finance

Have precious metals reached their top? The meteoric climb in precious metals has experienced a significant pullback in the last 24 hours.  First, one wonders what caused this event, and secondly, do we believe this is a much needed correction, or a pause in a market that will continue to climb?  

Bitcoin is now synthetically created, through options, derivatives, & ETF. Does that mean it’s endless, just like all the US dollars? Legend has it that Satoshi Nakamoto (creator of the Bitcoin universe) decreed there can only be 21 million bitcoins ever, until the end of time. Stop laughing – people actually believe this. It underpins the entire idea that Bitcoin is valuable and could be worth $100,000 each or $1 million each. Or worth whatever someone wakes up tomorrow and decides for themselves.

Just 21 million? Not so fast. Yahoo Personal Finance (link below, seldom known for deep insights into money) has come to a startling and simple conclusion: We – the holders and traders of Bitcoin – can make the supply infinite. We are creating new “synthetic” Bitcoins with all the usual Wall Street approved chicanery: Bitcoin exchange trade funds, futures, swaps, derivatives. And the big enchilada – cryptocurrency banks which keep your Bitcoin in a "safe" wallet while lending Bitcoin to somebody else doesn't have any. This what banks do with your checking and savings accounts, which creates "synthetic dollars", too.

Are your eyes glazing over yet?

The amount of US dollars roaming the world in the wild at any given moment is a matter of debate. But it’s huge, and it’s always growing. Because of the american government keeps printing more, issuing treasury bills and all of the clever Wall Street hustles noted. Nobody pretends the US dollar is in any way fixed in quantity. Dollar Inflation seems to be INFINITE. Reality check: America bought Alaska for just $7 million. Don’t try and figure out what it’s worth using one of those ridiculous online “inflation calculators”. They say it’s just $140 million, and they are hysterically wrong. Even without the buildings, roads and ports – just the land alone – Alaska is worth $3.5 TRILLION ($8,375 avg per acre, multiplied by 425 million acres).

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong (COIN, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, market cap $50 billion +/-) is desperate to get the 2026 Clarity bill passed. This is understandable - he helped write it. And Mr. Armstrong has said he’d rather have no bill at all, rather than “a bad one”. The Clarity bill exempts Bitcoin (and every other crypto currency) from regulation like stocks.

Just imagine the gazillions of synthetic Bitcoins that will come pouring out these companies if they get their way. That could make the US dollar look like the safest bet.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

Bitcoin's 'Infinite' Paper Supply — Not Wall Street — Is The Real Problem, Says Analyst

An Introduction. My name is Eric Stevens 

I want to be clear about who I am and why I am here.

I recently published my book, Evolution Mine: Genesis.
You can read it for free here:
https://nowweevolve.com/view-the-book

I made it free on purpose. The idea matters more than the money.

For the last 15 years, I have been working inside the systems most people only argue about from the outside. Global trade. Manufacturing. Supply chains. Policy. Commodities. Labor. Capital flow.

I helped Vietnam enter the World Trade Organization in 2007, ironically on my birthday. I have worked with governments, factories, military-adjacent systems, and private industry. I have seen how decisions made far from communities quietly reshape jobs, materials, and power at the local level.

Most of my life was spent in Los Angeles. I recently moved to Dallas, where the political and cultural polarization is impossible to ignore. The fights feel louder. The solutions feel thinner.

I am a father of six. I am married to an incredible Salvadoran woman. I am politically independent, not because I avoid responsibility, but because I do not believe any single ideology owns the truth.

What I am building is not a movement in the emotional sense. It is an economic one.

Our society talks about systems as if they are beliefs. They are not. Systems are built on inputs. Commodities. Materials. Energy. Logistics. Whoever controls those controls everything downstream.

That insight sits at the center of everything I do.

Through these platforms, I am working on one integrated effort:

Now We Evolve
https://nowweevolve.com

The Bioeconomy Foundation
https://thebioeconomyfoundation.org

American Fiber Group
https://theamericanfibergroup.com

Together, they focus on one question most debates avoid.

What happens if we change the materials the economy depends on?

Hemp and bamboo are not symbols. They are commodities. They grow locally. They scale horizontally. They support regional processing. They anchor manufacturing close to communities. They change money flow, job creation, and who holds power.

This work is not anti-capitalist or pro-corporate. It is pro-reality.

If you want different outcomes, you do not argue harder. You replace the inputs.

That is what I am here to discuss.
Not outrage. Not slogans.
Industrial math, material systems, and practical paths forward.

If that resonates, you are in the right place.

AMA with Adrian Grenier. Wednesday 2/4 at 7:00 PM CT

Entourage star who at the top of the Hollywood game pivoted to an integral spiritual path and farmstead

AMA with Adrian Grenier. Wednesday 2/4 at 7:00 PM CT

Entourage star who at the top of the Hollywood game pivoted to an integral spiritual path and farmstead

Austin's Proposition Q - A misleading text that really grinds my gears. I've received multiple texts from various groups with this language:

We can debate the merits of Proposition Q separately; what I am worked up about is the absolutely false language about "Trump cuts" to city services like fire, EMS, parks, etc. The federal government doesn't fund municipal services*. The federal government shouldn't fund municipal services, and in fact our fire, EMS, and police being independent of the federal government is a fundamental part of states' rights or how our government is intentionally structured. EVEN if I don't support defunding the police, it was absolutely within Austin's right to do so, and that had nothing to do with federal funding. 

*there are grants that impact some of these services, like the transportation grant Trump did cancel that would include parks over the new I-35, but that is not fundamentally a park funding grant.

Key Reasons Taxing Unrealised Gains Is Problematic.  

Liquidity Problems: Taxpayers may not have the cash to pay tax on gains they haven’t actually received. Both mitigation and remediation measures incur additional costs for taxpayers that are not captured as tax revenue to the government (for example, fees and interest on borrowing to cover tax liabilities, opportunity costs from changing investment strategies, the cost of maintaining extra cash reserves to cover unexpected tax bills)

Volatility Risk: Asset values can fall after being taxed, resulting in people paying tax on gains that later disappear (“phantom gains”).

Valuation Difficulties: Many assets, especially private businesses and real estate, are hard to value accurately every year, leading to disputes and administrative headaches.

Administrative Complexity: Annual assessments of unrealised gains create significant record-keeping and compliance burdens for both taxpayers and tax authorities.

Distorts Investment Decisions: May discourage investment in long-term or illiquid assets, harming economic growth and innovation.

Asset Price Distortion Near Tax Time: The approach of the tax assessment date can trigger artificial selling pressure, increased volatility, and price distortions, as investors adjust holdings to minimise their tax liability.

Fairness Concerns: Taxpayers view it as unfair to be taxed on “paper” gains that may never materialise, or to be forced to sell assets just to pay tax.

Double Taxation Risk: You might be taxed on the same gain both when it is unrealised and again when it is realised, unless the system works perfectly to prevent it.

Unpredictable and Negative Government Revenue: Mechanisms to prevent double taxation (such as cost base adjustments and tax refunds when asset values fall) can cause the government to lose revenue in years of market downturns, resulting in unpredictable or even negative tax receipts.

Rarely Used Globally: Almost all countries tax only realised gains; taxing unrealised gains is internationally uncommon and controversial.

Reduced Competitiveness: Increased compliance and cash flow burdens put local businesses at a disadvantage versus competitors in countries without such taxes.

For balance, key reasons why some people argue for tax on unrealised gains:

Anti-avoidance: Some argue taxing unrealised gains prevents indefinite deferral of tax (especially for very wealthy individuals).

Wealth inequality: Wealth taxes (not exactly the same, but related) can target asset-rich, income-poor individuals. Annual net wealth taxes do exist in some countries, but are different from capital gains taxes.

I'm not opposed to Taxing Unrealised Gains because it is evil or fundamentally wrong to do so. I'm opposed to them because taxation policy carries with it a list of pros and cons and there are ways of achieving the same objectives that have far better tradeoffs. And the taxing of unrealised gains has so many cons in comparison.

Good government is about choosing far better options when they are available so we don't have to pay the costs of worse decisions.

What if Tariffs Are a Good Thing? I was surprised to find that this podcast made me wonder whether tariffs would actually be really good for the US economy and, more importantly, for midd-class American people.

With all the raging about how awful Trump is, it's been very hard to find any thoughtful analysis about which parts of his policies might actually be beneficial for Americans.

In this podcast, Ross Douthat (NYT) interviews Oren Cass, the Founder and Chief Economist at American Compass, a conservative think tank. Oren makes a really good case for the following:

• we've been living through a period of mostly-unchecked globalization
• because GDP has been rising, economists generally argue that globalization is good
• HOWEVER, Oren provides compelling reasons why GDP growth is not a sufficient indicator of the health of the economy.  He cites things like increasing income inequality and the overall reduction in purchasing power when you factor things like households now having to have two full-time incomes to buy the same basket of things

The opportunity that tariffs provide is to buffer globalization and proactively re-shape the American economy to be more self-reliant, more inclusive and more balanced (geographically, industry-wise, etc).  For example, Oren notes that globalization has been driving wealth toward tech & financial hubs, like NYC, Austin, San Francisco, while middle America has been largely stagnant. With more manufacturing, job distribution could be more equitably spread across the country.

What I liked most about this podcast were a few things:

• it provides a thoughtful challenge to the mainstream chatter that "tariffs are bad!" and "Trump is ruining our economy!"
• the basis for tariffs is actually to improve the well-being of middle Americans who are not participating in the white collar tech and financial services boom
• that it challenges the assumptions that an unfettered globalized world economy is what works best.  Maybe it isn't?

A Plausible Oncoming Financial Storm. So, the economic situation might end up pretty dire if the following is correct. I'm posting this line-of-thought in case someone wants to sanity check it.

"To boost the British economy, I'd tax all foreigners living abroad."
-- Monty Python's Flying Circus

My read on the current economic order is that America is an empire. Now empires are supposed to extract tribute, and America might at first glance not appear to do that. But I claim it does. Instead of direct taxation the mechanism seems to be:

* Use a combination of diplomatic carrots and military sticks to make the dollar the world's reserve currency.
* Inflate the dollar by "borrowing" from the federal reserve (read: printing more dollars but with extra steps).
* Spend the printed money to subsidize American citizens in a bunch of ways to haphazardly offset the effect of the inflation being a pretty regressive taxation regime by default (medicaid, social security, food stamps, government jobs, etc.)

Now my fear is, if the Trump administration messes up our foreign policy badly enough (e.g. by unnecessarily hitting allies with the tariff stick, and showing signs that they will not in fact defend countries like Ukraine that the US had agreements with) the dollar might lose its reserve currency status. If this happens, we might be in for some pretty nasty levels of inflation (because, what happens if all those foreigners and corporations start dumping their dollar reserves?)

Anyway, I'm curious what people think of this line of reasoning.

#deeptakesonhottakes