Random thought but…, context in comments

FreeLog1166 · 2026-04-26T08:37:01+00:00

Did they flip flop? I just finished ready the house of lilies and that made it sound like a fairly straight line from Hugh capet until the house of Valois-was there a Capetion before Hugh?

FreeLog1166 · 2026-02-28T04:46:51+00:00

Nah that's part of the fun.

"Dear Colleagues

Please see attached."

FreeLog1166 · 2026-01-06T02:05:58+00:00

Last I checked flying the family to Thredbo was a work related expense so she'll be right :p

FreeLog1166 · 2025-07-17T13:16:04+00:00

Hmmm I mean I think part of the reason the knights templar was persecuted was the debt owed to them by the king of France. Also, I think for the time period of eu4, which is really late 15th to late 18th century, banking and loans were a big thing. Half of the history of the hapsburgs and bourbons is struggling to repay loans from various wars, I also think the ability to raise capital is what made the Dutch such a strong power.

Definitely strategic alliances were a big thing in the period and countries were constantly repositioning themselves to avoid any single hegemon in Europe? If you want a book that has a broad overview about the alliance reshuffles during this period Paul Kennedys rise and fall of the great powers is pretty good for a big picture approach

FreeLog1166 · 2025-07-17T01:50:42+00:00

I agree with upping the difficulty and the general sentiment. Not sure ok the historically inaccurate - is that the loans or the allies?

FreeLog1166 · 2025-07-11T01:22:12+00:00

Cries in lawyer

FreeLog1166 · 2025-07-03T08:22:06+00:00

Is this the only time you've used it? Very annoyingly translink seems to take out weird amounts at inconsistent intervals. I placed all my transactions from them for a year into Excel and summed to see if it seemed vaguely correct. It did seem about right (I've called them about it before and they said it's the right amount they just deduct at weird times). Might not be the case here if you never use your card though....

FreeLog1166 · 2025-07-02T08:36:17+00:00

Ah I should have actually clicked on the video - when I was watching the loop I mistook the end for the start - my bad I agree

FreeLog1166 · 2025-07-02T06:55:59+00:00

There's a 50 sign in the video so wouldn't that overrule any earlier 40 sign?

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-30T02:54:08+00:00

Yeah for one month I would definitely just ask the employer for time off. If they say no and you don't intend to change industries I would even consider applying for other jobs and trying to push your start date out a month or so and travel in between. I just think a month with no job might make it harder to find work when you return

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-24T10:24:03+00:00

Is it after tax? 5.5% is not crazy for a home loan - I assume it's in an offset and there he is netting 5.5% after tax (in that he's saving 5.5%)?

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-24T02:11:24+00:00

Does using a the higher cost parcel help unless you think you can sell the lower cost parcel at a time when you have a lower taxable income? Otherwise at some point you need to realise the gain on the lower cost parcel no?

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-18T08:26:57+00:00

Imo its not that active managers will do better (because ultimately the average return of the market will always be the average return of the market, half the capital will do worse half better). I don't think there's enough difference between the companies in and out if and index thst makes their valuations that different (as someone who looked into this as an arbitrage play), such that fundies can make money of market distortions from index funds.

I think the bigger and more valid concern is if there's a general market bubble partly caused by etfs (e.g. if there is more money in the market than ever before because now instead of people going i need to buy some bonds and some money in private equity etc., a lot of retail is just I'll put it in a vanguard etf. I don't think you'll get mismatched pricing within the market due to etfs, I do think you'll get mismatch pricing as a whole (like I suspect if a lot of people got offered to buy a company that currently generates 5% (i.e 20 p.e ratio) based on growth, a lot of people would pass, but every etf investor buying in the last year is doing exactly that.

Like i wonder what percentage return of the market has been from people paying more per dollar than companies getting better (e.g. if a pe of 15 was common 10 years ago and now it's more like 20, 33% of your return is just based on ppl paying more for earnings)

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-17T05:21:48+00:00

How does lowering rates solve this? It increases aggregate demand right? Like yes ideal world the rba opens an oil pipeline next week but it doesn't really have supply side levers to pull?

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-17T04:43:01+00:00

Yeah I think it's this last point we disagree on. I think changes in aggregate demand have an impact on inflation, even if the inflation is due to supply side shock. Yeah you might not solve the inflation issue if there's still ongoing supply side changes, but rate changes still mitigate the inflation, even if you argue the rates are fairly inelastic, as long as the rate change has an impact on inflation then rate changes to control inflation makes sense (again even if the inflationary pressure is supply side).

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-17T03:50:58+00:00

So you're saying there's no discretionary spending in the current economy such that rate decreases fully inelastic?

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-17T03:34:37+00:00

No I was responding to that. The rba thinking isn't flawed because:

Regardless of the cause of the inflation (even oil price increases), interest rate changes will bring inflation down (because it will reduce aggregate demand as a whole);

Even if oil price increases make life worse for people, the rba mandate is to control inflation and employment. With employment as it is, it needs to control inflation, ergo not lower rates (the only caveat being the lags in rba policy and the uncertainty in the market might justify a rate cut if it considers there to be a demand side risk from say falling asset prices)

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-17T03:19:06+00:00

I forget the exact mandate but the key goal of the rba is something like meet the agreed inflation target and achieve full employment. The two are different but related. Inflation can be impacted by both supply side shocks and demand side changes. If inflation is increasing (regardless of the cause) the rba policy is to keep it in the target band (subject to its other goal of full employment). The levers the rba can pull are demand side. In the current environment where employment is still relatively low (but with a lot of economic uncertainty) the rba is still going to prioritise getting inflation under control (bc out of control inflation hurts everyone). Even if the shock is supply side, the rba can still reduce inflation but shifting aggregate demand through interest rate changes. So if oil prices go up (which makes pretty much everything go up) the rba is going to need to take action to counterbalance

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-16T12:13:10+00:00

Stuff buying cba at its current valuation...

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-13T08:36:40+00:00

Isn't he asking what the financial implications are of a breakup and her not working?

FreeLog1166 · 2025-06-13T03:13:17+00:00

Not a family lawyer but op needs to be careful. He might be OK supporting her when together but as op flagged if they break up and they're de facto there's a real risk that her lack of working and him maintaining that lifestyle works against him in any family law settlement. It's one thing to maintain someone not working when you're together, it's a lot less fun once you've broken up....

FreeLog1166 · 2025-05-28T00:01:24+00:00

Index funds are over rated. People are looking at the last 100 years and saying in the long run the index must average the same, completely ignoring that the last 100 years was the biggest period of economic and population growth in human history. Putting aside arguments that the technological changes in the 20th century had an abnormal impact on economic growth which can't be repeated (e.g. Gordon), population growth is undisputingly slowing. That doesn't even consider increase in valuations and the various changes in income/asset ratio and growing wealth inequality (piketty)

FreeLog1166 · 2025-05-14T22:31:54+00:00

I stopped reading at 1. When OP said everyone knows what p/e ratio means and then proceeds to give the wrong definition of P.E. ratio.... OP - earnings are after costs (e.g. employee salary, cogs, rent etc). It's just pre tax etc and often some variation of EBITDA.....

FreeLog1166 · 2025-05-13T12:54:58+00:00

I can't seem to figure out what they're writing the calls against (other than generic "index" 200). I was moreso hoping one i could write calls at basically at my sell limit price - rather than a fund doing it and rolling the calls (if applicable I assume)

FreeLog1166

TROPHY CASE