Cautious Optimism

These 60 Minutes clowns are out here crying about “dictatorship” and “overlords” because management finally grew a spine and started firing some of their protected producers. Scott Pelley got his ass handed to him after he tried to throw his weight around, and now the remaining three are leaking memos like a bunch of backstabbing cowards, pretending this is some noble stand for journalism. Bullshit. For years these arrogant pricks ran that show like their own private propaganda outlet, shielded from any real consequences while they pushed whatever narrative they wanted. Now that someone above them is actually making decisions, suddenly they’re the victims of tyranny. Spare me the fucking act. They’re not defending journalism ... they’re throwing a tantrum because they lost the ability to do whatever the hell they wanted with zero accountability. And the best part? They wrote a much harsher version of their little memo, full of accusations and rage, then got scared, watered it down, and leaked the meaner draft to a friendly reporter so they could still get their shots in without fully owning it. Spineless. These are the same people who spent years acting like they were the last line of defense against darkness, and the second they get told no, they start leaking documents and whining about how the newsroom isn’t a “dictatorship.” Fuck them. This isn’t some grand tragedy for journalism. It’s what happens when an entitled, ideological clique finally gets dragged out of their protected bubble and forced to deal with actual management. They can cry about independence and integrity all they want ... everyone watching knows exactly what this really is. They’re just pissed they don’t get to run the place anymore. (article below)

Here's a proposal: Confiscate every dollar of wealth above $10 million and redistribute it. Everyone gets roughly $100,000 once. Then what? The factories, businesses, investments, and productive capital that generated that wealth are damaged, sold off, or flee. Future investment collapses. Economic growth slows. The one time payout gets spent. Redistribution is a plan for consuming wealth. The real question isn't how to divide what exists today. It's how to create more tomorrow.

@catturd2 And there will still be absolutely nothing that they can do about it

The California Democrat cheating machine will never let Spencer Pratt advance in the LA mayor race. However, this is finally going to wake up millions of Americans across this nation to see just how rigged the California elections are for Democrats.

Every serious conversation about this war eventually runs into the same wall. People want to litigate 1948, the British Mandate, the Ottoman Empire, and every border dispute since the Bronze Age. They’ll spend hours on history because history is safe. It lets them avoid the only question that actually decides what happens next. What would each side do if it had the power to do whatever it wanted? One side has been extremely clear about the answer. Its founding documents call for the elimination of Israel. Its leaders have repeated that goal before and after October 7th. It even put an old hadith in its charter predicting that the end times won’t arrive until Muslims chase down and kill every last Jew. When it controlled Gaza, it spent years turning foreign aid into the largest underground military complex in history instead of building anything for its own people. It then used those same civilians as shields, shot the ones who tried to leave, and still remained the most popular faction among Palestinians. The other side has also been clear. When it has had the upper hand, it has repeatedly offered deals, withdrawals, and the chance for the people on the other side to build something. The consistent pattern is that if the side that wants Jewish corpses laid down its weapons tomorrow, the killing would stop. If the side that wants a Jewish state laid down its weapons tomorrow, the killing would not stop. That’s why the history lectures never end. Because once you force the conversation onto what each side actually wants to do with power, the moral fog evaporates. One side’s maximum ambition is the destruction of the other. The other side’s maximum ambition, at its worst, has been containment and occasional retaliation. Pretending those two positions are equivalent requires ignoring everything both sides have said and done when they thought no one was watching. The dodge only works if you refuse to ask the question. (article below)

Context matters , agreed. But you’re conflating two separate arguments Nobody credible is judging your cost basis. They’re judging your thesis, sizing, and risk management. Those are completely different things. Yes, a Bitcoin buyer at $4,000 is still up massively at $60,000. Congratulations. That says nothing about whether riding it from $125K to $60K, a $65,000 per-coin drawdown, was a sound decision. Sunk cost reasoning dressed up as “context” is still sunk cost reasoning. "I’m still up from entry” has never been a risk management framework. The MSTR example is even weaker. MicroStrategy is a leveraged Bitcoin proxy that trades at a premium to NAV. (Most of the time) Being up 10x and then surrendering 70% of that gain isn’t a badge of honor, it’s a case study in why position sizing and exit discipline exist. The long term holder argument collapses the moment you acknowledge that most retail participants did not buy at the floor. There’s also a subtle sleight of hand here: you’re using the savvy early adopter as a shield for everyone holding through a drawdown, as if all holders share the same cost basis. They don’t. Distribution matters. The real lesson isn’t “don’t judge without knowing cost basis.” It’s that mark-to-market losses are real losses, in opportunity cost if nothing else, and rationalizing drawdowns as irrelevant because your entry was low is how disciplined investors become bag holders waiting for a return to highs that may never come. Context matters. So does the part you left out.

Some people seem genuinely confused about how investing works. Your average Bitcoin purchase price can be below $5,000 but when it drops from $125,000 to $60,000 they will call you a terrible capital allocator. You can be up 10x on $MSTR but after a 70% correction they will call you a terrible investor. It is fascinating to watch people mock others during a bear market with absolutely no knowledge of their cost basis. A position can be down 80% over the last 12 months and still up multiples from entry. Context matters, do not forget that.

Calling this “pure manipulation” assumes the only reason Bitcoin can fall is if someone is cheating. Markets don’t work that way. Every item on your list is fundamentally a demand-side or narrative argument. ETFs exist. Strategy owns more. Politicians are friendlier. Accounting rules improved. Treasury companies emerged. The problem is that price is set at the margin, not by a checklist of bullish developments. If all of those factors were already known and priced in, Bitcoin can still fall when marginal buyers step away, leverage gets unwound, ETFs see outflows, traders de-risk, or holders decide they need liquidity. A declining price is not evidence of manipulation. Sometimes it’s simply evidence that there are more motivated sellers than buyers at that moment. If “Bitcoin is down despite all this good news” automatically proves manipulation, then every asset that ever fell after positive developments would be manipulated.

The last time Bitcoin was under $60,000. - The ETFs were only 9 months old - We didn’t have a U.S. strategic reserve - BlackRock only had 360,000 BTC - Strategy only had 250,000 BTC - There were only ~ 50 public btc holders - “BTC treasury company” didn’t exist - No treasury company preferred stocks - FASB accounting was not in effect - No Genius Act - No Clarity Act - No Bitcoin President - No Bitcoin Cabinet - No pro Bitcoin Treasury Secretary - No pro Bitcoin Chair of the Fed This dump is PURE manipulation.

That’s a strange argument. If Bitcoin’s investment case depends on one highly leveraged corporate buyer continuously absorbing supply, that is not evidence of a healthy, decentralized asset. It’s evidence of concentration risk. And “imagine where the price would be without Saylor” cuts both ways. If one buyer can materially support the market on the way up, what happens when that buyer slows, stops, or eventually becomes a seller? Markets that require a permanent buyer of last resort are usually more fragile than their supporters admit.

The absurdity of blaming Saylor. He’s been the single most consistent and ardent buyer in the market for years. I shudder to think what Bitcoin price would be right now without him. You should be thanking him.

Mainstream media, once a bastion of clear-eyed liberalism, now peddles selective outrage: George Floyd’s death warranted wall-to-wall coverage, global sanctimony, and policy upheaval. Henry Nowak…an 18-year-old student stabbed to death, then handcuffed while bleeding out after his killer weaponized a false racism claim…gets a shrug and a scold about ‘dangerous’ talk of anti-white prejudice. If a suspect’s lie can override a dying boy’s pleas, and elite media dismisses the pattern as populist grudge-mongering, that’s not journalism. It’s two-tier morality: some victims elevate narratives, others threaten them. Equal justice isn’t a ‘dark turn’…it’s the bare minimum. Pretending otherwise erodes trust in media faster than any protest.@Keir_Starmer @nytimes @Nigel_Farage

The U.S. government does not need to buy $MSTR for $100 billion to acquire Bitcoin. It can buy Bitcoin, seize Bitcoin, hold forfeited Bitcoin, regulate Bitcoin, tax Bitcoin, or do nothing at all. Also, “5% of supply with zero slippage” ignores the entire problem: once the government signals it wants 1 million Bitcoin, the price moves before the first serious transaction clears. Buying Strategy would not hide that. It would advertise it. And why would taxpayers pay a huge premium for a levered public company, preferred stock obligations, corporate liabilities, market risk, and Saylor governance theater, just to acquire an asset the government could hold directly? The “endgame” is much simpler: Saylor is running a leveraged Bitcoin vehicle. Maybe it works spectacularly. Maybe it doesn’t. But dressing it up as a secret patriotic handoff to the U.S. Treasury is not analysis.

Nobody understands the real endgame that Michael Saylor is playing. 1. 🪙 Accumulate 1 Million BTC into $MSTR (already 84% completed) 2. 🇺🇸Get bought out/absorbed by the U.S. Government for $100B to acquire 5% of the Bitcoin supply with 0 slippage 3. 💰Triple the Bitcoin price and make the U.S. Government another $150B overnight Michael Saylor isn't building a company, he’s serving the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve on a silver platter.

That’s a common misconception. Stadium economics aren’t driven by just 8 regular-season games. NFL venues host preseason games, playoffs, concerts, college football, soccer matches, conventions, corporate events, and other large gatherings. More importantly, teams often serve as anchor tenants for broader entertainment districts that generate property taxes, hotel taxes, restaurant revenue, tourism, and adjacent real estate development year-round. Whether the public subsidy is worth it is a fair debate, but the argument isn’t “8 games pay for a stadium.” The argument is that the stadium acts as a catalyst for a larger economic ecosystem. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s more complicated than counting home games.

@Houseofyogi You lost me at "Almost every NFL city throws in public money for a stadium. Not charity. The return is real." This isn't true for NFL. There are only 8 home games a year. That doesn't justify all the tax breaks.

Chicago lost the Bears this week. A team that's been in the city since 1921. They didn't lose them to a bigger market or a better deal. The Bears decided they'd rather be a tenant in Indiana than deal with Illinois for one more year. Think about how badly you have to run a place for that to be the smart move. They lost them for two reasons. The people running Illinois would rather villainize a builder than keep one. And they're bad at their jobs. In 2021 the Bears spent $197M on the old Arlington Park racetrack. Before they could break ground, Cook County valued the empty lot at $192M (Bears said $60M). They were salivating at the chance to extort a building that didn't even exist yet. That fight dragged on for years. The Bears were ready to put $2B into the stadium. All they wanted was a promise the county wouldn't reassess them into oblivion, plus $855M for infrastructure everyone uses. Roads, transit, utilities. A $3B project, two thirds of it private money pouring into Illinois. Springfield had since 2021 to get this done. They dragged it to the final night of session, passed it through the Senate at 3:39AM, and the House went home without voting. So now it's all gone. The funniest part? This started because Cook County tried to grab the tax early. They knew a built stadium would pay $53M a year. Now they get under $4M on a vacant lot. No jobs, no buildout, no new anything. Congrats on fighting for scraps and losing the whole prize. Pritzker: they're "an $8.5B valued business" that doesn't need propping up. But be smart for a second. Almost every NFL city throws in public money for a stadium. Not charity. The return is real. Tourism, hotels, restaurants, jobs, game days, property tax on a huge development. The math works. Indiana did the math. While Illinois sat on it for years, Indiana passed a bill in months, put up $1B, and took the team. And the Bears took a worse deal to get there. In Illinois they were going to own their stadium. In Indiana they rent it from the state. A team that wanted to build its own home gave up ownership just to escape Chicago. Nobody won but Indiana. The Bears lost their stadium. Illinois lost the team, the $2B, and $53M a year in taxes. Pritzker after they left: "I wasn't willing to give up billions of dollars of taxpayer money to give it to a billionaire-owned family or team." There it is. "Billionaire-owned." That's how Democrats talk about any business right before they run it out of town. Call them a billionaire, act like you're saving working families, take a victory lap while the tax base drives across the state line. Meanwhile they're running the whole state into the ground. And you already know how this ends. You're living in it. Pensions are $143B in the hole, worst in the country and not close. You pay $6,285 a year in property taxes, double the $2,969 national average, for a city that's $1.15B in the red. The mayor called its finances "the point of no return." When you run things this badly, you sell what's left. They leased the parking meters for 75 years to Morgan Stanley and a sovereign wealth fund in Abu Dhabi. Took $1.15B and burned through it in two years. The investors already made it all back, with 58 years left to collect. Sold the Skyway. Sold the downtown garages. Every asset that made money, gone for one check. But a fixed property tax rate for a team that's been here 106 years? That's "propping up billionaires." Companies are leaving. Boeing for Virginia. Caterpillar for Texas. Citadel for Miami. In 2023 alone Illinois lost 56,000 people and $6B in income to other states. The ones who left earned a third more than the ones who moved in. Indiana didn't outbid anyone. AAA credit, 16 years straight. A $676M surplus. Fourth-lowest debt per person in the country. They just weren't a disaster. Illinois could have collected $53M a year. It chose zero. Ignore all the bad management but make sure to stick it to those evil, pesky billionaires.

Sending ballots in the mail to people who moved out of California years ago is corrupt. Sending ballots in the mail to people who didn’t request one is corrupt. Sending ballots in the mail to every address someone has lived in for the past 10 years is corrupt. Letting activists sign up mentally unstable people for a ballot by using phony addresses is corrupt. Not letting third party law enforcement officials check the voter rolls is corrupt. Letting one political party control the entire process for decades leads to corruption.

Milton Friedman's greatest regret. The federal government discovered the perfect crime in 1943: make employers collect taxes before workers ever see their paychecks. You think you earn $60,000 per year, but you actually earn $75,000 and hand over $15,000 to politicians without ever touching it. The psychological difference is enormous. Before payroll withholding, Americans wrote quarterly checks directly to the Treasury. Picture yourself sitting at your kitchen table, writing a $3,750 check to the IRS every three months. The pain was immediate and visceral. Politicians faced constant pressure to justify every dollar because citizens felt the extraction in real time. Withholding transforms this concrete loss into an abstract accounting entry. Your employer becomes an unpaid tax collector, and you never experience the actual cost of government. Worse, most people celebrate their tax refunds as government generosity rather than recognizing them as interest-free loans they provided to politicians. The Treasury collects your money throughout the year, spends it immediately, then returns your own cash and receives gratitude. This system enables the explosion in government spending you witness today. Defense contractors billing $640 for toilet seats, agricultural subsidies for corn syrup, and congressional salaries for 535 people who rarely show up to work. When taxation feels painless, voters stop demanding accountability for how their money gets spent. Milton Friedman helped design withholding as a wartime emergency measure and later called it his greatest regret. Free market economists recognized that the psychological pain of direct taxation creates political pressure for fiscal restraint. The temporary always becomes permanent in government hands, and the emergency justification disappears while the extraction mechanism remains forever.

If Strategy has to raise preferred coupons to 15%, issue ever more shares, sell Bitcoin, or suspend dividends to stay afloat, that doesn’t mean the risks disappeared. It means the risks showed up and management responded. None of those outcomes are free. A 15% coupon increases financing costs. Issuing shares dilutes existing holders. Selling Bitcoin undermines the ‘never sell’ narrative. Suspending dividends likely hurts market access and investor confidence. The question isn’t whether Strategy has options. The question is what happens to shareholders if those options become necessary.

Saylor won't go bankrupt. The dividend will continue to be paid. If he has to raise the coupon to 15% to get to par, he will raise to 15%. And in the unlikely scenario he can't, he will either sell BTC or more shares of MSTR. And in the even more unlikely scenario that fails, he will just suspend the dividend and wait. There is no liquidition scenario.

Maybe, but that's not a law of nature. It's also possible that an asset requiring holders to endure repeated 50%+ drawdowns, while producing no cash flow, naturally gravitates toward people who can afford to ignore volatility. The question is whether that makes it a successful monetary asset or simply a speculative asset owned disproportionately by those wealthy enough not to need liquidity. If the average person has to sell when life happens and the wealthy can hold indefinitely, then "never sell" starts sounding less like a financial strategy and more like a luxury good.

@CautiousOptimi4 @Vivek4real_ Unfortunately it still is a good asset but over time it’ll end up concentrated in the hands of wealthier people

BLACKROCK, MICHAEL SAYLOR AND 200 COMPANIES ARE ALL BUYING BITCOIN WHY THE HELL PRICE KEEPS GOING DOWN??

@Chicago_Goofies Unite against White Supremacy

Fight outside the Harold Washington Library

It’s sickening to watch Democrats who screamed “Believe All Women” and lionized Christine Blasey Ford — despite zero corroboration — now dismiss allegations against Graham Platner simply because she’s a Republican . Ford got the Time cover, CBS, The View. A conservative woman gets a character assassination. Bear in mind, Dems aren’t forced to choose between a democrat and republican... they’re choosing a guy with a Nazi tattoo over a normal Democrat.

BINGO. There is no black unity. There is anti-white unity among a large swath of black Americans.

Pratt can’t be allowed to advance to November by the California Dem machine. Here’s why: His marketing style, given five more months to compete in a two-person race, will capture the attention of too many. He’s not likely to win a two-person general election, but something over 40% would be highly damaging to the influence the demons need to hold over the electorate. The ballot harvesting would cost Pratt the race in November, but the more success he has then requires the system to work even harder, with more exposure with each passing day. When someone has an awakening in the modern era, they don’t go back to sleep. Waking up 40% of LA sets up for a future the Dems can’t control. That’s why Pratt will be in third by Sunday. Can’t risk it.

The ugliest part of socialism is that in its obsession with attacking the rich, it often destroys opportunities for the poor. The goal stops being to lift people up and becomes making sure nobody rises too high. Equality becomes a war on success, while the political class somehow remains exempt, proving once again that some animals are more equal than others.

@w_terrence There isn't a wet eye in the House

Muslims Are Saying They’re Leaving America Because of Trump One Muslim woman said: “Due to Trump’s hate for Muslims, I have decided to leave the United States.” And she’s not the only one. Others are now saying they may leave America too because President Trump is back in office.