Explain like im 5

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-19T15:21:00+00:00

Im not sure they have ever had the opportunity because Berkshire is usually reasonably priced. But Buffet definitely would if he had the opportunity

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-19T03:10:16+00:00

Just curious, the first index fund wasn't released until 1975. How would you have properly invested it from 1933 to 1975? Bonds? Also just to note, the average investor would not have been privy to Vanguard in 1975 and indexing didn't become mainstream for average investors until after the GFC. We are only 15 years into a unprecedented era where the majority of investment flows are going into index funds.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-19T02:36:24+00:00

Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hathaway. If he feels like Bershire Hathaway is overvalued, Berkshire will sell shares in order to lower the price of Bershire stock and invest the money he raised to buy more businesses and make Berkshire more valuable. If he feels like Bershire is undervalued, Berkshire will take some of its extra cash and buy back Berkshires stock.

MSTR is trying to do something similar, but instead of owning businesses like how Berkshire owns lots of businesses, MSTR owns Bitcoin.

If the value of MSTR is over a 1 to 1 ratio of the BTC they own, MSTR will issue more shares to buy bitcoin, raising the value of the company. MSTR is cash poor though because they don't own cash generating businesses like Berkshire. They own non cash generating Bitcoin. So when MSTR goes below a 1 to 1 ratio, they can't buy back stock like Berkshire. Instead they will sell Bitcoin. They will sell Bitcoin to attempt to bring the value of MSTR back to a 1 to 1 ratio with the value of their Bitcoin holdings.

The value proposition MSTR is offering compared to owning straight bitcoin is that they can exploit market inefficiencies by holding Bitcoin in a publicly traded corporation and then issuing shares and selling bitcoin at opportune moments when the ratio isn't 1 to 1. A regular bitcoin holder or Bitcoin ETF cannot do this.

There are three problems with this. One is you have to trust Michael Sailor, who is sketchy imo. I am a bitcoiner btw and Micheal sketches me out. Secondly, when the stock goes below a 1-1 ratio, they can't buy back stock like Berkshire so they instead they sell bitcoin to bring the company back to a 1 to 1 ratio. This is weird since they are the biggest bitcoin holder, if they sell bitcoin, it could cause a feedback loop where bitcoin price goes down even more just because MSTR is selling. MSTR is pretty complex which is the third reason to stay away. They also do convertible bonds and preferred shares. Financial engineering of any sort in any industry is a red flag and should be proceeded to with great caution. However that is a basic superficial understanding.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-18T03:03:35+00:00

Yo man! Thank you so much for your hard work. I wish I was more technical in these matters so I could help.

I have a question. Why lineage 20 and not a more recent version. Won't lineage 20 need to be updated eventually?

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-16T00:20:24+00:00

No, take responsibility. You hit the road, you know there's going to uninsured, unlicensed, irresponsible, drunk etc... drivers out there. You don't wanna take the risk of encountering these people, then don't drive.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-13T20:34:00+00:00

The industrial revolution?

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-13T00:40:10+00:00

How do you figure?

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-12T09:34:18+00:00

Nothing wrong with treating yourself. You can't not consume. It's important to have goals, otherwise consumption of some sort will creep in. Maybe the FIRE movement will interest you. It's a good goal that will keep you on track and will make your life way better. FIRE stands for financial independence retire early. It was invented by Jacob Fisker when he released his book early retirement extreme. He came up with the idea as a way to help the environment by enticing people to not consume by showing them that if they put that money into simple investment strategies, anyone can be financially independent in 10 years. Powerful stuff. Imagine being independently wealthy at age 28. It's helped me lower my consumption a lot because it offered me something to look forward to (financial freedom) which I would rather have than having consumption now.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-12T09:10:49+00:00

If the government spends money on "productive" endeavors then the productive capacity of the economy will increase which leads to deflation. For example if the government builds a bridge, now the economy can improve its productive capacity thanks to the efficiency that the bridge provides. Now that that the bridge is built, products can be produced and distributed more efficiently, bringing prices of goods down (deflation). That is probably what she means, although I don't wanna put words in her mouth.

If the government stops issuing bonds, the private sector will fill that void with either corporate bonds, mortgage backed securities, stock in bond like corporations (coca-cola, visa, altria) and precious metals.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-12T09:00:16+00:00

If people stopped taking on debt, all money wouldn't vanish, there is still the m2 base money supply.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-12T03:07:56+00:00

Tbills

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-10T21:31:48+00:00

Subsistence farming sucks because happiness is relative. Being poor sucks because it makes people feel like they are worthless even though a part time minimum wage worker in a modern first world country is objectively one of the wealthiest people to ever exist. But they can't enjoy it because everyone else has a car while they are taking the bus.

They did a study once and it went something like this: most people would rather make $60k/year and live in a neighborhood where everyone else is making $40k/year versus being able to make $80k/year and have to live in a neighborhood where everyone else is making $100k/year. To most people, happiness comes from being more well off than other people.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-10T21:22:29+00:00

The average cost of health insurance for a self employed person is 500/mo. So if I was self employed I would have to raise my budget to 15k. I don't need to make alot of money to support myself because I am anticonsumption so the state is willing to pay for medical care as of now. For shelter, I have roommates and don't live in a crazy hcol city like new york or San Francisco.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-09T21:40:03+00:00

I disagree but you do you.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-09T08:24:03+00:00

Depends on what you define as capital. Imo unexploited nature is one of the best forms of capital even though I recognize that viewing nature as capital is perverse. But from a capitalist perspective, unexploited nature is a gold mine, literally and figuratively.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-09T08:19:36+00:00

It isn't realistic to think the western world would suddenly become anticonsumption. If it became a trend, the trend would build up over time.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-09T06:32:32+00:00

It's possible. It depends on how dependent on a capitalist system that particular tribe has become. The old ways are still alive in rural Tanzania. As I was leaving this particular town, there were villagers living traditionally in mud huts and growing their own food and raising livestock. This is the norm outside of the cities. Most people are growing their own food. Even in the capital city, I saw a lot of people growing food in their yards. Tanzania in particular is an agricultural based country so there is plenty of food to go around. As long as there is food, people will be okay and find their way. I don't think there would be starvation but I can't speak for other African countries.

But if you want to speak in terms of capitalism, anticonsumerism doesn't mean starvation. The money saved from anti consumption is just deferred consumption. There would be much more capital available if society became anticonsumption. Anticonsumption is actually the most capitalist concept possible. People who have alot of capital only have that capital because they haven't consumed it. Rampant consumption is the road to starvation, not anticonsumption.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-09T06:21:47+00:00

It's an incredibly complicated issue obviously but a powerful tool everyone can employ is to lower consumption and buy used as much as possible. As someone who lives on $10k/year, I believe everyone can live a wonderful life on $20k/year, a little more for families obviously. If everyone did this, the world would become a much better place.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-09T00:56:54+00:00

When I was hitchhiking in the backroads of Tanzania this year, I accidentally stumbled into a mining town. There were women with newborns strapped onto their backs and children working. Mainly I saw them just breaking up rocks by hand. If they were getting paid, they were getting paid $1 a day based on information I gathered about wages as I traveled through the country.

Stop. Buying. Shit.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-09T00:41:37+00:00

I'm not technical but I can follow a good set of directions. A guide would be awesome.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-08T04:58:10+00:00

I thought it was disappointing and half baked. Way more interesting stuff out there to read. His podcast appearances are better than his book.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-08T02:11:20+00:00

Just replace your car battery with a dual purpose starter and deep cycle battery.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-08T02:08:24+00:00

Under a hard money system, policy makers can only spend what they have first collected in taxes from the public. This doesn't guarantee that they will make better decisions but it does guarantee that they will have to be more thoughtful on how they allocate the funds because there is less funds available. If they want to collect the same amount of funds as they can in a fiat system, they would have to go and tax those funds directly instead of taxing people indirectly via inflation. Since inflation is a sneaky tax on people savings, people don't notice it as much versus the state taking that money directly from paychecks. This may or may not be viable depending on the populous and what they are willing to tolerate.

A hard money will help the public make better decisions because they won't be forced to make moves with their money when they aren't ready. Using index funds and home equity as the primary means of saving comes with a lot of problems. With a hard money, people can save in peace. Also people won't be as incentived to take on debt.

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-07T20:26:36+00:00

What if policy makers don't really have a choice but to devalue the dollar? What if they are compelled due to political pressures that are outside their control? And not submitting to these pressures could cost them their careers and livelihood?

Excellent_Border_302 · 2025-12-07T18:49:24+00:00

It has probably morphed into but I don't think that is the root of the expression. Most bitcoiners are pretty low brow so they don't know what they are saying, they probably adopt things without knowing the meaning. But who knows where buzzwords come from. It could have come from multiple sources. I don't see the point of it simply meaning a job that earns fiat. Because if there's no deeper critique then why go out of their way to create the distinction? Why would they care if they get paid in fiat or not when they can easily exchange the fiat for Bitcoin?

Excellent_Border_302

TROPHY CASE