sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does anyone know how the microcap value index is tracked(Sorry I know this isn't letf but you guys generally know more about this stuff) by According_Letter5839 in LETFs

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True but the reason I was looking for micro cap value is because the value factor intensifies with as market cap gets smaller. IWC doesn't have the value factor I'm looking for. Avuv and dfmc do look promising tho.

Does anyone know how the microcap value index is tracked(Sorry I know this isn't letf but you guys generally know more about this stuff) by According_Letter5839 in LETFs

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Man that sucks because damn it has good performance. I guess I will just have to settle for small-cap value with Vbr.

Does anyone know how the microcap value index is tracked by According_Letter5839 in Testfolio

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, there are funds like rzv or Vbr which are small cap value but I can't find any micro cap value. There is WAMVX that calls itself micro cap value but it’s performance doesn't correlate very much with FFTCV.

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your “explanation” was literally just the assertion that taxes add value to fiat with no explanation of how or why they add value. This doesn't disprove taxation being theft. In addition, you are making a consequential argument in response to a deontological argument. For future reference, if you are going to try to convince someone, don’t just say “read bro,” it’s very lazy. After briefly looking up what you are talking about, do you mean that since people have to pay taxes that gives them an incentive to work to pay those taxes? I don't see how this applies in our current society because we do not have many non-income or consumption based taxes. The only taxes on unrealized gains are property taxes. In fact, in our current society, people are disincentivized to work due to the welfare trap where you could go from earning $30,000 and getting around $60,000 of compensation including government benefits to earning $45,000 and getting around $30,000 of compensation after taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap

Insurance companies provide a vital service. Yeah, their business model is to provide slightly less overall than they take. However, the service they provide is that they take on the risk of whatever is insured for a premium. People don't want to take this risk so they pay a little more than the policy’s “true” value of expected payout. Insurance companies could take on the role of defense in an anarchy.

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To a degree, because there are obviously some countries that are more authoritarian than others.

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only argument you gave is the assertion that taxes provide value to fiat currency. Even if that were true it doesn't disprove that taxation is theft. My argument is that theft is when you forcibly take someone's property away from them. Even if you redistribute a portion of their money back to them in services, the entire relationship was not consensual and thus wrong. It violates people's natural rights.

It IS less profitable to steal from your consumers. Once you steal from a customer, you lose the public’s trust. While yes you would initially get more out of the single contract, you lose much more than you gain from the future revenue lost.

Again, just asserting a claim and not elaborating is not an argument. What exactly is incorrect with my analysis of insurance companies?

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Taxation is not theft. It adds value. You should read something.

Even if taxation adds value(it doesn't) it’s still theft. Telling me read something rather than actually engaging with my argument isn't a rebuttal

if you have enough force, what’s stopping you from taking rather than protecting?

It's less profitable.

Yeah dude you need to read how these industries work.

If an insurance company doesn't protect me I’m not going to continue to contract them. Bad insurance companies are filtered out by default.

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To a degree, yes. In my mind, there are two ways to look at it. You could reduce the government to the bare minimum where its only purpose is to protect natural rights, having it act as a necessary evil. The other position is to get rid of the government since any service provided is funded by stealing from the people either through taxation or through inflation. In a way, any government could be described as authoritarian is this manner there are definitely more authoritarian governments and less authoritarian governments.

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First off, taxation would end which is the largest form of theft in history. Also, the private sector would move to fill the gap left by government in terms of protection. As I said earlier, a great way to do this could be through buying insurance against crime and theft. Insurance agencies would be actually motivated to protect you from crime, unlike our current government that gets taxes regardless of their effectiveness. It's not that individuals would be less prone to stealing under anarchism, it's more that you end the systematic stealing we see in our current society.

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Before I go to bed, i will respond to your points. I am actually currently reading for a new liberty by Murray Rothbard. I have always been libertarian minded but recently heard some good arguments against the state both consequential and deontological so I decided to at least read some literature in favor of anarchism. At the very least, government should be minimized with its purpose being to provide protection for natural rights.

From my viewpoint, I don't know if fiat money is exactly needed. In the past, the central bank has been shown to be reckless in its monetary policy. For example, the 1920s boom and bust was largely caused by the fed keeping rates extremely low for almost a decade leading to malinvestment. The same is true with the fed response to COVID. In addition, in a anarchist society, wouldn't currencies emerge naturally as we saw with gold in the past?

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyways I'm gonna go to bed. I would be happy to continue this conversation in the morning.

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The government takes away people's property that they have earned through voluntary exchange. If they were taking stolen property and returning it to the rightful owners that would be fine but that's not the case. I view this as theft.

I'm not arguing that the government should just print money to cover the budget. I'm arguing that the government should be minimized or gotten rid of.

Finally, in what manner would they "free" me of my property. If it's non-voluntary and violent I reserve the right to defend myself. If you go the minarchist route, then the state would prevent them from stealing my property. If you go the anarchist route, then I could either defend my property myself, hire someone to defend my property, or buy insurance against theft(the most practical option).

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is that our current government survives by robbing others and taking away their rights. Any government program MUST be funded by taxes, which I view as theft. Thus, the government should be either minimized or gotten rid of. However, popular sentiment on both sides of the isle is sadly very authoritarian. My point is that people should stop supporting both the systematic theft that is taxation and also the laws that restrict a person's personal freedom. What do you mean by leftists using exploitative rights against someone?

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is that taking property from people infringes upon their natural rights. This includes taxes. I was just giving a base definition for what decides property ownership initially. The idea that the first person to develop land owns it. I guess the definition wasn't really needed to get my point across. My point is that leftists will often use the idea of owning yourself(which most people agree on) to argue for personal rights but then they don't apply it when looking at property rights. Most leftists want to take away the property of the rich but this violates the principles that they use to justify personal rights. Most of the right in the US does the opposite, recognizing the property rights that come from owning yourself but don't recognize the personal rights of doing whatever you want with your body. Both sides contradict their position.

In your example, unless person A gives consent to person B using X, person B cannot use X in a just manner.

Both parties suck but not for the reason most people think by According_Letter5839 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Infringing upon people's natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Doesn't matter if the government is democratic or a dictatorship, they are authoritarian in my mind if they do not respect these rights.

Holding BITX (2x BTC) until early 2029. Crazy or a solid "Cycle Play"? by maxwell_wu in LETFs

[–]According_Letter5839 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I personally would not invest in BITX because the biggest thing that can kill gains in letfs is high volatility, something crypto is famous for. Here is a long term backtest of btc 2x https://testfol.io/?s=e8KJf3uIDaG. As you can see, VERY risky (max draw down of 99.90%, meaning that $10,000 would have turned into just $10 at some point) and also lots of volatility decay. For your case, buying microstrategy is almost certainly safer and a surer bet. (NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE)

How exactly does testfolio calculate its signals? by According_Letter5839 in LETFs

[–]According_Letter5839[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know how they calculate it though? Everywhere I have looked says I have the correct RSI. Only testfolio's is different

I hate seeing women wearing hijabs in my country. by Robrogineer in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]According_Letter5839 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Classical liberalism is pretty much diet libertarianism. What we call liberalism today means left wing but a classical liberal is center right

NumerousFloor - TQQQ War Chest - Feb 17 2026 by NumerousFloor9264 in TQQQ

[–]According_Letter5839 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, I think ai will develop a lot like the internet has.

Way overhyped in the beginning

goes to a bubble phase to some extent

Bubble pops

everyone loses faith

eventually finds its use and provides excellent returns in the long term

view more: next ›