nik

@bhataktakavi @sandeep_PT Correct, India is facing the worst case scenario. The productive & smart lot is already around 1.0, while the unproductive masses are still clocking 2.0+. The future is exceptionally bleak in such scenarios, as the country loses most of its intellectual prowess.

@RealNick05 @sandeep_PT TFR of 1.0 is already underway amongst the productive middle classes By the time they are finished this country wud have already gone to the dogs

Panic over collapsing fertility This is the daughter of India's IT Dhandho Nandan Nilekani. She is pushing the idea of 3 kids per family now, after India's fertility has collapsed to 1.9, and may touch 1.5 by 2030. Now this is something we all celebrate, subject to the simple condition that we get rich before we get old, etc. But can you guess why she is pushing this crazy idea? 1) If population starts reducing sharply from birth-side, most consumption Dhandho models, and government rent-seeking models too will begin to shrink. Horror! 2) The huge govt. surveillance machinery will have lesser and lesser to feed upon. 3) And since isn't an innovation nation, the world's interest in us will collapse faster than our fertility (as they can't sell ever more to us, any more). 4) Of course the daily fear of population explosion that WhatsApp University feeds into innocent minds will end too. Read again - Indian elite want more kids per family, not less, because their business gets whacked otherwise. For the sake of this nation, reject these Dhandhos and their predatory ideas. Surely this lady has no clue of how impossible it is for a regular middle-class family to educate even a second child now.

@Molson_Hart Bruh, even Indians don't gaslight themselves into believing unicorn shit the way you are.

I believe in India because I saw China transform in a way that I never thought possible. Yeah the buildings and trains are amazing, but the way people behaved changed completely. If China could, why can’t India? People blame genetics for behaviors that are driven by culture and incentives. India has a lot of disadvantages that China did not have: - more chaotic government - more languages, less national identity - AI poses a greater threat to their industries But India also has advantages that China did not have: - better English language skills (also can be a negative) - more accomplished diaspora who can return - rising in an era without a clear hegemonic power The things I see people mock India for, I saw firsthand in tier 3 city China 15 years ago. I watched a chef drop a wok of rice on the floor and put the rice right back into the wok. I saw a pile of manure that got dumped in the downtown. Broken glass and sharp wires at neck height everywhere. Gutter oil! Restaurants cooking with used oil from other restaurants. Is India more dysfunctional in states like Bihar than this? Yes, but I think they can fix it, just needs time, education, and different incentives. Will they match China? No one will ever, but they can be unique and great in their own Indian way.

@KobeissiLetter @sanjayuvacha Pretty reasonable stuff, unlike the 15 point nonsense.

BREAKING: Iran has delivered its highly anticipated "10-point" response to the US' "15-point peace plan." Iran's 10-point plan includes: 1. Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again 2. Permanent end to the war, not just a ceasefire 3. End to Israeli strikes in Lebanon 4. Lifting of all US sanctions on Iran 5. End to all regional fighting against Iranian allies 6. In return, Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz 7. Iran would impose a Hormuz fee of $2 million per ship 8. Iran would split these fees with Oman 9. Iran to provide rules for safe passage through Hormuz 10. Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of reparations President Trump's "deadline" for a peace deal with Iran is 25 hours away.

@BillAckman @X Fight the grifters, there is always an example to be made of grifters, and the cost of it pays off with the immense amount of PR and goodwill you will get, if you are on the right side.

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

@ANI Mani Shankar Aiyar was sooo ahead of the curve, he knew the man wayy before anyone!

#WATCH | Jaipur, Rajasthan: Former Union Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar says, "They (BJP leaders) claim that I am a descendant of Macaulay because I speak English... But does PM Modi know Tamil? Why not? So, whose descendant does that make him? He verbally attacked me, using such vile language, by claiming that I called him 'Neech' (low-born)... I said he is a 'Neech Kism Ka Aadmi' (low-minded individual)... they do this specifically because I am a Brahmin... Furthermore, he claims that I had said a tea-seller could not become Prime Minister... I did not say this... What I said was: how could a person, who is unaware that Sikandar never actually reached Pataliputra, or that while Nalanda is located in India, Taxila lies in Pakistan, possibly step into the shoes of Jawaharlal Nehru to become Prime Minister?... PM Modi himself claimed that he is a tea seller; yet, we later discovered that in his hometown, Vadnagar, no railway platform had even been constructed till 1973... Thus, by peddling such falsehoods and spreading such baseless rumours, he managed to elevate himself to the office of Prime Minister. In the process of doing so, whether through explicit statements or subtle insinuations, he has propagated such malicious narratives regarding Muslims that our country today has become utterly communalised. We have, in effect, created a communal society here..." (14.03)

@fintech_shark How about if all Politicians and Bureaucrats lose there jobs/postions and get banned from holding key central government positions the moment their offsprings take foreign citizenships.

India has maintained strategic silence for over 70 years because we're dependents on too many actors for too many things. KSA/UAE/Russia for petroleum, Iran for oil/trade logistics route, Qatar for LNG, US/EU for capital and tech. and it has served us well for far. Current govt ministers are sepoys of America with their kins well settled down. Madarchod sold us out, it's not even our war and we're the first casualty.

Nice read, though this part needs thorough deliberation- Instead of debating how to dominate artificial intelligence or robotics, political energy is consumed by the next election cycle and the next round of handouts. Welfare schemes designed to win votes—cash transfers, subsidies, and programs such as “Ladli Behna”—may bring short-term political victories. But they do little to build the scientific, technological, and industrial foundations that determine long-term power.

Every Empire Dies the Same Way They miss the next technology. Most civilizations do not disappear because they are weak. They disappear because the technology that once made them powerful becomes obsolete. History is filled with empires that looked permanent—until the rules of power changed. When those rules changed, their decline was often swift and irreversible. Egypt ruled the ancient world for nearly two thousand years. Long before Greece rose or Rome existed, Egypt possessed the most advanced state in the Mediterranean world. Its bureaucracy, agriculture, and armies were unmatched. During the Bronze Age, bronze weapons and chariots defined military power, and Egypt mastered both. But bronze had a hidden weakness. It required copper and tin—metals that had to be imported through fragile trade networks. Then came iron. Iron weapons were not just stronger; they were dramatically cheaper and far more abundant. But iron required extremely high temperatures to smelt, which meant vast quantities of charcoal. Charcoal meant forests. Forests meant geography. Egypt was a river civilization surrounded by desert. It simply did not have the forests needed to produce iron at scale. Assyria did. Situated near the wooded hills of Anatolia and the Levant, Assyria mastered iron metallurgy and equipped its armies accordingly. Within a few centuries Assyria dominated the Near East with iron-equipped forces. Egypt survived, but it never again returned to the center of global power. A civilization that had ruled for millennia missed the next technological age. The pattern would repeat across centuries. In medieval Europe the armored knight was the ultimate weapon of war. A knight was a walking fortress—encased in steel, mounted on a powerful warhorse, and supported by an entire feudal economy. Training one took decades. Equipping one cost enormous wealth. Society itself was organized around sustaining this elite warrior class. Then came a weapon made largely from wood. The English longbow could be wielded by commoners. A skilled archer could release ten arrows in the time it took a knight to cross the battlefield. At battles such as Agincourt in 1415, thousands of English archers faced a much larger French army filled with heavily armored nobles. The result was devastating. The economics of war had changed. A weapon that cost almost nothing could neutralize a system that required immense wealth to maintain. The knight did not vanish overnight, but its dominance ended. Technology had quietly rewritten the cost structure of power. The same dynamic unfolded in South Asia. For centuries Indian armies relied on war elephants as their ultimate battlefield weapon. Elephants towered over infantry formations, crushed cavalry charges, and carried commanders above the battlefield. They were symbols of royal authority and instruments of shock warfare. But elephants belonged to an older military age. In 1526 at the First Battle of Panipat, the Central Asian warlord Babur faced the much larger army of the Delhi Sultan Ibrahim Lodi. Lodi possessed tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of war elephants. Babur’s force was far smaller. But Babur brought gunpowder artillery. When the cannons fired, the explosions terrified the elephants. The animals turned and stampeded through their own ranks. Within hours the Delhi Sultanate collapsed and the Mughal Empire was born. A military system that had dominated the subcontinent for centuries was undone in a single afternoon. Numbers had not changed. Technology had. Even more dramatic was the rise of the Mongols. To the sophisticated civilizations of the thirteenth century, the Mongols appeared primitive. China had cities and advanced engineering. Persia had wealth and scholarship. Europe had castles and armored knights. The Mongols had horses. But their system of warfare was revolutionary. Each warrior rode multiple ponies, allowing Mongol armies to travel extraordinary distances without exhausting their mounts. Their composite bows could penetrate armor at long range, and their decentralized command structure allowed rapid maneuver warfare that stunned slower armies. Mobility became the decisive advantage. Within a few decades the Mongols built the largest contiguous empire in human history, stretching from Korea to Eastern Europe. Civilization had been defeated by adaptation. Modern history offers an even clearer example. At the beginning of the Second World War the most powerful warships ever built were battleships—massive floating fortresses armed with gigantic guns capable of firing shells across vast distances. Nations poured immense resources into these symbols of naval supremacy. Then aircraft carriers arrived. Aircraft launched from carriers could strike ships from hundreds of kilometers away—far beyond the range of battleship guns. In the Pacific War carriers destroyed battleships without ever entering their range. Within a few years the battleship became obsolete. Aircraft had replaced armor. Every military revolution follows the same pattern. A cheaper or more effective technology suddenly destroys the expensive system that once defined power. Iron replaced bronze. Longbows humbled knights. Cannons broke elephant armies. Aircraft replaced battleships. Each time the global balance of power shifted. Today we may be entering another such moment. For five centuries global dominance belonged to maritime powers that controlled the oceans. The Portuguese began the era of oceanic empires. The Spanish expanded it. The Dutch perfected global trade networks. Britain built a navy so powerful that at one point it exceeded the combined fleets of its rivals. In the twentieth century the United States inherited this system. Aircraft carriers became the ultimate instruments of global power projection. Control of the sea meant control of trade. Control of trade meant control of wealth. But the technologies shaping warfare are changing again. Drones, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and precision missiles are altering the economics of conflict. In modern battlefields inexpensive drones have destroyed tanks worth millions of dollars. A device costing a few hundred dollars can destroy equipment thousands of times more expensive. When such asymmetries scale, entire military doctrines become unstable. Even the aircraft carrier—the crown jewel of naval power—faces new vulnerabilities. A single carrier costs more than thirteen billion dollars, yet missiles capable of threatening such ships may cost a tiny fraction of that. But the deeper shift may not be destruction. It may be denial. In the twentieth century dominance meant the ability to project power anywhere in the world. In the twenty-first century victory may simply mean preventing your rival from reaching you. Access denial can be as powerful as conquest. Consider the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply flows. If even a regional power could credibly deny access to that narrow corridor using missiles, drones, mines, and autonomous systems, the consequences for global trade would be immense. To challenge a superpower no longer requires conquering its cities. It may only require making key strategic routes too dangerous to enter. If a navy cannot guarantee safe passage through critical chokepoints, its ability to operate near heavily defended regions becomes far more uncertain. And that raises an uncomfortable question. If access to a narrow waterway like Hormuz can be contested, what does that imply about operating near Taiwan—surrounded by dense missile networks and advanced defenses? The balance between offense and defense may be shifting again. Whenever that happens, the global hierarchy begins to move. China appears determined not to miss this moment. It is investing heavily in artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous systems, and advanced manufacturing. It already produces a dominant share of the world’s industrial robots and graduates enormous numbers of engineers every year. The United States still possesses immense advantages—its universities, capital markets, and technological ecosystem remain powerful. Old powers rarely fade quietly. But technological transitions are rarely gentle. Which brings us to India. Every technological shift divides nations into two groups: those who build the future and those who live inside it. Egypt missed iron. Knights missed the longbow. Elephant armies missed gunpowder. Battleships missed aircraft. The twenty-first century will be defined by artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous warfare, and advanced manufacturing. The question is simple: who will build it? India has the population, the talent, and the intellectual capacity to be one of the defining powers of this age. But technological leadership demands long-term focus—investment in science, engineering, industry, and strategic capability. Yet too often the national conversation revolves around something else entirely. Instead of debating how to dominate artificial intelligence or robotics, political energy is consumed by the next election cycle and the next round of handouts. Welfare schemes designed to win votes—cash transfers, subsidies, and programs such as “Ladli Behna”—may bring short-term political victories. But they do little to build the scientific, technological, and industrial foundations that determine long-term power. History offers a harsh lesson: civilizations that focus on distributing wealth before creating it eventually fall behind those that invest relentlessly in capability. Empires are not lost only on battlefields. Sometimes they are lost in budgets. A society obsessed with the next election rarely prepares for the next technological revolution. The countries that dominate the coming century will be those that build laboratories, factories, engineers, and machines—not just welfare rolls. India therefore faces a choice that will define its future. It can commit to the hard path of technological leadership—massive investment in research, robotics, AI, manufacturing, and military innovation. Or it can remain trapped in a narrow cycle of electoral politics and populist giveaways, slowly drifting toward the margins of global power. Egypt missed iron. Others missed gunpowder. Still others missed aircraft. The question of this century is simple. Will India seize the age of AI and robotics—or miss it? Because every empire that misses the next technology eventually learns the same lesson. It becomes a spectator in a world shaped by others. (Written by Vikas Sehgal. He is an investor with @PineTreeMacro )

@jamesjmrota Profit, yes, and which in turn supports their valuation claims, for now.

@RealNick05 I don’t think “to keep hype up until IPO” is the reason they’re launching all this… IMO it’s moreso to take the enterprise market share n turn profit within next few years… curious your thoughts?

48 hours ago @claudeai released the Wealth Management plugin and of course I had to dig in and check it out. I've created a thread on how to use it and what are the inputs and outputs. I'm sharing all the PDFs involved. [1/12]

Real issues of life.🥲

For F sake, never let claude use agents too liberally.🥲 Got hit by rate limit in 5 minutes!😮‍💨 #Anthropic #Claude #AI

@riteshmjn Good thing. Housing should never have been easy money scheme.

The Great Canadian Wealth Shift 🧵 1/ There’s a massive real estate carnage unfolding in Canada right now. 2/ Canadians entered this downturn with the highest household debt in the developed world, but per capita income has stagnated for nearly a decade. 3/ For years, the primary way to build wealth wasn’t through innovation or productivity — it was through leveraged real estate. 4/ What fueled the boom? Tolerance for laundered foreign money, A wave of mass immigration, Both kept housing prices and rents soaring. 5/ Those tailwinds have now turned into headwinds: Money inflows have slowed, Immigration pace is easing, Rents are hitting affordability walls. 6/ The stress is concentrated among white-collar professionals — households that borrowed heavily at ultra-low rates, now facing mounting losses. 7/ The next few years could bring a long correction, both in price and in time. Real estate won’t crash overnight, but it will grind lower as debt unwinds. 8/ Yet, not everything will fall. While households deleverage, Canadian businesses could quietly thrive. 9/ The world is reindustrializing — and Canada has resources, engineering talent, and proximity to the U.S. The corporate sector could lead the next cycle. 10/ We may be witnessing a historic transfer of wealth: From overleveraged Canadian households → to Canadian corporations. 11/ Over the next decade, the new winners may not be homeowners — but industrials, exporters, and energy producers riding global supply chain shifts. 12/ The age of easy housing wealth is over. The age of capital-intensive, productive wealth might just be beginning.

Being long via SGBs and being short via derivatives on gold jewelry for marriage. A trader's life is difficult.🥲

@DrJesseMorse It's amusing to see healthy people going for dialysis, i mean why!

Here’s Kevin O’Leary doing EBOO in Dubai, a treatment I offer in all 4 of my offices (The Osteopathic Center: Miami, Jupiter, Jacksonville, Knoxville). It’s a form of blood filtering that uses a modified-form of oxygen called ozone combined with a dialysis filter to clean the blood of various toxins including microplastics, heavy metals, mold, spike proteins, biofilm (Lyme), and kills any bacteria, fungi or virus in the blood. Takes about 90 minutes and costs about $1300.

@mindaware @SarangSood Mehh.. 😮‍💨

@RealNick05 @SarangSood My God, hope try was small

What's stopping you taking these hero zero trades on expiries? 25300 pe from 2 to 65 in 10 munutes.

@sandipsabharwal @Uber_India So is that a Uber problem or an Indian problem? Or is that Uber specifically allows differential policies, and intently want Indian experience to be bad. Or i will ask again, is that an Indian problem?

In my view @Uber_India is just making free money while doing nothing in India There is no due diligence or checks on vehicles. Charges overall have shot up while vehicle quality has deteriorated miserably I took an Uber Black today (supposedly premium), vehicle was unclean and old in a bad state. Worldwide @Uber vehicles are very good. India is an exception.

@Finance_Weights Been through that. keep video calling her, listening to her, even the smallest things. Don't think its just another call, and you can call back later. Don't think much, and go with the flow.

@chiragbarjatya After all, it's all just business.

Gaming is fine but i was really sad to see making Hanuman ji as a kite. I am not even a religious person but really sad to see how they treat the Gods now days. Patang hi bana di bhai gazab