Sunday, March 31, 2019

Alternative Investing: Arkadia Moon Deeds in Entropia Universe

At the beginning of last year I wrote about Arkadia Moon Deeds within the MMO game, Entropia Universe. They are an alternative investment I have, one of several within the Entropia Universe, that make up a tiny sliver of my investments.

That post can be found here.

I wanted to write a quick update on the status of this investment, quick because I have to get on the road for a two-to-three day business project (on a weekend... ugh; as I say, "it has to be like this for now, so that it won't be like this forever).

As I predicted, the income from these deeds would be erratic at first, then stabilize and perhaps eventually grow. As of late, they have begun to pay 1 PEC daily (a Project Entropia Cent) daily. In the Entropia Universe Web Shop,  the minimum number that can be purchased at once is five deeds for $30 USD, or $6 USD each.

Project Entropia Dollars (PED) are pegged to the USD at 10:1. As such, $30 invested would yield .05 PECs daily, or 18.25 PED annually, which is roughly $1.83 USD, a yield of 6.08% annualized (before adjusting to find the tax-equivalent yield, that is, which is individual; in my case it comes out to 7.8%).

The deeds do not yet trade in the secondary market in-game, which will begin after all of them are sold via the web shop. The latest news I have seen on the number sold puts the remaining unsold inventory at 54k deeds out of 200k. The other deeds in the game that these are modeled on went on to appreciate significantly in price in the secondary market, the first deeds ever introduced to this day trading at roughly double their par value, and the second issue to follow, Arkadia Underground deeds, presently sit at a premium of roughly 50% over their par value.

Saturday, March 30, 2019

This Line Tells A Story

 Yesterday while on my way to a new client's home, I came across this:

I think I know what the real story is behind this swerving line.

But the one I imagined, that story made me laugh out loud. :)

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

KEEP WORKING! Millions On Social Security Are Depending On You!

I came across this article today. Again with the 4% rule!

I am beginning to think that this stuff is Socialist Insecurity ponzi scheme propaganda. Again and again articles and videos about retirement beat the 4% dead horse, telling everyone that they must stack up millions in liquid assets in order to be able to retire.

This article even literally says right in it, "Why not work longer so you can enjoy life more?"

Exactly what I think the point of all of this stuff is: work longer.


So you can continue to fund the worker-to-retiree transfer scheme that is Socialist Insecurity.

The gray wave is well underway here in the U.S., and the boomers are moving into retirement. Meanwhile, if you look at your Socialist Insecurity statement, it says this on it, in bold:
"Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2034, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits."
(For instructions on accessing your own Socialist Insecurity statement, click here.)

That's fifteen years from now. Only fifteen years.

If you pay attention to the retirement topic articles that are out there, the other common theme you've probably noticed is "Americans don't have enough saved for retirement." Again, that's largely the boomers.

Right now about 10,000 of them are turning 65 every day, and that will continue for eleven more years. Four years after that, the last of them will be around 69 years old, with lots of life expectancy left to go...

Put this all together, and it looks an awful lot like propaganda aimed at a) keeping you focused on one "rule" that b) demands that you keep working in pursuit of it, so that c) you'll keep pouring money into a destined-to-fail system during the years that the boomers need it.

The possibility of Gen X and later generations pursuing early retirement, a transition from living on wage income that is hit with FICA taxes to savings or passive sources that are not, would be an absolute disaster for the boomers.

With $500k, I could create an aggregate passive income stream of about $42k per year, tomorrow, through a combination of debt elimination and building on existing passive income investments I already have, which would at the same time leave me with a basic annual household budget of about $6k per year. I think I can hack it on a $36k/year discretionary spending budget, especially since what I've built is designed to increase on its own over time.

To accomplish the same thing with the 4% rule, I'd have to amass $1.3 million....

They want you to keep paying into this broken, failing system just long enough for them to squeeze every drop of blood out of it that they can before the whole thing collapses. They want the decades of living it up that they feel they're entitled to, but did not earn, and they want all of us, the younger generations, to pay for it.

The Socialist Insecurity system is funded through work, so they want you convinced that you must keep working for decades.

Prediction: at some point in the future, we'll start to see proposals pop up to expand Socialist Insecurity taxes to forms of income other than wages.

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Long EUR/USD While Retail Traders Continue Going Short

Quick post today as I have to run out the front door and shake my main money maker, my pest control business.

This is Forex stuff. Part of the reason I'm involved in this market is my aforementioned money maker; thanks to automated orders, Forex can work for me while I'm working something else (or not working at all...).

Anyway, here's my EUR/USD action since March 11th:

This is actually several trades, all entered at the same time, but with different take-profit orders set. I do this to accomplish two things: 1) gradually deleverage my positions and book profits along the way, and 2) take the ultra-arbitrary, discretionary "guess work" out of taking profits (no "analysis paralysis" for me!). The only time I manually exit a position is when the retail trader open position contrarian trend I've been on begins to reverse.

Anyway, as you can see here, retail trader open shorts on EUR/USD were in the majority a few days ago:

 ...and as of this morning, they're even more so:

Meanwhile, EUR/USD continues to climb, as it has since I initiated these trades nine days ago when I noticed retail traders getting shorter.

And that's why I do what I do.

Monday, March 18, 2019

The Next Crypto Boom Cometh: IBM Quietly Building Infrastructure

Back in late 2001 and into the early part of 2002, I entered into a brief career in financial services as a newly minted stockbroker and investment advisor. I got the series 6, 7, and 66 SEC licenses, all on my first try, and then it was sink or swim on commission.

I sank.

I don't come from a wealthy, well-connected family, which is how nearly all of my peers in the incoming group of advisors at my firm got their legs under them, by selling to their rich aunts and uncles.

I was making nothing, I had a negative net worth, all I had was some cash set aside for major SHTF events and some cash flow from a rental property I had picked up while I was in the U.S. Army Infantry about five years prior.

Those times sucked.

Mostly though, that's not what I remember about those times.

What I remember is Amazon stock under $10/share.

Right about the time I was licensed and could have done my own buying and selling in my own accounts, I could have started scooping up shares of the mega online retailer for a song.

"A song" in terms of today's price per share, that is. Every $10 invested into Amazon back then is worth $1712 as I write this, a gain of 17,120%.

$1000 put into it back then? That's a really nice house in the area I live in now.

$5000? Cashed out and plugged into my dividend income portfolio, I'd be comfortably retired on passive income.

So why didn't I do it? I should have put every $10 I could have spared into Amazon shares and held on. But there's two reasons that I did not: 1) no one knows the future, and 2) people can know the past, and at the time, the past was that Amazon shares had been a lot higher than they were then during the late 90's tech bubble, and were at the time down in the dumps with every other online project. The quick assessment was that they were just eGarbage, too.

The thing was though, Amazon had something the vast majority of eGarbage projects did not: something! They were actually doing something. They actually had a service, they actually had inventory, something that could carry forward and be built on. They were part of the boom, and so they were part of the bust. But after the dust had settled, they were still doing.

Now look at them.

The reason I bring up this long tale of my experience with not being an Amazon shareholder is that I see similarities to what has happened over the last decade in the crypto space, and with Bitcoin (the original, BTC) in particular: introduction, boom, bust, and now...

...stuff like this: IBM Quietly Enters Crypto Custody Market With Tech Design for Banks

The boom in crypto leading up to December of 2017 largely occurred on the same assumptions that drove eGarbage company shares to ridiculous valuations in the late 90's: if it had an "e" at the front of its name, it was totally going to the moon, man! It wasn't at all a question of fundamentals, there was no concern for valuations, everything "e" was just the next big thing and was as sure to make you rich as the sun is to rise again tomorrow.

Crypto in general went through the same thing, I believe - BTC in particular - the "e" sure thing this time around being "crypto whatever" and the price itself; "the price is higher today; surely the price will be higher tomorrow! It just will, man! It's got 'crypto' and 'mining' in its name!" The same thing was being said on the other side of the coin, by the bears (the people actually active in the crypto space) and the haters (the people who don't actually have any skin in the game, they just love to pose as "the smartest guy in the room" and offer lots of free, unsolicited investment advice; you can usually identify them when they turn out to be bitter at your success): "the price is higher today; surely the price will be lower tomorrow!"

Price, price, price. It was (and in many cases still is) the ONLY thing anyone was talking about.

So up it went. Way up. And then down it went. Way down (though if you got in much earlier than the boom like I did, and stayed in like I have, you're still way up...). Now over a year has passed in these "doldrums," lots have declared it all over and joined the permabears and haters just waiting for it all to go to zero. It kind of smells like the piles of eGarbage that were around in the early 2000's.

Just as Amazon was not actually part of the eGarbage back then, just surrounded by it, I believe that BTC is in a similar place now. The eGarbage of this building revolution is all of the so-called "alt coins" that are out there, which just like the eGarbage projects of the late 90's, are just a bunch of copycat also-ran get-rich-quick attempts that serve no purpose except to try and grab a piece of the major cryptos' marketshare.

My evidence for this? The article I linked to above about IBM is one example, and typical of how I see what's happening in this space now: supporting infrastructure is being created for Bitcoin all the time; other cryptos, not so much, and alt coins, never, and it's all happening despite the price bust.

What IBM is doing in particular is huge. Creating custody infrastructure for regulated financial institutions means that the last barriers to institutional money entering the crypto space are falling. And, this wouldn't be going on if there wasn't a demand for such things.

So for this and a host of other reasons, none of which are the price of Bitcoin, I think we're on the verge of the next boom. The exotic is moving toward becoming ordinary, just like how buying anything you can think of online was exotic in the mid to late 90's, and now Amazon boxes on the front step are incredibly ordinary...

I don't know when it will start, and I don't know how far it will go. I don't have a buy recommendation, I don't know when one should sell. That's because I don't know the future and I don't pretend that I do (unlike many). I just know how I'm approaching it this time around.

Like all of you though, I can remember the past, and things appear to be lining up to make Bitcoin and a handful of other cryptos readily accessible to a majority of the world and make them reasonable exchange options for every-day use. It reminds me a lot of seeing Amazon at less then $10, in plain view amid steaming piles of eGarbage...

So, I'm adding to my positions now. Like everything else I do, I'll get out of them not at a particular price or following a particular event in the space, but at a time when it would serve my particular financial aim, which is to achieve 100% funding of my annual household budget with passive income.

If and when that happens.

Like it could be right now, had I scooped up $10 shares of Amazon seventeen years ago...

Saturday, March 16, 2019

Forget The 4% Withdrawal Rule, Go For 4% Income

It seems like every retirement article out there reads like this one: "You need at least $1 million! No, wait! Now you need $2 MILLION!!!!1"

Next week it'll be $4 million.

Since the bulk of articles on this topic parrot this thinking, that the only way to live on your accumulated assets in retirement is to draw down 4% of them each year, it's really no wonder that there's a constant "nest egg arms race" in this way of thinking.

That probably also explains a lot of the pessimism out there surrounding this topic, and why people long for the "good old days" of defined benefit pensions.

Try this instead:

Total up your current retirement and non-retirement assets.

Multiply that by .04.

Now multiply that number by 1.10 and hit "equals" as many times as you have years between now and retirement.

What's this? It's the current income you could generate on several solid dividend paying stocks that are out there, and the subsequent 10% multiplier shows you how that income would grow (on average) with dividend hikes in the future, assuming you didn't add anything more to your principal.

That's income generated by your assets, cash flow. That's what you can spend without drawing down what you've accumulated, and it grows over time.

Don't get freaked out by these bullshit retirement articles, they're all stuck in a broken paradigm (and in many cases, probably purposefully so, for political agitprop). Shift your focus from net worth to cash flow, it changes the whole game.

Friday, March 15, 2019

The Bachelor's Degree Could Not Be Reached For Comment

I came across this piece on Yahoo Finance this morning.

I read it twice.

Not once do they mention the millennial student debt poster girl's bachelor of arts degree field.

She's $90k in debt over it.

Anyone want to guess what her degree is in? lol

Read it here: Millennials are so buried in debt they can't buy into American Dream of owning a home

Further reading:

Thursday, March 14, 2019



Where's All The Inflation? Ask Your Grandparents; MMT And An Immigration Disaster

This morning on Yahoo Finance I found an article on the topic of the low overall inflation that the U.S. has been experiencing despite the Fed keeping interest rates ultra-low for over a decade (I say "overall" inflation because I'm aware that some specific things out there have been experiencing quite a bit of inflation). Here's the article: There's A Fight Brewing Over Government Debt, Low Inflation And What To Do About It.

Basically, the article explores the question of massive government spending and whether or not it's a problem anymore (from the perspective of sparking runaway inflation). This is a question right now because of something called "Modern Monetary Theory," (MMT) which is rearing its head thanks to the so-called "Green New Deal," an approximately $93 trillion total remake of the U.S. economy, government, and culture.

MMT, in a nutshell, holds that a country such as ours that only deals in its own money can run the printing presses to cover its own debts, and that inflation can be controlled by using tax policy to increase or decrease the amount of money removed from circulation.

Maybe they could get away with this, but it's probably not for the reasons the people pushing these ideas think.

If this is what they really want, then they're going to have to build President Trump's border wall and lock down immigration to a point where almost no one can get in to the U.S., something that the same people pushing MMT are vehemently opposed to.

What do these things have to do with each other? Well...

The thing that's in this article that caught my attention, which gets glossed over completely, is this:
"Front and center is what to do about inflation. Powell has ruled out raising the 2 percent target. But he’s also evinced concern about the risk of the U.S. falling into a disinflationary spiral.
That’s what happened to Japan more than two decades ago –- with disastrous results. Because the Japanese expected prices to keep falling, consumers put off purchases and companies shelved expansion plans, and zero-rates policy at the central bank failed to entice them. Eventually, a combination of cheap money and budget deficits succeeded in shoring up demand, but only after years of lost growth."
That Japan was mentioned in this article is important, but that the entirety of the discussion was on monetary policy shows you that the people considering this question are failing to consider it in the complete context of the society they're examining. In particular, they left out one huge factor that drives the whole thing, almost regardless of the monetary policy adopted: age.

Note that the article states that deflation began in Japan about two decades ago, so roughly 1998-1999.

Japan experienced a post war baby boom, much like the U.S. did, between 1947 and 1949.

If you were born in Japan between those years, then twenty years ago, you were in or just entering your 50's.

There's a good chance that at stage of your life, your kids are grown and have moved away from home. Your career isn't quite over but you're probably settling down into "cruising mode" for the remainder of it, maintaining, but not seeking big raises. Maybe during this time you've downsized your home. You might be spending more on vacationing, but "big purchases" are a thing of the past for you at this point. In general, your consumption is going to decrease because your advancing age finds you in a different place with different needs.

Couple that with the fact that you and your peers had far fewer kids than previous generations, and suddenly there's a chronic shortage of workers, too, so there's less cash getting into the remaining hands out there...

Inflation is an increasing supply of money chasing a static or decreasing supply of goods and services. When there's more units of money available, people can offer more of them in exchange for the stuff that exists in the market, driving prices higher. Deflation is the opposite, when there's a static or increasing supply of goods and services, but it's DEMAND that is going down. Then the money supply can be static, or even increase dramatically, and it just won't matter. Prices will tend to fall as providers in the market compete for the smaller and smaller number of buyers out there.

Japan has been experiencing this for several decades now because of domestic trends, but also because they're an island nation with incredibly strict immigration controls. You pretty much can't just walk in to the place and set up shop, you mostly have to fly in, and then the immigration authorities can track you.

The U.S. is experiencing much of the same thing when it comes to aging. Our baby boomers are now turning 65 at a rate of 10,000 per day, which will continue for about eleven more years. More importantly, this phenomenon began in 2011 (note the date of the article I just linked), almost as long as the Fed has been keeping interest rates at record lows...

So with one quarter of our population moving beyond their big production and consumption years, and with subsequent generations being smaller, or about the same size but more spread out in terms of birth years (and therefore life stages and the paired spending and production characteristics of those stages), it shouldn't be a mystery why inflation seems almost impossible to stoke by printing more money. If demand is down, but goods and services are static or increasing, prices will fall. They have to, there's no point in raising prices on stuff that's collecting dust on the shelf.

So if your population is old, didn't have as many kids as previous generations, and the following generations are having even less, how can you grow your population?


Let's say then that MMT becomes policy, and AOC and other socialst/communist dipshits are running the presses until they smoke, launching this social program, that "green" construction program, shoving corks up cow butts, etc. There's trillions and trillions of new dollars out there, but inflation is still not a big deal because the population is basically not consuming much and it isn't growing. Maybe it's even shrinking.

Then 42 million people show up on the southern border and walk right in. 

They're poor, they're desperate, they're hungry and they're injured. Immediately they want some of that "Green New Deal" largess for themselves: food stamps, housing, utilities, education, medical care, universal basic income, you name it. In fact, that's why they came. The myopic U.S. socialists/communists have laid out a buffet and never came up with an effective means of limiting seating to U.S. citizens only. In fact, they opposed pretty much everything that could have prevented this flood of humanity from pouring into the country.

So now there's all kinds of new units of currency floating around, and then all at once, a new population walks in that's a bit over half the size of the entire boomer generation, and this group of new arrivals tends to have a lot more kids than the natives do...

Now there's demand for goods and services. LOTS of demand. And all this cash floating around...

And then inflation goes wild...

And then we're Zimbabwe.

So, to sum up, running big debts and deficits is something that I'm generally opposed to, and that includes creating more units of currency to "paper over it all." But, I do have to admit, the experience of Japan does make an interesting case for why maybe it wouldn't matter. BUT, the U.S. would need to essentially recreate Japan's island nation status with physical and policy barriers to new immigration that we currently just do not have. This would require that the left (and several on the right who constantly put the interests of big business ahead of all else) to agree to and support creating "island nation U.S.A." But they won't. They look at uncontrolled immigration as a source of new voters, in particular dependent voters, what they hope will translate into an unbeatable voting bloc that will keep them in power for generations. To them, the economic disaster that would be MMT plus uncontrolled immigration likely represents an opportunity to permanently entrench themselves by reducing the majority of the U.S. population to grinding poverty, dependent on them for welfare.

Further reading, some stuff to think about for investing in the shadow of the "gray wave":

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Ed Latimore On The Cost Of Success

I saw this tweet from Ed Latimore this morning and had to share it:

Too true, unfortunately.

Not that these "friends" go away as you grow, but because you had to endure them in the first place. These are the "bucket crab" people that I've described before, people whose only pleasure in life seems to be holding others down on their level of misery.

Anyway, check out Ed's stuff. I downloaded this book shortly before jetting off to Brazil last December. I was reading two books at the time, this and Seneca's Letters from a Stoic. What was interesting about that happenstance combination was how similar the content of the two books seemed, written thousands of years apart, yet related...

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

The Real Reason The Rich Get Richer: You're Dumb and Impulsive, They Are Not

Part of my morning ritual is scanning the Yahoo Finance main page and reading the news and opinion pieces there. I came across this article detailing the dims' plans for stealing more from producers: Bill Gates Spells Out Democrats' Tax Plans as a Capital Gains Hike.

The details of their plan are not what interest me right now. It's basically the same thing they always say, that they'll go after "the rich" because of "fairness," which they promise will be coupled with big new spending programs. Of course they leave out the part that because the rich are so few, the real money is with the middle class collectively, which is who will ultimately get raided to pay for all the new "free shit."

It was this part of the article that piqued my interest:
"The very wealthiest of taxpayers derive the bulk of their riches not from wages or salaries but from capital gains profits on investments in stocks, property or other assets. Unlike labor income, which is taxed at a top rate of 37 percent, profits on assets held for at least a year before being sold bear a top rate of 20 percent.
In 2018, nearly 69 percent, or more than $584 billion, of all long-term capital gains went to the top 1 percent of of the 1.1 million wealthiest US filers, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The richest Americans got the lion’s share, with the top 0.1 percent of the 110,000 wealthiest filers scoring more than three quarters of that total.
“Most of the wealth gap is due to capital gains,” said Mark Spiegel, who runs a small hedge fund at Stanphyl Capital Management. “Nobody’s earning $50 million in labor income.”
The guy quoted here, Spiegel, skipped a step: if most of the wealth gap is due to capital gains, then something had to come before the realization of the gain in order for there to have been one: an investment!

When you acquire some money, be that by labor, dividends, cap gains, lottery, inheritance, whatever, you then basically have three choices. You can spend it, save it, or invest it.

Most of you spend it.

Some of you save it.

Very few of you invest it.

If you spend it, do you become richer? No.

If you save it, do you become richer? Again, no, because inflation will eat your savings alive.

If you invest it, do you become richer? Maybe! It's not guaranteed, in fact you could lose your entire investment (which is why investments are subject to lower taxes in the first place...), but out of the three options it's the only one that goes in the direction of "yes!"

So since most people do the first thing, and a small number do the second, leaving a comparatively tiny portion of the population who do the third, and everyone tends do repeat these habits over and over, is it any surprise that a relatively small portion of the population gets richer? It shouldn't be!

It boils down to a basic division of consumption choices that people can make:

Those who think like rich people, whether they are rich now or will be tomorrow, live within their means, delay gratification, and acquire assets that cash flow and appreciate  in value along with inflation.

Those who think like poor people, whether they are poor now or will be tomorrow, live beyond their means, frequently indulge whims, and buy dumb, depreciating shit on credit. 

And here's a key thing about that difference: the rich invest in the things that the poors blow their money on! Think about it...

That's really all there is to it. This stuff isn't rocket science, it's all very basic and very easy. It's more about discipline and patience than smarts, which is why if you're failing at it, then you're undisciplined and impulsive. That's your fault, not anyone else's. "The rich" didn't do anything wrong, they just did/do what you have not and do not. Many of the opportunities they avail themselves of are right at your fingertips, too, the difference is that they prepared themselves to take those opportunities while you bought junk food, dumb shit to bling out your car, vacations you couldn't really afford, etc. It's not their fault that you're poor. IT'S YOURS.

Bill Gates, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren don't give a fuck about you. It's not out of an abundance of concern for the "plight" of the poor that they propose this shit. In Bill's case, he's just hoping to deflect support away from Warren's unconstitutional "wealth tax," because he won't get hit with a capital gains tax bill if he doesn't realize any gains (same with Warren Buffett, which is why I laugh at you fools every time you fawn over him whenever he tells you pretty lies about raising income taxes... which he'll never pay). Warren just wants more power, so she'll scapegoat a minority and encourage you to continue lying to yourself about your own fuck ups being their fault. Bernie wants much the same thing, and ironically, you idiots that support him are pretty much just trying to get him into his fourth luxurious house. Ultimately, none of them will do anything meaningful about inflation...

Anyway, if you're short on means and long on wants and finding the siren call of these socialists/communists appealing, you need to take an honest look at yourself in the mirror, start inventorying your belongings, and start cataloging your spending. If it turns out that you own a pile of junk that goes down in value and your spending leaves you with "more month than money," then your reflection in the mirror should start to look like an idiot to you. And if you think that justifies taking something from someone else for what you perceive to be your benefit, then guess what? You're scum, nothing more than a common thief.

The good news is, you can reverse all of that.

If you don't, no "rich person" will be there compelling you to continue being an over-consuming dead ender.

It's only a stupid poor that is doing that.

Monday, March 11, 2019

College Is A Scam

I found this Spongebob meme a few minutes ago.

It's accurate. I've been on both sides of this particular fence, so I know from experience that it's true.

College guarantees you one thing: college administrators (and tenured professors) are going to make a lot of money on your degree. Do you get that? THEY will DEFINITELY get paid. You? Maybe. MAYBE. And that's a "maybe" WITH INTEREST. POSSIBLY FOR DECADES.

Trades? If you have a job, you're making money. There's a good chance that you can learn the trade while doing it, getting paid to learn rather than paying to learn. If it's an in-demand trade, you'll make a lot of money. And in many cases you can strike out on your own and make even more. That's how it ended up in my case.

If you've ever wondered why "educated" types bash trades and non-college routes after high school so much, this is it: they don't get paid unless you buy into their bullshit.

They give a fuck about making their money, and none about you.

Further reading: Worthless by Aaron Clarey.

Sunday, March 10, 2019

FBI Releases Pro-2nd Amendment Statement

This was originally published last May, and the FBI document it references was released last April, but it popped up again this morning because someone at Western Journal modified the article in some way: FBI Releases Pro-2nd Amendment Statement, States the Importance of Armed Citizens in America.

The heart of the matter, as I see it:
"According to Timothy Hsiao for The Federalist, it is not a matter of if guns increase violence, but if they are a good means of self-defense.

“What matters is not the risk (or lack thereof) that guns pose to society, but simply whether guns are a reasonable means of self-defense,” wrote Hsiao, adding that to defend one’s life is a basic dignity that cannot be taken away in the name of “social utility.”

“Rights function as moral ‘trump cards’ that override appeals to utility,” he said. “Like our right to life, our right to defend ourselves is a basic dignity that can’t be defeated just because it might produce a net benefit.”
Right now here in Washington state the socialist/communist democrats are putting on a full-court press against our 2A rights. They're proposing to ban this, ban that, require registration of X, Y, and Z, and they're trying to make it harder to get a concealed carry permit.

Because everyone knows that criminals are always looking to pay the fees, get fingerprinted, and have background checks run on them with the FBI so that they can get their permits.


All of this is riding on a wave of "feels" and it's being pushed along by all of you dupes that live in the western half of Washington state. A couple million of you morons honestly think that you can wish away gun violence with a vote, and that all gun owners are the same. So you enthusiastically endorse "laws" that can only accomplish one thing: stop those who adhere to the laws of the land in the first place from doing whatever prohibited thing you dream up to prohibit tomorrow.

The people who are or will attack others with firearms (or whatever else) will do so anyway. And no, you are not going to cut off the supply of firearms with the next "brilliant" idea you come up with next, because someone out there will always be looking to make and sell the firearms for which there is always a high demand; Pandora's box is open, you cannot put guns back in it!

All that "technical" stuff aside, there's the moral heart of the matter that Hsiao's quote drives at: I have a RIGHT to defend myself, and that puts a moral obligation ON YOU to leave me alone to do so in the best way and with the best tools that I can. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to impose these restrictions on me. You do not suddenly acquire that right by banding together with a group of people who all bleat the same thing, no matter how many of you there are versus me. That is the nature of a right: it springs from me, from my ownership of my life and my interest in defending and preserving it, and you have no natural claim on my life. As such, you cannot dictate to me how I will go about defending and preserving it.

I know, I know. You smug libtards will just say "well we passed a law."

Yeah, you did.

Once, only a few generations ago, various totalitarian governments passed laws that said you could take people from their homes, load them onto rail cars and take them to labor camps where it was perfectly legal to work them to death.

Rights? Well, they passed a law!

And now, that's you. Using the exact same logic.

Congratulations, libtards. You're all Nazis now.

Saturday, March 09, 2019

ZeroHedge: How Much Longer Will The Middle-Class Politely Tolerate Its Own Destruction?

A good read that appeared on ZeroHedge this morning: How Much Longer Will The Middle-Class Politely Tolerate Its Own Destruction?
"The desire for autonomy, to be left alone, to be free to make one’s own decisions and live one’s own life, are the benchmarks of well-adjusted normalcy. The desires to tell or force other people what to do are the opposite, wellsprings of hate which are, depending on their intensity and quality, neurotic, sociopathic, or psychopathic...

...When somebody claims that your life is their property, they’re telling you that they have the right to do with it what they will, which includes killing you. All manner of statist belladonna reached full florescence in the twentieth century—socialism, communism, nazism, fascism, welfare statism, cronyism, kleptocracy, kakistocracy—and the murder, genocide, and war have been orders of magnitude greater than anything that preceded it.

You shall know them by their works. The thing that statism does best to people is kill them; the record is clear and unmistakable. Anyone now promoting more of the same is simply evil. Only unmitigated hatred accounts for the particular antipathy directed towards the middle class: their values, their prosperity, and their predominate race (white) and religion (Christianity)."
The time is getting closer to choose a side. 

Friday, March 08, 2019

Wrapping Up My Forex Week, My Thanks to the Dumb Money

This past Sunday I detailed a Forex trading strategy I've been using, betting against what retail traders think is the right way to go. My main trade for the week became AUD short, as retail traders in those pairs were 65-70% long.

Here's how it turned out, from where I got in, to where I got stopped out:

This mostly went according to plan. Mostly, because I got a little too tight with a stop-loss order and the trade terminated early during a period of low liquidity (price action becomes a lot more volatile during these times). The red arrow approximately shows where I initiated the short Sunday evening, the green arrow is where I got stopped out a few days later, and the blue "oops" arrow is where I had my original take-profit order set.

Oh well, a gain is a gain.

As of this moment, retail traders are actually still adding to their long positions compared to where they were at on Sunday, thus demonstrating the method behind the madness here: as this relatively small pool of traders attempt to catch a falling knife and go (or stay) long, the whales out there are all too happy to keep taking the opposite side of the trade and mop up all of the retail traders' stop-loss orders. I'd like to go long as the chart suggests price action will head back up from here, but until I see the retail traders begin to capitulate and go short, I'll wait.

The same thing happened just now in GBP/USD: retail traders flipped and went majority-long this week and are going more so now... which was rewarded by the pair dropping throughout the week. There was a sudden spike up just now (who knows why, probably Brexit minutia), on which I went short and took the ride down to a take-profit order as the spike got decimated only minutes later; once again, the big players stepped in and slapped down the retail traders. I was already short the pair on two open trades and am near to another take-profit order on one of them as my retail trader peers continue to bet the other way...

I'll probably just close out this entire position before New York goes to lunch this afternoon. Fed Chair Jerome Powell is speaking somewhere this evening, and that could have major implications for the USD; could be good for me, could be bad, but over the weekend I can't adjust my positions while the market is closed, so I'd just prefer to be sitting in cash.

About a 5.2% gain for the week if I get out right now, so... "bird in the hand" time, perhaps.

*10:23 -8 GMT, the GBP/USD retail trade continues to go long, but volume has dried up and momentum appears to have stopped for now ahead of the weekend, so I closed out my short, locking in 6.05% for the week. $$*

Wednesday, March 06, 2019

Work Harder: Someone On Welfare Is Depending On You!

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Being A Socialist Loser

 I came across this article a few days ago, and I've been thinking about how to respond to it since then.

I'm having a hard time formulating one specific take on it as it's just so mind numbing dumb, for several reasons.

Here it is: My Year of Living Like My Rich Friend

Synopsis: the author found herself effectively unemployed right as the 2008 financial meltdown rolled in, yet she had a cash windfall from an advance on a book deal.

What did she do with it?

She basically blew it all.

As if mindlessly pissing away a nest egg at the moment of big opportunity were not bad enough (2008-2009 was a time of incredible opportunities, if you had some balls), the article ends by basically crashing head-first into an ideological brick wall at terminal velocity:
"I learned there is a huge class of people who lounge around for a living in this city, still, and I love that. It’s not for everyone, but someone has to do it. I want to eat the rich as much, if not more, than every other good socialist gal, but I also do love beauty and luxury and days spent doing nothing, reading and stretching and drinking endless cups of tea. It’s easy to forget that the result of our efforts to bring about income equality shouldn’t be that everyone has to wear the same government-issued jumpsuit and put in long hours tilling the fields. Treating your mind and body with care shouldn’t be the province of a privileged few; but just because it still is doesn’t mean that no one should do it."
She loves the idea of being idle rich, but wants to "eat the rich." She's "a good socialist gal," but loves luxury and days spent doing nothing. She wants to bring about income equality, and thinks so-called "self-care" pampering, really a form of very expensive and discretionary conspicuous consumption, would still exist when... what? Everyone gets paid the same, or somehow has their incomes limited by scheduling mandates and/or taxes such that there's no incentive to do more than the mandatory minimum whatever? And then the icing on the shit cake: just because only a few can have these things now, it doesn't mean that no one should do it. I imagine that starving North Koreans say something similar whenever they see their plump dictator roll past in a limo.

Then there's the basic premise of her article: her "rich friend" is defined as someone who spends, spends, spends. Maybe her friend is rich. Or maybe the author's friend was just as dumb as she is, consuming her capital for fleeting pleasure now without a thought about tomorrow. Being rich isn't about reckless consumption; reckless consumption is how wealth is destroyed.

It's hard to tell what the actual thinking is of someone like this. It's fallacious to claim to know the motivations of someone who hasn't explicitly stated them, so I'm speculating here: I think the author is of the "socialist when poor, meritocratic/aristocratic/capitalist when not" type, probably with a dash of "bucket crab" thrown in, be that by self-sabotage or by keeping a social circle made up of other poors. Chances are there's a heaping portion of "lottery mentality" in the mix, too. Combine all of this and throw it in the oven, and out comes a steaming pile of defeat marbled with rationalizations about how "the rich owe everyone else" to sooth the cognitive dissonance of having champagne tastes but only enough motivation, discipline, skills, and intelligence to produce a beer budget. In short, someone who thinks about, likes, and wants the good life, but daydreaming is all they do about it.

In other words, an idiot. Worse, an idiot that entertains a fantasy in which the good life is owed to her.

But hey, someone has to make the fries, so while the "good socialist gal" here continues to think that someone has to enjoy the high life, then I'll continue to make sure that's me. She can dream about yoga, post-modern feminist trash poetry books, socialist "revolution" to provide it all to her unearned, and other stupid shit. I'll actually live luxury that I've earned and worked to make permanent, like when the passive income machines I've been building had my back while I went body surfing at dawn off Copacabana beach after being out partying all night in Rio de Janeiro this past December:

All photos featured here are by me

Sunday, March 03, 2019

Contrarian Forex Trading Against the Dumb Money

I used to do a lot of technical and fundamental analysis in my Forex trading. I've largely tossed all of that.

Now I focus on one massive fundamental assumption, one fundamental data point, and one technical aspect of the market

The massive fundamental assumption is that whatever the retail trading crowd thinks is right, is wrong, and the really big pools of money (financial institutions, including central banks) will be along shortly to wipe out all of the "Dumb Money."

The fundamental data point I pay attention to is open interest in the various currency pairs, which many Forex brokers publicly report. I check it at the start of each week to see what the Dumb Money thinks is the way to go. This week they like the Australian Dollar (AUD) by a long shot, so I'm shorting it:

Generally I'm interested in going long or short opposite of anything that the Dumb Money is more than 60% committed to (I'm skipping the EUR/CHF trade this time because of other trades I already have open, I don't want to be spread too thin, and the metals trades on the chart I don't have access to thanks to Dodd-Frank; may they both burn in Hell).

Beyond that, I just look at the weekly chart for each pair and pick a take-profit level, somewhere that it looks like support or resistance might exist for the current range the pair is in (if any).

As trades progress, I check back on the open interest. If something shifts closer to 50/50 against my open trade, then I'll either trim it down or close it out. As it so happens, to make room for these three shorts this week I closed out a USD/JPY long since the Dumb Money brought that one back to about even between open long and short positions.

Basically, this is a very simplified trading method that operates on the idea that a relatively small pool of traders, retail traders, will collectively decide that a currency pair is going to perform in some particular way. They will tend to exhibit a crowd effect and pile into a currency pair in one direction.

Then the big money will notice the imbalance and get in on the other side of the trade. Their sheer size enables them to move the currency the opposite way, wipe out the Dumb Money trades, and pocket the profits.

This is probably why retail Forex traders lose money in the vast majority of cases: they simply do not have the weight to push back against institutions in the market, and their reliance on technical analysis will tend to cause them to all reach the same conclusions about what price will do next. Then they're set up to be bowled over by the 800 pound gorillas in this market, which is exactly what happens. Rinse, repeat.

So, instead of mucking around with all kinds of technical indicators and hocus pocus bullshit, I just try to hop a ride on the gorillas' backs now. It's a lot less work to do, and the results seem to make a hell of a lot more sense than watching "perfect" technical setups simply, suddenly, and "inexplicably" fail over and over again. It's all about whose got the biggest balance sheet in this market (and many/most others, for that matter) and trying to stay on their side of the action.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Nuking Our Way To A Cooler Planet

I saw this op-ed just now:

Washington Examiner: How a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could reverse global warming

Basically, when huge bombs go boom, a bunch of carbon gets launched into the atmosphere and blots out the sun. The model used in the referenced research piece predicted that 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs would see us freezing our butts off for about a decade.

Prediction: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will come out in favor of nuclear war to "save the planet."

Saturday, March 02, 2019

$24k Net to "Structural Financial Independence" and the Test Drive I Took in January

One thing that never ceased in my absence from blogging over the past year is my efforts toward getting myself to the point where passive income sources could sustain me. That is, my annual household budget funded without working.

I keep track of all of that stuff and plan my strategies for getting there with the aid of several spreadsheets I've built. Basically, I have them set up to show me where I am now versus where I would be if I were to cash out of everything that is a) not already in my dividend income portfolio (excluding retirement accounts and real estate), and then b) move all of the resulting funds into that portfolio and plug it in.

This gives me a running tally on where my assets stand in terms of their value versus their yield potential, such that I can pursue non-income investments while still aiming for a passive income goal.

To bring it all down to a simple bottom line, the spreadsheet culminates in the net amount I need to earn from work each week, assuming I've moved everything into my income portfolio. When that number reaches zero or goes negative, it means I have hit what I call "structural financial independence," the point at which I am positioned to flip that switch and make it happen, even if I have not.

At that point, radically changing my financial life (my entire life, really) becomes "when I want to" rather than "when I can afford it."

As of this morning (while I type here and use my blog to procrastinate a bit before I do my weekly business and personal accounting...), I am $24.3k net away from hitting that "zero point" (precisely, as of this moment it would flip to -$1.68 per week that I would need to earn). The source of this income will be my business; thus, achieving structural financial independence later this year is practically a fait accompli as my existing book of business is worth far more.

I doubt that I'll drop everything and stop working once I reach this point. There's still a lot of things I can and should do to make my passive income machine robust, and continuing to operate my business is the best source of income with which to do that.

However, it will become optional rather than necessary, and the metric by which I decide how to use my time will change dramatically: it will be about what I'd enjoy doing more, rather than what I need to do.

Keeping track of everything as I have has made it possible to see the light at the end of the tunnel and know where I stand in relation to it, and as such, I took advantage of that knowledge and went off the path early this year for a little bit of play: in late December and into the middle of January, I was in Brazil.

Hanging out on the island of Ilha Grande, Brazil

One of the general outline, "fuzzy" goals I have for my financial independence is to stop putting up with winter. I hate the cold, I hate the snow, I hate the ice. I hate the added danger they bring to everyday activities. I get zapped by static electricity all the time. I can't keep the skin on my hands from drying out to the point that it cracks and bleeds. The endless gray days just suck the life out of me.

Fuck winter. Bottom line: Fuck. Winter.

So, knowing that I'm reaching the point where I can ease back on the work throttle a bit, I did. Last summer a friend invited me along on this approximately three week trip, so I jumped at the chance. It was the first time I've gone overseas in a non-military capacity (other than Canada and Mexico, that is), giving me the opportunity and the necessity to get my passport, finally.

And so a bit more than a month ago, there I was, in the southern hemisphere, experiencing summer in January. I was also there secure and relaxed in the knowledge that everything was paid for, that my affairs were continuing to run and fund themselves without me needing to be at work or looking in on them every single day, and that I had earned it. I finally experienced a dream, escaping from winter, and I was able to enjoy doing it, to be there basically without worries about how to sustain it.

And then something more happened, something that I haven't experienced in decades: I lost track of time. I'd find myself forgetting what day of the week it was, and other than where the sun was in the sky, not entirely sure of what time of day it was. Where I was and what I was experiencing began to take on a feeling of stretching out forever, and it was awesome!

This is the best of what I could have hoped for with this little test, that I could break away from work, not financially, but mentally. For a number of years I've been worried that when I get to this point that I'd be so addicted to working that I wouldn't be able to let myself stop. I'm aware of a "workaholic" tendency within myself, but I feel like this little test went so well that I may just be a bit over-pessimistic about that topic, and maybe it's just a case of not knowing myself as well as I think I do. Now, I think I'm going to do just fine.

And I think that very soon, not only will I be working if I choose to, but I'll also be cold if I choose to... :)

Friday, March 01, 2019

What About All That Bitcoin Stuff You Used To Write About?

It's true, I haven't used my blog for quite a while, and the last time I did I was updating on crypto stuff almost daily.

My last entry was in April of last year.

Given the seasonal swings of my main profession, pest control...

That was also during the big drop from $20k/BTC to where it is today (about $3.8k at the moment). All other cryptos experienced the same. The entire story then (and before, really) became about one thing: the price.

(And no, I haven't lost anything because a) you don't lose money unless you sell out of a down position and realize a loss, and b) I have an average price per coin of $800 anyway.)

There was and still is so much more going on under the hood, but the price continues to be the only thing people focus on.

Reports are starting to emerge now that the price action appears to be changing. There's been a series of "up" days that occurred in these past few weeks, and within the last 24 hours stories are beginning to appear talking of "accumulation."

The main thing I've been keeping tabs on, however, is Bakkt.

Is the "crypto winter" over? Who knows. It doesn't cost anything to HODL, so that's what I've been doing (other than nibbling at BTC a bit around the $3200-$3500 range).

I just keep in mind what I witnessed when I was a fledgling stock broker back in late 2001, early 2002: shares of Amazon at $4, after having been as high as $400. And now...

My Blog Is Better Than Facebook

I spend a fair amount of my free time online. That's for constructive purposes and for entertainment purposes, with the bulk of that time going to entertainment (a lot of my constructive online stuff is on autopilot, so I don't have to spend much time with it all). For years a lot of that time went into Facebook.

To rephrase: a lot of that time went into enriching a bunch of openly hypocritical libtard pricks.

If you're using social media like Facebook, Instagram, etc., you're pretty much working for free building something extremely valuable. You, me, and everyone else around the world pushed Facebook's revenue to around $56 BILLION (USD) last year.

Long story short: they basically take your demographic info, displayed interests (group affiliations, clicks on links, interactions with others, etc.) and market that information. Advertisers pay a pretty penny for it because it's considered to be highly filtered, precise information that can be used to make efficient, high return advertising spends.

How much of that cash flow did you see?

Right, none. Me neither. And another long story short, I'm done enriching those left wing lunatic, anti-west, anti-tradition, pro-degeneracy, and openly anti-white racists any longer.

Their site makes them money and costs me my time and my dignity. My blog makes me money in exchange for my time; why spend any of my time for the benefit of those assholes at Facebook? I've decided then that content I create online should be that which can fill my pocket instead. So, here I am, dusting this blog off (again).

If you are going to use Facebook, take my advice: create a fictitious persona with as little demographic info provided (and none if it based on you). The data they sell to advertisers becomes complete trash if people on their network are all operating behind anonymous avatars...

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Zucc This

Facebook doesn't deserve me; I think I'll invest my energy here instead...

Search Paul E.

Disclosure Policy - Privacy Policy
jenna jameson chasey lain tera patrick briana banks sunny leone lanny barby stefani morgan savanna samson monique alexander cassidey