Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Earmark Era: How Washington Rewards Spending, Not Stewardship — and Why the Federal Budget Keeps Breaking

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier in 2024, I read a local article about Washington’s senior senator proudly announcing how much federal money she had brought home to the state. Her list ran dozens of pages — hundreds of millions in Congressionally Directed Spending, better known as earmarks.

She’s not alone. Nearly every senator submits earmark requests, which you can browse on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s official list. Each item sounds worthy enough: a wastewater upgrade, a community arts incubator, a “therapeutic court.” But taken together, these line items add up fast.

According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Congress approved 8,098 earmark projects costing $14.6 billion in FY 2024—about the same as FY 2023—and still under one percent of total discretionary spending. In context, that’s roughly 0.2 percent of total federal outlays.

It’s easy to shrug and say, “So what? That’s peanuts in a $6.8 trillion budget.”
But the issue isn’t the size. It’s the signal.

The Round-Trip Problem

When money takes the round trip — federal tax → congressional politics → earmark → local grantee — it leaks. Every stop adds overhead, lobbying, and political friction.

If a project’s benefits are local, fund it locally. Save federal dollars for truly national needs—and make any remaining federal grants competitive and audited.

That’s not ideological; it’s basic hygiene. Less leakage, less pork, more accountability.

The GAO’s Quiet Crusade

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has spent over a decade documenting federal overlap, duplication, and inefficiency. Between 2011 and 2023, its recommendations produced about $667 billion in cumulative savings—roughly $51 billion a year.

That sounds impressive… until you set it beside annual deficits averaging $1.2 trillion over the same period. Even if every GAO fix were implemented perfectly, it would only offset a few cents of every deficit dollar. We celebrate small wins while ignoring the structural math.

The Trillions That Run on Autopilot

To understand that math, look at the 2024 federal budget as a whole (data from the Congressional Budget Office’s Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024–2034):

  • Total Outlays (FY 2024): ≈ $6.8 trillion
  • Total Revenues: ≈ $4.9 trillion
  • Mandatory Spending: ≈ $4.1 trillion (60%) — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlements
  • Discretionary Spending: ≈ $1.8 trillion (26%) — defense, education, housing, infrastructure, research
  • Net Interest: ≈ $0.9 trillion (13%) — the fastest-growing line item in the budget

Source: Congressional Budget Office, “Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024–2034.”

All the fights over earmarks, audits, and waste reports happen inside that discretionary slice, the part Congress actually votes on each year.
The other 70 percent runs on autopilot — driven by demographics, healthcare inflation, and debt.

So yes, we have a trillions problem, not a billions problem.
But pretending the billions don’t matter ensures the trillions never get fixed.

The Cultural Incentive to Spend

Politicians are rewarded for bringing money home. A senator who resists earmarks looks “ineffective.”
That same incentive—spend now, borrow later—is what prevents any real reform on the mandatory side.

If Congress can’t resist handing out $14 billion in earmarks to score headlines, how will it ever take on the hard reforms that actually matter?

The Real Problem

The problem isn’t that earmarks alone bankrupt the country — they don’t.
The problem is that they reveal a mindset: Washington still rewards politicians for spending, not stewardship.

Every senator gets praised for what they bring home, not for what they turn down.
That’s the same mindset that makes real entitlement reform politically impossible and deficit reduction unthinkable.

Earmarks aren’t bankrupting the U.S., but they show why the U.S. can’t stop bankrupting itself.

Until that incentive changes — in Congress, in media, and among voters — the numbers will keep getting bigger, and the excuses will too.

✅ Sources:

2024 Congressional Pig Book Summary
32nd “TheBook Washington Doesn’t WantYou to Read”
CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE

The Congressional Pig Book is CAGW’s annual compilation of earmarks in the appropriations bills and the database contains every earmark since it was first published in 1991. All items in the Congressional Pig Book meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria that were developed by CAGW and the Congressional Porkbusters Coalition:

  • Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
  • Not specifically authorized;
  • Not competitively awarded;
  • Not requested by the President;
  • Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
  • Not the subject of congressional hearings; or,
  • Serves only a local or special interest.

The Politics of Envy: How Bernie Sanders Uses Billionaires to Distract from Washington’s Failures — and Keep People Angry

Posted on by
Reply

Blaming billionaires is easy. Fixing bad policy, broken incentives, and decades of fiscal irresponsibility isn’t — so Bernie Sanders keeps the outrage machine running instead.

A lot of people — Bernie Sanders in particular — hate billionaires because they assume billionaires stole their wealth.
But that belief comes from misunderstanding how value is actually created.

💵 Creation vs. Printing

Bernie and the government “create money” by printing it — literally out of thin air — which steals purchasing power from everyone who already has dollars.
That’s not value creation. It’s value redistribution by dilution.

So when that’s your frame of reference, you start to believe that everyone who gets rich must have taken something from someone else. Because that’s how you create “money” in politics — you print it or tax it away.

But wealth in a free market isn’t created by decree. It’s created by building, coordinating, and innovating — by making something others voluntarily trade for.

📈 Value Creation Is Not Theft

Larry Ellison, for example. One day Oracle stock went up, and his net worth jumped by $100 billion. Bernie acts like Larry ran around stealing $100 billion from working people.
But that’s not what happened. That value didn’t exist before — it was created.

Wealth in the market represents new value built through skill, innovation, and coordination, not theft.
If you’re stranded on an island with a billion dollars, it’s worthless. You need resources, tools, and knowledge to turn that “money” into something useful.

The problem is, people who’ve never built or created real value assume no one else can either.
So they see wealth as theft instead of creation. That’s the confusion at the heart of modern politics.

⚠️ Bernie’s Game: Blame, Not Solutions

And that’s where Bernie Sanders comes in.
He isn’t actually helping working people by pointing to billionaires as evil — he’s manipulating them.

By giving people a villain to hate, he distracts from the real causes of economic pain — bad money, wasteful government, and decades of inflation that quietly rob savers and workers.
He rallies frustration around a scapegoat instead of a fix.

If Bernie genuinely wanted to help, he’d talk about restoring fiscal discipline, reducing waste, and making it easier for regular people to build wealth — not demonizing those who already have.
But he doesn’t. Because blaming billionaires is politically easy.
Fixing the system would mean questioning the very machine that gives him power.

So instead of solving problems, he feeds resentment — keeping people angry, divided, and dependent on him to express that anger.

🧮 The Fantasy of the “Billionaire Tax”

In a recent Time article titled “I’m a Millionaire. No One Needs More Than $30 Million”, the author argues that a Billionaire Income Tax could raise $557 billion over ten years and “jump-start a permanent safety net.”

That sounds impressive — until you look at the math.

The U.S. government currently runs a $2 trillion annual deficit.
That’s $20 trillion in overspending every decade.
So this “transformative” billionaire tax covers less than 3 % of the hole. It’s fiscal rounding error.

The problem isn’t a lack of billionaire money — it’s a lack of discipline and accountability.

🏛 The Real Problem Isn’t “Too Much Money” — It’s How It’s Used

The Time article goes on to argue that wealth beyond $30 million stops being about living well and becomes about wielding power — influencing elections, buying media outlets, and suppressing competition.

That part isn’t entirely wrong. Money can corrupt politics.
But the author’s solution — capping wealth — misses the point completely.

If the issue is that money manipulates the system, then the answer is to make the system harder to manipulate, not to confiscate wealth after the fact.

We should make elections harder to buy, not success harder to earn.
Reform campaign finance, close regulatory loopholes, stop insider lobbying — that’s how you stop abuse.

The same goes for the “buy, borrow, die” loophole that allows the ultra-wealthy to avoid realizing gains.
If that’s the concern, close the loopholes directly — don’t destroy the entire structure of value creation to fix a tax code glitch.

And even then, no system will ever be perfect.
Smart, ambitious people will always find new ways to optimize around the rules — that’s part of what makes them successful.
Every time you close one loophole, innovation and adaptation create another.
The goal shouldn’t be to eliminate advantage; it should be to keep the playing field open and the incentives productive.

And far from “locking others out,” large pools of wealth are what fund the next generation of builders.
People don’t lose the chance to innovate because billionaires exist — they lose it when regulation, bureaucracy, and bad policy make it impossible to start or scale.
Just look at Europe: it leads the world in regulation, but none of the world’s biggest or most dynamic companies are European.
They’ve made it harder to fail, but also impossible to truly win.
Capital isn’t a finite pie being hoarded; it’s the byproduct of trust, savings, and productive investment.
Destroy that, and you destroy the fuel for future innovation.

Blaming “too much money” is a lazy shortcut that lets broken institutions off the hook.

💥 What Happens If You Actually Take It

Let’s pretend we go full Bernie and seize every dollar of billionaire wealth in America — all $6 trillion of it.

Here’s what happens:

  1. That covers just three years of deficit spending at current rates. Then what? You’re out of billionaires, and the deficit keeps growing.
  2. Most of that wealth isn’t cash. It’s ownership stakes in companies — Tesla, Oracle, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.
  3. If the government forces liquidation, prices collapse. No one can buy trillions in stock without tanking the market.
    • Even a 50 % drop cuts the haul to $3 trillion — barely 18 months of deficits.
  4. Who buys the assets? The next-richest class. Inequality reshuffles briefly, then reforms.
  5. Meanwhile, innovation stalls. Investment dries up. Everyone gets poorer.

You can’t fund a government by destroying the productive capital that funds everything else.

⚙️ The Real Issue Isn’t Wealth, It’s Value

Wealth isn’t evil — it’s a signal that someone created something valuable enough for millions of people to trade their time or money for it.
That’s fundamentally different from printing dollars and calling it “stimulus.”

If we want a stronger, fairer economy, the solution isn’t confiscation — it’s creation.
Encourage building, innovation, and hard work, and you’ll raise living standards for everyone.
Punish them, and you’ll end up with equality through shared decline.

🧭 Final Thought

Bernie isn’t fighting for the working class. He’s fighting to stay relevant to it.
You don’t fix inequality by burning down the factory.
You fix it by letting more people build factories of their own.

What to Buy in 2025? My Thoughts on Global Investing

Posted on by
Reply

Quick Take:
International markets are finally outperforming the U.S. in 2025, with VXUS up 25% versus the S&P 500’s 13%. But much of that gain is tied to a weakening dollar and global money printing — not just fundamentals. I also see potential in small-cap value stocks and India as a long-term growth story. – Not financial advice!

I was replying with a long comment to a YouTube video about investing, and it turned into something worth sharing here. I’ve cleaned it up a bit to make it flow like a proper post — but the ideas are the same: how I’m thinking about markets right now and where opportunities might lie.

When people ask me what to buy, I always start with one key principle:
focus on total return, not dividends.

Dividends are nice, but they’re just one piece of the puzzle. What really matters is total return — the combination of price growth plus dividends. That’s what grows your wealth over time.

International Markets Are Finally Waking Up

In November 2024 a friend told me what a dog his internationl stocks were and said he was going to sell them adn buy all S&P 500 I mentioned to him the idea of reversion to the mean While I was rewarded quickly, after years of underperformance, international markets have been on an absolute tear in 2025.

  • VXUS — the total international ETF (about 25% emerging markets) — is up roughly 25% year to date.
  • VWO, which tracks only emerging markets, is up around 21%.
  • Meanwhile, the S&P 500 (VOO) is up just 13% this year.

It’s been a long time since we’ve seen this kind of outperformance from non-U.S. stocks. But before we get too excited, it’s worth asking why.

Factors Driving International Resurgence

Several factors have driven the recent resurgence in international markets.
Concerns about the U.S. trade war and tariffs have pushed investor attention abroad, while a weaker U.S. dollar has amplified gains for dollar-based investors holding foreign assets.

The U.S. Dollar Index has declined roughly 9% this year, giving a lift to unhedged international equities.

That currency impact is easy to see when comparing VXUS to hedged strategies.
For example:

  • Xtrackers MSCI EAFE Hedged Equity ETF (DBEF) and
  • iShares Currency Hedged MSCI EAFE ETF (HEFA)

are both up about 11.4% this year — solid returns, but well below the 25% gains seen in unhedged funds like VXUS.

In other words, a large portion of the international rally is being driven by the decline in the U.S. dollar, not just by improving fundamentals abroad.

👉 You can read more about this dynamic in a recent ETF.com article here:
“VXUS Tops $100B as ETF Investors Embrace International Stocks”

Inflation, Money Printing, and “Bigger” Returns

I suspect that in the future, the stock market’s returns might look higher than historical averages — not necessarily because companies are more productive, but because money printing and inflation are inflating nominal returns.

Historically, the S&P 500 returned about 11% per year, with maybe 3% of that driven by inflation and monetary expansion.
If we enter a world where inflation runs closer to 7%, then even if the real return stays about the same (around 8%), the headline number could look like 15% annual returns.

Obviously, that’s not guaranteed — just a thought experiment. But it’s a good reminder that higher nominal returns don’t always mean higher real returns.

Be Greedy When Others Are Fearful

Warren Buffett’s old rule still applies:

“Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.”

So what are investors fearful of right now?
Small-cap stocks.

  • VIOV (small-cap value ETF) is up only 2% this year.
  • VB (small-cap blend) is up around 6.5% year to date, and about 52% over the past 5 years.
  • The S&P 500, by comparison, is up 90% over that same period.

Historically, small caps have outperformed large caps over the long term — and markets tend to revert to the mean. That doesn’t mean small caps will outperform next year, but it might be time to start paying attention to them again.

A Closer Look at India

One specific market I’ve been watching is India, through the INDA ETF. I’ve personally allocated about 1% of my portfolio there. While it is actually -1% for the year that adds to it’s intregue! As I noted you want to consider buying the losers as they will likely revert to their mean higher returns.

I’ve traveled to India and work with suppliers there who produce castings and tubing. The country reminds me a lot of where China was a couple of decades ago — rapid growth, huge labor pool, and rising industrial capacity.

Here’s a quick comparison:

  • Average income in India: about $2,000 per year
  • Average income in China: about $15,000 per year

India also has another advantage — it’s a democracy, politically more aligned with the U.S., and open to global capital and trade. That combination of low base income (meaning huge growth potential) and political stability makes India a fascinating market to watch over the next decade.

Wrapping It Up

So, what should you buy?
That depends on your goals — but here are the themes I’m watching:

  • International markets, especially emerging economies
  • Small-cap value stocks that have been left behind
  • And long-term growth plays like India

Just remember — higher returns on paper may reflect inflation, not real productivity. Always think in terms of real value creation, not just nominal gains.

And, of course, this isn’t financial advice — just my perspective on how I’m thinking about global investing in 2025.

What do you think? Are you adding international exposure or doubling down on U.S. stocks?
Share your thoughts below — I love reading different perspectives on where people see opportunity.

My Bitcoin Presentation

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an AI summary of the bitcoin presentaiton I’ve given 2x now and am set to give agian in the future. You can find the video here.

1. The Problem: Broken Money

  • Money is supposed to store value from your labor, but inflation erodes that value over time.
  • Fiat money used to be backed by gold until 1971; now it’s backed by government trust and military power (“money backed by bombs”).
  • Governments print trillions, causing inflation and currency devaluation.
  • Inflation isn’t caused by parties or policies — it’s caused by money printing.
  • History (Roman Empire, etc.) shows debasing currency leads to collapse.

2. The Solution: Bitcoin

  • Fixed supply: 21 million coins — no one can print more.
  • Divisible: Each Bitcoin has 100 million satoshis (smallest unit).
  • Scarcity = preserved value.
  • Blockchain: Decentralized public ledger validating transactions without banks.
  • Mining: Miners verify transactions, earn fees, and newly unlocked Bitcoin (currently 3.125 BTC every ~10 minutes).

3. Why Bitcoin Is Unique

  • Fair launch: No pre-mine or early insider advantage; Satoshi mined alongside others.
  • Other coins (altcoins): Often pre-mined, centrally controlled, and solve fake problems — more like unregistered securities.
  • Bitcoin solves one problem — store of value.

4. How to Buy Bitcoin

  • Easiest: Through Bitcoin ETFs on Fidelity, Schwab (not Vanguard).
  • Direct ownership: Strike, River, or Cash App (low fees, only Bitcoin).
  • Avoid: Apps like Robinhood, PayPal, Coinbase — too many distracting altcoins.

5. Future Potential & Valuation

  • Total global assets ≈ $750 trillion; “monetary premium” (store-of-value demand) ≈ $273 trillion.
  • If Bitcoin absorbs that, price = ~$13 million per BTC.
  • At $100,000 today, even small investments could have massive upside (e.g., $10k → $1.3M).
  • Volatile, but long-term risk/reward is asymmetric.

6. Adoption Trends

  • Governments adopting: El Salvador (legal tender), Bhutan, Pakistan, some U.S. states (Texas, NH, Arizona).
  • Companies holding Bitcoin: Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), Tesla, Block, Marathon, Coinbase, etc.
  • U.S. forming a “Bitcoin strategic reserve.”

7. Final Takeaways

  • Fiat money causes many global problems; Bitcoin fixes the root issue — sound money.
  • Start small, invest what you can afford to lose.
  • Learn more and grow your understanding — treat dips as opportunities.
  • Key message: Broken money → broken world. Bitcoin → fixed money → potential for a better system.

Is Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme?

Posted on by
Reply

People often ask me that question when I’m giving a bitcoin presentation or just talking about it one on one. The comparison comes up because Bitcoin is new, people don’t understand it, it has gone up a lot in value, and skeptics assume that must mean someone is being tricked. But to answer it clearly, we need to define what a Ponzi actually is.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraud where early participants are paid “returns” using money from later participants. There’s no productive asset behind it—just cash shuffling from newcomers to old-timers until the inflows slow down and the scheme collapses. Hallmarks of a Ponzi are:

  • Promised guaranteed returns regardless of the market.
  • No underlying value creation.
  • Dependence on new entrants to keep funding old ones.

By that definition, Bitcoin simply doesn’t fit. Bitcoin doesn’t promise anyone a return. It doesn’t pay holders just for owning it. There is no central operator taking money from new buyers to pay old ones. Instead, Bitcoin is an open, neutral monetary network. Its value is set transparently by the market. People buy it because they believe in its properties—scarcity, portability, censorship resistance—not because they’re promised payouts.

Ironically, the system that does mirror a Ponzi structure is Social Security. Today’s workers don’t have their contributions saved for their own retirement. Their payroll taxes are immediately used to pay current retirees. The system only holds up as long as new workers keep entering to fund those already drawing benefits. In other words:

  • New entrants (workers) pay.
  • Old entrants (retirees) benefit.

That is the definition of a Ponzi-like structure. And unlike Bitcoin, which can run indefinitely on code and math, Social Security’s days are limited. Demographics are shifting—fewer young workers, more retirees—and that math simply doesn’t work forever. The only thing keeping it afloat today is government borrowing and taxation authority.

👉 Bottom line: Bitcoin is not a Ponzi. It’s voluntary, transparent, and sustainable. Social Security, on the other hand, is the true Ponzi—and its expiration date is nearing!

Bitcoin, Deflation, and the Myth of “Useless Money” – (People Won’t Spend Bitcoin Because it’s TOO Valuable????)

Posted on by
Reply

A common fear I hear about Bitcoin goes something like this: “If it becomes so valuable in the future, people will never spend it. They’ll just hoard it forever — and that means it can’t work as money.”

But let’s pause. That argument assumes that money needs to lose value in order to be useful — that people will only spend if their savings are constantly melting. Does that really make sense?

People Already Save

In reality, people save no matter what. Even with inflationary dollars, households and businesses don’t spend every cent. They put money aside — but because the dollar steadily loses value, they are forced to search for other stores of value:

  • Stocks
  • Bonds
  • Real estate
  • Gold
  • Collectibles

This isn’t a feature. It’s a problem. The constant need to escape a leaky dollar creates bubbles, misallocates capital, and makes financial life complicated for everyone.

Take housing, for example. When money loses value, homes become more than shelter — they turn into financial assets. People don’t just buy houses to live in them; they buy them as inflation hedges. That means families looking for a roof over their heads end up competing with investors and savers desperate to preserve wealth. Prices get bid up far beyond the utility value of the home, making affordability worse and turning what should be a basic necessity into a speculative storehouse for capital.

Deflationary Money Doesn’t Paralyze Spending

Critics imagine that if money gains value over time, nobody will use it. But people already spend under deflationary conditions — technology proves this. Everyone knows next year’s phone or TV will be cheaper and better, yet they still buy today. Why? Because they value the use and enjoyment now, not just later.

The same applies to Bitcoin. Once mature, it will likely appreciate at roughly the rate of productivity growth (similar to a low-yield bond). People will hold it to store value — and still spend it when a purchase is worth more than waiting.

Flipping the Narrative

Inflationary money forces people into risky, complex alternatives just to save. Hard money that holds or grows its value removes those distortions. Contrary to the fear, deflationary money won’t break the economy — it may actually fix many of the problems caused by inflationary systems.

And here’s the real irony: many critics already suspect Bitcoin could become extremely valuable — that’s why they worry no one will spend it. But at the same time, they refuse to buy any today. They recognize the upside, but fear keeps them paralyzed on the sidelines.

Conclusion

In a Bitcoin world, homes could go back to being homes, not savings accounts. People could save without speculation, spend without fear of losing purchasing power, and invest in businesses for growth rather than sheltering from inflation. That’s not “useless money.” That’s money finally doing its job.

How I’m Using Covered Calls on Tesla as a “Safe” Portion of My Portfolio

Posted on by
Reply

Disclaimer – If you aren’t comfortable with all potential outcomes, including your Tesla shares dropping 50% in value, you shouldn’t consider this idea. 

You also should not consider this if you are unfamiliar with trading options. 

I am only sharing this to share information and educate. 

I’ve been a Tesla shareholder for years, and I don’t plan to sell my core position anytime soon. But I’ve also been learning about covered calls as a way to generate income at a higher rate than today’s money market funds which currently are paying ~3.5% and going down as rates decrease!. Right now, I see the potential for about a 14% annual yield using this strategy — and I want to take advantage of that while keeping my long-term conviction in Tesla intact.

What’s a Covered Call?

A covered call is one of the simplest options strategies. It works like this:

  • You own at least 100 shares of a stock. Most options are written where 1 option = a contract for 100 shares.
  • You sell a call option to someone else, giving them the right (but not the obligation) to buy your shares at a set price (the strike price) by a certain date. For example – “You have the option to buy 100 shares of Tesla from me at $600 on or before 3-20-2026”
  • You are paid a premium when you sell the option.

Two big things can happen:

  • If the stock stays below the strike price, the option expires worthless. You keep both the shares and the premium.
  • If the stock rises above the strike, you may have to sell your shares at that strike price. You still keep the premium, but you miss out on gains beyond that level.

Think of it like renting out your shares — you earn income while you hold them, but you’re capping your upside in exchange.

Why Tesla?

Tesla is currently trading around $440. My existing 400 shares make up about 12–13% of my overall portfolio (roughly $176k out of $1.4M). That’s a meaningful bet, but not my entire net worth. I personally have never looked at options before when I had less money. But I am considering it now with a very small part of my portfolio. 

I’ve been holding Tesla for years and plan to continue. I believe in its long-term growth story, Elon Musk’s ability to deliver, and even the possibility of the company eventually reaching an $8 trillion valuation — nearly 6x its current $1.38 trillion market cap. That would potentially happen if Tesla hits all the growth targets in Elon’s proposed new pay package, that is voted on in November 2025. I have already voted yes and hope everyone else does also!

That conviction is what allows me to buy an extra 100 shares — not to hold forever, but to use specifically for covered calls.

The Trade

  • Underlying: Tesla at ~$440
  • Shares purchased for strategy: 100 ($44,000)
  • Option sold: $600 strike, expiring March 2026
  • Premium collected: ~$30/share = $3,000

The Three Outcomes

Here’s how the trade plays out depending on Tesla’s price by March 20th, 2026:

ScenarioTesla PriceOutcomeReturn
1. Tesla < $440Falls below my purchase priceShares drop in value, but I still keep the $3,000 premium. I’ll hold and sell another call in 6 months.Paper loss on stock, but income cushions downside
2. Tesla $440–$600Rises but stays under $600I keep both the shares and the $3,000 premium.~7% in 6 months (~14% annualized) + stock appreciation
3. Tesla > $600Blows past $600Shares are called away at $600. I keep the $3,000 premium plus $16,000 in gains ($160/share).~$19,000 profit on $44,000 (~43% in 6 months)

How This Fits My Long-Term Tesla Plan

Part of my long-term Tesla strategy for my original 400 shares has always been to gradually divest once it grows too large a percentage of my portfolio — say once it approaches 30–50%.

This covered call approach fits that plan perfectly: it generates income now and gives me a way to get paid while reducing exposure if Tesla keeps climbing.

  • At $600/share, my portfolio would grow to about $1.5M, and Tesla would represent ~$300k of that (~20%). If 100 shares are called away, I’d reduce Tesla to 400 shares ($240k), which still leaves me with significant exposure.
  • At $800/share, my portfolio could be around $1.6M. Selling another 100 shares would leave me with 300 shares worth $240k — still ~15% of my portfolio, almost the same weighting Tesla holds today (~12.6%). This is assuming the rest of my portfolio doesn’t also rise. It likely would so really Tesla would end up an even smaller percentage of my portfolio.

So even as I trim, Tesla stays a core but not outsized piece of my investments.

The Long-Term Upside

At $800/share, Tesla would be about a $2.5 trillion company. Even if I’m down to 300 shares at that point, that’s still $240k invested.

And if Tesla grows to an $8 trillion valuation as some expect — a 3.2x increase from $2.5T — my 300 shares could climb to about $768k.

That means even after trimming, I’d still capture massive upside if Tesla’s long-term growth story plays out.

Why This Works for Me

  1. It’s a small slice of my overall portfolio. At ~$44,000, the covered call sleeve is just 3% of my total assets. That makes it a safe experiment that doesn’t threaten my financial foundation.
  2. My core Tesla is protected. My long-term 400 shares are untouchable. The 100 new shares are my “income Tesla” — designed to work harder without risking my conviction stake.
  3. All three outcomes are acceptable. If Tesla dips, I’ll just sell another call. If it grinds sideways, I pocket income. If it rips higher, I still earn a great return, even if I give up some upside.
  4. It aligns with my long-term plan. Selling calls is a structured way to generate income and gradually reduce Tesla’s weight in my portfolio as it grows.
  5. Conviction makes it possible. I’m comfortable capping the upside on 100 shares because I still own 400 more shares that will fully benefit if Tesla continues to grow. This way, I get income from a small slice of my position, while my larger core holding remains positioned for the long-term upside.

Testing My Future Retirement Plan

This trade is also a trial run for my early retirement plan. If I eventually trim my Tesla position to around $240k (say 300 shares at $800), I could use the same covered call strategy to generate income.

At ~14% annualized, that $240k could potentially produce about $33k per year in income — without me ever touching the rest of my portfolio.

That’s a powerful idea: one high-conviction stock position, managed carefully with covered calls, could provide a meaningful cash flow stream in retirement while my index fund base continues to compound.

My Investing Context

Most of my portfolio is in index funds. That’s my base strategy — low-cost, diversified, and reliable.

But Tesla (and Bitcoin) are my two exceptions. I’ve listened to years of Tesla content, followed the company’s progress, and watched Elon Musk repeatedly deliver on ambitious goals. I believe in the growth story.

Final Thoughts

Covered calls aren’t “free money.” They limit your upside, and they only work if you’re comfortable with all possible outcomes. For me, splitting my Tesla into two buckets — 400 shares conviction hold, 100 shares income strategy — strikes the right balance.

Tesla remains my long-term hold. The extra 100 shares are simply there to spin off cash flow, provide income, and help me get paid while gradually divesting. That way, Tesla stays a meaningful but balanced piece of my portfolio — while still giving me the chance to benefit if Elon Musk delivers on the $8 trillion vision.

And looking ahead, this strategy doubles as a test run for retirement income — showing how one well-managed conviction position can help fund financial independence.

If you aren’t comfortable with all potential outcomes, including your Tesla shares dropping 50% in value, you shouldn’t consider this idea. 

You also should not consider this if you are unfamiliar with trading options. 

I am only sharing this to share information and educate. 

From 3% to 10%: STRC and STRD Show How Bitcoin-Backed Preferreds Beat High-Yield Accounts

Posted on by
Reply

Money market funds have quietly become a $7.7 trillion behemoth. They’re the go-to “safe yield” for investors and savers alike. But with the Federal Reserve now in an easing cycle, those yields — currently around 3.5%–4% — are headed lower.

That’s where Strategy’s Bitcoin-backed perpetual preferreds come in. While most people know Strategy (MSTR) as the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, fewer realize that it has built a full yield curve of preferred instruments, each engineered for different investors.

Where These Instruments Sit in the Capital Stack

Most senior → Debt (convertible notes) → STRF (Strife) → STRC (Stretch) → STRK (Strike) → STRD (Stride) → Common (MSTR) → most junior / volatile.

The Rationale: Building a Bitcoin Yield Curve

  • STRF (Strife): Senior, cumulative, fixed dividend, long-duration. Currently yielding about 9%.
  • STRC (Stretch): Senior to STRD and STRK. Variable monthly dividend, engineered to trade around $99–$101, currently yielding about 10.25%.
  • STRK (Strike): Convertible hybrid with both dividend and equity-conversion features. Not my focus here, but it’s an important part of the structure.
  • STRD (Stride): Junior high-yield, fixed 10% dividend, currently yielding about 12.7% due to market pricing in more perceived risk. Functionally similar to STRF, except dividends are non-cumulative (can technically be skipped). That said, I believe skipping would be highly unlikely, as it would damage trust and Strategy’s ability to raise future capital. Dividends are paid quarterly.

Visualizing the Yields

Here’s how these instruments compare against traditional money markets:

  • Money Market (green): conservative baseline at ~3.5–4%.
  • STRF (orange): senior, stable preferred with ~9%.
  • STRC (orange): short, steady instrument at ~10.25%, engineered to trade near $100.
  • STRD (orange): dynamic junior instrument at ~12.7%.

Why I Prefer STRC and STRD

I’m drawn most to STRC and STRD.

  • STRC is designed to be the least volatile of the group, with a monthly payout and mechanisms (ATM issuance, variable rate, call option) that help stabilize its price.
  • STRD is the high-yield gear, juiced by its junior position in the stack. While the market demands extra yield for perceived risk, I personally think that risk is overstated given Strategy’s Bitcoin reserves and incentives to maintain dividend trust.

Together, they cover two ends of the spectrum: steady monthly yield vs. higher-octane quarterly yield.

A Practical Emergency Fund Example

Suppose you have a $10,000 emergency fund.

  • All in Money Market: $10,000 × 4% ≈ $400/year.
  • Blend with STRC: Keep $7,500 in money markets (=$300/year) and put $2,500 into STRC (=$256/year).
    • Total = $556/year — a 39% boost without overcommitting.

I wouldn’t put my entire emergency fund into a new instrument like STRC — safety and liquidity should come first. But even a modest allocation can noticeably lift your yield while still keeping most reserves conservative.

Closing Thought

Strategy is essentially pioneering a new financial system built on Bitcoin collateral. If they can consistently pay these dividends — even through Bitcoin downturns — it would be revolutionary. It would prove that Bitcoin isn’t just “digital gold,” but the foundation for a new class of yield-bearing, creditworthy instruments.

Here are 2 videos of when STRC and STRD were initially offered. They offer a lot of information about how these work. 

Strategy’s Stride STRD Perpetual Preferred Stock IPO Backed by Bitcoin | Michael Saylor and Phong Le

Strategy’s Stretch STRC Perpetual Preferred Stock IPO Backed by Bitcoin | Michael Saylor & Phong Le

Bitcoin, Deflation, and the Myth of “Useless Money” – Why would people spend bitcoin if it keeps gaining value?

Posted on by
Reply

Bitcoin, Deflation, and the Myth of “Useless Money”

A common fear I hear about Bitcoin goes something like this: “If it becomes so valuable in the future, people will never spend it. They’ll just hoard it forever — and that means it can’t work as money.”

But let’s pause. That argument assumes that money needs to lose value in order to be useful — that people will only spend if their savings are constantly melting. Does that really make sense?

People Already Save

In reality, people save no matter what. Even with inflationary dollars, households and businesses don’t spend every cent. They put money aside — but because the dollar steadily loses value, they are forced to search for other stores of value:

  • Stocks
  • Bonds
  • Real estate
  • Gold
  • Collectibles

This isn’t a feature. It’s a problem. The constant need to escape a leaky dollar creates bubbles, misallocates capital, and makes financial life complicated for everyone.

Take housing, for example. When money loses value, homes become more than shelter — they turn into financial assets. People don’t just buy houses to live in them; they buy them as inflation hedges. That means families looking for a roof over their heads end up competing with investors and savers desperate to preserve wealth. Prices get bid up far beyond the utility value of the home, making affordability worse and turning what should be a basic necessity into a speculative storehouse for capital.

Deflationary Money Doesn’t Paralyze Spending

Critics imagine that if money gains value over time, nobody will use it. But people already spend under deflationary conditions — technology proves this. Everyone knows next year’s phone or TV will be cheaper and better, yet they still buy today. Why? Because they value the use and enjoyment now, not just later.

The same applies to Bitcoin. Once mature, it will likely appreciate at roughly the rate of productivity growth (similar to a low-yield bond). People will hold it to store value — and still spend it when a purchase is worth more than waiting.

Flipping the Narrative

Inflationary money forces people into risky, complex alternatives just to save. Hard money that holds or grows its value removes those distortions. Contrary to the fear, deflationary money won’t break the economy — it may actually fix many of the problems caused by inflationary systems.

And here’s the real irony: many critics already suspect Bitcoin could become extremely valuable — that’s why they worry no one will spend it. But at the same time, they refuse to buy any today. They recognize the upside, but fear keeps them paralyzed on the sidelines.

Conclusion

In a Bitcoin world, homes could go back to being homes, not savings accounts. People could save without speculation, spend without fear of losing purchasing power, and invest in businesses for growth rather than sheltering from inflation. That’s not “useless money.” That’s money finally doing its job.

For further reading on this read The Price of Tomorrow: Why Deflation is the Key to an Abundant Future – Jeff Booth

Bitcoin and the Triffin Dilemma: Why Wages Would Adjust Fairly Under a Neutral Money

Posted on by
Reply

Most people don’t realize that many of the economic problems facing Americans today trace back to something called the Triffin dilemma. Politicians like Trump rage about trade deficits or promise to bring back jobs, but they rarely understand the underlying monetary system that makes those promises impossible to keep. And because they don’t understand it, millions of middle-aged workers in the U.S. are left angry and disillusioned.

But here’s the good news: the problem is solvable. And Bitcoin, combined with Buckminster Fuller’s vision of a “world accounting system,” offers a way forward.

The Triffin Dilemma in Plain English

Robert Triffin pointed out a paradox in the 1960s: if one country’s currency becomes the world’s reserve currency, that country must constantly supply it to the rest of the world. For the U.S., that means running trade deficits and flooding the globe with dollars.

The catch is that what looks good globally causes pain domestically. To meet the world’s demand for dollars, the U.S. must run deficits, borrow more, and tolerate an overvalued dollar. That makes American exports less competitive, hollows out manufacturing, and weakens wage growth.

The Cost of Supplying the World with Dollars

To keep the global economy running on dollars, the U.S. has to keep sending them out. There are only two main ways that happens: by running trade deficits (importing more than we export) or by borrowing (issuing Treasuries that foreigners buy with their surplus dollars). Both of these mechanisms keep the world awash in dollar liquidity — but they impose heavy costs on American workers.

  • Persistent deficits mean more borrowing. Every trade deficit eventually gets financed with U.S. debt. Foreign governments and investors recycle the dollars they earn back into U.S. Treasuries. The system keeps spinning, but America’s national debt climbs ever higher.
  • Global demand keeps the dollar strong. Because the world needs dollars, our currency stays overvalued compared to others. A strong dollar makes imports cheap (which feels good for consumers at Walmart) but makes American exports expensive (which is brutal for manufacturers trying to compete abroad).
  • Manufacturing gets hollowed out. When American goods are too expensive, factories lose business. Over time, companies either shut down or relocate production overseas. Entire industries migrate abroad, leaving behind shuttered plants and devastated communities.

Take steel as a concrete example. In the late 20th century, global demand for dollars, combined with cheaper steel production in Asia, kept the U.S. dollar strong and U.S. steel prices uncompetitive. By the 1980s and 1990s, iconic steel towns in Pennsylvania and Ohio watched mills close. Workers who once earned solid middle-class wages saw their jobs vanish, and many never found work at the same pay level again.

  • Wages stagnate. With fewer competitive industries at home, American workers lose bargaining power. They’re forced to compete against cheaper labor abroad, and wage growth flatlines. Meanwhile, the cost of living — housing, healthcare, education — keeps climbing. The result is the frustration many middle-aged Americans feel today: they’ve worked hard their whole lives, yet the system seems rigged against them.

In short: to supply the world with dollars, America borrows, tolerates an overvalued currency, and sacrifices its own competitiveness. The global dollar system helps keep international trade flowing, but it extracts its pound of flesh from U.S. workers.

Figure 1: Global demand for dollars keeps the dollar strong, which makes imports cheap but exports uncompetitive — hollowing out U.S. manufacturing and holding down wages.

Why Trump (and Most Politicians) Miss the Point

Trump recognizes that something is broken — but his diagnosis is shallow. He blames foreign countries, bad trade deals, and weak leaders. His answer is tariffs and protectionism.

But the deeper issue is that America can’t stop running deficits without undermining the very system that makes the dollar the global reserve. The Triffin dilemma locks us in. Protectionism only papers over the problem temporarily.

How Wages Would “Automatically Adjust” Under Bitcoin

Now imagine a world where global trade is denominated in Bitcoin, a money no government can print or devalue.

  1. High Productivity Raises Wages Locally
    If Country A is extremely productive, it earns more Bitcoin. Workers there see higher wages in BTC terms.
  2. Prices Rise in the Productive Country
    With higher wages, local goods get more expensive relative to other countries.
  3. Trade Shifts
    Other countries stop buying from Country A and look to Country B or C, where wages are lower and goods are cheaper.
  4. Jobs Move, Wages Rebalance
    Jobs flow out of the high-wage country into lower-wage ones. Wages in the expensive country stabilize or even fall, while wages in cheaper countries rise.

The result: wages “automatically” adjust across borders to reflect real productivity, not the games governments play with currency printing or manipulation.

Figure 2: Under a Bitcoin-based system, wages and trade flows automatically rebalance. High wages make exports more expensive, shifting jobs abroad until global wages reflect true productivity.

Why Fiat Prevents This Natural Balance

In today’s fiat system, governments intervene to block this natural adjustment. They devalue their currencies to keep exports cheap, trapping workers in low wages and preventing global wage convergence.

Meanwhile, American workers face the opposite problem: a strong dollar that prices them out of global competition. The Triffin dilemma ensures the imbalance persists.

“Isn’t It Just Greedy Companies Suppressing Wages?”

A common belief is that big U.S. companies are the real villains — trillion-dollar firms posting record profits while holding wages flat, outsourcing jobs, or using H1B visas to bring in cheaper labor. There’s truth in that frustration, and yes, there is abuse in how the visa system is used.

Consider this example: if an American worker expects $80,000 but a skilled H1B worker is willing to accept $50,000, the company has a clear incentive to hire the cheaper worker. To Americans, this feels like wage suppression. But for the H1B worker, it’s a huge win. That $50,000 U.S. salary might translate into the equivalent of $150,000 back home, especially if they can send $10,000 to family abroad where the cost of living is far lower.

So while it looks like companies are simply greedy, they’re really responding to the incentives of a distorted global money system. With the dollar overvalued and global trade imbalances baked in, U.S. labor is structurally overpriced compared to the rest of the world. Companies are not the root cause — they’re just playing the game according to the rules we’ve set.

In a Bitcoin-based system, the game changes. Wages would adjust across borders automatically, not through currency manipulation or immigration loopholes. Companies would still seek efficiency, but the playing field would be leveled: wages in every country would reflect true productivity, not fiat distortions.

Figure 3: Under fiat money, companies are incentivized to outsource, use H1B labor, and suppress wages. Under Bitcoin, wages converge globally based on real productivity, not manipulated exchange rates.

Fuller’s Dream of a World Accounting System

Buckminster Fuller envisioned a future where humanity had a scientific, global accounting system that measured real wealth and resources instead of manipulating national ledgers.

Bitcoin is a step in that direction. It’s transparent, borderless, and immune to political distortion. A Bitcoin-based world economy would essentially run on Fuller’s “world accounting system,” with wages, trade, and prices reflecting true productivity instead of central bank policy.

The Takeaway

The middle-aged frustration in America isn’t just about lost jobs or bad politicians. It’s about being trapped inside the Triffin dilemma — a system where the U.S. must sacrifice its workers to supply the world with dollars.

Bitcoin offers a way out: a neutral, global money where wages naturally rebalance, trade adjusts fairly, and no single country bears the impossible burden of being the world’s reserve.

It’s not just a monetary upgrade — it’s the foundation for a more honest accounting system for the entire world.