer wieder gelandet ist: als Zentralmacht, bereit für den nächsten Zyklus.

Das wäre also die kurzfristig verlockende, langfristig zerstörerische Antwort. Aber sie ist nicht meine Antwort. Denn ich bin nicht in der Position eines Deutschen ohne Migrationshintergrund.

Ich hätte Deutschland gern zu meinem Zuhause gemacht. Aber Deutschland will kein Zuhause für mich sein - es zeigt mir die ganze Zeit auf die Tür. Genauso, wie es früher die Ukrainer in Westukraine getan haben.

Deshalb sage ich euch, den Deutschen, etwas anderes: Bei euch läuft die ganze Entwicklung zyklisch ab. Man könnte meinen, ihr hättet keinen Ausweg, nirgendwohin zum Auswandern. Aber das stimmt nicht. Ihr hättet immer gehen können, wenn ihr gewollt hättet, auch von Hitler weg. Seid ihr aber nicht. Stattdessen bleibt ihr lieber bei ihrem Maibaum, Feldern mit Mais, den Bäckereien und Brauereien. Ihr bleibt. Und weil ihr bleibt, ist eure eigentliche Aufgabe eine andere: den jeweiligen Diktator zu überleben.

Das läuft dann so ab: Solange er das Land vor Migranten "schützt" und neue Gebiete besetzt, freut ihr euch. Aber diese Diktatur wendet sich irgendwann auch gegen euch selbst. Dann heißt eure Aufgabe: still sitzen, nicht zucken. Bis irgendwann andere kommen und den Diktator wegräumen. Und danach heißt es - wieder still sitzen. Ein Leben lang, unter jeder Herrschaft, bis irgendwann die nächste XY-Partei in ihrer Entstehung auftaucht. Dann schreit ihr wieder: Los, los! Und danach beginnt der nächste lange Zyklus des Stillsitzens. So geht das bei euch, immer wieder.

Genau deshalb ist "wen wählen" für mich die falsche Frage. Meine Antwort richtet sich nicht an euch, sondern an Menschen wie mich: an Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund, an pragmatisch denkende Menschen, an Menschen, die frei leben wollen - ohne Hass, ohne Diktatur, ohne diesen Zyklus. Für uns lautet die Antwort nicht "wählt die richtige Partei". Sie lautet: Wählt niemanden. Verlasst diesen Staat. Sucht euch den Staat, in dem ihr so leben könnt, wie ihr wollt. Das ist alles.

Damit ihr versteht, wie die AfD eigentlich funktioniert, will ich euch etwas erzählen.

Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts, verstärkt während und nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg, gab es in Deutschland sehr viele Flüchtlinge aus dem Osten. Und unter diesen Flüchtlingen waren mehrheitlich Juden aus dem Osten - aus Polen, aus der Ukraine. Sie flohen vor Pogromen, vor dem Krieg, denn die Front des Ersten Weltkriegs verlief genau dort, im Osten. Sie flohen nach Westen. Viele von ihnen landeten in Österreich, in Deutschland.

Und die dort bereits integrierten Juden waren damals gegen diese jüdischen Flüchtlinge aus dem Osten. Weil sie schmutzig seien, weil sie orthodox seien, weil unter ihnen Kriminalität, Bettelei, Armut sei - all das. Und als sich die Deutschen gegen diese Flüchtlinge stellten, stellten sich auch die integrierten deutschen Juden - Anwälte, Ärzte, Juristen - gegen sie. Ganz natürlich, denn dadurch machten diese Flüchtlinge in ihren Augen "alle Juden schlecht", und das wollten sie nicht sein. Am Ende ging das für alle schlecht aus, wenn man es zusammennimmt.

Genau das sehe ich es jetzt wieder. Viele Menschen mit Balkan-, Polnisch- usw. Nachnamen, also Migranten unterschiedlichster Herkunft - gerade diese sind oft die erbittertsten Gegner. Gegner der Muslime. Gegner des orthodoxen Glaubens ukrainischer Flüchtlinge. Gegner der Russen. Gegner der Muslime. Und viele von ihnen sind bei der AfD bestens aufgenommen worden. Weil: wir hier, wir sind integriert. Aber die dort, die verderben das ganze Bild. Also sind sie gegen die anderen. Übrigens hat die AfD auch versucht, Juden anzuwerben - teilweise ist ihr das sogar gelungen.

Aber sie wiederholen genau den Fehler, den die Juden vor hundert Jahren in Deutschland schon einmal gemacht haben. All das wendet sich am Ende, und zwar in sehr kurzer Zeit, gegen sie alle - unabhängig davon, welchen Pass sie in der Tasche haben.

Denn die Juden, die nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg in Deutschland integriert waren - viele von ihnen hatten in der Armee gedient, hatten für Deutschland und für Österreich im Ersten Weltkrieg gekämpft, manche erreichten sogar Offiziersränge, trotz des strukturellen Antisemitismus, der ihnen genau das erschwerte. Sie sprachen brillantes Deutsch, viele gingen nicht einmal mehr in die Synagoge, waren vollkommen assimiliert.

Und trotzdem hat der Faschismus, der Nationalsozialismus, die Rechte sie alle zum Teufel gefegt. Die AfD unterscheidet sich darin in keinem Punkt. Also denkt nach, alle miteinander - Migranten inklusive.

The Australian government's travel security posture for ...

2026-07-25T11:34:59Z

The Australian government's travel security posture for Asia...
Source: Smart Traveller

Did you catch the latest market signal? According to EPFR Global ...

2026-07-25T10:35:25Z

Did you catch the latest market signal? According to EPFR Global analysts led by Winston Chua, traders are quietly walking away from technology stocks. The long-to-short ratio in Nasdaq-100 futures collapsed to its lowest level in 17 years on July 14, down 63% from a year earlier.

The interesting part is that earnings estimates for many technology companies continue to rise, yet their share prices are no longer keeping pace. Investors now expect exceptional results before they are willing to bid these stocks higher, which means expectations have become detached from what companies can realistically deliver. When the market keeps raising the bar while price momentum fades, it is often an early sign that positioning is changing long before the headlines admit it.

Most Investors Quit Before the Bamboo Grows: 1. “Investing is ...

2026-07-24T15:45:19Z

Most Investors Quit Before the Bamboo Grows:

1. “Investing is like planting a Bamboo tree. You water the bamboo sampling for 4 years but you don’t see any growth.”

2. “But after 4 years, within 5-6 weeks, it grows to 50 feet.”

3. “Long term investing is similar in nature. You don’t know which stock will start running up at what time.”

- Vijay Kedia

“Indian market cap is only 4% of entire world’s market ...

2026-07-24T15:30:52Z

“Indian market cap is only 4% of entire world’s market capitalisation. So, 96% of companies are outside India in value terms.”

“For eg: Companies like Exxon Mobil will gain more due to increase in oil prices than ONGC or Oil India due to geographical advantage.”

“Companies like Tesla, BYD, or companies which have patent for Mounjaro or Ozempic are not available in India.”

“So for a balanced portfolio, India plus global is better.”

- Rajeev Thakkar (CIO of PPFAS)

This billionaire plans to die with exactly $10,000 in his bank ...

2026-07-24T15:30:20Z

This billionaire plans to die with exactly $10,000 in his bank account: Mohnish Pabrai argues that large inheritances rarely create opportunity - they create dependence. In his view, handing children a fortune removes ambition, dulls hunger, and leaves them with little incentive to build anything of their own. So he did what few billionaires ever do. He looked up his actuarial life expectancy: June 11, 2054.

Now his goal is to compound his wealth and give away virtually every dollar, timing his net worth to fall to just $10,000 the day before.

$10,000. June 10, 2054. That's the finish line.

Everyone’s bullish on Uzbekistan. Nobody’s watching the ...

2026-07-24T15:00:44Z

Everyone’s bullish on Uzbekistan. Nobody’s watching the streets.

Everyone modeling Uzbekistan right now is modeling the wrong variable. Analysts and economists have converged on a familiar growth story: population has nearly doubled since the Soviet collapse, from 23 million to 39 million and a quarter of that population sits under the age of fourteen, which on any conventional development spreadsheet reads as a demographic dividend waiting to be monetized. Foreign direct investment flows, GDP projections, the “Central Asian tiger” framing - all of it assumes that a young, growing population is simply raw material for future consumption and labor markets. What none of these models price in is what has actually moved into the ideological space that socialism left behind when the Soviet Union dissolved and took its promises of eventual paradise with it.

Islam Karimov understood the danger well enough to run a genuinely brutal containment policy for 25 years and it is worth remembering how far that containment went before concluding it failed for lack of trying. Men were forcibly shaved by police for growing beards, teenagers under sixteen were barred from mosques entirely and every imam in the country operated under direct security-service supervision, because the state treated religious observance itself as a precursor to insurgency. The 2005 uprising in Andijan was suppressed with a violence so total that the actual death toll remains undisclosed to this day and yet even people who once considered that massacre an inexcusable overreach have quietly revised their view, arguing now that the alternative was outright civil war. The lid, in other words, was never subtle and the fact that it eventually loosened is precisely why the current moment looks so different from the one economists are still modeling.

What has filled the vacuum since that loosening is not secular civic identity but an accelerating religious identity that is reshaping daily life in ways a growth forecast simply does not capture. Tashkent goes largely dark during Eid al-Adha, with roughly half its restaurants closed for the holiday, a scale of disruption that would have been unthinkable a decade ago and that signals something structural rather than seasonal. Religious clothing boutiques have become among the most successful retail categories in the capital, halal-only establishments are steadily displacing venues that serve alcohol and young men now openly compete over who observes Ramadan with greater rigor, a form of social status competition that did not meaningfully exist under the previous generation. Even self-described devout Uzbeks, people who never miss Friday prayer themselves, describe unease at watching this shift accelerate among the young, which suggests the phenomenon has already outpaced the comfort level of the very population it is emerging from.

The sharpest edge of this trend is not the clothing or the restaurant closures but the political imagination now circulating among some younger Uzbeks and this is the part no investment thesis wants to touch. It is no longer unheard of to hear a twenty-two-year-old argue, without irony, that Uzbekistan should adopt Taliban-style governance wholesale: alcohol and pork banned outright, beards mandated by law, women barred from leaving home without a husband’s explicit permission. Ask that same young man what happens to the country’s ethnic Russian population under such a system and the answer arrives without hesitation - they should simply leave, because conditions will otherwise become difficult for them. These remain minority positions for now, but they are being voiced openly rather than suppressed, which is itself a meaningful change from a political culture that spent a quarter century criminalizing this kind of talk entirely.

None of this is abstract or contained to Uzbekistan’s own borders, because the region has already exported the consequences of radicalization in concrete and violent form. Uzbek and Kyrgyz nationals have carried out terrorist attacks in New York, St. Petersburg, Istanbul and Stockholm within recent years, which means the pipeline from ideological drift to operational violence is not a theoretical tail risk but an already-observed base rate. Russia, which absorbs enormous numbers of Central Asian labor migrants and has every domestic political incentive to close its borders the moment this trend worsens, is watching the same trajectory that Western analysts are choosing to ignore. A regional economic model that treats a rapidly growing, increasingly radicalized, overwhelmingly young population as pure upside, without stress-testing what that population does to regime stability, migration corridors and investor risk premia, is not a serious model. It is simply the growth story that was easier to write.

David Einhorn built Greenlight Capital from a two-man operation ...

2026-07-22T14:19:59Z

David Einhorn built Greenlight Capital from a two-man operation in a 130-square-foot office (faxed monthly results, a shared AOL account) into one of the more closely watched value funds around. Asked to name the single reason for that, he didn't point to a strategy or a market call. He pointed to a skill: critical thinking, honed on a high school debate team.

A few things from that conversation are worth pulling out on their own:

1. Debate is investing training, whether you meant it that way or not. The habit of arguing both sides of a proposition, 4 rounds one way and 4 the other, maps directly onto markets: every trade has someone on the other side who believes the opposite. The skill isn't having conviction - it's being able to hold the counter-argument seriously enough to test your own.

2. Being wrong is the default state, not the exception. Einhorn was blunt about this: they're wrong often and the discipline is constantly checking whether the current position still makes sense rather than defending it because it's already been taken. When a trade goes against you, the working assumption isn't "the market is wrong" - it's "we missed something." That reflex, checked every time rather than only when convenient, is the actual edge.

3. The rare, high-conviction disagreement is where the money is. Most of the time, when someone explains something and it makes sense, that's the end of it - no edge there. The few times a year where you land on a real, important disagreement with consensus and you can articulate WHY you're right, are what a concentrated value strategy is built on. Everything else is noise management.

4. Risk isn't the stated downside - it's the whole position. His flat rejection of the "$10 stock with $1 of downside" framing is worth sitting with: any stock can go to zero, so the downside is the full position size, not some assumed floor. Portfolio construction - position sizing, no leverage, diversification even around your best idea - exists precisely because conviction is not the same as certainty.

5. On the 2008 crisis: the diagnosis was right, the fix wasn't. Too-big-to-fail institutions, credit risk concentrated in two or three rating agencies, derivatives risk transferred without being properly priced - Einhorn's view is that all of it got identified and none of it got structurally fixed. Clearing houses for derivatives just centralized the same too-big-to-fail risk in a new form. His read: the system solved a liquidity crisis, not the structural one and remains exposed to a repeat.

6. On short-termism, the actual inefficiency runs the other way. The market narrative is that investors are too short-term. Einhorn's counter is sharper: "time arbitrage", being willing to hold something the rest of the market has written off as dead money, is one of the more reliable edges available, precisely because most participants won't wait.

8. Philanthropy, run the same way as the portfolio: close to home, high conviction, few bets. His foundation's stated model is fire prevention, not firefighting - building the conditions that make conflict and dysfunction less likely, rather than intervening once it's already happened. And notably, the geographic bias is local: the same logic that keeps Greenlight in developed markets he understands well - proximity to information, ability to judge outcomes - applies to giving as much as investing.

The through-line across all of it: the strategy isn't really "value investing" as a style label. It's a discipline of constantly re-testing your own conclusions against the possibility that you're the one who's wrong and having the portfolio construction in place so that being wrong, when it happens, doesn't sink you.

Der Staat, dein "Freund": What Sweden's Sterilization ...

2026-07-18T11:13:55Z

Der Staat, dein "Freund": What Sweden's Sterilization Program Should Teach Every Migrant Trusting Europe

Would you still call it a "friend" if it decided if you are allowed to have children?

Every welfare state sells itself on the same premise: that the government exists to protect the weak, redistribute risk and smooth the sharp edges of a market economy that would otherwise chew through the vulnerable without mercy. Scandinavia in particular has spent seventy years exporting this image to the rest of the world and Sweden above all has become shorthand for a kind of state that supposedly cares. Free healthcare, generous parental leave, cradle-to-grave social insurance - the brochure is seductive and millions of migrants arriving in Europe over the past two decades have absorbed it uncritically as gospel.

What the brochure omits is that the modern Swedish welfare state was built, quite literally, on a eugenics program that ran for forty-two years, from 1934 to 1976, sterilizing an estimated 63,000 people, the overwhelming majority of them women, most of them poor, many of them disabled and virtually none of them meaningfully consenting to what was done to their bodies. This was not a rogue institution acting outside the law. It was state policy, passed by parliament, defended by every major party except the communists and administered through the same bureaucratic machinery that today issues residence permits and integration certificates to new arrivals.

The people targeted were not chosen at random. Swedish authorities used IQ tests, social worker assessments and institutional classification to decide who counted as a "misfit" unworthy of continuing their bloodline. A child who failed to read the blackboard because nobody had checked her eyesight could be declared mentally subnormal, shipped into a special school and coerced into signing sterilization papers by the age of seventeen. Siblings orphaned by a mother's death could be tested, classified as "idiots" and sterilized before they had any legal capacity to refuse. Filmmaker Kjell Sundstedt only discovered decades later that his aunt and four uncles had lived through exactly this and that the family had kept it silent out of shame at what the state had done to them, not shame at anything they had done themselves.

The justification was never framed as cruelty. It was framed as fiscal responsibility and social engineering — the belief that a welfare state could only remain solvent and orderly if it stopped producing citizens who would need to lean on it. Politicians argued, in effect, that benefits should flow only to people who "behaved," and that behaving included not passing on traits the state had unilaterally decided were undesirable. This is the same logic, dressed in humane vocabulary, that has justified nearly every coercive population policy in modern history: the state does not announce itself as an enemy, it announces itself as a reformer acting in your own best interest.

Here is the detail most people, including most Swedes, were never taught in school: the intellectual infrastructure for Nazi race science was substantially imported from Sweden. The State Institute for Racial Biology, founded in Uppsala in 1922, was the first of its kind in the world and it functioned for years as the leading research center studying which populations were biologically "fit" to reproduce. German academics did not invent this framework independently. They traveled to Uppsala, studied its methods and used it as the direct template when they founded their own Institute for Racial Biology in Berlin in 1927, an institution that went on to provide the pseudoscientific backbone for Nazi eugenics policy a decade later.

Sociologist Masoud Kamali has been blunt about the sequence: German scientists took the Uppsala model to Berlin and that transfer helped lay the intellectual groundwork for what became institutionalized Nazism. Sweden stayed neutral through the war and is remembered internationally as the humane counterweight to its neighbor's atrocities, yet its own sterilization program continued for three full decades after the Nuremberg trials had supposedly settled, once and for all, that states do not get to decide which of their citizens deserve to have children. Norway sterilized roughly 40,000 people under comparable laws, Denmark around 6,000 and thirty US states ran their own programs well into the postwar period, with North Carolina alone sterilizing 7,700 people, two-thirds of them Black. The uncomfortable truth is that Nazi Germany did not invent this ideology. It borrowed it, industrialized it and then everyone else kept practicing a milder version while pointing at Berlin as the sole villain.

If you are a migrant from India, or from anywhere in Asia or Africa, currently navigating a European integration system, work permit renewal, or citizenship application, this history is not a museum curiosity. It is a direct warning about the character of the institutions now assessing your worth as a resident. The same state apparatus that decided a poor Swedish teenager was too "unintelligent" to have children is structurally identical to the one now scoring your language proficiency, your labor market value, your cultural compatibility and your criminal record to decide whether you deserve to stay. Bureaucracies do not become incapable of this kind of categorization simply because the categories in fashion have changed from "racial hygiene" to "integration potential."

The specific danger for migrants from India and other parts of Asia is a particular kind of misplaced trust: the assumption that European institutions are uniquely rational, procedurally fair and immune to the kind of majoritarian cruelty migrants may associate with weaker states back home. Sweden's own history says otherwise and says it for forty-two consecutive years, well past the point where any reasonable person would assume a democracy had learned its lesson. The compensation scheme launched in the 1990s reached barely 3,000 of the estimated 60,000-plus victims and even that modest gesture only came after a former minister publicly admitted, in 1997, that she had initially refused to pay compensation because the sterilizations had, after all, been entirely legal under Swedish law at the time. Legality and legitimacy are not the same thing and the gap between them is exactly where migrant communities remain most exposed, because migrants rarely have the political capital, media access, or generational memory to contest a policy decision made against them decades before anyone notices the pattern.

To be fair to the modern Swedish state and to the European project more broadly, defenders would point out that the sterilization program was abolished in 1976 precisely because Swedish civil society, feminist movements and eventually the press forced accountability onto a political class that had preferred silence. They would argue that the postwar human rights architecture (the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe's own 2011 condemnation of the program, the UN's classification of forced sterilization as violence against women) exists specifically to prevent repetition and that modern immigration bureaucracies, however flawed, operate under far more scrutiny, litigation exposure and press freedom than the closed institutional world of 1950s Sweden ever did. That argument has real weight and anyone reading this should weigh it seriously rather than assume that history simply repeats itself on schedule.

But weighing it seriously is different from trusting it blindly and that is the entire point. States rarely announce the next group they intend to categorize as inconvenient. They simply do it, through committees and IQ-style assessments dressed in new vocabulary and the people least equipped to notice are always the ones with the least institutional memory of what the state has already done to somebody else.

I wouldn’t hold anything indefinitely, every business, every ...

2026-07-15T15:14:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…qjds
_________________________

I wouldn’t hold anything indefinitely, every business, every stock, all on this earth goes at some point of time to zero.

About disruption ...

2026-07-12T18:40:56Z

About disruption

Posting RT videos can land you in jail - EU On July 2, 2026, the ...

2026-07-05T12:50:36Z

Posting RT videos can land you in jail - EU

On July 2, 2026, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled in Case C-67/25 that the EU’s ban on RT content extends to private individuals or entities publishing or sharing its videos on publicly accessible websites, even if free, non-commercial, and funded only by donations.

VW CEO in 2017: "Let me say a few words about Tesla. With all ...

2026-06-27T14:53:03Z

VW CEO in 2017:
"Let me say a few words about Tesla. With all due respect, there are world champions of making announcements - I won't name names. There are companies struggling to sell 80,000 to 100,000 cars a year, while Volkswagen sells 11 million. Volkswagen earns €13-14 billion in annual profit. And if I'm correctly informed, Tesla is burning hundreds of millions of euros every quarter. They throw employees out whenever they feel like it. So when it comes to social responsibility, I don't know where that is. Let's keep things in perspective and stop comparing apples and oranges."

The audience burst into loud laughter. Less than a decade later, nobody at Volkswagen is laughing anymore.

The market is almost always wrong about what the Fed will do. ...

2026-06-26T17:03:08Z

The market is almost always wrong about what the Fed will do.

The best businesses require the least amount of genius Most ...

2026-06-23T18:37:39Z

The best businesses require the least amount of genius

Most investors spend their time searching for exceptional managers, transformative leaders and visionary founders because they assume superior outcomes emerge primarily from superior people. Charlie Munger approached the problem from the opposite direction, preferring businesses whose economics were so resilient that even periods of poor management would be unlikely to cause lasting damage. Beneath that philosophy lies a subtle but profound recognition that forecasting human behavior over decades is extraordinarily difficult, whereas identifying durable economic advantages is often considerably easier.

This explains why Munger and Buffett repeatedly emphasized businesses capable of tolerating mistakes, poor decisions and occasional mismanagement without suffering permanent impairment. Rather than attempting to predict which executives would remain brilliant ten or twenty years into the future, they sought businesses where managerial brilliance was helpful but not essential. The objective was never to eliminate uncertainty, since uncertainty is unavoidable, but to position capital where uncertainty mattered less.

The lesson becomes even more interesting when viewed through the lens of turnaround stories, which continue to attract investors because they combine optimism, ambition and the promise of transformation into a narrative that feels intellectually satisfying. Yet every turnaround thesis contains a series of assumptions about human behavior, organizational change, competitive reactions and flawless execution, all of which must unfold favorably for the investment to succeed. Since history suggests that institutions tend to preserve their existing habits far more often than they reinvent themselves, the probability of achieving such transformations is frequently lower than investors imagine.

Munger's story about spending decades involved with a struggling hospital reveals the same principle operating in a different setting. Despite capable people, good intentions and persistent effort, the underlying economics remained difficult because the institution occupied a structurally disadvantaged position within a highly competitive environment. What he learned was that tough businesses possess a remarkable tendency to remain tough, not because managers lack intelligence, but because industry structures often exert greater influence than individual decisions.

Many investors believe they are evaluating companies when, in reality, they are evaluating the likelihood that people will change. They are betting that management will execute better, employees will perform differently, customers will alter their behavior, competitors will respond rationally and organizational cultures will evolve in precisely the required direction. Munger's insight was that such predictions are among the least reliable in investing, which is why businesses requiring transformation deserve far greater skepticism than businesses whose success depends primarily upon enduring economic strengths.

The highest-quality investments therefore tend to possess an unusual characteristic: they continue working even when reality refuses to cooperate with the investor's most optimistic assumptions. When a business can prosper despite ordinary human flaws, inevitable mistakes and imperfect execution, the investor no longer depends upon exceptional outcomes. The greatest businesses do not reward accurate predictions so much as they forgive inaccurate ones.

During his commencement speech at Dartmouth, Roger Federer shared ...

2026-06-11T06:06:03Z

During his commencement speech at Dartmouth, Roger Federer shared a statistic that deserves a place on every investor's desk. Across 1,526 singles matches, Federer won nearly 80% of them. But when he looked at all the individual points he played throughout his career, he discovered that he had won only 54%. One of the most successful athletes in history spent almost half his career losing points.

For investors, that number carries an important lesson. Many people approach investing with the assumption that superior returns emerge from superior accuracy. They search endlessly for certainty, devote enormous energy to avoiding mistakes and often judge themselves by the percentage of successful investments they make. The historical record points in a different direction. Even among the most accomplished investors, mistakes occur with remarkable frequency. Peter Lynch famously argued that being right six times out of ten already places an investor in excellent company.

Markets reward outcomes, not batting averages. A portfolio can thrive despite numerous mistakes when losses remain contained and successful investments are allowed to grow. The mathematics behind long-term wealth creation have always been surprisingly simple. A handful of exceptional decisions can outweigh a much larger number of mediocre or unsuccessful ones. Over decades, a small collection of major winners often accounts for the majority of total returns.

Now the more interesting lesson from Federer concerns psychology rather than mathematics. In his speech, he explained that losing nearly half of all points forces a player to develop a particular mindset. A missed shot cannot become an obsession. A lost game cannot dictate the next one. Competitive success requires a constant willingness to reset, refocus and direct attention toward the point currently being played. Investing demands a remarkably similar discipline.

Many portfolios suffer less from analytical errors than from emotional reactions to those errors. Investors frequently become attached to losing positions because admitting a mistake feels uncomfortable. Additional capital is committed to failing ideas in the hope of eventual vindication. Meanwhile, successful investments are often sold prematurely because locking in a gain provides immediate psychological satisfaction. The result is a pattern that works directly against long-term performance: capital remains trapped in weak businesses while exceptional businesses are deprived of time.

Every experienced investor accumulates mistakes. Every portfolio contains disappointments. Every investment career includes periods of poor judgment. What matters over time is the ability to prevent those inevitable setbacks from shaping future decisions.

A few outstanding decisions, combined with the discipline to move beyond inevitable mistakes, often prove more valuable than any attempt to achieve perfection.

Peter Lynch said it in 1997, yet few observations about investing ...

2026-06-10T16:35:55Z

Peter Lynch said it in 1997, yet few observations about investing have aged more gracefully than his deceptively simple remark that "the stock doesn't know you own it." The statement appears almost trivial at first glance, but embedded within it is a profound challenge to one of the most persistent and costly psychological tendencies in financial markets: the belief that our personal relationship with an investment somehow influences its eventual outcome.

Investors routinely behave as though the market maintains a ledger not merely of corporate performance, but of individual virtue. They imagine that exhaustive research, unwavering conviction, intellectual sophistication or years of patient ownership ought to count for something in the final accounting. Yet the market remains entirely indifferent to these considerations. It neither rewards diligence for its own sake nor compensates investors for the emotional discomfort of enduring losses. An investor who spent years defending Eastman Kodak's future against mounting evidence of disruption ultimately received no credit for persistence; the economics of the business, rather than the sincerity of the shareholder, determined the outcome.

Conversely, history offers countless examples of fortunes created without any corresponding measure of wisdom, discipline or foresight. An individual who happened to acquire shares of Microsoft in the 1980s and then largely ignored them for decades would likely have accumulated extraordinary wealth regardless of whether that success reflected exceptional analytical skill or simple good fortune. The market did not distinguish between brilliance and luck. It merely reflected the value created by an exceptional business over an extended period of time.

This indifference is perhaps the market's most underappreciated characteristic. It does not know your name, your purchase price, the sacrifices you made to acquire the position or the amount of time you have spent defending it in conversations with friends and colleagues. It has no memory of your research process and no appreciation for your loyalty. The business either creates value or it does not; the stock either reflects that reality or eventually adjusts to it.

Lynch understood that investors frequently transform stocks from financial assets into extensions of their own identities. Once that transformation occurs, every decline feels like a personal insult and every criticism of the company feels like a criticism of the investor. What should be a dispassionate assessment of changing business fundamentals gradually becomes an exercise in self-justification, with the original investment thesis defended long after the evidence supporting it has deteriorated.

One can observe this tendency repeatedly throughout market history. Shareholders often remain emotionally attached to companies long after the underlying business has changed for the worse, convinced that their patience, loyalty or prior gains have somehow established a claim on future success. In reality, markets do not honor emotional contracts. They respond only to future cash flows, competitive positioning, managerial execution and economic fundamentals.

For that reason, the most dangerous words in investing are often not expressions of uncertainty, but expressions of attachment. The moment an investor begins believing that patience alone deserves a reward or that a stock somehow owes them vindication because they have remained loyal through difficult periods, objective analysis has already begun to give way to emotional commitment.

The stock doesn't know you own it. It never has and it never will. The sooner investors internalize that reality, the easier it becomes to evaluate businesses as they are rather than as they wish them to be.

The New Iran-Contra Playbook or A Cynical Investor’s Field ...

2026-06-10T07:55:16Z

The New Iran-Contra Playbook or A Cynical Investor’s Field Guide to Manufactured Crises:

Step 1: Israel fires "somewhere in the direction of Iran" = Precision optional & the point is the headline -> a smoking crater in a desert is worth $4/barrel before breakfast.

Step 2: Iran responds "proportionally" = meaning: accurately enough to save face & imprecisely enough to avoid actual war & both sides understand the choreography & the missiles are expensive theatre -> the reaction is the product.

Step 3: Everyone starts screaming = markets spike & oil futures light up & cable news discovers geography & Gulf states hedge = the noise is the mechanism - panic is the transmission belt.

Step 4: Washington rides in with the collection plate = 6 billion appears, 3 goes to Tehran - officially for humanitarian rice and insulin. The other three evaporates through the usual infrastructure: contractors, consultants, and congressmen who sit on the right committees. Israel gets a top-up labeled "security assistance." Nobody audits the fumes.

Profit centers:
- Energy futures (long, obviously)
- Defense procurement (never not printing)
- The hostage/sanctions release cycle, now apparently subscription-based

The elegant upgrade over the original Iran-Contra: No arms shipments & No rogue colonels & No shredding parties at 2am.
Just vibes, volatility and wire transfers.

The CIA assets who used to run this stuff were sloppy - they wanted outcomes. The new model wants nothing to resolve. Resolution kills the trade.

P.S. Repeat weekly. Scale to taste. The only infrastructure required is a news cycle and a Bloomberg terminal.

What I have to say about NATO ...

2026-06-09T14:54:15Z

What I have to say about NATO

Indians don’t struggle with “doch.” They’ve been training ...

2026-06-09T07:44:54Z

Indians don’t struggle with “doch.”

They’ve been training for it their entire lives.

Mother: “You never listen to me.”
Indian kid: “Doch.”

German language: invented one word.
Indian parents: invented the need for it.

“The problem is that if you buy the S&P at this current ...

2026-06-09T06:59:55Z

“The problem is that if you buy the S&P at this current valuation, the 10-year forward return is negative when you buy the S&P with a PE of 22. That’s what history shows.” Paul Tudor Jones.

Is it different this time?

“The Nasdaq 100 now has a higher return over the past 10 years ...

2026-06-09T06:58:02Z

“The Nasdaq 100 now has a higher return over the past 10 years than: Japan in the 1980s, the Dow in the Roaring 20s, and the S&P in the 1950s.” - Ben Carlson.

Watch you step.

SpaceX's IPO is reportedly only 2x oversubscribed so far. For ...

2026-06-09T06:39:20Z

SpaceX's IPO is reportedly only 2x oversubscribed so far. For comparison, some of the most anticipated IPOs in recent history attracted far greater demand:

- Snowflake 120x oversubscribed
- DoorDash 40x
- Airbnb 40x
- Twitter 30x
- Dropbox 25x
- Alibaba 22x
- Facebook 20x
- Snap Inc. 10x

For additional perspective, Saudi Aramco, previously the largest IPO ever by capital raised, was approximately 4.6x oversubscribed.

Despite the enormous public attention surrounding SpaceX, current demand appears relatively modest compared with many landmark IPOs of the past.

#Tesla & #SpaceX - no comment ...

2026-06-06T15:08:39Z

#Tesla & #SpaceX - no comment

Just wait and see, how Fiat will flow back to BTC when AI bubble ...

2026-06-05T06:40:07Z

In reply to nevent1q…yl6a
_________________________

Just wait and see, how Fiat will flow back to BTC when AI bubble starts to burst.

When luxury becomes politically embarrassing, the state faces a ...

2026-06-05T06:33:58Z

When luxury becomes politically embarrassing, the state faces a choice: reduce inequality or reduce visibility. Censoring the spectacle addresses the second, not the first. A society should ask what social conditions made money worthy of worship. #china

"Since the market tends to go in the opposite direction of ...

2026-06-05T04:51:11Z

"Since the market tends to go in the opposite direction of what the majority of people think, I would say 95% of all these people you hear on TV shows are giving you their personal opinion."

One of the most dangerous investing habits is confusing opinions with information.

A legendary investor William O'Neil once made a simple observation: since markets tend to move against the consensus, listening to what most people think can often become a disadvantage rather than an advantage. If that is true, then what exactly are investors gaining from spending hours watching financial television?

His argument was that roughly 95% of the people appearing on investment shows are simply expressing personal opinions. While those opinions may sound intelligent, confident, and convincing, they remain opinions nonetheless, which means they offer little predictive value in a market where prices are already influenced by the prevailing consensus.

Instead of focusing on forecasts, he focused on evidence. Before buying a stock, he wanted to see earnings growth, sales growth, rising profitability, and signs that professional investors were accumulating shares. While commentators debated what might happen next, he searched for what was already happening in the underlying business.

The lesson is surprisingly simple. If everyone on television agrees that a stock will rise, who is left to buy it? If everyone believes the economy is heading in one direction, isn't that expectation already reflected in prices?

As an intellectual exercise, armed with decades of historical ...

2026-06-04T12:23:35Z

As an intellectual exercise, armed with decades of historical market data and the benefit of hindsight, the solution appears almost embarrassingly simple: avoid being invested during declines and participate fully during advances. Who wouldn’t want to sidestep every bear market while capturing every bull run? The problem, of course, is that what looks obvious on a chart becomes nearly impossible in real time, when uncertainty replaces hindsight and every decision must be made without knowing what comes next. Market timing, despite its intuitive appeal, has a long history of turning elegant theories into expensive lessons.

Nostr event nevent1qqsv00u9swydxxv0t5ntnaj253yde4kmyckl49n4qdjqg6hceg6txnczyq6stks9lz4wage97a7p4my7r0r5fzxhczg3zx479nvu5f430yrwjt36sez

2026-06-03T11:45:00Z

My favorite trading floor trivia: the CME once had to regulate ...

2026-05-31T15:47:18Z

My favorite trading floor trivia: the CME once had to regulate shoe height. Because visibility meant money in the open-outcry pits, shorter traders started wearing massive platform shoes just to be seen over the crowd. The height arms race got so dangerous that the exchange finally capped heels at two inches to stop people from literally breaking their ankles mid-trade.

Deutsche Firmen haben den Rassenausweis neu erfunden. Er heißt ...

2026-05-29T12:07:51Z

Deutsche Firmen haben den Rassenausweis neu erfunden. Er heißt jetzt "C3."

Früher hat man Papiere verlangt.

Heute verlangt man "C3 Deutsch." Eine Sprachstufe, die es nicht gibt. Die nie existiert hat. Die niemand zertifizieren kann, weil kein Prüfinstitut auf der Welt sie ausstellt.

Aber sie erfüllt denselben Zweck.

Kein Stempel. Kein Formular. Kein Beamter. Nur eine Zahl hinter einem Buchstaben und du weißt sofort, wer gemeint ist. Und wer nicht.

Das ist die Eleganz davon. Der Rassenausweis 2.0 braucht keine Bürokratie. Er braucht nur eine LinkedIn-Stellenanzeige, einen Laptop, und die stille Übereinkunft, dass alle so tun, als wäre "C3" ein echter Standard.

Smalt, Berlin. 20 Mitarbeiter. €12M Venture Capital. Kunden: deutsche Hausbesitzer. Partner: türkische, polnische, vietnamesische Handwerker. Die Menschen, an denen sie verdienen dürfen hier nicht arbeiten.

Sauber. Effizient. Rechtlich kaum angreifbar.

Genau wie damals. Nur ohne die schlechte PR.

Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes

Links:
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/account-executive-m-f-d-at-smalt-4417622751/
https://de.talent.com/view?id=621374202798087172

Some German companies no longer ask for a “Rassenausweis.” ...

2026-05-29T12:07:10Z

Some German companies no longer ask for a “Rassenausweis.” That would be socially unacceptable in 2026. They (like smalt) simply ask for “C3 German.” Same filtering instinct. Cleaner vocabulary.

The language has become the last socially acceptable proxy for cultural and social selection. Modern Germany does not exclude people biologically anymore. It excludes them bureaucratically, linguistically and professionally - while continuing to publicly advertise itself as “diverse” and “open.” Cleaner image, same social sorting instinct.

References:

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/account-executive-m-f-d-at-smalt-4417622751/
https://de.talent.com/view?id=621374202798087172

#Chancenkarte #GermanyVisa #IndianInGermany #GermanLanguage #GoetheExam #GermanGrammar #IndiaGermany #SkilledMigration #WorkInGermany #StudyInGermany #IndiaToGermany #GermanyOpportunities #NurseInGermany #GermanyNursingJobs #GermanyNurses #GermanyJobs #HealthcareJobsGermany #SkillIndiaToGermany #GermanAsAForeignLanguage #GermanForBeginners #DeutschAlsFremdsprache

My personal Chart of Fears: 4 periods where the Dow went nowhere, ...

2026-05-28T16:42:37Z

My personal Chart of Fears: 4 periods where the Dow went nowhere, sometimes for decades:

1. 1906–1924 (~18 years)
San Francisco. WWI. Spanish Flu. Two decades of noise, no progress.

2. 1929–1954 (~25 years)
The longest drought in market history. The Crash of '29 didn't bottom until '32 — and the Dow didn't reclaim that peak until the mid-1950s. A full generation.

3. 1966–1982 (~16 years)
The invisible bear. The Dow oscillated between 600–1,000 for 16 years. Vietnam, Nixon, stagflation, oil embargoes. Real returns were deeply negative once you adjust for inflation.

4. 2000–2013 (~13 years)
The "Lost Decade" that was actually 13 years. Tech bust → 9/11 → GFC → European Debt Crisis. The Dow in 2013 sat roughly where it did in 2000.

Total: 72 years of the last 126 spent going sideways.

The chart looks like a rocket ship in hindsight. It didn't feel like one to anyone living through it.

Great investors do two things that most of us do not. They seek ...

2026-05-28T16:18:48Z

In reply to nevent1q…0zr6
_________________________

Great investors do two things that most of us do not. They seek information or views that are different than their own and they update their beliefs when the evidence suggests they should. Neither task is easy.

Beliefs are hypotheses to be tested, not treasures to be ...

2026-05-28T16:15:30Z

Beliefs are hypotheses to be tested, not treasures to be protected. Update your views effectively.

Comparing is a critical element of investing. Investors compare ...

2026-05-28T16:00:34Z

Comparing is a critical element of investing. Investors compare all day: stocks versus bonds, active versus passive, value versus growth, stock A versus stock B and now versus later. Humans are quick to compare but not very good at it.

Perhaps the most important comparison an investor must make and one that distinguishes average from great investors, is between fundamentals and expectations. Fundamentals capture a sense of a company’s future financial performance. Value drivers including sales growth, operating profit margins, investment needs and return on investment shape fundamentals. Expectations reflect the financial performance implied by the stock price.

Making money in markets requires having a point of view that is different than what the current price suggests. Michael Steinhardt called this a “variant perception.” Most investors fail to distinguish between fundamentals and expectations. When fundamentals are good they want to buy and when they are poor they want to sell. But great investors always distinguish between the two.

The irony is that Buffett’s advice became famous precisely ...

2026-05-26T06:47:11Z

The irony is that Buffett’s advice became famous precisely because almost nobody can operate under Buffett’s conditions. “Get rich slowly” sounds universal until you remember Buffett built his fortune through concentrated ownership, private deals, insurance float and access retail investors will never have.

And investing with billions versus investing with a few thousand dollars are fundamentally different games because liquidity itself becomes a constraint. A retail investor can move in and out of small caps, niche sectors, or asymmetric opportunities instantly without moving the market. Buffett cannot. Once you manage hundreds of billions, flexibility disappears and preserving capital becomes more important than chasing explosive upside. Strategies that work for retail accounts become unusable at institutional scale.

The “think in 7 years instead of 3” line also ignores that time horizon depends on financial reality. A billionaire can survive decade-long drawdowns, illiquidity and macro cycles. Most retail investors cannot. For someone managing massive capital, patience is an asset. For someone fighting inflation, taxes, housing costs and stagnant wages, waiting decades for average market returns is often presented as wisdom when it is partly a reflection of limited alternatives.

Investors in June 2026 ...

2026-05-25T18:51:43Z

Investors in June 2026

An ECB official is now hinting that Europe may need higher ...

2026-05-22T17:05:10Z

An ECB official is now hinting that Europe may need higher interest rates again because oil prices and Middle East tensions could reignite inflation. The timing feels almost nostalgic. In summer 2008, with the financial system already imploding beneath the surface, banks bleeding out and leverage everywhere ready to detonate, the ECB still decided inflation was the real danger and pushed rates even higher. Weeks later the entire system fell apart and central bankers suddenly discovered the emergency “whatever it takes” button.

Now Europe looks exhausted again. Industrial output is weak, Germany’s manufacturing base keeps eroding, consumer demand is fragile, sovereign debt loads are enormous and policymakers are once again talking about tightening monetary policy because energy prices are moving higher during a geopolitical crisis. As if rate hikes can somehow force oil tankers to move faster through Hormuz.

The cycle never changes. Central banks respond to supply shocks with demand destruction, economies get crushed under financing costs, southern Europe starts trembling under debt pressure and eventually the same institutions that promised discipline return to zero rates and liquidity injections large enough to flood the continent.

The most impressive part is the confidence. Every cycle arrives wrapped in the language of control right before policymakers lose control completely.

BoA (Hartnett): “Bull & Bear Indicator hits ...

2026-05-22T16:34:40Z

BoA (Hartnett): “Bull & Bear Indicator hits 8.0...sell-signal for risk assets”

Bull & Bear Indicator rises for a fourth week +0.4pts to 8.0 (Sell), up 1.7pts from its low four weeks ago (and the “old” version rose to 5.4 from its low of 4.8), remaining with none of its indicators bearish while now five are bullish or v bullish (“Bond Flow” moved from Neutral to Bullish). The increase was on “tech/EM debt inflows + record monthly jump in FMS equity allocation + drop in FMS cash levels to 3.9%”.

“there have been 17 ‘sell signals’ since ’02, average loss for global stocks over 2-3 months is 2-3% (hit ratio of ~60%), with max drawdowns of 15-20%;”

“Building a portfolio that trades at less than 20 times ...

2026-05-21T18:20:08Z

“Building a portfolio that trades at less than 20 times earnings, shows no more than 2.7 times book value, and has a dividend yield of at least 1.3 percent. That should lead you to good stocks you can hold onto for a long time.” - Michael Maiello

Nostr event nevent1qqsdvr6hvlpet78y09zxx9359axjpxg0e93thxh4zyh0p89jccejr8qzyq6stks9lz4wage97a7p4my7r0r5fzxhczg3zx479nvu5f430yrwjmrmmrp

2026-05-21T18:11:25Z

Predicting rain doesn’t count; building the ark does.

Hedge funds are shorting the US stock market at the highest level ...

2026-05-21T17:49:45Z

Hedge funds are shorting the US stock market at the highest level since 2021. Short exposure to US equity index and ETF products just hit 13% of total gross exposure. It is nearly double where it was before COVID and the highest reading in 5 years.

The S&P 500 is near all time highs. Bond yields are at 2007 levels. And Japan's bond market is cracking. Korean retail investors are borrowing record amounts to chase stocks higher.

Retail is buying and Hedge funds are shorting. One of them is about to be very wrong.

Chart: dailychartbook

Dubai Real Estate Crash? ...

2026-05-21T17:34:19Z

Dubai Real Estate Crash?

Thailand has officially revised its visa-free and Visa on Arrival ...

2026-05-21T14:45:01Z

Thailand has officially revised its visa-free and Visa on Arrival schemes for 2026, with major changes affecting travellers from around the world. From the new 30-day visa exemption list to the sharply reduced VoA scheme, here’s the complete country-by-country breakdown.

The new rules will take effect 15 days after publication in the Royal Gazette.

Germany had 2.5 GW of grid-scale battery storage operating in ...

2026-05-21T08:32:12Z

Germany had 2.5 GW of grid-scale battery storage operating in 2025 - the largest battery fleet in the EU. Another 10 GW is already in development.

If that capacity had been online this year, Germany could have avoided roughly $1 billion in gas-import costs simply by storing and redistributing excess solar power instead of wasting it.

Germany’s residential battery market is now the biggest in Europe and still expanding fast. Roughly one in six homeowners already has a home battery installed, while another 30% are considering buying one within the next five years.

What we are watching in real time is the creation of an entirely new multi-billion-dollar energy storage industry, one built around the monetization of intermittency itself. Solar and wind without storage create volatility, price collapses during oversupply and dependency on backup gas generation, but once large-scale batteries enter the equation, electricity stops being just energy and starts becoming a time-shifting financial asset, traded between hours of panic and hours of surplus.

What is happening in South Korea increasingly resembles a more ...

2026-05-20T16:13:23Z

What is happening in South Korea increasingly resembles a more extreme version of something already visible in India: foreign capital exits while domestic money keeps the market levitating.

What is happening in South Korea increasingly resembles a more ...

2026-05-20T16:09:36Z

In reply to nevent1q…20h2
_________________________

What is happening in South Korea increasingly resembles a more extreme version of something already visible in India: foreign capital exits while domestic money keeps the market levitating.

Former Indonesian Deputy Labor Minister Emmanuel Ebenezer ...

2026-05-20T14:38:22Z

Former Indonesian Deputy Labor Minister Emmanuel Ebenezer Gerungan, facing 5 years in prison for stealing $170K, says his biggest regret is stealing too little.

After discovering that one of his former colleagues allegedly stole 25x more and received only a 6-year sentence, he apparently realized corruption has economies of scale.

S&P 500 at extreme valuations: • Price/Sales: 3.5x ...

2026-05-19T15:55:27Z

S&P 500 at extreme valuations:
• Price/Sales: 3.5x (all-time high, above 2000 peak)
• Price/Book: 5.5x (record)
• Forward P/E: 26x (dotcom bubble levels)
• Dividend yield: ~1% (record low)

AI concentration driving the rally 👀

Nearly two-thirds of global stablecoin payment volume now comes ...

2026-05-18T17:40:48Z

Nearly two-thirds of global stablecoin payment volume now comes from Asia, led by Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan. The center of financial experimentation is shifting east. While the West debates regulation and capital controls, Asia is building the settlement layer of the next monetary system.

The next battle over capital will happen between private savings ...

2026-05-18T16:22:42Z

The next battle over capital will happen between private savings and states searching for financing.

Europe, East Asia and the Middle East accumulated enormous surpluses over decades while the United States absorbed them through deficits, debt issuance and asset markets. That system kept yields low, inflated financial assets and created the illusion that global liquidity would remain endless. Now the same surplus regions are moving into an era of rearmament, energy insecurity, geopolitical fragmentation and rising fiscal pressure at the same time welfare systems are already consuming historic shares of national income.

This changes the political logic around savings completely.

Governments facing military expansion and weak growth cannot easily solve the problem through taxation because voters revolt quickly against visible sacrifice. They cannot fully rely on central banks either because inflation already damaged trust in currencies and purchasing power. The remaining option lies in domestic balance sheets. History shows very clearly what states do once financing needs collide with political limits: they start guiding, trapping and absorbing private savings while avoiding the language of confiscation.

Britain during the WWII offers the clearest example. Savings collapsed, debt exploded and yet rates remained artificially suppressed because the state imposed capital controls, restricted consumption, forced domestic financing and redirected private savings into government needs. The market signal itself became politically unacceptable. Once survival and strategic priorities dominate policy, free capital markets quickly lose importance.

That pattern matters now because modern democracies already prepare the language needed for a softer version of the same process. Citizens hear constant appeals to resilience, strategic autonomy, national preparedness and fair burden sharing. Behind those words sits a simple fiscal reality: states need access to savings pools far larger than current tax revenues can provide.

Financial repression works precisely because most people fail to recognize it while it develops.

Nobody needs soldiers knocking on doors. Pension funds increase sovereign bond exposure. Banks face regulations favoring government debt. Inflation stays above deposit yields for years. Capital movement becomes harder through reporting rules and compliance burdens. Offshore diversification starts attracting political suspicion. The saver still sees assets on paper while the state slowly gains influence over how those assets behave, where they remain and what purpose they ultimately serve.

The deeper danger lies in the psychological shift accompanying this process. In periods of geopolitical tension, mobility itself starts looking suspicious. Investors diversifying abroad appear insufficiently loyal. Citizens protecting wealth internationally begin looking detached from collective sacrifice. The state no longer views private savings purely as personal property resting outside politics, but increasingly as dormant national capacity available in times of pressure.

That is why the real risk for investors over the coming decade may not come from market crashes alone, but from the narrowing distance between nominal ownership and actual control. Wealth matters far less once governments decide that domestic capital must serve national objectives before private ones.

The expected capex growth of hyperscalers from 2025 to 2028 is c. ...

2026-05-18T14:02:31Z

The expected capex growth of hyperscalers from 2025 to 2028 is c. 29% per year. Never in the history of the US has tech investment growth exceeded 21% on a rolling three-year basis.

The market has become a one-sector casino. If you are not ...

2026-05-17T08:28:31Z

The market has become a one-sector casino. If you are not building AI chips, renting out data centers or selling the fantasy of infinite automation, Wall Street treats you like a dying business. Meanwhile some of the strongest cash-flow machines in the real economy are trading like unwanted leftovers because investors became addicted to hype instead of valuation.

Look at the absurdity. Danaher is getting punished because biotech growth slowed after years of excess optimism, even though the company sits at the center of diagnostics, lab equipment and healthcare infrastructure the modern medical system cannot function without. Zoetis collapsed because pet spending cooled after the pandemic boom, as if people suddenly stopped caring about animal healthcare permanently. The stock market always extrapolates temporary trends into eternity - on the way up and on the way down.

McDonald’s is being hit because lower-income consumers are getting crushed by inflation and fuel prices. But that says less about the strength of McDonald’s business than about the condition of the economy itself. When even fast food starts reflecting consumer exhaustion, the problem is purchasing power destruction, not burgers. Yet the company still controls one of the most powerful franchise and real-estate systems ever created.

Then there is Abbott Laboratories - a global healthcare giant selling diagnostics, cardiovascular products, nutrition and medical devices, suddenly treated like a broken company because of temporary weakness in infant formula and acquisition fears. Or Republic Services, which owns scarce landfill infrastructure with recurring revenue and near-irreplaceable assets. Nobody gets excited about garbage collection during a tech mania, even though civilization literally stops functioning without it.

This is how late-stage bull markets always behave. Investors stop pricing businesses and start pricing narratives. In 1999 everything outside dot-coms looked obsolete. In 2007 old-economy cash flow was boring compared to leverage and housing speculation. Today capital behaves as if AI alone will replace the real economy, while healthcare infrastructure, waste management, food networks and defensive cash-flow businesses trade near recession multiples.

Europe is the same as the S&P 493. Chart: Duncan Lamont ...

2026-05-16T19:34:53Z

Europe is the same as the S&P 493.
Chart: Duncan Lamont

A guy slipped a prompt injection into his LinkedIn bio, and now ...

2026-05-16T18:53:32Z

A guy slipped a prompt injection into his LinkedIn bio, and now recruiters address him as “Lord” and write to him in Old English.

Peak AI-era absurdity: HR departments feeding resumes straight into LLM pipelines without even realizing candidates have started optimizing for the machine reading before the human ever does.

India looks like a good buying opportunity now. ...

2026-05-16T18:43:19Z

India looks like a good buying opportunity now.

Some thoughts of caution on bottom-fishing in bombed-out names ...

2026-05-16T08:22:49Z

Some thoughts of caution on bottom-fishing in bombed-out names like Nike and Adobe:

- You might need to be patient. Very patient.

- You need a plan beyond buying what's gone down in price. What's the company worth? Maybe it's down for good reason.

- Unless you get extremely lucky you're never going to time the bottom perfectly. Plan accordingly.

- Being a contrarian investor can be lonely because other investors love piling on the worst names and telling you why it's dead money.

- Not all individual stocks come back. In fact, most stocks aren't great over the long run.

- Trends can last much longer in both directions than most investors assume possible.

Jeff Bezos once said, "Contrarians are usually wrong." That's not a bad baseline.

On small caps: ...

2026-05-16T07:38:31Z

On small caps:

no comment. ...

2026-05-14T15:56:58Z

no comment.

Historically, whenever credit growth starts shifting from ...

2026-05-14T14:55:31Z

Historically, whenever credit growth starts shifting from traditional banks toward shadow lenders, from the US before 2008 to China’s shadow-banking boom, it initially looks like economic strength, but often signals that risk is quietly migrating outside the safest part of the system. India’s banks slowing to 11% growth while NBFCs surge above 20% suggests the same pattern: formal banks are becoming more cautious while higher-risk credit creation moves into the shadows. That can fuel growth and asset prices for years, until liquidity tightens and the weaker parts of the credit chain are tested.

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/indian-banks-navigating-through-the-turbulence

Rate hikes are absolutely not priced into the stock market and ...

2026-05-14T14:06:28Z

Rate hikes are absolutely not priced into the stock market and that will be the shock that pushes overvalued growth stocks down by 20% or more.

Germany once sold the world cars. Now it is preparing to survive ...

2026-05-14T13:42:16Z

Germany once sold the world cars. Now it is preparing to survive by selling war.

A struggling Volkswagen plant in Osnabrück, built for civilian industry, jobs, mobility and exports, may soon be repurposed to produce components for the Israeli “Iron Dome” missile defense system together with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Think about the symbolism: Europe’s industrial heartland no longer sees enough future in middle-class consumers buying German cars, but suddenly discovers “growth” again when missiles, air defense systems and military contracts enter the equation.

History shows that when civilian industry loses profitability, governments increasingly turn toward militarization to absorb industrial overcapacity, preserve employment and justify massive public spending. Tanks replace sedans. Missile systems replace family cars.

And citizens should ask themselves one question: if war preparation becomes one of the few remaining profitable industries capable of keeping Germany’s industrial machine alive, what incentive does the political system have to pursue de-escalation? The danger is that once an economy becomes dependent on fear, conflict, and defense spending, peace itself starts looking economically inconvenient.

So basically the Indian government is telling citizens not to buy ...

2026-05-14T12:22:33Z

So basically the Indian government is telling citizens not to buy gold in order to “protect FX reserves” and support the rupee, while at the exact same time Indian banks quietly resume bullion imports after paying the new 3% levy.

If gold is supposedly such a national problem, why are banks restarting imports the moment the tax issue is settled? Looks less like “don’t buy gold” and more like: ordinary citizens should stop accumulating hard assets while the financial system keeps doing exactly that behind the scenes.

So who is supposed to be the fool here?

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/indian-banks-resume-bullion-imports-after-month-long-halt-over-3-levy-sources-2026-05-12/

Germany’s Vice Chancellor says the Iran war is “temporarily ...

2026-05-12T10:54:03Z

Germany’s Vice Chancellor says the Iran war is “temporarily slowing our positive economic momentum.” LOL.

Interesting explanation, considering Germany has been stuck between stagnation and recession for roughly 2 years already. Energy costs were crushing industry long before the current escalation, manufacturing has been struggling for months and even Volkswagen was talking about factory closures before Iran became the headline. The “positive economic momentum” he’s referring to seems to have been invisible to businesses, consumers and basically every economic indicator available.

Das neue Altersvorsorgedepot wird als Riester-Befreiungsschlag ...

2026-05-09T19:46:44Z

Das neue Altersvorsorgedepot wird als Riester-Befreiungsschlag verkauft, ist aber Riester mit ETF-Maske und Staatskontrolle. Bei 1.800 Euro Eigenbeitrag und 2 Kindern winken 1.140 Euro Zulagen: 540 Euro Grundzulage plus 600 Euro Kinderzulagen - das sind 63% Zuschuss auf den Eigenbeitrag, aber nur knapp 39% des Zuflusses von 2.940 Euro. Das Geld ist konditioniert: zertifizierte Produkte, Risikoklassen, eingeschränkter Zugriff, nachgelagerte Besteuerung, Auszahlungsregeln unter Staatsaufsicht.

Bei Auszahlung wird der komplette Betrag, Ihr eigenes Geld eingeschlossen, mit dem dann gültigen persönlichen Einkommensteuersatz versteuert. Gerät ein ETF in volatilen Phasen in eine höhere Risikogruppe, droht Zwangsliquidierung genau dann, wenn man halten oder nachkaufen sollte. Das Geld ist bis zum Rentenalter weggesperrt. Vorzeitiger Zugriff? Förderschädlich mit Rückzahlung aller Zulagen plus Strafen. Wer ins Nicht-EU-Ausland zieht, erlebt den Totalverlust: Nachversteuerung, Verlust der Zulagen und Zwangsauflösung zu schlechtesten Bedingungen.

Nur 30% dürfen als Einmalzahlung raus, 70% müssen als lebenslange Rente fließen. Vererbung an die Kinder? Fehlanzeige. Stirbt man vorher, ist das Kapital meist weg. Trotz Kostendeckel von 1% deutlich teurer als ein normales ETF-Depot.

All diese Fallen sind jedoch nur Details. Der Kern ist die totale Abhängigkeit: Der Staat kann die Regeln jederzeit einseitig ändern - höhere Steuern, neue „Solidaritätsabgaben“, Zugriffsrechte in der Krise oder verschärfte Bedingungen. Es ist Ihr Geld, aber unter staatlicher Hoheit.

Während die Klugen längst das Kapital aus staatlicher Reichweite heraus ins Ausland retten, weil ein überschuldeter Staat im Ernstfall über Sonderabgaben, Vermögensabgaben, Kapitalverkehrskontrollen oder mit Hilfe von Kriegsanleihen auf privates Barvermögen zugreifen kann, überlegen andere ernsthaft, ihr Geld freiwillig in noch engere staatlich regulierte Verträge einzusperren. Absurd.

#Altersvorsorgedepot

SPX target 4100 or 2100? ...

2026-05-09T15:20:44Z

In reply to nevent1q…ynra
_________________________

SPX target 4100 or 2100?

Pump and dump ...

2026-05-09T15:17:43Z

Pump and dump

State of German Bundesbank: ...

2026-05-09T15:10:48Z

State of German Bundesbank:

The worst performing stocks in the S&P 500 this year: ...

2026-05-09T15:04:02Z

The worst performing stocks in the S&P 500 this year:

Current playbook, but the manipulation won’t last forever ...

2026-05-09T14:46:17Z

Current playbook, but the manipulation won’t last forever

War Has Become a Wealth Transfer From Nations to Balance Sheets ...

2026-05-08T09:45:27Z

War Has Become a Wealth Transfer From Nations to Balance Sheets

One uncomfortable question keeps coming back whenever I look at modern wars not as a citizen, not as a moral commentator, but as an investor watching the machinery of capital allocation: which of the recent wars has actually improved the life of any nation involved in it? Take Russia’s war against Ukraine. Has life improved for Ukrainians, who live under destruction, mobilization, demographic trauma, debt dependence, and infrastructure damage? Obviously not. Has life improved for ordinary Russians, who face sanctions, isolation, militarization of society, inflationary pressure, lost human capital, and a future increasingly subordinated to the logic of permanent confrontation? Again, no. Even if certain sectors profit, the nation as a living organism does not become healthier, freer, richer, or more secure.

Look at Israel and Gaza. For Gaza, the catastrophe is visible without explanation. But has Israel become a better place to live because of the war? Has the state become more stable, more united, more trusted, more secure, more attractive to capital, more attractive to its own most productive citizens? The answer is hard to defend as “yes.” The same question applies to the confrontation between Israel, the United States, and Iran. Which society became meaningfully better off? Which middle class became safer? Which taxpayer became richer? Which young generation inherited a more predictable future? The answer, again, is almost nowhere. Modern war seems increasingly unable to produce the old promise of national renewal, historical correction, or political rebirth. It produces exhaustion, debt, surveillance, insecurity, fiscal pressure, migration, polarization, and permanent emergency.

This is where the investor’s view becomes colder than the political view, because markets reveal what official language often hides. If we ask who benefits, the answer is rarely “the nation.” It is rarely the average citizen, the taxpayer, the young family, the soldier, the small business owner, or even the long-term stability of the state itself. The visible beneficiaries are often the industrial and financial structures positioned around the war economy: defense contractors, missile producers, drone manufacturers, ammunition suppliers, cyber-security firms, intelligence contractors, logistics groups, reconstruction intermediaries, commodity traders, energy infrastructure firms, and the financial institutions that fund, hedge, insure, securitize, and distribute the entire process. Look at the equity charts, the order books, the margins, the capitalizations, the political access, and the “strategic importance” suddenly assigned to these companies. Rheinmetall, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Leonardo, Thales, Elbit, Hanwha Aerospace, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and a broader universe of American, European, Israeli, Korean, and Japanese defense-linked companies do not experience war as tragedy in the same way societies do. For them, war is demand visibility.

The result is still difficult to ignore: modern war increasingly redistributes quality of life away from populations and toward systems that monetize insecurity. The citizen receives taxes, inflation, mobilization, anxiety, censorship pressure, reduced social spending, higher debt burdens, and a permanently degraded sense of future normality. The corporate sector attached to conflict receives contracts, subsidies, urgency, political protection, long-duration procurement pipelines, and a moral vocabulary in which every budget increase becomes “security,” every margin becomes “resilience,” and every industrial expansion becomes “deterrence.”

This is what makes today’s wars different from the grand historical narratives many people still carry in their heads. The WWII, despite its almost unimaginable destruction, produced a world in which some defeated and devastated countries eventually rebuilt into more prosperous states. Germany, after catastrophe, occupation, division, guilt, destruction, and defeat, became both West Germany and East Germany, each reconstructed under different systems, and eventually reunified into one of the richest societies on earth. Japan was destroyed and then rebuilt into an industrial power. Western Europe, after being ravaged, was integrated into a new security and economic architecture. The moral price of that history cannot be romanticized, but the postwar order did contain a visible reconstruction logic: institutions, industry, infrastructure, social contracts, currency regimes, and national economies were rebuilt around a promise that ordinary life would become better after the fire.

The disturbing question is whether that logic still exists. In the current era, war often ends less with a Marshall Plan for society than with a procurement cycle for corporations. It does not necessarily produce new constitutional settlements, new social contracts, or broad-based national renewal. It produces frozen conflicts, militarized budgets, sanctioned economies, fragmented trade routes, energy shocks, refugee flows, intelligence expansion, emergency legislation, and a permanent political argument for why civilian priorities must wait. Housing can wait. Healthcare can wait. Education can wait. Infrastructure can wait. Industrial policy cannot wait, once it is attached to missiles, ammunition, drones, satellites, chips, sensors, naval systems, or energy security.

As an investor, I find this morally ugly but analytically important. The market is telling us that the age of “peace dividends” has been replaced by the age of “war dividends,” and those dividends do not accrue evenly to nations. They accrue to sectors. They accrue to balance sheets. They accrue to companies whose products become more necessary as the world becomes more unstable. The paradox is brutal: the worse the geopolitical environment becomes for ordinary life, the better the revenue visibility becomes for parts of the defense-industrial complex. A society may become poorer in real human terms while a defense index makes new highs. A state may become less stable while its contractors become more valuable. A population may become more afraid while investors receive a cleaner earnings story.

So the real thesis goes beyond the obvious destructiveness of modern wars. The real thesis is that modern wars increasingly look like mechanisms through which security anxiety is transformed into corporate cash flow. Political leaders speak the language of national survival, moral duty, deterrence, sovereignty, and historical justice, while capital markets translate the same events into backlog growth, margin expansion, rearmament cycles, energy repricing, insurance premiums, infrastructure spending, and sovereign debt issuance. The nation absorbs the trauma. The taxpayer absorbs the cost. The household absorbs the decline in living standards. The market identifies the suppliers.

That may be the defining macro pattern of our time: war no longer reliably builds states, but it reliably builds industries around the fear that states may fail. And once that becomes the operating model, the most dangerous question is no longer who wins the war, because often nobody truly wins in social terms. The more precise question is who monetizes the permanent preparation for the next one.

Modern war has a strange accounting system:
- The nation gets debt. 
- The citizen gets inflation. 
- The taxpayer gets the bill. 
- The soldier gets the risk. 
- The household gets a worse future.
- And the defense contractor gets a higher multiple.

They call it security. Markets call it growth. I call it a new Wealth Transfer.

Look at the asymmetry. While Gulf hubs (Emirates, Etihad Airways, ...

2026-05-06T15:13:05Z

Look at the asymmetry. While Gulf hubs (Emirates, Etihad Airways, Qatar Airways) are constrained by airspace disruptions and reduced capacity, they are not the ones leading cancellations. Instead, it’s European and Asian carriers (Turkish Airlines, Air China and most notably Lufthansa) that are aggressively cutting. Why? Because the vulnerability is financial. European carriers operate on thinner margins, higher regulatory burdens and less fuel flexibility. When jet fuel doubles, they cannot absorb it - they must transmit it immediately through cancellations, capacity cuts and pricing shocks. Gulf carriers, despite disruptions, are structurally designed around energy proximity and state-backed resilience. Europe is not.

If you’re planning on leaving Europe at some point - neo ...

2026-05-05T08:31:51Z

If you’re planning on leaving Europe at some point - neo feudalism is in front of you. It truly is now or never.

„Germany is moving to upgrade civilian port infrastructure for ...

2026-05-04T06:50:24Z

„Germany is moving to upgrade civilian port infrastructure for wartime use: Europe’s largest terminal in Bremerhaven is being reinforced to handle the movement of heavy Leopard tanks toward front-line zones“ - BBG

On April 22, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius introduced the Bundeswehr’s first-ever comprehensive military strategy, outlining a plan to elevate Germany’s armed forces to the leading position in Europe. The strategy designates Russia as the “primary threat.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-02/germany-is-preparing-supply-lines-for-a-war-it-s-far-from-ready

Patriotism and censorship - a bit of Fry and Laurie ...

2026-05-01T05:44:14Z

Patriotism and censorship - a bit of Fry and Laurie

Poland’s "miracle" Poland’s economic surge should not ...

2026-04-27T06:19:29Z

Poland’s "miracle"

Poland’s economic surge should not be mistaken for a miracle, because a meaningful part of it appears to be the visible result of capital being redirected, with increasing urgency, from European institutions and national budgets into Poland’s defense sector, where military orders, procurement programs, ammunition production, anti-drone infrastructure and state-backed industrial expansion are now functioning almost like a parallel growth engine. And Poland is becoming increasingly hungry for more of that money.

That is the important point for people who look at Poland’s recent economic momentum and consider moving there because of the so-called economic “miracle”: they should ask whether they are looking at a broad, organic, productivity-driven boom across the civilian economy or at a heavily subsidized, politically accelerated defense cycle whose strength depends on Europe’s fear, NATO’s eastern flank strategy and the assumption that Poland will remain one of the most important military corridors on the continent.

The uncomfortable part is that this concrete spike in Poland’s military economy has a reason and that reason is not peace, stability or normal convergence with Western Europe, but the rising probability that Poland becomes either a frontline state, a logistical rear base or, in a darker but still real scenario, a battlefield-adjacent economy within the next phase of European escalation.

So before calling Poland the new European growth miracle, it is worth asking what kind of growth this actually is, because an economy lifted by tanks, howitzers, ammunition factories, anti-drone walls and EU-backed defense loans sends a very different signal from an economy lifted by civilian productivity, innovation, domestic consumption and long-term capital formation.

Nostr event nevent1qqsxju09gx5menlwqz4rrdl9ya8emcsjj55xdztskhu09xch0a879jszyq6stks9lz4wage97a7p4my7r0r5fzxhczg3zx479nvu5f430yrwjycuv22

2026-04-26T13:25:38Z

In reply to nevent1q…8hwt
_________________________

2026

Nostr event nevent1qqsrqmhgs80ur8pfwjp86wxugt99wjchp6t2m4mdza6mlda0c0gspjgzyq6stks9lz4wage97a7p4my7r0r5fzxhczg3zx479nvu5f430yrwj56vfze

2026-04-26T13:25:24Z

In reply to nevent1q…8hwt
_________________________

2021

He put all his money on $BIRD #Allbirds. Twice: 2021 & 2026. ...

2026-04-26T13:25:07Z

He put all his money on $BIRD #Allbirds. Twice: 2021 & 2026.

Commodities & Bitcoin.

2026-04-25T10:41:28Z

In reply to nevent1q…ns8s
_________________________

Commodities & Bitcoin.